Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss451-500

Text File | 1990-07-20 | 885KB | 21,453 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02833;
          24 Jun 90 6:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07192;
          24 Jun 90 4:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00499;
          24 Jun 90 3:43 CDT
Date:     Sun, 24 Jun 90 2:50:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #451
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 24 Jun 90 02:49:42 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 451

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Erik Naggum]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Dave Newman]
    Re: Manhole Covers (Was: 10-NYT and 10NJB) [Jim Rees]
    Re: NYNEX Info-Look [Nathan Glasser]
    Re: Information Needed: Panasonic Model KT2445BE [Irving Wolfe]
    Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones [Dave Levenson]
    Re: AMR Meter Reading, No Test Trunks, and Call Forwarding [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Uniform International Dialing [Charles Hawkins Mingo]
    Re: "Columbo" TV Episode, 6/10/90 [Charles Hawkins Mingo]
    Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [Lenny Tropiano]
    Computer Underground Digest to Join Usenet [Chip Rosenthal]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 1990 16:32:31 +0200
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe


Prelude: "Octothorp" (sans final `e') is listed in (Merriam) Webster's
Third New Int'l Dictionary with etymology "octo + thorp, of unknown
origin; from the eight points on its circumference".  "Thorp(e)" is
archaic for "village, hamlet", but that can't be it.  I've heard the
`=' sign referred to as "quadrothorp".  (I have not seen the natural
extensions for `-' (bithorp?) and `.' (monothorp?).)  Anyone know what
"thorp" is?

Kari Hardarson <[e-mail]> writes in TELECOM Digest
V10 #449:

>I thought that the : # sign was called a 'Hash' mark before I came to
>the states. Maybe that's British English? Here in the States, a lot of
>my colleagues refer to it as the 'Pound sign', something that I can't
>understand since the pound sign is distinctly different. In UK-ASCII
>tables, the pound sign usually gets placed where the # is in American
>ASCII, that may explain something. Incidentally, in my language
>(Icelandic) we refer to the sign as 'The mill'. ;

Ah, I remember the first time I heard about it as the "pound sign".
To me, that's the "Libra" symbol used by the British to denote their
currency symbol, which is what they have in IA5 location 2/3 (that's
ASCII 0x23 to you folks :-).  However, I heard, much to my surprise,
that the `#' symbol's meaning is context dependent:

    #5    means "number five"
    5#    means "five lbs (pounds)"

This has later been confirmed by several good dictionaries and
reference works (read: theory), but I've never seen in it practice.

The Norwegian pager service uses the octothorpe as a regular "end-of-
number", which is explained in the taped recording you hear when you
dial the service as "the sqaure key" ("quadrilateral key" is closer to
the Norwegian term "firkanttast", literally "four-side-key").  To
paraphrase the last few words spoken at the end of Pink Floyd's Dark
Side of the Moon: "Matter of fact, they're all quadrilateral."

I have to ask someone around here what they call it in Norwegian, I've
forgot.  I don't think it's used other than in telephones around here.
Which reminds me ... The Norwegian key layout is like this:

    7  8  9
    4  5  6
    1  2  3
    0  *  #

When you dial somewhere around two hundred digits a day, and you find
yourself in the U.S., where it's generally completely different
(except for 4, 5, and 6), it would have been faster to use a rotary
dial (except they are different from the Norwegian ones, too).

Is there any interest in the particularities of Norway, and especially
Oslo?

[Erik Naggum]

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

From: Dave Newman <emx.utexas.edu!ut-emx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Date: 24 Jun 90 01:20:10 GMT
Reply-To: David Newman <emx.utexas.edu!emx![e-mail]>
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas


Some people I know call it (the 'octothorpe') a 'sharp'.  I think this
is the result of a very similar character's use in musical scores.  (I
don't know, since I don't read music.)+

Has anyone thought to check with someone in typography?  F'rinstance,
Donald Knuth might know, or you might find the character referenced by
name in one of his books on TEX.


Dave

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers (was: 10-NYT and 10-NJB)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 90 19:35:10 GMT


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

>Has anyone ever noticed non-round manhole covers?  Nashua and Hudson,
>N.H.  have TRIANGULAR ones - don't know what service or utility.

I think this has been discussed before.  Round covers are popular
because it's impossible for the cover to fall into the hole.

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

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 1990 10:53:31 EDT
From: Nathan Glasser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NYNEX Info-Look


In article <[e-mail]> synsys![e-mail] (Jeff
Jonas) writes:

>NYNEX has an information gateway service.  It's essentially a
>dataswitch.  There are numbers in area codes 212, 718, 516 and 914.
>1) Has this been tried elsewhere?  (I recall some slight mention of
>other failures of similar programs).

Info-look is also available in MA, from New England Telephone, also a
subsidiary of NYNEX. There was a blurb about it included with last
month's phone bill.

I called the 800 number and had them send me the package containing
the info and disks, etc.

>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.

I haven't actually used this yet, but here it is the New England
Telephone calling card which is required. I've had an AT&T calling
card for years, and now have an AT&T Universal card, and will probably
cancel the other one as soon as I get around to it (can't see any
point in keeping it...).  But (from talking to the rep), it seems that
you are required to have the NET card to use the service. Seems pretty
pointless to me.

The charges are not cheap (IMO), btw. The basic charge is $.05/minute,
when doing nothing but sitting at the main prompt. When you are doing
anything else at all, the typical charge seems to be $.15 or $.20/min.
The most expensive seems to be $3/min for fax service ("Let the VAX
send your FAX documents"), and next highest being $.95/min for the
"guilty confessions" line.

I can't see any particular reason for me to get a NET card I don't
want/need in order to use these expensive services.

>800-338-2720 is the customer service number.
>Free software is provided (for Mac or PCs).  It emulates a vt100, and ...

Right ... A free call to an 800 number produces some paper
documentation and a free floppy disk. That almost made it worth the
effort. :-)

                Nathan Glasser
fnord                nathan@{mit-eddie.uucp, brokaw.lcs.mit.edu}
YP-17                Nate on IRC, Forum, and Bitnet Relay
Beware the DDG!            Pulsar on Abermud

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

From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed: Panasonic Model KT2445BE
Date: 21 Jun 90 02:54:22 GMT
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Seattle


[e-mail] (John Slater) writes:

>(Nigel Roberts 0860 578600) writes:

>>U.K. law says ... there's nothing requiring that beep

>a follow-up question I've got a KT-1427

This won't really answer your questions, but it may point out the way
the world is going and may show you how -- at some cost -- to solve
the problem.

_I_ have a KX-T2634.  It is user-programmable to turn the beep on or off.

Probably in the old days (mainly U.S. market) Panasonic either didn't
know any better or thought it had to have the beep built it to cover
itself as not encouraging "illegal" activity.

Perhaps it has become aware of differing rules elsewhere and is using
that as an excuse to make the superior product available everywhere.
After all, that's what international companies are for, right?


Irving Wolfe            [e-mail]              206/463-9399 ext.101
Happy Man Corp.   4410 SW Pt. Robinson Road,  Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones
Date: 23 Jun 90 21:32:25 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

>  From article <[e-mail]>, by foxtail![e-mail]
> (Jody Kravitz):

 ...regarding AT&T charge-a-call phones on which...
> > the keypad was turned off when I called U.S. Sprint.

> I thought that this was illegal. I seem to recall hearing that
> the Supreme Court decided that while COCOT phones were legal they
> could not block access to 800 numbers that access alternate services.
> Am I wrong or am I wrong?

I think you are right.  But could AT&T be right on a technicality?
They didn't block access; you reached U.S. Sprint, didn't you?  Ah,
but you wanted the phone to send touch tone signalling after you
reached them!  Well that wasn't specifically mentioned by the court
decision, now, was it?  Perhaps they're only required to give you a
connection to the carrier of your choice.  The generation of tone
signals is left up to the customer.


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]

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AMR Meter Reading, No Test Trunks, and Call Forwarding
Date: 23 Jun 90 13:42:51 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

>"No test" afficionados will remember an interesting interaction
>between "no test" and call forwarding, at least in No 1 and 1A ESS.
>When a call is initiated to a number via a "no test" trunk, if the
>line is call forwarded, the "no test" trunk will not seize the line;
>reorder is returned.  This was intended to tell operators doing busy
>verification that busy verification can't currently return information
>consistent with dialled calls due to call forwarding.

[Interesting story deleted]

>Now, of course, the impact of this on AMR is that if someone goes out
>of town and uses call forwarding for a while around meter reading
>time, it won't be possible for the no test trunk to get to the meter.

Maybe it worked this way once-upon-a-time but it doesn't now.  The
reorder tone is supposed to be an un-ambiguous indication that the
line is forwarded (recoginizable by human operators/test persons and
mechanized line testers alike) but it does NOT prevent the normal
no-test connection to the line requested.  After the burst of 120ipm,
the line connection proceeds.


Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  [e-mail]
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Uniform International Dialing
Date: 24 Jun 90 03:36:22 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


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

>[Moderator's Note: Are you sure the international operator assisted
>code is not '01' ??  That is what we use here.   PT]

    Yes.  '01' is the code when you wish the call to be billed to
the number you are calling from.  '001' is used when you wish to bill
the call to a credit card.  (I double-checked this with my AT&T
operator to be sure.)  If you use '01' for international
operator-assisted calls, how do you place non-operator-assisted
international calls?


Charlie Mingo                    Usenet: mingo@well!apple.com
2209 Washington Circle #2            CI$:  71340,2152
Washington, DC  20037                AT&T:  202/785-2089


[Moderator's Note: In the United States, 011 plus international number
is for dialed direct, bill to phone being used calls. 01 plus
international number is for any and all operator-assisted
international calls including credit card and third number billing;
collect calls; and person to person calls. 00 defaults to the long
distance/international operator, if your long distance company
supports an operator service. On 01 calls, at least in Chicago, the
credit card number cannot be entered via the tone pad, but is passed
orally to the operator who answers. I just tried 001, and was cut-off
after the 00 part and sent to an AT&T operator.  PT]

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

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Columbo" TV Episode, 6/10/90.
Date: 24 Jun 90 03:24:49 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris
Johnson) writes:

>I don't know what tests are really used in a courtroom to determine
>admissible evidence, but I believe it would be foolish to allow FAX
>machine logs.  FAX machines are _user_ programmable devices.

    I think you are assuming that evidence must be unimpeachable
to be admissible; generally any evidence that is material and relavent
is admitted, and the jury is allowed to give it the consideration it
is due.  A more serious problem is that it would be hearsay (an
out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter
asserted); however it falls within an exception to the hearsay rules.

    Rule 803(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence (on which most
state rules are patterned) contains an exception to the hearsay rule
for 'business records,' which are defined to include a data
compilation, in any form, of acts [or] events made at or near the time
by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if
kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if
it was regular practice of the business activity to make the ... data
compilation.

    The reasoning behind this exception is that business records
which were made at the time and in the ordinary course of business are
reliable enough for the jury to be allowed to consider them.  Note
that this rule applies equally to manually made and electronic
business records (e.g.  hotel registers as well as fax machines).


Charlie Mingo                    Usenet: mingo@well!apple.com
2209 Washington Circle #2            CI$:  71340,2152
Washington, DC  20037                AT&T:  202/785-2089

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

Subject: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?
Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, New York
Date: 23 Jun 90 14:44:43 EDT (Sat)
From: Lenny Tropiano <think!ames!icus.ICUS.COM![e-mail]>


Can one disable call waiting in New York if the *70 tone block feature
didn't work?  Is there another way, this reeks havoc on data calls, as
you can imagine.  I hate call waiting, that's why I wouldn't ever get
it, but one of my news feeds has it, and it's quite annoying for him.

Thanks,

| Lenny Tropiano           ICUS Software Systems        [e-mail] |
| {ames,pacbell,decuac,sbcs,hombre,rayssd}!icus!lenny   attmail!icus!lenny  |
+------ ICUS Software Systems --  PO Box 1;  Islip Terrace, NY  11752 ------+


[Moderator's Note: I don't think call waiting can be suspended if *70
does not work, since that is what *70 is all about. But why would
someone have ordered call waiting on a line used for a news feed in
the first place?  He should call telco and have it removed.  PT]

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Computer Underground Digest To Join Usenet
Date: 24 Jun 90 03:47:02 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


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

[Re: Computer Underground Digest]

>Would it be possible to get this Digest gatewayed to a newsgroup? Or
>do you want to retain the right to control its distribution?

I brought it up with Jim Thomas, and he is much in favor of the idea.
A message was just posted to the USENET "alt.config" group proposing
the creation of an "alt.cud".  See my message there for more details.
If all goes well, USENET readers should be able to get it in a week or
so.


Chip Rosenthal
[e-mail]
Unicom Systems Development, 512-482-8260

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #451
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15898;
          25 Jun 90 9:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21792;
          25 Jun 90 7:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07786;
          25 Jun 90 6:49 CDT
Date:     Mon, 25 Jun 90 6:34:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #452
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 25 Jun 90 06:33:28 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 452

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [John Higdon]
    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [Ralph Sims]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Samuel Lam]
    Re: 800 Surcharge [Samuel Lam]
    Re: Uniform International Dialing [John R. Covert]
    Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones [John David Galt]
    Re: Junkmailed! [John David Galt]
    FCC Responds to Individual Complaints About AOSs [Wm. Randolph Franklin]
    Information Wanted on Key Set [Scott Fybush]
    Disaster Recovery and Restoration Seminar [TELECOM Moderator]
    Message Corruption [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?
Date: 24 Jun 90 06:40:31 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Lenny Tropiano <think!ames!icus.ICUS.COM![e-mail]> writes:

> Can one disable call waiting in New York if the *70 tone block feature
> didn't work?  Is there another way, this reeks havoc on data calls, as
> you can imagine.  I hate call waiting, that's why I wouldn't ever get
> it, but one of my news feeds has it, and it's quite annoying for him.

It used to be possible to get "feature" (second) dial tone on a
1/1AESS before the outgoing call supervised. You could then make a
call to a non-sup busy test, flash the hookswitch, then call the
number for the desired party without adding it back on three-way. Call
waiting would be disabled.

When this was no longer possible, one could call the desired party,
flash the hookswitch, dial a silent line termination within the
switch, flash the hookswitch again (adding in the silent line) and
call waiting would be disabled. This currently works from my phone,
which doesn't have *70. The silent termination must, however, be in
the same switch as the line you are attempting to disable call waiting
on. Otherwise, another feature of the 1/1A comes into play: the
ability to receive call waiting while on a three-way call!

The above method also works on incoming calls. Simply three-way in the
silent termination at any time; call waiting will be suspended.
Obviously, you must have three-way calling to do this.

I am curious, though. Why would anyone have call waiting on a data
line?


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

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

Subject: Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?
From: Ralph Sims <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 10:02:38 PDT
Organization: The 23:00 News


think!ames!icus.ICUS.COM![e-mail] (Lenny Tropiano) writes:

> Can one disable call waiting in New York if the *70 tone block feature
> didn't work?  Is there another way, this reeks havoc on data calls, as
> you can imagine.  I hate call waiting, that's why I wouldn't ever get
> it, but one of my news feeds has it, and it's quite annoying for him.

One of the easiest is to set the modem's S9 and S10 registers to a
value that ignores the break in the data stream when the incoming call
is sensed.  This value could be 20 or more (2 seconds).  This allows
the modem to stay connected, even though carrier is momentarily
interrupted.  For best effect, the modem yours is connected to should
have the same scheme implemented, but many call-waiting
implementations now don't cause the break in communications once
noticed.  I have heard that in some areas, a type of call-waiting is
available for lines that may use data, where the calling party can't
detect any break.

Note that this does not_disable_ call waiting, but defeats it.

As an aside, call waiting is a pain in the neck.  If I call someone, I
do not feel right in placing a call on hold.  If someone calls me,
they have to function on my terms.  Call waiting seems intrusive.  I
have learned to ignore it.  My wife, on the other hand, as well as my
teenagers, can't seem to get along without it.  I guess I _would_ miss
a number of calls, if we didn't have the service.  Ah, ambivalence...

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

From: [e-mail] (Samuel Lam)
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 24 Jun 90 07:58:27 GMT
Reply-To: Samuel Lam <[e-mail]>
Organization: Balliffe Intersystem, Vancouver, B.C., Canada


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lang Zerner)
wrote:

>... PacBell has finally
>given in to my incessant whining and removed the "value-added" fee for
>Touch-Tone service.  I guess they finally caught on to the fact that,
>as the designers of Touch-Tone predicted, the necessary telco hardware
>is cheaper if people don't use pulse dialing.

>Now, if I can just get them to be reasonable about custom numbers
>(they charge you every month for a vanity number -- makes about as
>much sense as charging for Touch-Tone).

The telephone company here in B.C. charges for unlisted numbers in
much the same way.  They charge an installation fee of several dollars
and then charge you several dollars *per month* for keeping your
number unlisted.

Now, this might have made sense in the old days when the telephone
book is maintained by hand and when directory assistance had to look
up your number in a big book manually just to find it marked unlisted.

But with the phone directory maintained by computers these days, all
it takes should be a flag associated with each directory entry marking
it listed or unlisted.  The phone book printing program can then skip
the unlisted entries while directory assistance's lookup program could
either clearly flag the unlisted numbers as such or not display it at
all.

And with Call Management Services promised for next year, it's hard
to believe that they haven't eliminated much of the overhead associated
with providing unlisted number service.

 ...Sam

Internet: <[e-mail]>    UUCP: {van-bc,ubc-cs,uunet}!wimsey.bc.ca!skl

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 01:44 PDT
Subject: Re: 800 Surcharge
Organization: Balliffe Intersystem, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
From: Samuel Lam <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Samuel Lam <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, Paul Schmidt <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I stayed at a hotel recently and received a $.50 surcharge for
>phone call to a 800 number.  It was my impression that it was illegal
>to charge for 800 calls.  How can they do this?  Does this only apply
>to pay phones?

>[Moderator's Note: It does *not* apply 'only to payphones', or only to
>anything else. It is a dispicable practice which AOS companies get
>away with because no one will sue them to make them stop doing it.  PT]

I stayed in a U.S. hotel recently and they charged me $.75 each for
the 800 calls I made there.  However, inside my room's service
directory it clearly stated that all calls made through their phones
to non-long-distance destinations outside of their PBX's reach will be
charged $.75 each.

Now my question is: Is it illegal for a hotel to charge for the use of
their PBX's external trunk if that use happens to be calling an 800
number?  Since even an 800 call will still tie up some of the PBX's
outbound trunk capacity for the duration of the call, could the hotel
charge (perhaps at a lesser rate) for that resource's consumption?

I am not for the hotels charging for 800 calls (I ended up making my
800 calls at a nearby coin-phone, which required no quarters for those
calls), but I would be interested to know what exactly does the law
says about this type of situations.

 ...Sam

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 07:09:13 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  24-Jun-1990 0957" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Uniform International Dialing


Charlie Mingo and/or the operator he spoke to is confused.

International calls from phones in the United States and Canada
are placed as follows:

011+ station to station, billed to the number you are calling from
     or coin paid
01+  for any operator service or credit card billing.

In the U.S., 00 does not accept additional digits, and connects you to
the operator (if any) for your default long distance carrier.

I have just verified that this behaviour is correctly implemented in
Washington, D.C., Lanham, Md., and Fairfax, Va.

The Moderator writes: On 01 calls, at least in Chicago, the credit
card number cannot be entered via the tone pad, but is passed orally
to the operator who answers.

I'm not sure why it didn't work for the Moderator; I just tried 01+
from an exchange in the Chicago Loop area and was presented with the
"bong" and was able to enter a calling card number.  TSPS has a
database of which phones have TT service; the bong is presented to
those phones, and not to phones that don't have TT service, but you
should see the same behaviour on 0+inter-LATA and 01+overseas.


/john

[Moderator's Note: Well, *when* do you enter it, after the
international number has been dialed as you would on a domestic call?
With international numbers of variable length, how is it known where
the international number ends and the credit card number begins? Do
you enter the international number, then hit the pound to terminate
the dialing and then enter the card number following the bong?  On
zero plus domestic calls here following the ten digit number we get a
different sort of tone, followed by a mechanical voice saying 'enter
your card number now.' If you enter it incorrectly, she repeats
herself, adding 'the card number you dialed is not valid.'   PT]

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt
Subject: Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones
Date: Sun, 24-Jun-90 14:49:26 PDT


I have seen AT&T no-coin charge-card phones at a hotel which block 950
calls to MCI.  If this is illegal, I would like to see something done
about it.  It was in New Orleans in September '88.

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

From: cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt
Subject: Re: Junkmailed!
Date: Sun, 24-Jun-90 16:03:56 PDT


David Tamkin's piece of 6/18 really bugged me.  Here is a guy who
objects to the use of a service (the 900 number to defeat call ID) to
keep your name off the lists merchants use to make junk phone calls;
and yet he gets upset at the person who sent him an ad for the
service, because it is junk mail!

In my view, unsolicited business ("junk") phone calls are a lot more
serious a nuisance than junk mail.  When you get junk mail, you can
just throw it out.  Most advertisers even help you do this by using
bright colors and the like, so very little time is wasted; and you
choose the time to go and get your mail.  Junk phone calls, on the
other hand, can interrupt you at any time, even when you are asleep,
and you have no legal recourse.

When I moved two years ago, and got my present phone service (Pacific
Bell in "Silicon Valley," Calif.), I asked the service representative
to put the notation "NO SOLICITORS PLEASE" in my listing in the phone
book.  She laughed and refused.  I wrote to the PUC and they sent a
reply saying in effect, we know about the problem but don't care
enough to do anything about it.

The only solution I have found at present is to put a rude answering
machine on the line, and let it answer all calls unless I'm expecting
to hear from someone.  Even then, I sometimes get stung.  In my view,
making this type of call to someone who doesn't want it is
trespassing, and should be covered by the same laws as computer
"cracking."

If the lawmakers don't want to act, perhaps a boycott of all firms who
make these calls is in order.  If you agree, tell them so when they
call you.


John David Galt

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Responds to Individual Complaints /about AOSs
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 24 Jun 90 23:13:16 GMT


The FCC does respond to individual complaints about AOSs.  Last summer
I got some other company after dialling 10288 in a hotel room.  I
wrote the FCC a short note.  Several months later they sent me a copy
of AOS's reply to them about my complaint.  The AOS said I was
mistaken.  Fair enough.  Nevertheless the FCC continued.  Apparently
they had also asked the hotel and the hotel had ignored them.  Last
week the FCC copied me a stiff second letter they'd sent the hotel,
asking for their side of the story.

Right on, FCC!  It's nice to see someone checking into violations by
these AOS slimeballs!

Before writing my letter, I telephoned both ATT and FCC to determine
the law.  FCC said unequivocally that the hotel phones must handle
10xxx properly.  However ATT waffled; they commiserated with me but
didn't they that the hotel had to connect me to them.  Why would they
not assert their rights?

Again, (at least sometimes) polite complaints from individuals are
listened to by the government.


Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: [e-mail] (or @cs.rpi.edu)    Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: [phone];  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: [phone]
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 21:47:46 edt
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Key Set


I've come into possession of a neat piece of telecom equipment.  The
label on the bottom identifies it as a "Stromberg-Carlson Image 1 and
Image 2 DTMF Key Telephone Equipment, FCC Reg. No. AS493N-69878-KX-T."
It's a largish brown box with a standard twelve-button tone pad as
well as two rows of ten buttons each.  It terminates in three 25-pin
connectors.  Now...next year I will be living with five people in a
suite with six phone lines, one per room.  Can this be used in our
living room to access any of the six lines?  And, if so, how do we
witre it?  E-mail me any suggestions; I'll summarise anything that
might be networthy.  Thanks...


Scott Fybush
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 22:32:52 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Disaster Recovery and Restoration Seminar


A two day seminar this fall will be devoted to the topic "Disaster
Recovery and Restoration For Telecommunications Facilities and
Networks".

The seminar will examine where potential flaws lie in
telecommunications networks. It will help you inventory what resources
are available for preparing and executing a disaster recovery plan.

The seminar is being given by the Data-Tech Institute of Clifton, NJ.
The cost for the seminar is $695 which includes all seminar sessions,
workbooks and other materials needed.

The dates for the seminar sessions are:

Altanta, GA        September 10-11, 1990
Chicago, IL        September 13-14, 1990
Hartford, CT       September 17-18, 1990
St. Louis, MO      October 9-10, 1990
Denver, CO         October 11-12, 1990
Orlando, FL        October 18-19, 1990


Some additional sessions are being planned in other cities, depending
on demand during September and October. In addition, this organization
will conduct a private seminar at your place of business for key
employees of your choosing.

For more information, phone the registrar:  1-201-478-5400
Or you may Fax the registrar: 1-201-478-4418

Ask for your copy of the twelve page booklet which describes the
Disaster Recovery seminar in more detail.

If you prefer to write:

Data-Tech Institute
Lakeview Plaza
PO Box 2429
Clifton, NJ  07015

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 22:57:24 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Message Corruption


A few of the comp.dcom.telecom readers have sent me examples in recent
days of some terrible corruption of messages going on. Typically, the
messages are readable, with some effort, but the words are full of
extra letters in some cases; missing letters in others cases, or full
of stuff like {{ symbols.

I have no idea what is causing this, but some site along the way
handling the comp.dcom.teleocm newsfeed obviously has some problems. I
hope it gets corrected soon, but in the meantime I wanted to let you
know I am aware of it.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #452
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29403;
          26 Jun 90 3:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08253;
          26 Jun 90 2:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30208;
          26 Jun 90 1:00 CDT
Date:     Tue, 26 Jun 90 0:10:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #453
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Jun 90 00:09:08 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 453

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What is the Purpose of Loops? [Lee Derbenwick]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Eric Varsanyi]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [John Higdon]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Steven King]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Danial Hamilton]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Carl Moore]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothrope [Kevin Mitchell]
    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting if *70 Doesn't Work? [David Albert]
    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Manhole Covers (was: 10-NYT and 10-NJB) [Paul J. Zawada]
    Re: Manhole Covers (was: 10-NYT and 10-NJB) [Norman Yarvin]
    Re: Message Corruption [[e-mail]]
    Re: Junkmailed! [[e-mail]]
    New Area Code in Italy, Atlanta, Omaha, Detroit & Paris [TELECOM Moderator]
    Going Off Line For a Few Days [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 20:43:02 EDT
From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is the Purpose of Loops?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, vaxb.acs.unt.edu![e-mail]
writes:

> [ ... ]  Also could someone explain to me what loops are used for?

> [Moderator's Note: Loops are used to test circuits from a remote
> location.  [ ... ]

The Moderator appears to be confusing "loops" with "loop-backs",
perhaps because he's forgotten that some people are new to telephone
company talk?

The "loop", in telephone terminology, is the circuit between the
central office switch and the subscriber.  Both "loop" and "circuit"
denote the same concept, but "circuit" has become the standard for
everything except telephones.  (The "loop" is also sometimes called
"subscriber loop".)

 -- Speaking strictly for myself,
 --   Lee Derbenwick, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Warren, NJ
 --   [e-mail]  or  <wherever>!att!cbnewsm!lfd

[Moderator's Note: Your point is a good one, but two considerations
factored into my answer: One, it would seem unlikely to me that anyone
would ask 'what is the purpose of the pair of wires which is connected
to your phone from the central office?'. Two, the term 'loops' was
used in the same message as the phrase 'test numbers', and these
things are closely related, and are neighbors in most telco numbering
schemes. Therefore I concluded he was talking about loop-BACKS, since
these are commonly known things, but their purpose is not always clear
to the people who know about them.  PT]

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

From: Eric Varsanyi <boulder!pikes!craycos.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 25 Jun 90 17:29:14 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lang Zerner) writes:

>[...] PacBell has finally given in to my incessant whining and removed
>the "value-added" fee for Touch-Tone service.

Is this happening anywhere else? Is it a win for phone companies with
lots of old switches and rural subscribers (rural implying old
equipment here)?


Eric Varsanyi ([e-mail])        Cray Computer Corporation

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 25 Jun 90 11:41:07 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Samuel Lam) writes:

> And with Call Management Services promised for next year, it's hard
> to believe that they haven't eliminated much of the overhead associated
> with providing unlisted number service.

Just a gentle reminder: few, if any, services provided by telcos are
charged for based on cost. We have gone around on this many times, but
the conclusion is always that cost-to-telco is not related to
charge-to-consumer.

Examples:

How much do you suppose call-waiting, call forwarding, etc., ad
nauseum cost the telco to provide? (Hint: $0) But you pay handsomely
every month for these services with nary a complaint. Oh, the telco
had to install the switch that could handle it, but since all modern
CO switches can now handle such things, eventually this cost will
become moot.

And how about rural telephones? With certain exceptions, rural
customers pay about the same as their urban counterparts -- for
service that costs the telco many times the amount to provide.

If anyone is going to protest TT charges on the basis of cost, he/she
must be consistent and object to Custom Calling charges as well. After
all, unless you are served out of a switch that can handle custom
calling intrinsically, your local telco must install adjunct tone
receivers to enable TT calling.

As for unlisted charges, it is still considered a "value enhanced"
service by most telcos and I doubt that you will see its end any time
soon.


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

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Date: 25 Jun 90 20:41:19 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Erik Naggum) writes:

>However, I heard, much to my surprise,
>that the `#' symbol's meaning is context dependent:

>    #5    means "number five"
>    5#    means "five lbs (pounds)"

>This has later been confirmed by several good dictionaries and
>reference works (read: theory), but I've never seen in it practice.

On the rare occasions when I need to write the weight of something
(say, when I'm putting meat in my freezer) I'll use the "5#" notation
to indicate "five pounds".  I think I picked up the habit from my
father.  Since I can't recall the last time someone else had to read
my notes I can't say how widely known the notation is.

I prefer calling it the "sharp" sign.  It doesn't get confused with
the British pound, and is much less of a mouthful than "octothorpe".
That last sounds like it should be on the menu at a seafood
restaurant.


Steve King, Motorola Cellular  (...uunet!motcid!king)

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

From: Danial Hamilton <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Date: 25 Jun 90 20:54:10 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I did some work on some telephone firmware where the ASCII value for
the '#' was equated to the symbol "MESH".  I don't know if that is a
common name for '#' or just the original program author's personal
favorite.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 9:02:53 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe


Yes, the # is the musical "sharp".

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Mitchell)
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Date: 25 Jun 90 14:38:30 GMT
Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago


In PostScript the name of the character is /numbersign.


Kevin A. Mitchell                [phone]
Datalogics, Inc                  Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron                     UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam
Chicago, IL  60610               FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 09:47:16 EDT
From: David Albert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting if *70 Doesn't Work?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Albert)


>> Can one disable call waiting in New York if the *70 tone block feature
>> didn't work?  Is there another way, this reeks havoc on data calls, as
>> you can imagine.

>One of the easiest is to set the modem's S9 and S10 registers to a
>value that ignores the break in the data stream when the incoming call
>is sensed.  This value could be 20 or more (2 seconds).

I have the opposite problem: trying to get call waiting to work while
I'm on a data connection.  I live in a dorm where I can only get one
phone line, and since I'm on the computer several hours a day and
don't want to be cut off from calls, I deliberately set my modem's S10
register to a small value so that I *will* be cut off.  The problem is
that the switch I'm on currently sends such a short tone that even a
value of S10=3 (three-tenths of a second) is not always enough to cut
me off, while S10=2 causes my refrigerator to cut me off each time it
cycles on.  S10=3 seems to be my best bet, but sometimes I have to
manually turn off my modem when I see the distinctive eight or ten
characters that the call-waiting beep translates into.  And sometimes
the screen starts filling up with garbage -- perhaps a parity bit gets
lost or something?

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:16:30 GMT


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

| I am curious, though. Why would anyone have call waiting on a data
| line?

Cuz sometimes we use voice lines for "data" lines.

I live in GTE-land (boo hiss!) and they only recently added
call-waiting disable to my home phone exchange (switch?).  Before
that, I simply forwarded my phone to my answering service.  That's the
other way around it -- get call forwarding.


=Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ===========
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| [e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 09:05:38 -0500
From: Paul J Zawada <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers (was: 10-NYT and 10-NJB)


unhd!unhtel![e-mail] (Paul S. Sawyer):

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

>>I have walked in the streets of Paterson, NJ and seen manhole covers
>>marked, "New York Bell." this, of course, is plant long since taken
>>over by NJ Bell, but it is the physical remnants of that history and
>>time when NYTel ran the phones in northern NJ.

>>Perhaps some of our more intrepid readers would engage some vicarious
>>manhole-cover-reading.  Might be of trivial interest.  How about it?

> Throughout our campus, the manhole covers have the Bell logo and say
> "Bell System", although we own them and the cables/conduits below....
> They were installed in 1985 by the people who USED to be the Bell
> System - we figure they were just leftovers.

Back in the early 70's, when Illinois Bell provided service to
Northwest Indiana (Gary, Hammond, East Chicago), they deployed a
number of manhole covers with the Bell System logo and the initials
I.B.T.  This, of course did not leave any historical reminders when
Indiana Bell took over the service area in the mid-seventies.

Has anyone ever seen a "recycled" Bell System manhole cover?  I've
seen a few of these in West Lafayette, IN, which is served by GTE
North.  (The rest of the manhole covers have the GTE logo on them.)
The "recycled" covers have no noticeable logo, but upon closer
inspection one can see a faint Bell System logo and the name "Bell
System". It looks like the name and logo were ground off somehow.



Paul J Zawada                          |   [e-mail]
Titan P3 Workstation Support           |  ...!pur-ee!zawada
Purdue University                      |  Engineering Computer Network
------------------------------

From: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers (was: 10-NYT and 10-NJB)
Date: 25 Jun 90 20:52:46 GMT
Reply-To: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT  06520-2158


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) writes:

>>Has anyone ever noticed non-round manhole covers?  Nashua and Hudson,
>>N.H.  have TRIANGULAR ones - don't know what service or utility.

>I think this has been discussed before.  Round covers are popular
>because it's impossible for the cover to fall into the hole.

This also holds for triangular covers.  (only if they are equilateral,
though.)


Norman Yarvin                    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 14:38:15 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Message Corruption
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR


Actually, message corruption is/was a netwide problem.
comp.dcom.telecom (what DOES dcom stand for, anyway?) was one of the
worst, but other newsgroups were afflicted.. Specifically, a low bit
was getting munged on xmissions.  One suspects a gateway was destroyed
somewhere. For what its worth, it seems to be better now.


\/ [e-mail]

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

From: siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Junkmailed!
Date: 25 Jun 90 16:28:02 GMT
Organization: Stanford University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (USENET News
System) writes:

>In my view, unsolicited business ("junk") phone calls are a lot more
>serious a nuisance than junk mail.  When you get junk mail, you can
>just throw it out ... so very little time is wasted...
>...  Junk phone calls, on the
>other hand, can interrupt you at any time, even when you are asleep,
>and you have no legal recourse.

Hear, hear!!  Postal junk mail performs a potential service; let it
bloom (so long as it pays its fair share of postal costs).  Junk phone
calls are an unmitigated annoyance, and should be banned.

My solution (when the answering machine doesn't solve it first) is to
say, "Wait a minute, I've got to turn off a stove burner"; spend as
long away from the phone as I think the caller will tolerate; then
_politely_ tell them we absolutely boycott any busines, or charity,
that uses telephone solicitation.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 8:01:43 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Area Code in Italy, Atlanta, Omaha, Detroit & Paris


In addition to Atlanta, Paris, Omaha and Italy, also involved in this
area code change will be Detroit and Elkhart, among other places.

Jim Hogg will be getting a new area code, which will be shared with
Ben Franklin, Ben Wheeler and the White House residents.

Uncertain and Telephone are included in the change.

Would the Moderator try to bull-jive you?

See the next issue of the Digest today for details.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 6:51:43 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Going Off Line For a Few Days


As of July 3, TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom will be off line for
several days while I am out of town on other business. There will be
no issues on July 4,5,6,7 and 8. An effort will be made July 3 to
clear everything remaining from the mailbox.

Please use the remainder of this week to REspond to existing topics
and present articles which need little or no REply. Messages received
starting July 3 will be held over until my return, and will probably
go out July 9. Please DO NOT send messages to telecom during this
period.

Thank you.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #453
******************************






ISSUES 454 AND 455 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 454 COMES AFTER 455 WHICH
IS NEXT IN THIS ARCHIVE.






Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01092;
          26 Jun 90 4:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21981;
          26 Jun 90 3:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac08253;
          26 Jun 90 2:04 CDT
Date:     Tue, 26 Jun 90 1:43:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #455
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Jun 90 01:42:39 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 455

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Report on First Major Panel Switch Installation [Jack Winslade]
    Phone System Query [Michael Rubin]
    Infoworld, AT&T and Rumor Squelching [[e-mail] - CU Digest]
    Caller-ID in Emergency Calls [Carl Moore]
    Connecting an AT&T ISDN Phone-modem to a DECstation [Ramon F. Herrera]
    Re: Junkmailed! [David Tamkin]
    Off Line For Five Days! No Messages, Please [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 90 22:31:42 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Report on First Major Panel Switch Installation
Reply-to: Jack [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


A couple of months ago I wrote that I would key in this article and
send it in.  It has to do with a bit of telephone trivia (and
local-interest Omaha trivia) that I stumbled upon.  As I said, I have
been fascinated by the 'panel' switches ever since being served by an
aging one and seeing one in operation.

We've all heard the story of how the competing undertakers resulted in
the up-and-around step switch, but little has been said about the
switch that was the first to incorporate 'common control' features
that stored dialed digits and routed calls through the switching
apparatus.  The 'panel' switch was designed primarily for larger
metropolitan areas.  To see one in action was an unforgettable
experience.  It reminded me of something that Rube Goldberg would have
designed.  Motor-driven rollers drove contacts on rods up and down in
front of panels (hence the name) of contacts.  Pulsing mechanisms kept
track of the positions of the sliding rods, and when the position was
correct, the contact was 'tripped' onto the appropriate set of
contacts on the frame.

The panel system, although regarded as quirky and far from perfect,
was Ma Bell's mainstay until (and after, in many cases) the
introduction of #1 crossbar in 1938.

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(From _Omaha_World-Herald_, Sunday, December 11, 1921)

SAY IT WITH FINGERS TO GET 'AT' WITH NUMBERS

Seventy-six Hundred Phones of ATLantic Exchange Now Are Automatic

MOST MODERN IN U.S.

Omaha at midnight became the first city in the United States to have a
commercial machine switched telephone service.  In several cities
automatic phones are in use but the system installed here is the last
word in machine switching, according to experts.

Seventy-six hundred subscribers of the ATLantic exchange are effected
by the change from manual to machine switching.

Bancroft Gherardi, vice president and chief engineer of the American
Telephone and Telegraph Co., and F.B. Jewett, chief engineer of the
Western Electric Co. personally made the final inspection and gave the
word to 'cut em over.'

Jewett said the company plans to install the system in several other
cities, including Chicago, Kansas City, and Patterson [sic] New Jersey.


Old Operating Room Deserted

For the first time since 1893, the operating room of the old telephone
building was quiet and deserted.

Promptly at 11:59 o'clock 100 trained electrical workers took their
places, each with a special duty to perform, and at a signal, each did
his particular task and the 'cut-over' became history.

This morning 100 operators, clerks, desk attendants who were handling
the business of the ATLantic exchange went to work in the other
exchanges or are engaged in some new duty connected with the new
system.  A.F. McAdams, district commercial manager, was emphatic in
stating that no employe [sic] will lose a position because of machine
switching.

The machine switching equipment was secured at a cost of approximately
$2,000,000 and is the result of ten years work in designing by some of
the most prominent electrical engineers of the country.


Urge Limiting Calls

Omaha is the first city to have a complete unit.  Parts of the present
system have been used, but as a unit it is the first time any city has
used it.  The equipment was ordered in the fall of 1917 when the need
for new equipment to handle the volume of business became apparent.

While highly pleased with the manner in which the change to machine
switching service last night, telephone people are urging ATLantic
subscribers to limit their calls for a few days to only those which
are necessary, because the operating forces which handle the calls
which originate in the ATLantic central office and terminate at some
one of the manual switchboards are entering upon their new duties for
the first time.

Under the new service, he will take the receiver from the hook and
listen for the 'dialing tone', a humming sound which will indicate
that the call mechanism is ready to receive his call.  Having heard
it, he will insert his finger in the hole in the dial through which
the letter 'H' may be seen, pull the dial around to the finger stop
and release it.  He will then repeat the ... [copy unreadable -
dialing letters and numbers] ... the figures 0, 5, 1 ... Shortly after
dialing the last figure he will then either hear a 'brrrring' sound,
indicating that the bell at the called telephone is ringing, or a
'buzz-buzz-buzz' sound indicating that the line called is in use.

Enough lumber was used in the crates necessary to ship the equipment
to have built seven two-story houses of the standard eight-room type.


Seven times around world.

Wire used, if stretched out to a single strand, would be sufficient to
encircle the world seven and a half times.

The establishment of machine service in Omaha not only meant the
installation of a tremendous amount of equipment in the central
offices, but it meant equipping 378 private branch exchange
switchboards with the relays and other necessary equipment to provide
machine switching service over these boards.  In addition, it was
necessary to change a large number of telephone instruments by
substituting telephone instruments with dials for ones without dials.

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Two photographs accompanied the article.  The first was a photo of one
of the selector frames.  If it is turned 90 degrees to the left, it
looks correct (upright).  The newspaper staff printed it horizontally,
making it look somewhat like a monstrous Foosball table.

The second photo showed the 'girls' (their words, my quotes) at the
new 'B' boards for the new system.  Their job was to receive manually-
switched calls from other exchanges in the city (and elsewhere, I
assume) and complete the calls to the machine-switched lines.  The
contrast is poor, but the boards look like they are operated with
push-buttons that resemble the keys on the old 'armstrong' adding
machines.

Historical note, compiled from odd sources:

In the 1920's the panel installation was expanded to include all of
the downtown Omaha exchanges.  Part of the panel installation,
including what was the ATLantic office, was replaced by #5 crossbar in
the late 1950's (another source says 1961).  The rest of the panel was
replaced by 1 ESS in 1970.  Parts of far north Omaha had manual
('numberrr pleeeazzze') service until a #1 crossbar installation in
1956.

    Good Day!       JSW

[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for an excellent article on the history
of telephones.  More articles like this are always welcome.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:04:19 EDT
From: Michael Rubin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone System Query
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Summit, NJ


Several years ago I heard about a PBX system in which every phone had
a magnetic stripe reader that would read your employee badge.
Whenever you walked into a room you would swipe your badge through the
phone and your calls would be forwarded there.  You could also swipe
your badge through the phone and push an "I'm busy" button which would
presumably forward your calls to the answering machine.

Was this system ever produced and used, by whom, and does it work?
Are there any privacy problems, e.g. management surreptitiously using
it to time lunch breaks?


Mike Rubin <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:21 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Infoworld, AT&T and Rumor Squelching


Many of us are still seething about the Infoworld blurb in "Notes from
the Field." I have also received an inquiry about a newstory
apparently reporting a recent press release in which AT&T is now
claiming that hackers, not sofware, was responsible for the January
long distance crash.

I called a number of AT&T sources in the past few days. The most
authoritative was Gary Morgenstern from the New Jersey public
relations office, who has handled all the information regarding the
crash of AT&T long distance service in January.  He re-affirmed that
the problem was caused by an error in the source code, the problem was
replicated in the labratory, they fixed it, and it was replaced and
working fine. He indicated that neither he nor anybody else from AT&T
ever claimed that hackers were responsible.

So: contrary to rumors that have come to us, there has been no press
release put out, and AT&T stands unequivocally behind their statement.

It also seems that Robert Cringely's account was inaccurate in many
respects.  First, the crash occured in January, not February; second,
neither the LoD nor any other hacker was involved in the LD breakdown;
third, the attempt to link LoD to the theft of sourcecode belies the
facts in the Len Rose and other cases; fourth, the LD crash occured
this year, but the Secret Service began their investigation two years
ago (minor sequential gap here); Finally, the attempt to link both the
unix source code and the publication of the E911 glossary belies the
facts available from all sides of the issue.

It's one thing to print a "rumor" column in which people can freely
provide information without fear of retaliation. But when rumors fly
in the face of existing facts readily checked, and when defendants may
be forced to respond to irresponsible rumors, the purpose of such a
column as Infoworld's should be challenged.

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 17:50:43 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID in Emergency Calls


Notice appears in the San Francisco, California call guide (Pacific
Bell?)  warning that your address and phone number are subject to
being displayed if you call 911.  It goes on to say that if you do NOT
want such information displayed, you should call the seven-digit
emergency number.


[Moderator's Note: Here in Illinois, the state law which required 911
service to be installed statewide ASAP also required that all
emergency service agencies maintain an administrative seven digit
number for the reasons you note.  PT]

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

From: Ramon F Herrera <[e-mail]>
Subject: Connecting an AT&T ISDN Phone-modem to a DECstation
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 04:15:58 GMT


AT&T has this nice (relatively) new phone which comes with a DB-25
connector and a built-in modem.  DEC has a (kind of) new, asymmetric,
6-conductor connector used in most of their recent small computers'
and workstations' serial ports.  Both RS232 and RS422 standards are
supported. They call it DEC423.

I recently went through the process of making these devices talk to
each other, specifically for a host computer that receives incoming
calls.  It is very straightforward, except if you want what I call the
'complementary features': the computer should automatically log you
out if the call is lost and conversely, the modem should hang up
whenever the user logs out.

Since there are a couple of tricky steps, such as making a few changes
to both hardware and software, I can E-mail specific instructions to
anyone interested.  Please reply via E-mail.


Ramon F. Herrera
Department of Civil Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[e-mail]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Junkmailed!
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 0:05:09 CDT


Someone who signed himself John David Galt (I see "John Galt" as a CB
handle quite a bit, so it must be the name of some fictional
character, and thus might not be the submitter's actual name) wrote in
volume 10, issue 452, completely misunderstanding my position:

| David Tamkin's piece of 6/18 really bugged me.  Here is a guy who
| objects to the use of a service (the 900 number to defeat call ID) to
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??
| keep your name off the lists merchants use to make junk phone calls;
| and yet he gets upset at the person who sent him an ad for the
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??
| service, because it is junk mail!

Slow down, Galt (whether that's your real name or not).  You've made
some very wrong guesses not only about my stand, but also about my
emotions.  You're the only one who is, per your own word, bugged.

I didn't object to the use of 900-STOPPER; I objected that Private
Lines, Inc.'s, took my address from my .signature here in Telecom
Digest and sent me advertising.  I did say that 900-RUNWELL was
unneeded at present because there is as yet no Caller-ID on
international calls anyway.  But if you think I was knocking 900-
STOPPER for domestic calls, you were reading with closed eyes.

No, I was not upset.  I was amused: amused that Private Lines, Inc.,
who are out to stop telemarketing calls, themselves send out
unsolicited mailings.  A service and the manner in which it is
promoted are not the same thing.  In this case, they are not only
distinct, they are incompatible!

And the emotion was not directed at a "person who sent [me] an ad."
The cover letter and the envelope were Private Lines, Inc.'s, own
stationery.  The amusement was directed at Private Lines itself.

Anyone who wishes to use the service is welcome to it, and despite the
words that Mr. Galt is struggling with all his might to cram into my
mouth, I have no complaints about its existence nor about anyone's use
of it.  I think you're wasting money if you use the international
service right now, since it doesn't do you any good yet, but that's
purely a financial consideration, not the moral or religious one Mr.
Galt is trying to accuse of me of holding.

Note, readers, that Mr. Galt didn't include any of the original text
from my submission as it appeared in volume 10, issue 444.  He
couldn't bear the risk of your seeing that I had in fact said nothing
of the kind.  Yes, he posted from Portal, and yes, Portal's news
software is very restricted, but I'm a Portal customer myself, and it
is not at all difficult to include and cite the text to which one is
responding.  I used to do it all the time when I read news there.

Galt went on to detail some differences between junk phone calls and
junk mail.  Yes, junk mail is much less intrusive and much more easily
dismissed and discarded.  Galt, this will disappoint you, but I agree
fully with the rest of your submission ... starting with the SECOND
paragraph.


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]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 1:13:23 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Off Line For Five Days! No Messages, Please


As mentioned earlier, beginning Wednesday, July 3, TELECOM Digest and
comp.dcom.telecom will be OFF-LINE for about five days while I am out
of town.

Until July 8, please DO NOT send messages to telecom, as they will
have to be held over, and because of the backlog when I return, most
will probably not be printed in a timely way, if at all ...

For the remainder of this week, please REply to existing messages
only, so that an orderly shut down can occur with few or no
unfinished discussions in progress.   Thank you.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #455
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01098;
          26 Jun 90 4:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21981;
          26 Jun 90 3:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08253;
          26 Jun 90 2:04 CDT
Date:     Tue, 26 Jun 90 1:05:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #454
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 26 Jun 90 01:05:17 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 454

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Uniform International Dialing [Spyros C. Bartsocas]
    International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access (10NXX) [A. Jensen]
    Re: Canadian Prefixes (was: Exchanges Taken Out of Service) [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Exchanges Taken Out of Service [Jack Winslade]
    Re: "Columbo" TV Episode, 6/10/90 [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Leonard Rose Update: His Prior Conviction [Mike Riddle]
    Re: 800 Surcharge [Edward Greenberg]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Nigel Allen]
    903 NXXs Place Names Table [William Degnan]
    Answering Machine Security [Chris Ambler]
    Changing CO, Changing Suffix [Jerry Leichter]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 09:32:27 EDT
From: "Spyros C. Bartsocas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Uniform International Dialing


>[Moderator's Note: Well, *when* do you enter it, after the
>international number has been dialed as you would on a domestic call?
>With international numbers of variable length, how is it known where
>the international number ends and the credit card number begins? Do
>you enter the international number, then hit the pound to terminate
>the dialing and then enter the card number following the bong?  On

It uses timeouts just like calling from home.  To call number 234-5678
in Athens, Greece using a calling card you would enter:

01-30-1-234-5678-[Timeout or #]
                               {bong AT&T or whatever}
                                [Calling card number]
                               {Thanks for using AT&T or whatever}

On a related question, although I have been successful doing the
above in the past, I recently tried it from a Boston payphone.  To my
surpise after the thanks for using AT&T recording, an AT&T operator
answered the phone.  She said that I could not use my calling card to
dial that country from that payphone.  So I moved to another one,
tried again, same thing.  This time the operator said that the country
I am calling has disabled calling card calls.  This does sound right
to me.  Trying the same thing from a hotel room was successful.  Can
anyone explain the above?


Spyros Bartsocas
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Allen Jensen <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access (10NXX)
Date: 25 Jun 90 18:44:22 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta


I would like to find out how International calls are made using the
equal access LD Carriers.  Does one just, for example, dial 10222011+
and if this is so, where does the credit card number go ?

How about alternate overseas vendors - 101XX codes ?  Anyone have any
examples ???

Thanks,


P. Allen Jensen                AudioFAX, Inc.    / Suite 200
[e-mail]            2000 Powers Ferry Rd.
emory!audfax!allen            Marietta, GA. 30067

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

From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Prefixes (was: Exchanges Taken Out of Service)
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 10:37:54 EDT
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


In-reply-to: [e-mail] (VLD/VMB)

 > In notes I made based on a 1982 AT&T tape, (519) 873 and 786
 > were both Forest, Ontario.

The Forest exchange is operated by the People's Telephone Company of
Forest, one of about 30 independent telcos in Ontario.

 > I had never heard of (819) 484 Purtuniq before.

Many communities in northern Quebec and the Northwest Territories have
dropped their European names and adopted Cree or Inuit names.
Frobisher Bay (819 something), the largest community on Baffin Island,
is now Iqaluit.

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

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 90 22:13:20 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Exchanges Taken Out of Service
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <19 Jun 90 02:46:26>, Woody writes:

 >In the midst of the vast numbers of nxx prefixes put into service each
 >year, does anyone have examples of nxx prefixes taken out of service?

I ran into two such examples last year when I was attempting to make
up an >>ACCURATE<< prefix list for the Omaha dialing area.  The one
that they published in the phone book was a joke.  Even a cursory
inspection by Joe Average would find some omissions.  (BTW: This
year's official Ma Bell phone book does NOT contain such a list.)  It
seems like pulling teeth to get an official list.  The droids in the
business office told me to look in the phone book and swore it was
accurate.  Sysops need these lists for nodelist processing software.

The 402-541 prefix is evidently defunct.  Coincidentally, my office
phone was on this prefix about ten years ago on a (gag!) 101 ESS
Centrex slaved off of a 5 crossbar office.  All of the crossbar
hardware has now been deep-sixed from the downtown Omaha area, and it
looks like 541 went with it.

This next one is a real goodie.  It showed up as valid in last year's
directory but results in an intercept (at the originating switch) when
dialed.  Looking through some back directories showed that the 402-281
prefix has only had ONE working number assigned to it, and that was
the main number for the Union Pacific Railroad headquarters.
Numerical directories back to the 60's showed 281-5822 (U.P. Hqtrs) as
the only number on the office.  All other U.P. numbers (DID or
Centrex) were, and are still on, the 271 prefix.  This is not a
typographical error.  It's been this way from the late 60's through
the 80's.

Oops.  Forgot one.  Make that three in Omaha.  There was a short-lived
choke prefix -- 894 -- in downtown Omaha for a while.  I only know of
it being used for a dial-in weather recording.


Good Day!        JSW

[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 90 22:10:21 EDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Columbo" TV Episode, 6/10/90.
Reply-to: Mike.Riddleyour.namef27.n285.z1.fidonet.org


Re: Evidentiary Value of Computer Logs and Fax-Machine-Generated Records.

The Federal Rules of Evidence, and most State rules, allow such to be
admitted.  In the case of computer logs, any printout is considered
"original."

BUT -- and a big BUT -- when using them, the party offering the logs
as evidence needs to "lay the foundation."  Someone has to explain
what they are and the significance (relevance and materiality in legal
terms) to the issue being decided.  If there is an easy way to fake
the product, the opposing party has an opportunity to show that.  If
the opposition is strong enough, the judge may decide not to allow the
evidence in.

It's like a lot of other things in life -- you may use it, but it
might not have much value.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.3
[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: Sat, 23 Jun 90 22:11:52 EDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leonard Rose Update: His Prior Conviction
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Whether or not "theft" is the correct term to use when discussing
unauthorized acquisition of a computer program or data is an
interesting question.  While I recognize the semantic difficulties, it
seems to me that "theft" is as good a term as any.  There are also
parallels in older, more established law.

Compare the computer programs involved to copyrighted material or to
trade secrets.  The law is reasonably well-settled in both of those
areas.  The company owning the copyright or trade secret is entitled
to control the distribution, as long as it takes reasonable measures
to secure it.  If someone gains access and uses the copyrighted
material or trade secret without permission, when a reasonable person
should know the information is confidential or distribution is
restricted, then that person has taken something of value from the
orignal owner.  I submit that "theft" is the unauthorized taking of
something of value -- so the term fits to folks who access computers
without authorization and make personal copies of the contents.

While there are many more difficult issues involved with the
technological revolution (witness Caller-ID), we still ought to be
able to recognize a taking for what it is and label it as such.  Since
more and more of us store valuable information in our computers, and
those computers are connected to networks, we all have an interest in
preventing our valuable commodities from being stolen.


   Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.3
[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, 25 Jun 90 07:56 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 800 Surcharge


Regarding hotels charging for 800 numbers, Patrick writes:

>[Moderator's Note: It does *not* apply 'only to payphones', or only to
>anything else. It is a dispicable practice which AOS companies get
>away with because no one will sue them to make them stop doing it.  PT]

Actually, it is usually a despicable practice that the HOTELS
themselves are getting away with because nobody will vote with their
pocketbooks to make them stop doing it.

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

From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 10:36:16 EDT


If you refer to the symbol on the # key as a "tic-tac-toe sign", you
may not come across as terribly sophisticated, but you will be
understood.

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

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 90 08:08:36 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: 903 NXXs Place Names Table


In a message of <Jun 08 17:59> John R. Covert  08-Jun-1990 1402
([e-mail] ) writes:

 JC>Does anybody on the net have a list of the prefixes that will
 JC>soon be in the new 903 NPA in Texas?


                  "Area Code 903? Wherezat?"

        On November 4th, the 903 Number Plan Area (NPA) will be
established in North and Northeast Texas.

        The 903 area code will serve some 200 exchanges outside the
Dallas metropolitan area. The Dallas metropolitan area will remain
214.  With the exception of the area code, the remaining seven digits
of telephone numbers in 903 will stay the same. Without this change,
forcasts indicate that available 214 telephone numbers would exaust in
1991.

        Callers may begin dialing 903 instead of 214 on November 4,
1990. The change becomes mandatory on or about May 1, 1991. The area
code change will not have an effect on long-distance rates, however
changes may still need to be made to route and cost tables.


765 Alba        697 Annona        859 Arp
675 Athens        677 Athens        796 Atlanta
627 Avalon        562 Avinger        684 Avery
925 Bagwell        762 Bettie        322 Buffalo
636 Big Sandy        678 Beckville        728 Bloomburg
695 Blooming Grove    894 Bullard        982 Blossom
965 Bells Savoy        325 Ben Franklin    583 Bonham
833 Ben Wheeler        632 Bogata        852 Brownsboro
582 Brashear        945 Birthright        645 Bardwell
499 Cayuga        527 Caddo Mills        382 Celina
568 Celeste        382 Celina        568 Celeste
849 Chandler        427 Clarksville        994 Cumby
862 Campbell        468 Commerce        886 Commerce
567 Canton        536 Centerville        488 Como
395 Cooper        429 Collinsville    654 Corsicana
872 Corsicana        974 Corsicana        693 Carthage
860 Cypress Springs    766 De Berry        622 Deadwood
652 Deport        415 Denison Homestead    463 Denison Homestead
465 Denison Homestead    846 Douglassville    667 Dekalb
645 Daingerfield    476 Dorchester        878 Dry Creek
674 Detroit        961 Ector        896 Edgewood
764 Elkhart        633 Elysian Fields    354 Emhouse
473 Emory        425 Eustace        389 Fairfield
682 Frost        876 Frankston        685 Gary
854 Good Springs    843 Gilmer        588 Gladebranch
845 Gladewater        433 Gunter        454 Greenville
455 Greenville        457 Greenville        768 Golden
523 Gordonville        962 Grand Saline    743 Hudson
639 Hughes Springs    668 Hallsville        378 Honey Grove
657 Henderson        547 Hooks        532 Howe
777 Harleton        769 Hawkins        483 Italy
848 Jackson        586 Jacksonville    589 Jacksonville
665 Jefferson        967 Jim Hogg        626 Jewett
498 Kemp        983 Kilgore        984 Kilgore
338 Koon Kreek        679 Karnack        396 Kerens
367 Ladonia        863 Laneville        295 Longview
297 Longview        759 Longview        563 Longview
643 Longview        236 Longview        237 Longview
738 Longview        753 Longview        757 Longview
758 Longview        825 Lake Palestine    882 Lindale Swan
756 Linden        662 Lone Oak        587 Leonard
657 Lone Star        344 Leona        585 Maud
887 Mabank        755 Mims        898 Minden
569 Mineola        493 Milford        459 Miller Grove
489 Malakoff        572 Mount Pleasant    577 Mount Pleasant
549 Montalba        469 Murchison        776 Merit
479 Martin Mills    529 Marquez        927 Marshall
930 Marshall        935 Marshall        938 Marshall
835 Marietta        822 Mount Enterprise    527 Mt. Vernon
795 Maydelle        865 Myrtle Springs    628 New Boston
584 Neches        966 Negley        897 Naples
726 New Summerfield    895 New London        836 Oak Hill
829 Oakland        545 Oakwood        884 Omaha
968 Ore City        834 Overton        877 Owentown
732 Paris        737 Paris        784 Paris
785 Paris        359 Pecan Gap        797 Pine Acres
866 Pickton        723 Palestine        729 Palestine
731 Palestine        889 Pine Hill        857 Pine Mills
598 Point        673 Purdon        861 Price
673 Pritchett        856 Pittsburg        786 Pottsboro
451 Payne Springs    356 Quinlan        763 Quitman
362 Richland        858 Red Springs        671 Redwater
326 Rice        345 Roane        725 Rosewood
683 Rusk        346 Roxton        868 Sherman
870 Sherman        892 Sherman        893 Sherman
485 Shirley        478 Slocum        885 Sulphur Springs
439 Sulphur Springs    543 Simms        629 Sandy Creek
599 Streetman        947 Tatum        477 Tawakoni
664 Telephone        397 Talco        546 Tom Bean
928 Tennessee Colony    432 Tool-Seven Points    989 Trenton
778 Trinidad        847 Turnertown        842 Troup
538 Tucker        735 Texarkana        792 Texarkana
793 Texarkana        794 Texarkana        798 Texarkana
334 Texarkana        831 Texarkana        832 Texarkana
838 Texarkana        566 Tyler        531 Tyler
535 Tyler        571 Tyler        592 Tyler
593 Tyler        595 Tyler        597 Tyler
534 Tyler        561 Tyler        581 Tyler
789 Uncertain        482 Van Alstyne        963 Van
672 Vivian        648 Weaver        496 Wolfe City
564 Whitesboro        839 Whitehouse        364 Whitewright
560 Wills Point North    873 Wills Point Trgle    342 Winnsboro
623 Windom        524 Winfield        687 Waskom
365 Wynne        383 Yantis        ---------------


William Degnan -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31)
UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!William.Degnan
DARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Subject: Answering Machine Security
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 1:4:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Organization: Fantasy, Incorported: Reality None of Our Business.


I have one of those answering machines with the autoretrieve code
feature.  This feature cannot be turned off, nor can the code be
changed. Someone is calling my home and retrieving as well as erasing
my messages. Anyone have any ideas what I can do?


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

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

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 08:50:06 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Changing CO, Changing Suffix


Something in TELECOM Digest recently reminded me of a question I had
many years ago to which I never got a satisfactory answer.

About 15-20 years ago, my parent's CO in Queens, NY was upgraded - or
perhaps they were just moved to a new CO.  We had two lines at the
time, both in the "AXtel-1" exchange.  Both were moved to the "380"
exchange, where they remain to this day.  Now the oddity: The suffixes
on both lines were changed ever so slightly - in one case, the last
digit changed from "0" to "1"; in the other, the last digit changed
from (as I recall) "7" to "5".

Can anyone come up with a plausible reason for such a change?  The
only explanation I've been able to come up with was that there was a
massive reorganization of exchanges; AXtel-1 was split and parts
recombined with other exchanges into "380".  Someone in one of the
other exchanges had our old suffixes and won out for the right to keep
them.  While this explains the observed facts, I find it hard to
believe, especially as I've heard of no other cases anything like this
since then --- and growth in the telephone system has certainly been
much more rapid recently than in the early '70's.


Jerry

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #454
******************************






DUE TO ERROR IN TRANSMISSION, ISSUE 455 APPEARS AHEAD OF 454  IN THIS
ARCHIVE.  ISSUE 456 COMES NEXT.







Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23023;
          27 Jun 90 4:19 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27807;
          27 Jun 90 2:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25476;
          27 Jun 90 1:16 CDT
Date:     Wed, 27 Jun 90 0:52:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #456
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Jun 90 00:52:03 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 456

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Heath Roberts]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Dave Levenson]
    PacBell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges [Alan Millar]
    Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones [Charles Buckley]
    Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones [Jeffrey M. Schweiger]
    Re: Motorola Plans Global Cellular Thrust [Chicago Tribune via S. King]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 26 Jun 90 16:22:49 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


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

>How much do you suppose call-waiting, call forwarding, etc., ad
>nauseum cost the telco to provide? (Hint: $0)

Wait just a moment.  Your assumption seems to be that since the
current hardware can provide a service without additional operating
cost, the service costs the nothing to provided.  But the day-to-day
costs aren't the only cost; there's also the cost of developing these
extra features.  True, once they went to the new digital technology,
these extra feature were a minor addition, but they still required
*some* development.  Why should the telco spend even a little extra
for a feature if they can't charge extra for providing it?

By your argument, no software package for a personal computer should
cost much more than $25: the cost of the diskettes, printing the
manual, and packaging.  Which ignores the cost of *developing* the
package.

It is true that if they just passed the extra cost of call waiting,
etc., on to all customers, it'd add a trivial amount to the monthly
bill.  But I hardly need to explain why no private business works that
way.

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 03:04:45 GMT


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

>How much do you suppose call-waiting, call forwarding, etc., ad
>nauseum cost the telco to provide? (Hint: $0) But you pay handsomely
>every month for these services with nary a complaint. Oh, the telco
>had to install the switch that could handle it, but since all modern
>CO switches can now handle such things, eventually this cost will
>become moot.

This isn't quite true. Telephone companies have to pay quite a bit for
the software (and sometimes hardware) to provide these advanced
features. Software from NT often costs as much as the switch. And it's
not a one-time expenditure. BNR releases four new BCS's per year.

>And how about rural telephones? With certain exceptions, rural
>customers pay about the same as their urban counterparts -- for
>service that costs the telco many times the amount to provide.

The utility fee is based in _average_ costs, not the "last unit" cost.
Is it fair to charge more to people who happen to live farther from
the telco's line concentrator? I should point out that this wouldn't
necessarily have anything to do with how far away from the center of a
given metropolitan area, only how far you were from a piece of
equipment arbitrarily located by some engineer. This also brings up
the point that telephone service is often considered a necessary
utility; it may be worth it to society in general to make the service
available to as many people as possible.

>If anyone is going to protest TT charges on the basis of cost, he/she
>must be consistent and object to Custom Calling charges as well. After
>all, unless you are served out of a switch that can handle custom
>calling intrinsically, your local telco must install adjunct tone
>receivers to enable TT calling.

ANY switch requires more tone receivers to support more TT lines.
They're getting cheaper, so this is becoming a moot point. The
current-break detector used for pulse-dial lines is still cheaper,
though. Once again, the software required for custom calling features
costs the telco quite a bit. Then again, TT dialing saves the telco
money since wrong numbers are less common and dialing is faster,
thereby reducing overhead (non-talk) time to complete a call.

My point is simply this: providing custom calling services _does_ cost
the telco more than Plain Old Telephone Service, primarily in software
and support but, also in the higher-power processors and additional
RAM required for the switch. And neither hardware nor software from NT
or AT&T is cheap.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 27 Jun 90 04:16:38 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Samuel
Lam) writes:

> The telephone company here in B.C. charges for unlisted numbers in
> much the same way.  They charge an installation fee of several dollars
> and then charge you several dollars *per month* for keeping your
> number unlisted.

It probably costs the telco more money to answer all those
directory-assistance requests they get when people have unlisted
numbers than it does to list numbers in the paper directory.  Also,
they lose revenue when the people who would have called you don't
because they can't get your telephone number.


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]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: PacBell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges
Date: Mon, 25-Jun-90 23:57:22 PDT


Here's what it says in the flyer I received with my phone bill (I left
out the parts mentioning the other issue, the size of the local
calling area):

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

In October 1989, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
.... agreed to eliminate separate charges for residential Touch-Tone
Service, and indicated it would consider eliminating separate charges
for business Touch-Tone Service as well. (CPUC Decision D.89-10-031)

The CPUC asked Pacific Bell and other interested parties to submit
their plans to implement these decisions including proposals to
recover costs associated with these changes.  In April, Pacific Bell
filed the first phase of its plan.  We recommended that the changes
take effect within the next year.  We will notify you after the CPUC
decides how and when these changes will take place.

[....]

 - Touch-Tone Service charges eliminated - 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 customers will receive Touch-Tone
Service automatically.

[....]

Also, we are proposing that business customers receive Touch-Tone
Service as part of their basic service.  Our proposal on this is
awaiting a CPUC decision.  Business customers pay a one-time
connection charge of $5 and $1.70 per month for Touch-Tone Service
today.

The CPUC will consider our proposal and others during the next few
weeks and might decide to hold evidentiary hearings, in which the
parties present evidence on their plans, July 30 and 31 at 505 Van
Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102,

If you wish to be notified in the event hearings are required, write
to: Public Advisor's Office, CPUC, 505 Van Ness Ave., Rm 5303, San
Francisco, CA 94102.

For information about Pacific Bell's proposal, write to: Pacific Bell,
Technical Filings Manager, 140 New Montgomery St. Rm 911, San
Francisco, CA 94105.

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

So it hasn't happened yet, but it's on the way.  Although I am only
guessing, I think it is fair to say that as part of the proposal,
residential customers will face an increase in basic monthly service
of $1.20 and business customers will pay $1.70 more....  ;-)


Alan Millar      [e-mail]

P.S.  And the basic connection cost for a line will go up by
      $3 and $5 for residential and business....

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 06:19:16 PDT
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones


>[e-mail] (Blake Farenthold) writes:

>I always figured if anyone hated COCOTS it was AT&T.  Well I found
>what I'd call an AT&T COCOT.

I have encountered AT&T "Charge-a-Call" phones at an airport recently
which cut off the keypad only when certain 800 numbers were called.  I
could call my paging service and use the keypad, but the keypad was
turned off when I called U.S. Sprint.  I can't blame them, but I was
very surprised.

Even worse, I recently made a call on a NY Tel payphone in Kennedy
airport, which cut off the keypad *after* I had dialled in 0 vvv
nnn-nnnn, so I couldn't dial my credit card number.  We were all
queued up as cattle, and people on either side of me were having
trouble too.  I learned quite a few card numbers to use, should I ever
think of doing such a thing.

I called up repair and asked why this was being done, and the first
thing the person on duty said was "Are you a phone company employee?".
I told the truth, and said no, so she wouldn't say why, but something
funny was going on, for sure.

I can't decide: drugs, espionage, or long distance competition
(against AT&T).  Any ideas?

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

From: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones
Date: 26 Jun 90 16:16:35 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


Here's a question for our Moderator or other readers of the Digest: Do
the AT&T 'Charge-a-Call' phones fall under the same (or similar) rules as
COCOT's?  It is not clear that they are customer owned, and they are
obviously not "coin operated".


Jeff Schweiger          Standard Disclaimer       CompuServe:  74236,1645
Internet (Milnet):                [e-mail]

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola Plans Global Cellular Thrust
Date: 27 Jun 90 01:17:05 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Here's the second article published about the Motorola orbiting cell-site
plan.  This is from the {Chicago Tribune}, Tuesday, June 26 1990.  Again,
this is all I know; and again, all typos are mine.

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

             MOTOROLA PHONE NET TO DIAL 77 SATELLITES

(by Marianne Taylor)

By the end of the decade, Motorola Inc. envisions equipping a
Chicago-based business executive with a cellular phone that works just
as well when he steps off a plane in Melbourne, Australia, as it does
when he makes a call on the way to his Arlington Heights home.

What stands in the way of this vision is about $2 billion in
investment, the launch of a flotilla of 77 low-orbiting satellites,
and a vast array of complex technical considerations.

But if a system is developed as outlined by a Motorola executive
Monday, it would place the Schaumburg-based manufacturer of
sophisticated communications equipment firmly in the lucrative realm
of providing cellular phone service.

Durrell Hillis, Motorola vice president and general manager of
satellite communications, said the company intends to form a
consortium of four or five organizations, including Motorola, that
will fund and develop the first global satellite-based cellular
telephone system.  The company has dubbed the venture "Iridium"
(naming it after the chmical element that, past and present high
school chemistry students will remember, has 77 electrons).

Speaking in advance of a Tuesday briefing, Hillis said three
organizations have signed agreements with Motorola to study the
venture, although none has committed funds.

These organizations have passed tough licensing tests that permit them
to transmit voice and data signals by satellite in certain areas,
including the U.S., so that Motorola won't have to seek separate
licenses in those areas.

Hillis said Motorola hopes to have firm agreements with its partners
in the venture, as well as funding commitments, by the end of the
year.  If Motorola signs with four other partners, its initial
investment would be $400 million, Hillis said.

Motorola plans to launch a network of 77 satellites that would orbit
the earth at a relatively low altitude -- about 414 miles -- to
provide mobile-phone service to parts of the U.S. and the world where
current land-based mobile systems cannot, or have not yet been able
to, reach.  The firm plans to launch two demonstration satellites by
1992, all 77 by 1994, and have full service as early as 1996.

The satellite system not only would provide access to such
hard-to-reach areas, but also would provide worldwide coverage via
satellite for cellular customers, enabling a caller using a portable
phone to communicate anywhere else, Hillis said.

In some areas of the world where traditional phone service is sorely
limited by outdated or scarce equipment, Motorola hopes its new
network will provide more basic telephone service.

"In some Eastern Bloc countries, for instance, there is a tremendous
need for communications systems," Hillis said.  With a satellite-based
system, "the infrastructure would be overhead, in space," so that a
government need only issue appropriate licensing for an auxiliary
phone network, which would then open the way for a new market for
telephones and the satellite service.

Motorola intends to retain an ownership interest in operating the
system, as well as to build the telephones and eventually about half
the replacement satellites, Hillis said.

The first batch of satellites will be built by a yet-to-be-named
subcontractor, Hillis said, but Motorola hopes to build half the
satellites thereafter at its plant near Phoenix.

The company already has announced an expansion of its mobile-pohone
manufacturing capacity, with plans to build a new facility in north
suburban Libertyville.

Motorola expects the cellular telephone market to grow to 100 million
customers worldwide by the end of the decade, Hillis said.  The
company hopes to snare a small portion, or 1 million, in that time for
its satellite-based network, although the system will have a capacity
for 10 million customers.

The first handsets for the system will cost about $3,000, said Ray
Leopold, Motorola's systems manager for the Iridium project.  Although
the fees per minute to use the system will be determined by whoever
contracts with the Motorola consortium to provide the service in
different areas, Motorola estimates that a call at first will cost $3
a minute -- about 10 times what it costs to make a call on existing
mobile-telephone systems, which use land-based transmitters.

The three companies agreeing to cooperate in the early stages of the
venture are American Mobile Satellite Corp., a Washington, D.C.-based
space technology company that holds a Federal Communications
Commission license to provide mobile satellite service to users in the
U.S.,; Telesat Mobile Inc. of Canada, which has similar agreements
north of the border; and International Maritime Satellite Organization
of London, an international consortium that has rights to transmit
signals to ships at sea, as well as on land in several countries.

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

Sidebar: "Global network for cellular phones"
         Motorola's Iridium satellite system will allow people with portable
         cellular radiophones to communicate anywhere on earth.

         "Satellite system"
         The $2 billion plans include a network of 77 small satellites
         ringing the planet in low-earth orbits.

         "Placing a call"
         Portable cellular phones with small antennas will transmit signals
         directly to the closest satellite.  After the caller is verified as
         a subscriber, the call is routed through a series of satellites
         to its destination.


Steve King, Motorola Cellular  (...uunet!motcid!king)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #456
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24112;
          27 Jun 90 5:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14088;
          27 Jun 90 3:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27807;
          27 Jun 90 2:20 CDT
Date:     Wed, 27 Jun 90 2:03:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #457
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Jun 90 02:03:15 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 457

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [Fleming]
    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [Keith Vitek]
    Re: 800 Surcharge [Greg Monti via John R. Covert]
    Re: Junkmailed! [Peter da Silva]
    Re: FCC Responds to Individual Complaints About AOSs [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Rob Warnock]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Kari Hardarson]
    Re: Manhole Covers (was: 10-NYT and 10-NJB) [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Sprint Users Now Get Immediate Credit [Jason Chen]
    Re: Uniform International Dialing [Norman R Tiedemann]
    Re: Uniform International Dialing [Greg Monti -and- John R. Covert]
    Re: Uniform International Dialing [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: portal!cup.portal.com!fleming
Subject: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?
Date: Mon, 25-Jun-90 04:55:17 PDT


I have also seen recommendations to try '70*'
                                        '#70'
                                        '70#' and
                                        '1170'.

Certainly, on modern 5ESS and DMS100, '*70' does the trick, but
apparently standardization was late in coming.

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 08:30:37 CDT
From: Keith Vitek <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?


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

If *70 does't work, use the pulse dial 1170 ... works in most areas
like:

atdp1170 (and bbs or other number...)


UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!kvitek
ARPA: crash!pnet01!pro-party![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

Keith Vitek              | Voice: 512/852-1841
5914 LiptonShire         |    or: 512/852-1780
Corpus Christi, TX 78415 |  FIDO: 1:160/40

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 18:06:42 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  26-Jun-1990 2110" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Surcharge


 From:  Greg Monti
 Date:  26 June 1990
 Subject: Re: 800 Surcharge

> Regarding hotels charging for 800 numbers...

Yes, hotels can get away with charging $0.25 to $1.00 or so for 800
calls because people just pay them.  It's small compared to the price
of the room, and most business travelers wouldn't complain much.

If you are dialing an 800 number to get to your LD company's switch,
the charge is a downright *bargain* compared to what the hotel's AOS
would charge you if you direct-dialed the call from your room!  The
AOS would inflate the price of each minute of the call by 200% or 300%
while the charge for the 800 call only inflates the price of the first
minute.

This brings up a related subject, that of COCOTs whose keypads are cut
off after dialing, thwarting you from using any long distance company
but the AOS which kicks back to the premises owner.  As long as this
number isn't itself blocked, there is exactly one reasonably-priced
long distance company *that I know of* which can always be accessed
from phones like this: US Sprint.

If you dial their FONcard access number (800 877-8000) and then do
nothing, the dial tone will expire after 15 or 20 seconds and you will
be connected to a Sprint operator.  Just say you're calling from a
rotary phone and give the numbers you're calling from and to and your
14-digit Sprint FONcard number.  Local operating company (and AT&T)
cards not accepted.  There's a premium operator-assistance charge of
around 50 cents (on top of the 75-cent FONcard charge) for the whole
call.  But it avoids the per-minute AOS inflation.  Handy.  Sprint
calls this "rotary access."

This could work with other LD companies *provided* they (1) offer
routine operator services and (2) they have an 800 number to reach
that operator.  MCI misses on item (1).  AT&T misses on item (2).


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Junkmailed!
Reply-To: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 16:34:22 GMT


I notice the author of this article has an unlisted email address. So,
who is John Galt?

Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
[phone].
<[e-mail]>

PS: Yes, I get the reference.

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Responds to Individual Complaints About AOSs
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 11:33:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wm Randolph
Franklin) writes:

>Before writing my letter, I telephoned both ATT and FCC to determine
>the law.  FCC said unequivocally that the hotel phones must handle
>10xxx properly.  However ATT waffled; they commiserated with me but
>didn't they that the hotel had to connect me to them.  Why would they
>not assert their rights?

Maybe it's because ATT's PBX's (e.g. System 85) can't handle 9-10288, etc....


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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 07:08:50 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Erik Naggum) writes:

|     5#    means "five lbs (pounds)"
| This has later been confirmed by several good dictionaries and
| reference works (read: theory), but I've never seen in it practice.

It is often seen in the U.S. in the trucking/shipping/hauling environments.
It's quite common for packages or crates to get their weight in pounds marked
on the side with crayon or chalk in the "<number>#" form, usually as the
package is accepted into the shipper's system. (Many forms of shipping are
weight-based.)


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510        [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.         Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

From: [e-mail] (Kari Hardarson)
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Date: 26 Jun 90 19:44:12 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kari Hardarson)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


I want to collectively thank everyone that set me straight on the
american definition of the pound. I am much the wiser now.


Kari Hardarson
217 Jackson Circle
Chapel Hill, NC 27514

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 07:14:49 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers (was: 10-NYT and 10-NJB)
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> unhd!unhtel![e-mail] (Paul
S. Sawyer) writes:

| By the way, what about a non-sexist term like "utility access cover"?
| ("person hole" just doesn't make it....  B-)

The city of Sacramento, California, has recently decided to call them
"maintenance holes", which -- besides being decently neuter and even
descriptive -- means they won't have to change the hundreds of City
bluprints which have them marked as "M-H"!


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: Jason Chen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Users Now Get Immediate Credit
Date: 26 Jun 90 16:57:29 GMT
Reply-To: Jason Chen <dduck![e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ


You can get immediate credit ... if and only if you can get through
their always-busy customer service. Yup, they have not changed a bit
since I dropped them three years ago.


Jason Chen

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 14:03:51 EDT
From: Norman R Tiedemann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Uniform International Dialing
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


-The Moderator writes:
-On 01 calls, at least in Chicago, the credit
-card number cannot be entered via the tone pad, but is passed orally
-to the operator who answers.

-John Covert responded:
-I'm not sure why it didn't work for the Moderator; I just tried 01+
-from an exchange in the Chicago Loop area and was presented with the
-"bong" and was able to enter a calling card number.  TSPS has a
-database of which phones have TT service; the bong is presented to
-those phones, and not to phones that don't have TT service, but you
-should see the same behaviour on 0+inter-LATA and 01+overseas.

-[Moderator's Note: Well, *when* do you enter it, after the
-international number has been dialed as you would on a domestic call?
-With international numbers of variable length, how is it known where
-the international number ends and the credit card number begins? Do
-you enter the international number, then hit the pound to terminate
-the dialing and then enter the card number following the bong?  On

I'll comment on a few of the above claims based on personal experience,

On 01 calls in almost all cases you will be electronically requested
for the card number with the bong. This all assumes your long distance
carrier is AT&T. It may be different for others. This does not matter
if you are set up for TT or dial pulse. I have only Dial Pulse at home
and I always get the bong. (At which time I flip the little switch on
my phone and touch tone in my card number.)

(Yes I do do this from home sometimes to charge to different number).

The digit collector mechanism has a timer which will time out when no
more digits are entered (normally this is about 5 seconds). This is
how the switch knows to start collecting the credit card number
instead of the number to call. You may also hit the # key, which will
terminate the number immediately.

This may not work for the moderator, since Northwestern University has
their own "goofy" PBX system, which allows and doesn't allow some
strange things. (My wife is a graduate student there, so this is based
on her experiences.) Also if the default LD carrier is not AT&T, this
may be the reason why the "bong" is not heard.


    Norm Tiedemann        AT&T Bell Labs IH 2G-419
    att!ihlpy!normt        2000 Naperville Rd.
    [e-mail]    Naperville, IL    60566


[Moderator's Note: But I don't use NU's phone system in any way,
except to call into the dialups ... I am served out of the
Chicago-Rogers Park office. But international calls like that are rare
for me: Either I dial direct or I call via my employer's
call-extender, and bill it to the office that way.  That's why I
reallt didn't know.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 18:05:30 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  26-Jun-1990 2059" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Uniform International Dialing


 From:  Greg Monti
 Date:  26 June 1990
 Subject: Re: Uniform International Dialing

"Spyros C. Bartsocas" <[e-mail]>  writes:

(Regarding trying to call Greece via calling card from a pay phone in
Boston:)

> To my
> surprise after the thanks for using AT&T recording, an AT&T operator
> answered the phone.  She said that I could not use my calling card to
> dial that country from that payphone.  So I moved to another one,
> tried again, same thing.  This time the operator said that the country
> I am calling has disabled calling card calls.  This does sound right
> to me.  Trying the same thing from a hotel room was successful.  Can
> anyone explain the above?

Because other countries (and long distance companies in the United
States) *do* have the right to reject, out of hand, the credit of
callers from or to certain other countries.  I guess that Greece does
it because of previous problems with fraud, in which they spent money
to complete calling card (01+) calls into Greece and then found that
the LD company(ies) which sent the calls had been defrauded and that
no money was ever collected so they never got their share.

If you call AT&T International Long Distance Information (800
874-4000) (this is *information*, not *directory assistance*) they can
probably send you a booklet on international calling.  There's a chart
in it showing, for every country on earth, whether they accept direct
dialed calls to or from the USA and whether the countries accept calls
made with calling cards from each other's country.  Last version I saw
was being given out at an AT&T booth at a convention center in early
1990, but the instructions in it seemed to be several years old (like
no direct dialing to Soviet Union).

The hotel probably used an AOS to take your card number, direct dialed
the call itself, and then paid the bill for direct dialed call from
the money it got from you when you paid the AOS charge as part of your
local phone bill.  There's a lot less fraud in direct dialed calls
than in calling card calls, so the direct dialed call was accepted by
Greece.  You could have probably gone home and direct dialed (011+)
the call a lot cheaper from there; but you give up the convenience of
using the calling card.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

Addendum from John Covert:

Actually, the AT&T operator who stated that it was the other country
that wanted the calls stopped is mistaken.  Since it was AT&T calling
cards that were involved, there is no bilateral agreement involved.

What's actually going on is that AT&T (and other carriers) are
red-lining certain exchanges and countries because of a high volume of
calling card fraud from those areas to those countries.

AT&T accepts the AT&T (or local telco) calling cards for calls to all
countries served by AT&T without exception.  At least from non-coin
phones.  Bilateral agreements only affect whether the AT&T card can be
used to call back home from those countries, or whether the distant
country's calling card is accepted by AT&T for calls from the U.S. to
the distant country.

Specific example: last fall, as I was trying to call Hong Kong from
JFK airport, I discovered that the exchange containing the NYTel
payphones was red-lined.  However, the AT&T Card Caller phones nearby
were on a different exchange which was not redlined, thus the calls
could be placed.


/john

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 1:46:48 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Uniform International Dialing


John Covert and Greg Monti, in the message before this one, discuss
the rationale behind AT&T's refusal to honor their own credit
agreement with their subscribers when they 'red-line' certain
countries or certain prefixes from the use of the Calling Card.

When you encounter a situation like this, from an AT&T coin phone, my
suggestion is that you SUE them. They have lost in the past on this,
and they will lose on your case. And they will settle with you.

There is NOTHING in any tariff which gives AT&T the right to refuse
Calling Card service on a prefix by prefix basis. There is NOTHING in
the tariff which says any given country can be excluded from receiving
outgoing calls from the United States via the Calling Card.

They refer to the Calling Card as universal. They have never sent you,
or me, or anyone else the written explanation required by the Federal
Trade Commission when they deny you credit after having previously
authorized said credit. In their own literature, they claim their
phone card is good *everywhere*.

Sprint used to get sued all the time for pulling this sort of stunt
from the payphones at the Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York
City. AT&T was sued in one case by someone who attempted to call Iran
from (I think) JFK in New York. AT&T refused to accept his Calling
Card *which had a credit balance* on it. He sued AT&T for fraud, and
filed complaints with both the Federal Trade Commission (relating to
denial of credit) and the Federal Communications Commission (relating
to lack of authority by tariff for AT&T's posture in the matter.) AT&T
settled with him for $1000; sort of an expensive item for what would
have been a $15-20 call to Iran!  You might try the same sort of
aggressive stance, until they get off their tangent.


PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #457
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25222;
          27 Jun 90 5:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31145;
          27 Jun 90 4:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14088;
          27 Jun 90 3:25 CDT
Date:     Wed, 27 Jun 90 2:35:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #458
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Jun 90 02:35:20 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 458

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    V & H FORTRAN Routines [Mike Riddle]
    I Need a Way to Verify Autodial Numbers [Jeffrey Jonas]
    Japanese Quality in Japan [Jim Gottlieb]
    Avoiding Unlisted Number Charge [Richard Kaplan]
    Number of NXX in Each NPA [Dave Esan]
    AT&T Ad is Correct [John Higdon]a
    International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access [Greg Monti]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 21:57:53 EDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: V & H FORTRAN Routines
Reply-to: [e-mail]


The following routines were mentioned by Jim Riddle in a recent
Digest article.  The response has already been substantial; however,
Jim has no easy way of sending files through the Internet.

Since several people have already responded, perhaps you could run
them in the Digest or mention they are available wherever you put them
in the archives?


C     TO CONVERT EITHER EARTH-CENTERED TO LAT/LON OR VICE VERSA
      SUBROUTINE M2CONV (OPT,NUMPTS,LATS,LONS,XLIST,YLIST,ZLIST)
      INTEGER*4 OPT,NUMPTS,I
      REAL*8    LATS(NUMPTS),LONS(NUMPTS),THETA,PHI,DTR
      REAL*8    XLIST(NUMPTS),YLIST(NUMPTS),ZLIST(NUMPTS)
      PI = 3.141592653589793238462643
      DTR = PI/180.
      IF (OPT .EQ. 1) THEN
         DO FOR I = 1,NUMPTS
            THETA = LONS(I) * DTR
            PHI = (90.0D+0 - LATS(I)) * DTR
            XLIST(I) = DCOS(THETA) * DSIN(PHI)
            YLIST(I) = DSIN(THETA) * DSIN(PHI)
            ZLIST(I) = DCOS(PHI)
         ENDDO
      ELSEIF (OPT .EQ. 2) THEN
         DO FOR I = 1,NUMPTS
            LATS(I) = 90.0D+0 - DACOS(ZLIST(I)) / DTR
            IF (XLIST(I) .EQ. 0.0D+0) THEN
               IF (YLIST(I) .LT. 0.0D+0) THEN
                  LONS(I) = -90.0D+0
               ELSE
                  LONS(I) = 90.0D+0
               ENDIF
            ELSE
               LONS(I) = DATAN(YLIST(I)/XLIST(I)) / DTR
               IF (XLIST(I) .LT. 0.0D+0) THEN
                  IF (YLIST(I) .LT. 0.0D+0) THEN
                     LONS(I) = LONS(I) - 180.0D+0
                  ELSE
                     LONS(I) = LONS(I) + 180.0D+0
                  ENDIF
               ENDIF
            ENDIF
         ENDDO
      ENDIF
      END
      SUBROUTINE LLAXYZ(LAT,LON,ALT,X,Y,Z)
C  SUBROUTINE TO CALCULATE ECI FROM LAT/LON/ALT
C
C   RE IS RADIUS OF THE EARTH
C   RE = 3437.75 NAUTICAL MILES, MORE OR LESS
C   1 NAUTICAL MILE = 1852 METERS (EXACT)
C   1 STATUTE MILE = 1609.344 METERS (EXACT)
C   SUBROUTINE _DOES_ REQUIRE ALTITUDE -- CHECK THE LOCAL AIRPORT (!)
C   INPUT REQUIRED IS LAT, LON, ALT OF POINT AND RETURNS X, Y, Z
C
      REAL LAT,LON,ALT
      RE = 3437.75
C     RE = 3437.75 * 1.852 FOR KILOMETERS
C     RE = 3437.75 * 1852/1609.344 FOR STATUTE MILES
C     ON MOST MACHINES YOU MAY WANT TO GO DOUBLE PRECISION, BY THE WAY
      RANGE = RE + ALT
      CLAT = COS(LAT)
      SLAT = SIN(LAT)
      CLON = COS(LON)
      SLON = SIN(LON)
      Z = RANGE * SLAT
      X = RANGE*CLAT * CLON
      Y = RANGE*CLAT * SLON
      RETURN
      END
C     CONVERTS LAT AND LONG TO EUCLIDEAN COORDINATES
      SUBROUTINE M2EUCL
      REAL*4 DEGRAD, PI, ECLX(N), ECLY(N), ECLZ(N)
      REAL*4 LOND(N), LATD(N)
      INTEGER*4 NUMPTS,I
      PI = 3.141592653589793238462643
      DEGRAD = PI/180.
      DO FOR I = 1,NUMPTS
         ECLX(I) = COS(LOND(I)*DEGRAD)*COS(LATD(I)*DEGRAD)
         ECLY(I) = SIN(LOND(I)*DEGRAD)*COS(LATD(I)*DEGRAD)
         ECLZ(I) = SIN(LATD(I)*DEGRAD)
      ENDDO
      RETURN
      END
      SUBROUTINE M2DIST(XPT,YPT,ZPT,NUMLST)
C
      INTEGER*4 NUMLST,N,INDEX
C     CALCULATE DISTANCES (GREAT CIRCLE) FROM A LIST OF POINTS TO A FOCAL
C     POINT
C     XPT, YPT, ZPT ARE X, Y, Z COORDINATES OF THE FOCAL POINT
C     XLST, YLST, ZLST ARE LISTS OF X, Y AND Z COORDINATES
C     RADIUS IS RADIUS OF THE EARTH
      REAL*4 XPT,YPT,ZPT,CSQRED,CTHETA,XLST(N),YLST(N),ZLST(N),DLST(N)
      DO FOR INDEX = 1, NUMLST
         CSQRED = (XLST(INDEX) - XPT)**2 + (YLST(INDEX) - YPT)
     1           **2 + (ZLST(INDEX) - ZPT)**2
         CTHETA = 1.0 - CSQRED/2.0
         DLST(INDEX) = ACOS(CTHETA) * RADIUS
      ENDDO
      RETURN
      END


   Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.3
[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: Tue, 26 Jun 90 05:51:37 -0400
From: synsys![e-mail]
Subject: I Need a Way to Verify Autodial Numbers


A very strange thing happened to a neighbor.  Her parents have an auto
dial phone and it must have misdialed her number because a stranger
answered the call and was very rude to them.  They called the police
to check up on her.  All was well after she got back from shopping and
calmed her parents down.

Now for the technological question: how can you check the programming
of an auto dialer?

I find a need for a dial-it service that would tell you what number
you dial to it (either DTMF or pulse).  That way, I'd call the number
and then autodial the other numbers and hear them read back.

It might work like this:

I dial "dial-huh" and hear some message like
        "I am ready to tell you what you are dialing".

Then I press the button to autodial a number (say, New York
information), and I hear the number read back in English "one two one
two five five five one two one two."

That's an excellent way to verify that the emergency numbers are
programmed correctly without bothering the police/fire/hospital.

I have seen Penril modems that allow you to have 'secret' numbers
where once programmed, you cannot view the telephone number, it is not
displayed while dialing and the speaker is disabled.  This is probably
ment to protect unlisted support lines.  Well, I admit this is a way
around that security.  But how many of you ever really use that
feature?

I know that there are now phones that display the number you are
dialing, and there are line monitors that can display the number as it
is dialed.  The July "Modern Electronics" magazine has schematics for
a phone mate that captures DTMF as dialed, times the call, can hold
the line, and rings.  It is also a clock.  But this requires somebody
to buy/rent the equipment and get it to the customer premesis.

What I need is a service that Joe Smith, Anytown USA can use from his
existing equipment.

As to telephone fishing:

"Look, pa I caught one!  It's a trimline."
"Ya hooked it through the transmitter, son.  Lemme unhook it.
Throw it back, it's not FCC registered."
"Yahoooo!  I got me a whopper!  A 4 line multiline at least."
"You caught it by the linecord.  That makes 'em real mad."


Jeffrey Jonas
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Subject: Japanese Quality in Japan
Date: 26 Jun 90 18:52:59 JST (Tue)
From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Brent the Grate) writes:

> I have heard that the quality of consumer goods manufactured
> in Japan is different for 'export' and 'dometic' consumption.
> Specifically, foreign consumers get a slightly better quality
> product than Japanese.

> Can this be true?

This is definitely true in telephone instruments, a field I'm
well-acquainted with.  The single-line telephones sold here by such
big names as Hitachi and Sony are complete pieces of junk.  They
aren't much better than the free phone you get for ordering Time
Magazine.

But this is one of those areas where the Japanese consumer seems to
feel that form rather than function is important.  The phones on the
market here definitely look nice.  But no thought seems to be put into
designing them to work well.  Note, for example, that the Panasonic KX
series of phones and answering machines that are some of the best
anywhere are not sold in Japan.

In an article [e-mail] (Dan KoGai) writes:

>Give the Japanese "Consumer Reports" and "60 Minutes".  I bet their
>attitude will change [in a] matter of days...

Which brings up a good point, and that is that Japan doesn't seem to
even have a magazine like "Consumer Reports" that they can turn to for
unbiased advice.  I guess the zaibatu (big conglomerates) wouldn't
like that :-).  I wonder why this is.

The magazine "Trendy" does however give price comparisons between
brands and stores and even includes prices from the U.S., often showing
the Japanese consumer how far they are being taken to the cleaners.


Jim Gottlieb             Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan

    <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: [phone]            Voice Mail: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 10:17:37 EDT
From: Richard Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Avoiding Unlisted Number Charge


I noticed a few messages lately indicating displeasure at charges for
an unlisted number.  I was wondering if there is a way to get around
this unreasonable behavior on the part of the local phone companies.

Could I not tell the phone company that I wish my number to be listed
as Hugo Gorschonavitz?  Or as my own name spelled backward?  Or as Mr.
Unlisted K. Number?  Or do they insist that I use my legal name as it
appears on my bill?


Richard Kaplan, M.D.   PO Box 217   Rochester, MN  55903
[phone] (Voice)   [phone] (BBS)


[Moderator's Note: Generally, telling them the phone will be listed in
your roommate's name (or mother's name, etc) will work provided the
name is (in their sole discretion) reasonable, 'real sounding' and
unoffensive. If they suspect you are merely trying to circumvent the
charge for a non-pub number, they may ask you to produce the person in
whose name the service is to be listed, or offer proof that the name
is correct.  PT]

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

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Number of NXX in Each NPA
Date: 26 Jun 90 18:06:30 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


Six months ago I posted a list of NPA's with the total number of NXX's
in each.  Well I just go it the 7/15/90 BellCore V&H tape, and here is
the updated list.

The NPA's noted with an asterisk (*) are those scheduled for a split.
Reasons are obvious.  Those with a plus sign (+) have gone to 10 digit
dialling for intra-NPA, non-local calls (there may be more, these are
all I know of).


NPA  # of NXX     NPA  # of NXX     NPA  # of NXX     NPA  # of NXX
* 213: 709      717: 464        704: 324          808: 248
* 214: 705      804: 455        914: 321          518: 242
* 201: 682      305: 443        319: 321          608: 236
+ 301: 679      414: 442        304: 321          509: 229
* 212: 653      306: 441        618: 316          603: 227
+ 404: 642      513: 438        504: 316          901: 216
* 415: 629      816: 436        801: 315          417: 192
+ 919: 611      913: 428        209: 314          308: 191
+ 416: 609      412: 412        912: 312          802: 174
512: 608      317: 404        517: 311          707: 171
313: 605      312: 399        715: 306          506: 171
205: 604      402: 398        918: 302          706: 169
403: 585      907: 396        908: 301          607: 159
215: 580      916: 395        819: 301          719: 153
602: 579      515: 395        505: 294          307: 146
+ 202: 576      614: 388        905: 293          413: 129
501: 559      601: 385        915: 290          401: 128
714: 551      718: 382        815: 282          906: 109
206: 542      407: 364        408: 282          302: 106
604: 540      617: 362        702: 278          807: 105
216: 532      616: 362        218: 275          917: 0
+ 703: 531      508: 359        409: 273          911: 0
405: 525      418: 356        208: 269          910: 0
713: 515      716: 354        613: 267          909: 0
615: 511      516: 354        812: 266          811: 0
314: 505      316: 353        712: 265          810: 0
503: 500      217: 344        805: 263          711: 0
612: 499      701: 343        609: 261          710: 0
303: 486      204: 341        705: 260          611: 0
809: 481      818: 339        606: 259          610: 0
803: 480      219: 338        903: 258          511: 0
708: 480      519: 336        902: 257          510: 0
813: 476      502: 332        814: 254          411: 0
904: 470      406: 331        507: 253          410: 0
817: 470      207: 330        309: 253          311: 0
619: 468      605: 328        709: 252          310: 0
203: 467      419: 326        806: 251          211: 0
514: 466      318: 325        315: 251          210: 0


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

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

Subject: AT&T Ad is Correct
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 26 Jun 90 12:41:43 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


AT&T NEWS BRIEFS

Tuesday, June 26, 1990

AD WIN -- The National Advertising Division ruled in favor of AT&T
in the latest round of long distance ad wars.  US Sprint
challenged a print ad for AT&T's long-distance service that
stated: "On average, MCI and US Sprint take over 50 percent longer
than AT&T to set up a long-distance call." ... NAD said AT&T data
supported the claim that MCI and Sprint can take nine seconds or
more to set up a long-distance call [and] agreed that the seconds
can add up to hours where business offices are involved. ...
              Advertising Age, p. 48.

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

So, of course I had to do a little testing on my own. Picking some
busy-test numbers around the state and the nation, I timed the
interval between the pressing of the last digit and the appearance of
the busy signal. The results of many trials were quite consistent:
AT&T completes in an average of 3-4 seconds while Sprint and MCI
complete in an average of 6-8 seconds. I could detect no significant
difference in the speed of call setup between MCI and Sprint.


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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 18:06:13 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  26-Jun-1990 2109" <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access (10NXX)


 From:  Greg Monti
 Date:  26 June 1990
 Subject: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access

Allen Jensen <[e-mail]> writes:

First of all,it's 10XXX, not 10NXX.  The "N" means "digits 2 thru 9
only".  In fact, any combo, from 000 to 999 is valid after "10",
providing a long distance company with that code exists and serves
that area.

> I would like to find out how International calls are made using the
> equal access LD Carriers.  Does one just, for example, dial 10222011+
> and if this is so, where does the credit card number go ?

No.  You would not dial 011.  It would be 10222 + 01 + country code +
city code + local number + #. Immediately after the # sign, you would
receive the "calling card tone" and would dial your USA 14-digit
calling card number (the one issued by your LOCAL phone company, not
the one issued by MCI, which is LD company 10222; the MCI card number
is for 950- and 800-access calls only).  Assuming the call and card
number were both valid, and that MCI accepts card calls to that
country and provided that that country accepts carded MCI calls, you
would hear "thank you for using MCI" or somesuch and it would ring
through. You would pay MCI card usage charge (probably around $0.75)
plus the direct dialed MCI per-minute rate for the call itself.  It
would appear on the MCI "casual usage" page of your LOCAL phone bill.

> How about alternate overseas vendors - 101XX codes ?  Anyone have any
> examples ???

There are no "different" vendors for overseas calls and for domestic
calls.  US regulations (the Modified Final Judgment) state that, from
any US phone, the whole world is divided into just two areas:
intra-LATA and inter-LATA.  Overseas calls are obviously in the second
category.  Therefore, competitive long distance companies carry them.

The heirarchy for dialing instructions with and without 10XXX being
appended first is (supposedly) exactly the same.

Note that the above will not work from a *pay* phone *owned by the
local operating company* if you dial 10222 + 011 + etc.  "011" from a
pay phone of necessity implies that this is a CASH call.  The only LD
company that handles cash calls from LOC payphones is AT&T.  More than
likely, if you try this, the "10222" will be ignored and you will be
routed to the AT&T recording saying how much money to put in (bring
your rolls of quarters!).


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #458
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18807;
          29 Jun 90 1:58 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19282; 28 Jun 90 23:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30711;
          28 Jun 90 0:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09724;
          27 Jun 90 23:38 CDT
Date:     Wed, 27 Jun 90 23:02:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #459
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 27 Jun 90 23:02:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 459

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Off Line Until July 8 [TELECOM Moderator]
    Strange Things in Ottawa, Ontario [David Leibold]
    Telephone Timer [Sam Cramer]
    Need Strapping Info for 400D KTU [Warren Tucker]
    What is Intellidial? [John Wing]
    BellSouth Wins New Zealand Contract [Henry Mensch]
    Comments For V&H FORTRAN Routines [Mike Riddle]
    Re: Number of NXX in Each NPA [Carl Moore]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [John Higdon]
    Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones [Carl Moore]
    Re: US/Canada Only One Digit Code? [Henry Troup]
    Re: Sverige Direkt [Henry Troup]
    Re: Junkmailed! [Tom Perrine]
    Re: Infoworld, AT&T and Rumor Squelching [Robert M. Hamer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 22:08:46 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Off Line Until July 8


TELECOM Digest and the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup have suspended
operations until July 8, due to my absence from home for a period of
several days.

Do not send messages to this newsgroup until July 8. Messages received
during the period July 3 through July 7 will be held over until my
return.

Messages appearing here through July 3 are items in transit at this
time.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Things in Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 90 23:13:07 EDT


Strange things are afoot in Ottawa, Ontario these days:

1. From phones on the 238 exchange (payphones in the downtown area for
instance), dialing up a wrong exchange will not only get a recording,
but it seems other people dialing wrong exchanges as well. Thus, it
would seem if you don't mind sharing a voice conference centre with
Bell recordings in two languages, there seems to be a party line.

2. There are some mystery exchanges like 327 which are dialable from
Ottawa phones, but neither ALEX's rate/place name feature nor any
other sources seem to know what that is (it would be in 613 as the 819
area code version is long distance from Ottawa-Hull). The whole plan
of an Ottawa-Hull exchange, split over two area codes (613 and 819) is
something of a mysterious thing itself.

3. Many payphones also feature an experimental voice message system
that kicks in if a call is busy or not answered. You are given the
option to record a message, for which the Bell system will call your
target phone every fifteen minutes for two hours attempting to deliver
it.

There are a few bugs with it, as it is possible to flash a switchhook
after dialing up a wrong number recording, then getting the recording
asking if you want to record a message or not. Wonder where the
message goes from there if the number doesn't exist ...???

Any bugs mentioned above are subject to fixing, perhaps even by the
time this gets read.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 09:34:29 PDT
From: Sam Cramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Timer


I've been getting calls (possibly from a fax machine or autodialer) at
home at annoyingly early hours.  I'd like to find a simple
timer-controlled device which would disconnect the phone from the
phone line.  Can anyone recommend such a device? An off-the-shelf
solution is great, but I'm willing to do a bit of soldering if it is
fairly straight-forward.


Sam

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 14:16:31 EDT
From: Warren Tucker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Strapping Info for 400D KTU


I have pieced together an ancient 1A2 KTS from many collectors of fine
junk and have it working (sort of).  Two of my lines are serviced by
400H KTUs and work just fine.  The third line uses a 400D and the lamp
doesn't wink on ring.  It has been 15 years since I installed any key
systems and I have forgotten how to strap 440Ds.  I would appreciate
e-mail from anyone who has information on how to strap the 6-style
clips mounted inside the card handle.

Hey, I am sticking with Only The Best: 2565 phones. (Anyone know where
I can find a 50-line 630 Call Director :-) ?)  I tried to find an old
1A relay-laden klunker (the one with the aluminum can covering the
relays), but couldn't.

Any information would be greatly appeciated.


Warren Tucker, TuckerWare    gatech!n4hgf!wht or [e-mail]

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

From: John Wing <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is Intellidial?
Date: 27 Jun 90 23:07:20 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


Can anyone please explain what Intellidial is??

Thanks,


    John Wing; Digital Equipment Corp.; 150 Coulter Drive; Concord, Mass.
          [e-mail] -or- ...!decuac!social.dec.com!wingj


[Moderator's Note: Intellidial is sometimes called 'Starline',
depending on the telco selling it. It is a package of centrex features
for residential telephone lines, including such features as intercom
calling between phones on your premises; pick up a ringing line from
any other line on your premises; transfer calls between lines, etc.
For more information, see the Telecom Archives file on the subject.
The Telecom Archives is accessible using 'ftp lcs.mit.edu' and then
when on line, 'cd telecom-archives'. Get the file 'index.to.archives'
for a complete directory.  You can also get archives files from the
archives mail server '[e-mail]'.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 10:28:18 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: BellSouth Wins New Zealand Contract
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Spotted on the {Times} wire ...

BellSouth Corp. said Tuesday it had been awarded one of three licenses
to provide cellular telephone service in New Zealand.

Two consortiums identified as Ready Form No. 43 Ltd. and Write or
Wrong Ltd. won the other licenses.

A spokeswoman for BellSouth, based in Atlanta, said the company did
not know what companies had sponsored these applications.

The New Zealand Commerce Ministry, the agency that issued the
licenses, could not be reached for comment.


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

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 22:00:06 EDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Comments For V&H FORTRAN Routines
Reply-to: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: This message was intended to accompany the V&H
Fortan routines which appeared in Digest # 458 early Wednesday.
Unfortunatly it was delayed in transmission and arrived here later.
PT]

The file in the accompanying message contains the routines I
mentioned.  It contains several Fortran subroutines which should be
quasi-obvious to implement.  If you don't code Fortran, you could
probably understand them from either BASIC or Pascal; if you can't
comprehend the math involved, then you may be in over your head
already.

When using the coordinate system, it is NOT necessary that you have
the same X-Y grid as the phone company so long as you are using
statute miles, nautical miles, furlongs, picometers or whatever
consistent with their distancing measurement.  The most convenient way
to do it is probably to use real-Earth latitudes and longitudes and
PAY ATTENTION TO WHICH ROUTINES USE DEGREES AND WHICH ARE IN RADIANS.

If you really want a polished, finished product, I really can't comply
as I am under some conflict of interest restrictions (sounds nebulous
because it is).

Thanks for the bevy of responses I received.

Jim R.

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.3
[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: Wed, 27 Jun 90 9:44:02 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number of NXX in Each NPA


"10 digit" should apparently be "11 digit".

(In the following lines, "included" does not refer to unused area codes;
list includes all N0X/N1X codes except N00.)

908 is already included? 201/908 split hasn't taken place yet.
903 is already included? 214/903 split hasn't taken place yet.
Does 202 still include Md. and Va. suburbs?
704 apparently does NOT require 11 digits for ALL toll calls?  919 does.
706 and 905 included?  (They are still used at this time for Mexico?)
602 (Arizona) requires 11 digits for toll calls within it.
313 (Michigan) reduced toll calls within it to 7 digits.

Perhaps you meant + to mean "has N0X/N1X prefixes, but no split
planned yet".  201, which does have a split coming, has N0X/N1X
prefixes, but uses seven digits for toll calls within it.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 27 Jun 90 03:02:04 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]> writes:

> Why should the telco spend even a little extra
> for a feature if they can't charge extra for providing it?

Maybe just to provide more up-to-date service.

> It is true that if they just passed the extra cost of call waiting,

But what IS this extra cost? You can't get a generic for any switch
today that doesn't have the usual custom calling features built in.

Frankly, I anticipated that there would be at least someone who didn't
read what I said. But a better example was this:

Heath Roberts <[e-mail]> writes:

> This isn't quite true. Telephone companies have to pay quite a bit for
> the software (and sometimes hardware) to provide these advanced
> features.

Call waiting, call forwarding, and three-way calling are not, repeat
not advanced features. They have been part and parcel of stock
generics for over twenty years. Try to buy a switch without them.

> Software from NT often costs as much as the switch.

And which release does not contain the usual custom calling? How much
cheaper is it than that which does? Are the fees based on how many
customers are subscribing to the features? If not, wouldn't it be
better for the telco to charge everyone (spread the cost around)?

> ANY switch requires more tone receivers to support more TT lines.
> They're getting cheaper, so this is becoming a moot point. The
> current-break detector used for pulse-dial lines is still cheaper,
> though.

Are you saying that there are electronic (analog or digital) CO
switches out there that are not 100% TT equipped? What backwater telco
could possibly be that cheap (or stupid)? I'm not being a wise guy;
I'd really like to know. Not even Pac*Bell would be that silly.

> Once again, the software required for custom calling features
> costs the telco quite a bit. Then again, TT dialing saves the telco
> money since wrong numbers are less common and dialing is faster,
> thereby reducing overhead (non-talk) time to complete a call.

My original point was: if telcos are expected to charge for custom
calling, then why not TT? To say that TT reduces costs for various
reasons is disingenuous. It could just as legitimately be said that
call waiting increases revenues for the telco by allowing calls to be
completed that would otherwise end in busy signals. Or that forwarding
allows the telco to charge twice for one call, or that three-way
encourages more calls (and more call revenue).

As a sidebar, GTE Mobilnet dropped all of its monthly charges for all
of its six custom calling features and just provide them as part of
the service to its contract customers (at a reduced overall monthly
rate at that). If features cost so much to provide (or don't
intrinsically generate revenue) why would Mobilnet bother?


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

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 9:08:23 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones


I don't understand this stuff about cutting off the keypad (I saw a
note saying this happened on a NY Tel payphone in JFK airport in New
York after 0-xxx-xxx-xxxx).  That self-service credit-card-number-
entry was put in in the first place because overheard
credit card numbers are a prime source of fraud, right?

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US/Canada Only One Digit Code?
Date: 27 Jun 90 18:51:35 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> bcsaic![e-mail].
washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes:

>    I understand that one of the (multiple) phone systems in Saudi
>Arabia is based on the North American digital hierarchy, and that AT&T
>has had people operating telecom in that part of the world for years.

Ahem, Bell Canada has the contract for building and operating the Saudi
telephone system, and has had for some time.

Obnoxious patriotic Canadian...


Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
 ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 [e-mail] 613-765-2337

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sverige Direkt
Date: 27 Jun 90 18:47:35 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> foxtail![e-mail] (Jody
Kravitz) writes:

>[e-mail] (Dan Sahlin) writes:

>>The list of countries and numbers for "Sverige Direkt" are as follows

>>    Canada       1800 463 8129
>>    USA          1800 345 0046

>I couldn't resist trying these numbers.  The Canadian 800 number was
>intercepted with "Your call cannot be completed as dialed <pause>
>6194T".

Well, from Canada the Canadian number gave an unfamiliar but European
dial tone. I hung up before it was answered.


Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | Not one of 100% of
 ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 [e-mail] 613-765-2337 | Americans

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

From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Junkmailed!
Date: 27 Jun 90 17:49:32 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


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

>Someone who signed himself John David Galt (I see "John Galt" as a CB
>handle quite a bit, so it must be the name of some fictional
>character, and thus might not be the submitter's actual name) wrote in
>volume 10, issue 452, completely misunderstanding my position:

John Galt is the name of a primary character in Ann Rand's novel
_Atlas Shrugged_.

**SPOILER WARNING** Not to provide any killer spoilers: (some of which
may even be remotely telecom related, in light of the recent
discussions of LoD, search and seizure, etc.)

This novel is centrally concerned with issues of freedom, personal
choice and personal responsibility.

As the society becomes increasingly coercive, and those who can't
increasingly *demand* services from those who can, those who can
"drop-out" and refuse to be slaves to the society.

John Galt is the "leader" of those Atlases who refuse to be slaves of
the society in which they have no say, and "shrug" the burdens that
are imposed on them.

All in all, an excellent book.


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]
Home of the _Tower Operator Training System_ as seen in the SunTech Journal.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 12:25 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infoworld, AT&T and Rumor Squleching


On Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:21 CDT, [e-mail] wrote:

>Many of us are still seething about the Infoworld blurb in "Notes from

>It also seems that Robert Cringely's account was inaccurate in many
>respects.  First, the crash occured in January, not February; second,

If anyone wants to tell Robert Cringely how unhappy he or she is with
the story, his e-mail address is [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #459
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23515;
          29 Jun 90 4:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31362;
          29 Jun 90 2:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14168;
          29 Jun 90 1:48 CDT
Date:     Fri, 29 Jun 90 0:52:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #460
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Jun 90 00:50:19 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 460

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Manhole Covers [Sean Malloy]
    Re: Manhole Covers [C. D. Covington]
    Re: Manhole Covers [Mark Brader]
    Re: Manhole Covers [Jerry Leichter]
    Re: Uniform International Dialing [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: 800 Surcharge [David E. Bernholdt]
    Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones [J. Philip Miller]
    Re: Sprint Users Now Get Immediate Credit [William Kucharski]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Lang Zerner]
    Re: Avoiding Unlisted Number Charge [Eric Varsanyi]
    Re: Avoiding Unlisted Number Charge [Leonard P. Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sean Malloy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers
Date: 27 Jun 90 14:08:21 GMT
Reply-To: Sean Malloy <[e-mail]>
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego


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

>>Has anyone ever noticed non-round manhole covers?  Nashua and Hudson,
>>N.H.  have TRIANGULAR ones - don't know what service or utility.

>I think this has been discussed before.  Round covers are popular
>because it's impossible for the cover to fall into the hole.

You're missing the other reason -- manhole covers are round because it
reduces the complexity of the decision the workers have to make when
putting it back.



 Sean Malloy
 Navy Personnel Research & Development Center
 San Diego, CA 92152-6800
 [e-mail]

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

From: "C. D. Covington" <uafhcx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers
Date: 27 Jun 90 14:53:43 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Norman
Yarvin) writes:

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

> >>Has anyone ever noticed non-round manhole covers?  Nashua and Hudson,
> >>N.H.  have TRIANGULAR ones - don't know what service or utility.

> >I think this has been discussed before.  Round covers are popular
> >because it's impossible for the cover to fall into the hole.

> This also holds for triangular covers.  (only if they are equilateral,
> though.)

    I can't keep from jumping in on this last comment.  I don't
believe this to be true.  The property of round covers that keeps them
from falling through is that of constant width.  There exist an entire
family of possible closed curves of constant width, the most obvious
being a perfect circle.  An equilateral triangle is not one of them.

    On the other hand, if you take the vertices of the equilateral
triangle and use a compass to construct three arcs, each passing
through two vertices and using the other vertex as a center point,
then an alternative curve of constant width results.  That is, if the
points A, B, and C are equidistant from each other.  The place the
compass point on A and draw an arc from B to C, and repeat this
process with the point on B and then C, drawing arcs to the remaining
points.

    A manhole cover constructed in this way will not fall through.
Try it by cutting this shape out of a piece of cardboard and dropping
it against the hole you made cutting it out.  It works!


C. David Covington (WA5TGF)  [e-mail]     [phone]
Asst Prof, Elec Eng          Univ of Arkansas        Fayetteville, AR 72701

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 1990 05:25:42 -0400


>>I think this has been discussed before.  Round covers are popular
>>because it's impossible for the cover to fall into the hole.
>This also holds for triangular covers.  (only if they are equilateral,
>though.)

Hold the lid with one edge vertical, and it will go in just fine if
placed next to one edge of the opening.  So an equilateral triangle
*doesn't* work.  What does work is a "Reuleaux triangle", where each
side is not a straight line but an arc centered on the opposite
vertex.  This is the second-simplest (after the circle) of what are
called "curves of constant breadth", any of which will also work.

However, round covers have the additional advantage that there is no
wrong way to put them in the hole.


Mark Brader
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 12:03:03 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers


Norman Yarvin claims that a triangular manhole cover cannot fall
through its own hole "if it's equilateral".  As Spock said in Star
Trek: The Wrath of Kahn - he displays two-dimensional thinking.  Stand
an equilateral triangle up on one corner so that one side is
perpendicular to the ground.  Its maximum cross-section is now the
height of the triangle, which is quite a bit less than the length of
one side.  (sqrt(3)/2 times as large, about .866).  It can thus easily
be dropped through its own hole by keeping it resting along one edge
of the hole.

There ARE geometrical figures other than circles whose cross-section
is constant at all points - Scientific American's Mathematical Games
section had articles on this years ago, with speculations about
carriages with wheels of this shape.  The simplest such figure is easy
to draw: Start with an equilateral triangle.  From each corner, draw a
circular arc joining the other two corners.  The resulting "bulging"
triangle has the required property.  As a result, it cannot fall into
its own hole if used as a manhole cover.  As I recall, such covers are
actually used somewhere!

BTW, someone brought up the issue of "non-sexist" names for manhole
covers.  There was an article in the paper about this a couple of days
ago.  It seems that some city - San Diego? - has adopted new language
for the things on all official city maps and drawings - something like
"service access portal".  The change started out as a joke which
someone took seriously.

            -- Jerry


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

From: Alan_Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Uniform International Dialing
Date: 27 Jun 90 17:51:22 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


While traveling in the San Diego area, I attempted to use a pay phone
to call into Mexico using a calling card.  Instead of a "bong", I was
connected to an operator, who informed me that I could not make a
calling card call to Mexico from a pay phone, because the pay phone
was located in a "high fraud area", and suggested that I find a
residence phone to use.


 Alan Sanderson      Hewlett-Packard AMSO    [e-mail]
 US Snail:           1266 Kifer Rd. MS102F      MaBell: 408-746-5714
                     Sunnyvale, CA 94086        FAX:    [phone]
 Disclaimer:  <Standard Disclaimer Applies>


[Moderator's Note: I wonder what made the idiot operator think that if
you had had a choice of residence or payphone to use you would have
chosen to stand in their filthy phone booth instead of sitting in
comfort in your home?  This odious practice -- of denying credit card
calls willy-nilly from payphones, particularly after phone credit
cards were advertised as a way to use public phones without having to
worry about having change -- will only stop, eventually, once the
telco in particular has been sued often enough and had to answer
enough Federal Trade Commission and FCC complaints.

Please note telcos have *no authority by tariff* to make a blanket
denial of credit based on the location or type of service (coin
phone). They are violating Federal Trade Commission rules everytime
they issue you a credit card and then refuse to honor it without
sending you a written letter of denial explaining why. Of course, they
are not about to explain in writing why they will serve the UK without
question and why they refuse to serve callers to (for example), Iran
on the same basis.

Telcos *hate* Small Claims Court (hint, hint). They consider it
beneath them. Take them there whenever you are denied credit in a
discriminatory way by an operator and inconvenienced as a result.
Force one of their attornies to have to spend the morning there, or
responding to an inquiry about illegal credit practices from the FTC.
AT&T has already settled with at least one customer on this.  PT]

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Surcharge
Date: 28 Jun 90 15:49:51 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Covert) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 457, Message 3 of 12

[ description of US Sprint operator assisted dialing for customers
  on rotary phones ]

>This could work with other LD companies *provided* they (1) offer
>routine operator services and (2) they have an 800 number to reach
>that operator.  MCI misses on item (1).  AT&T misses on item (2).

MCI has had similar capabilities for a while now.  I very rarely have
occasion to use it, so I don't remember the details and costs exactly,
but the method was essentially the same as Sprint's and I seem to
recall that if you said you were on a rotary phone, they wouldn't
charge the operator-assist fee.


David Bernholdt            [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 'COCOT' Style Payphones
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis, MO
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 17:20:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Blake
Farenthold) writes:

>number and it locks out the keypad (it really was annoying as the one
>call I made on it was to my voice mailbox and I couldn't retreive my
>messages).

When I was on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon all of the Pay Phones
were by Mountain West.  Some were traditional old style, and a number
had a LCD display attached.  What I found fascinating was that the
card on the phone indicated that since they did not provide long
distance service you needed to consult with "your long distance
carrier" for instructions about how to dial long distance calls - even
the phone books carried no instructions about how to make long
distance calls :-(

In fact 0+ dialing gave me ATT long distance :-), but when trying to
access an 800 service which required tone input, it would regularly
disconnect me after entering tones :-(


     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

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

From: William Kucharski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Users Now Get Immediate Credit
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont CO
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 19:09:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jason Chen <dduck!jchen@bellcore.
bellcore.com writes:

>You can get immediate credit ... if and only if you can get through
>their always-busy customer service. Yup, they have not changed a bit
>since I dropped them three years ago.

When's the last time you used Sprint -- three years ago?  I've had
reason to contact Sprint customer service a few times over the last
few months.  Twice I got right through, once I had to wait all of
fifteen seconds or so.  Big deal.


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

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 15:24:11 PDT
From: Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


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

>Lang Zerner <[e-mail]> writes:
>> ... PacBell has finally ... removed the "value-added" fee for Touch-Tone

>Oh? When did they remove it? I'm still paying it, last time I checked.

OK.  To be precise, PacBell announced in a bill-stuffer that Pac Bell
has applied to the PUC that the charge be removed.  The proposal still
gets to go through an open hearing and all the rest of the red tape.
Unfortunately, I did not save the notice, since it is not all that
important to me.

Nevertheless, John's message encouraged me to get mor detailed info
for others who may be more interested than I.  The Pac Bell employees
I spoke with did not seem to know much about application, except that
it had been sent to the CPUC (they no doubt got the same notice in
their bills :-).  The CPUC was a bit more helpful.  After calling the
CPUC (415/557-0647) and getting connected to the telecommunications
dept., I was transfered to Mr. Galen Dunham, "the man who really
knows about that."

While courteous and affable, Mr. Dunham did not even know the
application number of the proposal.  He was able to tell me that
similar proposals have come up in the past and failed to make the
tariffs mainly because of the cost of new plant.  Mr. Dunham explained
that eventually, the justification for the fee (cost of new plant)
will not be there anymore, at which point the tariff change will go
into effect.

Mr. Dunham then referred me to Ms. Pat Ma (415/557-3766) and Ms.
Sheila Otteson (415/557-1580), "the people who really know details
about the proposal").  I have been trying to reach them to get the
application number, but to no avail.  I've left a message with them,
and if they call back I will post what I learn.  Otherwise, I won't
bother, but interested parties now know how to contact them.

Be seeing you...

Lang Zerner           [e-mail]               415/594-9268

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

From: Eric Varsanyi <boulder!pikes!craycos.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Avoiding Unlisted Number Charge
Date: 28 Jun 90 19:54:18 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Kaplan)
writes:

>Could I not tell the phone company that I wish my number to be listed
>as Hugo Gorschonavitz?  Or as my own name spelled backward?  Or as Mr.
>Unlisted K. Number?  Or do they insist that I use my legal name as it
>appears on my bill?

    I didn't feel like paying the $2/mo to be unpublished, so I
told USWest that we wished to be listed under my wife's maiden name,
which (conveniently) was 'Smith' (I looked for the name with the most
pages in the directory). Since her name is Ami we are now listed as 'A
Smith', no address. They didn't hesitate or ask for any kind of proof.
They did allow me to not be listed in criss cross directory for no
charge.

    All this after a long argument about paying $2/mo. So far the
only call we've gotten for A Smith was from 611 repair (you would
think they have access to the actual records).


Eric Varsanyi ([e-mail])        Cray Computer Corporation

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Avoiding Unlisted Number Charge
Date: 29 Jun 90 02:51:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Some years ago we listed our phone in the name of our cat, Mehitabel.
We received many calls for Ms. DeKatte, and we generally responded
that she was out in the garage under the car, or in the front yard
climbing a tree, true responses generally.  The only time we had a
problem was when, one dark and stormy night, a salesman came to call
on our cat with a life insurance offer.  He was wet through, and I did
not have the heart to tell him who he was looking for (he wanted Miss
Mehitabel Dekkett) and we let him go back in the rain.

A good time was had by all.  This was the most fun I ever had since
the time I declared my house to be on daylight savings time and
demanded evening rates one hour earlier than the rest of Minnesota
from the phone company.  I made the Minneaplis Star(?) on that one.


| 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] |

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #460
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23585;
          29 Jun 90 4:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31362;
          29 Jun 90 3:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14168;
          29 Jun 90 1:48 CDT
Date:     Fri, 29 Jun 90 1:36:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #461
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 29 Jun 90 01:35:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 461

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom Off-Line [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Robert Kinne]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Jerry Leichter]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Jim McCauley]
    The Elusive Octothorpe Explained [Steve Pershing]
    Re: Answering Machine Security [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [Chris Williams]
    Re: Avoiding Unlisted Number Charge [John Higdon]
    Re: Junkmailed! [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Re: Infoworld, AT&T and Rumor Squelching [Sharon Fisher]
    Re: Last Laugh! "Telephone Fishing" [Jim McCauley]
    Phony Bell Wanted (Not a Bell Phone) [James Deibele]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 1:02:33 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Digest/comp.dcom.telecom Off-Line


TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are off line at this time while I
am away from my home for several days.

Publication of this news group will resume on July 7 or July 8. Please
do not send messages until July 7, as they cannot be printed until I
return and will only sit in an over-loaded mail queue.

Messages appearing from now through July 3 are simply REplies to
previously published articles.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator


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

From: Robert Kinne <boulder!boulder![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Date: 27 Jun 90 14:45:54 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Kinne <boulder!boulder![e-mail]>
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Erik Naggum)
writes:

>Prelude: "Octothorp" (sans final `e') is listed in (Merriam) Webster's
>Third New Int'l Dictionary with etymology "octo + thorp, of unknown
>origin; from the eight points on its circumference".  "Thorp(e)" is
>archaic for "village, hamlet", but that can't be it.

I have a lurking suspicion that the derivation may be from a proper
name.  Thorpe is a rather common family name in the UK and the US.
Perhaps at some earlier era a telephone engineer named Thorpe combined
the octo (eight) with his name to designate the symbol in a way which
avoids the confusion of some of the other usages which vary from
country to country.  Anyone have any knowledge, ideas, or folklore
along these lines?

>I've heard that the `#' symbol's meaning is context dependent:

>    #5    means "number five"
>    5#    means "five lbs (pounds)"

The latter is American usage.  The same symbol is also referred to as
'sharp', based on its usage in music (actually the symbol for sharp is
a bit skewed, but the octothorpe is a good approximation, as well as
can be done with ASCII or typewriters).  Most Americans will still
refer to # as 'pound sign'.  In the US, of course, pound is a unit of
force in the British Gravitational System of units (now archaic except
in the US).  Now everyone should be confused!

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

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 90 12:03:03 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe


 Several people noted (ahem) that # and the musical sharp sign were
"the same".  This is not quite true.  The musical sharp sign is
normally smaller and has its four lines at an angle to the vertical
and horizontal - often almost a 45 degree angle.  Even more noticable
is that the sharp is a superscript - it's not placed quite as high as,
say, a superscript 2 for "squared" - for one thing, it's bigger - but
it is definitely well above the baseline.

Obviously, different fonts will choose slightly different
representations for each character, so there may be some overlap.
However, the character is never raised (much) above the baseline when
used for "number" or "pounds", but is always raised when used for
"sharp".

BTW, yet another name for "#" is "hash mark".  Knuth uses that in The
TeXbook, for example.  Both "number sign" and "pound sign" appear in
the index marked "see hash mark".  (On the other hand, so does "sharp
sign".  However, an example in the book defines a \sharp macro as a
hash mark - but a hash mark raised above the baseline by .4 ex, .4
times the nominal height of an "x" character in the font.)


    -- Jerry

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

From: Jim McCauley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Date: 27 Jun 90 20:42:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino


In the index of `The TeXbook', Donald Knuth calls the <#> character
"hash mark."


Jim McCauley          [e-mail]       [phone]
Learning Products Engineer   Hewlett Packard Company, General Systems Division
MS 48SO, 19447 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino CA  95014
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not my employer's.

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

Subject: The Elusive Octothorpe Explained
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 21:49:39 PDT
Organization: The Questor Project


[e-mail] (Kari Hardarson) writes:

> I thought that the : # sign was called a 'Hash' mark before I came to
> the states. Maybe that's British English? Here in the States, a lot of
> my colleagues refer to it as the 'Pound sign', something that I can't
> understand since the pound sign is distinctly different. In UK-ASCII
> tables, the pound sign usually gets placed where the # is in American
> ASCII, that may explain something. Incidentally, in my language
> (Icelandic) we refer to the sign as 'The mill'. ;

The most creative name I ever saw for the # symbol was defined by
Northern Telecom, and as many readers know, it was "octothorpe".  The
meaning of the word was defined by NT as "an eight-cornered figure".

Since there are so many different names for the # symbol around the
world, NT wanted to be unique, and indeed they were.  I doubt that
anyone actually calls it by their name (octothorpe) *anywhere* in the
world.

Some years ago, after Bell Labs had defined the Touch-Tone dial, the
CCITT adopted it and the standard tones generated by it as a de facto
standard.  (Various branches of the US military use a different tone
matrix on similar dialling pads.)

The CCITT displayed (in the White Book, I believe), a 12-button
Touch-Tone dial with the # symbol appearing more as a slightly
stylized square, rather than identical to the #.  They then wisely
designated that symbol as the "square" symbol, and the key, as the
"square key".

Since my reading of that definition, I have always referred to it as
the "SQUARE KEY", and hardly anyone from anywhere in the world has
ever had any trouble figuring out what I was referring to when my
computerised answering device asks them to touch it.

So folks, why don't we all forget "pound", "number", et alia, and
start calling it what the official World Standard is.  Nothing like
being able to communicate clearly, eh wot?


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: Long-time Digest readers will recall that over a
year ago I put out a special issue entitled "Everything You Wanted to
Know About Octothropes" ... If I get many more messages on this topic
this time, another special issue will be required.   PT]

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

From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 04:44:38 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Security


[e-mail] (Fubar) writes:

> I have one of those answering machines with the autoretrieve code
> feature.  This feature cannot be turned off, nor can the code be
> changed. Someone is calling my home and retrieving as well as erasing
> my messages. Anyone have any ideas what I can do?

I'm afraid your only choice is to replace the machine. Is it one of
those that takes a single digit code? <ugh!>

While we're on this subject ... why _aren't_ those codes changable? My
Code-A-Phone 2600 has a 3-digit code, which is a tad bit more secure,
but I still cannot alter it. Seems a small 3-gang rotary switch, or even
some jumper blocks, would be easy enough to design in.


    Roy M. Silvernail      | Opinions found
    now available at:      | herein are mine,
 cybrspc![e-mail]    | but you can rent
(cyberspace... be here!)   | them.

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

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 90 15:24 CDT
From: Chris Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?

>Can one disable call waiting in New York if the *70 tone block feature
>didn't work?  Is there another way, this reeks havoc on data calls, as
>you can imagine.  I hate call waiting, that's why I wouldn't ever get
>it, but one of my news feeds has it, and it's quite annoying for him.

>[Moderator's Note: I don't think call waiting can be suspended if *70
>does not work, since that is what *70 is all about. But why would
>someone have ordered call waiting on a line used for a news feed in
>the first place?  He should call telco and have it removed.  PT]

Here in Texas, where GTE is the phone service, (at least in a couple of places
I know of - Denton and Irving are examples) you *must* have call-waiting. You
can't get rid of it. I just recently moved here from Fort Worth (SW Bell area),
and now I discover that I'm plauged with call-waiting!!!! aaauuugghhh! People
who live here have told me that I'm just stuck with it, that it was a fault of
the switches GTE uses... so, is there any way I could get my telco to remove
it?


chris williams, 'gilligan'     CGW@UNTVAX{.bitnet}  [e-mail]
programmer/operator            NTVAXB::CGW          UTSPAN::UTADNX::NTVAXB::CGW
university of north texas      at&t  : [phone]
denton, texas 76203

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Avoiding Unlisted Number Charge
Date: 27 Jun 90 21:31:06 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Jun 27 at  2:35, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Generally, telling them the phone will be listed in
> your roommate's name (or mother's name, etc) will work provided the
> name is (in their sole discretion) reasonable, 'real sounding' and
> unoffensive. If they suspect you are merely trying to circumvent the
> charge for a non-pub number, they may ask you to produce the person in
> whose name the service is to be listed, or offer proof that the name
> is correct.  PT]

Pac*Bell seems to take a slightly different stance on this. Recently,
I discovered that because my billing number on a consolidated group is
not the "public" number (a recent change) and the billing number is
unlisted, the "public" number (in my .signature) can no longer be
listed. In essence, I am now forced to pay for unlisting even though I
would like to have one of my phones listed.

My options (as suggested by the Pac*Bell rep):

1. Deconsolidate the billing.

2. List the billing number in a phony name (to avoid unlisting
   charges).

3. Make the "public" number the billing number.

4. List the billing number in a phony name (making it a "listed class
   of service") and then list my "public" number in my real name.

Number 4 is my avenue of choice, although the rep suggested that I
would start getting junk calls directed to my phony "person" on my
private line. Note that not only will they allow a phony listing, but
the rep even suggested it.


        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: Junkmailed!
Date: 28 Jun 90 02:55:47 GMT
Organization: Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services


 In a previous article, [e-mail] (David Tamkin)
writes:

>Someone who signed himself John David Galt (I see "John Galt" as a CB
>handle quite a bit, so it must be the name of some fictional
>character, and thus might not be the submitter's actual name) wrote in
>volume 10, issue 452, completely misunderstanding my position:

[Stuff deleted here]

Yes, John Galt is a fictional character from the novel, "Atlas
Shrugged" by Ayn Rynd.  (I'm not sure of spelling of the author's
name.  It's been about fifteen years since I read the book).  The plot
was kind of thick, but basically the guy was thought (until the end of
the novel) to be a fictitious person.  In the book, it was very common
to see the phrase, "Who is John Galt?" scrawled as graffiti in a
decaying world.  As I recall, he turned out to be a brilliant engineer
who had dedicated himself to saving the world and was using a very
non-conventional approach.


  -dave

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

From: Sharon Fisher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Infoworld, AT&T and Rumor Squleching
Date: 28 Jun 90 21:39:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Sharon Fisher)
Organization: The Asylum; Belmont, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert M.
Hamer) writes:

>On Mon, 25 Jun 90 16:21 CDT, [e-mail] wrote:

>>Many of us are still seething about the Infoworld blurb in "Notes from
>>It also seems that Robert Cringely's account was inaccurate in many
>>respects.  First, the crash occured in January, not February; second,
>If anyone wants to tell Robert Cringely how unhappy he or she is with
>the story, his e-mail address is [e-mail]

This was being discussed on another system I visit.  I used to work at
InfoWorld, so I gave Bob a call to let him know what was happening.
He says he's gotten *lots* of calls about this -- including some from
AT&T -- telling him how wrong he'd been.  However, his source for the
story continues to swear it's true.  (As of last week.)  Anyway, I
suggested that he could give me some sort of reference to pass out to
people who could provide information about this -- in other words,
that InfoWorld might want to assign a story on this (as opposed to a
mention in a gossip column) and that I'd be glad to propogate the
contact information.  However, he hasn't gotten back to me about who
would handle the story.

If it weren't for the insistence of the source, though, he said he
would have been perfectly willing to run a retraction on it.

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

From: Jim McCauley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! "Telephone Fishing"
Date: 27 Jun 90 20:22:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino


Last Laugh (not-so-funny dept.):

Magneto-type telephones remain to this day a favorite instrument of
torture in many nations throughout the world.  The wires are attached
to the genitalia (of both male and female prisoners).  Graduated
application of voltage is considered a fine art among torturers, many
of whom were trained at American taxpayers' expense by our
international ambassadors, the CIA.

Amnesty International has documented the use of these instruments.
It's not pleasant reading.


Jim McCauley          [e-mail]       [phone]
Learning Products Engineer
Hewlett Packard Company, General Systems Division
MS 48SO, 19447 Pruneridge Avenue, Cupertino CA  95014
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not my employer's.

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

From: James Deibele <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phony Bell Wanted (Not a Bell Phone)
Date: 27 Jun 90 21:14:21 GMT
Reply-To: James Deibele <[e-mail]>
Organization: TECHbooks - Beaverton, Oregon - Public Access Unix


I have call-waiting on my phone line.  When someone calls, I get a
little beep in my ear, but the person I'm talking to doesn't hear
anything.  Where I had phone service before, the caller could hear a
noticeable click.  Many people knew what that "click!" meant, and
would pause and ask if I needed to get the other call.  Since I don't
have the click anymore, and some people don't ever give me the chance
to get a word in edgewise, I'd like to have a bell that sounds like a
phone ringing --- I'd like to keep it next to the phone, and push (or
pull or turn) it as needed.  Of course, if I could use it to escape
from telemarketers and assorted other goons, well, that would be OK
too.

Has anybody seen such a thing?  At a reasonable price?

Thanks!

[e-mail]  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}!techbook!jamesd
Public Access UNIX at [phone] (1200/2400) Voice: [phone]
Technical books mailing list --- mail "techbook!tbj-request"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #461
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07917;
          30 Jun 90 9:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27182;
          30 Jun 90 2:22 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16606;
          30 Jun 90 1:12 CDT
Date:     Sat, 30 Jun 90 0:06:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #462
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 30 Jun 90 00:04:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 462

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Red-Lining of Card Calls From Payphones [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: International Calling Using Credit Card [Subbarayu Darisipudi]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Tim Steele]
    Re: FCC Responds to Individual Complaints About AOSs [Ronald L. Fletcher]
    Re: Number of NXX in Each NPA [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Number of NXX in Each NPA [Dave Esan]
    Cringely's Not the Enemy (Was: Infoworld, ATT Rumor) [jt]
    Re: Cellular Multiplexing & Cellular Modems [pyuxp!towernet!rigel!tiprvt]
    What is Telex? Is There an E-Mail Interface? [Allan B. Spiegel]
    TELECOM is Off Line Until July 8 [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 23:12:16 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Red-Lining of Card Calls From Payphones


In recent issues of the Digest, people have mentioned their inability
to use the AT&T Calling Card from certain payphones in the United
States to call certain foreign countries.

Sometimes payphones reject credit card calls to one country, while
allowing the same type of call to other countries.

Is this sort of red-lining legal? Is it discriminatory to block calls
to, for example, Mexico or Colombia, while allowing the same payphone
to handle calls to the UK or France?  Is it discriminatory to allow
residents in one part of town to make credit card calls from payphones
while refusing other credit-worthy citizens in another neighborhood
the right to do the same thing?  Since the Universal Card is a
bona-fide credit card (in addition to its role as a phone card), are
there violations of Federal Trade Commission regulations when AT&T
refuses to extend credit (in this case both as the credit grantor as
well as the seller) based on arbitrary red-lining of certain
neighborhoods?

In a phone conversation Friday with AT&T Public Relations, I asked
these questions and more. Someone is supposed to get back to me soon
with answers.  You will be the first to hear them, once I get back
from out of town next week ... provided AT&T has replied.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

From: Subbarayu Darisipudi <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Calling Using Credit Card
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 15:30:36 GMT


With reference to the discussion going on to make international calls
using calling/credit cards, let me relate my experiences. I have tried
making calls both long distance within the US and overseas with a
couple of different cards.

Using AT&T card:
For long distance calls:

From pay phones: Dial 0 + Area Code + Number. A tone or message
follows. Then punch in the calling card number. This is valid from pay
phones with AT&T as their long distance carrier. If the carrier is not
AT&T, then precede the above procedure with 10288 to access AT&T.

For international calls: Dial 01 + Country Code + Area/City Code +
Number. When prompted with tone or message enter the calling
card/credit card number.

Using the Universal Card of AT&T:

For long distance within the US: Dial 0 + Area Code + Number. Then
enter the calling card number and the "PIN" (Personal Identification
Number) after the tone. If the phone does not have AT&T as the long
distance carrier, then precede the above process with 10288 to access
At&T.

For international calls: The same process is applied except that
instead of starting with 0 , you dial 01.  Note: If you dial 011 when
calling international numbers, the call is sent to the operator who
then directs the call after taking your number and calling card number
orally.

Using the MCI card

For long distance calls within the US: Dial 950-1022 to access the MCI
network.  A tone follows indicating that you are using MCI. After the
tone dial 0 + area code + number. After a few seconds another tone
follows. Now enter the 14 digit calling card code. At the end of the
14th digit, a confirmatory tone is heard if the code is correct and
then the call is setup. If the code is incorrect a message follows
asking you to verify the code.

For international calls: Dial 950-1022. After tone dial 01 + Country
Code + City Code + Number. After tone, dial the 14 digit code. All
these work only on touch tone phones. When you use a rotary phone,
dial 950-1022 and wait for the operator or dial 1-800-950-1022 and the
operator will complete the call.

Using Sprint card:

For long distance calls within the US: Dial 1-800-877-8000. Wait for
the "COMPUTER" tone. Dial 0 + Area Code + Phone number. Wait for the
tone. (Is it another "COMPUTER" tone??!!!) Then dial the 14 digit code
to set up the call.

For international calls: I have tried to call up India using the card
and a message follows immediately after the country code that you
cannot call India using a calling card or from a pay phone but you can
call only if you have a direct Sprint line connected to your phone.

As far as their instructions go, the following process needs to be
adopted:

Dial 1-800-877-8000. Listen for COMPUTER tone.
Dial 01 + Country Code + City Code + Number + # button. Listen for tone.
Dial 14 digit code.

This is based upon my experiences using the different calling cards
from Norman, Oklahoma. The procedures may probably vary in different
locations.


Subbarayudu D


[Moderator's Note: Although we know that Sprint will not accept their
own Foncard using one plus (when defaulted to Sprint) or 10333
dialing, what about MCI? Can they handle their card calls via 10222
and/or one plus defaults?  PT]

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

From: Tim Steele <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Organization: Tadpole Technology plc
Date: 29 Jun 90 11:13:17


Point in favour of British Telecom (gosh, they need them!): TT service
is FREE on those exchanges that are TT equipped (conversion is taking
some time, but many exchanges are now TT compatible).

Point against: the charges for "Star Services" (three way, code
calling &c) are confusing (they charge more than their brochure
says!), convoluted (I defy anyone to work out what a particular
package will cost!) and too high (but then I would say that, wouldn't
I?!).  The full package (from memory) is UK#16.52 per quarter plus 15%
VAT (sales tax).  Too much.


Tim

[e-mail]        ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!tadtec!tjfs
Tadpole Technology plc, Science Park, Milton Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 4WQ
Phone: [phone]   Fax: [phone]   Telex: 817316 TADTEC G

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 12:38:36 EDT
From: Ronald L Fletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Responds to Individual Complaints About AOSs
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wm Randolph
Franklin) writes:

> >Before writing my letter, I telephoned both ATT and FCC to determine
> >the law.  FCC said unequivocally that the hotel phones must handle
> >10xxx properly.  However ATT waffled; they commiserated with me but
> >didn't they that the hotel had to connect me to them.  Why would they
> >not assert their rights?

In article <[e-mail]>, unhd!unhtel![e-mail] (Paul
S. Sawyer) writes:

> Maybe it's because ATT's PBX's (e.g. System 85) can't handle 9-10288, etc....

Of course they can. They can dial any number they have been allowed to
dial by the dial plan and routing administration. If there was an
equal access number that had been restricted through hard-coding, I
can assure you it would not be 10288.


            Ron Fletcher
            att!mtgzy!rlf

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

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 90 13:43:41 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number of NXX in Each NPA
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


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

|> 704 apparently does NOT require 11 digits for ALL toll calls?  919 does.

When 11-digit intra-NPA long distance dialing became mandatory earlier
this year in NC, an insert in my Southern Bell phone bill said it
applied to BOTH area codes (919 and 704).


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: Re: Number of NXX in Each NPA
Date: 29 Jun 90 19:16:12 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 459, Message 8 of 14

>"10 digit" should apparently be "11 digit".

Actually 10 digit is correct.  The eleventh digit is the access code,
which technically should not be included.

>908 is already included? 201/908 split hasn't taken place yet.

Ah, but the 908 NPA is diallable from many places in the US, and is
already included in the BellCore V&H tape.  As a matter of fact it has
been there since 1/15/90.

>903 is already included? 214/903 split hasn't taken place yet.

The 903 NPA was included in the 7/15/90 tape.

>Does 202 still include Md. and Va. suburbs?

Virginia was excluded early this year, Maryland by October.

>704 apparently does NOT require 11 digits for ALL toll calls?  919 does.

I noted that I was not sure of all the NPA's requiring the NPA for
inter-NPA calls.

>706 and 905 included?  (They are still used at this time for Mexico?)

They will be in use until 2/91.

>602 (Arizona) requires 11 digits for toll calls within it.
>313 (Michigan) reduced toll calls within it to 7 digits.

Please note my comment above for 919.

>Perhaps you meant + to mean "has N0X/N1X prefixes, but no split
>planned yet".  201, which does have a split coming, has N0X/N1X
>prefixes, but uses seven digits for toll calls within it.

No, I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. (Ooops, I stole that
from Dr. Seuss in "Horton Hears a Who".)  The plus meant that 10 digit
calling was required for intra-NPA, non-local calls.  I can check for
NPA's with nxx's that look like npa's, but I did not chose to at this
time.


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

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 16:43 CDT
From:  jt <TK0JUT1%NIU.BITNET
Subject: Cringely's Not the Enemy (Was: Infoworld; ATT Rumor)


Since I wrote the note about Bob Cringely's Infoworld article, I've
finally been able to communicate with him. His explanation for using
the source's comments is convincing and, given who the source was, he
had every reason do assume it credible. He seems caught in the middle
of a situation that bothers him, and my sense is that he doesn't have
a lot of options.  Sharon's suggestion that Infoworld do a "real"
story seems the best solution to all of this.  Perhaps we've caused
Bob enough grief, and he's taken it from all sides.  Those of us
critical of the Infoworld article might consider encouraging the
editor to follow and report on the issues.

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

From: pyuxp!towernet!rigel![e-mail]
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 08:42:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Cellular Multiplexing and Cellular Modems
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


A multiple of ten requires physical changes in a cellular network, I
believe.  From what I've read, the digital conversion will provide a
multiple of three in capacity for the same channel.  The conversion
will take place within the existing analog cellular band and channel
scheme.

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 18:57:20 EDT
From: Allan B Spiegel <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Is Telex? Is There an E-Mail Interface?
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901


 From time to time an article will give someone's telex number.  What
is this, how does it work and how do I use it?  Is there some magic
e-mail address that I can send mail to that will turn it into a telex
like I can do for fax numbers?  Thanks.  I prefer e-mail responses.


[Moderator's Note: Telex, and its close relatives TWX and telegrams
are the oldest forms of e-mail in the world! Telegrams go back over a
century, and Telex/TWX, which is simply the use of the 'telegraph
network' directly by subscribers, without operator handling or
intervention, goes back over half a century. Western Union's network,
i.e. the (Tel)egraph (Ex)change was met with competition from the old
Bell System's (T)ype(W)riter E(X)change many years ago. Bell sold TWX
to Western Union. And of course, in recent years there are numerous
other telex companies operating here and in other countries. And yes,
there are 'magic email addresses' you can use: Both AT&T Mail and MCI
Mail offer telex <==> email <==> FAX <==> US Mail interconnections.
In case you were wondering, FAX is the (FA)csimile E(X)change.

You can also subscribe to EasyLink, which is Western Union's own email
service, and have a 'virtual TWX connection' in the process, with a
TWX network number aliased to your EasyLink mailbox. You can likewise
have a Telex number aliased to your AT&T Mail or MCI Mail box.
Sprint's GTE/Telemail likewise offers in/outbound telex. Telex/TWX are
gradually becoming obsolete and out of favor with business people who
prefer the speed of email at 2400/9600 baud and the preciseness and
literal qualities of FAX.   PT]

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

Date: Fri, 29 Jun 90 22:57:17 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM is Off Line Until July 8


TELECOM Digest and the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup is off line until
July 8, since I will be away from home most of next week.

Digests published between now and July 2 will include 'last minute'
messages and REplies to earlier messages. You may resume sending
messages to this newsgroup after July 7.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #462
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27305;
          1 Jul 90 12:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32110;
          1 Jul 90 10:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25233;
          1 Jul 90 9:21 CDT
Date:     Sun, 1 Jul 90 8:33:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #463
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 1 Jul 90 08:32:14 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 463

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Mysterious Disconnection [Rob Warnock]
    Telephone Company/Credit Card Tie-Ins [Jeff Jonas]
    Power Out Device [David Dodell]
    DTMF Decoder [John Lefor]
    Re: Manhole Covers [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Motorola Plans Global Cellular Thrust [Michael Gammal]
    Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed? [TELECOM Moderator]
    Temporary Re-route and Resulting Problems [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 04:12:34 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mysterious Disconnection
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


A mysterious thing happened to me a couple of days ago. I woke up to
discover my primary home telephone was dead -- no battery voltage. (My
modem line was still o.k.) After checking to make sure I'd paid my
bill (!), I called repair service.

[From the old-Telco-habits-die-hard file: Them: "What time will
someone be home to let the repair person into the house?" Me: "I've
checked at the demarc and there's no dial tone and no battery
voltage." Them: "<pause> Oh. Okay. Is there a number where we can we
call you to let you know when we've fixed it?"  Me: "<my mobile
number>."]

About an hour later I get a call on the mobile. It's the repairman,
who says it's all fixed. Now here's the strange thing. He says that
out on the pole the "jumper" [didn't say whether it was a bridging
clip or a real pair of wires] was missing! Just gone. Not there. He
declined to provide any speculation as to how such a thing had
happened.

My question: Do such things happen often? I can understand the horror
stories I've heard about pair-starved apartment buildings in downtown
Chicago or New York, but this is in a medium-low-density
"single-family dwelling" neighborhood 25 miles away from a "real"
city. (O.k., San Mateo's a city, but it's not San Francisco or San
Jose. It's not even Palo Alto!) I have a 6-pair drop cable to the
house (of which only two happen to be live these days).

Is this likely to have been an installer's random goof? ... or some
sort of vandalism? ... or a prelude to a burglary?

Just paranoid I guess.


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: Is it possible it was somehow loose / not properly
attached and eventually worked its way off and fell to the ground?
Have you noticed any difference in the behavior (or lack of it) in the
other pairs which you say are not currently active coming from the
pole? I would attribute it to error.  PT]

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

From: Jeff Jonas <synsys![e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Company/Credit Card Tie-ins
Date: 30 Jun 90 05:14:50 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Jonas <synsys![e-mail]>
Organization: Jeff's House of Electronic Parts


A news item from AT&T's newsline (800-2ATT-NOW):

AT&T's Universal Card has gotten twice the response anticipated.
[surprise!  When were AT&T's forecasts ever right, such as
anticipating the demand of the PC6300 during the employee fire-sale?]

Citibank and other banks are trying to retaliate, crying "foul" that
AT&T is in the credit card business.  In response, Citibank is now
offering a tie-in between MCI and its VISA card, but has no intention
of reducing their fees.  (Did Citibank switch from AT&T to MCI in
response to the Universal Card offering?  Some feared that AT&T
offended some of their banking customers by competing with them in the
credit card arena.  Then again, some financial institutions made their
own telecommunications network, such as the NY Teleport as reported in
the TELECOM Digest.)  American Express has offered MCI's "Expressphone"
for a while now, so the link between credit cards and phone service is
not new.  The AT&T Universal card is free for those who enroll this
year, and offers 10% discount on calling card calls.  The others offer
no discounts.

I'd say that AT&T succeeded in upsetting Citibank and all the other
overpriced credit cards.  Good going!

The phone company is not just technology.  It's finance too.


Jeffrey Jonas
[e-mail]


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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 09:45:56 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Power Out Device


I am looking for a device that I could plug into my home's AC outlet,
and if power goes off, it would automatically dial a programmed phone
number, and perhaps say with a synthesized voice: "The power is out".


I know this would have to be battery operated (or at least a float).
Any suggestions?

David

          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
    Internet: [e-mail]       FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: There are commercial devices available which allow
what you want, and also accept incoming calls to tell you about the
temperature at the place where the device is located, then allow you
to listen to background noise for thirty seconds or so. In the event
of some problem (usually a choice of three or four problems) they call
out to up to four(?) different phones, and keep calling until someone
presses certain tones on the phone to reset the device.  PT]

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

From: John Lefor <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 21:05:28 BST
Subject: DTMF Decoder


In a recent issue, a Telecom reader asked for a service which would be
able to decode DTMF tones.  My understanding was that he wanted to be
able to figure out what number an autodialer was dialing without
risking calling the local fire department.

I have rigged up what I call a DTMF decoder service that anyone is
welcome to use but I would appreciate a few tests before announcing it
to the world.  If you think this would be useful to Telecom readers
and are willing to be a tester here is how it works:

        1) Call 716-248-5269
        2) An answering system will answer with a message "You have
           reached Tele-Ware Corporation for ...."
        3) At this point you can press "4" on the touch pad and
           you should get the message "DTMF decoder enter DTMF
           tones now" (or something like that).
        4) Wait about 0.5 seconds then send some DTMF tones.
        5) About 5 seconds after the last key is pressed you will
           get a message "You sent ...." reading off the tones
           you sent.  The system will accept a maximum of 22 keys
           per sent tones.  The "*" reads as "asterisk" and the
           "#" reads as "number".
        6) You get sent back to the "DTMF decoder ..." message
           and you can enter more DTMF tones or hang up.

All this for just the cost of a phone call.

Please understand this is the answering system for my business.  It
gets very little traffic so I am happy to offer this service.  If
things get out of hand I will have to discontinue it.  But if it looks
interesting and useful I have no objection to making it available.

PS - The system is actually an IBM PC with the IBM Voice Communications
Option (the worlds most expensive answering machine).  I programmed the
answering system and I add feature as I see fit.  This one seemed fun
and useful.

I program ... therefore I am.


John Lefor        University of Rochester        Dept of E. Engineering
716-275-8265    [e-mail]        uunet!ur-valhalla!jal


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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 1 Jul 90 04:23:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:

>Hold the lid with one edge vertical, and it will go in just fine if
>placed next to one edge of the opening.  So an equilateral triangle
>*doesn't* work.

Uh ... on that basis, a circle doesn't either.  The diameter will allow a
circle of the same diameter to pass edge on.  On the other hand, most
REAL *hole covers I have seen are set into a flanged ring that has a
smaller diameter than the maximum diameter of the cover.  Presumably
this is to insure that the covers stay flush with the street, and
don't fall to the bottom of the hole.  I imagine that triangular
covers are installed similarly.  Based on this discussion, I think I
am glad that computer scientists or telephone engineers did not design
these things.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Michael Gammal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola Plans Global Cellular Thrust
Organization: None
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 04:41:12 GMT


I don't trust Motorola's world-wide plans! (World Cellular)

Sounds like a nice way for espionage!

Think about it...

Every single user has their own coding....

Thus can locate any individual anywhere!

Talk about tracking ... among other things....

Such as the fact that since it can receive calls the tracking is
simple since no need for the phone call to originate with the user.

FBI, CSIS, CIA, KGB, you name it!

It is will also be useful when they develop cellular mini-belt and
watch phones.

Terrorists can be tracked in seconds!!!  Anyone on a plane can be
tracked and won't even know it. A hijacking is what I refer to.


Michael Gammal      Apple //e & Atari Enthusiast      Dawson College
[e-mail]      qp qp qp qp qp qp qp         Montreal, Que.
                db Support Nature db         Canada

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 90 8:23:10 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed?


Word has been reaching us the past few days of the tragic fires
burning though parts of California, and the most disturbing news is
that apparently much of the town of Santa Barbara is in ashes. Perhaps
someone in the area could let us know what the effect has been on
telco service in that area, and other parts of the state.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 30 Jun 90 23:43:34 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Temporary Re-route and Resulting Problems


Due to a temporary problem with the Usenet gateway machine here at
Northwestern, the comp.dcom.telecom messages are being re-routed via
another account at cs.bu.edu.

When I found that messages were not leaving here and being accepted
and re-distributed by accuvax (the news machine at nwu), I took over
thirty messages (three issues of the Digest) to my account at
cs.bu.edu to send them out. Then the fun began: Although Pnews at
cs.bu did accept the messages, an old .signature file had been
forgotten about, and it reared its ugly head at the bottom of each
message in issue 460, which explains the odd additions the Usenet
people saw on those messages.

But that is not all: Since some of the messages had been sitting in
the queue here, waiting for accuvax to accept them for a couple days,
a few places on the net have received no comp.dcom.telecom messages
for three or four days. Now I suppose they are getting flooded with
them from the backlog. Of course when no messages go out, I get no
messages in return, which explains the skimpy issue you are reading
now. Just the kind of trouble I need two days before leaving town!

Please remember telecom will be off-line through July 8. Please HOLD
new messages until next weekend before sending them in.  Thanks.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #463
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01795;
          2 Jul 90 7:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19534;
          2 Jul 90 2:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26371;
          2 Jul 90 1:26 CDT
Date:     Mon, 2 Jul 90 0:59:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #464
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 2 Jul 90 00:58:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 464

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What Is Telex? Is There an E-Mail Interface? [Donald Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 1 Jul 90 22:56 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Is Telex? Is There an E-Mail Interface?
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


In article (Digest V10, Iss 462), Allan Spiegel writes:

>From time to time an article will give someone's telex number.  What
>is this, how does it work and how do I use it?  Is there some magic
>e-mail address that I can send mail to that will turn it into a telex
>like I can do for fax numbers?  Thanks.  I prefer e-mail responses.

 ..and our Moderator provides a short summary. Here is mine,
attempting to flesh out the matter for better understanding ... and
hopefully, use, by this readership. In fact, this writing is
extemporaneous, so there are gaps some others may be able to fill:

        As our Moderator's response said, Telex certainly should be
called the original form of E-Mail. Far from "dead" on a global basis,
UN reports published in the "Brittanica Book of the Year" indicate
there are about three million Telex lines around the globe.  Contrary
to the impression international telephone people like to create,
direct, immediate access via Telex still exists to more of the world's
political entities than does telephone.  This has been the case for
many years. (Totalitarian governments must like Telex; they have been
known to shut down telephone service, but not Telex.  The suspected
reason: It can be monitored with hard copy easily, and has often been
done,too.  Of course, they themselves use it for military messages.)

        Telex sprang from the same source as the Volkswagon automo-
bile: The creative growth era of the early Third Reich. It was devised
as a means to distribute military command and control messages and
data in a time before we even had a structure for data processing
machinery.  What existed at that point in time was 45.5 bps Baudot
automatic telegraphy and dial-pulsing telephone exchanges.  The
original Telex was essentially (director-controlled; yes, the
Europeans were doing that then) rotary telephone switches modified to
carry DC telegraph lines, providing a switched service for
teletypewriters in the same way as was done for telephones.

        There was one major difference: Intercity transmission
facilites were expensive and in short supply, and one analog telephone
circuit between cities could carry 24 (and in some applications, 25)
telegraph channels bearing Telex.  The economics are obvious, and
probably are what keep Telex important in the Third World today.

        In that era of transparent analog transmission lines, Telex
was easily able to use telephone dial-pulsing on the local telegraph
loops followed by Baudot teletype for the messages ... and it did.
Hence, this form of Telex operation became known as "type A Telex
signaling." It is still used that way in many nations.  In those you
will see a teleprinter with a control box that has a telephone dial.
When Western Union decided it had should enter into Telex in the U.S.,
it adopted the original style and Type A signaling.  Similarly, many
other Europeans adopted Type A operations, among them the U.K., France
and Belgium as well as others.  Meantime, (I think it was L. M.
Ericsson leading the move for) others saw an opportunity to simply use
the numerics on the keyboard for call set-up, thus some nations
adopted what became known as "Type B" Telex.  By this time, the CCITT
had taken charge and was setting international agreements, one of
which was to set the speed of international Baudot circuits at 50
Baud, instead of 45.5. Some few nations were many years behind in
upspeeding. In this writer's experience, Cuba and Pakistan are
remembered as still running 45.5 Baud Telex trunks even into the
1970's.

        Telex grew around the world very rapidly ... long before
automatic telephony, again most likely due to its economics of channel
usage.  Considerable networks of Telex on HF (shortwave) radio to
then-remote areas of Africa, the Middle East and Asia were established
by the government-owned PTTs, operating non-stop with error-correcting,
retransmitting time division multiplexers per CCITT Recommendation
R.44 (so what's new about TDM ... Baudot built his first one in 1873,
three years _before_ Bell's telephone.  Check it out, unbelievers!),
with the common name "TOR" for "Telex Over Radio."  Readers who are
SWL's certainly hear of TOR, SITOR and Telex Mux on shortwave radio
today ... there's still plenty around and on the air.

        Also, the broad reach and universality of Telex around the
world lead to the CCITT establishing the global network of
International Telegram (commonly called Cablegram; RCA's product on
its original shortwave radio was the Radiogram) channels on a switched
network overlay of Telex called "Gentex."  That's right: Your
international cablegram goes on Telex, too.  It's simply Telex
channels dialed up permanently between telegram offices.  The beauty
is that of any switched service: Restoration in case of channel
failure is simply dialing up another call.

        The result of all this is that Telex was, and remains in many
nations, _the_ mediumn of communications for business and both civil
and military government use.  Airlines using the PARS (and
internationally IPARS) reservations systems still run Baudot code
today (although many lines have changed to high-speed modem traffic),
because their plain-language text transmissions use only 7.5 bits per
character, compared to the 11 bits of CCITT International Alphabet 5
(known as ASCII in colloqial North America).  The economics are
obvious.  In many nations, the total minutes of international Telex
still today exceeds that of international telephone traffic.  Business
uses Telex more than most Americans understand.  West Germany has had
more than 400,000 Telex lines for years, while the U.S. at its peak
could count only 345,000 Telex _and_ TWX subscribers.  Americans
simply grew up as sociological prisoners of "the phone," under a
hegemony that taught them anything else must be insignificant.

        Almost in parallel with the 1930's development of Telex, Bell
interests saw the possibilities and decided to do Telex one better.
Bell Labs was commissioned to develop a simialr service, using dial
pulse selection. It became known as Teletypewriter Exchange Service,
or TWX.  (In fact, Bell beat WUTCo to the marketplace punch and WUTCo
came along later with Telex in the U.S.)  The original TWX ran 75 bps
with Baudot code and dial selection, until Bell Labs got its second
generation ready. That one, called "four-row TWX" in telephone
parlance, used *modems* called "101 Data Sets" (that's right, Daddy of
the 103!) on two-wire ordinary telephone subscriber lines run to
special exchanges called a WADS (Wide Area Data Service) exchange in
each major city, where the billing and such was done.  Actually, a
WADS exchange was a partition of one local telephone exchange in the
city. Because it was using the Public Switched Telephone Network (DDD
in American parlance, TWX was given reserved area codes ... 510, 610,
710, 810 and 910.  Some few remote locations on TWX are still on those
area codes.

        Four-row TWX used 11-bit characters to provide an expanded
code set including "control characters" that permitted the TWX machine
to be operated much like an office typewriter ... more so than Telex
and its Baudot limitations that at best used CCITT-standardized
"character strings" to provide some degree of functionality beyond
plain text (see the CCITT F, R and S Series of Recommenda- tions). The
control characters of TWX provided paragraph indents, form feeds and
such that Telex never really had.  And, with Four-Row TWX,
transmission (on the 101 Data Set) was upped to 110 bps, and the code
provided VRC "parity" error-checking. (One can show that 110 bps with
11-bit characters is equivalent to about 140-150 words per minute, a
typing speed only Olympic-class typists could achieve on mechanical
typewriters.)  Even so, the "TWX code" had only 93 of its 128 possible
characters assigned.

        It just so happened that when the computer era came along,
Bell's Teletype Corporation (at Skokie, Il, purchased from Dr.
Kleinschmidt to get a supply of teleprinters for TWX) had its Model 33
teleprinter in production for TWX.  That was, in its time, the
cheapest keyboard instrument readily available for the then-"new"
computer business.  The Model 33 teleprinter and its mechanically-
embedded TWX code became the _de_facto_ I/O device for the computer.
The computer people early on wanted use of all the character
combinations in the code, so Teletype obliged with modifications for
computers.  Thus ASCII was born of TWX code, and it ultimately became
CCITT International Telegraph Alphabet Number 5.  The IA5 definitions
in the CCITT books vary from ASCII only in wording. Study of both
ASCII and IA5 can show roots of most of the character combinations
back to Baudot (or its CCITT character strings) and even manual
telegraphy.

However, computer programmers and computer mux makers who don't
understand this have often done some horrible things to uses of the
code, causing products that alienate people from data communications;
wondering why their products don't migrate well or why people have
trouble understanding them.  There is a certain beauty of human logic
in using these codes properly.  They grew out of manual operations in
sending messages.  One can even see in IBM's BCDIC and later EBCDIC an
emulation of what was in the telegraphic codes, but I doubt IBMer's
for their part would admit that.

        While Telex was the rest of the world, insular America grew
with its parallel Telex of WUTCo and TWX of Bell.  Because Bell was
strictly limited to dial telephony only for international business,
and because WUTCo had given up its international operations in a 1939
deal to monopolize domestic telegraph business by taking over ITT's
Postal Telegraph (which was a thorn in WUTCo's side), the U.S.
developed a unique sort of "international telegraph" company known as
an "International Record Carrier." The IRC's were an interesting
catch-all sort of firm; an American answer to "how do we get a regu-
latory handle on all these characters?"  Some were US-based, like
WUTCo's "Cable System" that became Western Union International when
sold off as a result of the 1939 Postal Telegraph deal.  Others had
"just been there," like ITT's World Communications that had been a
gaggle of companies with names like Federal Telegraph, All American
Cables and Radio, Globe Wireless, Press Wireless, and the common
carrier part of Mackay Marine.  RCA Communications had been around
specializing largely in spanning the Pacific with radio as well as
generally reaching ships and other places by radio telegraphy; today
it is the RCA Globecom subsidiary of MCI (as is WUI, calling itself
MCI International).  Tropical Radiotelegraph grew out of putting radio
telegraph on shipboard before WWI so its owners, the United Fruit
Company of Boston could divert shiploads of bananas to the best market,
expanding to communications to its plantations, then becoming in
some nations the public telegraph and international telephone company
of the nation; today it is TRT Telecommunications.  The French
Telegraph Cable Company, owned by French investors in the PTT had been
in the U.S. since the days of Monsier Puyer-Quartier laying telegraph
cables from France to the U.S., hence its telegraphic routing address,
PQ. Even the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company owned its own IRD, the
Trans-Liberia Radiotelegraph Company, operating HF radio from Akron to
its rubber plantations in Liberia.  (TL is still there in Akron, as a
matter of fact.)

        All these firms formed the U.S. IRC business and enjoyed a
period of regulated competitiveness for thirty years or so. They were the
Telex interface between the U.S. and the world, all connecting out to
WUTCo Telex and (by performing "protocol conversion" long before
computers did so,) Bell TWX.  International Telex users were
confronted with some typical American confusion ... they had to prefix
their Telex calls to America with added digits to steer their call via
the IRC of their choice (in most nations) and then to either Telex or
TWX for the U.S. domestic connection.

        All that had to change when Congress "deregulated" the IRC's
in 1982, four years before telephony had a similar change.  Restric-
tions on AT&T providing only telephony were lifted; the IRC's were
freed to operate anyplace as compared to a limited number of "gateway
cities," WUTCo was permitted to go international once again, and
everybody could compete for any kind of business.

        That's what has happened in America, so you can call FTCC
(formerly French Cable) as well as relative newcomers to the U.S.
market like Cable & Wireless (from the U.K.) and ask them what deal
they will offer in competition to AT&T or WUTCo, either domestically
or internationally, for voice, data or video.

        International Telex remains a basic business.  The various
companies made various deals to interface to their Telex connections.
MCI's is, of course, via WUI, the first IRC that MCI bought.
AT&TMail's is via TRT. Along the evolutionary course of the later days
of the IRC business, a firm was established called Graphic Scanning
(IRC's have always tried to do something with facsimile, long before
Group III machines made them the Office Toy of 1990, and Graphic
Scanning got into the IRC field in this way), and Graphnet is
Telenet's Telex connection.

        As our moderator said, the E-Mail services all "alias" your
E-Mail address to their IRC connection.  It's usually your numeric
E-Mail address with a fixed prefix.  Example: My own AT&TMail numeric
is 7281481. Its Telex alias is 157281481. On MCIMail, my numeric is
4133373,and its Telex alias is 650-4133373.

        The global Telex network has had since inception a handy
"confirmation' convention called "Who Are You?" and each Telex machine
is encoded with an "automatic answerback" that lets you know on
connection and whenever you ask (WRU in Baudot; <ctrl-E> in ASCII)
what machine you are connected to.  So, if you are an E-Mail user,
your overseas correspondent will want to know your "network"and
"answerback."  That's usually the Telex code for the IRC you're with
and your E-Mail aplha address.  So, mine on MCIMail is MCI UW
dkimberlin and on AT&TMail mine is TRT UT dkimberlin.  Really rather
simple, when you understand the meaning and purpose of the IRC and
international Telex.

        One last word for this top-level exposition: Telex isn't so
cheap compared to E-Mail.  If you have a regular correspondent in
another nation and want to DDD to batch files, or if you have an X.25
or Teletex route to another nation (WUTCo's Easylink E-Mail does, but
the other E-Mails seem to say,"huh? Teletex?"), that may well be
cheaper than Telex.  It runs at 50 bps, just 66 words per minute, and
you get billed at the Telex output rate.

        All that said, then why bother? Well, Telex is still there and
readily accessible from your E-Mail, and it reaches those 3-1/2
million or so machines in offices of foreign nations you may have only
occasional traffic for. And, those machines are in global directories
like the Jaeger u. Waldmann directories so you can look them up from
home. And, those machines are in hotels all around the world, so you
can get a message to the traveler who hasn't been able to get a phone
line out for three days.  And, those Telex lines connect to all the
cablegram offices that will for their high price, still send a
messenger to _find_ your missing salesman (unlike the US' rapidly
deteriorating telegram service).  As well, they reach the ships at sea
with your Telex to roust up the staffer who's on an ocean cruise.  No
matter where in the world they are; no matter what time zone they are
in, no matter if they are on the Gregorian or Moslem or Hindu or
Bhuddist calendar, your message routed by Telex should get to them far
more efficiently than random dialing of the phone.

        So, while most Americans discovered some of these advantages
when the Group III fax came along, but still need to find a "fax
number" that's not in a directory like Jaeger u. Waldmann, your E-Mail
connection to international Telex is a potentially useful tool.

        (For those who may want a fuller, more detailed explanation,
Datapro Research offers reprints of a 22-page 1986 report they had me
author, numbered MT20-510-101, by calling [phone].  Readers who
have Datapro's "Nanagement of Telecommunications" service may have
this at hand.)

A final riposte: Our Moderator said in commenting to the question:

>In case you were wondering, FAX is the (FA)csimile E(X)change.

Au contraire, notre cher moduerateur.  While some marketeers of recent
facsimile service offerings may have made that linkage, the term "fax"
has been used generically by the much more limited group of facsimile
(including telephoto) users from telecomm time immemorial.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #464
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13552;
          3 Jul 90 3:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29575;
          3 Jul 90 1:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02273;
          3 Jul 90 0:35 CDT
Date:     Tue, 3 Jul 90 0:05:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #465
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Jul 90 00:04:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 465

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Red-Lining of Card Calls From Payphones [Robert Gutierrez]
    Re: Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed? [Art Berggreen]
    Re: Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed? [Darren Griffiths]
    Re: Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed? [Scott King]
    Re: Phony Bell Wanted (Not a Bell Phone) [Paul Krzyzanowski]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [John T. Grieggs]
    Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe [Dell H. Ellison]
    FAX Isn't Facsimile Exchange, is it, Really? [Edward Greenberg]
    Who Is John Galt? [Peter da Silva]
    Monitoring Device Information Needed [Bruce W. Mohler]
    Bellcore Number Down During July [Carl Moore]
    Answering Machine Recommendations Wanted [Bill Darden]
    Telecom is OFF LINE Until July 8 [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Red-Lining of Card Calls From Payphones
Date: 2 Jul 90 00:24:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


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

|> In recent issues of the Digest, people have mentioned their inability
|> to use the AT&T Calling Card from certain payphones in the United
|> States to call certain foreign countries.

|> Sometimes payphones reject credit card calls to one country, while
|> allowing the same type of call to other countries.

This is very true of MCI.  The red-lining entirely depends on the
amount of fraud traffic of the previous week that the security
department catches.

A good instance is San Francisco.  They are red-lined to the
Phillipines, and always have been for the last three years.  This was
because of the LARGE fraudulent calls to that country.

But calling from across the bay (Oakland and Berkeley) will let you
get to the Phillipines, since the red-lining is by switch, and the
Hayward switch covers those cities.

Now, if you called 800-950-1022, because of a quirk in the DMS-250's,
those card calls had to go to the Dominguez Hills, CA. switch, in
which they were not red-lining the Phillipines (as of a year ago).

(The quirk, I was told, was that the DMS-250's cannot return tone on
FGD's, which the 800 calls come in on, as opposed to FGB's, which the
regular 950-XXXX calls come in on...).

Oh, how do they determine, by the _week_, which is the highest fraud
country???  Well, any calling-card international call over a set
amount of minutes is automatically tagged, and the home phone number
of the account in question is called.  Well, if they're using a
calling card to begin with, they're probably not home, so the card is
cancelled until the account holder calls back.  But when the account
holder calls back, he/she finds out that the card can't be reinstated
until 3am the next day, when the CAC's (Card Authorization Computers)
update themselves for new calling card numbers.

I heard AT&T does the same thing, but can reinstate in thirty minutes
to one hour.  Is that true?

|> Is this sort of red-lining legal? Is it discriminatory to block calls
|> to, for example, Mexico or Colombia, while allowing the same payphone
|> to handle calls to the UK or France?  Is it discriminatory to allow
|> residents in one part of town to make credit card calls from payphones
|> while refusing other credit-worthy citizens in another neighborhood
|> the right to do the same thing?

My understanding is that a calling card is a privlege, as opposed to
direct-dial access (so called FGD access).

|> ....Since the Universal Card is a
|> bona-fide credit card (in addition to its role as a phone card), are
|> there violations of Federal Trade Commission regulations when AT&T
|> refuses to extend credit (in this case both as the credit grantor as
|> well as the seller) based on arbitrary red-lining of certain
|> neighborhoods?

This one is a good question.  How much liability has AT&T assumed when
it issued VISA/MC credit cards, and allowed payments of your calls on
them.  Do they have a disclaimer in their FCC Tariff stating "We
reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" in re: Calling Card
calls.  Again, C/C calls are tariffed, but are they a right, or a
privlege?


   Robert

[Moderator's Note: All extensions of credit are considered a privilege
and not a 'right'; however, extensions or denials of credit must be
based on *legal* criteria. I can deny you the privilege of credit
because you have not the ability or willingness to pay your bills; but
I cannot base my decision on your ethnic background or country of
origin, which seems to be what telco is doing by denying (for example)
Iranians the right to call their homeland from JFK; residents of
Colombia from calling home from Miami, or Mexicans calling from
southern California while allowing people of British origin to call
the UK from the very same payphones. By the way, AT&T did not call me
back today.   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 10:03:08 PDT
From: Art Berggreen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed?
Organization: Advanced Computer Communications, Santa Barbara, California


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderator writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 463, Message 7 of 8

>Word has been reaching us the past few days of the tragic fires
>burning though parts of California, and the most disturbing news is
>that apparently much of the town of Santa Barbara is in ashes. Perhaps
>someone in the area could let us know what the effect has been on
>telco service in that area, and other parts of the state.

Rest assured, Santa Barbara is still here.  We're not exactly a "town".
The general area has approx. 150,000 people.

The fire was BAD though.  Almost 500 homes were destroyed (and got too
close to mine as well).

The phone system did get very overloaded during the fire, causing problems
for emergency services.


Art Berggreen
ACC

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

From: Darren Griffiths <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed?
Date: 2 Jul 90 22:39:25 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


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

>Word has been reaching us the past few days of the tragic fires
>burning though parts of California, and the most disturbing news is
>that apparently much of the town of Santa Barbara is in ashes. Perhaps
>someone in the area could let us know what the effect has been on
>telco service in that area, and other parts of the state.

Well, I'm not from the area, but I used to be and still have many friends
there so I know a bit about what's going on.

The fire started on highway 151 near Painted Cave.  It burned down the
highway and the San Marcos valley.  A major residential area sits at
the bottom of this valley and was entirely destroyed.  Of the 500+
homes with major damage about 300 were completely destroyed.

As far as phone service is concerned it was incredibly good.  Many of
my friends were evacuated, some for two days and they found out about
the condition of their homes by calling and seeing if the answering
machine picked up.  The night the fire started the phones were out to
the Hidden Valley area for a few hours, this was the area of about
3000 homes close to the path of the fire.  The next day many calls
into the area were greeted with a message "Due to the forest fire in
the area you are calling your call cannot be completed at this time,
please try your call later."  If you called two or three times in a
row you did get through though, also switching to a different long
distance carrier sometimes helped.  AT&T, as is my experience with
most phone service, was the most reliable path into the town


   Cheers,

     --darren

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 19:37:21 PDT
From: Scott King <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed?


In reguard to your posting about Santa Barbara...

I live here, and I have seen the damage.  I believe that Mark Twain
said "the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated".  Granted,
there are around 470 homes destroyed, but most of those were in the
hills and asking for it (eg. surronded by a lot of brush)

There were about ten businesses destroyed, but each only employeed
about four people.

Although the "sundowners" (a local version of a Santa Ana wind) were
resposible for the damage on the first day, they quit on the second
day and allowed the fire to be contained (the sundowners had been
blowing for about 3 weeks).

All in all, I would say that we should stop whining and start to count
our blessings.  The whole city would be gone had this happened a week
prior.

In summary, I would say that 1200 people lost their homes, 50 people
lost their jobs and 100,000 people stepped in to help in some form.


Scott King

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Krzyzanowski)
Subject: Re: Phony Bell Wanted (Not a Bell Phone)
Date: 2 Jul 90 20:05:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James Deibele)
writes:

> would pause and ask if I needed to get the other call.  Since I don't
> have the click anymore, and some people don't ever give me the chance
> to get a word in edgewise, I'd like to have a bell that sounds like a
> phone ringing --- I'd like to keep it next to the phone, and push (or

This probably isn't what you want, but I recently saw a small device
at a card store that produces one of four sounds depending on the
button you press: a ringing telephone (a call on another line), static
(bad connection), a nasal secretary ("you have a call on line 4"), and
a busy office (lots of phones ringing).


 - Paul Krzyzanowski
   paul2allegra.att.com

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

From: "John T. Grieggs" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 2 Jul 90 20:58:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA


>Lang Zerner <[e-mail]> writes:

>> I don't know if anyone has reported this yet, but PacBell has finally
>> given in to my incessant whining and removed the "value-added" fee for
>> Touch-Tone service.

Another data point: I recently moved to a PacBell service area from a
GTE service area (finally!).  The customer service rep was a lot
friendlier than I am used to, and was a LOT more knowledgable about
stuff.

I refused Touch-Tone service, to see if tones would work anyway, since
the start-up fee and monthly service fee are no different whether you
get them right away or later.  Tone dialing works, so I saved the
$3.00 startup fee and the $1.20 monthly service fee.  Nice to win one.


John T. Grieggs (Telos @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, Ca. 91109 M/S 301-320T    [phone]
Uucp: {cit-vax,elroy,chas2}!jpl-devvax!grieggs
Arpa: ...jpl-devvax![e-mail]

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

From: "Dell H. Ellison" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On the Trail of the Elusive Octothorpe
Date: 2 Jul 90 21:22:12 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail] (Steven
King) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Erik Naggum) writes:

> >    #5    means "number five"
> >    5#    means "five lbs (pounds)"

> >This has later been confirmed by several good dictionaries and
> >reference works (read: theory), but I've never seen in it practice.

I thought everyone used 'lbs.'  I guess I was wrong.

> I prefer calling it the "sharp" sign.  It doesn't get confused with
> the British pound, and is much less of a mouthful than "octothorpe".
> That last sounds like it should be on the menu at a seafood
> restaurant.

I've found that most people (at least in the states) call it
a pound sign.

But I like to call it a Number Sign, because it's hard to confuse
it with something else.  (Many people are not familiar with music
terminology.)

  ..
------------------------------

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 08:42 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: FAX Isn't Facsimile Exchange, is it, Really?


I think that FAX is just shorthand spelling for FACSimile, and has
nothing to do with a particular "Exchange".

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

Subject: Who Is John Galt?
Date: Sun Jul  1 18:44:21 1990
From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>


John Galt is a sort of Buckminster Fuller on cocaine: an eccentric
engineer who mixes philosophy and engineering in equal doses ... but
instead of a sort of proto new-age without the flakiness, Galt's
philosophy is a aggressive mix of social darwinism and sociobiology.

Oh yes, he's also only a character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", a
political statement thinly disguised as fiction.

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

From: "Bruce W. Mohler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Monitoring Device Information Needed
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 9:47:10 PDT


Patrick,

In an article (Volume 10, Issue 463, Message 3 of 8), you write
(as a postscript):

> [Moderator's Note: There are commercial devices available which allow
> what you want, and also accept incoming calls to tell you about the
> temperature at the place where the device is located, then allow you
> to listen to background noise for thirty seconds or so. In the event
> of some problem (usually a choice of three or four problems) they call
> out to up to four(?) different phones, and keep calling until someone
> presses certain tones on the phone to reset the device.  PT]

Could you please point me to a source for these devices?


Bruce W. Mohler
Systems Programmer (aka Staff Analyst)
[e-mail]
voice: 619/586-2218


[Moderator's Note: The last time I saw one advertised (a week or so
ago) it was in the Global Computer Supply mail order catalog. I wish I
had it here now -- I tossed it out -- so I could quote you the page
and other details. I think it can tell if there is water in the
vicinity (because a probe gets wet; a contact is shorted, etc); if
there is a fire (because the temperature gets very warm in the area);
if there is a break-in (because output of burglar alarm device is fed
to this unit), and more. These units are also used in cold storage
warehouses to tell if the power went off, i.e. the temperature is
above a certain point. When you call in, a synthesized voice says "the
time is 12:34:56 7/8/90". The temperature is X degrees. Everything is
normal. Now listen!" ... and the built in microphone lets you listen
for familiar (and unfamiliar) noises in the room. They also call you
when activated, and chant their message over and over until you shut
them off. Try Global (they have an 800 number), or other computer
peripheral supply houses.  Maybe someone with their catalog or a
similar one will write you with info. Please, someone?   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 10:35:23 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Bellcore Number Down During July


On Saturday June 30, I called the Bellcore number at 201-644-5639, and
the synthetic voice said that the person working on it is on vacation
in July and to try again in August.  The recording does identify
Bellcore.

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

From: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine Recommendations Wanted
Date: 2 Jul 90 23:20:33 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA


I would appreciate recommendations on answering machines.

Thanks,

BiLL......

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 22:50:45 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom is OFF LINE Until July 8


This is just a reminder that TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom are
off line this week while I am out of town.  The messages appearing in
this issue and the final one(s) Tuesday evening are what was left in
the queue.

*Please hold further articles until July 7 or 8 before mailing them in
to this newsgroup* .... thank you!


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #465
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28176;
          4 Jul 90 1:20 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22700;
          3 Jul 90 23:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27086;
          3 Jul 90 22:44 CDT
Date:     Tue, 3 Jul 90 22:13:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #466
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Jul 90 22:12:14 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 466

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    PacBell Coinphone False Info [Ron Schnell]
    How Are 800 Numbers Assigned? [Jody Kravitz]
    Re: Motorola Plans Global Cellular Thrust [Roy Silvernail]
    Re: FCC Responds to Individual Complaints About AOSs [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Re: What Is Telex? Is There an E-Mail Interface? [Kari Hardarson]
    Re: Sverige Direkt [New Zealand] [Pat Cain]
    Re: Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed? [Lars Poulsen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ron Schnell <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie.gatech.edu!mit-eddie!ronnie>
Subject: PacBell Coinphone False Info
Reply-To: Ron Schnell <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie.gatech.edu!mit-eddie!ronnie>
Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 90 08:34:51 GMT


While at a country club on Saturday, I needed to make a phone call.  I
found the payphone, and was relieved to see that it was Pacific Bell
and not one of the private companies.  I double checked the
"information card" which all of the coin phones in CA. seem to have
these days, and indeed it said that BOTH coin calls AND calling card
calls would be handled by AT&T.  HOWEVER, when I entered in the
calling card number, I head a male voice saying, "Thank you for using
Com Systems."  I never thought I would see a BOC payphone which
displays misinformation like this one did.  I immediately called AT&T
at [phone] (knowing that this wasn't the right number but
hoping they would know the right number).

After a few minutes, she connected me with someone who asked me for
the phone number and the hours of business.  She then told me that in
the future I should call Pac Bell, and that they are the ones who
should know about it.  I explained to her that AT&T is the one being
hurt by this and they should want to know about it.  She refused to
believe that it had anything to do with AT&T and she kept telling me
that "They can choose any long distance service they want."  Am I
crazy here?


#Ron
[e-mail]
(213) 443 - 9688

[Moderator's Note: No, you are not crazy. You should have heard the
referrals I got when I asked about red-lining certain neighborhoods
last week. I was told to call New York Tel, Pac Bell, GTE, South
Central Bell, you name it. Anybody but AT&T. It was the fault of the
phone companies. One AT&T rep said it was 'The Mexico Telephone
Company which asked us to disallow those calls ...' <snicker> ... and
when I called Corporate Public Relations and asked them, they promised
to call back ... and haven't so far.   PT]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 00:20:50 PDT
From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: How Are 800 Numbers Assigned?


I recently received a note from my mortgage company explaining that
they had changed long distance carriers. It included a new phone
number which was 800-736-xxxx.  It would appear that which carrier
"gets" which 800 calls is still done on an exchange-by-exchange basis.

It would appear that only one carrier (AT&T ?) can get 800 information
calls.  Has anyone ever been explained in the Digest how 800
information works?

Does anyone know which carrier gets 800-736-xxxx ?


Jody

Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

[Moderator's Note: In the Telecom Archives there is a file which
identifies each 800 prefix with the carrier using it. See the Guide to
Area Codes file. The assignment of prefixes within 900 is also
included in that file. The Telecom Archives can be reached from any
Internet location using the command 'ftp lcs.mit.edu'.   PT]

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

From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola Plans Global Cellular Thrust
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 90 04:43:01 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Michael Gammal) writes:

> I don't trust Motorola's world-wide plans! (World Cellular)
> Sounds like a nice way for espionage!
> Think about it...
> Every single user has their own coding....
> Thus can locate any individual anywhere!

An interesting idea, indeed. The way I saw the plan presented, though,
I'm not sure how closely a sat-cell call could be tracked.

I'd like to find out more about this system. Perhaps someone could
point out some references or post a summary of the technical details
to the Digest?


    Roy M. Silvernail     | Opinions found
    now available at:     | herein are mine,
 cybrspc![e-mail]   | but you can rent
(cyberspace... be here!)  | them.

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

Date: 2 Jul 90 13:24:07 EDT (Mon)
From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FCC Responds to Individual Complaints About AOSs
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 462, Message 4 of 10

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Wm Randolph
>Franklin) writes:

>> >Before writing my letter, I telephoned both ATT and FCC to determine
>> >the law.  FCC said unequivocally that the hotel phones must handle
>> >10xxx properly.  However ATT waffled; they commiserated with me but
>> >didn't they that the hotel had to connect me to them.  Why would they
>> >not assert their rights?

>In article <[e-mail]>, unhd!unhtel![e-mail] (Paul
>S. Sawyer) writes:

>> Maybe it's because ATT's PBX's (e.g. System 85) can't handle
>> 9-10288, etc....

>Of course they can. They can dial any number they have been allowed to
>dial by the dial plan and routing administration. If there was an
>equal access number that had been restricted through hard-coding, I
>can assure you it would not be 10288.

Well, that was MY reaction, too, (as a mostly innocent bystander who
just keeps the billing computers going) but if you know how, I wish
you would tell our telecom specialist who administers the switch, our
ATT account rep, and Carmine at RMATS who have all been trying to
figure it out for some time now.  ATT says it's the switch software,
and the best they have done is suggest some kludgey workarounds using
speed numbers, which so far are not of a kind which the user community
would adapt to.


Thanks.

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Kari Hardarson)
Subject: Re: What Is Telex? Is There an E-Mail Interface?
Date: 3 Jul 90 19:17:43 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kari Hardarson)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


If I want to send someone a telex message from Usenet, is there a
service that will do it for me?  If it has to be Easylink, how do I
get in touch with them from the net? Are there alternatives? (I used
to access a U.K. service called One-to-one from X.25, I wouldn't mind
accessing them from the net either). Thanks to anyone who might reply.


Kari Hardarson
217 Jackson Circle
Chapel Hill, NC 27514


[Moderator's Note: Since Usenet is a 'free' service, and telex
messages require payment, there is no direct connection where someone
will take your message here and convert it to telex. There were a
couple of sneak approaches using the gateway between Internet and AT&T
Mail, but the discovery of this abuse was one reason AT&T Mail clamped
down on accepting Internet traffic. You can obtain a telex number for
incoming telex stuff from AT&T Mail or MCI Mail. You can use either of
those services to send telex messages, at a surcharge. You can do the
same via GTE/Sprint Telemail. You would then send the message from
what you termed a 'Usenet' site to your own account at MCI or AT&T
Mail, and on its arrival there, forward it to a telex address
yourself, at the prevailing rate for the service, billed to your
account on the commercial email service.  PT]


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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 19:49 M
From: Pat Cain <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sverige Direkt [New Zealand]


>Sweden has recently introduced a service called "Sverige Direkt"
>(Sweden Direct) which is a list of free telephone number that you can

New Zealand has recently introduced this service too, although there
seems to be problems with it such as:

* bad connections
* having to wait a long time (several minutes) for an answer
* operators not being able to speak English (I suppose this doesn't
  matter as people calling France would speak French anyway).

>The list of countries and numbers for "Sverige Direkt" are as follows

>    New Zealand        000 946

>It is interesting to see the irregularity of the telephone numbers above,
>which makes it almost impossible trying to remember them.

In New Zealand the 0009 prefix is used for the international
Direct-Dial service.  The format is 0009 <country code> with the
exception of USA & Canada who are 000911 and 000919 respectively.  The
800 number system exists in New Zealand, so I'm not sure why Telecom
didn't use an 800 number.  Perhaps it is because they wanted to keep
the direct-dial service separate from the national free-call system.

I know that Telecom here give out cards that have a list of countries
and the numbers that you can direct dial to New Zealand from.  I think
that most people would rather carry these when going overseas than
trying to remember numbers.

Anyway, most people don't go overseas too often.  If they do it is
often to the same country, so they shouldn't have problems remembering
the direct dial number used in that country to call home.

>As I can understand there are two reasons for this irregularity:
>1. There is no generally used "800-number". Some similar numbers
>are used in

>2. The telephone numbers for each national "800-number" are allocated
>   locally, so it is not so probable that the same number can be used

>An alternative solution that would make it possible to dial the same
>number toll free anywhere in the world would be to introduce a pseudo
>county number for toll free calls. The country code "800" seems to be
>ideal for this purpose.

There are still problems with such an idea.  Many countries have
adopted different standards.  In New Zealand 800 numbers are only 6
digits (eg. 0800 123456), whereas in the States, I think there are 7
digits.  And they are preceded with a 0 whereas other countries have
different prefixes.  New Zealand is moving towards a seven digit
numbering system and cleaning up the strange numbering systems we have
here, so I suppose eventually we will see Direct Dial numbers being
the same throughout the world.


pat cain;   [e-mail] | |  [e-mail]
              Voice [phone]  |   Modem [phone]

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Santa Barbara Completely Destroyed?
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:04:14 GMT


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

>Word has been reaching us the past few days of the tragic fires
>burning though parts of California, and the most disturbing news is
>that apparently much of the town of Santa Barbara is in ashes. Perhaps
>someone in the area could let us know what the effect has been on
>telco service in that area, and other parts of the state.

The reports .. have been much exaggerated. About 4000 acres of coastal
foothill shrub burned, along with about 525 residences.

The fire started at 18:02 PDT on Wednesday night; it is unclear
whether it was deliberately set, or somebody just tossed a cigarette
out their car window. The area has been suffering under a drought for
about 4 years; water is severely rationed, and the city of Santa
Barbara is checking out pricing for ferrying water down on ships from
Canada.

The chaparral was tinder dry and two days of 100-110 degree
temperatures had brought it to a flash point. A "sundowner" wind
condition (similar to a "Santa Ana") engulfed the hillside along
highway 154 (San Marcos Pass road) in 40-foot high flames in minutes.
The wind carried the flames downhill towards the city; within 40
minutes after it began near the top, it jumped across US-101 (the
Camino Real freeway) near the county jail between Santa Barbara and
Goleta, and a residential area where the railroad crosses "main
street" went up in a firestorm; I heard the gas lines exploding from
my house a half mile away.

Throughout the evening, many neighbourhoods were evacuated. The fear
was that the fire would burn out the Hope Ranch neighbourhood, a
two-acre ranchette subdivision from the 1950's; but shortly before
midnight the wind died down, and the fire stopped spreading.

For the next several days, the hillside kept burning (I believe it was
finally declared "controlled" this morning). Thursday night, there was
some fear that another sundowner wind might drive the fire down
towards the city through a different canyon. But the wind was much
less severe, and actually drove the fire back to the already
burned-over area.  Thursday night around 9PM the wind died down, and
we all breathed easier.

                     ---------------------
                     TELECOM RELATED STUFF
                     ---------------------

The E911 response center was located in the county complex in the fire
zone, and had to be evacuated early on, along with the fire command
post. This created a severe logistic problem, but fortunately, there
were backup sites for both: The city had a command post downtown, and
the county had a backup command post downtown.

The GTD-5 system was heavily loaded; at one point, the dial tone delay
was almost 30 seconds. The system went short on intercity trunks, but
apparently the software can allocate the available trunks on a
priority basis to the class-A emergency lines. My wife was in Texas,
and I tried several times to reach her, alternating between MCI and
ATT; mostly ATT worked better. (Probably due to ATT giving priority to
OUTGOING calls).  The telephone switch never failed, and service has
not been disrupted since the fire.

Our local college station is a training ground for Rock'n'Roll DJs,
and has no useful news staff. Our "local" NPR affiliate is a repeater
for the San Luis Obispo station, and our local APR affiliate is a
repeater for KUSC, a classical station in Los Angeles. But one of the
commercial stations hooked their AM ("talk radio") and FM ("adult
album") transmitters together, and went live-all-news without
commercials for 27 hours. On the second day they started a pledge
drive for a relief fund and raised $80,000 before the sun went down.
The local television station also suspended regular programming, but
did not have quite as good information during the critical hours.
(When the fire zone partitioned the town, and one reporter could not
get back to the studio, he drove 40 miles away to Santa Maria to get
an uplink, and I don't think he ever got back on the fire line).

I am very impressed with the way GTE handled this disaster. This area
may not be typical, but we really have had outstanding service since
the GTD-5 system was installed four or five years ago.


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


[Moderator's Note: Your mention of the need to evacuate the emergency
response center and fire command post itself was interesting, and
brings to mind the fire here in Chicago, October, 1871. The Western
Union agent on duty downtown that Sunday night stuck around the office
until is was apparent the building was going to be on fire soon. In an
interview in the {Chicago Tribune} in 1901, he remarked on the bell in
the steeple of City Hall. The City Hall Fire Alarm Office had an
operator on duty at all times to ring the bell alerting residents to a
fire. The bell was actually operated by a mechanical device, and the
setting of the gears detirmined the cadence of the bell, which in turn
gave a coded reference to the fire location. Four rings (pause) was a
general alarm. Long after most of City Hall had burned to the ground
and the fire alarm operator had fled in terror, with the streets in
the area deserted, that bell continued to sound. The Western Union guy
said it was 'the eeriest thing I had ever encountered ... the bell
tolling with no one to listen or heed it ... and finally the steeple
itself caught (fire) and the bell crashed to the ground with a
monstrous clang ... '.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #466
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29971;
          4 Jul 90 2:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21145;
          4 Jul 90 0:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22700;
          3 Jul 90 23:48 CDT
Date:     Tue, 3 Jul 90 23:04:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #467
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 3 Jul 90 23:04:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 467

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Mitch Kapor and "Sun Devil" [Emmanuel Goldstein]
    Re: Who is John Galt? [Erik Naggum]
    Recessional: That's All, Folks! [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Jul 90 00:00:00 gmt
From: dunike!isis!well!emmanuel (Emmanuel Goldstein)
Subject: Mitch Kapor and "Sun Devil"


It's real disturbing to read the comments that have been posted
recently on TELECOM Digest concerning Operation Sun Devil and Mitch
Kapor's involvement.  While I think the moderator has been chastised
sufficiently, there are still a few remarks I want to make.

First of all, I understand the point he was trying to get across. But
I think he shot from the hip without rationalizing his point first,
thereby leaving many of us in a kind of stunned silence. If I
understand it correctly, the argument is: Kapor says he wants to help
people that the Moderator believes are thieves. Therefore, using that
logic, it's okay to steal from Kapor.

Well, I don't agree. Obviously, Kapor DOESN'T believe these people are
criminals. Even if one or two of them ARE criminals, he is concerned
with all of the innocent bystanders that are being victimized here.
And make no mistake about that - there are many innocent bystanders
here. I've spoken to quite a few of them. Steve Jackson, Craig
Neidorf, the friends and families of people who've had armed agents of
the federal government storm into their homes and offices. It's a very
frightening scenario - one that I've been through myself.  And when it
happens there are permanent scars and a fear that never quite leaves.
For drug dealers, murderers, hardened criminals, it's an acceptable
price in my view. But a 14 year old kid who doesn't know when to stop
exploring a computer system? Let's get real. Do we really want to mess
up someone's life just to send a message?

I've been a hacker for a good part of my life. Years ago, I was what
you would call an "active" hacker, that is, I wandered about on
computer systems and explored. Throughout it all, I knew it would be
wrong to mess up data or do something that would cause harm to a
system. I was taught to respect tangible objects; extending that to
encompass intangible objects was not very hard to do. And most, if not
all, of the people I explored with felt the same way. Nobody sold
their knowledge. The only profit we got was an education that far
surpassed any computer class or manual.

Eventually, though, I was caught. But fortunately for me, the
witch-hunt mentality hadn't caught on yet. I cooperated with the
authorities, explained how the systems I used were flawed, and proved
that there was no harm done. I had to pay for the computer time I used
and if I stayed out of trouble, I would have no criminal record. They
didn't crush my spirit. And the computers I used became more secure.
Except for the fear and intimidation that occurred during my series of
raids, I think I was dealt with fairly.

Now I publish a hacker magazine. And in a way, it's an extension of
that experience. The hackers are able to learn all about many
different computer and phone systems. And those running the systems,
IF THEY ARE SMART, listen to what is being said and learn valuable
lessons before it's too late.  Because sooner or later, someone will
figure out a way to get in. And you'd better hope it's a hacker who
can help you figure out ways to improve the system and not an
ex-employee with a monumental grudge.

In all fairness, I've been hacked myself. Someone figured out a way to
break the code for my answering machine once. Sure, I was angry -- at
the company.  They had no conception of what security was. I bought a
new machine from a different company, but not before letting a lot of
people know EXACTLY what happened. And I've had people figure out my
calling card numbers. This gave me firsthand knowledge of the
ineptitude of the phone companies. And I used to think they understood
their own field! My point is: you're only a victim if you refuse to
learn. If I do something stupid like empty my china cabinet on the
front lawn and leave it there for three weeks, I don't think many
people will feel sympathetic if it doesn't quite work out. And I don't
think we should be sympathetic towards companies and organizations
that obviously don't know the first thing about security and very
often are entrusted with important data.

The oldest hacker analogy is the walking-in-through-the-front-
door-and-rummaging-through-my-personal-belongings one. I believe the
Moderator recently asked a critic if he would leave his door unlocked
so he could drop in and rummage. The one fact that always seems to be
missed with this analogy is that an individual's belongings are just
not interesting to someone who simply wants to learn. But they ARE
interesting to someone who wants to steal. A big corporation's
computer system is not interesting to someone who wants to steal,
UNLESS they have very specific knowledge as to how to do this (which
eliminates the hacker aspect). But that system is a treasure trove for
those interested in LEARNING. To those that insist on using this old
analogy, I say at least be consistent. You wouldn't threaten somebody
with 30 years in jail for taking something from a house. What's
especially ironic is that your personal belongings are probably much
more secure than the data in the nation's largest computer systems!

When you refer to hacking as "burglary and theft", as the Moderator
frequently does, it becomes easy to think of these people as hardened
criminals. But it's just not the case. I don't know any burglars or
thieves, yet I hang out with an awful lot of hackers. It serves a
definite purpose to blur the distinction, just as pro-democracy
demonstrators are referred to as rioters by nervous leaders. Those who
have staked a claim in the industry fear that the hackers will reveal
vulnerabilities in their systems that they would just as soon forget
about. It would have been very easy for Mitch Kapor to join the
bandwagon on this. The fact that he didn't tells me something about
his character. And he's not the only one.

Since we published what was, to the best of my knowledge, the first
pro-hacker article on all of these raids, we've been startled by the
intensity of the feedback we've gotten. A lot of people are angry,
upset, and frightened by what the Secret Service is doing. They're
speaking out and communicating their outrage to other people who we
could never have reached. And they've apparently had these feelings
for some time. Is this the anti-government bias our Moderator accused
another writer of harboring? Hardly. This is America at its finest.


Emmanuel Goldstein
Editor, 2600 Magazine - The Hacker Quarterly

[e-mail]        po box 752, middle island, ny 11953

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 1990 17:02:37 +0200
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who is John Galt?


In TELECOM Digest V10 #465, peter da silva <[e-mail]>,
writes:

> John Galt is a sort of Buckminster Fuller on cocaine: an eccentric
> engineer who mixes philosophy and engineering in equal doses ... but
> instead of a sort of proto new-age without the flakiness, Galt's
> philosophy is a aggressive mix of social darwinism and sociobiology.

To be fair, the philosophy has a polarizing effect on people.  Some
hate it, some love it.  Those who have seen it, seldom choose anything
in between.  The above description is typical of the way people will
describe it.  Keep the intensity and change the attitude, and you have
the other camp.

> Oh yes, he's also only a character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged", a
> political statement thinly disguised as fiction.

Atlas Shrugged was first published in 1957, and still sells briskly.
Many people enjoy it for its fictional qualities.  A huge number of
people have heard about it, but only second-hand like the above from
Peter, or second-hand from someone who loves it, but that usually
results in reading it.

Beware of the followers.  There is a strong religious element in the
"official" following, almost cult-like.  There are also reasonable
people who hold this philosophy, but they're much less likely to be
missionaries.  There are also some professional philosophers working
with it.


[Erik Naggum]

[Moderator's Note: I'd like you to know that in 1957, when I was a
second year student in high school, our debate class invited Ayn Rand
to speak at a school assembly about her new book, and she accepted our
invitation. Atlas Shrugged had just gone into print, and she was on
the circuit promoting it. I introduced her, and afterward, our debate
teacher Arthur Erickson and I took her to dinner before taking her
back to the airport. I remember to this day sitting in the restaurant
across from her, with her long cigarette holder as she seemed to stare
straight through me. I smoked cigarettes also, since it was glamorous,
and a sign of sophistication. Arthur praised me as the teacher's (his)
pet, and Ms. Rand said, "You are such a smart young man! You are too
smart to believe in Gott ..." She autographed my copy of her books (I
also had a copy of The Fountainhead with me).    PT]

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

Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 20:27:43 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Recessional: That's All, Folks!


My thanks to Emmanuel Goldstein for his interesting message to the
group today. It is worth some thought, particularly on Independence
Day. And Erik Naggum's comments are also appropriate today.

As soon as this Digest is in the mail and out to the net, I am leaving
town, to return sometime early Sunday, July 8. We will be traveling
down to southeastern Kansas, in the Coffeyville and Independence, KS
area to be exact. But the business there will take just a couple days
at most, and we will be heading back this way by car sometime late in
the day Saturday, I suppose.

Do have a pleasant and happy Independence Day holiday, and be certain
to shoot your firecrackers in a safe and discrete way.

*Please DO NOT send any messages to comp.dcom.telecom until the
weekend.* Thanks.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #467
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22801;
          8 Jul 90 19:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16356;
          8 Jul 90 18:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07809;
          8 Jul 90 17:10 CDT
Date:     Sun, 8 Jul 90 16:50:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #468
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Jul 90 16:50:13 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 468

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Interstate Rates [John R. Covert]
    Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703 [Greg Monti via John R. Covert]
    Public*Phone [John Higdon]
    Plain Ol' Telephones [Ron Pfeifle]
    Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID [Steve Rhoades]
    Touchtone History [Roy Smith]
    HPPI (High-Performance Parallel Interface) Info Needed [R. Manghirmalani]
    Motorola 9000 Handheld [Rick Farris]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 90 10:44:58 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  06-Jul-1990 1345" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Interstate Rates


AT&T's new rates as of 1 July 1990:

Residential Reach-out-America:

Night & Weekend Plan:   Makes the night period begin at 10 PM instead
                        of 11 PM. $7.15 per month includes first hour
                        of N/W calling. $6.60 per additional hour,
                        billed at .11 per minute.

N/W/Evening Plan:    $7.80 per month includes the Night & Weekend Plan.
            Provides an additional 15% discount on evening
                        rates during the 5 PM to 10 PM period.

            Hourly charge Boston to    Washington    $7.43
                        Charlotte    $7.62
                        Los Angeles    $7.63
                        Honolulu       $10.94

24-Hour Plan:        $8.70 per month includes the above plans, provides
            a 10% discount on daytime rates, and increases the
            extra evening discount to 25%.

            Hourly charge Boston to    Washington    $6.56
                        Charlotte    $6.73
                        Los Angeles    $6.73
                        Honolulu        $9.65

Calling card inclusion:    $2.00/month.  AT&T handled calling card calls
                        obtain the discount.  Call charges and the .80
                        calling card surcharge are discounted by the
                        appropriate 10%, 15% or 25% during the day
                        and evening period.  During the Reach Out
                        night and weekend period, no surcharge applies,
                        and call charges are applied to the base and
                        overtime rates.  Only available in certain areas.

Standard Rates:

 Mileage          Initial Minute   Additional Minutes  Rate Periods

   1-10        .18   .1206 .10        .17   .1139 .0975    D: M-F 8A-5P
  11-22        .1975 .1340 .1130   .1975 .1340 .11
  23-55        .1975 .1454 .12        .1975 .1454 .12    E: Sun-Fri 5P-11P
  56-124    .2160 .1457 .12        .2150 .1454 .12
 125-292    .2160 .1457 .1215   .2150 .1457 .1215    N: Every day 11P-8A
 293-430    .23   .1457 .1250   .23   .1457 .1225       All day Saturday
 431-925    .2390 .1495 .13     .2390 .1495 .1260       Until 5P Sunday
 926-1910    .2490 .1496 .1325   .2490 .1496 .13
1911-3000    .2490 .1496 .1350   .2490 .1496 .1325
3001-4250    .31   .2077 .1650   .30   .2010 .16
4251-5750    .33   .2211 .1750   .32   .2144 .17

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jul 90 15:58:06 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  07-Jul-1990 1858" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703


  From:  Greg Monti
  Date:  6 July 1990
  Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703

Prefixes of the Pentagon-Department of Defense telephone Rate Area
have been moved from Area Code 202 to Area Code 703.

Up until now, the Pentagon has been one of those rare odd men out in
the North American Numbering Plan.  The Plan, at least for the US,
states that area codes don't cross state lines. The Pentagon, located
on land owned by the Federal Government in Arlington County, Virginia,
got the 202 Area Code, presumably due to it being the only major
Government agency with its headquarters in Virginia at the time Area
Codes were established.  It got 202 like the other agencies.  (Many
more Federal agencies have been located in Northern Virginia since;
they all have 703 numbers.)  Only phones which are extensions of the
Pentagon PBX had 202.  Private, outside lines, pay phones and private
businesses in the Pentagon have 703 numbers.

For local callers, the Pentagon's Area Code has been unimportant due
to the 7-digit dialing used for local calls in the Washington area.
With the advent of 10-digit dialing for local calls across state and
Area Code lines, which becomes mandatory 1 October 1990, confusion
could have reigned if nothing were done.  Would local callers dial 10
digits for local calls which cross *state* boundaries or *area code*
boundaries?  Suppose your local call crossed only one of the two
boundaries?  (From DC to Pentagon, you would cross a state line, but
not an Area Code boundary.  From Virginia, you would cross an Area
Code boundary but not a state line.)  What would be the dialing rule
then?  That confusion has been eliminated.

The following 202 prefixes have been moved to 703: 545(?), 692, 693,
695, 696, 697 and 746.  One old Pentagon prefix, 202-694, could not be
moved because there already is a 703-694 prefix in Stuart, Virginia.
A new Pentagon prefix, 703-602, was opened, presumably to absorb the
users booted off of 694.

Previously, the Pentagon was its own Rate Area for billing purposes.
Now that its Area Code is the same as the surrounding county, it may
be moved into the Alexandria-Arlington Rate Area.  The new 602 prefix
is already listed in the Northern Virginia and DC directories as
Alexandria-Arlington.

To test whether the move was complete, sample Pentagon prefixes were
dialed from both 703 and 202 phones (all local) as both 7 and 10
digits.  As of 30 June 1990, none of the sample Pentagon prefixes
could be reached by dialing 202-NXX-XXXX from Virginia but all of them
could be reached by dialing 703-NXX-XXXX from Washington, DC.  All
could be reached by dialing just seven digits from either place since
that is still allowed until October.

Dialing 703-694 from a DC phone produces an immediate, "you must first
dial a 1" intercept without even waiting for the last four digits.
1-703-694-XXXX would be the correct way to dial Stuart.

Presumably, 202-694 will be closed, if it isn't already, or kept for
some other purpose.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]


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

Subject: Public*Phone
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 7 Jul 90 22:09:38 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


An amusing COCOT incident:

Needing to reach Pac*Bell over some matters with my residence phone, I
spotted what looked like a standard Pac*Bell pay phone. It turned out
to be a [Public*Phone] (tm) with colors and logos that are borderline
actionable in their resemblance to Pac*Bell. They have blue rectangles
in the upper left corner and an embossed logo on the coinbox cover
that from more than ten feet away looks exactly like the puckered
asshole logo of Pac*Bell.

Anyway, I dialed 811-5700 and was told that I had dialed an "invalid
number" by the grainiest digital excuse for a voice you have ever
heard. Then I dialed 211 and explained that I couldn't reach 811-5700.
She asked me to hold and then I heard a touchtone digit which made the
phone go dead. A moment later she came back and said that the phone
did not indicate any money lost. I told her I didn't put any money in
and that 811-5700 should be a free call anywhere in the state of
California.

She went off the line again, and then came back and said that I would
have to use another phone. I explained that there were no other phones
anywhere in the vacinity and that I was going to express my
displeasure over the inconvenience with the store proprietor.
Suddenly, her tone changed and she said, "just one moment." The next
thing I heard was "Pacific Bell, may I help you?".

So, as the guru and mentor would say, "what have we learned, my
children?" Perhaps, the COCOT robber barons are just a bit sensitive
about suckers--er, customers complaining about their one-arm bandits
to those who might have the power to have them removed.


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

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

From: Ron Pfeifle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plain Ol' Telephones.
Date: 4 Jul 90 20:41:51 GMT
Organization: Teleride Sage, Ltd., Waterloo, Ontario


What happens on a two-wire telephone line when a call is being
completed in terms of the two wires?  I'd like a description like:

The CO signals such-and-such across the wires.  Because of
this-and-that the telephone rings.  When the receiver is picked up,
A-and-B happens which tells the CO that the phone is off-hook.  At
this point voice out goes through wire blah, voice in comes through
wire bleh, etc..

I just want to know what such-and-such, this-and-that, A-and-B etc...
are for a two-wire subscriber line in terms of signals on those wires.

Thanks,

Ron Pfeifle : Teleride Sage Ltd : Waterloo, Ontario : watmath!tslwat!ronp

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

Date: Thu, 5 Jul 90 09:54:22 PDT
From: riot![e-mail]
Reply-To: "Steve L. Rhoades" <riot![e-mail]>
Subject:  Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID


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


US mail:  Post Office Box 1000, Mount Wilson, Calif.  91023
UUCP: ...elroy!cit-vax!riot!slr       Internet: [e-mail]
voice-mail: [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 90 15:05:47 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touchtone History


    When were the first touchtone phones installed?  I always
thought the answer was that were introduced at the 1964/65 New York
World's Fair.  The fair opened in the summer of 64, so those were
probably installed in late 63 or early 64.

    However, I recently watched a documentary about the
desegregation of the University of Alabama (the incident in which
Governor George Wallace vowed to "stand in the schoolhouse door" to
prevent two black students from registering for classes) which proves
me wrong on that theory.  A touch-tone phone was clearly visible in
President Kennedy's oval office in numerious bits of footage shot at
the time.  The year was 1963 and the students were trying to register
for the summer session, so I would put the date at about May or June
1963.  The phone that Kennedy used most of the time was a multi-line
key set with a rotary dial (looked like about 25 lines) and a
speakerphone attachment.  Sitting on the table behind his chair were
about 3 or 4 single line desk sets, one touch-tone, the rest rotary.
Was touch-tone in general use in May 1963, or did the President just
have a pre-release model?

    Another bit of interesting telecom related trivia was a shot
of the US Deputy Attourny General (I forget his name) on location at
the U of A wanting to place a private phone call to JFK to discuss
tactics as the situation developed.  You see him getting into his car
and asking (telling, really) the press to get back so he can have some
privacy.  Then you see another shot of him, sitting in the car,
talking on the phone.  You clearly hear him saying something like "OK,
they can't hear me now", and clearly hear JFK's voice responding!
This is all real on-location footage, not some recreation.  It's not
clear if the phone line was tapped, there was a bug in the car, some
sound man had a good parabolic mike, or if some reporter had simply
slipped a mike into the car window without the DAG noticing.

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

From: Ravi Manghirmalani <[e-mail]>
Subject: HPPI (High-Performance Parallel Interface) Info Desired
Organization: Vicom Systems, Inc., Fremont, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 90 19:41:16 GMT


    I am currently researching the usability of HPPI
(High-Performance Parallel Interface) for high speed local area
networks. The only reference I have found, so far is "Overcoming
Network Bottlenecks - Wayne Hathaway", UNIX Review Vol. 8, No. 4
(April 1990).

    I am interested in knowing about any available
hardware/software products as well as any ongoing research/development
work for HPPI concerning networking, disk-controllers, protocols, as
well as their relationship to traditional networking, etc.

    Any leads would be greatly appreciated.

                    [e-mail]
                    {ames|apple|sun}!vsi1!ravi
                    [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Subject: Motorola 9000 Handheld
Date: 8 Jul 90 02:50:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rick Farris)
Organization: Serenity BBS, Del Mar, California


Greetings,

I finally took the plunge and acquired a cellular phone.

I needed a handheld (or at least transportable) because I bought it
not for use in the car, but to enable clients to reach me when I'm
working on-site at another clients premises.

I looked at the Radio Shack CT-301, as recommended by various
c.d.t'ers, and it certainly was attractive at $500.  The Motorola 9000
(which I ended up buying) seemed much nicer but was priced $400
higher.  I even looked at the Motorola Micro-TAC, (for about $1100),
because the idea of being able to carry a phone in my shirt pocket was
alluring.  Unfortunately, contrary to the rumors that abound here, the
Micro-TAC is nowhere near small enough to fit in a shirt pocket.  In
particular, with the battery attached, it is quite thick.  As the
salesman pointed out to me, the Micro-TAC was really designed to fit
in a woman's purse -- if a phone is big enough that it won't fit in
your pocket, then you'll have to carry it in your hand or your
briefcase, and there's not much sense to pay the big premium for the
size of the Micro-TAC.

That narrowed it down to the CT-301 and the Motorola 9000.  (Ok, there
was an OKI for about $700 that looked nice, but it didn't the quality
feel of the Motorola, nor did it have the battery life nor come with
as many accessories.

Although the 9000 was $400 more expensive than the CT-301, it came
with two antennas and two battery packs and a carrying case, which
narrowed the price difference somewhat.  The fact that programming
information is readily available here in c.d.t for the CT-301 was a
big draw for it, but finally, quality won out and I purchased the
Motorola 9000 handheld.

So now I'm here in c.d.t begging for more information about my phone.
Does Motorola sell manuals for my phone?  (To the public, I mean.)
Does anyone else have a 9000 who would be willing to share info about
it?

After my phone was delivered, I realized that they hadn't told me the
six-digit security code (normally unchangeable by the user) which is
used to modify the three-digit lock code and to access various other
features.  I called the sales office and the supervisor there told me
that she was sure my code was 000000 because that is what they set
them all to!  Does anyone know how to change it?

Thanks!


Rick Farris  RF Engineering  POB M  Del Mar, CA  92014  voice [phone]
[e-mail]       ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris        serene.UUCP 259-7757


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #468
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28114;
          8 Jul 90 22:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09951;
          8 Jul 90 21:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14213;
          8 Jul 90 20:14 CDT
Date:     Sun, 8 Jul 90 19:16:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #469
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Jul 90 19:15:02 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 469

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Wes Plouff]
    Re: PacBell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges [John A. Hammond]
    Re: Number of NXX in Each NPA [Jim Ray]
    Re: Buying Telecom Tools [Bob Vaughan]
    Re: Sprint Users Now Get Immediate Credit [Shailesh Shukla]
    Re: PacBell Coinphone False Info [Edward Greenberg]
    Re: Manhole Covers [Clive Feather]
    Re: Mitch Kapor and "Sun Devil" [Peter da Silva]
    Re: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access [PCI]
    Re: Finland Direct (Some Problems) [Kauto Huopio]
    Re: Who is John Galt? [John David Galt]
    Plantronics Jackset [David Brightbill]
    Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Adnan Yaqub]
    My Trip to Kansas  [TELECOM Moderator]
    Good For a Laugh: Polish Payphones [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 4 Jul 90 16:58:11 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


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

>Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]> writes:
>> It is true that if they just passed the extra cost of call waiting,

>But what IS this extra cost? You can't get a generic for any switch
>today that doesn't have the usual custom calling features built in.

 ...and...

>Heath Roberts <[e-mail]> writes:

>> This isn't quite true. Telephone companies have to pay quite a bit for
>> the software (and sometimes hardware) to provide these advanced
>> features.

>Call waiting, call forwarding, and three-way calling are not, repeat
>not advanced features. They have been part and parcel of stock
>generics for over twenty years. Try to buy a switch without them.

Historical questions: when was the last date that AT&T sold switching
equipment _without_ 100 percent tone dialing coverage?  Competitors?
When was the last date AT&T sold switches without at least some
"custom calling" features as standard?  Competitors?  References such
as magazine articles would be most appreciated.

This is a relevant question for those of us who live with backwater
telephone service from NYNEX, as well as arteriosclerotic regulation
by the Mass. PUC.


Wes Plouff, Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard, Mass.
[e-mail]

Networking bibliography:  _Islands in the Net_, by Bruce Sterling
              _The Matrix_, by John S. Quarterman

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

From: "John A. Hammond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacBell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges
Date: 6 Jul 90 18:11:02 GMT
Reply-To: "John A. Hammond" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


Several years ago, my daughter informed me that the pulse/dial
telephones that I purchased would work in the tone mode.  Since that
time, particularly since we gave all of the rotary units back to
PacBell rather than pay exhorbitant monthly rental, I have been using
touch-tone dialing exclusively.  There has never been an additional
charge for that usage or an installation charge.  I have had the same
telephone service for roughly 25 years with the only change being the
result of the divestiture.  I suspect that the switch was replaced
with a new one and touch-tone was available for use.  I just didn't
make the mistake of signing up for it!

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

From: Jim Ray <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Number of NXX in Each NPA
Organization: Harris Semiconductor, Melbourne FL
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 90 21:34:45 GMT


Does anyone have a list of the NXX's in each NPA?  This list gave the
number of NXX's in each NPA but not each one and area location.

Is this information generally available?


Jim Ray                                Harris Semiconductor
Internet:  [e-mail]     PO Box 883   MS 62B-022
Phone:     [phone]              Melbourne, FL  32901


[Moderator's Note: You are asking for very large, extensive files, but
yes, they are available. If David Leibold (woody), our Canadian
correspondent is reading this, please write Mr. Ray and send your
files to him if he *really* wants all of them as he thinks.   PT]

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

Date: Sun, 8 July 90 01:44:26 pdt
From: Bob Vaughan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Buying Telecom Tools
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In article <[e-mail]> you write:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 327, Message 11 of 11

>I wanted to get a tracing beeper, an inductive pickup, and a modular
>adapter (to bring the modular pins out in order to attach a test set.)

>I found that Graybar in San Jose won't sell to anybody who doesn't
>have a California resale certificate.  I thought that the days of
>phone-paranoia were over.

>Does anybody know of a source that publishes a catalog from which I
>can mail order items such as these?  Hello Direct just won't cut it.


Try this place:
     Time Motion Tools
     410 South Douglas St
     El Segundo , Ca  90245
     213-772-8170


Bob Vaughan - [e-mail] - {apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!techie

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 90 12:16 CDT
From: Shailesh Shukla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Users Now Get Immediate Credit
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jason
Chen) writes:

> You can get immediate credit ... if and only if you can get through
> their always-busy customer service. Yup, they have not changed a bit
> since I dropped them three years ago.

Not true!

That's partly the idea behind the instant-credit service. You don't
have to dial customer service (1-800-877-4646). The 00 operator can
give you all the credit you want.


Shailesh Shukla

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 90 08:21 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: PacBell Coinphone False Info


Ron Schnell writes:

>..I never thought I would see a BOC payphone which displays
>misinformation like this one did.

>She then told me that in the future I should call Pac Bell, and
>that they are the ones who should know about it.

Ron goes on to suggest that AT&T should have done something about it,
and, indeed, they might have taken a report, but then, they'd have to
do the same thing that they suggested ... Call Pacific Bell.

I found a payphone in a restaurant recently, that was labelled AT&T,
and gave some sleezy LD service instead.  I called Pacific Bell Repair
Service and reported it, and it was fixed the next day!  Since they
control the programming, I wouldn't think of calling AT&T for the
problem.


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

Date: Fri, 6 Jul 90 07:13:21 bst
From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers


People have been talking about constant width curves (such as a triangle with
curved sides, each centred on the opposite vertex). The UK 20p and 50p coins
are seven-sided constant width curves in shape. The constant width property
means that the coin will still roll !


Clive D.W. Feather              | IXI Limited
[e-mail] [x, not ixi]      | 62-74 Burleigh St.
 ...!uunet!ixi!clive            | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
Phone: [phone]          | United Kingdom

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mitch Kapor and "Sun Devil"
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 90 16:37:38 GMT


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

> You wouldn't threaten somebody
> with 30 years in jail for taking something from a house.

AT&T and DEC aren't houses.


Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
[phone].
<[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access
Date: Fri,  6 Jul 90 18:50:43 PDT


Greg Monti states:

>There are no "different" vendors for overseas calls and for domestic
>calls.  US regulations (the Modified Final Judgment) state that, from
>any US phone, the whole world is divided into just two areas:
>intra-LATA and inter-LATA.  Overseas calls are obviously in the second
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>category and therefore the long distance companies carry them.
^^^^^^^^^

This is not quite accurate.  LEC's are not allowed to provide
inter-LATA service.  They are allowed to provide intra-LATA and
International service.

This situation in very familiar to the carriers that serve the Hawaii
market.  One of the largest IRC's (International Record Carriers) in
the region is GTE Hawaiian Telephone (HawTel) the local LEC.  When
competing for service between Hawaii and other Pacific points
(including U.S. points of Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
and American Samoa) we find our LEC (which has a monopoly for local
service ... both dialup access and leased line local loops) is also the
IRC competing with us.  In order to prepare a bid, we must notify our ...


[Moderator's Note: This is the way I received the above message. It
appears the last sentence or two have been truncated.   PT]

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

From: Kauto Huopio <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finland Direct (Some Problems)
Date: 7 Jul 90 21:43:44 GMT
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland


My brother is as an exchange student in Lawton, Michigan. He has tried
to call our family here at Finland via the Finland Direct service
(quite equal to Svergie Direct) Our PTT has advertised these two
numbers:

1-800-232-0358 via ATT
1-800-283-4652 via MCI

My brother hasn't got through, at least when he did try the ATT
number.  He got a recorded message: "Your international call couldn't
be completed" or something like that.

Now I have several questions:

1) Is it true that there can bee 1-800 numbers NOT ACCESSIBLE via
either ATT/MCI

2) If 1) is true, can my brother access another carrier to make the
1-800 call and does he get any additional charges on that?

3) Do these numbers work at all? (PLEASE, I don't want to get such
news that 4000 telecom readers blocked the Finland Direct service just
to test if it works..)


Kauto, OH5LFM

****************** Kauto Huopio ([e-mail]) **********************
*US Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta, Finland *
*WARNING! We have holiday season here, so be patient with my answers..      *
*****************************************************************************

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Who is John Galt?
Date: Sat,  7 Jul 90 15:19:05 PDT


You guessed right about where I got the name, but I am a real person
and am not quite the same as either Rand's character or da Silva's
description.  I invite philosophical discussions under
alt.individualism -- this is not the place for them.

For the record, John David Galt is my real name, which I took in 1981.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 90 02:55:46 -0400
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plantronics Jackset


Does anyone know how to connect a Plantronics js-0180-1 jackset to a
plain old 500 style instrument?  I sort of got it working by guess and
by golly but ...  I suspect that there are different pinouts depending
on the type of instrument it gets connected to.


Dave Brightbill
Rt. 7, MLC-9
Tallahassee, FL  32308-9802
904.878.3746
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 26 Apr 90 11:13:41 EDT
From: Adnan Yaqub <sgtech![e-mail]>
Subject: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones


Could some kind body please point me to a suitable reference which
describes the signaling between the main office and my home phone.  I
would like to know such things as how much power is provided, what the
ring signal is like, how the click for call waiting is done, etc.


Adnan Yaqub
Star Gate Technologies, 29300 Aurora Rd, Solon, OH, 44139, USA, [phone]
[...cwjcc!ncoast ...uunet!abvax ...ism780c ...sco ...mstar]!sgtech!adnan

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 90 18:38:10 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: My Trip to Kansas


My trip earlier this week to the land of Ah's went off mostly without
a hitch, although my cellular phone from Radio Shack (CT-301) with
service from Ameritech gave me some hassles.

From Chicago going down I-55 we have Ameritech here at home and again
in the Springfield, IL area. Some other small cell carrier comes in
further downstate, which I belive is Contel Cellular, which is a
division of some other cell carrier.  Shortly before St. Louis.
Southestern Bell came in, then Missouri was served in a sketchy way by
United States Cellular over much of Route 54.

The trouble is, I could make no outgoing calls (or receive incoming
calls via Ameritech's 'follow me' roaming feature) on the way down. It
seems even tough I told Ameritech earlier in the week to turn on the
'Fast Track Follow Me Roaming' feature (which they did), since this
was my first trip out of town with the cell phone, for some reason
Ameritech got paranoid when they picked up my signal from central
Illinois instead of Chicago ... so ... they cut me off immediatly.

Being the Fourth of July, there was no one in their office to complain
to, but Thursday morning, July 5 I was on their 800 numbber at 9 AM
sharp to raise cain. I got a call back an hour or so later from a man
who apologized and said I had inadvertently been placed on the
'abandoned listing'. On the way back everything worked fine, except
that on a few occasions when between carrier areas, the roaming light
(as opposed to 'no service' light) would come on, leading me to
believe there was service at that point when there was not.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 7 Jul 90 22:03 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
To: Telecom Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Good For a Laugh: Polish Payphones


 ..Here's a mini-laugh just arrived here as republished in TE&M
magazine for July 1, 1990:

       "A recent article from Knight-Ridder newspapers describes the
payphone situation in Poland:

        "`Want in on the best little bargain in a changing Eastern
Europe?  Step right up: A local call at a Polish payphone is still
only 20 zlotys -- about one-fifth of a penny in U.S. terms.

        "`Don't have a 20-zloty coin?  Not to worry.  With some
shrewd dealing you can buy one for as low as 200 zlotys.'"
(I make that out to be about 2 cents U.S. !)

        "`Since Polish payphone mechanisms were increased to
20 zlotys several months ago, 20-zloty coins have gone into hiding.

        "`Not all 20-zloty coins, mind you.  Just the ones that fit
payphones.  There are three sizes of 20-zloty coins in Poland,along
with a 20-zloty bill. (Don't ask; explaining all of this is going to
be complicated enough.)

        "`The payphone-sized 20-zlotycoins are selling on the streets
for 200 to 1,000 zlotys apiece.'" (I still say cheap at a thousand
zlotys -- about a dime U.S., isn't it?)

        "`The whole thing might strike you as it strikes Miroslawa
Firlej, 35, a Polish waitress who recently coughed up 1,000 zlotys for
a coin to call her son's school to report he was sick.  Of the
payphone situation, she remarked, "It's crazy."

        "`A great many Poles, like Firlej, have no phone in their
homes, so they rely on payphones.  And with the breathtaking inflation
that has resulted from the country's sudden change to a free-market
economy, 20-zloty coins don't circulate much because they aren't worth
much, except in a pay phone.  And there, incidentally, they are a good
deal, considering that a local call from a private phone is now 150
zlotys.'"

Seems I recall a similar situation in Greece, where the local payphone
rate was a few drachmae, a price so cheap that coins of such a small
denomination were hard to come by.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #469
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15484;
          10 Jul 90 3:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32312;
          10 Jul 90 1:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05968;
          10 Jul 90 0:23 CDT
Date:     Mon, 9 Jul 90 23:34:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #470
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Jul 90 23:33:39 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 470

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Public*Phone [David Tamkin]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [John Higdon]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Heath Roberts]
    Re: Touchtone History [John Slater]
    Re: PacBell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges [[e-mail]]
    Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703 [Carl Moore]
    Re: Finland Direct (Some Problems) [John R. Covert]
    Re: My Trip to Kansas [Doug Davis]
    Re: Good For a Laugh: Polish Payphones [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID
Date: 9 Jul 90 01:13:09 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> 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).

Here in New Jersey, local calls placed through the operator are
displayed as "OUT OF AREA" on the Caller*ID display.  This makes them
indistinguishable from calls which originate out of the LATA or from
CO's which are not equipped with SS7.  This is also true of calls
dialed as 0+ and charged to a calling card, without any communication
with a human operator.


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]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Public*Phone
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 90 21:04:33 CDT


In TELECOM Digest, Volume 10, Issue 468, John Higdon wrote:

| An amusing COCOT incident:

| Needing to reach Pac*Bell over some matters with my residence phone, I
| spotted what looked like a standard Pac*Bell pay phone. It turned out
| to be a [Public*Phone] (tm) with colors and logos that are borderline
| actionable in their resemblance to Pac*Bell. They have blue rectangles
| in the upper left corner and an embossed logo on the coinbox cover
| that from more than ten feet away looks exactly like the puckered
| asshole logo of Pac*Bell.

Around metropolitan Chicago, COCOTs originally looked like something
untoward, but after a while all new ones installed were made to appear
deceptively similar to Illinois Bell coin phones.  One frequently has
to get close enough to see that the logo in the white space in the
upper left of the card is not IBT's before recognizing one of the
buggers for sure.

The guise backfires in Centel's satrapy, where telco pay stations have
a distinctive boxy solid brown or gray housing and a prominent
instruction card in a different position from the IBT payphones and
the COCOTs.  Since there don't seem to be any COCOTs manufactured to
look like the pay phones of independent telqi, the COCOTs in Centel
territory (usually outside gasoline stations or inside restaurants,
but far sparser than in IBT country) stick out like sore thumbs.


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]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 8 Jul 90 21:27:33 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> This is a relevant question for those of us who live with backwater
> telephone service from NYNEX, as well as arteriosclerotic regulation
> by the Mass. PUC.

Moo, moo, moo! Come to California some time if you want backwater.
Come to California if you want arteriosclerotic (or just plain silly)
regulation.

F'rinstance -- I just talked to one of my major upstairs Pac*Bell
contacts. He says that CLASS will hopefully become available second
quarter 1991. He says that hardware is in place, but that there is
still nothing resembling a tariff.

So much for regulation. Now for backwater. Pac*Bell is still saddled
with major amounts of crossbar (mostly in northern CA). In order to
continue to use this junk, they were forced several years ago to
install the NAC CONTAC to the switches which mainly enables FGD.
Wonderful, you say. However, there were side effects. Unadorned
crossbar has no trouble counting pulse dialing at 20 pps. CONTAC must
see 9-12 pps. Outside of this window is not permitted. Also, Pac*Bell
has just decided that post-dial delay resulting from the CONTAC
operation may be too long. What an understatement. For a DDD call to
LA using AT&T it take three seconds to connect on my ESS and ten
seconds on my crossbar line. That's more than 300% longer!

BTW, there are eight prefixes of crossbar left in my CO alone!
(Crossbar for all of you outside of tel-hell [CA] is that
electro-mechanical stuff you read about in books that now have yellow
pages.) Now what was that about backwater?


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

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 20:14:42 GMT


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

>Historical questions: when was the last date that AT&T sold switching
>equipment _without_ 100 percent tone dialing coverage?  Competitors?
>When was the last date AT&T sold switches without at least some
>"custom calling" features as standard?  Competitors?  References such
>as magazine articles would be most appreciated.

>This is a relevant question for those of us who live with backwater
>telephone service from NYNEX, as well as arteriosclerotic regulation
>by the Mass. PUC.

I can only speak directly of Northern Telecom, but I am assured by
customers who work with AT&T equipment they ATT's systems are similar.

To the first question: all switches come with tone receivers. But you
need more than one tone receiver for a large switch: if you provide
touch-tone service to 10,000 lines, you might need twenty of them. If
your customers use the phone a lot, you might need thirty. The more
lines you want to connect to tone receivers, the more tone receivers
you need. Only one line can send tones to a given receiver at a time.
The hardware to detect current loop (off-hook or pulse dialing, which
is just a bunch of closely-spaced off-hook signals) is present on the
line card itself: there's one per subscriber loop in the switch. So
you can't really just ask about "100% coverage". It doesn't work that
way. Trying to provide more touch-tone service without adding capacity
is like trying to push a thousand cars an hour down a two lane road:
things back up, everybody gets slowed down, etc. You have to add extra
lanes in the long run.

On the issue of software: switches are like cars. There's the basic
model (switch o.s., no call processing) and then there are the
features.  Call processing is a popular one, so everybody orders it. ;-)
In fact, a telephone switch would be useless without it. But
beyond the basic POTS and switch O/S, everything's optional. Just like
cars, there are attractively priced packages of common options, but
they still cost extra.

It always takes more hardware (and software) to provide these features
-- you don't get something for nothing. The price of the hardware is
coming down, but you need more and more of it (you can actually put
four Gigabytes of RAM--memory, not disk space--on your DMS-100 now if
you need it). Software's also getting to be more and more complex, so
telcos are spending proportionally more on software than they used to.
These costs are the reason I think I'm justified in saying that CLASS
features, although not "advanced" in concept, and even though they're
pretty common, cost operating companies more to provide than POTS.


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

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 9 Jul 90 08:44:35 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>


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

>Sitting on the table behind his chair were
>about 3 or 4 single line desk sets, one touch-tone, the rest rotary.

Er, shouldn't that be "one push-button, the rest rotary"?  Unless you
heard the tones when JFK made a call, it could just be a
pulse-dialler.  In the UK, push-button pulse-dialling phones have been
around for years, long before touch-tone came along.


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PacBell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 90 09:31:05 EDT


John Hammond writes of Touch-Tone service suddenly working on his
line, and speculates about a switch upgrade.  More likely, the switch
hasn't been upgraded.

My understanding is that with crossbar switches, Touch-Tone has to be
enabled for groups of 100 lines at a time.  Thus, if a ``neighbor''
has the service, you can have it, too.  This is in contrast to modern
digital exchanges, where all lines physically can have it, but a
configuration bit tells the switch whether or not to honor the tones.
A year or two ago, NY Telephone announced that they were going to
start looking for people who used Touch-Tone without paying for it,
and send them a bill.  I haven't heard of this actually happening yet.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 16:31:08 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703


A recent message in telecom from Greg Monti said that the Pentagon
picked up offices which used to be in Washington, thus (sometime way
back) it was given DC instead of Virginia prefixes.  What place name
will be used for the Pentagon prefixes which have now been put in area
703?

Switching from Washington to Arlington/Alexandria would cause some
changes in the fringes of the calling area.  From the prefixes (other
than DC & Baltimore metro) in the Maryland fringes such as
Gaithersburg and Laurel, DC is local but Virginia is long distance.

And a previous message from me in telecom notes that, despite the
(soon to go away?) ability to make long distance calls to all-but-
outermost Va. & Md. suburbs using area code 202, the already-working
NPA+7D scheme for local DC-area calls will permit area 202 to be used
only for DC prefixes.  I noticed that this NPA+7D can be used even in
one's own NPA in DC-area local calls.

Please correct me if any of this is wrong:

The Pentagon was already reachable as 7D in those extended-area calls
from "Prince William" area.  (Stuart is way down near the North
Carolina border, so there is no danger of prefix duplication involving
694.)  The extended-area calls the other way around now are dialed as
1+703+7D from the Pentagon (they are long distance from DC proper),
and could LATER be reduced to 7, not 10, digits, given that the
Pentagon prefixes are now in 703 area.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 14:22:57 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  09-Jul-1990 1658" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finland Direct (Some Problems)


>My brother is as an exchange student in Lawton, Michigan. He has tried
>to call our family here at Finland via the Finland Direct service.
>Our PTT has advertised these two numbers:

>1-800-232-0358 via ATT
>1-800-283-4652 via MCI

When I call either of these numbers, I reach a tone _in_Finland_ that
I am not familiar with, but it may simply be a "please wait" tone.  I
suspect the problem is with the grade of service provided by the
operators in Finland.  The tone is roughly 500ms of 950 Hz, 250ms of
950 Hz, 1.5 sec of 1400 Hz.  After a long time of no revenue due to no
answer, AT&T gives up and says "Your call cannot be completed at this
time in the country you are calling."  On MCI it eventually times out
to a reorder (120 interruptions per minute).

>1) Is it true that there can bee 1-800 numbers NOT ACCESSIBLE via
>either ATT/MCI

Any carrier can provide 800 service, but I can verify that 232 is the
AT&T prefix and 283 is the MCI prefix.

>2) If 1) is true, can my brother access another carrier to make the
>1-800 call and does he get any additional charges on that?

No.  But that wouldn't help, since the problem is obviously in
Finland, and not here.

>3) Do these numbers work at all? (PLEASE, I don't want to get such
>news that 4000 telecom readers blocked the Finland Direct service just
>to test if it works..)

It may just be a matter of being patient enough to wait for the
Finland Direct number to answer, though if you're put at the end of
the queue of all the people in Finland calling the international
operator each time you call, you may never get through.

One of the main reasons for USA Direct (the first Home Country Direct
service ever implemented) being established was that it often took a
very long time for operators in many European countries to answer;
Americans are used to operators answering in something between two and
ten seconds.

Your brother should probably simply call the AT&T operator and place
a collect call.


/john

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 13:37 CDT
From: Doug Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My Trip to Kansas
Organization: Logic Process, Dallas Tx


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

>On the way back everything worked fine, except
>that on a few occasions when between carrier areas, the roaming light
>(as opposed to 'no service' light) would come on, leading me to
>believe there was service at that point when there was not.

This is usually due to a phone being programmed to scan the b and a
carriers, sometimes they mistakenly lock on a (insert opposing
carrier)'s signal and roam to it.  The solution is to program your
phone to only scan the correct ( b [wireline] or a [non-wireline] )
carrier for whomever you have a roaming agreement with.

Also sometimes on the CT-301 (and all the other phones made by Mobira)
a close proximity tower of the other carrier will cause your phone to
roam on it, if that tower overpowers the correct carrier for your
phone.

On most phones this is a user option and can be changed "on the fly"
without going into program mode.


Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun|lawnet|texbell}!letni!doug or [e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Good For a Laugh: Polish Payphones
Date: 8 Jul 90 21:35:53 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]> writes:

>         "`Don't have a 20-zloty coin?  Not to worry.  With some
> shrewd dealing you can buy one for as low as 200 zlotys.'"
> (I make that out to be about 2 cents U.S. !)

On a trip to La Paz (Mexico) last year, a local teenager demonstrated
how to make a call if one didn't have the correct change (or didn't
want to actually expend the funds). One takes the coin, (US coins seem
to work for this purpose as well) and insert it partially. When the
telephone appears to have recognized the coin, simply remove it. Many
of the payphones there didn't even require that much effort--they just
provided free calls. Obviously, the Mexican telephone company doesn't
consider public phones to be the gold mine that they are in the US!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #470
******************************











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16704;
          10 Jul 90 4:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14505;
          10 Jul 90 2:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32312;
          10 Jul 90 1:27 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Jul 90 0:28:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #471
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Jul 90 00:27:57 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 471

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Legion of Doom Members Plead Guilty [Eduardo Krell]
    Canadian Hotel Revises Phone Call Rates [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Merlin Question [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Radio Shack CT-102 [Doug Faunt]
    NAMFAX Info Wanted [Eric Varsanyi]
    Telebit T1000 Modem at 9600 Baud [Phil Ngai]
    How Do I Wire a 500 Set? [Roy M. Smith]
    Curious About Overseas Call Responses [Subbarayu Darisipudi]
    Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Tom Neff]
    Re: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access [G. Monti]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 16:14:38 EDT
Subject: Legion of Doom Members Plead Guilty


Extracts from an AP news wire:

  Three members of the Legion of Doom group pleaded guilty to federal
conspiracy charges Monday. U.S. Attorney Joe Whitley said the group
disrupted telecommunications, stole computer source codes and
information, stole credit card information and fraudulently obtained
money and property.

  In May, authorities in Indiana prosecuted a juvenile who pleaded
guilty to 11 counts of fraud and agreed to testify against the three
Atlanta men, in a trial scheduled to start today.

  Instead, the three pleaded guilty. They are E. Grant, 22 and Robert
Riggs, 22 (both from Atlanta) and Franklin E. Darden Jr, 24 of
Norcross.

  Whitley said in a statement that they illegally accessed various
BellSouth computers between Sept. 10, 1987 and July 21, 1989. Grant
and Darden also monitored private telephone conversations. They were
carged with conspiracy to commit computer fraud, wire fraud, access
code fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property.

  Darden and Riggs pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy each and
face a maximum of 5 years in prison and a $ 250,000 fine. Grant
pleaded guilty to possessing 15 or more BellSouth access devices with
intent to defraud and faces up to 10 years in prison and a $ 250,000
fine.


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

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Canadian Hotel Revises Phone Call Rates
Date: 9 Jul 90 15:35:02 GMT
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


I administer a hotel PBX (please no flames about hotel charges until
you read this whole posting).  The hotel is located in Ontario Canada
which means we have only one long distance supplier - Bell Canada (A
first cousin of AT&T).  With the proliferation of long distance
companies in the United States and the large number of guests that we
attract from the states, we have been getting a *lot* of inquiries
concerning accessing alternate long distance companies.

In a few cases (MCI and Sprint to be exact), we do let the guests know
about the 1-800-950-1022 and 1-800-877-8000 telephone numbers to
access these two services.  However, I would like to provide our
guests with a much more complete list.  Therefore I would appreciate
e-mail or postings to this group of such numbers (remember they have
to be accessible from Canada! - a lot of US 800 numbers will not work
from Canada).  In addition to the American long distance providers, I
would also like as many of the "Overseas" 'Direct' numbers, including
AT&T's USA Direct.

Finally, as to the charges that we levy: some of you will recall a
posting some time ago on this subject from myself.  AFter overcoming
the shock of the vehemence of some of the replies, I examined what
people were saying and then ran a test period of a new charging
scheme.  That scheme is the following:

      Local Calls -- No charge.

      Directory Assistance -- $1.00 (after all every room has a
            telephone book and we have to pay $.75 for these calls).

      Credit Card Calls -- No charge.

      Operator Assisted (not charged to the Hotel) -- No Charge.

      Operator Assisted (charged to the Hotel) -- Actual charges
            plus a $1.00 surcharge (if you don't want to pay the
            surcharge put it on your credit card).

      800 Calls -- No charge (This includes 800-950-1022 and any
            other LD access numbers).

      Guest Dialed Long Distance (charged to the room) -- Actual
            DDD charges plus 50% plus a $1.00 surcharge ($2.50 for
            international calls) (see description below).

      900 and 700 Calls -- Blocked in the switch

Generally the policy is simple, if the hotel doesn't have to pay for
the call (notwithstanding monthly trunk charges etc.) neither does the
guest.  In the case of Guest Dialled Long Distance, I am sure that
there are some people who might start screaming "Rip-Off" with the 50%
and $1 surcharges.  However, before you start doing this, let's
compare the cost to making a credit card call: My telephone book tells
me that all station-to-station credit card calls completed by an
operator have a surcharge of $1.50 and $3.75 for a person-to-person.
In addition, there is a minimum 34 cent charge for the call on top of
that.  Charges are rounded up to the next whole minute whereas our
call detail recorder only charges 10ths of a minute.

Therefore, the surcharges we tack on are in keeping with those placed
on a credit card call.  Finally, for those who think that these
surcharges still leave us sitting on a mountain of money we have to
take into consideration what the inavailability of answer supervision
means for the charging of short calls.

Answer supervision is what makes a pay phone grab your quarter when
the other party answers and give it back to you if they don't.  If the
phone company can provide it to every blessed pay phone, you wonder
why they can't make it work for a call detail recorer in a hotel.  The
bottom line is they can't (or maybe they won't?).

Therefore, in charging calls to our guests, we have to program two
additional numbers, the minimum time that a call must continue before
it is eleigible to be charged and the time to be deducted from the
total length of the call which represents the setup time (the
switching and the ringing).  If these numbers are set too low, then a
lot of calls that were never made will get charged with a lot of guest
complaints to boot.  Set the number too high and a lot of calls that
were made and completed properly will not get charged with the
attendant loss of income to the hotel even though the phone company
will charge us for those calls.

Our philosophy has been to set up the numbers on the high side.  Since
doing so, we have almost eleiminated complaints of calls being charged
that were never completed.  On the other hand, our comparisons of what
was charged to guests versus what was charged by the phone company
indicates that there is a small revenue loss.  We make up for this
loss with the surcharge.  In other words, all people who make long
duration long distance calls end up subsidizing thos who make short
calls which are not charged for.  If anyone can convince the phone
company to provide us answer supervision no problem, we can get rid of
the surcharge.  Until then, it's the best solution that I know of.


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

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

Subject: Merlin Question
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 90 21:15:51 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


An associate has asked a question I cannot answer, so I would like to
call on any Merlin gurus reading this group.

He doesn't know the model number, but is discussing adding a line card
to a Merlin system. I believe this would be a 820 KSU. The question
is... are there any third-party voice terminals available for the
Merlin system, or must he use the AT&T model?

E-mail responses would be fine, as I doubt this is of great general
import. Thanks in advance!


    Roy M. Silvernail            | Opinions found
    now available at:            | herein are mine,
 cybrspc![e-mail]          | but you can rent
(cyberspace... be here!)|        | them.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Jul 90 20:33:16 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Shack CT-102


The Radio Shack CT-102 is for sale for $299.  What does the Telecom
collective conciousness think of the unit?  Are there better deals
available in the SF Bay area?  What is the lowest base cost rate
available for service in the Bay Area?

Thanx for the information.

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

From: Eric Varsanyi <boulder!pikes!zippy.craycos.com![e-mail]>
Subject: NAMFAX Info Wanted
Date: 9 Jul 90 13:52:48 GMT
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation


A while ago someone posted about the NAMFAX guide to programming
various cellular phones. I called them (they are in the Bay Area) and
asked for details on what type of information they had on each phone,
but the person I talked to was not very knowledgable and just answered
that they have all the information I would ever need.

Has anyone out there actually bought NAXFAX? If so, what level of
detail do they have on the Motorola 750. I have all the info on
reprogramming the NAM and getting into maintenance mode (shorting a
pin on the back to GND), but Motorola would not give me any of the
details on what other neat things you can do from maintenance mode
(like how to change the six digit internal lock code). Does the NAMFAX
guide have this level of detail? On other phones too?  Is it worth the
$100/$150 for someone with a single phone?


Eric Varsanyi ([e-mail])        Cray Computer Corporation

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

From: Phil Ngai <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telebit T1000 Modem at 9600 Baud
Reply-To: Phil Ngai <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 07:47:07 GMT


A couple years ago, I went from 2400 to Telebit for dial-in,
interactive use. I was unimpressed. I found the packetization
disturbing. The average delay from when I did something to when the
first character of a response came back seemed greater.

After that, of course, the characters came in faster. But I think the
delay to first character is what's important. I can't read at 2400
anyway. If there was no way to select what I want to display then it
would be nice to display the stuff I don't need faster, but usually I
can skip to exactly what I want and after that, the difference between
2400 and 9600 is not that important.

For UUCP, Telebit is probably worth considering but for dial-in, I
didn't like it.


Phil Ngai, [e-mail]        {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
PALASM 90: it's not the same old PALASM any more!

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: How Do I Wire A 500 Set?
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 12:18:18 GMT


    I have a good old basic rotary desk phone (500 set) that works
fine except for the ringer, which doesn't ring.  I suspect that
somewhere along the (time) line it might have been disconnected to
avoid REN-count detection, and put back on the wrong terminals on the
network block.  Can anybody tell me how to wire the ringer so it
works?  Tip and ring I now have on L1 and L2, although there seem to
be many combinations of terminals to which I can connect T/R and still
have the phone work, modulo the ringer.  I experimented with various
places for the red and white wires from the ringer, but havn't found
the magic combination yet.


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

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

From: Subbarayu Darisipudi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Curious About Overseas Call Responses
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:37:54 GMT


Just curious, wondering how the phone system works. When I call up
India using the University phones I dial 8 and after a I get a
different tone I enter my billing code and I get back to the usual
tone. Now I press 01 - Country Code - Area Code - Phone number. The
call usually takes a couple of seconds to set up.  When the call is
not set up, I get a message which goes something like this: "YOUR
INTERNATIONAL CALL DID NOT COMPLETE IN THE DESTINATION COUNTRY
DIALLED.  PLEASE TRY YOUR CALL LATER 405 2 T"

Two questions:

1. Is the message due to the reason that the party called is busy or
is it due to the reason that there were no lines available to India at
that instant? ( Note: When I call up from a friend's phone with a
direct AT&T line or from a pay phone using AT&T or MCI card, the call
is usually set up promptly but from the university phone, it literally
takes forever!!)

2. The numbers at the end of the message, are they indicating the
originating area code. I am calling from (405)-XXX-XXXX.

As I said, just curious. Nothing more.

Thanks,

Subbarayudu D.

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?
Date: 9 Jul 90 10:19:07 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


In this summer's movie DIE HARD 2**, which supposedly takes place in
Dulles International Airport (Washington DC), the payphones have a
prominent Pac*Bell logo on them.  Do they really provide the service
in Dulles?  Or was this an unavoidable glitch due to shooting in LA?
Or just a plug for the highest bidder?  (GTE was featured prominently
on the in-flight public phone, and hundreds of other vendors had their
little plugs too -- this has become par for the course in movies.)

** Mini review -- not as tight as the first one, even less believable,
but still good for laughs and ouch! type thrills.  See it on a hot,
boring afternoon.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 13:54:32 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  09-Jul-1990 1654" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access


 From: Greg Monti
 Date:  9 July 1990
 Subject: Re: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access


(Regarding what kind of carrier, inter-LATA or intra-LATA, carries
international toll calls.  I had stated that international calls were
inter-LATA): [e-mail] writes:

> This is not quite accurate.  LEC's are not allowed to provide
> inter-LATA service.  They are allowed to provide intra-LATA and
> International service.
> This situation in very familiar to the carriers that serve the Hawaii
> market.  One of the largest IRC's (International Record Carriers) in
> the region is GTE Hawaiian Telephone (HawTel) the local LEC...
> ...we find our LEC (which has a monopoly for local
> service) ... competing with us.

You are right, I wasn't clear enough.  The Modified Final Judgment
which governed the breakup of AT&T affected (and still affects) only
AT&T and the *Bell* Operating Companies (BOCs) which were once
*majority*-held by AT&T.  Technically speaking, the concept of a LATA
applies only to *BOC*s.  "Independent" LECs can either be "associated
with" a nearby BOC's LATA or can be in their own "area" which acts
like a LATA, like the "Rochester Area" referred to in New York
Telephone directories.

There are states that have no BOCs operating anywhere within them.
Alaska and Hawaii are two of them (the only two?).  GTE, since it is
not a BOC, but is an "independent" does not have the same
line-of-business restrictions on it that the MFJ has over a BOC.
That's why companies like GTE can do international service, why Centel
can run cable TV service (which broadcasters and cable operators are
trying to keep BOCs out of) and why Contel can run a competitive
domestic satellite data company (Contel ASC).

I believe that GTE is subject to a different (non-MFJ) consent decree
which *does* require it to offer equal access, even where its one-time
long distance company (Sprint) was one of the equal competitors.  So
the same restrictions don't apply to BOCs and independents.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #471
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08672;
          11 Jul 90 3:20 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09827;
          11 Jul 90 1:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28392;
          11 Jul 90 0:37 CDT
Date:     Tue, 10 Jul 90 23:47:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #472
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Jul 90 23:46:11 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 472

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom [Blake Farenthold]
    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Amanda Walker]
    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Greg Monti via John R. Covert]
    Re: Touchtone History [Jim Budler]
    Re: Touchtone History [Clive Feather]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [Jim Olsen]
    Re: Pac Bell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges [Dave Johnston]
    Re: New Area Code in Italy, Atlanta, Omaha, Detroit & Paris [Keith Pyle]
    Re: ATT New Reach Out Rate [Curtis E. Reid]
    Re: Radio Shack CT-102 [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Manhole Covers [John V. Zambito]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 09:57:21 CDT
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom


Over the holiday I saw Die Harder: Die Hard 2.  When you go, leave
your telecom background at home.  You know you are in for it when you
see 2 telecom 'continuity' errors within the first five minutes...

        1) Bruce Willis uses a PAC*BELL payphone in what is supposed
to be Dullas airport in Washington DC.

        2) Bruce Willas uses the PAC*BELL payphone to make a call TO
an AirPhone (the phones that are springing up on airplanes that only
allow OUTGOING calls)

Later in the movie we see Willis FAX fingerprints to LA for
identification.  I wish my FAXes came in clear enough to ID a
fingerprint.  I can usually can barely read them ... and that's when
they are sent in FINE mode.

I can understand accepting the BIG flaws as a necessary 'willing
suspension of the little things' right.  I'll take the job for half a
mil on Die Hard 3 ... so if any of the Digest readers have some
Hollywood connections...


    UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake
Internet: [e-mail]


Blake Farenthold         | Voice: 800/880-1890     |  MCI: BFARENTHOLD
1200 MBank North         |   Fax: [phone]     |  CIS: 70070,521
Corpus Christi, TX 78471 |   BBS: 512/882-1899     |  GEnie: BLAKE

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?
Date: 10 Jul 90 21:20:00 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> In this summer's movie DIE HARD 2**, which supposedly takes place in
> Dulles International Airport (Washington DC), the payphones have a
> prominent Pac*Bell logo on them.  Do they really provide the service
> in Dulles?  Or was this an unavoidable glitch due to shooting in LA?
> Or just a plug for the highest bidder?  (GTE was featured prominently
> on the in-flight public phone, and hundreds of other vendors had their
> little plugs too -- this has become par for the course in movies.)

Somehow, I suspect it's because people in Hollywood don't realize that
the whole world isn't California, and therefore didn't catch this
minor flaw.

The movie also references a plastic pistol undetectable by airport
metal detectors, called the Glock 7, made in West Germany.  (For those
of us read Time, Newsweek, or one of the other major sources of
falsehood in America, there is no Glock 7 -- there are Glock 17, 19,
20, and 21 models); it is completely detectable by metal detectors and
X-ray machines; and it's made in Austria, not West Germany).


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like
mine!

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

From: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 14:54:48 GMT


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

> In this summer's movie DIE HARD 2**, which supposedly takes place in
> Dulles International Airport (Washington DC), the payphones have a
> prominent Pac*Bell logo on them.  Do they really provide the service
> in Dulles?

As far as my friends & I could tell, none of the interior scenes were
shot at Dulles (in particular, the ticket lobby isn't even *close* to
how Dulles looks :-)).  We figured it was either LAX or Denver
Stapleton.

Last I knew, phones in Dulles are either C&P payphones or ATT/MCI/Sprint
credit card phonettes.


Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
InterCon Systems Corporation

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 14:47:24 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  10-Jul-1990 1747" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?

 From: Greg Monti
 Date: 10 July 1990
 Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?


Tom Neff <[e-mail]>  writes:

> In this summer's movie DIE HARD 2**, which supposedly takes place in
> Dulles International Airport (Washington DC), the payphones have a
> prominent Pac*Bell logo on them.  Do they really provide the service
> in Dulles?  ...

Nope.  Phone service at Dulles is provided by Continental Telephone
Company of Virginia (Contel), which is not a Bell Operating Company.
They now provide both local and Washington Metropolitan service on two
different prefixes.

Some businesses, airport authority and pay phones may still get their
Metro service the old fashioned way, by running loops to a
foreign-exchange central office controlled by C&P of Virginia in
nearby Herndon.  However, even if these were pay phones, they used
Contel-provided customer premises equipment, usually GTE Automatic
Electric pay station instruments.  I guess these talk to the C&P CO
just fine for coin handshaking, etc.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 18:36:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Slater <[e-mail].
sun.com> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 470, Message 5 of 10

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

>>Sitting on the table behind his chair were
>>about 3 or 4 single line desk sets, one touch-tone, the rest rotary.

>Er, shouldn't that be "one push-button, the rest rotary"?  Unless you

It was probably a Department of Defense phone. These phones looked
like touch-tone, made noises *similar* to touch-tone, but were on the
private DOD Autovon network. They were not pulse dialers. To my
uneducated ear they were DTMF, but they were definately tone dialers.
They had four extra keys for setting call priority. We had a similar
setup to the one described for JFK at a radar site i.e. 'normal'
phones, dial at that time, and in certain command centers, commanders
offices, communications centers, etc. an additional Autovon phone, as
described.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6061
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 06:22:44 bst
From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History


In vol 10 issue 468 [e-mail] (Roy Smith) says:

> When were the first touchtone phones installed?

> A touch-tone phone was clearly visible in President Kennedy's oval
> office

> Sitting on the table behind his chair were
> about 3 or 4 single line desk sets, one touch-tone, the rest rotary.
> Was touch-tone in general use in May 1963, or did the President just
> have a pre-release model?

I presume it had buttons. Why assume it was touch-tone ? The UK had
push-button pulse dial phones for a *long* time before DTMF signalling
arrived (I don't recall hearing of DTMF in the UK before 1986, while
push button phones were around in the early 70's. Anyone remember the
Trimphone ?).


Clive D.W. Feather            | IXI Limited
[e-mail] [x, not ixi]    | 62-74 Burleigh St.
 ...!uunet!ixi!clive          | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
Phone: [phone]        | United Kingdom

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

From: Jim Olsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 10 Jul 90 14:36:51 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA


>Historical questions: when was the last date that AT&T sold switching
>equipment _without_ 100 percent tone dialing coverage?

>This is a relevant question for those of us who live with backwater
>telephone service from NYNEX, as well as arteriosclerotic regulation
>by the Mass. PUC.

Don't put all the blame on the Mass. PUC.  A some of the blame goes to
Attorney General James Shannon.  Shannon 'represents the public'
before the PUC, and ensures that the rate structure remains 'fair'.

The Honorable Mr. Shannon's idea of 'fair' rates means keeping
residental rates as low as possible, and jacking up everything else
(business rates, tone dialling, CLASS, 'long' distance [what a
joke!]), irrespective of the actual costs involved.  New England
Telephone's new rate proposal, which attempts to more accurately
reflect costs, is of course blatantly 'unfair' according to Shannon,
since residential rates would rise.

Ain't politics wonderful?  (BTW, Shannon is up for re-election this year.)

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

Date: 10 Jul 90 11:12 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Pac Bell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges


A gentleman from AT&T responded to John Hammond's message about
mysteriously appearing touch tone service.  He made mention of NY Tel
threatening to bill people who used TT without paying, but said he
hadn't ever heard of it happening.

I can't vouch for someone being billed, but several years ago when I
lived in Ukiah, CA 707-462, they were contacting people both in
writing and verbally who were using touch tone service without paying.
They had just converted from a Crossbar office to 1AESS, and were
apparently deluged with people who realized that TT worked for free.
Shortly thereafter they must have patched it, because it stopped being
free.

Not that I would ever take advantage of Pac Bell.  After all, look at
all the wonderful things they've done for me.


Dave Johnston                      [e-mail]
Santa Rosa Junior College                       [phone]
1501 Mendocino Ave.                      Santa Rosa, CA  95401

I have no opinions.

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

From: Keith Pyle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Code in Italy, Atlanta, Omaha, Detroit & Paris
Date: 9 Jul 90 00:49:32 GMT
Organization: Execucom Systems Corp.


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

>In addition to Atlanta, Paris, Omaha and Italy, also involved in this
>area code change will be Detroit and Elkhart, among other places.

>Jim Hogg will be getting a new area code, which will be shared with
>Ben Franklin, Ben Wheeler and the White House residents.

>Uncertain and Telephone are included in the change.

>Would the Moderator try to bull-jive you?

Well, since our Moderator brought this up ... when I saw his post, I
knew immediately what he was talking about since Atlanta (pop. 7000)
is my home town.  I pass through Omaha, and have to remind myself not
to blink in doing so, whenever I go back.  Like many parts of the
country, northeast Texas has its share of oddly named places and ones
whose names relate in some way to more famous locales.  Uncertain does
indeed exist, and its name is said to have come about just as you
would expect.  They were uncertain what to name the place.  One cited
reason is that they weren't sure whether it was in Texas or Louisana.

It is an interesting place to visit if you're ever in the area (near
the Louisana border ~60 miles south of Texarkana).  Uncertain is at
the dead end of a state highway and sits next to Caddo Lake, which is
a natural lake that the Caddo Indians claim was formed overnight.
There is some evidence that an earthquake may have indeed caused it to
form.  Many huge cypress trees covered in Spanish moss exist
throughout the lake which is criss-crossed with boat runs maintained
by the Army Corps of Engineers.

If you go in very far and alone the first few times, you better have
a map or plan to spend a good deal of time, and maybe the night,
before finding your way out again.  The area has one other claim to
fame: just south of Uncertain by a few miles is Karnack, site of the
Army ammunition plant where Pershing missles are being destroyed under
one of the disarmament treaties.


Keith Pyle                    UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!execu!keith
Execucom Systems Corp.,       Internet: [e-mail]
Austin, Texas                           execu![e-mail]
                                        [e-mail]
                              Disclaimer: What?? You actually believed
                              me?

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

Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 09:36 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT New Reach Out Rate


This is in response to John Covert's note about ATT New Reach Out
America Rate.  I lost the original Digest so ... here it is.

I called ATT to double check on it.  They said it's incorrect and
wanted to know where did this information come from ... they asked me
if I knew which tariff was that.  I responded I don't know but all it
says is what you said.

So, after about 30 minutes to doublechecking and calling other
divisions within ATT, they have concluded that you were correct!!
Whew ... what a bureaucracy!

Looks like they were a bit behind in the announcements!  :)


                        Curtis E. Reid
                        [e-mail]                 (Bitnet)
                        [e-mail] (Internet)
                        [e-mail]            (Internet)

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-102
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 17:06:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Faunt) writes:

>The Radio Shack CT-102 is for sale for $299.  What does the Telecom
>collective conciousness think of the unit?  Are there better deals
>available in the SF Bay area?  What is the lowest base cost rate
>available for service in the Bay Area?

Radio Shack's ads indicate that the $299 price is conditional on
signing up for service "with certain minimum commitments" with the
carrier indicated by the vendor, and that the price is $599 if you
just want the phone.

A footnote says something like "service commitment does not apply
where prohibited by state law". I seem to remember that the California
PUC ruled against dealer kickbacks. This raises several questions,
which I am sure somebody can answer:

(1) Is the CPUC ruling a "state law" ?
(2) When the "service commitment does not apply", which price applies ?

If I can buy the phone for $299 with no strings attached, I might
spring for it, just to be able to take it with when travelling. (Would
I be eligible for roamer service if I did not have a subscription
active at home ? What is the cheapest base subscription anywhere in
the country if I needed a "phantom home" ?)


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

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

From: "John V. Zambito" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers
Date: 10 Jul 90 19:50:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc. an STC Company, Rochester, NY


>>>I think this has been discussed before.  Round covers are popular
>>>because it's impossible for the cover to fall into the hole.

>However, round covers have the additional advantage that there is no
>wrong way to put them in the hole.

This discussion got way out of hand, but let me add to it. What about
when a stripe from a lane marking is painted on it? The service people
never put the cover back on right.


[Moderator's Note: I see lots of these in Chicago. Typically, they are
always turned at some strange angle to the rest of the line.  PT]

  ..

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #472
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10159;
          11 Jul 90 4:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25551;
          11 Jul 90 2:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09827;
          11 Jul 90 1:43 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Jul 90 0:44:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #473
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Jul 90 00:43:12 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 473

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Finland Direct (Some Problems) [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Telebit T1000 Modem at 9600 Baud [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID [F. Goldstein]
    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles [Ken Donaldson]
    Re: Reference Book for Telephones [David Ptasnik]
    Re: Good for a Laugh: Polish Payphones [Wolf Paul]
    Bell Canada [Henry Troup]
    Modems For Interactive Use [Steve Elias]
    Request For Info: Audiovox BC-55 Cellular Phone [Bill Berbenich]
    HP4952A Protocol Analyzer [Claudio Nieder]
    C.O. "Secret" Numbers [Lawrence Roney]
    Unauthorized Disconnection [Dennis G. Rears]
    The New England Telephone Backwater [John R. Covert]
    Mitch Kapor Starts Electronic Frontier Foundation [TELECOM Moderator]
    Munged From: Line [Roy M. Silvernail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finland Direct (Some Problems)
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 16:54:52 GMT


>> ["Finland Direct" from USA:] >>1-800-232-0358 via ATT
>>                              >>1-800-283-4652 via MCI

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

>When I call either of these numbers, I reach a tone _in_Finland_ that
>I am not familiar with, but it may simply be a "please wait" tone.  I
>suspect the problem is with the grade of service provided by the
>operators in Finland.  The tone is roughly 500ms of 950 Hz, 250ms of
>950 Hz, 1.5 sec of 1400 Hz.  After a long time of no revenue due to no
>answer, AT&T gives up and says "Your call cannot be completed at this
>time in the country you are calling."  On MCI it eventually times out
>to a reorder (120 interruptions per minute).

The description of the tone sounds suspiciously like the European
reorder signal. It consists of three tones of a rising pitch, somewhat
similar to the "Special Information Tones" used by ATT.

I would expect the two access numbers to terminate in the same
operator position in Helsinki, so this probably indicates a
translation problem.  Try calling ATT and/or MCI customer service to
get them to check it out.  They in turn will have a way to get to the
Finnish telco operators.

On a tangent: I always have problems distinguishing between busy and
reorder. How did we end up with the "fast busy" and Europe with the
tone triad ? What does CCITT recommend ?


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

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telebit T1000 Modem at 9600 Baud
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 12:30:37 GMT


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

> For UUCP, Telebit is probably worth considering but for dial-in, I
> didn't like it.

I guess it depends on your software, but I find that even vnews takes
too long to decide not to display part of a message, so the extra
speed of updating is worth it. For dial-in, V.32 is better but PEP is
still more fun than V.22.


Peter da Silva.
`-_-' [phone].
<[e-mail]>

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID
Date: 10 Jul 90 17:39:19 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave
Levenson) writes...

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

>> On a related question: For those of you with Caller*ID, what happens
>> when you get a call routed through the "O" operator ?

>Here in New Jersey, local calls placed through the operator are
>displayed as "OUT OF AREA" on the Caller*ID display.

The Canadian Radio-Television Commission, in approving Caller ID for
Bell Canada (which serves most of Ontario and Quebec), stated that
per-call blocking by dialing "0" was adequate.  Bell Canada filed a
tariff charging $.75/call for that service; I don't know if it was
approved.

This has the advantage, in the short term, of allowing call blocking
on demand from ALL exchanges, including electromechanical ones that
don't support feature code dialing.  In the long term, this will
probably be phased out in favor of a dialable prefix.  Logically the
price should fall too, since the 75 cents is basically a charge for
the operator's time.


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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 08:26 EST
From: Ken Donaldson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?


It has been a while since a passed through this airport but I recall
that the pay phones were provided by Contel which is the LEC that
serves that area.

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reference Book for Telephones
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 8:54:35 PDT


In [e-mail] <sgtech![e-mail]> Adnan Yaqub
writes:

>Could some kind body please point me to a suitable reference which
>describes the signaling between the main office and my home phone.

One good source of general books on the field of telecommunications is
the Teleconnect Library.  Teleconnect is a relatively popular magazine
for people in the field.  It has its share of problems, but it does
make available a nice selection of books on the subject.  I don't
think that they acutally publish them.  I get the impression that they
just survey the literature, and market those that they like the most.
I do not believe that they would require that you subscirbe to the
magazine to get the catalog or order books.  Their toll free number is
1-800-LIBRARY.


[e-mail]

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa!cossun![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Good for a Laugh: Polish Payphones
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 11:47:24 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


In TELECOM Digest 10/469, Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]>
writes:

>         "`Since Polish payphone mechanisms were increased to
> 20 zlotys several months ago, 20-zloty coins have gone into hiding.

>         "`The payphone-sized 20-zlotycoins are selling on the streets
> for 200 to 1,000 zlotys apiece.'" (I still say cheap at a thousand
> zlotys -- about a dime U.S., isn't it?)

A Polish colleague of mine informs me that payphones were recently
converted to use a special phone token, which presumably is available
at the official rate at various outlets.

It is interesting how some coins cause such a strong public reaction:
The Susan B. Anthony dollar comes to mind in the US, or the small,
thick, and heavy 1-pound coin in the UK, which was very little used
until 1-pound notes were withdrawn from circulation. Here in Austria,
the 20-Schilling coin is hardly used by the public; in order to
increase its acceptance, the state-owned Austrian Radio conducted a
campaign in cooperation with the National Bank rewarding randomly
picked members of the public on the street with AS 100, if they had a
20AS coin on their person.


Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: [phone]   FAX: [phone]   UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: [e-mail]   BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada
Date: 10 Jul 90 13:55:05 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


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

>... you read this whole posting).  The hotel is located in Ontario Canada
>which means we have only one long distance supplier - Bell Canada (A
>first cousin of AT&T).

Not quite - Bell Canada is a 100% owned subsidiary of BCE, Inc. BCE is
a public corporation, the most widely held in Canada. (Also the most
profitable, and the payer of the largest corporate taxes.)

AT&T divested Bell Canada in the 1960's - Northern Electric (now
Northern Telecom) was then a $20M company producing Canadian-only
hardware, frequently from Western Electric designs.  The rest is
history.


Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
 ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 [e-mail] 613-765-2337

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Modems For Interactive Use
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 08:02:35 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Lately, I've been using a US Robotics Courier HST 9600 modem for
interactive dial in.  It appears to be optimized for interactive use,
with a 9600 baud channel in one direction, and 300 baud in the other,
automatically switched, of course.  This beastie was fairly expensive
($700 or so); I'm not sure if there are less expensive clones
available.  I believe it also supports MNP5 on low speed connections,
thought I've never used this mode.

Using the Courier modem for dial in is a real treat after years of
being stuck with 2400 baud.


eli

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

From: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request For Info: Audiovox BC-55 Cellular Phone
Date: 10 Jul 90 19:04:21 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Organization: DSP Lab, School of Electrical Engineering, Ga.Tech, Atlanta, GA


Any fellow c.d.t'ers own one of these?  Being a fairly technically
minded (and capable) person, I'd be interested in knowing the NAM and
feature programming codes for the unit so that I could make full use
of the unit's capabilities.

After the obligatory six month sign-up period I am very interested in
switching to the 'other' carrier here, having the NAM code would be of
great help for that and for signing up with out-of- town providers in
the areas where I frequently travel.  Knowing the feature code would
help oodles, too, and standard stuff like changing the lock code, horn
alert, so on.

Please e-mail directly to me at "[e-mail]".  Thanks in
advance.

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

From: Claudio Nieder <forty2![e-mail]>
Subject: HP4952A Protocol Analyzer
Date: 10 Jul 90 18:55:33 GMT
Reply-To: Claudio Nieder <forty2![e-mail]>
Organization: Exp. Physics University Zuerich


I would like to transfer data collected with a HP4952A Protocol
Analyzer to a PC. There are two possible ways:

a) Try to read the Floppy Discs.

b) Connect the PC to the analyzer's remote port.

Has anybody out there already attempted to do either a) or b)?  Can
anybody provide me with the info how the data is stored on the floppy
disc? Does anybody know how the communication on the remote port
works?

Any help appreciated.


Claudio

INTERNET: [e-mail]   BITNET: K538912@CZHRZU1A
Mail: Claudio Nieder, Kanalweg 1, CH-8610 Uster, Switzerland
(********** Computer: The best toy ever invented **********)

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

From: Lawrence Roney <ucla-cs!smcnet.smc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: C.O. "Secret" Numbers
Organization: Santa Monica College, CA 90405
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 06:40:29 GMT


Does anyone know the "secret" numbers that are buried in AT&T 5ESS
and/or Northern Telecom DMS systems to get your phone to ring?  I am
familiar with 114 and 12233 to get your number read back to you.  119
however used to give you a reorder tone and then when you hung-up
would ring your phone.  119 no longer works.  Are these numbers part
of the software release of the switch or does each operating company
pick their own diagnostic numbers?

If anyone else has any useful numbers, please post or mail.  They sure
are nice when sorting and troubleshooting trunks.


Lawrence Roney - Santa Monica College Telecommunications Department
N6YFN          1900 Pico Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90405-1628
Mail       UUCP: uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!lawrence   Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: This question comes up periodically, and the answer
is that every CO does its own thing. Typically the codes vary from one
CO to another. There is no universal standard.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 16:32:18 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unauthorized Disconnection


     I am in the processof moving from an apartment to a house.  My
last day in the apartment was today, Jul 10.  The person who is moving
to the apartment started moving in today.  She had called without my
knowledge and consent to have my phone service disconnected on Jul 9,
and her phone service connected Jul 10.  When I got home for lunch
yesterday my phone was out of service.

    I called the local NJ Bell repair service.  They told me the phone
was out of service but a order had been placed to disconnect the
phone.  They gave me a number for the service department.  I talked to
a woman who said, If you want your service restored for those two days
it will be an a $42.00 reconnection charge.  I protested stating, I am
the sole account holder, and never authorized any change.  I then
asked to talk to her supervisor whom after much argument agreed to
turn my service back on with no charge.  This conversation took place
at 12:30 PM on Monday.  When I left the apartment today at 0900 it
still wasn't on.

    Three points I would like to bring up.  First, the representative
said that unless somebody specifically tells the phone company they
want any change request for service verified it is not done.  This,
however convienent, can be danger.  Anyone can call up and say, I am
Mr.  Doe, phone number is XXX-XXXX and want my phone service
disconnected.  No verification.  The second point is that the only way
to get something done is talk to a sueprvisor and be firm on what you
want. The last point is do I have any course of action?  I am out
about $25 due to having to use pay phones and lack of a calling card.
Who can I complain to?


Dennis

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 05:07:55 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  10-Jul-1990 0800" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The New England Telephone Backwater


John Higdon seems to think that No. 5 XBar is backwater, but here in
New England, approximately 20% of the towns more than 20 miles from
Boston are still served by Step-by-Step.

Residents of these towns suffer from constant reorders and wrong
numbers and lines too noisy to be used for data calls.  The next town
(or, often, parts of your own town) is almost always long distance.
This is often true even when the two town centers are less than ten
miles apart.

Be glad XBar is the worst you have to suffer with.


john

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 0:55:14 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mitch Kapor Starts Electronic Frontier Foundation


Mitch Kapor and others have formed a new organization called the
'Electronic Frontier Foundation' to assist in the legal defense of the
persons recently arrested in the Legion of Doom/Sun Devil case. In
addition, the new organization will attempt to protect the
constitutional rights -- as they interpret those rights -- of all
computer users.

A lengthy press release was issued Monday, with statements from Kapor
and other members of the organization outlining their plans. A special
double issue of TELECOM Digest will be issued later this week to bring
you complete details. It is in production now.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

Subject: Munged From: line
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 02:32:49 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:

> E-mail responses would be fine, as I doubt this is of great general
> import. Thanks in advance!

Unfortunately, the From: line in my original posting was munged. This
one should be better :-)

The address in my .sig works, though... cybrspc![e-mail]


    Roy M. Silvernail       | Opinions found
    now available at:       | herein are mine,
 cybrspc![e-mail]     | but you can rent
(cyberspace... be here!)|   | them.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #473
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29149;
          11 Jul 90 21:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17094;
          11 Jul 90 20:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07176;
          11 Jul 90 18:57 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Jul 90 18:45:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #474
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Jul 90 18:44:53 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 474

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    LOD Update: Three Men Plead Guilty [AT&T Newsbriefs via Don H. Kemp]
    Kapor and Woz Back "Hackers" [AT&T Newsbriefs via Don H. Kemp]
    Intrastate Toll Free Non-800 Numbers [Steve Elias]
    Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service? [Mark McWiggins]
    Busy and Reorder Signals (was: Finland Direct) [Erik Naggum]
    Annoying Intercept Behavior [Jerry Leichter]
    Austrian Telephone System [Wolf Paul]
    Cable vs. Telcos [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Multi-city Beepers [Nicholas J. Simicich]
    E911 Experience [Chris Johnson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LOD Update: Three Men Plead Guilty
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 14:38:09 EDT
From: Don H Kemp <[e-mail]>


More LOD news, thanks to AT&T's consultant liason NEWSBRIEFS

AT&T NEWS BRIEFS
[All items are today's date unless otherwise noted]

Tuesday, July 10, 1990

LEGION OF DOOM -- Three men, part of a ... group of computer hackers
[known as] the Legion of Doom, pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud
BellSouth of computer information. ... [A U.S. Attorney] said the
group ... monitored private telephone lines, stole proprietary
information ... and disseminated information that allowed other
computer hackers to enter BellSouth and other computer systems. ...
Wall Street Journal, B4. ...  During the past few months, the Secret
Service has cleaned out one hacker conclave after another. ... Behind
the raids is a 2-year- old federal, state and phone company
investigation called Operation Sun Devil. ... Secret Service agents
... discovered secret bulletin boards that listed upwards of 400
long-distance access codes ... used to make about $3.5 million in
illegal long- distance charges. ... Burke Stinson, an AT&T spokesman,
says, "As an industry, which includes our dear friends at MCI and US
Sprint and others, about $1 to $2 million is lost every day to hacking
and toll fraud." ... Newsday, [Sunday magazine], p. 11, 7/8.


Don H Kemp
B B & K Associates, Inc.
Rutland, VT
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk

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

From: Don H Kemp <uvm-gen!teletech![e-mail]>
Subject: Kapor and Woz Back "Hackers"
Date: 11 Jul 90 18:34:57 GMT


Forwarded from AT&T Consultant Liason's NEWSBRIEFS...

HACKER BACKER -- ... Mitchell Kapor, ... founder of Lotus Development,
yesterday unveiled the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is being
underwritten by Mr. Kapor and Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple
Computer.  The group will assist in the legal defense of [computer]
hackers accused of crimes and will research legal issues involving
computer communications. ... Wall Street Journal, B4.


Don H Kemp
B B & K Associates, Inc.
Rutland, VT
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk


[Moderator's Note: In fact, I am working now on a special issue of the
Digest to cover this in detail. The special issue will be distributed
ASAP in the next day or so.  PT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Intrastate Toll Free Non-800 Numbers
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 11:16:55 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


What's the deal on these new in-state "toll free" exchanges that I see
advertised occasionally?  There must be a shortage of 800 numbers, eh?

Do these toll free exchanges have any interesting technical kluges?
Apparently, 596 is the in-state toll-free exchange in New Hampshire.
I think Massachusetts has one as well, but I'm not sure what it is.
Do all states have these exchanges available now?


eli

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

From: Mark McWiggins <intek01![e-mail]>
Subject: Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service?
Date: 11 Jul 90 16:47:34 GMT
Organization: Integration Technologies Inc. (Intek), Bellevue WA


Our receptionist just quit, and we're thinking of replacing our
(clunky electromechanical) 4-line key system with an offering from US
West called Centron.  (Like Centrex but smaller, as I understand it.)
They're also now offering voice mail, and we think these together
would cut our phone-answering labor by 80% or more.  The monthly
charge for all this is no more than the rental for our current key
system.  Overall, it looks like a big win, if it works.

Am I missing something?  I'd be interested in hearing from anyone
who's using a similar system.  Also, we're expecting significant
growth over the next couple of years. What else should I be looking
out for?

Thanks in advance.


Mark McWiggins            Integration Technologies, Inc. (Intek)
[phone]            DISCLAIMER:  I could be wrong ...
1400 112th Ave SE #202        Bellevue WA  98004
uunet!intek01!mark        Ask me about C++!

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 1990 00:17:12 +0200
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Busy and Reorder Signals (was: Finland Direct)


Lars Poulsen writes in TELECOM Digest V10 #473:

> On a tangent: I always have problems distinguishing between busy and
> reorder. How did we end up with the "fast busy" and Europe with the
> tone triad ? What does CCITT recommend ?

CCITT recommends a few signals, for which I can dig up the precise
definition in terms of frequencies and the duration of tones and
pauses if somebody asks nicely.

There are two tones for "busy", one for subscriber busy and one for
network congestion.  These differ in the duration of tone and pauses,
but the frequency is similar to that of the ordinary ring signal.
They may or may not (subject to national variations) have the same
duration for tone and pause.  (The ring signal you find in parts of
the United Kingdom is not representative for CCITT or Europe.)

There used to be three signals only: ring, busy and congestion.  (Is
the last what you call "reorder"?  I'm unfamiliar with the term.)
With SS7, lots of voice messages were introduced, and they all have
the "special information tones" (same as the AT&T ones) at the start
or end of the voice message.

CCITT only recommends using the special information tones when the
error is considered "permanent", i.e. which requires intervention by
the telco before it gets fixed, as opposed to subscribers, which are
considered much more transient beings.

While we're on CCITT recommendations.  I recently bought the Q.700-
series (Signalling System number 7) and the I-series (ISDN).  I was
somewhat shocked to find that SS7 needs fully 1680 pages of specs!
Granted, they had included about 300 pages of tests with forms to be
filled out when testing conformance of SS7 users, but it's still a
lot.  A friend of mine, also a reader of TELECOM Digest, has some
specific opinions on the relation between the OSI layer and the
quality of the CCITT recommendations applying to it.  I'll let him
express them himself.  (That's bait for you, Morten!)

For those who have become a bit wary of CCITT recommendations, I can
recommend the Blue Book (at least the I, Q, V and X series).  They
have done a tremendous job of writing this is an actual language, as
opposed to the "blot on the history of prose" that the Red Book was.


[Erik]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 20:00:44 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Annoying Intercept Behavior


Here in Stamford - and in my experience most of Connecticut - we have
to dial 1+7 for calls outside the local calling area, omit the 1 for
calls in it.  Do it the wrong way and you get an intercept.

The oddity is the way the intercept is implemented.  It doesn't take
place immediately after the last digit - not to mention after the
exchange, which is possible.  Instead, you get two or three normal
rings and THEN a long, wordy message telling you exactly what you
should have done.

This is a real time-waster when you are dialing an unfamiliar number,
as you sit there convinced that you've made it through.  I find that a
good fraction of the time, but the time I get the intercept I've
closed the telephone book or put away the business card with the
number on it.  Then I get to start over again.

Why would anyone set up intercepts this way?  Is it done this way
elsewhere?

        -- Jerry

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa!cossun![e-mail]>
Subject: Austrian Telephone System
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 11:48:04 MET DST
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria


I have finally managed to obtain some more information about the
conversion of Austria's telephone system to modern digital technology.

The currently installed electro-mechanical CO switching equipment will
be replaced during the next few years by electronic switches supplied
by Northern Telecom (DMS100) and Siemens (EWS-D).

The Siemens equipment is being adapted and installed by Alcatel, and
will be installed in the eastern half of Austria, including most of
Vienna.

The NT equipment is being adapted and installed by a joint venture of
two Austrian telecom firms, Kapsch and Schrack, and will be installed
in the western half of the country, as well as in selected Vienna COs.

The Kapsch/Schrack/NT joint venture, Austrian Telecommunications, has
also been awarded a contract to install their DMS100 adaptation in a
number of Hungarian COs.

My own CO south of Vienna is scheduled to be converted to EWS-D during
the first quarter of 1991; the adjoining CO which serves my employer,
IIASA, has not even been given a date for conversion.


Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: [phone]   FAX: [phone]   UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: [e-mail]  BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 07:22:15 -0400
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable vs. Telcos


Digital and Applitek Corp of Andover, MA, are demonstrating an
interesting pilot system at the current DECWorld. Two Digital
engineers have been given computers so they can work at their homes in
Stow, Mass.  (one got a workstation, the other a VAX). But rather than
tying into Digital headquarters in Maynard (the next town over from
Stow) by phone, they are using an otherwise unused channel on the Stow
cable system to transfer data. Applitek modems at Digital HQ and in
each of the engineers's homes, allow rapid data flow (1 or 10
megabytes/second -- I don't have my notes in front of me, sorry), far
faster than even a T1 phone line.

Other companies are working on similar systems, but Applitek says
theirs is the only one that needs just once cable channel.

Right now, there are some serious drawbacks to the system, notably
cost (each modem is $10,000) and the fact that you can't use it across
cable company boundaries. But Applitek says the cost will come down
eventually, but that even now, it's cost effective for companies with
several plants in one town, and that it has bridging devices that can
link neighboring cable systems.

So is this something phone companies should be worried about, even if
in the long term? And does anybody know any analysts or experts or
whoever who could talk about the potential for cable-telco competition
for an article I'm doing on the above (any suggestions would be, of
course, most appreciated).


Adam Gaffin     Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass.   [e-mail]
Voice: [phone]  Fred the Middlesex News Computer: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 10:05:44 EDT
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multi-city Beepers


My wife and I both travel a lot, but separately, and we frequently
need to get in contact with the person who is out of town.

I recall seeing advertisements for beepers which would work either
everywhere in the US, in most major cities in the US, everywhere in
the northeast corridor, and so forth.  Ideal would be one that allowed
you to leave a numeric message, like a number to call back at.

Does anyone have any information on beepers of this type?  (Monthly
rates, difficulty of use, reliability, availability, cost-per-beep if
extra, and so forth.)  If you email to [e-mail], I'll summarize.


Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, [e-mail]) ---SSI #OWI 3958

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: E911 Experience
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 90 18:34:27 GMT


I had my first need to call 911 this weekend.  I was setting up
equipment for a concert in one of Minneapolis's parks on Sunday
afternoon, and a couple of guys who had the appearances of street
people got into a fight.  Since the audience (many with small
children) was disturbed by this, as was I, I started looking around
for security or park police people.  None were to be found.  At the
request of some of the parents, I headed for the pay phone to call the
police.  Just as I reached the phone, another man ran up and said one
of the men fighting had a knife.

I dialed 911 and said, "There's a knife fight going on in the Nicollet
Island Park."

The operator replied, "what's the address there?"  This was my first
clue that either the operator was daft, or she was not getting any
automatic information on my location.

Me: "I'm in the Nicollet Island Park shelter building, the fight is about 50
yards away in the ampitheatre."

Op: "Did you say they had knives?"

Me: "Yes, one of them has a knife."

Op: "Did you see the knife?"

Me: "No, another person here told me he saw one."  [meanwhile, fighter
A is cutting away pieces of fighter B, bit by bit]

Op:  "So you didn't see a knife..."

Me:  [exasperated]  "No, but these guys are drunk or brain damaged.  They are
way out of it.  They are scaring the people here..."

Op:  "Let me talk to the person who saw the knife."

Me:  "He left..."  [just then, another woman runs up with her four year
old daughter and says to me something about the one guy with the knife
is cutting the other guy up -- get an ambulance.  I say to the
operator "Here's another woman who saw the knife" and hand the phone
to the woman who proceeds to tell the operator in no uncertain terms
that we've got near panic on our hands, and a soon to be dead man,
even though the knife is small, he's cutting pieces out of the other
guy over and over.

The woman hangs up, and says to me that her husband has gone to call
the police also at another phone, over on shore.  I start to walk over
the bridge (I had been on my way to shore to get a bite to eat
anyway ...) and finally, I start hearing sirens.

We ended up with four police squads, a rescue truck, an ambulance and
two park police (where were they earlier, anyway?).  A few other
street people who were with the guys who were fighting immediately
made tracks for the woods, but I heard later they managed to at least
round up the one weirdo who was bugging me on stage, as well as the
two fighters -- one of whom went to the hospital with full lights and
sirens.  Don't know if he made it -- heard that he had about a dozen
superficial cuts when I got back talked with my friends.  But then a
while later, a truck and guy showed up from what I took to be the
coroner's office.

Still later, I found out a third person had also called 911.  I guess
once they got three different calls about the same problem from three
different phones they managed to figure out I wasn't kidding when I
first called.

While I can certainly appreciate false alarms, I was rather taken
aback at how much cajoling I had to do to get any response.  In fact,
who knows what might have happened if the other people had not called,
and the woman had not taken the phone from me and described the knife
to the operator.  Sheeesh.

Is this how E911 is supposed to work?  And why didn't they know my
location right away?  I know that the switch is plenty new enough, and
we've had E911 for at least 9 or 10 years here.


   ...Chris Johnson          [e-mail]   ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris
 Com Squared Systems, Inc.   St. Paul, MN USA   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Your experience was definitly NOT how 911 is
supposed to work. What sometimes happens is that although the
dispatcher usually gets an actual street address, some public
phones in parks, along the highway, etc. don't get very well identified
as to location if there is no physical street number associated with
the location. It sounds also like the dispatcher was possibly new and
not very well trained.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #474
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00257;
          11 Jul 90 22:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12947;
          11 Jul 90 21:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17094;
          11 Jul 90 20:03 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Jul 90 19:10:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #475
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Jul 90 19:10:23 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 475

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Lou Judice]
    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Alan Parker]
    Re: Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom [Bob Sutterfield]
    Re: Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom [Robert Kinne]
    Re: Touchtone History [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Touchtone History [Martin Harriss]
    Re: Touchtone History [Robert Kinne]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [John Higdon]
    Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Al L. Varney]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 07:14:38 PDT
From: Lou Judice <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles


Don't be surprised if the promient PAC*BELL logos were part of a
marketing "arrangement" with PAC*BELL. Film companies have an
intricate relationship with the makers of products that characters use
in a movie.

Reminds me of some rather awful spy/conspiracy movie I saw once filmed
in "New York City" - the bright blue and white NYC Police Cars had
visible California license plates and drove through palm-tree lined
streets.

Sorry for extending this discussion which belongs in rec.arts.film!!!


ljj

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

From: Alan Parker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?
Date: 11 Jul 90 14:18:52 GMT
Reply-To: Alan Parker <[e-mail]>
Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Washington, DC


The movie wasn't filmed at Dulles.  The folks there didn't like the
way the script portrayed the airport and its employees.

But the phone service at Dulles is quite sorry indeed.  Pac*Bell might
be an improvement.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 13:40:50 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom
Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>


In Volume 10, Issue 472, Message 1 of 12  [e-mail]
(Blake Farenthold) writes:

>When you go, leave your telecom background at home...

Leave your aviation background at home too.  The two technologies that
were pivotal to the plot, laying the foundation for the rest of the
action, both got pretty well butchered.  Ah, Hollywood!

I'll take the [tech continuity] job for half a mil on Die Hard 3...

You do the telecom stuff, I'll do the airplane stuff.  It'll be a
boring, but correct, box office flop :-)

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

From: Robert Kinne <boulder!boulder![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom
Date: 11 Jul 90 18:00:03 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Kinne <boulder!boulder![e-mail]>
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Blake
Farenthold) writes:

>1) Bruce Willis uses a PAC*BELL payphone in what is supposed
>to be Dullas airport in Washington DC.

Most of the airport scenes for this movie were shot at Stapleton in
Denver.  Two reasons; Dulles didn't want the semblance of terrorist
activity, and Stapleton has one ramp that is nearly idle, and could be
used for filming.  Denver, of course, is in US West turf.  I can only
surmise that either 1) the movie had an arrangement with PacBell to
show their logo, or 2) the scene in question was shot in LA, before or
after the airport shots.  I probably will never see this movie, for a
variety of reasons, but perhaps frequent Stapleton travelers who watch
it could provide more detailed info on the payphone scene.

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 11 Jul 90 13:06:52 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

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

> >Sitting on the table behind his chair were
> >about 3 or 4 single line desk sets, one touch-tone, the rest rotary.

> Er, shouldn't that be "one push-button, the rest rotary"?  Unless you
> heard the tones when JFK made a call, it could just be a
> pulse-dialler.  In the UK, push-button pulse-dialling phones have been
> around for years, long before touch-tone came along.

    No, it shouldn't. Because the Brit public was exposed to nasty
"Push-to-Pulse" phones before touch-tone does not mean that is the
history of the technology.

    From a UK perspective, I had a Plessey touch-tone phone in
1979-80.  It now resides in the Macassey garage and junk store
alongside a push-to-pulse "warble-phone". In the UK, touch-tone has
been available on TXE-4, System-X and AXE-10 exchanges. On the TXE-4
exchange you have to ask them to turn it on. Yes dear U.S. readers,
it's free.  British Telecom has not promoted touch-tone in the U.K.
Many U.K.  residents seeing touch-tone phones on TV have assumed they
were push-to-pulse. A couple of years ago my brother in law wandered
into the Canterbury British Telecom phone store and asked to buy a
touch-tone or "MF" phone. The assistant was not sure what he wanted so
called a technician. He told my brother in law that touch-tone was
"Not available, and doesn't work here." I send him touch-tone phones
from the US that work just fine on his TXE-4 exchange.

    Anyhow, touch-tone in the U.S. The early push-button phones in
the U.S. were all touch-tone. The early dials had only 10 buttons - no
* and #. They produced tones with "plucked reeds". I have never
examined one of these, just seen pictures, they must have been
mechanical nightmares. Later versions used LC oscillators using a
transistor and pot core coils. These dials had several contacts for
muting, row and column etc. The latest dials use an IC and a color TV
crystal (3.58 Mhz) as the frequency element. The IC dials have fewer
switch contacts (one set per digit) than the old dials so are cheaper
to manufacture.

    The push-to-pulse dials are also based on ICs. They usually
have a strapping option for make/break ratio and most will do a "Last
Number Redial". This is usually done by pushing the * key which of
course represents nothing in the pulse world. The push-to-pulse dial
as I recall came into use in the early eighties, twenty years after
touch-tone.

    Push-to-pulse has caused much confusion, with people thinking
it is touch tone etc. Only a cynic would say that it was intended to
confuse. One of the reasons that all the junk far east phones were
push-to-pulse was that is what they understood and could test on their
phone lines. It is actually cheaper to make an IC touch-tone dial than
a push-to-pulse jobbie.

> Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    When I lived a few miles from here (Leigh) we had a manual
exchange as did Redhill, the big town up the road. This was in the
early sixties when they had touch-tone in the U.S.


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

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

From: Martin Harriss <cellar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 11 Jul 90 15:32:56 GMT
Reply-To: Martin Harriss <cellar![e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clive
Feather) writes:

>The UK had push-button pulse dial phones for a *long* time before
>DTMF signalling arrived.
>Anyone remember the Trimphone ?

Unfortunately, I do.  They were horrid things.  The Trimphone was the
PO's attempt to give customers something other than the run of the
mill 700 type telephone. Trimphones did, in fact, have rotary dials
when they were first introduced, sometime in the late 60's.  It was
sometime later when the push button pulse dial models came out.

We had a trimphone put in when we moved in '68.  In those days the PO
owned the phones.  It had a "modern" look and the dial was luminous so
you could find it in the dark.

The main problem was that the mic was stuck up near the top of the
handset.  You spoke into the mouthpiece, and your voice travelled up
the inside of the handset to the mic.  Having your voice sent up a
hollow tube in this fashion was probably not good, but even worse was
the fact that in this particular orientation the carbon granules(!) in
the mic would stick in a particular way that made it sound like you
had a perpetual cold.  Banging the handset periodically would help,
but not for long.

When we eventually figured out what was wrong, we had the unit swapped
for a new one, and it was ok for a while.  I found that the mic in the
new unit was quite sensitive at 2280Hz.


Martin Harriss
[e-mail]

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

From: Robert Kinne <boulder!boulder![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 11 Jul 90 17:41:24 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Kinne <boulder!boulder![e-mail]>
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


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

>It was probably a Department of Defense phone. These phones looked
>like touch-tone, made noises *similar* to touch-tone, but were on the
>private DOD Autovon network. They were not pulse dialers. To my
>uneducated ear they were DTMF, but they were definately tone dialers.
>They had four extra keys for setting call priority. We had a similar

Autovon phones had (have still, as far as I know) a 4x4 key matrix
instead of the 4x3 on conventional DTMF.  Used in normal mode, Autovon
phones have the same sets of frequencies that normal DTMF uses.  The
fourth column provides four levels of priority, and uses an additional
tone making four new DTMF combinations.  If memory serves, Autovon was
linked to the public network, but also had dedicated private trunks to
be used for priority calls.  All of this may be out of date, since my
information is a few years old.

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

Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 10 Jul 90 18:37:46 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> Heath Roberts <[e-mail].
edu> writes:

>line card itself: there's one per subscriber loop in the switch. So
>you can't really just ask about "100% coverage". It doesn't work that
>way. Trying to provide more touch-tone service without adding capacity
>is like trying to push a thousand cars an hour down a two lane road:
>things back up, everybody gets slowed down, etc. You have to add extra
>lanes in the long run.

Whenever a telco orders a switch, it has a pretty good idea what the
traffic patterns will be on it. Since it was necessary to know in the
old crossbar days how many "originating registers" would be required
in a particular application, it is similarly necessary to know how
many TT receivers will be required in a digital switch.

Mr. Heath's implication is that an unlimited number rotary subscribers
can be off hook dialing calls. Not true. The switch must be configured
for expected traffic whether it be rotary or TT. TT receivers are
cheap and a relatively few of them can serve many subscribers.

>Software's also getting to be more and more complex, so
>telcos are spending proportionally more on software than they used to.
>These costs are the reason I think I'm justified in saying that CLASS
>features, although not "advanced" in concept, and even though they're
>pretty common, cost operating companies more to provide than POTS.

Not to mention writing their own. Some telcos (like Pac*Bell) buy
source licenses with their digital switches. This not only brings down
the cost of individual features, but allows the telco to provide
services that don't come with the equipment in the first place.

Pac*Bell offers a number of subscriber features on the NT DMS100 that
are not available from the manufacturer.


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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 10:54:54 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


In article <[e-mail]> sgtech![e-mail] (Adnan
Yaqub) writes:

>Could some kind body please point me to a suitable reference which
>describes the signaling between the main office and my home phone.  I
>would like to know such things as how much power is provided, what the
>ring signal is like, how the click for call waiting is done, etc.

There is no true reference for this, since the answer depends on where
you look at the subscriber loop; central office or customer end.
There are no requirements I know of that mandate requirements on
central office output viewed at the subscriber end of the loop.
Essentially, central offices have "requirements" (with lots of
exceptions) for inputs and outputs at the central office end of the
loop, designed to work with various customer equipment over various
loop distances/conditions.  The primary "voluntary" requirement
document for the central office switch today is the Bellcore LSSGR
series, particularly,

  TR-TSY-000506, Signaling,
          (this might answer your "signaling" question)
  TR-TSY-000510, System Interfaces
          (here's the power and electrical stuff)
  TR-TSY-000515, Electromagnetic and Electrical Environment
          (lightning protection, EMI, etc. on the loop)
  TR-TSY-000522, Features Common to Residence and Business Customers III
          (Call Waiting is in here, & other Custom Calling stuff)

Also of interest is an older publication,
  PUB 61100 Analog Voiceband Interface between the Bell System Local Exchange
            Lines and Terminal Equipment  -- I believe this replaced with
  TA-NPL-000912, Compatibility Information for Telephone Exchange Service
  (order reference RFC 89-0007)

There are a series of Technical Advisories (TA) that don't cost money,
but Bellcore says they are distributed to "members of the
telecommunications industry."  The TRs above will cost about $200;
they take plastic on [phone].  Ask about TAs, usually you have
to write.

Note that the output of a switch is not necessarily connected to your
telephone, so don't make any assumptions about your end of the loop.
There are Pair-gain, analog carrier, digital carrier, loop multiplex
and range extension equipment that could sit between your switch and
your telephone.  They each have their own set of requirements for the
telephone side of the subscriber "loop".  Even if you knew the
information today, it could change tomorrow, and no notice would be
given.  So long as the "standard" telephone works, the loop can
change.

So, let's say you found out all this stuff for YOUR TELEPHONE line and
wanted to use the information in building an interface to the
telephone system.  Unfortunately, many manufacturers did this in the
past, and were dismayed (or their customers were) to find that
telephone lines are not the same everywhere, or even the same from day
to day.  The requirements on YOUR end of the loop are specified in the
FCC part of the published Federal Regulations (47 CFR) Section 68.
Any reasonable library should have a copy.  This will give you power,
ringing, timing and signaling requirements your equipment must meet.
There are all kinds of requirements, including such things as (para.
68.318(c)1 -- "...Automatic dialing to a particular number must cease
after fifteen successive attempts."  Want to guess how many
modems/terminal emulators violate this?  Also check out EIA Standard
RS-470, Telephone Instruments with Loop Signaling for Voiceband
Applications.

In summary, there is no detailed single reference, any library has
general references (except for the Call Waiting signal) under the
Telephony heading, and Section 68 details your equipment's allowed
behavior for legal access.  I don't believe the FCC has requirements
for the switch interface, but the LSSGR documents the interface that
most switches meet, and a lot of PUC rulings and court cases over many
years probably define the telephone company's real legal interface to
a particular customer.

The opinions above are my own, the facts speak for themselves.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #475
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01417;
          11 Jul 90 23:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25519;
          11 Jul 90 22:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12947;
          11 Jul 90 21:03 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Jul 90 20:01:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #476
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Jul 90 20:00:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 476

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: My Trip to Kansas [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Public*Phone [John Higdon]
    Re: Answering Machine Security [James Zuchelli]
    Re: Finland Direct (Some Problems) [Kauto Huopio]
    Re: Manhole Covers [Tom Ohmer]
    Re: Good for a Laugh: Polish Payphones [Richard Budd]
    Polish Phones of all Types: Very Sad Situation [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Radio Shack CT-102 [Peter M. Weiss]
    Who Makes the Best Cellular Phone? [C.J. Pilzer]
    August 9 Symposium in Columbus, OH [Jane M. Fraser]
    Last Laugh! Iridium [John McHarry]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 08:39:32 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My Trip to Kansas
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Davis)
writes:

| >On the way back everything worked fine, except...  the roaming light
| >(as opposed to 'no service' light) would come on...

| This is usually due to a phone being programmed to scan the b and a
| carriers, sometimes they mistakenly lock on a (insert opposing carrier)'s
| signal and roam to it.  The solution is to program your phone...
| On most phones this is a user option and can be changed "on the fly"
| without going into program mode.

On the CT-301 this is done with <SEL>"1", then pushing "1" to rotate
among:

  A - "A" system only
  B - "B" system only
  H - your "home" system (whichever of A or B your basic service is with)
  S - scan for best signal

They do warn you quite explicitly in the CT-301 User's Guide that "S"
may sometimes lock onto the "wrong" system.

By the way, I use this all the time to temporarily slide over to the
"B" system here (GTE Mobilnet) to call "*227" ("*CBS"), the "KCBS
Cellular Phone Force" (traffic spotter) number. It's supposed to be a
free call, and indeed I haven't been charged yet, even both the
"NON-HOME" + "ROAM" indicators come on.  (The "A" system, PacTel
Mobile, has "*KGO81", but I listen to KCBS, not KGO.)  ["Oh", not
"zero". -----^ Blettch!]

Does anyone have an example where calling a "free" "*xxx" number
resulted in charges to a roamer?


Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510         [e-mail]        [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.        [phone]        Protocol Engines, Inc.
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

Subject: Re: Public*Phone
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 10 Jul 90 18:59:41 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


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

>Since there don't seem to be any COCOTs manufactured to
>look like the pay phones of independent telqi, the COCOTs in Centel
>territory (usually outside gasoline stations or inside restaurants,
>but far sparser than in IBT country) stick out like sore thumbs.

Centel's other major bastion, Las Vegas, has the same problem but more
of it. When COCOTs were allowed there, they sprang up like a fungus
and you are hard pressed to find even one of Centel's stupid-looking
(but quite functional) NT coin phones. Also, since there was no point
in trying for the "Bell" look, most of the COCOTs look like anything
from stamp machines to condom dispensers. And most of them might as
well be; their handling of telephone calls leave a lot to be desired.
It was in Las Vegas that I was first introduced to the $7, three-minute
call to San Jose.


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

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

From: James Zuchelli <lever!f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG!James.Zuchelli>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Security
Date: 10 Jul 90 05:43:20 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA


You may not want to go to the trouble, but you can ask the phone
company to put a trap on your line which will record the number of all
calls coming in.  You may also want to look into having a house sitter
sit and note the time of all calls, especially the ones which erase
your messages.  That way the caller can be i.d.'d, but most telcos
don't seem to want to do this kind of thing unless the local PD tells
them to.


James Zuchelli - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
UUCP: ...!sun!hoptoad!fidogate!161!555!James.Zuchelli
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Kauto Huopio OH5LFM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finland Direct (Some Problems)
Date: 11 Jul 90 20:06:06 GMT
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lars Poulsen)
writes:

> >When I call either of these numbers, I reach a tone _in_Finland_ that
> >I am not familiar with, but it may simply be a "please wait" tone.  I
> >suspect the problem is with the grade of service provided by the
> >operators in Finland.  The tone is roughly 500ms of 950 Hz, 250ms of
> >950 Hz, 1.5 sec of 1400 Hz.  After a long time of no revenue due to no
> >answer, AT&T gives up and says "Your call cannot be completed at this
> >time in the country you are calling."  On MCI it eventually times out
> >to a reorder (120 interruptions per minute).

> The description of the tone sounds suspiciously like the European
> reorder signal. It consists of three tones of a rising pitch, somewhat
> similar to the "Special Information Tones" used by ATT.

No, this is NOT a reorder signal. It is a queue tone!! If you have
tried these numbers at, say 3pm in USA, it is around 9-11pm here.  So
at that time the number of international operators is VERY low, and
even I may have to wait for operator about 1-2 minutes.  Why do we
have so few operators? Where we would need them? We have International
Direct Dialing to every place in the world that has some kind of
automated phone systems (Soviet Union goes okay!!), and we make quite
a small number of collect calls.

BTW: one other interesting telecom matter: Finnish PTT has plans to
allow calls TO payphones! But they have planned to give 9700-numbers
to them (Finnish Value Added Service-numbers.. Yes, we have 9800..)
This means at least 50 cents/minute extra to the normal call. :-(


****************** Kauto Huopio ([e-mail]) **********************
*US Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta, Finland *
*WARNING! We have holiday season here, so be patient with my answers..      *
*****************************************************************************

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

From: Tom Ohmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers
Date: 11 Jul 90 17:43:41 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John V.
Zambito):

< This discussion got way out of hand, but let me add to it. What about
< when a stripe from a lane marking is painted on it? The service people
< never put the cover back on right.

< [Moderator's Note: I see lots of these in Chicago. Typically, they are
< always turned at some strange angle to the rest of the line.  PT]

Unless they are held in place, and ones I've examined are not, being
driven over would cause them to rotate, albiet slowly, no?


Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center,
            DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH  43216-5002
UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer   INTERNET: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]   AutoVoN: 850-9210   Disclaimer claimed

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

Date: WED, 11 JUL 90 19.48.08  EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Good For a Laugh: Polish Payphones


In TELECOM Digest 10/469, Donald E. Kimberlin <0004133373@mcimail.
com> writes:

>        "`Since Polish payphone mechanisms were increased to
> 20 zlotys several months ago, 20-zloty coins have gone into hiding.

>         "`The payphone-sized 20-zlotycoins are selling on the streets
> for 200 to 1,000 zlotys apiece.'" (I still say cheap at a thousand
> zlotys -- about a dime U.S., isn't it?)

Wolf Paul <iiasa!cossun![e-mail]> writes:

> A Polish colleague of mine informs me that payphones were recently
> converted to use a special phone token, which presumably is available
> at the official rate at various outlets.

> It is interesting how some coins cause such a strong public reaction:
> The Susan B. Anthony dollar comes to mind in the US, or the small,
> thick, and heavy 1-pound coin in the UK, which was very little used
> until 1-pound notes were withdrawn from circulation.

Two reasons the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin failed to gain acceptance
in the US, even though it was a good idea in those inflationary times,
were the Federal Government's unwillingness to withdraw the $1 bill
from circulation and the telephone companies' (and vending machine
manufacturer's) reluctance to allow pay telephones (and vending
machines) to accept the SBA coin.  The latter is also a reason you
rarely see JFK half dollars anymore.  Some people are secure in old
habits, even if new adjustments make life easier and save money,
because of the feeling they would create inconvenience.  These same
people tend to ignore the inconvenience created when the cost of a
long-distance telephone call requires you to have two pounds of change
(I know, that's what Calling Cards are for) or when you can't get a
pop because the dollar changer is broken for the umpteenth time.  Come
to think about it, a dollar token for US telephones wouldn't be a bad
idea.

Another example: In the early '80's when the US was floundering in its
attempt to convert to the metric system, I suggested that Congress
pass a law saying that on August 1, 1985, the US will use the metric
system for all measurements and if you don't like it, you can move to
Liberia (the next largest country in population that uses the US
system of measure).


Richard Budd
Marist College
Poughkeepsie, NY
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 19:45:07 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Polish Phones of all Types: Very Sad Situation


According to a recent story in the [Chicago Tribune], phone service of
all types in Poland is really the pits. Phone service in the eastern
bloc countries has been deteriorating for many years, and apparently
Poland is the epitomy of it all, with delays of several years to get
service being quite common, and delays of several days to several
weeks to get ordinary repairs the norm. They say it is even worse than
East Germany. Many small towns in Poland have no service at all. The
*newest* phone switch in the country is one in a hotel frequented by
American tourists, and it is over twenty years old. No immediate
changes are contemplated. Any comments?


PT

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 11 Jul 1990 09:00:13 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-102


In our little 'berg (actually State College, PA), RS requires a
three month service agreement with the B-wire carrier CellularPlus.  I
think that they waive the one-time service initiation charge, which
does _not_ include physical install nor mobile antenna.

And since you will be entering into a service agreement at the $299
price, then they (Cell+) will run a credit check against you.


Peter M. Weiss                   | pmw1@psuvm or @vm.psu.edu
31 Shields Bldg                  |
University Park, PA USA 16802    | Disclaimer -* +* applies herein

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

From: CJ Pilzer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who Makes the Best Cellular Phone?
Date: 10 Jul 90 19:30:48 GMT
Organization: Bear Track Computer Co., Takoma Park, MD.


I would like to put a cellular phone in my car, but am confused by all
the different makes and models.  Locally, Bell Atlantic sells several
models of Audiovox as the high end and one model of Motorola as their
low end.  A lot of the independent stores sell the NEC.  I think
Cellular One sells the Uniden in several models.

What is the best make?  What is it that makes many dollars difference
in the models?  The salesman only seem to know about a scratch pad or
signal strength indicator as the main difference between models.  In
fact the knowledge of most of the sales people I talked to was very
limited.


cj

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 13:47:14 edt
From: "Jane M. Fraser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: August 9 Symposium in Columbus, OH


On Thursday, August 9, the Center for Advanced Study of
Telecommunications will hold a one day symposium "Telecommunications
for Ohio Economic Development: A Computer Network for Small
Businesses?"  The symposium will be at the Ramada University Hotel,
3110 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH.

Existing computer networks 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 large 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.

The symposium will address issues of economic development and the
needs of small businesses. Various existing computer networks will be
demonstrated.

The preliminary program follows:

8:30-10:00
Jane M. Fraser ``A Proposal"
Alan B. Albarran ``The Nature and Needs of Small Businesses"
Alex Cruz and Jane Fraser ``What Exists"

10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-noon
Edwin P. Parker: ``Telecommunications and Economic Development"

Noon-1 Lunch

1-2
Dave Spooner, Economic Development Officer, Manchester (England) City
Council staff.  As part of a large program in telematics, the City of
Manchester is setting up a computer that would serve as a host for
many uses by small and medium sized companies, labor unions, community
groups, and so forth.

2-3:15
Panel from outside Ohio:
Kay Lutz-Ritzheimer, Montana Entrepreneurship Center
John Niles, Global Telematics, Washington
Anthony Roso, Jr., Colorado Office of Economic Development

3:15-3:30 Break

3:30-5
Panel from inside Ohio:
Richard C. Decker, Ohio Network for Information Exchange
Keith Ewald, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services
T.M. Grundner, Cleveland FreeNet and National public Telecomputing Network
Tim Steiner, Ohio Department of Administrative Services

No-host cocktail party follows in Ramada atrium.

Registration, which includes lunch, is $20 (payable to CAST/OSU). As a
nonprofit education center, CAST seeks to keep the cost of its
symposia low to encourage attendance. Scholarships are available.

For more information, contact:

Jane M. Fraser
Associate Director, CAST
210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210
614-292-4129
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wednesday, 11 Jul 1990 15:42:41 EST
From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! Iridium

#insert tongue.in.cheek

   The choice of name for Motorola's proposed "Iridium" satellite
cellular phone system is amusing.  Putatively, it comes from the
number, 77, of satellites involved, and the atomic number, 77, of the
element Iridium.

   On the other hand, isn't iridium the signatory element of the
sedimentary layer marking the demise of the dinosaurs, which allegedly
succumbed to the effects of the raining down of some sort of fire from
the heavens?  Perhaps it is hoped that this, slightly higher, Iridium
layer will mark the sudden extinction of the wireline "dinosaurs" we
all know and love today.

Disclaimer:  Not intended to be taken seriously!


John McHarry    [phone]             [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #476
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01639;
          12 Jul 90 0:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25519;
          11 Jul 90 22:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad12947;
          11 Jul 90 21:08 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Jul 90 20:55:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Electronic Frontier  1 of 2
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Jul 90 20:12:50 CDT   Electronic Frontier  1 of 2

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Foundation Established To Encourage Computer Based Communications
    CPSR To Undertake Expanded Civil Liberties Program
    Electronic Frontier Foundation - Mission Statement
    Across the Electronic Frontier [Statement by Mssrs. Kapor and Barlow]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sub: New Foundation Established to Encourage Computer Based Communications
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 07:21:31 BST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


Contact: Cathy Cook [phone]

 Washington, D.C., July 10, 1990 -- Mitchell D. Kapor, founder of
Lotus Development Corporation and ON Technology, today announced that
he, along with colleague John Perry Barlow, has established a
foundation to address social and legal issues arising from the impact
on society of the increasingly pervasive use of computers as a means
of communication and information distribution.  The Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) will support and engage in public education
on current and future developments in computer-based and
telecommunications media.  In addition, it will support litigation in
the public interest to preserve, protect and extend First Amendment
rights within the realm of computing and telecommunications
technology.

Initial funding for the Foundation comes from private contributions by
Kapor and Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple Computer, Inc.  The
Foundation expects to actively raise contributions from a wide
constituency.

As an initial step to foster public education on these issues, the
Foundation today awarded a grant to the Palo Alto, California-based
public advocacy group Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility
(CPSR).  The grant will be used by CPSR to expand the scope of its
on-going Computing and Civil Liberties Project (see attached).

Because its mission is to not only increase public awareness about
civil liberties issues arising in the area of computer-based
communications, but also to support litigation in the public interest,
the Foundation has recently intervened on behalf of two legal cases.

The first case concerns Steve Jackson, an Austin-based game
manufacturer who was the target of the Secret Service's Operation Sun
Devil.  The EFF has pressed for a full disclosure by the government
regarding the seizure of his company's computer equipment.  In the
second action, the Foundation intends to seek amicus curiae (friend of
the court) status in the government's case against Craig Neidorf, a
20-year-old University of Missouri student who is the editor of the
electronic newsletter Phrack World News.

"It is becoming increasingly obvious that the rate of technology
advancement in communications is far outpacing the establishment of
appropriate cultural, legal and political frameworks to handle the
issues that are arising," said Kapor. "And the Steve Jackson and
Neidorf cases dramatically point to the timeliness of the Foundation's
mission.  We intend to be instrumental in helping shape a new
framework that embraces these powerful new technologies for the public
good."

The use of new digital media -- in the form of on-line information and
interactive conferencing services, computer networks and electronic
bulletin boards -- is becoming widespread in businesses and homes.
However, the electronic society created by these new forms of digital
communications does not fit neatly into existing, conventional legal
and social structures.

The question of how electronic communications should be accorded the
same political freedoms as newspapers, books, journals and other modes
of discourse is currently the subject of discussion among this
country's lawmakers and members of the computer industry.  The EFF
will take an active role in these discussions through its continued
funding of various educational projects and forums.

An important facet of the Foundation's mission is to help both the
public and policy-makers see and understand the opportunities as well
as the challenges posed by developments in computing and
telecommunications.  Also, the EFF will encourage and support the
development of new software to enable non-technical users to more
easily use their computers to access the growing number of digital
communications services available.

The Foundation is located in Cambridge, Mass.  Requests for
information should be sent to Electronic Frontier Foundation, One
Cambridge Center, Suite 300, Cambridge, MA 02142, 617/577-1385, fax
617/225-2347; or it can be reached at the Internet mail address
[e-mail].

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

Subject: CPSR to Undertake Expanded Civil Liberties Program
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 07:22:40 BST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


Contact: Marc Rotenberg [phone]

Washington, D.C., July 10, 1990 -- Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility (CPSR), a national computing organization, announced
today that it would receive a two-year grant in the amount of $275,000
for its Computing and Civil Liberties Project.  The Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF),founded by Mitchell Kapor, made the grant to
expand ongoing CPSR work on civil liberties protections for computer
users.

At a press conference in Washington today, Mr. Kapor praised CPSR's
work, "CPSR plays an important role in the computer community.  For
the last several years, it has sought to extend civil liberties
protections to new information technologies.  Now we want to help CPSR
expand that work."

Marc Rotenberg, director of the CPSR Washington Office said, "We are
obviously very happy about the grant from the EFF.  There is a lot of
work that needs to be done to ensure that our civil liberties
protections are not lost amidst policy confusion about the use of new
computer technologies."

CPSR said that it will host a series of policy round tables in
Washington, DC, during the next two years with lawmakers, computer
users, including (hackers), the FBI, industry representatives, and
members of the computer security community.  Mr. Rotenberg said that
the purpose of the meetings will be to "begin a dialogue about the new
uses of electronic media and the protection of the public interest."

CPSR also plans to develop policy papers on computers and civil
liberties, to oversee the Government's handling of computer crime
investigations, and to act as an information resource for
organizations and individuals interested in civil liberties issues.

The CPSR Computing and Civil Liberties project began in 1985 after
President Reagan attempted to restrict access to government computer
systems through the creation of new classification authority.  In
1988, CPSR prepared a report on the proposed expansion of the FBI's
computer system, the National Crime Information Center.  The report
found serious threats to privacy and civil liberties.  Shortly after
the report was issued, the FBI announced that it would drop a proposed
computer feature to track the movements of people across the country
who had not been charged with any crime.

"We need to build bridges between the technical community and the
policy community," said Dr. Eric Roberts, CPSR president and a
research scientist at Digital Equipment Corporation in Palo Alto,
California.  "There is simply too much misinformation about how
computer networks operate.  This could produce terribly misguided
public policy."

CPSR representatives have testified several times before Congressional
committees on matters involving civil liberties and computer policy.
Last year CPSR urged a House Committee to avoid poorly conceived
computer activity.  "In the rush to criminalize the malicious acts of
the few we may discourage the beneficial acts of the many," warned
CPSR.  A House subcommittee recently followed CPSR's recommendations
on computer crime amendments.

Dr. Ronni Rosenberg, an expert on the role of computer scientists and
public policy, praised the new initiative.  She said, "It's clear that
there is an information gap that needs to be filled.  This is an
important opportunity for computer scientists to help fill the gap."

CPSR is a national membership organization of computer professionals,
based in Palo Alto, California.  CPSR has over 20,000 members and 21
chapters across the country. In addition to the civil liberties
project, CPSR conducts research, advises policy makers and educates
the public about computers in the workplace, computer risk and
reliability, and international security.

For more information contact:

Marc Rotenberg                 Gary Chapman
CPSR Washington Office                  CPSR National Office
1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW             P.O. Box 717
Suite 1015                              Palo Alto, CA 94302
Washington, DC 20036                    415/322-3778
202/775-1588

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

Subject: Electronic Frontier Foundation - Mission Statement
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 07:23:49 BST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


A new world is arising in the vast web of digital, electronic media
which connect us.  Computer-based communication media like electronic
mail and computer conferencing are becoming the basis of new forms of
community.  These communities without a single, fixed geographical
location comprise the first settlements on an electronic frontier.

While well-established legal principles and cultural norms give
structure and coherence to uses of conventional media like newspapers,
books, and telephones, the new digital media do not so easily fit into
existing frameworks.  Conflicts come about as the law struggles to
define its application in a context where fundamental notions of
speech, property, and place take profoundly new forms. People sense
both the promise and the threat inherent in new computer and
communications technologies, even as they struggle to master or simply
cope with them in the workplace and the home.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been established to help
civilize the electronic frontier; to make it truly useful and
beneficial not just to a technical elite, but to everyone; and to do
this in a way which is in keeping with our society's highest
traditions of the free and open flow of information and communication.

To that end, the Electronic Frontier Foundation will:

1.      Engage in and support educational activities which increase
popular understanding of the opportunities and challenges posed by
developments in computing and telecommunications.

2.      Develop among policy-makers a better understanding of the issues
underlying free and open telecommunications, and support the creation of
legal and structural approaches which will ease the assimilation of
these new technologies by society.

3.      Raise public awareness about civil liberties issues arising from
the rapid advancement in the area of new computer-based communications
media.  Support litigation in the public interest to preserve, protect,
and extend First Amendment rights within the realm of computing and
telecommunications technology.

4.      Encourage and support the development of new tools which will
endow non-technical users with full and easy access to computer-based
telecommunications.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation
One Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
[phone]

[e-mail]

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

Subject: Across the Electronic Frontier
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 07:29:18 BST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>

by:      Mitchell Kapor and John Perry Barlow
         Electronic Frontier Foundation
         Washington, D.C.
         July 10, 1990

Over the last 50 years, the people of the developed world have begun
to cross into a landscape unlike any which humanity has experienced
before.  It is a region without physical shape or form.  It exists,
like a standing wave, in the vast web of our electronic communication
systems.  It consists of electron states, microwaves, magnetic fields,
light pulses and thought itself.

It is familiar to most people as the "place" in which a long-distance
telephone conversation takes place.  But it is also the repository for
all digital or electronically transferred information, and, as such,
it is the venue for most of what is now commerce, industry, and
broad-scale human interaction.  William Gibson called this Platonic
realm "Cyberspace," a name which has some currency among its present
inhabitants.

Whatever it is eventually called, it is the homeland of the
Information Age, the place where the future is destined to dwell.

In its present condition, Cyberspace is a frontier region, populated
by the few hardy technologists who can tolerate the austerity of its
savage computer interfaces, incompatible communications protocols,
proprietary barricades, cultural and legal ambiguities, and general
lack of useful maps or metaphors.

Certainly, the old concepts of property, expression, identity,
movement, and context, based as they are on physical manifestation, do
not apply succinctly in a world where there can be none.

Sovereignty over this new world is also not well defined.  Large
institutions already lay claim to large fiefdoms, but most of the
actual natives are solitary and independent, sometimes to the point of
sociopathy.  It is, therefore, a perfect breeding ground for both
outlaws and vigilantes.  Most of society has chosen to ignore the
existence of this arising domain.  Every day millions of people use
ATM's and credit cards, place telephone calls, make travel
reservations, and access information of limitless variety. . . all
without any perception of the digital machinations behind these
transactions.

Our financial, legal, and even physical lives are increasingly
dependent on realities of which we have only dimmest awareness.  We
have entrusted the basic functions of modern existence to institutions
we cannot name, using tools we've never heard of and could not operate
if we had.

As communications and data technology continues to change and develop
at a pace many times that of society, the inevitable conflicts have
begun to occur on the border between Cyberspace and the physical
world.

These are taking a wide variety of forms, including (but hardly limited
to) the following:

I.      Legal and Constitutional Questions

What is free speech and what is merely data?  What is a free press
without paper and ink?  What is a "place" in a world without tangible
dimensions?  How does one protect property which has no physical form
and can be infinitely and easily reproduced?  Can the history of one's
personal business affairs properly belong to someone else?  Can anyone
morally claim to own knowledge itself?

These are just a few of the questions for which neither law nor custom
can provide concrete answers.  In their absence, law enforcement
agencies like the Secret Service and FBI, acting at the disposal of
large information corporations, are seeking to create legal precedents
which would radically limit Constitutional application to digital
media.

The excesses of Operation Sun Devil are only the beginning of what
threatens to become a long, difficult, and philosophically obscure
struggle between institutional control and individual liberty.

II.     Future Shock

Information workers, forced to keep pace with rapidly changing
technology, are stuck on "the learning curve of Sisyphus."
Increasingly, they find their hard-acquired skills to be obsolete even
before they've been fully mastered. To a lesser extent, the same
applies to ordinary citizens who correctly feel a lack of control over
their own lives and identities.

One result of this is a neo-Luddite resentment of digital technology
from which little good can come.  Another is a decrease in worker
productivity ironically coupled to tools designed to enhance it.
Finally, there is a spreading sense of alienation, dislocation, and
helplessness in the general presence of which no society can expect to
remain healthy.

III.    The "Knows" and the "Know-Nots"

Modern economies are increasingly divided between those who are
comfortable and proficient with digital technology and those who
neither understand nor trust it.  In essence, this development
disenfranchises the latter group, denying them any possibility of
citizenship in Cyberspace and, thus, participation in the future.

Furthermore, as policy-makers and elected officials remain relatively
ignorant of computers and their uses, they unknowingly abdicate most
of their authority to corporate technocrats whose jobs do not include
general social responsibility.  Elected government is thus replaced by
institutions with little real interest beyond their own quarterly
profits.

We are founding the Electronic Frontier Foundation to deal with these
and related challenges.  While our agenda is ambitious to the point of
audacity, we don't see much that these issues are being given the
broad social attention they deserve.  We were forced to ask, "If not
us, then who?"

In fact, our original objectives were more modest.  When we first
heard about Operation Sun Devil and other official adventures into the
digital realm, we thought that remedy could be derived by simply
unleashing a few highly competent Constitutional lawyers upon the
Government.  In essence, we were prepared to fight a few civil
libertarian brush fires and go on about our private work.

However, examination of the issues surrounding these government
actions revealed that we were dealing with the symptoms of a much
larger malady, the collision between Society and Cyberspace.

We have concluded that a cure can lie only in bringing civilization to
Cyberspace.  Unless a successful effort is made to render that harsh
and mysterious terrain suitable for ordinary inhabitants, friction
between the two worlds will worsen.  Constitutional protections,
indeed the perceived legitimacy of representative government itself,
might gradually disappear.

We could not allow this to happen unchallenged, and so arises the
Electronic Frontier Foundation.  In addition to our legal
interventions on behalf of those whose rights are threatened, we will:

% Engage in and support efforts to educate both the general public and
policymakers about the opportunities and challenges posed by
developments in computing and telecommunications.

% Encourage communication between the developers of technology,
government, corporate officials, and the general public in which we
might define the appropriate metaphors and legal concepts for life in
Cyberspace.

% And, finally, foster the development of new tools which will endow
non-technical users with full and easy access to computer-based
telecommunications.

One of us, Mitch Kapor, had already been a vocal advocate of more
accessible software design and had given considerable thought to some
of the challenges we now intend to meet.

The other, John Perry Barlow, is a relative newcomer to the world of
computing (though not to the world of politics) and is therefore
well-equipped to act as an emissary between the magicians of
technology and the wary populace who must incorporate this magic into
their daily lives.

While we expect the Electronic Frontier Foundation to be a creation of
some longevity, we hope to avoid the sclerosis which organizations
usually develop in their efforts to exist over time.  For this reason
we will endeavor to remain light and flexible, marshalling
intellectual and financial resources to meet specific purposes rather
than finding purposes to match our resources.  As is appropriate, we
will communicate between ourselves and with our constituents largely
over the electronic Net, trusting self-distribution and
self-organization to a much greater extent than would be possible for
a more traditional organization.

We readily admit that we have our work cut out for us.  However, we
are greatly encouraged by the overwhelming and positive response which
we have received so far.  We hope the Electronic Frontier Foundation
can function as a focal point for the many people of good will who
wish to settle in a future as abundant and free as the present.


The Electronic Frontier Foundation
One Cambridge Center, Suite 300
Cambridge, MA 02142

[phone]
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Electronic Frontier
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02635;
          12 Jul 90 1:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03650;
          11 Jul 90 23:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25519;
          11 Jul 90 22:15 CDT
Date:     Wed, 11 Jul 90 21:34:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Electronic Frontier  2 of 2
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 11 Jul 90 21:33:00 CDT   Electronic Frontier 2 of 2

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Electronic Frontier Foundation - Legal Case Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Electronic Frontier Foundation - Legal Case Summary
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 07:31:17 BST
From: the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow <[e-mail]>


The Electronic Frontier Foundation is currently providing litigation
support in two cases in which it perceived there to be substantial
civil liberties concerns which are likely to prove important in the
overall legal scheme by which electronic communications will, now and
in the future, be governed, regulated, encouraged, and protected.

Steve Jackson Games

Steve Jackson Games is a small, privately owned adventure game
manufacturer located in Austin, Texas.  Like most businesses today,
Steve Jackson Games uses computers for word processing and
bookkeeping.  In addition, like many other manufacturers, the company
operates an electronic bulletin board to advertise and to obtain
feedback on its product ideas and lines.

One of the company's most recent products is GURPS CYBERPUNK, a
science fiction role-playing game set in a high-tech futuristic world.
The rules of the game are set out in a game book.  Playing of the game
is not performed on computers and does not make use of computers in
any way.  This game was to be the company's most important first
quarter release, the keystone of its line.

On March 1, 1990, just weeks before GURPS CYBERPUNK was due to be
released, agents of the United States Secret Service raided the
premises of Steve Jackson Games.  The Secret Service:

% seized three of the company's computers which were used in the
drafting and designing of GURPS CYBERPUNK, including the computer used
to run the electronic bulletin board,

% took all of the company software in the neighborhood of the
computers taken,

% took with them company business records which were located on the
computers seized, and

% destructively ransacked the company's warehouse, leaving many items
in disarray.

In addition, all working drafts of the soon-to-be-published GURPS
CYBERPUNK game book -- on disk and in hard-copy manuscript form --
were confiscated by the authorities.  One of the Secret Service agents
told Steve Jackson that the GURPS CYBERPUNK science fiction fantasy
game book was a, "handbook for computer crime."

Steve Jackson Games was temporarily shut down.  The company was forced
to lay-off half of its employees and, ever since the raid, has
operated on relatively precarious ground.

Steve Jackson Games, which has not been involved in any illegal
activity insofar as the Foundation's inquiries have been able to
determine, tried in vain for over three months to find out why its
property had been seized, why the property was being retained by the
Secret Service long after it should have become apparent to the agents
that GURPS CYBERPUNK and everything else in the company's repertoire
were entirely lawful and innocuous, and when the company's vital
materials would be returned.  In late June of this year, after
attorneys for the Electronic Frontier Foundation became involved in
the case, the Secret Service finally returned most of the property,
but retained a number of documents, including the seized drafts of
GURPS CYBERPUNKS.

The Foundation is presently seeking to find out the basis for the
search warrant that led to the raid on Steve Jackson Games.
Unfortunately, the application for that warrant remains sealed by
order of the court.  The Foundation is making efforts to unseal those
papers in order to find out what it was that the Secret Service told a
judicial officer that prompted that officer to issue the search
warrant.

Under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a search
warrant may be lawfully issued only if the information presented to
the court by the government agents demonstrates "probable cause" to
believe that evidence of criminal conduct would be found on the
premises to be searched.  Unsealing the search warrant application
should enable the Foundation's lawyers, representing Steve Jackson
Games, to determine the theory by which Secret Service Agents
concluded or hypothesized that either the GURPS CYBERPUNK game or any
of the company's computerized business records constituted criminal
activity or contained evidence of criminal activity.

Whatever the professed basis of the search, its scope clearly seems to
have been unreasonably broad.  The wholesale seizure of computer
software, and subsequent rummaging through its contents, is precisely
the sort of general search that the Fourth Amendment was designed to
prohibit.

If it is unlawful for government agents to indiscriminately seize all
of the hard-copy filing cabinets on a business premises -- which it
surely is -- that the same degree of protection should apply to
businesses that store information electronically.

The Steve Jackson Games situation appears to involve First Amendment
violations as well.  The First Amendment to the United States
Constitution prohibits the government from "abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press".  The government's apparent attempt to
prevent the publication of the GURPS CYBERPUNK game book by seizing
all copies of all drafts in all media prior to publication, violated
the First Amendment.  The particular type of First Amendment violation
here is the single most serious type, since the government, by seizing
the very material sought to be published, effectuated what is known in
the law as a "prior restraint" on speech.  This means that rather than
allow the material to be published and then seek to punish it, the
government sought instead to prevent publication in the first place.
(This is not to say, of course, that anything published by Steve
Jackson Games could successfully have been punished.  Indeed, the
opposite appears to be the case, since SJG's business seems to be
entirely lawful.)  In any effort to restrain publication, the
government bears an extremely heavy burden of proof before a court is
permitted to authorize a prior restraint.

Indeed, in its 200-year history, the Supreme Court has never upheld a
prior restraint on the publication of material protected by the First
Amendment, warning that such efforts to restrain publication are
presumptively unconstitutional.  For example, the Department of
Justice was unsuccessful in 1971 in obtaining the permission of the
Supreme Court to enjoin The New York Times, The Washington Post, and
The Boston Globe from publishing the so-called Pentagon Papers, which
the government strenuously argued should be enjoined because of a
perceived threat to national security.  (In 1979, however, the
government sought to prevent The Progressive magazine from publishing
an article purporting to instruct the reader as to how to manufacture
an atomic bomb.  A lower federal court actually imposed an order for a
temporary prior restraint that lasted six months.  The Supreme Court
never had an opportunity to issue a full ruling on the
constitutionality of that restraint, however, because the case was
mooted when another newspaper published the article.)

Governmental efforts to restrain publication thus have been met by
vigorous opposition in the courts.  A major problem posed by the
government's resort to the expedient of obtaining a search warrant,
therefore, is that it allows the government to effectively prevent or
delay publication without giving the citizen a ready opportunity to
oppose that effort in court.

The Secret Service managed to delay, and almost to prevent, the
publication of an innocuous game book by a legitimate company -- not
by asking a court for a prior restraint order that it surely could not
have obtained, but by asking instead for a search warrant, which it
obtained all too readily.

The seizure of the company's computer hardware is also problematic,
for it prevented the company not only from publishing GURPS CYBERPUNK,
but also from operating its electronic bulletin board.  The
government's action in shutting down such an electronic bulletin board
is the functional equivalent of shutting down printing presses of The
New York Times or The Washington Post in order to prevent publication
of The Pentagon Papers.  Had the government sought a court order
closing down the electronic bulletin board, such an order effecting a
prior restraint almost certainly would have been refused.  Yet by
obtaining the search warrant, the government effected the same result.

This is a stark example of how electronic media suffer under a less
stringent standard of constitutional protection than applies to the
print media -- for no apparent reason, it would appear, other than the
fact that government agents and courts do not seem to readily equate
computers with printing presses and typewriters.  It is difficult to
understand a difference between these media that should matter for
constitutional protection purposes.  This is one of the challenges
facing the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation will continue to press for return
of the remaining property of Steve Jackson Games and will take formal
steps, if necessary, to determine the factual basis for the search.
The purpose of these efforts is to establish law applying the First
and Fourth Amendments to electronic media, so as to protect in the
future Steve Jackson Games as well as other individuals and businesses
from the devastating effects of unlawful and unconstitutional
government intrusion upon and interference with protected property and
speech rights.

United States v. Craig Neidorf

Craig Neidorf is a 20-year-old student at the University of Missouri
who has been indicted by the United States on several counts of
interstate wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property
in connection with his activities as editor and publisher of the
electronic magazine, Phrack.

The indictment charges Neidorf with: (1) wire fraud and interstate
transportation of stolen property for the republication in Phrack of
information which was allegedly illegally obtained through the
accessing of a computer system without authorization, though it was
obtained not by Neidorf but by a third party; and (2) wire fraud for
the publication of an announcement of a computer conference and for
the publication of articles which allegedly provide some suggestions
on how to bypass security in some computer systems.

The information obtained without authorization is a file relating to
the provision of 911 emergency telephone services that was allegedly
removed from the BellSouth computer system without authorization.  It
is important to note that neither the indictment, nor any briefs filed
in this case by the government, contain any factual allegation or
contention that Neidorf was involved in or participated in the removal
of the 911 file.

These indictments raise substantial constitutional issues which have
significant impact on the uses of new computer communications
technologies.  The prosecution of an editor or publisher, under
generalized statutes like wire fraud and interstate transportation of
stolen property, for the publication of information received lawfully,
which later turns out to be have been "stolen," presents an
unprecedented threat to the freedom of the press.  The person who
should be prosecuted is the thief, and not a publisher who
subsequently receives and publishes information of public interest.
To draw an analogy to the print media, this would be the equivalent of
prosecuting The New York Times and The Washington Post for publishing
the Pentagon Papers when those papers were dropped off at the
doorsteps of those newspapers.

Similarly, the prosecution of a publisher for wire fraud arising out
of the publication of articles that allegedly suggested methods of
unlawful activity is also unprecedented.  Even assuming that the
articles here did advocate unlawful activity, advocacy of unlawful
activity cannot constitutionally be the basis for a criminal
prosecution, except where such advocacy is directed at producing
imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite such action.  The
articles here simply do not fit within this limited category.  The
Supreme Court has often reiterated that in order for advocacy to be
criminalized, the speech must be such that the words trigger an
immediate action.  Criminal prosecutions such as this pose an extreme
hazard for First Amendment rights in all media of communication, as it
has a chilling effect on writers and publishers who wish to discuss
the ramifications of illegal activity, such as information describing
illegal activity or describing how a crime might be committed.

In addition, since the statutes under which Neidorf is charged clearly
do not envision computer communications, applying them to situations
such as that found in the Neidorf case raises fundamental questions of
fair notice -- that is to say, the publisher or computer user has no
way of knowing that his actions may in fact be a violation of criminal
law.  The judge in the case has already conceded that "no court has
ever held that the electronic transfer of confidential, proprietary
business information from one computer to another across state lines
constitutes a violation of [the wire fraud statute]."  The Due Process
Clause prohibits the criminal prosecution of one who has not had fair
notice of the illegality of his action.  Strict adherence to the
requirements of the Due Process Clause also minimizes the risk of
selective or arbitrary enforcement, where prosecutors decide what
conduct they do not like and then seek some statute that can be
stretched by some theory to cover that conduct.

Government seizure and liability of bulletin board systems

During the recent government crackdown on computer crime, the
government has on many occasions seized the computers which operate
bulletin board systems ("BBSs"), even though the operator of the
bulletin board is not suspected of any complicity in any alleged
criminal activity.  The government seizures go far beyond a "prior
restraint" on the publication of any specific article, as the seizure
of the computer equipment of a BBS prevents the BBS from publishing at
all on any subject.  This akin to seizing the word processing and
computerized typesetting equipment of The New York Times for
publishing the Pentagon Papers, simply because the government contends
that there may be information relating to the commission of a crime on
the system.  Thus, the government does not simply restrain the
publication of the "offending" document, but it seizes the means of
production of the First Amendment activity so that no more stories of
any type can be published.

The government is allowed to seize "instrumentalities of crime," and a
bulletin board and its associated computer system could arguably be
called an instrumentality of crime if individuals used its private
e-mail system to send messages in furtherance of criminal activity.
However, even if the government has a compelling interest in
interfering with First Amendment protected speech, it can only do so
by the least restrictive means.  Clearly, the wholesale seizure and
retention of a publication's means of production, i.e., its computer
system, is not the least restrictive alternative.  The government
obviously could seize the equipment long enough to make a copy of the
information stored on the hard disk and to copy any other disks and
documents, and then promptly return the computer system to the
operator.

Another unconstitutional aspect of the government seizures of the
computers of bulletin board systems is the government infringement on
the privacy of the electronic mail in the systems.  It appears that
the government, in seeking warrants for the seizures, has not
forthrightly informed the court that private mail of third parties is
on the computers, and has also read some of this private mail after
the systems have been seized.

The Neidorf case also raises issues of great significance to bulletin
board systems.  As Neidorf was a publisher of information he received,
BBSs could be considered publishers of information that its users post
on the boards.  BBS operators have a great deal of concern as to the
liability they might face for the dissemination of information on
their boards which may turn out to have been obtained originally
without authorization, or which discuss activity which may be
considered illegal.  This uncertainty as to the law has already caused
a decrease in the free flow of information, as some BBS operators have
removed information solely because of the fear of liability.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation stands firmly against the
unauthorized access of computer systems, computer trespass and
computer theft, and strongly supports the security and sanctity of
private computer systems and networks. One of the goals of the
Foundation, however, is to ensure that, as the legal framework is
established to protect the security of these computer systems, the
unfettered communication and exchange of ideas is not hindered.  The
Foundation is concerned that the Government has cast its net too
broadly, ensnaring the innocent and chilling or indeed supressing the
free flow of information.  The Foundation fears not only that
protected speech will be curtailed, but also that the citizen's
reasonable expectation in the privacy and sanctity of electronic
communications systems will be thwarted, and people will be hesitant
to communicate via these networks.  Such a lack of confidence in
electronic communication modes will substantially set back the kind of
experimentation by and communication among fertile minds that are
essential to our nation's development.  The Foundation has therefore
applied for amicus curiae (friend of the court) status in the Neidorf
case and has filed legal briefs in support of the First Amendment
issues there, and is prepared to assist in protecting the free flow of
information over bulletin board systems and other computer
technologies.

For further information regarding Steve Jackson Games please contact:

Harvey Silverglate or Sharon Beckman
Silverglate & Good
89 Broad Street, 14th Floor
Boston, MA  02110
617/542-6663

For further information regarding Craig Neidorf please contact:

Terry Gross or Eric Lieberman
Rabinowitz, Boudin, Standard, Krinsky and Lieberman
740 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10003
212/254-1111

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Electronic Frontier  2 of 2
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12585;
          13 Jul 90 5:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13483;
          13 Jul 90 3:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10898;
          13 Jul 90 2:08 CDT
Date:     Fri, 13 Jul 90 1:16:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #477
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Jul 90 01:15:33 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 477

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GTE/Contel Merger Announcement [Jim Sinclair]
    GTE/Contel Merger Questions [Robert Virzi]
    Last USA Crank-Style Phones to be Replaced [Jeff E. Nelson]
    Telecom Peeves [Bill Berbenich]
    Info on Hotel PBXs Wanted [Ned Robie]
    Excelan EXOS 225 = HELP [David Cattell]
    NPA-N-"T" (was: Curious About Overseas Call Responses) [Carl Moore]
    Dulles Prefixes (was Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?) [Carl Moore]
    Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation [[e-mail]]
    Last Laugh! Soliloquy on Llama Dung [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Sinclair <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE/Contel Merger Announcement
Date: 12 Jul 90 20:37:00 GMT
Organization: GTEL


I thought that the readers of comp.dcom.telecom might be interested in
the following announcement:

NEW YORK, July 12 -- GTE Corporation (NYSE - GTE) and Contel
Corporation (NYSE - CTC) jointly announced today that the boards of
directors of both companies have agreed in principle to merge the two
telecommunications giants in a transaction valued at approximately
$6.2 billion, as of yesterday's closing price.

Under the proposed merger agreement, which is subject to approval by
the directors and stockholders of both companies as well as various
regulatory agencies, GTE will issue 1.27 shares of its common stock in
a tax-free exchange for each Contel common share, or about 200 million
GTE shares.

James L. "Rocky" Johnson, chairman and chief executive officer of GTE,
characterized the merger as "a perfect combination of two great
companies.  GTE's telecommunications businesses and organizational
structure complement those of Contel, and this alliance will both
position the company strategically and enable us to exploit more fully
the many opportunities for growth that exist in the worldwide
telecommunications marketplace."  He noted that the merger will result
in an organization that ranks as the country's largest local-exchange
telephone company and the second-largest cellular-telephone operator.

The combined company's local-exchange operations would have a total of
17.7 million access lines, and its cellular-telephone business would
serve approximately 50 million "POPs."

Charles Wohlstetter, Contel's chairman, said, "This merger will
provide the critical mass and financial strength Contel has sought in
order to accelerate the many initiatives we have recently taken across
a wide spectrum of ventures in the field of telecommunications.  These
plans fit so well with those of GTE that it is hard to imagine any
other two companies in such an ideal position to move forward
together.  All of this leads me to the firm conviction that the
agreement to merge is in the best interests of Contel's shareholders
and employees."

Wohlstetter also noted that Contel stockholders will benefit from an
increased dividend resulting from the exchange of shares.  GTE
currently pays a dividend of $1.46 per share, whereas Contel pays a
dividend of $1.10.  "Given the common stock exchange ratio, this would
equate to a dividend of approximately $1.85 per Contel share,"
Wohlstetter said.

GTE subsidiaries operate in 46 states and 41 countries, with combined
revenues and sales of $17.4 billion and net income of $1.4 billion in
1989.  GTE is a leader in its three core businesses -- telecommunica-
tions, lighting, and precision materials -- providing products and
services worldwide.  It has 158,000 employees.

Contel is a major local telephone and cellular service provider.  Its
telephone operations serve 2.6 million access lines in 30 states and
it operates cellular systems through a 90%-owned subsidiary, Contel
Cellular, Inc. (NASDAQ - CCXLA), in 36 metropolitan areas.  Contel's
1989 revenues were $3.1 billion, with net income of $277 million.  It
employs 22,000.

"Aside from the obvious synergy of our telephone and cellular
operations," Johnson said, "both companies have other areas of
interest that are remarkably parallel.  We both have large and
successful units that provide telecommunications service and systems
to government entities.  We're both in satellite communications, and
we have each undertaken significant initiatives in providing a
combined cable-television and telephone service to residential
communities.  In addition, both companies have significant research
activities which will make the combined entity an industry leader in
applied technology.

"Both companies have recently undertaken major restructuring programs
to make our businesses more competitive, and have placed the highest
priority on quality and productivity programs to better serve our
customers.  It is clear that all of these activities are uniquely
positioned to benefit from the merger not merely through economies of
scale, but also through the vastly enhanced reach of our combined
resources as well as the coming together of the talented people of our
two organizations," Johnson said.

The announcement noted the new company would operate as GTE
Corporation.  Johnson will remain chairman and chief executive
officer, and Charles R.  Lee will continue to be president and chief
operating officer.  Wohlstetter and John L. Segall, who is currently
vice chairman of Contel, will both serve as vice chairmen of the
merged companies.  When a new board is constituted, five of its
directors will be nominated from Contel's current board.  Donald W.
Weber, president and CEO of Contel and a veteran of more than 25 years
in the telephone industry, will occupy a key position in the merged
entity.

Wohlstetter, who is slated to chair the Strategic Issues, Planning and
Technology Committee of the new board, echoed Johnson's remarks on the
synergistic character of the merger.  "Our two companies," he said,
"have a very consistent outlook on the opportunities that are at hand
in the world marketplace for telecommunications, and we have a common
understanding of the value of size and reach in the highly competitive
environment in which these opportunities must be grasped.  We share a
strong conviction that the combination of our respective resources
will create a market force that neither of our companies could have
achieved alone.  And the timing," he added, "could not be better."


Jim Sinclair     GTE Laboratories
Waltham, MA      [e-mail]

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

From: Robert Virzi <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE/Contel Merger Questions
Date: 12 Jul 90 18:43:49 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


** NEWS**

GTE Corp. and Contel Corp. today jointly announced they they have
agreed in principle to merge the two telecom giants.  The value of the
transaction is $6.2 Billion.

Combined local exchange operations will serve 17.7 Million access
lines, making it the countries largest LEC.  Combined cellular
operations will serve apprx. 50 Million POPs, making it the second
largest cellular provider.

Both companies seem to be strongly interested in CATV, with Contel
already owning several franchises.

** QUESTIONS **

Where are Contel franchises?  (Both telephone and CATV)

Why did GTE stock drop (albeit a small amount) while Contel and Contel
Cellular stocks went up?  I suspected something was up when I noticed
that GTE had been on the NYSE most active list several times in the
past week.  I guess someone made a killing.  Anyone care to guess on
future stock prices?

What is Contel's reputation?  I have heard that they are one of the
more innovative telcos, pushing into CATV, videotex, and other
interesting services at a fast pace.

What sort of network does Contel have?  I know they don't use the
GTD-5 because (rumor has it) we (GTE) have only sold one outside the
corporation to Ameritech.  Are they largely digital or X-bar or worse?

Finally, are there likely to be objections raised to the merger by the
FCC or SEC?  If so, on what grounds?

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 05:52:11 PDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last USA Crank-Style Phones to be Replaced


As reported on this morning's news/information/entertainment program
"Today," the town of North Falls, Idaho is the last remaining location
in the United States that still operates hand-crank telephones.
However, history will soon pass, as they are designated to be replaced
by touch-tone service.  No details were given as to when the cutover
will occur.  According to the program, there are 18 subscribers with
hand-crank phones.  In keeping with their tradition of providing
entertainment, the "Today" show saw fit to made a joke about "no more
crank calls."


Jeff E. Nelson    Digital Equipment Corporation
Internet:  [e-mail]
Affiliation given for identification purposes only

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

From: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Peeves
Date: 10 Jul 90 21:50:52 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Organization: DSP Lab, School of Electrical Engineering, Ga.Tech, Atlanta, GA


I was just reminded of one of my pet telecom peeves.  Ever get on the
phone with someone and have them just barely whisper instead of
speakly clearly and plainly?  I said, "would you please speak up, I
can just barely hear you."  The person's voice would get louder - I
could tell that he was speaking in a full, clear voice then and I knew
that it wasn't just a bad connection.  Anyway, after a few sentences,
ole soft-voice would slip back into the whisper.

"Please speak up?" audible, audible, whisper, "please speak up, I
cannot hear you?" audible, audible, audible, whisper... and so on
throughout the ten minute (five minutes in an audible voice)
conversation.  Aaarrrggghhhh. :-)

It wasn't even a 'confidential' matter.  Anyone else had this happen
to them?


Bill Berbenich

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

From: [e-mail] (ned)
Subject: Info on Hotel PBXs Wanted
Date: 9 Jul 90 15:43:04 GMT
Organization: h-three Systems, Research Triangle Park,  NC


I have an idea for a peripheral device for hotel telephone systems
that I'd like to develop.

The device would need to interface with the hotel PBX so that it
could:

1. Selectively intercept calls coming in (local and non-local) based
on called number.

2. Be accessible from any phone in the hotel (that's tied in to the
PBX) by dialing some special number.

3. Determine the caller's number when accessed using the special
number.

Is there a practical way to do this on the popular hotel switches?  If
so, what are the popular hotel switches and generally how would the
device be integrated?

Thanks for the info.


Ned Robie    uunet!h-three!ned

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

From: David Cattell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Excelan EXOS 225 = HELP
Date: 11 Jul 90 17:28:16 GMT
Reply-To: David Cattell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Redhill, UK


HELP - I'm desperately looking for the Company, Excelan Inc. in the
states.

I thought their address was:

        2180 Fortune Drive
        San Jose, CA 95131

But when I tried their phone no. ( 408-434-2285 ) they had been
disconnected.  Is this anything to do with earthquakes? So I tried
international directory inquiries and they are no longer listed under
San Jose! Does anyone know where they are now, and even better, their
fax number?

I have one of their Excelan EXOS 225 (rev D) PC cards and I'm having
difficulty installing it!

The hardware installation software comes up with the error:

    Board enable Pass 0: Window error expected 0 got ffff
    A225 Error is error at address 00000
    Location 00000
    Loop count 0 Total errors 1

I've checked and double checked the jumper settings and the
installation parameters in the S/W and can't get around this.

I tried installing the main S/W and on running that I get the error:

Exos 225 board map registers failed self test.


Anyone got any useful info? Can Excelan hear me?


    Dave Cattell                    email [e-mail]
    Philips Research Labs.          Cross Oak Lane
    Redhill, Surrey                 England RH1 5HA
    Tel. [phone]              Fax  [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 9:58:17 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPA-N-"T" (was: Curious About Overseas Call Responses)


Re: "405-2-T" appearing at end of intercept message received in 405
area:

For inter-LATA calls within U.S. and Canada which could not be
completed as dialed from my residence phone in Delaware, I have gotten
something like "215-1-T" at the end of the recording (I am a TRIFLE
unsure about the "1" just before the "T").  Although such call
originated in area 302, the call apparently gets switched via
southeastern Pa., which is in 215.

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 10:18:22 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dulles Prefixes (was Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?)


Before a Dulles DC-metro exchange came on line (703-260?), C&P's
703-471 exchange appeared on some payphones in Dulles in order to
provide DC-metro service.  I believe the 703-661 Dulles prefix is
local to DC and Va. suburbs, but not to Maryland.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 17:48:36 PDT
Reply-To: sun!portal!cup.portal.com!rwp


Would it be possible to release the names of the Secret Service men
who were involved in the Steve Jackson affair, and that of the judge
who issued the warrant?  Since it is obviously legal to publish the
name of private citizens who are innocent of a crime (until proven
guilty), it would be nice to see the agents and judge accused of
overzealousness (at least) or constitutional violations (at worst)
enjoy the same level of publicity.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 23:11 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Date: 11 Jul 90 00:00:00 CDT
Subject: Soliloquy on Llama Dung


Reading an article in EDN for 28 Jun 90 (p.35) today brought a
thoughtful frame of mind about how we approach utilizing
telecommunications today.

In the article cited, Richard A. Quinnel writes:

                           " LLAMA ALERT!
       " We engineers are so good at solving problems that we
sometimes forget to ask if the problem has been posed correctly; we
just solve it.  Yet questioning the rationale behind product
specifications can avoid a lot of pointless effort.

       " Consider the U.S. Army's llamas.  In the early 1940's, so the
story goes, the Army wanted a dependable supply of llama dung, as
required by specifications for treating the leather used in airplane
seats.  Submarine attacks made shipping from South America unreliable,
so the Army attempted to establish a herd of llamas in New Jersey.
Only after the attempt failed did anyone question the specification.
Subsequent research revealed that the U.S. Army had copied a British
Army specification dating back to Great Britain's era of colonial
expansion.  The original specification applied to saddle leather.

       " Great Britain's pressing need for cavalry to patrol its many
colonies meant bringing together raw recruits, untrained horses and
new saddles.  The leather smell made horses skittish and unmanageable.
Treating the saddle leather with llama dung imparted an odor that
calmed the horses.  The treatment, therefore, became part of the
leather's specification, which remained unchanged for a century.

       " So, on your next project, make sure you know the reason
behind the specs.  If you hear, "We've always done it that way," watch
out for llama dung."

        Reflecting on Quinnel's story brought to mind how frequently
in telecommunications we're told, "It's the way we've always done it."
No wonder so many projects carry an aura of llama dung!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #477
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12764;
          13 Jul 90 5:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13483;
          13 Jul 90 3:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10898;
          13 Jul 90 2:08 CDT
Date:     Fri, 13 Jul 90 1:50:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #478
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Jul 90 01:48:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 478

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Radio Shack CT-102 [Doug Faunt]
    Re: Radio Shack CT-102 [John Higdon]
    Re: Touchtone History [Carl Moore]
    Re: Touchtone History [Tom Perrine]
    Re: Unauthorized Disconnection [John Higdon]
    Re: Unauthorized Disconnection [Stephen J. Friedl]
    Re: Manhole Covers [Gary Segal]
    Re: Bell Canada [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Re: Using the "0" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID [M. Mongeon]
    Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service? [John Higdon]
    Re: Good For a Laugh: Polish Payphones [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703 [Jeffrey M. Schweiger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 09:28:09 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-102


Lars Poulsen writes:

>Radio Shack's ads indicate that the $299 price is conditional on
>signing up for service "with certain minimum commitments" with the
>carrier indicated by the vendor, and that the price is $599 if you
>just want the phone.

I checked that first.  You can get the telephone for $299, no strings
attached, in California, since the PUC ruling.


Doug Faunt

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-102
Date: 11 Jul 90 01:47:25 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> (1) Is the CPUC ruling a "state law" ?
> (2) When the "service commitment does not apply", which price applies ?

For practical purposes the CPUC ruling is law. RS cannot require you
to sign up for service when you buy the unit.

> If I can buy the phone for $299 with no strings attached, I might
> spring for it, just to be able to take it with when travelling. (Would
> I be eligible for roamer service if I did not have a subscription
> active at home ? What is the cheapest base subscription anywhere in
> the country if I needed a "phantom home" ?)

You must have service from someone somewhere before you can roam. This
is necessary for your unit to have a unique telephone number that
isn't on a reject list. Besides price, be sure that your "token" home
system has roaming agreements with the carriers you want in the areas
you want. For instance, I have been told that LA Cellular has roaming
agreements with almost no one. This can make roaming a real chore
outside of the greater LA area.


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

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

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 9:47:28 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History

My parents recently got a pushbutton phone which is on a non-touch-
tone line.  The phone has a switch for pulse or tone, and you must
call using pulse (attempting to use tone will not break the dial
tone), but you can then switch to tone for subsequent touch-tone
inputs (including the self service credit-card-number entry).

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

From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 12 Jul 90 21:16:13 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


AT&T's latest ad for their FAX machines shows a "family tree". The
picture of the Touch Tone (tm) phone is dated 1964.


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
                                        |[phone]


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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Disconnection
Date: 11 Jul 90 03:17:38 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]> writes:

>     Three points I would like to bring up.  First, the representative
> said that unless somebody specifically tells the phone company they
> want any change request for service verified it is not done.  This,
> however convienent, can be danger.  Anyone can call up and say, I am
> Mr.  Doe, phone number is XXX-XXXX and want my phone service
> disconnected.  No verification.

This used to be the way it was, period. Several years ago, after
certain parties impersonated me to the Pac*Bell business office and
made some rather inconvenient changes to my service and got all the
numbers to my unlisted lines, a number of us raised some hell. We
discussed this issue at length on our old regional telecom news group
and the topic was picked up by some in Pac*Bell where the group was
distributed.

Their solution was to "password" accounts at the customer's request.
When a rep pulls up the account, a flag instructs the person to ask
the customer for the password and will not discuss the matter further
until the correct password is given. After some shakey starts, this
has finally been implemented well. I have taken things one step
further and have the accounts consolidated under an unlisted billing
number.  Without that billing number, no one can even bring the
account up on a terminal.

This may seem terribly troublesome, but you can have security or you
can have convenience. Take your pick.

> The second point is that the only way
> to get something done is talk to a sueprvisor and be firm on what you
> want.

That is correct.

> The last point is do I have any course of action?  I am out
> about $25 due to having to use pay phones and lack of a calling card.
> Who can I complain to?

Anyone you like, but you won't get anything out of the telco.


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

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

From: "Stephen J. Friedl" <mtndew![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Disconnection
Date: 12 Jul 90 13:58:17 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Center


Dennis Rears tells of moving and how the new tenant got his phone
disconnected early without his knowledge or approval.  The phone
company gave him a big hassle about this (threatened $42 reconnect
charge) and it was a bummer all around.  Apparently anybody can call
in for service requests for anybody.

> The last point is do I have any course of action?  I am out
> about $25 due to having to use pay phones and lack of a calling card.
> Who can I complain to?

Just have the new tenant's phone disconnected in about three weeks.
The satisfaction should probably be worth much more than $25 :-)


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Manhole Covers
Date: 12 Jul 90 18:50:29 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (John V. Zambito) writes:

>This discussion got way out of hand, but let me add to it. What about
>when a stripe from a lane marking is painted on it? The service people
>never put the cover back on right.

>[Moderator's Note: I see lots of these in Chicago. Typically, they are
>always turned at some strange angle to the rest of the line.  PT]

The solution is so simple, I can't imagine why the streets department
hasn't figured it out yet: Paint the entire manhole cover yellow, that
way no matter how the cover is rotated when it's put back, the line
will always go across!!!  :-)


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: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada
Date: 12 Jul 90 14:36:25 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.
bnr.ca![e-mail]> writes:

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

>>which means we have only one long distance supplier - Bell Canada (A
>>first cousin of AT&T).

>Not quite - Bell Canada is a 100% owned subsidiary of BCE, Inc. BCE is

How about "Wicked Step Sister" ?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID
Date: 12 Jul 90 14:54:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Fred
R. Goldstein) writes:

>The Canadian Radio-Television Commission, in approving Caller ID for
>Bell Canada (which serves most of Ontario and Quebec), stated that
>per-call blocking by dialing "0" was adequate.  Bell Canada filed a
>tariff charging $.75/call for that service; I don't know if it was
>approved.

The tariff (Item 86 of CRTC tariff 6716) was approved.  There is an
additional provision to the charge that calls originating from
"certified shelters for victims of domestic violence" will not be
subject to the charge.  When the tariff was considered, there were a
number of representations made to the effect that battered wives etc.
might somehow be found through the use of caller ID.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using the "O" Operator to Defeat 800 ANI and Caller*ID
Date: 12 Jul 90 16:22:05 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> The Canadian Radio-Television Commission, in approving Caller ID for
> Bell Canada (which serves most of Ontario and Quebec), stated that
> per-call blocking by dialing "0" was adequate.
     ......

> This has the advantage, in the short term, of allowing call blocking
> on demand from ALL exchanges, including electromechanical ones that
> don't support feature code dialing.

While this is certainly true, my experience here in NJ indicates that
callers from electromechanical exchanges don't need to do anything
special to block their numbers from the destination Caller*Id feature
 -- the crossbar switches don't seem to send any ID anyway.  Calls from
these CO's show up as "OUT OF AREA".


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]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service?
Date: 12 Jul 90 10:46:57 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Mark McWiggins <intek01![e-mail]> writes:

> Am I missing something?  I'd be interested in hearing from anyone
> who's using a similar system.  Also, we're expecting significant
> growth over the next couple of years. What else should I be looking
> out for?

Centron sounds like Pac*Bell's Commstar. These "mini" Centrex
offerings offer some of the features of Centrex and have the advantage
of being tariffed for residential service as well as business. The
major disadvantage (if you can bear the cost) is that all features are
activated by a hookswitch flash. This means that your people will have
to become adept at flashing the hookswitch or pushing the "flash"
button if your phones are so equipped. It has been my experience from
years in the interconnect business that there are some who simply
cannot deal with this form of feature activation. If they don't see a
light or some other form of instant feedback, they get lost and lose
calls. We sold many feature phones after the fact to customers who
originally thought that they were "manly" enough to use the
hookswitch.

Also, price others' voice mail and the cost of a small electronic key
system. Don't just flop over to the arms of the telephone company
because it "won't cost any more". You may be able to satisfy your
needs for less.


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 05:29:39 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Good For a Laugh: Polish Payphones
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard Budd)
writes:

| Another example: In the early '80's when the US was floundering in its
| attempt to convert to the metric system, I suggested that Congress
| pass a law saying that on August 1, 1985, the US will use the metric
| system for all measurements...

Lest we forget: The metric system *is* now the official U.S. system
for standards, and has been for quite some number of years. (The U.S.
inch at some point in the process was re-defined to be *exactly* 2.54
cm.)  It's just that we haven't yet faced up to killing off this
unofficial but pervasive English system of measures...  ;-} ;-}


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: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703
Date: 12 Jul 90 22:09:04 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Covert 07-Jul-1990 1858) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 468, Message 2 of 8

>  From:  Greg Monti
>  Date:  6 July 1990
>  Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703

>Prefixes of the Pentagon-Department of Defense telephone Rate Area
>have been moved from Area Code 202 to Area Code 703.

[deleted]

>The following 202 prefixes have been moved to 703: 545(?), 692, 693,
>695, 696, 697 and 746.  One old Pentagon prefix, 202-694, could not be
>moved because there already is a 703-694 prefix in Stuart, Virginia.
>A new Pentagon prefix, 703-602, was opened, presumably to absorb the
>users booted off of 694.

While I don't know the rationale for the creation of the 703-602 DOD
prefix, it was not to absorb the users from 694.  703-602 seems to
have been created using some of the users of 202-692, and additionally
had a new Autovon prefix established (332- , where the 692 prefix was
Autovon 222).

Regarding what happens to the 202-694 users, I quote the following
from a Navy newsletter:

"Effective 1 October 1990, all (202) 694-XXXX DOD telephone numbers
will be changed to (703) 614-XXXX.  This is necessary because local
Washington Metropolitan area telephone companies are instituting new
dialing procedures to provide for future residential and business
growth.  AUTOVON prefixes will not be affected.  You may still dial
AUTOVON 224-XXXX for all new (703) 614-XXXX commercial numbers."


Jeff Schweiger          Standard Disclaimer       CompuServe:  74236,1645
Internet (Milnet):                [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #478
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09363;
          14 Jul 90 3:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25515;
          14 Jul 90 1:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17232;
          14 Jul 90 0:28 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Jul 90 0:10:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #479
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Jul 90 00:10:21 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 479

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Re: Touchtone History) [Nigel Roberts]
    White House Phone Trivia (Was: Touchtone History) [Roger Clark Swann]
    Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates [Brendan Boerner]
    Common Courtesy When Using Pulse/Touch-Tone Phones [Carl Moore]
    Cleaning Pulses [Andrew A. Houghton]
    Network Interface [Robert M. Hamer]
    CADD System for Outside Plant [Douglas R. Coffland]
    Help with Rotored Lines/ Rack Mounted Modems [Pushpendra Mohta]
    Fax Over Compressed Voice [Tom Neiss]
    Re: Austrian Telephone System [Henry Troup]
    Re: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access [John Cowan]
    Re: I Need a Way to Verify Autodial Numbers [Tad Cook]
    Re: Annoying Intercept Behavior [Jerry B. Altzman]
    Re: Answering Machine Security [Steve Wolfson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 02:58:47 PDT
From: Nigel Roberts 0860 578600 <"iosg::robertsn"@iosg.enet.dec.com>
Subject: TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Re: Touchtone History)


I called my local British Telecom Sales and Service Department in
Colchester just now. (There's a Freefone number for that (8921), which
is handy seeing I'm in Reading at the moment).

TouchTone (and thus Star Services) is available only on our C.O.
(Colchester 0206) if the number is in the form 5nnnnn or 7nnnnn,
according to the person I spoke to there (Sarah in Customer Sales)

Bearing in mind previous comments on the subject, I asked what type of
exchange served my area (Colchester numbers in the form 39nnnn --
Manningtree used to be an independent exchange with area code 020639
until six or seven years ago when they replaced the Strowger
exchange).

She went away for four or five minutes and to my amazement came back
with the answer. 'It's a TXE-2' she said. Full marks to Sarah for
this.

This leads me to ask a few questions of the DIGEST.

What exactly is a TXE-2? (My guess is that it's a magnetic reed type
exchange).

Is there any way it could support TouchTone? (A BT engineer once told
me that there might be some kind of black box which they can add).

Are there any more features available on the TXE-2 that we are not
being told about?

And does anyone have a guess as to how long it will be before it is
updated to something modern? (I IMAGINE we've got another 19 years of
pulse dialling to put up with, but I hope I'm wrong ...)


Nigel Roberts (on contract at DEC)
Orichalk Ltd;   P. O. Box 49; Manningtree; Essex; CO11 2HQ; England.
Tel.  [phone] or [phone] (Cellnet)
Fax.  [phone]

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: White House Phone Trivia (Was: Touchtone History)
Date: 13 Jul 90 00:08:58 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA


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

> ........................  A touch-tone phone was clearly visible in
> President Kennedy's oval office in numerious bits of footage shot at
> the time.  The year was 1963 and the students were trying to register
> for the summer session, so I would put the date at about May or June
> 1963.  The phone that Kennedy used most of the time was a multi-line
> key set with a rotary dial (looked like about 25 lines) and a
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> speakerphone attachment.  Sitting on the table behind his chair were
> about 3 or 4 single line desk sets, one touch-tone, the rest rotary.
> Was touch-tone in general use in May 1963, or did the President just
> have a pre-release model?

I think those same phones are still there :-) Well, almost...  I was
looking through a {Newsweek} (I think) a couple of weeks back and
spotted a photo of President Bush in the Oval Office talking with
someone and there on the desk in clear view was an TT version of the
unit described above. One of the those big tanks that I used to think
looked so neat, cool, etc. Wow! What an improvement in over 25 years!
The burning question that Telecom readers want answered is: Why
doesn't the President's office have a nice little Merlin (R) or neat
IDSN set ???


    Roger Swann               |    uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @                    |
The Boeing Company            |


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

From: "Brendan B. Boerner" <ut-emx![e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates
Date: 13 Jul 90 04:50:21 GMT
Organization: UT Austin Computation Center, Microcomputer Technologies


I have two questions regarding local phone operation and one regarding
long distances rates which I am curious about and about which I am
hoping someone can enlighten me.

First, does anyone have a clue why Southwestern Bell here in Austin,
TX wants $60.00 to hookup a phone?  I don't mean hookup as in sending
someone to pull some wire (I think that's $60.00/hour), I mean,
$60.00 so that I can call, request service, am told it'll be available
after such-and-such hour on such-and-such day, and that's that.  I
asked a cust. service rep. about it once and she wasn't able to give
me a very good explanation.  I seem to recall that it involved a
couple of data key operators and maybe one or two quality assurance
folks.

Also, when I moved out of a co-op two years ago, I asked if I could
keep the same number which I had been using.  I was told, yes, if I
wanted to pay to have them pull a wire from the 478 exchange to the
458 exchange (my old number was 478-3813, my current is 458-1770)
*and* I would have to pay extra monthly.  What I am wondering is, how
does the local service work?  Is a city really broken into sections,
where moving a number between them requires a hardware change?

About the long distance pricing: I called MCI and inquired about their
PrimeTime Texas and PrimeTime plans.  These are plans where you agree
to purchase a minimum of 1hr/month of intrastate and interstate long
distance service respectively.  Maybe someone can explain the odd
rates summarized below (what is odd (to me) is that intrastate is
*more* expensive than interstate).

PrimeTime Texas (intrastate)    PrimeTime (interstate)
(rounded down to nearest cent)
$0.37/minute (8am - 5pm)    $0.18/minute (8am - 5pm)
$0.18/minute (5pm - 8am)    $0.13/minute (5pm- 11pm)
                $0.11/minute (11pm - 8am)

I thought is kinda bizarre that I can call California during business
hours for *less* than calling my brother in Dallas after 5pm.  Any
ideas?

Many thanks,

Brendan B. Boerner        Phone: [phone]
Microcomputer Technologies    The University of Texas @ Austin
Internet: [e-mail]     UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!boerner
BITNET:   [e-mail]     AppleLink: [e-mail]@DASNET#

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 11:05:10 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Common Courtesy When Using Pulse/Touch-Tone Phones


I sent a very recent message about pulse/touch-tone switch.  If the
line is pulse (NOT touch-tone), and you then use touch-tone inputs on
that phone after dialing the number you want, please put the phone
back in pulse mode when you are done.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 14:46:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Andrew A. Houghton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cleaning Pulses


In brief, I have heard that at one time AT&T sent out "cleaning
pulses" in the wee hours of morning to "fuse shorts in the line."

Assuming this is drivel, is there any basis for such a thing?

Just wondering,


Andrew Houghton
([e-mail])

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 16:08 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Network Interface


First, I need to state that I am in Richmond, VA, which is C & P -
land, which is part of Bell Atlantic Land.  I suspect this differs
from telco to telco.

I recently got a second line installed.  The house is thirty years
old; we moved in a year ago.  When we moved in, we had one line
installed.  When they installed it, they also put in a Network
Interfact box, as previous service had been installed in 1960 before
there were NI.

In my previous house, the NI had a modular socket I could plug my
modular plug into, to test the circut exclusive of the inside wiring.
(This was also C&P land.)  This NI doesn't.  Anyone have any guesses
why?  It would be useful to be able to test the new line before I hook
it up so if I screw up the hookup, I know what I have done.  I will
probably have to get an old phone, strip back the modular cord, and
get some alligator clips.

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

From: "Douglas R. Coffland" <lll-lcc!lll-lcc![e-mail]>
Subject: CADD System for Outside Plant
Date: 13 Jul 90 21:29:20 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, LCC, Livermore Ca


We, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, are looking for a
relational database/CADD system to manage our Outside Plant
Distribution system.  We would like to document our manholes, ducts,
and cabling (twisted pairs, fiber, coax, etc.) on this system.

It would be nice if we could import graphic information from our other
CADD system which is Computer Visison in IGIS Format.

So far, we haven't found anything that is particularly well suited for
our needs.  If anyone has any experience in this area, we'd like to
here from you.


Doug Coffland
[e-mail]
415-423-7867

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 16:41:19 PDT
From: Pushpendra Mohta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help with Rotored Lines/ Rack Mounted Modems


I recently acquired a set of Telebit2500 Rack Mount Modems and found
what I consider a major irritant.

Unlike the stand-alones there is no switch on the control panel of the
rackmounts to make a particukar modem go busy or off hook.  (You can
connect to the modem in AT mode and then make it go offhook but my
modems will be all over California and technical help may not be
available at all sites )

Ordinarily this would not be a problem, but the application I have is
a dial up terminal server with the phone lines on a rotor.  If the
first modem is busy , the call forwards to the next one and so on.
Should the modem or the terminal server port go bad and the modem does
not go off-hook, all ports beyond that one will not be utilized.

I wonder if there are feautures available in Pac-Bell territory on the
ROTORS which in effect will allow forward on busy AND forward if a
particular line does not answer in say four rings simultaneously. I
tried talking to the rep here without a clear answer.

Are there any other suggestions ?

Thanks,

pushpendra
CERFNet

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 08:03:06 EST
From: Tom Neiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax Over Compressed Voice
Organization: State University of New York - Central Administration


I will submit this question again, after not having any responses of
actual experiences:

Has anyone had problems sending facsimiles over compressed(32K) voice
lines?  Especially in the NYC area.


Tom Neiss    Manager of Telcom Planning   State University of New York
Central Administration  Albany, New York  [e-mail]

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Austrian Telephone System
Date: 12 Jul 90 17:08:35 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> iiasa!cossun![e-mail] (wolf
paul) writes:

>The NT equipment is being adapted and installed by a joint venture of
>two Austrian telecom firms, Kapsch and Schrack, and will be installed
>in the western half of the country, as well as in selected Vienna COs.

The Kapsch/Schrack/AT joint venture is over five years old, being NTs
first licensee for DMS-100 technology.  Other NT licensees/joint
ventures include NETAS which is rebuilding the telephone system of
Turkey.  Over one million lines are alrady installed in Turkey.  There
is also a joint venture in China.


Henry Troup

BNR owns but does not share my opinions
 ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 [e-mail] 613-765-2337

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: International Calls Using Credit Card and Equal Access
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 17:47:58 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(John R. Covert  09-Jul-1990 1654) writes:

>There are states that have no BOCs operating anywhere within them.
>Alaska and Hawaii are two of them (the only two?).

The other obvious candidate would be Connecticut.  I know a tiny
portion of CT (Greenwich/Byram) is served by New York Telephone (it's
part of the New York Metropolitan LATA) but I believe the whole rest
of the state is SNET.  Any Connecticutensians have more definite
information?

(A quick check of the list of BOCs as of breakup time suggests that
every other state contains at least one BOC-owned LEC.)


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Need a Way to Verify Autodial Numbers
Date: 12 Jul 90 01:17:36 GMT
Organization: very little


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

> Now for the technological question: how can you check the programming
> of an auto dialer?

With CPE equipment that does this, a "digit grabber" type DTMF decoder
would work.  What I want is some way to verify the numbers I have
programmed into the telco provided "speed-dial" service.  I have a few
BBS numbers that I have programmed in, and then lost the phone number.
Accidentally re-programming a speed dial number can be VERY
frustrating!


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: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Intercept Behavior
Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 14:39:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (LEICHTER-JERRY@
CS.YALE.EDU) writes:

>The oddity is the way the intercept is implemented.  It doesn't take
>place immediately after the last digit - not to mention after the
>exchange, which is possible.  Instead, you get two or three normal
>rings and THEN a long, wordy message telling you exactly what you
>should have done.

[complaint deleted...]

>Why would anyone set up intercepts this way?  Is it done this way
>elsewhere?

I don't know if pay phones fit in this category, but in at least three
other states (PA, NJ, and NY), if you dial a number without putting in
the correct amount of change, you get two or three rings, and *then* a
voice says "deposit xx more cents".

This is both now and in the days of the AT&T/Ma Bell monopoly.

I've also seen this on toll calls in all three of those states
nowadays.


//jbaltz (yet another jerry)

jerry b. altzman    212 854 8058
[e-mail]   jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)   ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

From: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Security
Date: 12 Jul 90 13:32:59 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


>You may not want to go to the trouble, but you can ask the phone
>company to put a trap on your line which will record the number of all
>calls coming in.  You may also want to look into having a house sitter
>sit and note the time of all calls, especially the ones which erase

Join the 90's and replace your answering machine with Voice Mail which
is password protected etc.  If you don't trust a service provider you
can even get one for your own PC.  Perhaps some erudite TELECOM
readers can enlighten us on the value of these PC gizmos.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #479
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10358;
          14 Jul 90 4:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09329;
          14 Jul 90 2:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25515;
          14 Jul 90 1:33 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Jul 90 1:12:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #480
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Jul 90 01:12:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 480

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Unauthorized Disconnection [Blake Farenthold]
    Re: Unauthorized Disconnection [David Ritchie]
    Re: AT&T Calls Cheaper Using Neighbor's Phone? [Brian Charles Kohn]
    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Alex Pournelle]
    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Will Martin]
    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Charles Hawkins Mingo]
    Re: E911 Experience [Ralph Sims]
    Re: E911 Experience [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 13:28:40 CDT
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Disconnection


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

[Stuff about moving out and the new resident having his phone cut off]

>her supervisor whom after much argument agreed to turn my service
>back on with no charge.  This conversation took place at 12:30 PM
>on Monday.  When I left the apartment today at 0900 it still
>wasn't on.

They will, of course turn YOUR phone service back on AFTER you move
out and the lady moving in will be running up your long distance. :-)

>First, the representative said that unless somebody specifically
>tells the phone company they want any change request for service
>verified it is not done.

Southwestern Bell does the same thing.  Its really bad when you are
running a BBS. I had to remove a user's account for doing something
nasty (in fact, a few months later the FBI came knocking on my door
asking about a guy who was arrested for defrauding a long distance
company out of about $30,000 who had my BBS number on something they
confiscated). Anyway this user (he may not have been the phreaker, I'm
not sure) called SW Bell to have the BBS line disconnected.  The SW
Bell rep volunteered that I had twelve other lines (including my main
non/published voice line) and would he like those disconnected as
well.  After a fair amount of complaining and some threats about going
to the PUC about it I got the lines re-connected.  Apparently they
gave away one of my pairs because one line didn't come back for almost
a week and there were a lot of phone trucks in the neighborhood.

After this incident they said that they could put in the record to ask
for either my driver's license or social security number before
processing an order.  This didn't strike me as that secure as my
Drivers licence was on every check I wrote and my social security
number was on enough paper to worry me (credit aps, student ID', and
every test I took at the Univ. of Texas.  I suggested a "password" but
they couldn't phathom that so we finaly agreed that they'd do nothing
without calling my voice line for confirmation.  ALWAYS ASK THE PHONE
COMPANY FOR THIS SERVICE.  They may not be security concious, but YOU
CAN BE.

I have, however, wondered if you could get around some of these
security measures by saying the subscriber is DEAD...

>The last point is do I have any course of action?  I am out about
>$25 due to having to use pay phones and lack of a calling card.

Not worth worrying about I'd suspect.  I can't believe that they
couldn't have got it right back on if they were using a digital swich.
I was able to get a phone cut off for non-payment of a bill turned on
within 20 minutes (without paying) by citing a Texas PUC regulation
forbidding disconnects (for non payment or the like) on the day before
the business office will be closed.

You could check your states PUC regs, there MAY be somthing about
speed of repairs/correcting errors but I doubt you'd be able to get
consequential damages without litigation, and perhaps not even then.


    UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake
Internet: [e-mail]

Blake Farenthold         | Voice: 800/880-1890     |    MCI: BFARENTHOLD
1200 MBank North         |   Fax: [phone]     |    CIS: 70070,521
Corpus Christi, TX 78471 |   BBS: 512/882-1899     |  GEnie: BLAKE

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

From: David Ritchie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Disconnection
Date: 13 Jul 90 22:22:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID


> The last point is do I have any course of action?  I am out
> about $25 due to having to use pay phones and lack of a calling card.
> Who can I complain to?

  You might try calling/writing the regulatory body for the telco in
your state. Of course, you may just be wasting a stamp :^>.

  Another approach that I have used is to talk to a progression of
persons, each of which are higher in authority than the last person I
talked to. Getting names of persons I am talking to when I first start
talking to them also helps in this regard. Keep notes of the
conversation.  Eventually, you will talk to someone with intelligence
and/or who wonders why his/her subordinates could not handle this
problem. I have went up as high as four levels this way, but I have
never not had a problem solved to my satisfaction.


        Dave

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 12:26:13 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Calls Cheaper Using Neighbor's Phone?
Reply-To: "The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Technology Center


[e-mail] (David Albert) wrote on 12 Jul 90 00:21:44 GMT.:

 => [e-mail] (Joel Broude) writes:
 => >Now that long distance calls made from a remote phone using the AT&T
 => >card receive a 10 percent discount, it would seem to be cheaper to make
 => >some calls remotely rather than from home.
 => You're absolutely right, except of course that you don't *have* to leave
 => home in order to use your AT&T Universal Card.  With the fee currently
 => at $0.80, as long as your call would have been more that $7.20 normally,
 => it's worth using the Card.

Neat!  I was thinking about how Reach Out America would work out with
all this ... but then I wondered, do Universal Card Calls apply to Reach
Out America?  I guess not.

How does all this fit together now?  Does the Calling Card option to
Reach Out America just save you money on the setup charge, or on the
call as well?  (I think only on the setup charge.)

I just called ... and I was wrong.  My calling card calls ARE covered
under Reach Out America (now) ... so it seems like there never any
reason for me to use my Universal Card for phone calls.  Of course I'm
paying $10.75 per month for that service ... but since I never have
any time left unused (I used seven hours last month) it's well worth
it before considering calling card calls.  The WORST discount I get
now on calling card calls is 10%, the same as the Universal Card
discount.

BTW, I was right about Universal Card calls not counting towards Reach
Out America.

I like the no-fee-forever aspect of it though!


Brian Charles Kohn          AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Technology Center
Quality Management System   E-MAIL: att!hoqax!bicker  ([e-mail])
Consultant                  PHONE: [phone]        FAX: [phone]

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

From: Alex Pournelle <elroy!grian![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?
Organization: Workman & Associates
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 07:20:46 GMT


Alan Parker <[e-mail]> writes:

>The movie wasn't filmed at Dulles.  The folks there didn't like the
>way the script portrayed the airport and its employees.

Being a resident of La-La Land (and columnist-on-hiatus of "Computing
in La-La Land -- another story), I get (?) the pleasure (?) of reading
the Los Angeles Chandler Shopping Network, commonly called The Times
by itself and "that rag" by anyone else...

The Sunday Calendar section column "Outtakes", which first broke :-)
the Pac*Bellophone coin-op phone story in Die Harder 2: The Expensive
Version, mentions that much of the interior was shot at the Bradley
Building, the international terminal at LAX.  Anyone who's been
through there should recognize it, too -- look for the occasional
triangle-ladder supports along the walls, and the upper concourse.

As far as phones are concerned -- who makes those spacy new
Pac*Bellerophon coin/credit phones?  They are sure Art Direction Award
Winning devices.  The new baggage handling and retrieval area at Union
Station has 'em, too -- though the just-as-new (both are just
finishing construction) UC Irvine Student center building has the
older, traditional, coin-op phones in its lobby.  Wonder how P*B*J has
decided who gets 'em?

Oh, and only two of the Irvine Payphones I played with were
misprogrammed, one had no transmit audio after connection to the
operator, the other didn't accept DTMF after dailing 0+number+#.
Compare this to oh-for-four on one bank of (*^&& coCOTs, and
eight-for-eight on the new spacyphones at Union Station.  (Yes, I
reported all of them.  It's bloody difficult to page somone when you
can't dial DTMF after call completion!)


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 12:50:43 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?


Programs about the filming of this movie (such as Entertainment
Tonight) mentioned that the film crew moved from airport to airport,
basically following the snow for outside shots. So they probably
filmed interior scenes in nearby areas (like Pac*Bell territory) and
as economics dictated. Probably what you see is an amalgam of many
different airports.  Since most airport areas are indistinguishable
(and undistinguished :-) its possible to get away with this except for
details like the phone logos. One wonders how such blatant slipups get
by when they spend $30 million or so to make a film these days....


Regards,

Will

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

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?
Date: 12 Jul 90 03:56:56 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


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

>In this summer's movie DIE HARD 2**, which supposedly takes place in
>Dulles International Airport (Washington DC), the payphones have a
>prominent Pac*Bell logo on them.  Do they really provide the service
>in Dulles?  Or was this an unavoidable glitch due to shooting in LA?
>Or just a plug for the highest bidder?  (GTE was featured prominently
>on the in-flight public phone, and hundreds of other vendors had their
>little plugs too -- this has become par for the course in movies.)

    According to today's {Washington Post} Style section, this was
a plain screw up.  Apparantly, Dulles wouldn't let them film on
location after the airport management figured out the plot, so they
were forced to do the rest elsewhere.  (Also, they had enormous
difficulty in finding snow, and had to shoot the blizzard in _four_
separate locations.)  The movie was edited unusually quickly to get it
out for summer (was still shooting in March).


Charlie Mingo            Usenet: mingo@well!apple.com
2209 Washington Circle #2    CI$:  71340,2152
Washington, DC  20037        AT&T:  202/785-2089

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

Subject: Re: E911 Experience
From: Ralph Sims <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 10:22:31 PDT
Organization: The 23:00 News


[e-mail] (Chris Johnson) writes:

[description of problem with a call to 911 deleted]

> While I can certainly appreciate false alarms, I was rather taken
> aback at how much cajoling I had to do to get any response.  In fact,
> who knows what might have happened if the other people had not called,
> and the woman had not taken the phone from me and described the knife
> to the operator.  Sheeesh.

> Is this how E911 is supposed to work?  And why didn't they know my
> location right away?  I know that the switch is plenty new enough, and
> we've had E911 for at least 9 or 10 years here.

Perhaps the E911 equipment did not produce an ANI/ALI (Automatic
Number/Location Identification) and the call-taker was trying to
verify the location with the phone number.  In some systems (including
those that have been on line for a while), the geobase goes through
growing pains and this info is not available.

As an emergency services dispatcher, I cringe at the treatment you
received.  I do know, however, in many communities the emergency
services are taxed in their resources, prompting the 911 call-takers
to 'interview' the callers and hence prioritize the dispatch.  In some
cities, a 911 call reporting a burglary may only get a followup phone
call from a detective or, at best, a visit a few days later (this is
based on the 'fact' that very few burglars are caught as a result of
crime scene investigation).

There are many cities with abuse of the 911 system.  This includes:
'The power company just cut off my lights.  What can I do?"  "Where
can I get my pet his shots?"  "Are there any fireworks displays on
tonight?"  "When will the cable tv channels be back on?"  And so
forth, with the attendant false alarms.  This also prompts the PSAP
(public service answering point) to interview the caller in an attempt
to find out if the report is 'real'.  I'm not saying this is the
correct way (I'd have a hard time working in a center like this).

> [Moderator's Note: Your experience was definitly NOT how 911 is
> supposed to work. What sometimes happens is that although the
> dispatcher usually gets an actual street address, some public
> phones in parks, along the highway, etc. don't get very well identified
> as to location if there is no physical street number associated with
> the location. It sounds also like the dispatcher was possibly new and
> not very well trained.  PT]

And possibly the pay phones were not included in the 911 geobase.  We
have basic 911 in our county, with E911 a couple of years away.  The
geobase will be compiled from physical surveys of all the roads and
addresses within the county by the AGENCIES that will be using the
service; US West will provide the phone number database and address
references, but EACH address must be physically verified.

As an aside, some dispatch protocols call for the call-taker to get
the closest cross-street to the incident.  In this county, those are
sometimes five miles from that location.  There's one dispatch center
handling fire and medical emergencies that still asks the question.

Some questions arise in the implementation of E911 systems regarding
cellular phones (hitting a cell remote from location, sometimes in
another county), and in office buildings with a main PBX; in the
earlier days of E911, the address would come back to that of the
building or the switchboard, and not the specific office within (in a
building with a few hundred offices, this could be disasterous).

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Date: 12 Jul 90 11:01:24 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Chris Johnson <[e-mail]> writes:

> Is this how E911 is supposed to work?  And why didn't they know my
> location right away?  I know that the switch is plenty new enough, and
> we've had E911 for at least 9 or 10 years here.

You are not the first person to have this experience. There was some
famous case (I believe in the South) where the operator put the caller
through some third degree. She wanted to talk to the person who was
having the medical attack and kept insisting even when told that the
person was in no way able to talk on the phone. Eventually, the victim
died even while the 911 call was in progress. There was some
litigation as a result.

Calling 911 about once a year for assorted emergencies has resulted in
prompt, efficient service. But I have a contingency plan for that day
when I get the response that you have described. I will ask the
operator for his/her "operator number" and inform the person that I
will now hang up and call the agency direct if s/he can't help me. If,
after one second, the attitude hasn't rotated 180 degrees, I will do
just that. And then when the smoke clears, I will file a formal
complaint.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #480
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10938;
          14 Jul 90 5:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27014;
          14 Jul 90 3:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09329;
          14 Jul 90 2:37 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Jul 90 2:01:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #481
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Jul 90 02:00:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 481

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GTE/Contel Merger Questions [John Higdon]
    Re: Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service [David Ptasnik]
    Re: The New England Telephone Backwater [Ken Rossen]
    Re: Excelan EXOS 225 - HELP [Manoj Goel via Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Mitch Kapor and "Sun Devil" [Johnny Zweig]
    Re: Public*Phone [Jeff Carroll]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE/Contel Merger Questions
Date: 13 Jul 90 16:10:12 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Virzi <[e-mail]> writes:

> ** QUESTIONS **

You bet -- questions. This is all probably the worst news for
telephone users to come along since the MFJ.

> Where are Contel franchises?  (Both telephone and CATV)

Among other places, Contel service California's high desert areas and
also serves the nearby town of Gilroy here in my area.

> Why did GTE stock drop (albeit a small amount) while Contel and Contel
> Cellular stocks went up?

Among other things, they want to make this an attractive deal to
Contel share holders, so that they can get approval at that level.

> What is Contel's reputation?  I have heard that they are one of the
> more innovative telcos, pushing into CATV, videotex, and other
> interesting services at a fast pace.

Unlike GTE, Contel seems to have a committment to the customer to
provide solutions to requirements. Contel has done extensive upgrading
of its facilities in the past few years. In the old days, they used
crossbar while GTE was mired in SXS.

> What sort of network does Contel have?  I know they don't use the
> GTD-5 because (rumor has it) we (GTE) have only sold one outside the
> corporation to Ameritech.  Are they largely digital or X-bar or worse?

They are now largely digital, although in some of the real backwater
places there is still some XY and SXS. In Gilroy, they did
unfortunately install some 1EAX, but in most areas they have either
5ESS (example: Barstow) or DMS (example: Victorville).

> Finally, are there likely to be objections raised to the merger by the
> FCC or SEC?  If so, on what grounds?

I don't know what the regulatory agencies will object to, but I can
give you a few of my own. First, GTE operates their utility as if it
was the water or gas company. Interest in telephony takes a distant
back seat to the business of business. (Those of you that work for GTE
in laboratories or R&D, save your breath -- I'm speaking from a
customer's point of view, which is what the regulatory bodies should
be considering.)

GTE loves to consolidate. When you try to call the business office at
some 800 number, you get perpetual busy. When you finally break
through, you are put on permanent hold. When I call the "local" GTE
business office, the call goes to Thousand Jokes -- about 300 miles
away.  Contel, on the other hand has a business office right there in
Gilroy -- serving all two of Gilroy's prefixes. When I tried to pay a
Victorville Contel phone bill there, they were very nice and handled
it for me, but they had to call Victorville to make the arrangements.
They are not centralized and it's a plus for the customer.

The same thing applies to repair service. When you dial 611 from here
in Los Gatos (GTE) do you get anyone local who can help? No, indeed.
What you get is some EEOC-requirment-fulfilling person (hired not
because they are adept at taking trouble calls, but because they keep
some other government agency at bay) who tries to take your report.
Sometimes you have to spell "reorder" and "distortion". Contel routes
your call to the nearest *local* center, and within short order you
can deal with the very person who will repair your trouble (much like
Pac*Bell).

I would advise Contel customers to run, not walk, to the nearest
typewriter and protest in the strongest terms to any and all
requlatory agencies that must approve this merger. I have always had
the highest respect for Contel and it would be the century's biggest
disaster to see it merge with the sorriest excuse for a telephone
company this country has ever known.


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


[Moderator's Note: So John, just about the time you thought you had
seen it all; about the time you thought nothing could be worse than
the disaster Harold Greene has made of the public telephone network
with his MF Judgment -- some folks, you know, say that 'MF' means
something other than 'Modified Final' :) --  about when you had
learned to live and cope with the travesty; along comes this newest
affront. I quite agree with you. Wave bye-bye to Contel, everyone!  PT]

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 16:49:10 PDT


In article 7255 of comp.dcom.telecom <intek01![e-mail]>
(Mark McWiggins) writes:

>>we're thinking of replacing our key system Centron.  (Like Centrex
>>but smaller, as I understand it.)  They're also now offering voice
>>mail, and we think these together would cut our phone-answering labor
>>by 80% or more.  The monthly charge for all this is no more than the
>>rental for our current key system.    Am I missing something?
>>Also, we're expecting significant growth over the next couple of years.

Your monthly rental of the mechanical key system should not be a
consideration.  These things have been rip-offs for a long time.
There are VERY few real applications for them.  You are much better
off with a purchased electronic or digital key sytem.  The lease price
for these systems can be 40% less than rental of worse gear, and you
own the equipment in, say, five years.

Centron line charges, however, can be less than regular line charges,
get the US West dudes to break those charges down for you.  Your best
option might be to use the Centron lines with a new key system.
That's what we do, for the most part, at the University of Washington.

Centron operates very differently from what you are used to.  First of
all, you will probably not be able to tell who is on the phone, or
which lines are in use.  You will (as they are probably offering it)
just have a single line phone on your desk.  You will not be able to
put a "line 3" on hold, go to another phone, see "line 3", and pick it
up there.  Rather you will have to depress the hook switch (flash
button on better phones) and dial codes to transfer the call, or
perform a dial call pickup (huh?  yeah, that's what I said) from your
destination phone.  If you get an attendant, that person will probably
want more than one line, and the ability to see who is on their phone.
Tone Commander, out of Washington, makes products that do these
things.  They can be as expensive as a phone system, though.

There are other differences as well.

Growth is one of Centron's strong suits.  You can just keep adding
stations, with minimal upgrade charges.  Most key systems require
adding and/or replacing equipment and/or telephones.  That makes
purchasing risky.  Resale of used phone systems is very low, as well.
You can get good deals on the secondary market, though.  Different
systems are more or less flexible in terms of their growth potential
and costs.  Be sure to get locked in stone costs for upgrades.

DO NOT just talk to US West about this.  There is a small reputable
dealer in your area that used to sell both Centron and Key Systems.
They are/were called Terra Communications.  I think in Redmond, WA.
They should be able to help you sort out the many important differences
that you need consider.   Contact other dealers as well.  This is a
very important decision.  Do not trust a local utility for help with
this kind of thing.


[e-mail]

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

From: Ken Rossen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The New England Telephone Backwater
Date: 12 Jul 90 17:00:22 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Rossen <[e-mail]>
Organization: Trollview, Hubbardston, Massachusetts


Time to come out of the closet.  I live in the New England Telephone
Backwater, in Central Massachusetts (toward the Quabbin, where the
town centers are far apart, and the towns tend to be large) with a
step-by-step switch.  It's not necessarily all as bad as John (Covert)
puts it, but certainly #5 crossbar is like science fiction by
comparison.

The lines aren't too noisy to be used for data calls, at least not all
the time. I think there is only one town bordering Hubbardston
(Phillipston, in the Athol exchange) that isn't a local call, but
since nobody lives in Hubbardston on the only road that crosses the
Phillipston town line, there aren't anomalies like next-door neighbors
who must pay for a toll call between their houses.  Maybe we're just
lucky.  I know other towns are worse.

And there are advantages.  You can call within town with only four
digits.  Actually, you can call within town with five or seven digits
too.  Or even nine digits, or eleven, etc. (since the first two digits
constitute a NOOP -- 92-92-92-92-92-928-3345).

There's the advantage of dialing someone within town, and getting
to talk to someone completely different than whoever you dialed.
Repeatedly.  At no extra charge.

You get to USE the "pulse-tone" switch on your phone, instead of
letting it sit there an collect dust like you poor slobs in ESS
exchanges.

There are different ringing patterns in town, even different ones for
the lines within my house, so I can usually tell if my call has hunted
up to a subsequent line because someone's on the phone (takes a good
ear, though).  (And yes, even step switches have hunt groups!)

Disadvantages: Forget ever trying to break through a busy signal with
repeated dialling -- ten to twenty seconds just to dial the call! ...
and since you can get a busy or reorder almost anywhere in the call if
they switch gets confused (or doesn't have enough long-distance
trunks, or trunks to Westminster), your continued pulses may hang the
phone up (without you knowing it) and start dialling someplace else in
the middle of the sequence.  If you have one of those phones which
depresses the volume while the pulses go, a good ear doesn't even help
in this case.

Pulse dialling in general sends all kinds of odd signals to the cheap
phones I buy, causing one of my two-line phones to kick in the
"Conference" feature in the middle of a phone call.  When my modem
interrupts someone else's conversation in the house they usually don't
like it.

No chance of pretending to be an old-timer in town -- only certain
series of 100 numbers are assigned at a time.  If you don't have a
33xx, 44xx, 48xx, you're a newcomer for sure.  The best you can hope
to do is pretend you've been there for years and years but wouldn't
get a telephone 'til 1990 out of sheer yankee cussedness until you
were sure they weren't just a passing fad.

Oh well -- do we REALLY still think all this will go away by '92?


[e-mail]

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Excelan EXOS 225 - HELP
Date: 13 Jul 90 01:59:44 GMT


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Poulsen passed along this reply found in
another newsgroup.  PT]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
philips.co.uk (David Cattell) writes:

>HELP - I'm desperately looking for the Company, Excelan Inc. in
>the states. I thought their address was:

>         2180 Fortune Drive
>         San Jose, CA 95131

>But when I tried their phone no. (408-434-2285) they had been
>disconnected.

Excelan was acquired by Novell and even though the address remains the
same, the phone number has changed to accomodate the new name and
growing staff: to 408 434 2300 -or- 408 473 8700.

You can also check for their UK office at 44 344 860400 in Berkshire,
UK.


    manoj goel,                                 0 0
        Product Marketing                             ^
        Novell/Excelan Inc., San Jose, CA                \_/
  [phone] (voice) / 433-0775 (fax)     Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Johnny zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mitch Kapor and "Sun Devil"
Organization: IDA, Alexandria, VA
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 90 21:33:24 GMT


My two cents:

There is a difference between someone who waltzes into the unlocked
front door of my house to peruse the contents of my underwear
drawer(*) and someone who wanders through my garden (the gate has a
latch but no lock, by the way) to look at my flowers.

I do not support anybody doing something illegal, but I think the "in
your house messing with your stuff" analogy for phreaking/cracking (I
abhor the use of the word hacking to describe such activities; it is
technically incorrect).  I think the "wandering through the garden
sniffing the flowers" analogy might be more appropriate.  Crackers who
go in to see what's there and pat themselves on the back are n a
morally different category than people who break into systems to screw
things up and/or to steal sensitive information.

If you look at how sensitive information is protected by the DoD, you
will get a perspective on why DEC saying that they were not being
unspeakably negligent in letting an 11 year old break into their
system and look at "sensitive" data is so ridiculous.  If I were to
take a classified document out of myself and leave it on the desk
while I go to the bathroom, I could be prosecuted legally.  If I put
it into a shoebox and wrote "leave this stuff alone" on the outside, I
could also.  Security is as much what you do as what you outlaw.


Johnny

(*) Burglars tend to look in underwear drawers as the first part of
the houses they break into since many people keep valuables and guns
and stuff like that in there.

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Public*Phone
Date: 13 Jul 90 16:01:48 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

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

>>Since there don't seem to be any COCOTs manufactured to
>>look like the pay phones of independent telqi, the COCOTs in Centel
>>territory (usually outside gasoline stations or inside restaurants,
>>but far sparser than in IBT country) stick out like sore thumbs.

>Centel's other major bastion, Las Vegas, has the same problem but more
>of it. When COCOTs were allowed there, they sprang up like a fungus
>and you are hard pressed to find even one of Centel's stupid-looking
>(but quite functional) NT coin phones. Also, since there was no point...

    This thread reminds me of a remarkable phenomenon I observed
on a recent trip to Chicago. At the Dunkin' Donuts in Des Plaines (on
Higgins, if I recall correctly), there are four pay phones; one next
to the entrance, and three on the back wall. My recollection is that
the one at the entrance and one of the ones on the back wall were
Centel phones, and the other two were operated by *Illinois Bell*.

    Question: Are the IBT phones COCOTs? Or is the Dunkin' Doe
franchise located in some sort of Telephone Demilitarized Zone?

>It was in Las Vegas that I was first introduced to the $7, three-minute
>call to San Jose.

    At least you got thru to San Jose, which is more than you'd be
able to say had you used one of those funny-looking telephones that
has a handle instead of a receiver :^).


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #481
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18035;
          14 Jul 90 14:31 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20242;
          14 Jul 90 12:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16627;
          14 Jul 90 11:42 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Jul 90 10:45:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #482
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Jul 90 10:45:03 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 482

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    State Rejects US West Bid for Caller ID [Jon Jacky via Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [Ellen K. Seebacher]
    Re: C.O. "Secret" Numbers [M.Marking]
    Re: Touchtone History [M.Marking]
    Re: Info on Hotel PBX's Wanted [David Ptasnik]
    Re: PacBell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges [John Cowan]
    Re: GTE/Contel Merger [John Higdon]
    Re: GTE/Contel Merger Questions [Jon Baker]
    Re: Answering Machine Security [John Higdon]
    Re: Telecom Peeves [Roy Smith]
    Cellular Phones [Monty Solomon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: State Rejects US West Bid for Caller ID
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 06:21:04 GMT


Here's an article seen in pnw.general recently.  I [merlyn] am merely
forwarding it uncommented.  Refer to the original author for comments.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon
Jacky) writes:

Here are excerpts from a story in THE SEATTLE TIMES, Wed. July 11,
1990 p. F1

"State Rejects US West Bid for Caller ID for a Business"
                     by Mark Matassa

OLYMPIA - State regulators (the Utilities and Transportation
Commission) today rejected a US West Communications request to install
Caller ID telephone service for an unidentified Seattle business.

Caller ID allows a customer to see, displayed on his or her telephone,
the phone number of the person making a call.

Commission Chairwoman Sharon Nelson said the panel is in the midst of
conducting hearings around the state on privacy issues and caller ID
service.  She said she had no intention of approving the service ...
before completing the policy discussions.

The request came as a surprise to the commission, members said,
because US West said just two weeks ago it wouldn't pursue the
controversial technology in the forseeable future ...

A spokeswoman for US West acknowledged the contract rejection by the
commission includes the capability to view and store incoming phone
numbers.  But she said the feature is incidental to the contract's
larger business package, known as Integrated Serviced Digital Network
(ISDN), which includes in-house network for computer, facsimile and
voice-phone transmissions.  As a minor feature of a larger system, the
identification technology does not represent a breach of the company's
recent position on Caller ID, said the spokeswoman, Lisa Bowersock ...

Mike Moran, US West executive director for regulatory affairs, argued
that the ISDN service should be considered separate from Caller ID.
The key difference, he said, is that ISDN would automatically screen
and not display unlisted telephone numbers.  "Any number transmitted
by ISDN could be found in the white pages," Bowerstock said ...

Bowerstock said two other Washington customers, both unidentified,
already have the integrated service network technology that includes
Caller ID technology.  But in those cases, she said, the identification
service applies only to in-house calls.

(Washington State) Assistant Attorney General Charles Adams said it
appeared US West was trying to sneak the issue past the public.


- Jon Jacky, University of Washington, Seattle [e-mail]

| Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ==========|
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| [e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |

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

From: Ellen Keyne Seebacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 18:04:33 GMT


>I have also seen recommendations to try '70*'
>                                        '#70'
>                                        '70#' and
>                                        '1170'.

I was told by someone in the Illinois Bell service area who disables
Call Waiting regularly that the command is '#73'.  Seven-*three*?  I
need to confirm this before I make a recommendation to campus users
(in our _Academic & Public Computing Resource Guide_), and whoever I
asked at Bell was pretty clueless.

Help?

Ellen Keyne Seebacher
 Univ. of Chicago Computing
  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You were given a bum steer. *73 turns off call
forwarding; it has nothing to do with cancelling call-waiting. And I
do believe *70 works as it should in the Hyde Park/Kenwood area of
Chicago, although I would not absolutely swear upon it. Of course, it
may not work on UC phone equipment. PT]

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

From: "M.Marking" <drivax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C.O. "Secret" Numbers
Date: 13 Jul 90 03:57:45 GMT
Reply-To: drivax![e-mail]
Organization: Digital Research (Japan) Inc.


ucla-cs!smcnet.smc.edu![e-mail] (Lawrence Roney) writes:

) Does anyone know the "secret" numbers that are buried in AT&T 5ESS
) and/or Northern Telecom DMS systems to get your phone to ring?

) [Moderator's Note: This question comes up periodically, and the answer
) is that every CO does its own thing. Typically the codes vary from one
) CO to another. There is no universal standard.  PT]

One repairperson gave me the number, with the caveat that they change
regularly so they won't become widely known.

A friend from Florida once had a phone installed and they neglected to
tell him the number. *Of course* they couldn't look up a new service
without the number, and Southern Bell told him he'd have to wait until
the first bill came. He was saved by a wrong number - the caller was
kind enough to tell him what number he was trying to reach.

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

From: "M.Marking" <drivax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 13 Jul 90 03:41:03 GMT
Reply-To: drivax![e-mail]
Organization: Digital Research (Japan) Inc.


[e-mail] (Jim Budler) writes:

) In article <[e-mail]> John Slater <[e-mail].
) sun.com> writes:

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

  (don't you love this...?)

) >>Sitting on the table behind his chair were
) >>about 3 or 4 single line desk sets, one touch-tone, the rest rotary.

) It was probably a Department of Defense phone. These phones looked
) like touch-tone, made noises *similar* to touch-tone, but were on the
) private DOD Autovon network. They were not pulse dialers. To my
) uneducated ear they were DTMF, but they were definately tone dialers.
) They had four extra keys for setting call priority....

Each of the buttons makes two tones, one based on row and one based on
column, selected so as not to be harmonics of each other. (Hence
*Dual* Tone Multi Frequency.) The frequencies are:

            1209    1336    1477    1653 Hz
        697 Hz     1     2     3     A
        770 Hz     4     5     6     B
        852 Hz     7     8     9     C
        941 Hz     *     0     #     D

Most phones don't use the last column, but CCITT defines it.

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info on Hotel PBX's Wanted
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 16:07:34 PDT


In article [e-mail] appears:

>I have an idea for a peripheral device for hotel telephone systems
>The device would need to interface with the hotel PBX so that it
>1. Selectively intercept calls coming in (local and non-local) based
>2. Be accessible from any phone in the hotel by dialing some special number.
>3. Determine the caller's number when accessed using the special
>Ned Robie    uunet!h-three!ned

I'm not sure what you want this device to do, but it sounds like an
automated attendant.  There are a variety of them already in
existence, and they interface with the PBX through single line station
ports on the PBX.  I am not aware of hotels using the service, they
tend to be a very parsinmonious as a group (or at least they never
bought anything from me, might be a personal problem - hmmmm).  This
device would allow incoming callers to dial a special number.

The auto attendant. would answer the phone and ask the caller to dial
the guests room number.  If the system was sophisticated, had voice
mail, and was integrated with the hotel's registration list, it could
even let you spell a guest's name.  The system would then ring the
room.  If there was no answer, it could take a voice mail message,
X-fer the call to the front desk, or do other things.  If a voice mail
message were left, the system could activate the guest's message
light, and allow the guest to retrieve the message, as though the
guest had a personal answering machine.

Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?  If not, perhaps telling us
the application, rather than the functions, woudl make it easier to
respond.


[e-mail]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PacBell to Eliminate Touch-Tone Charges
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 17:24:41 GMT


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

>A year or two ago, NY Telephone announced that they were going to
>start looking for people who used Touch-Tone without paying for it,
>and send them a bill.  I haven't heard of this actually happening yet.

It happened to me considerably more than a year ago.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

Subject: Re: GTE/Contel Merger
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 13 Jul 90 23:22:59 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


I have communicated with a friend who lives near Victorville and has a
number of phone lines from Contel. He has repeatedly said that he
would never live in an area served by GTE, so I was most interested in
his reaction to the merger. Half jokingly, he said that his house
might just go up for sale.

Seriously, he is going to carefully document the detioration of
service should the merger go through. As well as technical
considerations, he will be watching for the change in attitude among
the personel from the business office to the plant and repair people.
This will be a rare opportunity to catalog the progression of events
as a "lean and mean" progressive company is swallowed up by a bloated,
lethargic, non-innovative corporate behemoth.

Public relations statements notwithstanding, Contel and GTE couldn't
be more different. In every single area, they are complete opposites.
For GTE to flatter itself in making a comparison between the two
companies should be highly amusing to those who really know.

This is going to be good.


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

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE/Contel Merger Questions
Date: 13 Jul 90 21:06:36 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> What sort of network does Contel have?  I know they don't use the
> GTD-5 because (rumor has it) we (GTE) have only sold one outside the
> corporation to Ameritech.  Are they largely digital or X-bar or worse?

Numerous GTD-5's have been sold to independents across the country.  I
can't find the exact numbers right now, but it's probably on the order
of several hundred thousand lines.  Don't know if Contel was one of
them.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Security
Date: 14 Jul 90 01:44:59 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> Join the 90's and replace your answering machine with Voice Mail which
> is password protected etc.  If you don't trust a service provider you
> can even get one for your own PC.  Perhaps some erudite TELECOM
> readers can enlighten us on the value of these PC gizmos.

Once again, at the risk of sounding like a shill for Natural
Microsystems, Inc., I would like to re-state that my three year old
Watson has been great. You can program the security with as many or as
few digits as you like. You can set different levels of security. You
can have it deliver messages to others, either when they call in or
have it call them! The audio quality is superior to the finest
mechanical answering machine.

The Watson (with VIS) costs less than $400 and will run in any junk
PC/XT.

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 18:34:25 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]> writes:

> I was just reminded of one of my pet telecom peeves.  Ever get on the
> phone with someone and have them just barely whisper instead of
> speakly clearly and plainly?

    Yeah, drives me nuts.  Speakerphone freaks do the same thing.
I once had dealings with a lawyer who loved his speaker phone.  Only
problem, it sounded at this end like he was sitting in the bottom of a
well with a sack on his head.  At the rates he was charging, I damn
well didn't want to waste his time asking him to repeat himself.  I
eventually got into the habit of automatically saying "Hi Bob, turn
off the speaker phone", when he called.

    Related question: anybody know how to deal with phones in a
noisy environment like a machine room.  Apparantly people can hear me
speaking just fine when I'm in there, but I have a hell of a time
hearing them over the roar of the fans.  Repeated requests to "please
talk louder, I can't hear you over the fans" get the same results as
Bill reports.  The problem is room noise picked up in the mouthpiece
and heard through my earpiece (is sidetone the right term for that?)
If I cup my hand over the mouthpiece, I can hear fine, but that's a
real drag.  I think what I want is a push-to-talk handset, but havn't
been able to fine any.  Any suggestions?

    Also, I'm deaf in one ear.  It always seemed to me that in
situations like talking on the phone in a noisy place, that was
actually an advantage instead of a handicap since I don't have to
filter out ambient noise from the other ear.  Do double-hearing people
find that noise in the non-phone ear is a real problem, or does the
brain automatically just filter it out?  I watch people at phone
booths in the subway.  Sometimes I see them covering the other ear
with one hand, but sometimes they don't seem to bother.


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

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 1990 0:09:30 MDT
From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phones Inquiry


Some friends and I are looking to buy several cellular phones.

Which are the best portables?  Best transportables?  What is the best
way to evaluate the quality of cellular phones?

Many of the stores here have tie-in deals where you must use a
particular cellular phone company for at least three (3) months.
Aren't these tie-in deals illegal?  The phones are much cheaper when
bought this way due to the subsidies from the phone companies.

Thanks for any and all advice and comments.


[Moderator's Note: The tie-in deals are only illegal in California,
although some such deals, like one Ameritech had (still has?) with
Fretters is pretty obnoxious and should be illegal in my opinion.
Obviously if you expect to get the cellular company to subsidize your
purchase, you should expect they will want a commitment to their
service. But there are so many cellular phone agents around, surely
you can find one selling phones you like requiring commitments to the
carrier you prefer to use.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #482
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24558;
          14 Jul 90 21:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02681;
          14 Jul 90 19:52 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21344;
          14 Jul 90 18:47 CDT
Date:     Sat, 14 Jul 90 18:43:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #483
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Jul 90 18:42:38 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 483

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service? [Julian Macassey]
    Re: NPA-N-"T" (was: Curious About Overseas Call Responses) [Tom Gray]
    Re: Telecom Peeves [John Higdon]
    Re: GTE/Contel Merger Announcement [Mathew Zank]
    Re: Last USA Crank-Style Phones to be Replaced [David Ritchie]
    Cordboard Retired Several Years Ago [Carl Moore]
    "Last" Magneto Phones??? [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    E911 Stories Wanted [Barton A. Fisk]
    NY Tel and Greenwich, CT [David Dodell]
    Re: Annoying Intercept Behavior [Jordan Kossack]
    Want to Install 2nd Phone [Dennis G. Rears]
    Telemail/Internet Now Have Easy Connection [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service?
Date: 14 Jul 90 16:07:58 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, intek01![e-mail] (Mark
McWiggins) writes:

> Our receptionist just quit, and we're thinking of replacing our
> (clunky electromechanical) 4-line key system with an offering from US
> West called Centron.  (Like Centrex but smaller, as I understand it.)
> They're also now offering voice mail, and we think these together
> would cut our phone-answering labor by 80% or more.  The monthly
> charge for all this is no more than the rental for our current key
> system.  Overall, it looks like a big win, if it works.

> Am I missing something?  I'd be interested in hearing from anyone
> who's using a similar system.  Also, we're expecting significant
> growth over the next couple of years. What else should I be looking
> out for?

    First of all, yes if you get Centrex then every employee will
be able to have his/her phone number. But to call from station to
station you have to call a three or four digit number. If you are all
techie types you may have no trouble with all the flash, tone, dial,
hang-up sequence to transfering a call, bringing another station in on
a call etc. There are phones that will automate these features to a one
button process. But using these features is slow. If you are the sort
of person who does not have the patience to wait for a prompt on a
terminal, Centrex will drive you nuts.

    You will be nickled and dimed to death with Centrex, every
silly little feature costs more. It also takes time for the telco
bureaucrats to get the order to the grunt at the CO who will sit at a
terminal and turn your feature off or on.

    If you are currently leasing am ancient 1A2 from AT&T or the
Telco, you may be surprised to find that you can upgrade to a modern
Electronic KSU with features up the kazoo (all programmable) for about
the same money per month. So you could upgrade to a six line by
eighteen station piece of gear for the same monthly cash. But you can
get the new KSU on a closed lease, so after two years or so, you own
the damn thing and you owe no more.

    Then again, if you are reasonably competent, you could put it
in yourself for even greater savings.

    I suggest you ask around, talk to other small businessmen in
your area. Call a few interconnects listed in the Yellow Pages under
"Telephone Systems".

    Don't misunderstand me, I am not pro or con any system, you
need to get the system that suits your corporate culture. Many KSUs
now include paging, if you get Centrex, that would be outboard. Some
companies love to page, some abhor it. Some love to "screen" calls,
some want to get the call to the recipient and let him decide if he
wants to talk. So you need to decide how you want to use your phones
and then get the gear that lets you do what you want to do. If you get
the best system in the world and it does not work the way you do it
will always be known as "That piece of crap."


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

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NPA-N-"T" (was: Curious About Overseas Call Responses)
Date: 14 Jul 90 14:55:27 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 477, Message 7 of 10

>Re: "405-2-T" appearing at end of intercept message received in 405
>area:

>For inter-LATA calls within U.S. and Canada which could not be
>completed as dialed from my residence phone in Delaware, I have gotten
>something like "215-1-T" at the end of the recording (I am a TRIFLE
>unsure about the "1" just before the "T").  Although such call
>originated in area 302, the call apparently gets switched via
>southeastern Pa., which is in 215.

The digits are identifying the office which has intercepted the call
by the area code and the succeding digit. The letter indicates the
type of recorded announcement reached,

405- 2 is (or at least was) a 4A in Oaklahoma City
215- 1 is an office in Wayne (PA?)

I don't know what announcement T is but
Announcement N is all circuits busy
             O is overload conditions
             P is failed call try again
             L is call cannot be completed as dialled
                please try again (is this T?)
             X flexible message for situations of emergency
               flood fire earth quake affecting routing etc.


Tom Gray - Mitel has no responsibility for this message

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves
Date: 14 Jul 90 12:47:25 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:

> The problem is room noise picked up in the mouthpiece
> and heard through my earpiece (is sidetone the right term for that?)
> If I cup my hand over the mouthpiece, I can hear fine, but that's a
> real drag.  I think what I want is a push-to-talk handset, but havn't
> been able to fine any.  Any suggestions?

Push-to-talk is a common way of dealing with this, but there is
another known as the "confidencer". It is a special network that
eliminates sidetone so that noise entering through the mouthpiece
won't be heard in the earpiece. Yet another method is to obtain a
"noise cancelling" mouthpiece. These are relatively easy to find to
fit the standard (pre "K" style) handsets.

> Do double-hearing people
> find that noise in the non-phone ear is a real problem, or does the
> brain automatically just filter it out?

The brain filters it out. It is very amusing to watch people in a
noisy location jamming a finger in the opposite ear. That technique
does little good when the real problem is noise entering through the
mouthpiece. At one of my transmitter sites, there is a standard phone
that I have been too lazy to modify. When making calls in the noisy
room, covering my other ear has virtually no effect on
intelligibility, but cupping my hand over the mouthpiece makes all the
difference in the world.


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

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

From: Mathew Zank <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE/Contel Merger Announcement
Date: 14 Jul 90 20:41:56 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


Standard & Poors have said that they may downgrade GTE's bonds and and
other debt (this is bad news for GTE bond holders because the bonds
will drop in price) S&P says it will do this because the merger will
make GTE the 2nd largest cellular company, but GTE will take on a lot
of debt from Contel Cellular because the acquisition of McCaw Cellular
by Contel. Contel has not earn a dime on this yet in 1989 Contel lost
12.5 million dollars on the Cellular operations.

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

From: David Ritchie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last USA Crank-Style Phones to be Replaced
Date: 13 Jul 90 22:29:43 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID


>As reported on this morning's news/information/entertainment program
>"Today," the town of North Falls, Idaho is the last remaining location
>in the United States that still operates hand-crank telephones.
>However, history will soon pass, as they are designated to be replaced
>by touch-tone service.  No details were given as to when the cutover
>will occur.  According to the program, there are 18 subscribers with
>hand-crank phones.  In keeping with their tradition of providing
>entertainment, the "Today" show saw fit to made a joke about "no more
>crank calls."

  The {Idaho Statesman} had a story about this today. The cutover
happened today. The magneto system was falling into disrepair and you
could not hear calls completed over it (I suspect this was caused in
part by eavesdroppers placing excessive loading on the common
circuit).

  Is this truely the last magneto system? I thought that about a
posting awhile back about magneto systems in Nevada.


        Dave Ritchie

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 10:07:17 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordboard Retired Several Years Ago


Within the last ten years, I went to an open house at the Havre de
Grace, Maryland telephone exchange.  The occasion was the retirement
of an operator cordboard there.  (I was reminded of this by the item
about crank-style phones being retired in North Falls, Idaho.)

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

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 12:57 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Last" magneto phones ???
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


In article (Digest v10, iss477), Jeff wrote:

<As reported ... the town of North Falls, Idaho is the last remaining
<location in the United States that still operates hand-crank telephones.
<...history will soon pass ... No details were given as to when
<the cutover will occur.

Perhaps it's another reason to hit on our media, Jeff, but the cutover
actually was reported as July 12 by wire services. It's possible that
in the 20 seconds video news gives each story, the "Today" reporter
even said so in rapid passing.

But, it gives pause to wonder if this "last one" really IS the last
one, seeing as the cutover of the Bryant Pond, ME magneto/local
battery exchange was so highly touted as the "last one" some five
years or more ago.

What it seems to be telling us is that the industry itself doesn't
even know that much about itself. Let's see what other "last one" is
yet to be discovered.

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

Subject: E911 Stories Wanted
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 90 11:27:59 CDT
Reply-To: "Barton A. Fisk" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Barton A. Fisk & Co., Inc., Lake Charles, LA [phone]
From: "Barton A. Fisk" <[e-mail]>


Hello,

I am interested in E911 stories both good and bad. I am primarily
interested in the Southwest area.  Please email all stories to me at
[e-mail] or the uucp below. Your story may save a life.

Thanks.

Barton Fisk

uucp: holston!barton

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 09:57:16 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: NY Tel and Greenwich, CT


 >From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>

 >The other obvious candidate would be Connecticut.  I know a tiny
 >portion of CT (Greenwich/Byram) is served by New York Telephone (it's
 >part of the New York Metropolitan LATA) but I believe the whole rest
 >of the state is SNET.  Any Connecticutensians have more definite
 >information?

The rumor I heard years back from friends that lived in Greenwich, was
that the president and a few vice-presidents of NYTel lived in
Greenwich, and they wanted to be insured that they had NYTel service
vs. Southern New England Telephone that starts at the border.


David

          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
    Internet: [e-mail]       FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 15:59:39 CDT
From: Jordan Kossack <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Intercept Behavior


On 12 Jul 90, [e-mail] (Jerry B. Altzman) says:

- I don't know if pay phones fit in this category, but in at least three
- other states (PA, NJ, and NY), if you dial a number without putting in
- the correct amount of change, you get two or three rings, and *then* a
- voice says "deposit xx more cents".

- This is both now and in the days of the AT&T/Ma Bell monopoly.

     This is not entirely true. I was in Rockland County, NY last
month [ 914 / NYNEX ] and I was trying to make a call from one town to
another, both in Rockland. Anyway, I dropped a quarter in a pay-phone
and dialed the number. After two or three rings, my quarter is
returned and I get a message to the effect of "please deposit
forty-five cents." OK, so I drop the two bits back in, add two dimes
and redial the number. After the obligatory two or three rings, my
$0.45 is returned and I get the same "please deposit ..."  message. I
grab the change from the return slot and pump it back into the fone
... lo and behold, I am finally connected to the other party.

I agree with [e-mail] (JERRY LEICHTER):

>Why would anyone set up intercepts this way?


  Jordan Kossack  |  N5QVI   |               Student Staff
  ----------------+----------+  Office of Networking and Computing Systems
  [e-mail]  |        Rice University  Houston Texas

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 15:48:52 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Want to Install 2nd Phone


   I just moved into a very old house and would like to install a
second telephone line.  I spoke with NJ Bell and they it would be a
$42 charge to hook up the line my point of demarcation.  If I want NJB
to wire the house it would be much more.

   The only problem is I can't find where the demarcation point is.  I
traced the wires down to the basement but found no box.  I found wires
that were exposed and somehow connected but it looked like it was a
mess.  I think I have only one set of wires going into the house but I
am not sure.  NJB also said for the $42 charge they will put
additional wires up until the point of demarcation.  They mentioned
about the Network interface and a "Entrance Bridge".

   Several Questions:

    1) What is a Entrance Bridge?

    2) Would I be better off paying an additional $100-$150
    to have NJB do all the wiring?  It would save me the hassle
        but I think it would be a good learning experience for myself.

    3) What would happened If I told NJB I only had enough wiring for
    my one line but when they cam to install the other wiring it
    turned out I had wiring for more than one?  Another charge?

    4) Where is the best place for me to buy the wiring I need?
    AT&T?

   I would appreciate any and all answers especially if they are long
winded and easy to understand.


Dennis

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 18:29:27 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemail/Internet Now Have Easy Connection


A note from someone today pointed out that Sprint's email service, nee
the old Telemail, is now easily addressable from the Internet. This
now makes it possible for the TELECOM Digest to be delivered to
mailboxes on that network for anyone interested in receiving it there.

A person on Telemail would be addressed like this:

    /pn=first.lastname/o=us.sprint/admd=telemail/c=us/@sprint.com

You need all four attributes shown above, and of course the contents
of each would depend on where you were sending your mail, if not to
Telemail but instead to some other network it connects with.

You do need the dashes and equal signs as I have them shown above.

I thought you might be interested.


PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #483
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09372;
          15 Jul 90 14:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11012;
          15 Jul 90 12:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01267;
          15 Jul 90 11:54 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Jul 90 10:58:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #484
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Jul 90 10:58:03 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 484

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telecom Peeves [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: Telecom Peeves [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates [Robert Kelley]
    Re: Intrastate Toll Free Non-800 Numbers [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service? [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Unauthorized Disconnection [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Touch-Tone History [Larry Lippman]
    Die Hard ... Laughing, That Is [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves
Date: 14 Jul 90 21:22:30 GMT
Organization: UESPA


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

>In <[e-mail]> Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
>writes:

>The problem is room noise picked up in the mouthpiece
>and heard through my earpiece (is sidetone the right term for that?)
>If I cup my hand over the mouthpiece, I can hear fine, but that's a
>real drag.  I think what I want is a push-to-talk handset, but havn't
>been able to fine any.  Any suggestions?

About a year ago, one of those yuppie electrotoy catalogs featured a
phone with *no* mouthpiece; it gets your voice from jawbone
vibrations!  DAK sells walkie-talkies built on the same principle.  I
dimly recall seeing a TV article on the invention of such technology
 -- this was long ago, and it's original use was for helicopter
intercoms during the Vietnam War.  Never seen it in stores, though,
and I've no idea whether it actually works.

>    Also, I'm deaf in one ear.  It always seemed to me that in
>situations like talking on the phone in a noisy place, that was
>actually an advantage instead of a handicap since I don't have to
>filter out ambient noise from the other ear.  Do double-hearing people
>find that noise in the non-phone ear is a real problem, or does the
>brain automatically just filter it out?  I watch people at phone
>booths in the subway.  Sometimes I see them covering the other ear
>with one hand, but sometimes they don't seem to bother.

Most people are good at filtering out sounds they don't want to hear;
a minority (including me) is bad at it.  For obvious reasons, there is
much conflict between these two groups of people.


[e-mail]            Isaac Rabinovitch
atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo        Silicon Valley, CA
uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 23:56:55 GMT


[e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:
>    Related question: anybody know how to deal with phones in a
>noisy environment like a machine room.
 ...
>The problem is room noise picked up in the mouthpiece
>and heard through my earpiece (is sidetone the right term for that?)

This is a simple one, there is a product called the confidencer,
available from lots of places including hello-direct.

On the handsets in our machine room, I have placed the handsets with
the amplifier (turn up the knob if its too noisy) and the confidencer
(it replaces the mic) so that the noise doesn't feed back in.

You have to hold your mouth real close for it to be heard (over two
inches is like you're across the room, over six and forget it.

Works great, they make models for carbon and electronic mics.  The
confidencer is about $35.  I got my amplified handsets from a catalog
distributor for about $10-20 each, but they are readly available
anywhere for about $50-60 :-).


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                          Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd                        FAX:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 12:53:39 PDT


Brendan B. Boerner ([e-mail]) asks the following often
asked questions:

>First, does anyone have a clue why Southwestern Bell here in Austin,
>TX wants $60.00 to hookup a phone?  I don't mean hookup as in sending
>someone to pull some wire (I think that's $60.00/hour), I mean,
>$60.00 so that I can call, request service, am told it'll be available
>after such-and-such hour on such-and-such day, and that's that.  I
>asked a cust. service rep. about it once and she wasn't able to give
>me a very good explanation.  I seem to recall that it involved a
>couple of data key operators and maybe one or two quality assurance
>folks.

The cost of a phone installation is based on the AVERAGE cost to
install a phone in your rate region.  This is approved by your state
PUC.  Sometimes state PUC's allow a discount if a line is already in.
Sometimes if you accept a working line of a previous resident it is
much lower then a new connection.  Some PUC's allow extra charges for
remote installs.  There are great inconsistencies in rates between
different service areas ... even more variance between states.  It
depends on what each company can get approved by the respective PUC.
Some state PUC's are VERY consumer sensitive ... some PUC's act like a
department of the telephone companies they are supposed to regulate!

Back to the $60 installation.  IF they would charge the same $60 for
an all day install to another resident in your service area (as I
believe they would) it is not really out of line.

>Also, when I moved out of a co-op two years ago, I asked if I could
>keep the same number which I had been using.  I was told, yes, if I
>wanted to pay to have them pull a wire from the 478 exchange to the
>458 exchange (my old number was 478-3813, my current is 458-1770)
>*and* I would have to pay extra monthly.  What I am wondering is, how
>does the local service work?  Is a city really broken into sections,
>where moving a number between them requires a hardware change?

You are asking for a Foreign Exchange (FX) service.  Each CO has it's
assigned prefixes.  Your new phone will really be, for rate purposes
and calling purposes, in you old calling area.  A new wire will not be
installed but you will utilize a trunk on a full period basis.  This
trunk will go between the CO's in your city (yes, cities are broken
into sections or areas based upon servicing CO.)  In Hawaii, the cost
for an Inter Office Trunk is over $8/mile within the same island and
slightly over $2/mile if between CO's on separate islands (don't try
to see a consistency, remember I said it is what the phone company can
get approved).  In addition you must pay for the phone service at the
originating CO and a charge for FX service.  All of these charges are
monthly.

If having your old telephone number is important (businesses may find
it very important), I usually recommend that FX service be compared to
Remote Call Forwarding (RCF).  This would mean your old telephone
number would be set to forward calls to your new telephone number.  It
is a switch function without a local line or instrument (obviously an
inbound calling only service).  This service costs about 1/2 of the
cost of a business line.  You would have to pay toll charges if
applicable between the old number and new number.  Your callers will
be charged for only cost to the old number.

>About the long distance pricing: I called MCI and inquired about their
>PrimeTime Texas and PrimeTime plans.  These are plans where you agree
>to purchase a minimum of 1hr/month of intrastate and interstate long
>distance service respectively.  Maybe someone can explain the odd
>rates summarized below (what is odd (to me) is that intrastate is
>*more* expensive than interstate).

Back to the regulatory bodies!  PUC's regulate Intrastate service and
FCC regulates Interstate service.  The regulations may not always
apply to the Inter Exchange Carrier.  Sometimes IEC's are unregulated
because they are nondominant carriers.  The Local Exchange Carrier is
almost (if not) always regulated on rates in can charge IEC's by the
FCC and PUC (depending whether it is Intrastate or Interstate
service).

In my work (as a carrier) I have seen as much as a 200% to 300%
difference in switch access charges for Feature Group D access between
Interstate and Intrastate service on the same switch!  Then to make it
more interesting, some states are blessed with a monopoly of the LEC
for Intralata service (to all those who complain about GTE as an LEC,
how would you like to deal with them on ANY service within a state!)

I hope this has helped answer your questions.  I am at home and do not
have my Tariffs with me.  Just for Hawaii, between PUC tariffs, GTE
FCC tariffs, FCC Regulations, etc I use up 2 bookshelves.

I might add that it is NOT uncommon for customer service
representatives not to understand the tariffs applicable to the
services they support.  I often get an off-the-wall answer that is
defended by "that is our tariff".  I then get great joy in asking "I
must have missed that rule, could you please FAX me the page it is
on".  The silence on the other end followed by the stammering shows
the great discomfort of being caught. I have yet to get the 1st FAX, I
have 100% success in eventually getting what I asked for and I have
never had the same line pulled twice by the same representative.  (I
accept the reasonable answer of "I am not sure how to do this" or
"price this" ... "let me check it out and get in touch with you".  But
they had better get back to me or I will call them and the supervisor.


Robert Kelley           Internet:   [e-mail]
PCI Communications Inc. EasyLink:   62958477
[phone]          OnTyme:     INTL.PCI/KELLEY
FAX [phone]      SprintMail: RFKELLEY
SnailMail: 1103 9th Ave, Suite 245, Honolulu HI, 96816

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Intrastate Toll Free Non-800 Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 90 12:52:34 GMT


[e-mail] (Steve Elias) asks about toll-free non-800 exchanges.

Maritime Tel & Tel, the only telephone company in Nova Scotia,
provides an awkward toll-free service without the 800 prefix.  (800
numbers are available, but they cost more, I suspect.)  A subscriber
to the non-800 service can arrange for a regular seven-digit number
(429-7111, which is or was the Air Canada reservations number in
Halifax, for example) to be toll-free for anybody who calls from
specified exchanges, or from anywhere in the province.  I assume the
charging for the calls is in blocks or time, much as it is with 800
service.

However, the toll-free bit only works if you're calling from a
residence or business phone.  It you're calling from a pay phone,
operators used to be able to check a list of valid toll-free numbers,
but as of the last time I was in Nova Scotia a few years ago, would
only place the call collect.

This service grew out of making telephone company business numbers
toll-free, I think.  (Maritime Tel & Tel still uses seven-digit
numbers for repair service, rather than 611, and rural customers would
incur a long-distance charge to reach repair unless certain
seven-digit numbers could be flagged as free.)

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are You Using Centron or a Similar Service?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 13:42:56 GMT


John Higdon explains that some users have problems with a hookswitch
flash.

Northern Telecom's Unity II telephone sets are quite basic, except
that in addition to the usual twelve touch-tone keys, they also have
an R and an L key. R hangs you up, by disconnecting for five seconds
or so; L stands for Link, and flashes the line.

Some years ago, Northern Telecom was marketing the Link phone, which
appeared to be a standard 2500 set with an additional L button.

I don't like the Unity II sets a lot, because the number buttons are
too close together, and they aren't concave.

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

From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Disconnection
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 20:08:40 EDT


[e-mail] (Dennis G. Rears) had his telephone disconnected
prematurely, and wishes to complain.

I don't have my list of state public utility commission addresses
handy, but anyone can get the address of their commission from the
state government switchboard. Some telephone directories have a
section in the introductory pages dealing specifically with
complaints, which may give both the address of a senior manager of the
telephone company who handles complaints, and the state regulatory
agency as well.

There are two ways to approach a regulatory complaint: you can argue
that the telephone company didn't follow established policy, in which
case the complaint can be resolved at a relatively low level, or you
can argue that the telephone company's policies are incorrect and
should be changed.  If you choose to file a heavy policy-change
complaint with the public utilities commission, you may want to obtain
a copy of the commission's rules of procedure, which may set out
different rules for handling informal complaints and formal
applications, and file it as a formal application.

Telephone companies are often wholly or partially exempt from
liability for their errors by state law or by regulatory enactments.
Nonetheless, the telephone company may be willing to compensate you
for your out-of-pocket expenses, even though it may not be legally
required.

If your work requires you to be on call to receive phone calls, or if
you had a sick child at home, or if you had some other reason why the
unauthorized disconnection was particularly inconvenient or dangerous,
you should mention this as well.

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

Subject: Re: Touch-Tone History
Date: 15 Jul 90 00:21:14 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

>     When were the first touchtone phones installed?  I always
> thought the answer was that were introduced at the 1964/65 New York
> World's Fair.  The fair opened in the summer of 64, so those were
> probably installed in late 63 or early 64.

    Touch-Tone dialing was officially introduced by the Bell
System in 1963.  The first paper on it appeared in the Bell System
Technical Journal in 1960, followed by a few years of little comment,
followed by a number of papers in 1963 including a series in IEEE
Transactions.

> A touch-tone phone was clearly visible in
> President Kennedy's oval office in numerous bits of footage shot at
> the time. ...
> Was touch-tone in general use in May 1963, or did the President just
> have a pre-release model?

    I suspect that the Touch-Tone telephone you saw in Kennedy's
office was for an AUTOVON circuit, which was already being installed
at that time.  The use of Touch-Tone to provide the 4 special function
keys needed for call precedence control was essential to the operation
of AUTOVON.


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: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Die Hard ... Laughing, That Is
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 22:55:48 EDT


With the recent talk of telecom boo-boos in _Die_Hard_2_, there was a
discussion in the rec.ham.radio net some time ago about the original
_Die_Hard_ movie and how they had such things as full-duplex
walkie-talkies and other pieces of science fiction.

Meanwhile, there are the rather glaring gaffes in the movie
_War_Games_. The lack call completion delay in that war-dialing
sequence was an obvious imagination expander.


[Moderator's Note: I'd like to point out that Woody has a complete set
of area code and associated prefix tables for the entire United States
which he has offered in the past to share with telecom readers. Write
him at the above address for more specifics.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #484
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09433;
          15 Jul 90 14:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11012;
          15 Jul 90 13:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01267;
          15 Jul 90 11:54 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Jul 90 11:50:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #485
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Jul 90 11:50:21 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 485

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone [Jerry Leichter]
    AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [TELECOM Moderator]
    Interchangeable Codes in Non-Interchangeable Territory [David Leibold]
    Telco Can't Help With Harassing Calls [Jeff Bilger]
    Re: Questions About Local Rates and Long Distance Service [D. Kimberlin]
    The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses" [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 90 07:48:21 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone


[Based on a report in the {New York Times}, Saturday, 14 Jul 1990 -
Page 24]

The saga of New York Telephone's request for a rate increase
continues, with no joy in sight for them.  Rates were frozen for three
years back in 1987.  With the freeze set to expire at the end of this
year, NY Tel requested a $445 million rate increase.  That was
rejected back in March.  NY Tel promptly turned around and requested a
$919 million rate increase.  Now the Public Service Commission's
staff has recommended not just rejecting that request - it has instead
recommended that rates be CUT by $81 million.

The final decision is up to the PSC, which often uses its staff's
reports as the basis for its decisions.

The PSC staff reported that as part of its investigations it uncovered
evidence that NY Tel had "failed to properly account for the costs of
certain of its deregulated operations."  It further found that some of
its cable equipment had been neglected "to the detriment of those
customers relying on more traditional telephone services."

There have been a lot of allegations of such problems swirling around
NY Tel and its parent, Nynex.  In fact, NY Tel proposed its earlier
increase of $445 million as part of a package deal to settle claims of
various fraudulent practices.  The deal was rejected, and NY Tel
turned around and said "OK, no deal, here's what we REALLY think we
are entitled to."  The 1987 rate freeze itself was the result of a
settlement of this general sort, the details of which I don't recall.

Nynex was fined $1.4 million by the FCC in February after an audit
found $118.5 million in reported overcharges to its subsidiaries.
Last week, {The Wall Street Journal} reported that Nynex purchasing
managers, as the Times put it, "cavorted at Florida conventions with
suppliers and may have then increased company purchases from those
suppliers.  The Journal also reported, and [sources at] the [PSC]
confirmed, that women were hired to entertain the guests at those
conventions."  Nynex has reported taking "corrective action" since the
incident, including firing two employees.


         Jerry

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 18:02:53 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination


Before leaving on my trip, I mentioned that I spoke with the Public
Relations Department at AT&T to obtain a reponse from them regarding
their practice of illegally red-lining, or discriminating in the use
of their calling card.

As noted in messages here in TELECOM Digest, AT&T states in their
advertising and in their tariffs that the calling card is universal
and can be used to call anyone, anywhere, using the AT&T network.

Anyone, that is, unless you are a Mexican living in southern
California wanting to call home from a payphone at the place where you
live ... or if you are an Israeli or Iranian citizen at JFK trying to
call home before you board your flight. Then, the presumption by AT&T
is you are likely to be committing fraud, so your call will not be
processed.

Is this type of discrimination by AT&T illegal? The last I heard,
credit could not be denied on the basis of national origin; nor could
neighborhoods be specifically red-lined and credit transactions
refused in those areas. And anyway, even if entire geographic areas
can be legally red-lined, i.e. the entire airport made off limits to
credit card calls, how does that explain the fact that from the very
same phones, calls to the UK and Sweden, to name but two examples, go
through with no delay? Likewise in southern California, if you want to
call Australia, that's just dandy with Mother ... but if Mexico or
Korea is where your family lives or your business is to be conducted,
you are out of luck.

At AT&T Corporate HQ, I spoke with Dave Bickley, 201-953-7614, who
promised me he would get back to me shortly with an answer. I left my
voicemail number, so he would always get an answer ... but that was
over two weeks ago, and he hasn't called back, despite my followup
phone call a few days ago.

I've a feeling this is going to eventually work into a class action
suit against all long distance carriers. If they want to offer a
calling card they have to be willing to honor it for all calls on
their network -- not just the calls they prefer to deal with.


Patrick Townson

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Interchangeable Codes in Non-Interchangeable Territory
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 90 22:52:06 EDT


Oddly enough, BC (area code/NPA 604) seems to have prefixes 200 and
201 active, even though BC Tel doesn't seem to be using
interchangeable (that is, area code styled) prefixes in its general
service, nor has their dialing been configured to accomodate for this
(anyone out in BC is welcome to correct me if this has changed in very
recent times).

It seems that charges can be assigned if dialing 1 604 200 xxxx (or
201 xxxx) from Toronto. However, the BC Tel directory assistance
denies any existence of the 200/201 prefixes.

Any clues as to what the 200/201 exchanges could be here?

(In the meantime, a new 604 prefix listing to replace the existing
archives version should soon be underway, and perhaps ready within the
next week or so, subject to available time and the Moderator's
blessings...).


[Moderator's Note: The Canadian tables are in the Telecom Archives.
Woody has all the USA tables also, but due to space limitations and
time required for updating, etc, these are sent by Woody on request
from his site for individual area codes.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 18:53 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telco Can't Help With Harassing Calls


I quote from a letter from Southwestern Bell:

" Dear Mr. Bilger,

    We are sorry we have been unable to identify the source of your
 annoying calls.  We have removed the line identification equipment
 from your line. If you continue to receive these calls and wish to change
 your telephone number, please call our business office. We regret we have
 been unable to resolve this problem for you."

                                           Ms. Rubell
                                    Annoying Call Specialist
                                    Southwestern Bell


 Now, if I am not mistaken, with Caller ID in effect, The phone
company records every phone number that calls MY number. So they
should be able to look in their records of who called me and at what
times.  Also, what else could the phone company use to trace these
annoying calls?  And what can I do to argue about their incompetence
in this matter?

                                 Thank you,

                                    Jeff Bilger

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 20:42 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates


 ..In article (Digest v10,iss479) Brendan writes:

>I have two questions regarding local phone operation and one regarding
>long distances rates which I am curious...

>First, does anyone have a clue why Southwestern Bell here in Austin,
TX wants $60.00 to hookup a phone?

Yep, it's a charge on the higher fringe of what Telcos nationwide tend
to get for a once-manual, now-automated operation.  It even has
components, like (let's say) $25 for "writing the service order," and
$15 for "wiring on the distributing frame," and $5 for "updating the
directory entry," and so on.  These prices, once established as a
means to hold off rate increases by creating the Telco equivalent of
government "user fees" and "impact fees," have never been reviewed by
PUCs to see if they are still valid.  And we all know who is _not_
about to ask for a review, don't we?

>Also... was told ... if I wanted to pay to have them pull a wire from
>the 478 exchange to the 458 exchange ... *and* I would have to pay
>extra monthly. ... how does the local service work?  Is a city really
>broken into sections, where moving a number between them requires a
>hardware change?

Well, I sure hope the lady didn't say "pull a wire" across the city.
That would constitute naievete in extremis!  What she described was a
"foreign central office" (within a city; "foreign exchange" between
two cities) line.  The transmission channels already exist; Telcos
will, if you wish, rent you a channel to that other exchange to get
your dial tone from there.  You pay the "service order charges"
(usually higher for a "special service" and a monthly rental for the
extension transmission channel ... and there's usually cute components
in the monthly charge for the "special equipment" they "need" to make
a longer-than-normal loop operate.

Now, here's the dirty truth: The sort of "special equipment" that's
used is the same as is used for many other classes of "phone lines,"
further, it often is not needed.  The most extreme case I know of is
the boundary between Boca Raton, FL and Deerfield Beach, FL.  There,
the two "exchanges" are in the SAME Southern Bell building, and an "FX
line" consists of ONE jumper wire on the distributing frame. BUT, the
two "exchanges" are several miles apart on the long-standing "official
description" of thw two areas.  No matter, an FX there costs (I
recall) about $65 a month ... for 100 feet of wire!

What you pay for a phone line has at best a VERY small resemblance to
what it costs to put any given line in.  The Telco mushes all the
costs together into a heap called the "rate base" and then apportions
out what it thinks you should pay for each thing.  It's a principle
proudly euphemized in Telco-Speak as "Value of Service Pricing,"
spoken of in reverent tones, because Telcos are sure God gave them
that right.  And, they'll fight you into the ground to preserve it.
One study a decade ago found that press, hospitals, police,
broadcasters, residences and business all paid difference prices for
identical wires in the SAME cable!  The real kicker: press paid the
lowest price. The politics behind it are obvious.  Don't let anyone
ever tell you the "phone company" isn't one of the most political
animals in town.

>About the long distance pricing ... (describes MCI rate structure)
> ... I thought is kinda bizarre that I can call California during
>business hours for *less* than calling my brother in Dallas after
>5pm.  Any ideas?

No "ideas" needed. It's another of the nationwide unrealities of
telephone company rate-making.  State by state, the regulators long
ago found they could look good and keep the Telco's much-watched price
for a local line down by letting INTRAstate short-haul LD charges
rise. It goes back to a point in time when none of us as individuals
hauled off and dialed the phone for just any old thing.  Since we all
became "telephone junkies," the usage has soared, but the protected
rate for the local telco do haul LD in-state remains.  Others, like
MCI, are _required_ to not undercut the "local" Telco on in-state
rates.  Yet, you see what the true costs must be like in the
FCC-mandated (almost) free market of INTERstate rates.  That's the
answer, pure and simple: Another very visible proof that the price you
pay for regulated phone services has little connection to the cost of
the product.

The sooner America wakes up and starts to let it be known it
understands the regulatory "shell game" and ends the silly form of
"regulation" that exists today, the sooner prices will begin to truly
reflect costs.  The Federal government would like to permit local
"dial tone" competition immediately (and several technologies exist to
do so ... right now), but the local Telco lobby is still shouting that
one down. Oh, you have an example right in Texas: ARCO Oil moved its
offices to Richardson, on the fringe of Dallas 6-8 years ago.  Fed up
with GTE "dial tone," ARCO put in a private microwave and imported SW
Bell dial tone to their building in Richardson.  WOW!  Did the Telco
feathers ruffle!  GTE got their "brothers in the cloth," SWBT to shut
off the dial tone. Both got the Texas PUC to say on paper they had
done the right thing.  ARCO dragged the FCC in, saying the dial tone
was only _part_ of INTERstate business, and got an FCC order to turn
it back on. SWBT went to the Federal courts, and only about four
months ago lost on the final level of appeal short of the Supreme
Court.  Doubtful you'll ever get this news in your SWBT bill insert,
but you _can_ put in your _own_ FX if you want ..and for larger
businesses, the technology is not that expensive these days.  If you
want to do it at UT, I know a guy in Austin who can guide you!)

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 20:42 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses"


In article <Digest v10,iss479>, Andrew writes:

>In brief, I have heard that at one time AT&T sent out "cleaning
>pulses" in the wee hours of morning to "fuse shorts in the line."
>Assuming this is drivel, is there any basis for such a thing?

Yep, Andrew, it's more of the drivel that gets made out of stories
told and retold by telecommunications incompetents.  Like all, it has
a shred of truth ... but only way down and way back. Hear this:

For starters, AT&T _never_ sent out "pulses" down your local line.
Your local exchange telephone company does that. AT&T did, of course,
own the twenty-plus local "Bell Operating Companies."  These were, in
no uncertain terms, captive customers of Western Electric, AT&T's
manufacturing company, which in turn had only technology of Bell Labs
to sell.  So, if Bell Labs dreamed up an improvement to running local
phone lines, the Bell companies bought it.

A well-recognized problem in running local phone lines is: How does
one indeed know when a phone line is bad? Wait for the customer to get
to another phone and call? With all good intent, AT&T HQ put this on
Bell Labs' plate.  Bell Labs came up with an adjunct to its
Crossbar-era exchanges (we're talking 1950's technology here) called
Automatic Line Insulation Test ... ALIT in the trade.  The earliest
ALITs were totally mechanical, and scanned the office during wee
hours, putting a fairly high-voltage (limited current) pulse on the
line to measure the leakage resistance of the wire pair, flagging
those in which the leakage was lower than the acceptable level;
printing a report, in fact, for the local people to "fix your line
before you knew about it."  Those are the "pulses," but they don't
"fuse the shorts in the line."  Somewhere down the story trail to you,
the incompetents have mushed ALIT together with the old testboardman's
trick of "burning" a noisy pair's loose splices or tree branches of
long-gone open wire with about 600 Volts for a moment.  ALIT doesn't
do that.  It just measures.

ALIT lives today and is now an electronic "test adjunct" to most every
telephone exchange switch. It is even a popular manual test method,
called up by remote control to get an evaluation of the condition of
your wire pair when you do say the line is "noisy" or "weak."  There
are test criteria and a large backgound of use of the techniques of
ALIT, used by every telco.

BUT, honest, dirty truth be known, very few ALITs are running all
night to check out your line for you.  The local plant people dropped
the administrative task of keeping ALIT in automatic operation years
ago.  If you live in GTE areas, you'll find they now run TX spots
showing people snoozing away in bed, happily confident that GTE is
"testing their lines silently all night."  All that happened was GTE
started its ALITs back in automatic mode again!

So much for "AT&T pulses that clean your line!"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #485
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14854;
          15 Jul 90 20:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13124;
          15 Jul 90 19:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02713;
          15 Jul 90 18:03 CDT
Date:     Sun, 15 Jul 90 17:40:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #486
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Jul 90 17:40:41 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 486

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telco Can't Help With Harassing Calls [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Fax Over Compressed Voice [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Annoying Intercept Behavior [John Higdon]
    Re: E911 Experience [Lawrence Kestenbaum]
    Re: E911 Experience [Marc T. Kaufman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 90 12:39:19 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco Can't Help With Harassing Calls


Jeff Bilger wrote to say the Annoyance Call Bureau of his local telco
was unable to help him resolve the source of unwanted calls. They
suggested he change his phone number instead.

This sounds remarkably like a case I've just gone through here,
although Illinois Bell was able to capture the calling number on four
occassions, after some effort and aggressive efforts by myself to
force the issue.

In Mr. Bilger's case, I suspect the calls are from outside the local
telco area, and the originating telco has not or will not supply the
information to his telco. The best your local telco can do many times
is locate the origin as being a circuit from elsewhere -- and unless
the other telco cooperates (they may not have the technical capability
to identify the caller), then resolving the problem is impossible at
worst and difficult at best.

What telco CAN do -- after you press the issue long enough -- is
arrange to trace the call while you are on line with the caller, if
the caller stays connected long enough. If it is a case where the
caller rings, then disconnects immediatly when you answer, this is
probably impossible. If you can argue with the caller, or otherwise
get them to stay on the line for a few minutes, then your telco in
cooperation with the other telco can frequently find the low-life
slime making the call.

Of course this requires some coordination, and extra expense for the
telco. They'd rather just change your number, and will often times
tell you there is nothing further they can do. You do not have to
accept this for an answer, and can contact your local regulatory body
for further assistance if necessary.

Our situation here was that my brother innocently gave our non-pub
number to our downstairs neighbor ... as it turned out, an NWW (not a
well woman!) who began calling at all hours of the day and night and
hanging up as soon as we answered.

IBT's first suggestion was let's change the number. Why the hell
should I have to change my number?  My telephone number has been in
use here for years. Why should *I* be inconvenienced? They finally
agreed to have the Annoyance Call Bureau look into the matter.

We got the police involved, and filed formal charges. The telco
supplied the information on the four successful traps to the detective
handling our case. The matter came to court last week, and the woman
was found guilty and given six month's probation. But I have a further
surprise for her: Now that the *criminal* side of the matter has been
handled, I spoke with my attorney Friday and we will now file *civil*
charges against her. We are asking for $1000 in damages.

In addition, I filed a complaint with the Illinois Commerce Commission
(which regulates telcos here) and asked the ICC to order Illinois Bell
to disconnect the offender's service. This petition may or may not be
successful, but in any event, the woman will need to hire an attorney
to appear before the Commission to defend her and argue against the
disconnection of her phone service. That should cost her a grand or so
for an attorney licensed to practice before the Commission.

I don't just get mad ... I get even. My advice to Mr. Bilger would be
to begin with an informal complaint to the regulators, asking if telco
could be instructed to make a better effort to resolve the problem. He
might find telco very eager to cooperate when a 'commission complaint'
came over the telex to the Business Office in his community.

Please understand the pecking order at most telcos: When there are
various things to be done (or not done) the general rule of thumb is
that resolutions are sought out according to their importance.

First, 'commission complaints' are attended to.

Second, 'management complaints' are dealt with. These are typically
subscribers who have appealed to the Chairman's Office.

Third and last come the subscribers who wait meekly in line at the
Business Office or who have called on the phone.

In large cities such as Chicago, a telco representative actually is on
the premises of the Commission at all times to talk to subscribers who
choose to file complaints in that way. A telex message making an
inquiry goes to the manager of the Business Office ... and they *do*
respond to those in a timely fashion ... like twenty minutes to an
hour later!

Illinois Bell is required, in their telephone directories, to give the
address and telephone number of the proper contact at the Commission
for the purpose of making complaints the Business Office has been
unable or unwilling to resolve. And frequently, it does work!


Patrick Townson

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

From: ncoast!fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Sun Jul 15 10:40:52 1990
Subject: Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


[Writer was trying to find call waiting disable code that my not
 be the "standard" *70 in that CO....]

>>I have also seen recommendations to try '70*'
>>                                        '#70'
>>                                        '70#' and
>>                                        '1170'.

While I have no personal knowledge of the writer's phone system, I
offer the following comments:

If you are in a PBX (or some Centrex configurations) you may not have
the call waiting disable feature available as a dial-up code.  Many
PBX's have the ability to remove the call wait (or camp-on) tone
entirely on a line, but not on a per call basis.  I do not know who
your telephone system vendor is, but a written request stating
specifically your need may be best.  Be sure to involve your telecom
dept., as the follow-up may go through them. (The old name for this
feature was "data line security" on many systems.)

I have also found some CO's that require the per-call call waiting
feature to be specifically enabled by the CO people.  Generally,
unless the feature is tarriffed, the telco business office people do
not know about this functionality (and often don't much care).
Perhaps you could try talking politely to a business office
supervisor, explaining your problem, and ask if a conference call with
a CO supervisor for your office might be possible.  This sometimes
works.

The old adage about honey attracting more flies than vinegar applies
when dealing with first and second level telco employees.  When a
telco supervisor understands you need and sympathizes with you, you
are much more likely to get something done.

(These are the people who hold the power over the little day to day
things that can be so important....)

In the GTE North (was GTE Ohio) CO that serves me, several changes to
the special services numbering plan occurred when a software upgrade
to add Centrex services was installed.  Since our local CO serves the
722, 723, 725 office codes (which directly conflict with "standard"
service numbering i.e. 72# for call forwarding, etc.) the software type
at GTE (in their infinite wisdom ;-) changed the codes that normally
start with a seven to start with an eight.  (Ugly, IMHO)

So there are situations where the numbering plan can be skewed from
the "standard".

A personal note: GTD-5's ... they had a lot of potential, but GTE
never really got around to making them 100% right.  Now they seem to
be fast becoming the Edsel of CO's ... there is no one ... I repeat no
one in this division of GTE who knows how to program one of these
right.  All the programming types are now in Ft Wayne or elsewhere and
heaven forbid any of those people should talk to a lowly member of the
public about GTE's all to frequent programming problems.  As a
contrast, I regularly talk to software types at Ohio Bell, Alltel and
United ... they make mistakes, but I can usually get to someone and get
them corrected.  With GTE it takes threats of PUCO complaints (which I
am prepared to do ... I keep logs of all this crap).


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 @ tone)

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

From: ncoast!fmsystm![e-mail]
Date: Sun Jul 15 13:48:59 1990
Subject: Re: Fax Over Compressed Voice
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


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

>Has anyone had problems sending facsimiles over compressed(32K) voice
>lines?  Especially in the NYC area.

I have used Group 3 Fax on M44 type T1 service.  It works, but the fax
usually drops to a lower speed.

Not recommended for lines with a lot of fax traffic, especially fine
or long faxes.  If your savings on the voice services are great
enough, consider putting your fax machines on direct outside lines
serviced by the regular 10XXX carriers.

In summary: M44 is fine for voice, but poor for data/fax.

Timeplex has done considerable research on this (so has Newbridge) and
can give you more info.


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 @ tone)

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Intercept Behavior
Date: 15 Jul 90 12:12:03 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jordan Kossack <[e-mail]> writes:

> After two or three rings, my quarter is
> returned and I get a message to the effect of "please deposit
> forty-five cents." OK, so I drop the two bits back in, add two dimes
> and redial the number. After the obligatory two or three rings, my
> $0.45 is returned and I get the same "please deposit ..."  message.

A utility pay phone has no way of knowing how much money you initially
deposit. All it knows is if you put in at least the "initial rate" for
a local call, which is a "go -- no go" situation. If the initial rate is
$0.20 and you dump a dollar in for a local call, if the call is
completed, the phone will blithely collect your buck, period. The same
goes for a "non-local" call where more than the initial rate is
required. If you have deposited the initial rate, the phone must
return it so that the automatic coin system (not the phone) can count
your deposit from $0.

What I don't understand is this "two or three" rings before your initial
deposit is returned. Around here, if I dropped $0.20 into a phone, then
dialed something outside of my local area, the dimes would be in the
coin-return slot before my finger was off the last button. It's almost
startling. Then immediately the voice would say [for example],
"Forty-five cents please. [pause] Please deposit forty-five cents for
the first three minutes. [longer pause] Forty-five cents please."
Dropping a coin during this sequence would shut the recording up. If
you wait long enough between coins you get, "Please deposit ten cents"
(or whatever is required to complete the total requested).

When you have complied, you get "thank you" and your call goes
through.  If you put in too much from not having the correct change,
you would get "Thank you. You have ten cents credit for overtime." Due
to the CCS7, this last message is usually spoken over the first ring.

The whole procedure has always seemed most unambiguous. The only
ringback tone you ever hear is that of the called number.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Date: 15 Jul 90 16:39:09 EDT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris
Johnson) writes:

> Op:  "So you didn't see a knife..."

> Me:  [exasperated]  "No, but these guys are drunk or brain damaged.  They are
> way out of it.  They are scaring the people here..."

> Op:  "Let me talk to the person who saw the knife."

In Detroit, callers who report hearing shots from the house next door
(or wherever) are asked HOW MANY shots.  If they don't report a large
enough number, the report is ignored (ref. Detroit Free Press circa
1980).  I guess that reflects local conditions.

One afternoon when I was walking along Warren Avenue in Detroit (a
major street with fast, heavy traffic), I noticed some confusion at an
intersection with Third Avenue (aka Anthony Wayne Drive).  The traffic
lights were malfunctioning such that for part of the cycle, the lights
were green in both directions!  There were no police or city workers
present.

After seeing several very near misses, I phoned 911 and reported what
was happening.  The operator was unbelievably thick and didn't seem to
understand what I meant by "traffic light."

After a few go-rounds, I found the trick which woke her up and got her
attention: I threatened to give up.  This had an almost miraculous
effect.  Suddenly, all her languor was gone; she begged me to repeat
the location, and finally seemed to understand what I was talking
about.

I didn't have time to hang around to see what happened.  The light was
fixed by the next day, however.

As to stories about 911 screwups that led to fatalities, there was one
such in my hometown of East Lansing, Michigan.  A student at Michigan
State University was hit on the chest with a baseball and eventually
died.  The emergency response was greatly delayed because the
dispatcher had zero familiarity with the MSU campus (which has about
24,000 residents, almost 10% of the county's population) and sent
paramedics to Holmes Street in Lansing rather than Holmes Hall at MSU.
This happened about ten years ago, long before E911 or automatic
address identification in that area.  Actually, I'm not absolutely
certain whether the student's death could have been prevented if
paramedics had arrived more promptly.


Lawrence Kestenbaum, [e-mail] -OR- [e-mail]
506 S. Albany St., Ithaca NY 14850-5514

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 90 16:50:50 GMT


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

-I will ask the
-operator for his/her "operator number" and inform the person that I
-will now hang up and call the agency direct if s/he can't help me. If,
-after one second, the attitude hasn't rotated 180 degrees, I will do
-just that. And then when the smoke clears, I will file a formal
-complaint.

Better make sure you have two lines.  You can't hang up on a 911 call unless
the operator lets you.

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

[Moderator's Note: If one of them tried that -- deliberatly holding up
the line to prevent me from calling the police administration line --
I would make note of that also in a formal complaint.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #486
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19813;
          16 Jul 90 2:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16819;
          16 Jul 90 1:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19911;
          16 Jul 90 0:08 CDT
Date:     Mon, 16 Jul 90 0:04:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #487
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Jul 90 00:04:02 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 487

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Annoying Intercept Behavior [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone [John Higdon]
    Re: The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses" [John Higdon]
    Re: Last USA Crank-Style Phones to be Replaced [Bob Niland]
    Re: Answering Machine Security [Steven King]
    Re: Unauthorized Disconnection [David Ritchie]
    Re: White House Phone Trivia [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Cellular Intercept Quiz [Peter M. Weiss]
    Wanted: Good DTMF Decoder Schematic With Display [W.L. Ware]
    Metric Madness (Was: Re: Polish Payphones) [David Tamkin]
    Telephone Humor & Insulation Testing [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Intercept Behavior
Date: 15 Jul 90 21:17:33 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> "Jerry B. Altzman" <jbaltz@cunixe.
cc.columbia.edu> writes:

>>The oddity is the way the intercept is implemented.  It doesn't take
>>place immediately after the last digit - not to mention after the
>>exchange, which is possible.  Instead, you get two or three normal
>>rings and THEN a long, wordy message telling you exactly what you
>>should have done.

>[complaint deleted...]

>>Why would anyone set up intercepts this way?  Is it done this way
>>elsewhere?

"You can please some of the people all the time and all of the people
some of the time" ... but when you are the Phone Company, somebody
will ALWAYS find something to complain about.

I'm not sure exactly what the complaint was since I didn't see it.
The whole seven digit number must be dialed because a LOT of people
get VERY confused when you interrupt them in the middle of dialing.
This varies some depending on the place you are calling from and
exactly what kind of invalid number you dialed.  Most announcements
ring a few times to allow the message to play starting at the
beginning instead of "barging in" in the middle.  Even digitally
recorded messages are usually presented to the network in cycles and
wait for the start of the cycle just like mechanical drums.


Ken Abrams                     uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell                  [e-mail]
Springfield                    (voice) 217-753-7965

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone
Date: 15 Jul 90 13:06:16 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
writes:

> The saga of New York Telephone's request for a rate increase
> continues, with no joy in sight for them.  Rates were frozen for three
> years back in 1987.  With the freeze set to expire at the end of this
> year, NY Tel requested a $445 million rate increase.  That was
> rejected back in March.  NY Tel promptly turned around and requested a
> $919 million rate increase.

Even though we west coast cretins are forced to watch "Primetime
Live", "Saturday Night Live", and "Nightline" via tape delay from New
York (they even tape "live" events here and show them to us three
hours later!), we have an advantage of being able to see a window on
our own future. Whatever happens to Nynex starts rumbling across the
US on a four to seven year timetable.

Last year, you'll recall, Pac*Bell was given the keys to the kingdom
by the CPUC. In exchange (no pun intended), Pac*Bell would hold off
residential rate increases, remove charges for touch tone, and widen
the Zone 1 (local) calling area. The latter two have yet to come to
pass. Now we see that the "stabilization" of rates will be a cruel
joke. In 1992 or whenever, Pac*Bell will probably stomp into the CPUC
with a demand for a 100% increase in residential rates, proposals to
drop the last of unlimited local calling, and other pocket-fattening
proposals as they deem appropriate at the time.

If ever there was a utility that has run amok over deregulation,
Pac*Bell it it. In a way, GTE's lack of innovation is a plus. Pac*Bell
has shown no end of inventiveness in its ability to extract large
amounts of money from its customers, particularly in the areas of
976/900, small business, Centrex, and short-haul toll calls.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses"
Date: 15 Jul 90 13:25:50 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]> writes:

> If you live in GTE areas, you'll find they now run TX spots
> showing people snoozing away in bed, happily confident that GTE is
> "testing their lines silently all night."  All that happened was GTE
> started its ALITs back in automatic mode again!

One other aspect of living in a GTE area (other than having my most
sincere condolences) is that you will probably get your ear blown off
eventually if you talk on the phone late at night. While real telcos
will skip busy lines during an ALIT cycle, GTE doesn't seem to deem
that necessary. While you are on the phone, suddenly you will hear,
"CLICK/CLUNK -- BZZZZT/BLAAAAT". Sometimes you remain connected to
your party after all that, sometimes you don't. You sort of ride it
out -- like an earthquake.

I have a tacit agreement with my friends who call me from GTE areas:
since it was their brain-dead company that caused the disconnection,
they call me back on their nickel.

Preventative Maintenance: Work done by GTE to _prevent_ normal use of
equipment.


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

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

From: Bob Niland <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last USA Crank-Style Phones to be Replaced
Date: 15 Jul 90 00:08:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/FSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA


>>"Today," the town of North Falls, Idaho is the last remaining location
>>in the United States that still operates hand-crank telephones.

> Is this truely the last magneto system? I thought that about a posting
> awhile back about magneto systems in Nevada.

When I was living in Maine (over a decade ago), the town of Bryant
Pond still had crank, and was fighting to keep it.


Regards,

                                                   Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland    Internet: [e-mail]      3404 East Harmony Road
              UUCP: [hplabs|hpfcse]!hpfcrjn!rjn    Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Security
Date: 16 Jul 90 02:14:14 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] (Steve
Wolfson) writes:

>Join the 90's and replace your answering machine with Voice Mail which
>is password protected etc.  If you don't trust a service provider you
>can even get one for your own PC.  Perhaps some erudite TELECOM
>readers can enlighten us on the value of these PC gizmos.

Not feasible for everyone.  I myself would *LOVE* to have voice-mail.
I'm on the modem a lot and miss more calls due to the line being busy
than to me not being around.  Unfortunately, the switch that serves
Palatine (a town on the northwest edge of the continuous suburb
surrounding Chicago, for those of you not around here) doesn't have
busy-transfer capability.  Therefore I can't get it from an outside
vendor and the telco isn't offering it themselves.  Naturally, a
private PC-based system would be worthless in this situation.  Not to
mention that I've got better things to do with my computer!

Yes, a second line would solve my problems, but due to circumstances
that aren't really important here I can't get one.  Oh well.  I'm
moving in a month or so, and rest assured the new place will have at
least three phone lines for myself and my one housemate.


Steve King, Motorola Cellular  (...uunet!motcid!king)

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

From: David Ritchie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unauthorized Disconnection
Date: 13 Jul 90 22:22:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID


> The last point is do I have any course of action?  I am out
> about $25 due to having to use pay phones and lack of a calling card.
> Who can I complain to?

  You might try calling/writing the regulatory body for the telco in
your state. Of course, you may just be wasting a stamp :^>.

  Another approach that I have used is to talk to a progression of
persons, each of which are higher in authority than the last person I
talked to. Getting names of persons I am talking to when I first start
talking to them also helps in this regard. Keep notes of the
conversation.  Eventually, you will talk to someone with intelligence
and/or who wonders why his/her subordinates could not handle this
problem. I have went up as high as four levels this way, but I have
never not had a problem solved to my satisfaction.

            Dave

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

Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 20:42 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: White House Phone Trivia (Was: Touchtone History)


In article <Digest v10, iss 479>, Roger writes:

>I think those same phones are still there ... spotted a photo of
>President Bush in the Oval Office ...  and there on the desk in clear
>view was an TT version of the unit described above. One of the those
>big tanks...

>The burning question that Telecom readers want answered is: Why
>doesn't the President's office have a nice little Merlin (R) or neat
>IDSN set ???

The answer may range from the sublime to the ridiculous, Roger. It
might be:

1.) The White House Communications Agency still insists the
President have something that WORKS -- without fear of silent,
unannounced failure or software screw-ups;

2.) The WHCA itself still doesn't know how to maintain anything but
good old 1A Key Telephone equipment;

3.) The White House PBX may still be one that requires line interfaces
of the type 1A Key provides for multi-line telephones (you'd be
surprised how much OLD stuff our Federal offices have ... the age of
IBM mainframe computers in government is a well-publicized case in
point.

4.) Perhaps President Bush has trouble learning the ropes of
software-trickery phones ... maybe even Danny Quayle gets in there
once in a while!  As to those latter points, I refer you to Gary
Trudeau.  He'll probably respond in an upcoming "Doonesbury."

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sunday, 15 Jul 1990 16:35:23 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Intercept Quiz


Well, I just got my first cellular phone and service, and of course
have been trying it out.  I have come across a couple of anomalies
that are driving me batty:

(1) When I call from a Bell of PA COT, as soon as I finished DTMFing
the local exchange number of the cell phone, it immediately spits back
my quarter (this does not happen from a COCOT (more on this later))
without even ringing or any other hint that the call was processed.
This occurs regardless of the power on state of the cell phone.  The
call goes through correctly when calling from Bell of PA single line
home/business phones.

(2) I placed a call from within my home system to a local number: it
rang once, and then seemed to hangup.  This occured twice in
succession.  I verified this later when I actually got through to the
called party.

(3) When I call from a COCOT to the cell phone, and it is powered off,
I get an intercept message from the cell service provider and then the
COCOT _eats_ my quarter.  It's the latter which concerns me.

BTW, this is all local exchange / home system on wireline B.

Hints and tips gratefully appreciated.


Pete

Penn State U, Management Services
[e-mail] or psu.vm.edu

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

From: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ultb.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Good DTMF Decoder Schematic With Display
Date: 15 Jul 90 16:06:23 GMT
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


I am looking for a schematic for a good DTMF decoder with either an
LCD or LED display, preferably the later. It needs to be capable of
holding at least eleven digits on the screen, and for at around ten
seconds, preferably until the next stream of tones come in.

Does anyone know of such a beast?

Any help/info appreciated.


*W.L.Ware                                      LANCEWARE SYSTEMS*
*WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu             Value Added reseller*
*WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu                   Mac and IBM Access. *

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Metric Madness (Was re: Polish Payphones)
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 90 16:43:00 CDT


You wrote in TELECOM Digest, volume 10, issue 478:

| Lest we forget: The metric system *is* now the official U.S. system
| for standards, and has been for quite some number of years. (The U.S.
| inch at some point in the process was re-defined to be *exactly* 2.54
| cm.)  It's just that we haven't yet faced up to killing off this
| unofficial but pervasive English system of measures...  ;-} ;-}

One summer during college an acquaintance of mine worked for the
Bureau of Standards.  She returned in September, saying she had loved
her job there.

I asked her, "What did you do for them?"

She replied, "I sneaked into schools, removed the yardsticks, and left
meter sticks in their place."

"Susan, how tall are you?"

"Five foot four."


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]

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

Subject: Telephone Humor & Insulation Testing
Date: 15 Jul 90 00:33:23 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew A.
Houghton) writes:

> In brief, I have heard that at one time AT&T sent out "cleaning
> pulses" in the wee hours of morning to "fuse shorts in the line."

    Reminds me of the "telephone pranks" friends and I used to
pull while in college - like calling people at random, pretending to
be from the telephone company, and asking them to place their
telephone handset in a bucket because the telephone company was going
to "purge moisture from the telephone cables."  A surprising number of
people actually fell for this.  I digress, but the best one was
pretending to be from the city sewer department, claiming that there
was a sewer collapse, and asking people not to flush their toilet for
24 hours.  The clincher on this one was eliciting cooperation by
stating: "Now we can't stop you from flushing your toilet, but think
about us sewer workers below trying to fix the problem..." :-)

> Assuming this is drivel, is there any basis for such a thing?

    The statement you quoted is nonsense, but there are two
factual elements which could contribute to its basis.

    The first is that ALIT (Automatic Line Insulation Testing) is
performed during early morning hours when telephone traffic is at a
minimum.  In both this forum and sci.electronics, ALIT has been
previously discussed because it sometimes causes a "chirp" on cheap
electronic telephones.  ALIT is strictly a passive measurement
procedure.

    The second is that there is a troubleshooting procedure used
to localize high-resistance cable faults on pulp cable using a
"breakdown test set".  A pair with a high resistance fault is isolated
from the CO apparatus and a current-limited voltage of approximately
600 volts DC is placed on the pair.  This voltage is usually enough to
cause an arc and turn a high resistance fault into a dead short -
making it easier to localize.  With improved test apparatus such as
TDR's, breakdown test procedures are no longer used as frequently as
in past years.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #487
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13778;
          17 Jul 90 3:48 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08230;
          17 Jul 90 1:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02456;
          17 Jul 90 0:21 CDT
Date:     Mon, 16 Jul 90 23:50:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #488
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Jul 90 23:49:27 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 488

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Loop-Around Test Lines [Larry Lippman]
    Equal Access? [Peter Capek]
    Connections Between Carriers Within a LATA [Peter Capek]
    Answer Supervision on a POTS Line (Sort of) [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Re: Touchtone History) [John Slater]
    Re: Good For a Laugh: Polish Payphones [John Slater]
    Re: White House Phone Trivia (Was: Touchtone History) [Henry Troup]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [Gregg Siegfried]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Loop-Around Test Lines
Date: 15 Jul 90 23:23:41 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> [Moderator's Note: Loops are used to test circuits from a remote
> location. As an example, a tester in Kansas City wants to check a
> circuit coming from Chicago. He calls the incoming side of a loop in
> Chicago and 'loops-around' to make an outgoing call back to Kansas
> City.

    I've never encountered any loop-around circuits which placed
*outgoing* calls on the second termination port of the circuit.  All
loop-around circuits that I am familiar with serve to connect two
incoming calls, whether the loop around is terminated as directory
numbers in a end office CO, or as a trunk termination code in a tandem
office (common codes were 663 for first port, and 667 for second).
The use of loop-around circuits in tandem offices has generally been
replaced by 104-type (also the dial code) test lines.

    Loop-around circuits are intended for one craftsperson to make
two-way transmission loss measurements on four-wire interoffice trunks
or two-wire interoffice trunks with hybrid repeaters.  The
transmission frequency used is almost always 1,000 or 1,004 Hz.  Note
that I said two-way transmission measurements because the direction of
transmission is changed during the test to obtain two sets of
measurements.  Two-way measurements obviously cannot be made using a
milliwatt test circuit.  Two-way measurements are important to assure
that far-to-near and near-to-far losses are the same.

    There are three common variations in loop-around test lines:

(1)    The two terminations are simply connected together, one after
    the other.

(2)    The first termination provides a milliwatt test line, which is
    disabled when the second number is called, thereby connecting
    the two terminations together.

(3)    The first termination provides a milliwatt test line, if it is
    called by itself, and the second termination provides a balanced
    termination for noise measurements if called by itself.  When
    both terminations are called at the same time, they are connected
    together.  This is often called a CLA line (Combined Loop-Around).

    To discourage unauthorized persons from using loop-around
lines for "talking purposes", some loop-around circuits are provided
with guard circuits which detect speech energy (as opposed to a single
tone used in transmission measurement), and force a disconnect.

> Other loops may allow a telco employee working outside his/her
> regular district to access special codes which only work from one
> central office rather than everywhere. As an example, certain loops in
> Chicago receive calls on one line, and immediatly grab the outgoing
> side and place a call to '611' (repair service). The 611 you get is
> obviously not the 611 I get, so if I want to get yours (as a telco
> employee authorized to do so), I have to get a line from your central
> office. The loop provides this access to dial tone in another office
> when it is needed.  PT]

    I've not encountered any of the loop-around variations that
are described above.  Quite frankly, I am at a loss [>pun alert<] as
to why such circuits would be implemented.  Transmission measurements
using loop-around circuits are *invariably* made from the CO.  There
are innumerable ways in which a craftsperson in a CO can reach other
CO's or test facilities through direct access to an outgoing tandem
trunk or other test trunk circuit.


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


[Moderator's Note: For many years, we had loop arounds here in Chicago
numbered XXX-9954 and XXX-9955. Call in on 54, it answered and
extended dial tone from 55. An auto-dialer would grab the line and
dial out '611', and 9955 would place the call for them. Then one day a
couple of phreaks ruined it by learning that if they dialed out
*before* the auto dialer got started, they could call wherever they
pleased, and having satisfied the equipment accepting the outcall from
9955, it would ignore the 611 request by the autodialer.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 01:09:47 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Equal Access?


I was visiting friends in Queens, New York recently who have elected
RCI (Rochester Communications, I think) as their default long distance
carrier.  I tried to make an AT&T credit card call from their phone
(718-544) and repeatedly got the NY Tel operator, who was always happy
to connect me with AT&T, but never able to explain why, as soon as I
dialed 10 (on the way to 10288), I was diverted.  Supervisors were no
better; in fact, they argued harder that what I wanted made no sense.
I gave up and reported the line to repair as being broken.  Was it, or
is there a legitimate state of "partial equal access", where RCI could
be the default carrier (I confirmed this via 700-555-4141), and AT&T
would not be easily available?


Peter Capek

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 01:13:48 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Connections Between Carriers Within a LATA


When there's more than one local exchange carrier operating within a
LATA, is service between them provided by a long distance carrier, or
by the carriers interconnecting directly, or both?

Who drew up the LATA boundaries, and based on what criteria?

Peter Capek

[Moderator's Note: I do not know how the LATA boundaries were drawn
up, but here in Chicago, Illinois Bell simply connects with Centel
direct, and vice-versa. IBT's Chicago-Newcastle CO has both 312 and
708 prefixes assigned to it, and calls from IBT's Newcastle office to
Centel's Chicago-Newcastle office are local, untimed calls. Centel
also has both 312 and 708 prefixes in the same office.  David Tamkin
is the expert on Centel/IBT <===> 312/708 boundary lines, etc.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 90 22:09:19 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answer Supervision on a POTS Line (Kind of)


Occasionally someone mentions in the Digest about how the telcos
refuse to return answer supervision to the originating party.  I've
discovered something that some of you no doubt are already aware of,
but many of you may not know:

If you have three-way calling, you can determine when the call
supervises.  This is a result of a flash not breaking to a second dial
tone until the call supervises.  For example, let's say I call a
certain number.  At any time before the person answers, if I flash the
line, nothing happens.  As soon as the person answers, a flash will
obtain the secondary dialtone.  At least this is what happens on the
1AESS I'm on.  If the call never supervises (no answer, "out of
service" recording, etc.), a flash will never obtain secondary
dialtone.  This seems to work whether the call is local or long
distance, although the propagation delay of the supervision back to my
originating office is of course longer when calling inter-state.

A couple of notes: If you flash after the last digit is dialed, but
before the 1st audible "click", the call terminates, and you get a
"fresh" dialtone.  And, if you call a number on the same switch, there
is no period where a flash will be ignored.  The call in progress will
be terminated if you flash before supervision, or you will get
secondary dialtone if you flash after supervision.

A couple of questions for you experts:  Does this only happen on a 1AESS?
Which other switches?

Also, what are the "official" minimum and maximum on-hook durations
for a flash?  Of course, everyone I've tried to ask at Pacific Bell
doesn't even understand the question.  It's the typical routine -
"Sir, I don't understand what you're asking me, and I won't connect
you with someone that does.  Now how can I help you?"

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 1:07:56 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation


Two observations --

The first, from a recent Usenet posting by Richard Stallman:

  Subject: Lotus Wins Copyright Infringement Suit
  Newsgroups: news.announce.important

  >In June 1990, Lotus won a suit against Paperback Software, a small
  >company that implemented a spreadsheet that talks to the user in the
  >same terms used by 1-2-3; they immediately went on to sue Borland about
  >Quattro, a spreadsheet whose usual interface has only a few similarities
  >to 1-2-3, claiming that these similarities in keystroke sequences are
  >enough to infringe.  They have also sued SCO.

        (quoted only in part)

It seems Mr. Kapor can be very aggressive when it comes to protecting
what he believes is his property. Lotus sues quite frequently when they
are offended, and they seem to be easily offended. I wonder why Mr.
Kapor does not feel the same way about software which belongs to
telcos?  If the documentation for 1-2-3 was distributed far and wide
you know Lotus would be all over your case in a minute ... why should
the distribution of 911 documentation be different? Why are the people
alleged to have ripped off 1-2-3 concepts to be held in contempt and
sued, while those alleged to have distributed 911 stuff are treated as
folk-heros?  Maybe it has to do with whose money is involved, eh?

For next: In the flood of press releases received here last week
announcing the establishment of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
and their plans to defend the civil liberties of computerists -- as
EFF and Kapor define those things -- not a word was said about a legal
defense for Len Rose. You'd think he would be a prime candidate for
their services. And while we are on the subject, Robert Morris could
probably use a good appellate-level attorney about now.

I guess as usual I don't know what I am talking about.


Patrick Townson


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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Re: Touchtone History)
Date: 16 Jul 90 14:09:39 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, iosg::[e-mail]
(Nigel Roberts 0860 578600) writes (with regard to TXE-2 exchanges):

>Is there any way it could support TouchTone? (A BT engineer once told
>me that there might be some kind of black box which they can add).

I believe the TXE-3 was the first BT-installed switch that supported
touch-tone (but you had to ask them to switch it on).

In theory they can bolt a black box on to anything to give it TouchTone
capability, including Strowgers. I don't know whether this is common
practice.

>And does anyone have a guess as to how long it will be before it is
>updated to something modern? (I IMAGINE we've got another 19 years of
>pulse dialling to put up with, but I hope I'm wrong ...)

I hope so too. My understanding is that if it doesn't do TouchTone, it
ain't going to be around much longer (two or three years, max). Then
again they might decide to bolt on lots of black boxes instead of
replacing the switches. :-(

We might be way behind the Americans in offering state-of-the-art
services, but at least the UK network is pretty much the same across
the country (no hand-cranked phones(!), no non-automatic exchanges,
international dialling from _anywhere_, easy and cheap LD access to
the entire country).  I appreciate that these things are rare in the
States, but they are non-existent here.

Now if only they'd offer me itemised billing ...

>Nigel Roberts (on contract at DEC)

That's too bad. We've all got to earn a crust somehow, I suppose. ;-) ;-)


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Good For a Laugh: Polish Payphones
Date: 16 Jul 90 14:50:26 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>


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

>It's just that we haven't yet faced up to killing off this
>unofficial but pervasive English system of measures...  ;-} ;-}

Good luck. We gave up years ago. (Walk into a pub and ask for half a
litre of beer, and see how long it takes the rest of the pub to stop
laughing).


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: White House Phone Trivia (Was: Touchtone History)
Date: 16 Jul 90 20:41:09 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


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

>2.) The WHCA itself still doesn't know how to maintain anything but
>good old 1A Key Telephone equipment;

Nope, a few years ago (3-4?) I saw a newspaper story - maybe trade
press - about the installation of a DMS-100/SL-100 on Pennsylvania
Avenue to service the White House.  Don't recall if it was a PBX or
telco, but I remember that special security - at the locked steel door
level - was involved.


Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
 ..uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 [e-mail] 613-765-2337

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 07:05 PDT
From: Gregg Siegfried <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination
Organization: Siegfried and Associates Consulting Services


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

$Before leaving on my trip, I mentioned that I spoke with the Public
$Relations Department at AT&T to obtain a reponse from them regarding
$their practice of illegally red-lining, or discriminating in the use
$of their calling card.

$[...]

$Anyone, that is, unless you are a Mexican living in southern
$California wanting to call home from a payphone at the place where you
$live ... or if you are an Israeli or Iranian citizen at JFK trying to
$call home before you board your flight. Then, the presumption by AT&T
$is you are likely to be committing fraud, so your call will not be
$processed.

It is my impression that the "redlining" of various high-fraud areas
by AT&T is more for their customers' protection than their own.  The
concern is that there are many people hanging around these areas
trying to 'spot' credit card numbers as they're used to make calls.
Disallowing the use of credit cards in these areas has a twofold
effect ... First, since you cannot use your credit card, an insidious
individual cannot spot it as you make a call, and second, the thief
with a stolen credit card number cannot use it in that particular area
as a "long distance reseller" as is the practice.

As such, I believe a class-action suit would be overkill.  You may
argue that it is your right to give your credit card number away to an
onlooker if you feel like it, and to a certain extent I agree.  On the
other hand, since the telephone company usually ends up footing the
bill for fraud ("Hey!  I didn't make these calls!  Take them off my
bill."), you can hardly blame them for taking such minimal measures to
cover their backs.


Gregg Siegfried                  Siegfried and Associates Consulting Services
[e-mail]                  --------------------------------------------
{att,nwnexus}!sacs!grs           [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #488
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14125;
          17 Jul 90 4:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06684;
          17 Jul 90 2:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08230;
          17 Jul 90 1:27 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Jul 90 0:53:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #489
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Jul 90 00:52:19 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 489

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telecom Peeves [Glenn R. Stone]
    Re: Telecom Peeves [Steven King]
    Re: Touchtone History [Jay Maynard]
    Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Touchtone History) [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Cleaning Pulses [Nickolas Landsberg]
    Re: Cleaning Pulses [Charles Hawkins Mingo]
    Re: Cleaning Pulses [P. Knoppers]
    Re: Help with Rotored Lines / Rack Mounted Modems [Doug Faunt]
    Re: Info on Hotel PBX's Wanted [Blake Farenthold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Glenn R. Stone" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves
Date: 16 Jul 90 17:02:39 GMT
Organization: Dead Poets Society


In <[e-mail]> claris!netcom![e-mail] (Isaac
Rabinovitch) writes:

>About a year ago, one of those yuppie electrotoy catalogs featured a
>phone with *no* mouthpiece; it gets your voice from jawbone
>vibrations!  DAK sells walkie-talkies built on the same principle.  I
>dimly recall seeing a TV article on the invention of such technology
> -- this was long ago, and it's original use was for helicopter
>intercoms during the Vietnam War.  Never seen it in stores, though,
>and I've no idea whether it actually works.

Heh.  This idea goes back to WWII, when standard Navy issue was a
throat mike... you can see 'em if your local TV station syndicates
"Black Sheep Squadron" (usually late nite). They hadn't come up
with the idea of a noise-cancelling mike yet, and it was/is pretty
hard to soundproof against 2000+hp and a thirteen-foot prop going
near-transonic an armspan or two from your nose (in the case of the
Corsair).

I've never heard one in action, so I don't know how well it worked,
but it seems to have got us thru the war, so there must be something
there.


Glenn R. Stone
[e-mail]

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves
Date: 16 Jul 90 16:53:23 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

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

>> Do double-hearing people
>> find that noise in the non-phone ear is a real problem, or does the
>> brain automatically just filter it out?

>The brain filters it out. It is very amusing to watch people in a
>noisy location jamming a finger in the opposite ear. That technique
>does little good when the real problem is noise entering through the
>mouthpiece. At one of my transmitter sites, there is a standard phone
>that I have been too lazy to modify. When making calls in the noisy
>room, covering my other ear has virtually no effect on
>intelligibility, but cupping my hand over the mouthpiece makes all the
>difference in the world.

Speak for yourself.  The mouthpiece on the phone at home picks up much
less ambient noise than my other ear does.  I can't vouch for
machinery noise (droning fans and whatnot) but jamming a finger in my
ear helps considerably in blocking background conversation.

Actually, those of us with stereoscopic hearing (holy mixed metaphors,
Batman!) can filter out a great deal of noise coming in the other ear,
just like you sucessfully filter out the image of your nose that one
eye sees when looking to the extreme right or left.  It's only in
extreme circumstances (like a raucous gaming run going on in the
background) that I have to block the other ear.


Steve King, Motorola Cellular  (...uunet!motcid!king)

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

From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 11:44:02 GMT


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

>) It was probably a Department of Defense phone. These phones looked
>) like touch-tone, made noises *similar* to touch-tone, but were on the
>) private DOD Autovon network.

>Each of the buttons makes two tones, one based on row and one based on
>column, selected so as not to be harmonics of each other. (Hence
>*Dual* Tone Multi Frequency.) The frequencies are:
>            1209    1336    1477    1653 Hz
>        697 Hz     1     2     3     A
>        770 Hz     4     5     6     B
>        852 Hz     7     8     9     C
>        941 Hz     *     0     #     D
>Most phones don't use the last column, but CCITT defines it.

You'll find that almost all amateur radio DTMF keypads have the fourth
column in place; those tones are extensively used for remote control
purposes on amateur VHF/UHF-FM.

The DOD keypads did use the standard CCITT DTMF tones. I know of
several hams who have surplus four-column DOD keypads, and use them
interchangeably with the regular kind. They're nice, too, being
backlit and easy to see in the dark. The fourth column is labeled
Fo/F/I/P instead of A/B/C/D, for Flash Override, Flash, Immediate, and
Priority.  Instead of * and #, it has a five-pointed star (general
priority? :-) and A (no idea what this one's for).


Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL
[e-mail]

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Fee Abolished in CA
Date: 16 Jul 90 01:07:15 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Wollongong, Australia


Touchtone may be cheaper than pulse dialing in terms of the equipment
required to process it and the time it takes to process the dialing
but the exchange must still support pulse dialing.

Is this true? If so, it may be the only justification for charging
more for tone dialing. Have any exchanges been built/modified so that
ONLY tone dialing works?


David Wilson

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Re: Touchtone History)
Date: 16 Jul 90 16:21:31 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, iosg::[e-mail]
(Nigel Roberts 0860 578600) writes...

>She went away for four or five minutes and to my amazement came back
>with the answer. 'It's a TXE-2' she said. Full marks to Sarah for
>this.

>What exactly is a TXE-2? (My guess is that it's a magnetic reed type
>exchange).

According to a person here who used to be involved with a large
European switch maker, the TXE-2 is indeed an early electronic-control
exchange using electromechanical matrices.  It's not as "smart" as a
1ESS; the control is more on the order of wired logic than a CPU.

>Is there any way it could support TouchTone? (A BT engineer once told
>me that there might be some kind of black box which they can add).

Probably, if they bothered to insert the registers, but that doesn't
mean they usually do.

I don't know too much more about the beast; the TXE series was an
improvement over Strowger but is certainly not up to today's
standards.  The electronic control probably makes it a lot more
reliable than a traditional WECo crossbar!


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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 12:18:39 EDT
From: Nickolas Landsberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Pulses
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>In brief, I have heard that at one time AT&T sent out "cleaning
>pulses" in the wee hours of morning to "fuse shorts in the line."

>Assuming this is drivel, is there any basis for such a thing?

>Just wondering,

This comes up periodically, so let me dust off the old brain cells
and try to come up with a semblance of the truth -

All(?) Electronic switches and most electro-mechnical switches can be
programmed to run a test or series of tests on the subscriber loop.
Generically, these are called Automatic Line Insulation Tests (ALIT).
There are three types of tests which may be performed: FEMF (Foreign
EMF, a.k.a. Cross Battery), SRG (Short and Ring Ground), and TRG (Tip
and Ring Ground).  The one which I am most familiar with (being an old
Outside Plant type) is the FEMF.  In theory, especially if paper
insulated cable is still in use, any moisture in the cable will
condense at night and reduce the insulation resistance.  Moisture will
tend to congregate at a low spot in the cable, thus reducing the
resistance of a number of subscriber pairs at once.  This argument is
probably specious in PIC (Plastic/polyethelene ? Insulated Cable.

Running the tests also competes with providing dial-tone, thus, the
switches are programmed to run the test at night.

The telephone number of lines which failed the test are printed out on
the maintenance channel of the switch.  In some companies, this
channel is also monitored by yet another computer system which
translates the telephone number to cable & pair, and, in some cases
performs yet another test to verify that the condition is still there.

The voltage applied during testing has nothing to do with "cleaning
pulses" or to "fuse shorts on the line."  About the only thing I saw
which would "fuse shorts" is a "630" set. (630 Volts DC applied to the
line.)  P.S.  Does anyone know if these are still in use?  It's been
years since I left the Outside Plant Dept.


Nick Landsberg

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

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Pulses
Date: 16 Jul 90 01:51:10 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew A.
Houghton) writes:

>In brief, I have heard that at one time AT&T sent out "cleaning
>pulses" in the wee hours of morning to "fuse shorts in the line."

    "At one time?"  I get half second chirps on my AT&T phone
around 1 AM, usually once or twice a week.

    I had assumed it was the local phone compant (C&P) since they
had warned me of middle of the night interruptions in service last
March, when they apparantly replaced the local switch.

    It sounds like someone is phoning you, and changing their mind
real quick (fraction of a ring).


Charlie Mingo                    Internet: [e-mail]
2209 Washington Circle #2            CI$:  71340,2152
Washington, DC  20037                AT&T:  202/785-2089

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

From: "P. Knoppers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cleaning Pulses
Date: 16 Jul 90 14:02:51 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Knoppers <[e-mail]>
Organization: Delft University of Tech, Dep. of Electrotechnical Engineering


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Andrew A.
Houghton) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 479, Message 5 of 14

>In brief, I have heard that at one time AT&T sent out "cleaning
>pulses" in the wee hours of morning to "fuse shorts in the line."

>Assuming this is drivel, is there any basis for such a thing?
Yes and no...

The yes part:
Phone companies (at least in The Netherlands) regularly test
subscriber lines using voltages up to several hundreds of Volts.
Subscriber equipment is designed to survive such tests. The tests
are carried out with no (or almost no) human supervision. Lines that
happen to be in use during the test are skipped.

The no part:
I don't think that the phone company expects to cure faults in the
isolation of the subscriber loops. It might work for a while if you
are lucky, but the line will never become reliable again. The aim of
these test is to detect problems before regular service is hampered.


P. Knoppers, Delft Univ. of Technology, The Netherlands,
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Jul 90 20:51:39 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help with Rotored Lines/ Rack Mounted Modems


It turns out, that the way to busy-out a bad modem in a T2500
rack-mount system is to pull the modem out of the rack, and send it in
to get it fixed, presumably.  This can be done on a running card cage
with no problems.  If you could get someone to flip a switch, you
could get them to pull a card.

Another solution is to check out various styles of "call
distribution".  We have a ATT Systme 75 here at cisco, and one of the
styles of call distribution is called "uniform call distribution".  It
tries to route the next call to a group to the least-used line
available, but never the same line as the last call, so if there's a
bad modem, the user just hangs up and redials, and gets a different
line.  Bad modems are indicated pretty reliably by various statistics
that our, cisco, terminal servers keep.  I don't know if "UCD" is
available from central offices, however.  good luck, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 15:27:16 CDT
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info on Hotel PBX's Wanted


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

>The system would then ring the room.  If there was no answer, it could take a
>voice mail message,...activate the guest's message light, and allow the guest
>to retrieve the message, as though the guest had a personal answering
>machine

[now for today's Farenthold telecomm horror story]

A service similar to what you described is/was in place at the Westin
Gallaria in Houston.  If there was no answer in your room you'd go
back to the operator who'd ask if you wanted to leave a message. If
so, she'd then transfer you to a voice mail box which recorded your
message and was SUPPOSED to light up your message light.

There were several problems with this arrangement, however.  The most
annoying was it didn't always light your message light.  I was in the
hotel three nights. The first day the system seemed to work fine.  I
didn't get any messages the second day.  The third day my message came
on and I had three messages, two of which were datestamped with the
previous day.  I was HOT.  Fortunantly the calls were friends wanting
to buy me dinner, not clients ... but it was still a bad showing for
the hotel.  I felt bad complaining pecause I like to see new
technologies expanding new places but it really hacked me off that I
missed the message.

I think the problem was HUMAN ERROR.  There was FAR too much human
intervention in the process.  When there was no answer instead of
going AUTOMATICALLY to the Voice Mail box you went to an operator
first.  I suspect it was the operator who forgot tt turn on the
message waiting light.  You also had to go through an operator to
retreive my messages ('could you connect me to my voice mailbox
please' always got a strange reaction ... not sure if she didn't know
the voice mailboxes were their messaging system or if she was
surprised I knew their messaging system was a voice mail box.  The
boxes lacked good prompts so I never figured out how to retrieve saved
messages (I wonder what the person who got the message I accidently
forwarded thought?)  I wonder if my old messages are still there,
months later, taking up disk space.

On a side note: Our Office phone system is an old ITT 2100. Is there
an auto attendant that will work with it that has the 'type in the
user's name using the letters on the phone' option?  Seems like a
great idea for after hours calls.


    UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake
Internet: [e-mail]


Blake Farenthold         | Voice: 800/880-1890     |    MCI: BFARENTHOLD
1200 MBank North         |   Fax: [phone]     |    CIS: 70070,521
Corpus Christi, TX 78471 |   BBS: 512/882-1899     |  GEnie: BLAKE

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #489
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14841;
          17 Jul 90 5:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01802;
          17 Jul 90 3:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06684;
          17 Jul 90 2:28 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Jul 90 1:27:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #490
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Jul 90 01:27:38 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 490

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Phones Inquiry [Dan Flak]
    Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work? [John Higdon]
    Re: Answering Machine Security [Thomas Farmer]
    Re: C.O. "Secret" Numbers [Charles Hawkins Mingo]
    Re: Touchtone History [Randy Gregor]
    Re: E911 Experience [Roy Smith]
    Re: E911 Experience [Tom Perrine]
    "911 is a Joke" [Steve Elias]
    Nicad "Memory" [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz
Date: 16 Jul 90 00:44:56 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]> writes:

> (3) When I call from a COCOT to the cell phone, and it is powered off,
> I get an intercept message from the cell service provider and then the
> COCOT _eats_ my quarter.  It's the latter which concerns me.

Simple, and the subject of a personal campaign. The COCOT has no way
of detecting answer supervision, so the internal microprocessor
"listens" for voice from the other end. They are pretty good at this,
but they can't tell the difference between a "hello" and an "I'm
sorry...".

There are two ways around it. Give COCOTs answer supervision
indication or coin COS lines is one. Not bloody likely to happen soon.
The other would be for the cellular provider to preface the recording
(indicating that the cell phone is unavailable) with SIT. Most COCOTs
are smart enough to know that anything following SIT is advisory and
not supervised. And they won't collect the money. I have been trying
to get the cellular providers in this area to do that for some time,
but I have yet to find anyone who knows what I am talking about.

Does this give anyone any ideas about saving money when checking your
messages on your machine or voice mail? Oops, did I say that?


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

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

From: Dan Flak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phones Inquiry
Date: 16 Jul 90 23:53:26 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc, Seattle, Wa


There have been several enquiries in this newsgroup on "what is the
best cellular telephone to buy"?

You do not buy just a cellular telephone. You buy a cellular telephone
company.

Each area is serviced by two cellular companies. Check out which one
suits you best. Ask to see their coverage area. After they show you a
map covering the entire state, then ask them to show you a map of
where their cell sites are located. Generally speaking, the fewer cell
sites they have, the more holes they will have in their coverage, the
less reliable their system will be (blocked and dropped calls) and the
worse voice quality will be. Pay particular attention to those
geographic areas you use most.

Take a look at their features. Do they have 24 hour per day customer
care? What are their "peak hour" windows? Ask them to explain their
"roaming" agreements. (If you plan to stay local, roaming won't be as
important to you as to someone who travels out of the area a lot). If
at all possible, ask people what they think about their service (take
this with a grain of salt, people are 16 times more apt to gripe than
to praise).

As for the hardware, you are open to a lot of choices. Almost any
reputable company will make good hardware. There are some brand names
you should avoid. Ask whichever company you decide to go with (call
them direct, don't rely on a resaler's word) what they think of brand
so-and-so. It's amazing how the same few brands always wind up on the
bottom of everybody's list.

Have your mobile unit installed professionally. If you are serious
about having the best service possible, get a roof mounted antenna.
You may get away with a glass mounted antenna if you stay within well
covered areas at all times.

What is best for you depends very much on what your needs are.  One
company may have great coverage everywhere except where you need it.
The other company may have spotty coverage, but cover the areas that
are important to you well. You may need a 3/4 wavelength antenna on
the roof of your car, or you may remain so well within the coverage
areas that a portable, laying horizontal six inches above the pavement
in the map case of a metal door on your car will work. (Mine does! As
an engineer, I am stumped as to why I receive a signal at all under
those conditions).

The choice of the cellular carrier, and the quality of the
installation are far more important than what type of terminal
equipment you buy.


  Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W.,
Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak)

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can One Disable Call-Waiting If *70 Doesn't Work?
Date: 15 Jul 90 23:37:06 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


ncoast!fmsystm![e-mail] writes:

> A personal note: GTD-5's ... they had a lot of potential, but GTE
> never really got around to making them 100% right.

It's just the NeverEndingStory of GTE. What DO they make 100% right?
80%? 40%? How about 10%?

> All the programming types are now in Ft Wayne or elsewhere and
> heaven forbid any of those people should talk to a lowly member of the
> public about GTE's all to frequent programming problems.  As a
> contrast, I regularly talk to software types at Ohio Bell, Alltel and
> United ... they make mistakes, but I can usually get to someone and get
> them corrected.  With GTE it takes threats of PUCO complaints (which I
> am prepared to do ... I keep logs of all this crap).

This is significantly at the heart of why GTE is the way it is. (Gee,
I had to struggle with that last sentence. This IS after all a family
forum.) In my 30 or so years dealing with GTE, I have yet to talk to a
single person who knows anything about -- well, er, anything. Front
line people will "get back to you" at some time in the future. You can
spend a great amount of time explaining the difficulty and then days
later discover that the person you talked to had no concept of what
you were saying and as a result your trouble was dismissed by the
interior people. They NEVER let you talk to a real person. My own
personal belief is that they don't exist.

In contrast, there are many people at Pac*Bell who have, over the
course of the years, given me their internal phone numbers. These are
real people: programmers, CO maintenance people, upper level
administrators. Some of them even communicate via e-mail. It is very
interesting to actually speak to the person who will be making the
decision concerning a cutover in my CO. As Macy points out, these
people can make mistakes, but when there is communication the problems
can ultimately be solved.

Let's face it: an LEC is in the communications business. But when you
deal with GTE, that fact is obscured. I have a data circuit -- one end
terminates in Campbell (Pac*Bell) and the other end terminates in Los
Gatos (Gee Hee Hee). I'll skip the fact that every single failure has
been involved with the Los Gatos end. I have trouble numbers for both
companies. Guess who I call and why. Even though the trouble is always
in Los Gatos, I find that the Pac*Bell people can actually get GTE out
of bed (something I can't do if I call the GTE repair number), off
their butts, and on the problem. Pac*Bell people keep me advised of
progress, make sure everything is OK, and give me internal callback
numbers in case I have any unscheduled questions. GTE, on the other
hand, asks if someone will be there during business hours (a
godforsaken unattended mountaintop site) and then not another word is
heard. Callback number? 611.


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

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

From: Thomas Farmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Security
Organization: Actrix Public Access UNIX, Wellington, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 09:14:21 GMT


    I know of some people who have extensively hacked into at least
one voice mail system. It wasn't hard ... all new accounts default to
a password of 0000. Most people don't bother changing them.  Password
length is limited to four digits unlike some other systems.

    Irony: One of the hacked voice mail boxes (with a password of
0000) belonged to a computer security consulting company!!!! :-)


mail:  [e-mail]   (I think)

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

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C.O. "Secret" Numbers
Date: 16 Jul 90 02:11:43 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


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

>A friend from Florida once had a phone installed and they neglected to
>tell him the number. *Of course* they couldn't look up a new service
>without the number, and Southern Bell told him he'd have to wait until
>the first bill came. He was saved by a wrong number - the caller was
>kind enough to tell him what number he was trying to reach.

    Of course you could just call directory assistance, and ask
for your own number.  When I moved to Washington two years ago, C&P
told me my number when they installed the service.  After a few days
of not getting any calls, I dialed my number, and found it was out of
service.  I called directory assistance, and found out that C&P
actually gave me a different number.  Just another C&P horror story.


Charlie Mingo            Internet: [e-mail]
2209 Washington Circle #2    CI$:  71340,2152
Washington, DC  20037        AT&T:  202/785-2089

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

From: paralogics!compsm![e-mail] (Randy Gregor)
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 16 Jul 90 08:01:21 GMT
Organization: Computersmith, Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]>, boulder!boulder![e-mail]
(Robert Kinne) writes:

> Autovon phones had (have still, as far as I know) a 4x4 key matrix
> instead of the 4x3 on conventional DTMF.

And in article <[e-mail]>, drivax![e-mail]
(M.Marking) writes:

> Each of the buttons makes two tones, one based on row and one based on
> column, selected so as not to be harmonics of each other. (Hence
> *Dual* Tone Multi Frequency.) The frequencies are:

>             1209    1336    1477    1653 Hz
>         697 Hz     1     2     3     A
>         770 Hz     4     5     6     B
>         852 Hz     7     8     9     C
>         941 Hz     *     0     #     D
>
> Most phones don't use the last column, but CCITT defines it.

Many of the commercial DTMF generator chips have (or at least did
have) the extended fourth column capability - it's just not used much
(if at all) in consumer applications.

I have a phone manufactured in 1979 with a Mostek MK5092N tone
generator (same as National Semiconductor TP5092).  To get the column
four tones, I added a SPDT switch to select between pins 5 and 9, thus
toggling the third physical keypad column between "normal" column 3
tones (1477 Hz) and extended column 4 tones (1633 Hz, according to
National's Linear Data Book).


Randy Gregor
uunet!paralogics!compsm!rlg [phone]
Computersmith   Box 25d  Los Angeles, CA  90025

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 17:46:04 GMT


    This is getting a bit off the telecom track, but I once had an
odd experience with non-believing emergency folks.  About seven or so
years ago, I was walking on 42nd St and 9th Ave in New York.  The
Transit Authority had recently started buying buses with dot-matrix
destination signs, and the one I saw was flashing "Emergency", "Call
Police", "Get Help" or something like that.  Clever, I thought, and
ran across the street to grab two cops standing around.  "Hey, the
sign on the bus says to call the police!" I said.  "Huh?  What sign on
the bus?  What are you talking about?"

You can guess the rest; I had to practically push the cops in front of
the bus before the believed me or had any idea what the hell I was
talking about.  The TA had a good idea putting emergency buttons where
the driver could hit it discretely (and this driver had done so by
accident in this case) but apparantly never got around to telling the
Police Department about it (or, I would guess, the 911 folks).


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

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

From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Date: 16 Jul 90 18:29:40 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


With all of the negative 911 experiences being described, I thought I
would mention that, at least here in a backwater :-) of Pac Bell land
(Poway, near San Diego), 911 works!

The across-the-street neighbor's kids were visiting from college. They
parked their 60's vintage VW bus in front of our house. A passer-by
knocked on our door, "your van is on fire". My wife called 9-1-1, I
grabbed the kitchen extinguisher and headed out the door. I could hear
the fire sirens before I got to the curb. (The fire station is eight
blocks away.)

Apparently the 9-1-1 conversation went like this:

9-1-1 OP: "What kind of emergency?"
SO: "Fire"
(1-ring)
Fire? OP: "Are you calling from <our address>?"
SO: "Yes, its a car fire in front of our house"
(Five to ten second pause, then sound of sirens in the background)
Fire OP: "They are on the way", followed by questions about the fire,
is everyone out, was anyone hurt, etc.

Shazamm! I guess this is exactly the way its supposed to work.

Side Note: Even though the fire fighters were on the scene within three
minutes of the call, the van was a total loss. The kids had replaced
the fuel line with aquarium tubing "because it was cheaper". According
to the fire fighters, this accounts for more VW bug and van fires than
any other cause.


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
                                        |[phone]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: "911 is a Joke"
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 07:58:35 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


John Higdon wrote:

> Calling 911 about once a year for assorted emergencies has resulted in
> prompt, efficient service. But I have a contingency plan for that day
> when I get the response that you have described. I will ask the
> operator for his/her "operator number" and inform the person that I
> will now hang up and call the agency direct if s/he can't help me. If,
> after one second, the attitude hasn't rotated 180 degrees, I will do
> just that. And then when the smoke clears, I will file a formal
> complaint.

Depending on where you live, John, you might find that when the smoke
clears, you have no desk, no paper, and no house from which to file a
complaint.  Or perhaps no health to file a complaint.

I imagine that San Jose has reasonable 911 services, but in many
cities, it's true that "911 is a joke."  Why should they hurry when
it's "just another gang murder"?


eli

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 15:58:32 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nicad "Memory"


Can someone recap the discussion of "memory" in nicad batteries?  I'm
having a problem with my HT5300 AT&T cordless phone.  I had it
unplugged for about two months, and like a dummy didn't disconnect the
battery in the handset.  So, I assume that it was on standby (since it
was off the base for awhile), and totally discharged the battery.
This is bad news, right?  It's been charging for over two days, and
reads only 2.65 volts.  The battery is rated at 3.6V, 720mAh.  When I
take the handset off the base, the LO BATTERY light comes on, and none
of the keys do anything.  Any thoughts?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #490
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14977;
          17 Jul 90 5:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01802;
          17 Jul 90 3:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06684;
          17 Jul 90 2:34 CDT
Date:     Tue, 17 Jul 90 2:12:53 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #491
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Jul 90 02:12:32 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 491

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CMU Story and Warning [James Price Salsman]
    Telephone Hints from Magneto Days [Larry Lippman]
    Magneto Telephones [David Barts]
    Fun With ANI [John Higdon]
    College Pranks [Bill Parrish]
    Re: Telephone Humor & Insulation Testing [Paul J. Zawada]
    Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query [Velu Sinha]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 10:17:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Price Salsman <[e-mail]>
Subject: CMU Story and Warning
Organization: Carnegie Mellon


 Since many people in educational establishments read this sort of
thing, I thought I'd relate a story from my freshman year here at
Carnegie Tech, along with a warning that might help others prevent
what happened to me.

 I enrolled late, and after freshman camp, my first exposure to
dormitory life came as temporary housing in the lounge of Scobell
Hall, a dorm dating back to the early 30's or so with plenty of
interesting wiring history.

 I was not a typical freshman hacker type; even for Carnegie Tech, I
had been a bit more acquainted with the telephone system than most of
my peers ... OKAY, I admit it, I used to blue-box off a CAMA trunk in
the 303 NPA and had been known to dial into the occasional Plovernet
or similar "phracker" BBS, including a particularly interesting one
known as "Farmers of Doom."  F.O.D. was operated by someone by the
name of Mark Tabas who said that he had re-wired a payphone into a
defunct extension in his home, and conned the CO into adding another
line to the pay phone.  While I'm not sure if this was true, the
F.O.D. extension number *was* similar to that of all the local
payphones (NNX-99XX).  Later, after F.O.D. had some sort of legal
difficulties, -99XX was changed to -2600.

 Anyway, I had put all the hacking nonsense behind me when I enrolled
in Carnegie Mellon: I was there to learn.  But to my dismay I
discovered that the "temporary" room in which I had been placed and
which the housing service indicated would probably be my abode for the
next four to eight weeks was missing a proper telephone connection.
This was quite distressing, so I decided to investigate to see if
anything could be done.

 It turned out that the temporary room had a wall socket, and an
extension had been assigned to the room in the R.A.'s phone plan, so
it seemed to just be a case of a wiring connection that needed help to
be completed.

 I explained all this in extreme detail to the Dean of Housing, who
seemed more impressed with my technical prowess than willing to act on
the problem: he explained that many of the people in temporary rooms
lacked telephone service, and the fact that my name was on the end of
the list for permanent housing was simply an unfortunate feature of my
college experience that I would benefit from having to live with.

 I didn't agree, and neither did my Resident Assistant.  After
securing his permission, and the permission of my neighbors so that I
could bridge our lines if there was no active line ready to be
connected to my room, I bid myK*$a"*E"[) Chem-E roommate goodbye and
set off to correct the oversight of the workers who last hacked on
Scobell Hall.

 The low-voltage wiring boxes were unlocked and clearly marked: I had
no trouble locating my room's extension.  I did have trouble, however,
trying to understand the purpose of the adjacent wiring.  After
determining that the rooms assigned centrex extension was probably
never turned on, I started to bridge by line into my neighbors.

 As soon as I had finished the nearly imperceptible job, a horde of
fire engines pulled in to Margaret Morrison Street with sirens blaring
and lights flashing.  I was stunned.  I knew where the fire circuits
were, and had carefully avoided them except for a single
high-resistance voltage meter check with.  Certainly no audible alarms
had gone off in the building, and the signal was such that even the
firemen seemed clueless as to their precise destination.

 How I avoided panic, I don't know.  I removed my encriminating bridge
and returned to my room, relating to my R.A. that I, as the obvious
culprit, would simply have to turn myself in.  That opportunity
presented its self shortly when the everhelpful CMU Campus Police
arrived to investigate.  Names were taken, stories were told and
re-told.

 The next day I was placed on housing probation for a full semester:
another infraction and I would have been evicted!  The alarm had been
declared an error in the City equipment by the Fire Department; if it
hadn't I would have learned about the pleasures, nay, the relative
paradise of off-campus housing much sooner.

 The day after that, my roommate and I were moved to a permanent dorm
room.

 The next semester, I was arrested by the Secret Service, but that's
another story for another time.

 MORAL: Campus Telecom Administrators Everywhere, I urge you: please
make sure that all emergency wiring is clearly labeled as such, and
that terminal boxes are padlocked ... hackers will be hackers, and it
doesn't take a phone phreak from Carnegie Tech to cause far more
problems than you would ever want, and remember: An Ounce of
Prevention is worth a Gallon of Cure.


:James Salsman
::Carnegie Mellon

[Moderator's Note: I'll try to remember tomorrow to relate the story
of how I spilled a soft drink on the switchboard at UC. I was very
mortified by the experience, but the repairman who came out (it was a
Sunday afternoon) didn't snitch on me to the phone room supervisor, so
it went mostly undiscovered, although the regular operator who sat at
that position complained the next day that something seemed wrong. PT]

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

Subject: Telephone Hints from Magneto Days
Date: 16 Jul 90 20:27:10 EDT (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


    In keeping with some of the recent discussion about "the last"
magneto telephone exchange, I thought Telecom readers might enjoy a
few quotations from a volume in my collection of old books on
telephony.  The book I have chosen is "A B C of the Telephone" by
James E. Homans, copyright 1901, published by Theo. Audel & Co. of New
York.  At the end of this book is a section on "Telephone Don'ts",
quoted as follows:

1.  DON'T tap on the diaphragm of the transmitter or receiver with a
pencil or other article.

2.  DON'T drop the receiver or throw it down; you are apt to break it
if you do.  The shell is made of hard rubber and is brittle.

3.  DON'T experiment with the interior mechanism if you are not posted
on telephony.

4.  DON'T talk in a loud voice because you do not hear the speaker at
the other end of the line very well.

5.  DON'T expect satisfactory results when your receiver cord is broken,
binding post screws loose, or where the interior contacts have grown
poor from want of attention.

6.  DON'T expect your telephone to give satisfaction if the batteries
are exhausted or connections at binding posts corroded.

7.  DON'T expect your telephone to operate if you have forgotten to
hangup up the receiver and left the battery on a short circuit for
several hours.

8.  DON'T place on top of the machine articles of metal.  If you do,
your telephone may short circuit and you cannot call out to line.

9.  DON'T oil the hinges of the bell box.  [note: used as contacts]

10.  DON'T open the door out of curiosity and then forget to lock it
again.

11.  DON'T short-circuit the instrument by jamming a lead pencil between
the lightning arrester points.

12.  DON'T stand too far from the transmitter while talking.

13.  DON'T talk loud - it is unnecessary - but talk clearly and not
too fast.

14.  DON'T blame the telephone if you do not perfectly understand at
all times the party on the other end of the line.  Remember, that all
voices are not alike; some are particularly well adapted to telephone
conversation, while others are very unsatisfactory.

15.  DON'T complain to the office that your telephone is out of order
until you are sure of it.

16.  DON'T forget to ring off when through talking.

17.  DON'T expect to obtain good results unless you do your share in
keeping up the apparatus and the line.

18.  DON'T expect the best treatment in the world at the hands of
exchange operators if you have given them occasion to put your telephone
on the list of "chronic kickers".

19.  DON'T waste the operator's time in useless talk.  Remember, there
are other subscribers to the exchange who also expect her prompt response
to their calls.

20.  DON'T lose your patience; you are simply powerless, and loss of
temper only makes a bad matter worse.  If the exchange is not treating
you properly, report it, and if no relief is afforded, provided you
are in the right, order your telephone taken out.

    It's hard to believe that there were once simpler times when
the ultimate solution to poor service as suggested in #20 could
actually be carried out! :-)


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, 16 Jul 90 09:05:32 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magneto Telephones


In the late 70's or early 80's, I was on a family trip to Santa
Barbara, and we stopped at a rest area along Interstate 40 in the
Mojave Desert.  The telephone at the rest area looked like a normal
Western Electric pay phone, except that it had no dial mechanism and
there was a wooden box with a hand-crank magneto mounted beneath the
phone.

The instruction sheet for the phone was either typed or handwritten
and said to announce that you were calling from "Fenner Roadside Box
Number 4", after successfully ringing up the operator.  (It has been
about ten years, so I may not have remembered the name 100%
correctly.)

It was a cool December afternoon, and the wind was howling across the
desert. This must have induced considerable static charges in the
phone line, because the phone was ringing almost constantly.  Picking
up the receiver did not stop the ringing, and the only thing I could
hear on the line was a very LOUD, harsh static.  I was unable to raise
the operator by cranking the magneto, presumably because the static
was also causing false ringing on her end and she was deliberately
ignoring rings on that line until the wind died down and the static
went away.

It has been over five years since I have been on that stretch of I-40,
and I have never been to the Fenner rest area other than that one
time.  It would be interesting to hear what has happened to the public
phone service there.  Perhaps John Higdon has a story or two to tell
about the phone service in this area.


David Barts            Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

Subject: Fun With ANI
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 16 Jul 90 19:48:11 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen
Trak" (with the same announcer on the machine that did "Weather
Trak").  You call the number and you get a pollen report for your
area. Based on the ANI data obtained in real time you are given,
supposedly, the correct report. It gives me a Sacramento area report;
that's hardly useful since San Jose is somewhat outside Sacramento's
geographic sphere of influence.

If you wish to play, the number is 800 325-5374. Be warned, however,
that the way I found out about this was from a news story that talked
about people complaining against the junk calls and mail generated by
the scooped up ANI. I used one of my Telebit lines to make the call.
If they call back they will have to log in!


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

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

From: Bill Parrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: College Pranks
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 10:31:27 PDT


I remember a prank (along the lines of asking folks to put the handset
in a bucket) that we used to do in college (this was UCSB around
1970).  The dorms were set up so that adjacent rooms shared a junction
box for telephone connection.  It was fun to call up the folks in the
next room, identify yourself as "the phone company", and tell them
that their bill was overdue, and that their service was being
removed.  Next thing to do was to pull on the wire as though the
phone company was "pulling back" their instrument into the wall.

I had this "pulled" on me once, and had fun doing it a few times
myself ... by the way, I don't recommend doing this ... we once
damaged some property by having the phone instrument knock something
off while skittering towards the junction box!  (yup ... we fixed it).

It was also fun to call up the phone at the dorm desk (which had no
ringer, and was only good for local calls), wait for someone to pick
up the phone to make a call, and then say something like "FBI,
Surveillance Division, Rutherford speaking", and then act kind of
embarassed ... and say something about crossed lines.  You could get
some interesting reactions.

Oh, those college days!

And then, there was the Goleta Valley Telephone Cooperative, but
that's another story.


Bill Parrish / HP Roseville CA


[Moderator's Note: Do tell us about the Goleta Valley Telephone
Cooperative.    PT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 08:55:21 -0500
From: Paul J Zawada <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Humor & Insulation Testing


kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman):

>     Reminds me of the "telephone pranks" friends and I used to
> pull while in college - like calling people at random, pretending to
> be from the telephone company, and asking them to place their
> telephone handset in a bucket because the telephone company was going
> to "purge moisture from the telephone cables."  A surprising number of
> people actually fell for this.  I digress, but the best one was
> pretending to be from the city sewer department, claiming that there
> was a sewer collapse, and asking people not to flush their toilet for
> 24 hours.  The clincher on this one was eliciting cooperation by
> stating: "Now we can't stop you from flushing your toilet, but think
> about us sewer workers below trying to fix the problem..." :-)

Reminds me of a story I heard about a radio station on the East Cost
 ... A disk jockey told his listeners that they should put plastic bags
over the ear piece on their handset.  This was because the phone
company was going to "blow the dirt out" of the phone lines with a
huge blast of air.  People actually started to do this until the phone
company protested to the station and demanded a retraction.  The next
day the disk jockey retracted the statement, saying that he was just
kidding. He went on to say that anybody who knew anything about
telephones knew they used a high vacuum to suck the dirt out ... Sigh.
(This is all from memory, so if anybody remembers this, please correct
any errors...)


Paul J Zawada                          |   [e-mail]
Titan P3 Workstation Support           |  ...!pur-ee!zawada
Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 12:21:28 -0400
From: Velu Sinha <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query


A friend is looking for references to (sw) systems which ...

 . maintain a database of existing phone lines, distribution points,
   types of cables, what sort of cables connect what points etc

 . let you view info on phones by clicking on geographic areas/
   points, let you update data graphically and get related
   text data changed, and vice versa

 . maintain a database of rules telecom engineers use to plan
   phone networks.

 . help maintain records, help in preparing estimates for
   new cabling etc etc

This would require significant underlying Geographical Info Systems
and DBMS.

Are such systems used by Ma Bell or her 'babies'?

Any information/references/leads would be appreciated.


Thanks for your help.

[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #491
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08647;
          18 Jul 90 3:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19420;
          18 Jul 90 1:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11607;
          18 Jul 90 0:51 CDT
Date:     Wed, 18 Jul 90 0:44:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #492
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jul 90 00:44:17 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 492

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Buys Out WU Telex and Easylink [John R. Levine]
    NY Telephone Wants Ratepayers to Pay for Charity [Curtis E. Reid]
    Telephone Apparatus in Hungary [Larry Lippman]
    Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down [TELECOM Moderator]
    Busy-Transfer or Call Forwarding for Modem Line? [Steve Elias]
    Talking on Phones in Computer Rooms [Steve Elias]
    Wayne, Pa. is a Routing Center [Carl Moore]
    Trouble Getting Telephone Service [Volkhart Baumgaertner]
    Re: Soliloquy on Llama Dung [Jeremy Grodberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: AT&T Buys Out WU Telex and Easylink
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 11:33:16 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Since I haven't seen any other references to this here:

About a week ago, AT&T agreed to buy Western Union's Telex and
Easylink services.  AT&T plans to merge Easylink and AT&T Mail,
although the details are vague.  (Easylink has more subscribers, but
it has an incredibly antique user interface and is reputed to run on
aging Sperry mainframes.)  It's not clear whether AT&T plans to fix up
WU's decrepit Telex service or kill it off in favor of e-mail
gateways.  It also wasn't clear what happens to WU's Telegram and
Mailgram services.

Most Telecom readers will note the irony here, since the feds forced
AT&T to sell WU their TWX service about twenty years ago.

Regards,

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 09:19 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NY Telephone Wants Ratepayers to Pay for Charity


Excerpt from Rochester, New York Democrat & Chronicle, Monday, July
16, 1990:

    PHONE FIRM WANTS RATEPAYERS TO PAY ITS CHARITY DONATIONS

        ALBANY - New York Telephone wants its ratepayers to pay for
$10 million in contributions to charities, despite a court decision
declaring that practice unconstitutional, Attorney General Robert
Abrams said yesterday.

        Abrams said the charity request is part of the record $919
million rate hike request New York Telephone has made to the state
Public Service Commission.

        In May, the state's highest court ruled unanimously that it is
unconsitutional for utilities to count chartiable contributions as
operating exepenses that can be passed along to consumers.

        New York Telephone spokesman Peter Muller said the rate
request was made while the phone company decides whether to appeal the
court decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.  If the company does not
appeal or the court decides against the company, the money will be
refunded, he said.

        "If (the company) wants to give money to charities and other
private organizations, it should come out of company profits and not
out of the hides of consumers," Abrams said.

        Consumers have the right to choose which charities they want
to support and not be unwittingly forced to contribute to causes with
which they may not agree, Abrams said.  He called on the PSC to reject
the phone company's request.

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

Subject: Telephone Apparatus in Hungary
Date: 16 Jul 90 18:30:15 EDT (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hank
Nussbacher) writes:

> Hungary: At the beginning of 1990, the Hungarian Ministry of
> Communications split into 3 organizations: telecommunications, postal
> and customer services.  The telecommunications company is now called
> B.H.G. and has signed joined agreements with Northern Telecom.

> The current waiting time in Budapest for a phone is thirteen years and
> the national average is twelve phone lines per 100 people.

    It is not surprising to me that the telephone system in
Hungary is in rather archaic condition.  I have seen some of their
telephone apparatus.

    My involvement in the telecommunications industry probably
reached its zenith around 1977 when I was engaged in various
international consulting activities, one of which was a project for
the government of Egypt (a story for another time).  My name as a
consulting engineer was bantered about in various circles, and it
somehow reached a company in Budapest, Hungary called Budavox.

    Budavox was a manufacturer of telephone apparatus which served
the needs of Hungary and other [at the time] Communist-bloc countries.
Budavox manufactured telephone sets, PABX's and CO apparatus.

    The "director" of Budavox sent me a package of information on
their products that they had just printed in English (not too great an
English, I might add).  It seems that Budavox had learned of the
growing interconnect industry in the U.S., and had decided that they
wanted to export their goods and enter this lucrative marketplace.

    What Budavox failed to realize, however, was that in 1977
their products were already archaic and obsolete, and stood zero
chance of gaining acceptance in the U.S. interconnect market.

    Their PABX products ranged from an all-relay wall-mounted unit
with two trunks and six extensions (huge, huh? :-) ), to larger
all-relay systems to relay-crossbar technology.  Their products were
reminiscent of Ericcson-Centrum and North Electric, using all
"long-frame" style flat-spring relays.

    Their "crowning glory" was an electronic PABX of which they
were just completing development.  Unfortunately, this, too, was
already obsolete because it used electronic common control circuitry
with crossbar switching (shades of the WECO 800-series PABX).  Digital
PCM PABX's were already on the market by 1977, and here Budavox
thought they could penetrate the U.S. market with a PABX that still
used crossbar technology!

    Budavox was trying to proposition me into becoming their
exclusive U.S. representative with the intention of finding
distributors for their products.  If they had a product that was the
least bit decent, I might have taken them up on their offer since they
were offering all sorts of financial incentives.  However, the simple
truth of the matter is that I would have been ashamed to promote any
of their products in the U.S.  marketplace, and I turned them down -
*several* times because they kept writing and sending telexes for the
better part of a year.

    While I have no current knowledge of the telephone situation
in Hungary, I suspect that Budavox is still the principal supplier of
what may still be obsolete telecommunication technology.

    I would be interested in hearing from any TELECOM Digest
readers who have ever heard of or encountered any Budavox products.


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: Tue, 17 Jul 90 2:44:14 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down


A hot Sunday afternoon in August, 1959. Resentful, I go to work that
day from 3:30 <==> 11:30 PM in the UC phone room. Brash sixteen year
old that I was, I came traipzing in to work and bid adieu to the two
ladies who were grateful to see me five minutes early so they could
leave.

I worked alone Sunday evenings during the summer, when school was out
and phone traffic was minimal. I brought a large paper cup of
Pepsi-Cola with me, and had it sitting right next to me -- I knew
better -- but was just careless.

I'd been there all of five minutes, I guess, when the board got real
busy for a couple minutes, and sure enough, my arm accidently knocked
over that Pepsi and sent it dribbling down inside the ringing keys on
the front panel. The board started buzzing, and lit up like a
Christmas tree, various lights blinking off and on, etc.

After overcoming the initial shock of what I had done, I moved to a
different position to set up shop and immediatly called 611. I talked
to a guy who said he would be over in about ten minutes, but in the
meantime, 'take that electric heater they keep in the closet and set
it up to blow hot air on the underside of the front cabinet on the
board, so it will start to dry out ... '

Well, he got there ten or fifteen minutes later, and of course I had
gotten rid of all the evidence at that point. This fellow sat there
for over two hours -- until sometime around 6 PM that Sunday night as
I recall. He never said a word to me; just sat there and picking
around at the wires and the contacts.

Brash and snotty as I could be, I knew well when it was time to shut
up and keep my distance, so I sat on the other side of the room and
kept taking calls and running the board, looking over my shoulder
every minute or two to see what he was doing. This fellow was about
sixty years old at the time; he just sat there silently, stripping
wires and occasionally muttering to himself.

Finally he packs up all his stuff and said to me, 'You know, if I were
to tell Mrs. Henderson about this tomorrow, you'd be in deep trouble.'
Mrs. Henderson was the phone room supervisor, and a battle-axe in her
spare time. But he never said a word.

About six months later I saw him working on the switchboard at the
Windermere Hotel (around midnight as I recall; this guy worked
strictly what was called 'night plant', taking care of the UC
switchboards and the other boards in the area on an emergency basis),
and I thanked him for not snitching on me. He said he had done the
same thing (spilled a beverage) 'when I worked the switchboard at the
Century of Progress Fair back in 1933 ... I was the only one in our
family to have a full time regular job during the depression, and if I
had lost that job, my family would have gone on welfare ... the guy
who came out to fix the board at the fair gave me a pass and didn't
say anything about it, so I figured I owed someone else the same
favor.'

I have never kept anything liquid near phone equipment since. Monday
at our office, the kid who functions as file clerk and Fax machine
operator spilled his coffee all over the Fax keypad. The serviceman
charged a couple hundred dollars to fix it. Junior was appropriatly
mortified and spent most of the afternoon hiding in the closed files
stacks downstairs. The Chairman walked past while the serviceman was
doing his thing: 'what happened?' ... 'I dunno ... I guess these
things wear out sometimes' I told him.

Everyone has to learn this lesson the hard way it seems: *No beverages
around telecom and computer equipment*. Ever.


Patrick Townson


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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Busy-Transfer or Call Forwarding for Modem Line?
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 07:20:23 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Steve King writes that busy-transfer capability is not available in
his area.  He wants to use it to forward his calls to voice mail when
his modem is active.  Instead, Steve, if you are originating the modem
calls, why not use call-forwarding to forward your calls to voice mail
manually, before you dial the modem call?  Perhaps your CO doesn't
offer call-forwarding, either?


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Talking on Phones in Computer Rooms
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 08:10:51 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Roy Smith mentioned the difficulty encountered while talking on the
phone in a computer room; fan noise is picked up an amplified by the
handset microphone.

One solution might be to try one of those "special" handset microphone
adapters which limit the noise that the mike picks up.  Hello Direct
probably sells these beasties.


/eli


[Moderator's Note: Hello Direct is a catalog/mail order company
specializing in telephone equipment. To get on their mailing list,
dial 1-800-HI-HELLO from within the USA.    PT]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 0:03:06 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wayne, PA. is a Routing Center


I guess the routing I got via area 215 in my phone calls from Delaware
is via Wayne, Pa. (which, by the way, is in area code 215).  That is
where calls for President Carter's 1977 phone-in were routed if
originating in the Washington, DC area (presumably the local area
where Carter received the incoming calls).

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 14:30:13 EDT
From: Volkhart Baumgaertner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trouble Getting Telephone Service


  I have been in the States since August (I am from Germany) and am
just trying to get a phone installed (the first in my own name over
here). However, there seem to be some problems. I am just about to
move, and my new roommate (who is also my landlord) had another
roommate some time ago who had a phone in his own name and apparently
still owes the phone company about 140 Dollars. When I called Southern
Bells customer service here in Columbia (SC) to order my line, my
order was taken, but I was told that I could only get my installation
if my roommate's former roommate paid his debts.  My question is: Does
it conform to common practice if the phone company makes my
installation dependent on whether a person whom I don't even know pays
his bill?

  Also, I was asked how much I estimated my mothly long distance calls
would be. I said that at my old address, where I shared my old
roommate's phone, it was usually between 50 and 100 Dollars. After
being put on hold for a while, I was told that according to the
information I provided the deposit would be 240 Dollars. This seems a
bit high to me, for I know that my old roommate, who initially did not
have to pay a deposit at all, even after repeatedly not paying his
bill in time, had to deposit only 135 Dollars, the amount of the
monthly long distance calls being about the same or even a bit higher.

  I would appreciate any comments on this.

Volkhart Baumgaertner    BITNET:    T720019@univscvm
                         INTERNET:  [e-mail]

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

From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Soliloquy on Llama Dung
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeremy Grodberg)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Donald E.
Kimberlin) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 477, Message 10 of 10

>                           " LLAMA ALERT!
>       " We engineers are so good at solving problems that we
>sometimes forget to ask if the problem has been posed correctly; we
>just solve it.  Yet questioning the rationale behind product
>specifications can avoid a lot of pointless effort.
>[ Story pointing out the specification of treating leather with llama dung
>    was intended to solve a problem which was no longer relevant ]
>       " So, on your next project, make sure you know the reason
>behind the specs.  If you hear, "We've always done it that way," watch
>out for llama dung."

Unfotunately, I have seen the reverse problem more often: specs which
cannot be justified are discarded, and later the reason for the specs
is discovered.

A great example is when the Bell breakup allowed anyone to make
phones.  Companies said "What do phones have to look like this?" and
created dozens of phone designs that would hang-up when you cradled
them on your shoulder, or go off hook when the cat kicked them off the
table.  The little features of Bell telephones that were added to keep
the phone from hanging up when it fell off the table (and was in use)
were subtle, and no one thought they were of any importance, so the
were canned.  Only after several years did the new companies re-learn
the lessons.

I'm sure there are hundreds of other stories where people couldn't
think of why a feature was needed until after it was left out of the
finished product.  One needs to be equally cautious of this situation.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #492
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09921;
          18 Jul 90 4:44 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03435;
          18 Jul 90 3:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19420;
          18 Jul 90 1:55 CDT
Date:     Wed, 18 Jul 90 1:23:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #493
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jul 90 01:22:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 493

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Fun With ANI [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: Fun With ANI [John R. Levine]
    Re: Fun With ANI [David Tamkin]
    Re: TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Re: Touchtone History) [Martin Harriss]
    Re: The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses" [David Ritchie]
    Re: Connections Between Carriers Within a LATA [John R. Levin]
    How Does a Telephone Receiver Work? [Dave Michaels]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 17:48:52 GMT


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

| An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen
| Trak" (with the same announcer on the machine that did "Weather
| Trak").  You call the number and you get a pollen report for your
| area. Based on the ANI data obtained in real time you are given,
| supposedly, the correct report. It gives me a Sacramento area report;
| that's hardly useful since San Jose is somewhat outside Sacramento's
| geographic sphere of influence.

| If you wish to play, the number is 800 325-5374. Be warned, however,
| that the way I found out about this was from a news story that talked
| about people complaining against the junk calls and mail generated by
| the scooped up ANI. I used one of my Telebit lines to make the call.
| If they call back they will have to log in!

Interesting.  I called this from a PBX, and it asked me to enter my
area code and phone number.  I gave it 503 555 1212.  It gave me the
report for the Portland area.  Boy, are they gonna have a fun time
calling that number back. :-)

Now, telecom experts, why didn't they get the correct number?  Is that
because I'm in the backwaters of GTE-land, or because I called from
behind a PBX?  I should try this from home, but I don't want my number
to be junk-listed.

Just another phoney user, :-)

| Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone] ==========|
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| [e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Date: 17 Jul 90 11:45:56 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen
> Trak" (with the same announcer on the machine that did "Weather
> Trak").  You call the number and you get a pollen report for your
> area. Based on the ANI data obtained in real time you are given,
> supposedly, the correct report. It gives me a Sacramento area report;
> that's hardly useful since San Jose is somewhat outside Sacramento's
> geographic sphere of influence.

Just tried it from NJ.  It apparently didn't get the ANI, as it
prompted me for my phone number.  I entered it (908-647-xxxx) and was
then given the message for Buffalo (about 500 miles from here!).  I
know that area code 908 is a recent addition to the geography, but I
expected something more helpful than Buffalo!


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]

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 11:02:42 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Quoting John Higdon <[e-mail]>

> An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen
> Trak" You call the number and you get a pollen report for your
> area. Based on the ANI data obtained in real time you are given,
> supposedly, the correct report.
I guess the PA ANI ruling is effecting the 800 immediate ANI.

I called it and it asked me to key in my area code and phone number.
I, of course was on the TB+, so I didn't comply.  It gave me three
tries and then told me since it didn't receive the tones, it could
answer for me and hung up.

Therefore, it didn't get ANI from me, so I guess the PA PUC's ruling
on wiretapping vs Caller-ID/ANI is now effecting 800 numbers.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                          Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd                        FAX:   [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 17 Jul 90 10:24:31 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>You call the number and you get a pollen report for your area. Based on the
>ANI data obtained in real time you are given, supposedly, the correct report.

When I called, it asked me to dial my number, so I gave them the
number of the time-of-day lady in Boston (which happens to be a normal
phone number, not a 976) and they give me the pollen count for New
York.  Oh, well.  I thought that 800 ANI delivery was only implemented
for extremely high volume Megacom applications, which this is probably
not.

Regards,

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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 10:19:00 CDT


John Higdon wrote in volume 10, issue 491:

| An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen
| Trak".  Based on the ANI data obtained in real time you are given,
| supposedly, the correct report.  It gives me a Sacramento area report;
| that's hardly useful since San Jose is somewhat outside Sacramento's
| geographic sphere of influence.

| If you wish to play, the number is 800 325-5374.  Be warned, however,
| that the way I found out about this was from a news story that talked
| about people complaining against the junk calls and mail generated by
| the scooped up ANI.

Culy trurious.  I've heard Benadryl's commercials for the Pollen Trak
line but never called until after reading Mr. Igdonhay's submission.
Surely ANI is delivered to all 800 numbers, yet it asked me to key in
my own area code and telephone number.  That's preferable to ANI, for
one might call from one place but seek an allergen report for another
(say, where a relative lives, or somewhere one plans to travel).

I dialed twice to try my Chicago and Park Ridge numbers; for both a
report came from meters at Grant Hospital in Chicago (no data from
Lutheran General in Park Ridge?) ... for YESTERDAY.  Useful, huh?

| I used one of my Telebit lines to make the call.  If they call back
| they will have to log in!

If they call me they'll get an impassive voice mail service and their
message will be interrupted with the delete key within seconds.


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: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Re: Touchtone History)
Date: 17 Jul 90 20:57:42 GMT
Reply-To: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore


In article <[e-mail]> iosg::[e-mail]
(Nigel Roberts 0860 578600) writes:

>This leads me to ask a few questions of the DIGEST.

>What exactly is a TXE-2? (My guess is that it's a magnetic reed type
>exchange).

You are correct. The TXE2 is a crosspoint type switch using reed relay
technology.  I believe that the TXE2 design is too old to use
integrated circuits; it uses discrete transistors.  In particular, the
control circuits are all hard wired logic (i.e. not program
controlled.)

>Is there any way it could support TouchTone? (A BT engineer once told
>me that there might be some kind of black box which they can add).

It could be done, but it would be a real hack.  There are two problems
with doing it the "right" way (the right way being to add TT receivers
to the registers.)  Firstly, (see above) the registers are hard-wired.
It would be a real pain to modify them.  Secondly, the fact that
architechturally, the TXE2 is just an electronic step by step system.

This is how a TXE2 works:

When you pick up a phone you are connected through a series of reed
relay crosspoint switches to a relay set.  This relay set connects you
to two things: the local register, and an outgoing junction to the
group switching centre (GSC) - in your case Colchester.  Dial tone is
now returned to the caller from the local register.  When you dial,
your dial pulses go to two places.  Firstly, they are counted by the
TXE2 register. Secondly, they are passed along the junction to the
GSC, where they step switches, get put into a register, or whatever,
depending on what kind of equipment is at the GSC.  In TXE2 parlance,
this junction is known as the 'primary route'.

After you have dialled the first two digits, the TXE2 register will
decide one of three things:

1. The call is going to, or will be routed through, the GSC.  In this
case, the register releases itself from the circuit and the call
proceeds by way of the already connected junction to Colchester.  Any
further digits that you dial are sent to Colchester without further
ado.  The register is, of course, now available for other calls.  This
means that a TXE2 need not store the dialled digits, nor does it have
to translate them or pulse them out to another exchange.

2. The call is to your own exchange.  In this case, the first two
digits you dialled will have been 39.  In this case, the register will
signal the relay set to release the primary route and proceed to suck
in the remaining four digits.  After the last digit has been received,
a completely new path is set up from your calling line circuit,
through the crosspoint switches, through an "own exchange relay set",
and back through the crosspoint switches to the called line circuit.
The own exchange relay set is then responsible for ring current/tone
or busy, as appropriate.

3. The call is to some other exchange to which the TXE2 has a direct
route.  In this case, after the initial digits are dialled, the route
to the GSC will be cleared and a now route set up to the target
exchange.  Subsequent digits dialled will be sent directly to the
target exchange.

The 'dual destination' of your dial pulses is what makes it really
difficult to add touch tone to TXE2's (Finally getting to the point,
here.)  Remember, the TXE2 does not suck in numbers and pulse them out
again later.

Adding TT receivers to the registers is conceptually simple, even if
it is a nightmare from an engineering standpoint.  The problem is that
you have to have some way to convert the touchtones to dial pulses on
the outgoing junctions - remember that TXE2's may be connected to
GSC's that are still strowger, and cannot directly receive TT.

About the best you could hope for would be to connect some kind of
black box TT-to-pulse converter at some point along the switching
train.  But this does not help much, because it takes about as long
for said black box to pulse out a number as it does for you to dial
it.  You might as well have a push button pulse phone.

(N.B. The above description is for TXE2's which have linked numbering
with their GSC.  There are other situations; your milage may vary.)

>Are there any more features available on the TXE-2 that we are not
>being told about?

As you might realise from the foregoing description, the TXE2 is quite
a dumb beast, and adding nifty features does not really come within
its scope.

TXE2 ringback used to be 1267, sometimes 1267105.

>And does anyone have a guess as to how long it will be before it is
>updated to something modern? (I IMAGINE we've got another 19 years of
>pulse dialling to put up with, but I hope I'm wrong ...)

TXE2's are pretty reliable, I think.  Seeing as how yours is only six
or seven years old, it might be around for some time, unless either
the requirement for lines goes up dramatically (TXE2's only handle
about 3-4000 lines) or if it was second hand when it was put it -
maybe as a stop gap measure.  You never know with BT.  Why not call
your friend Sarah?


Martin Harriss
[e-mail]

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

From: David Ritchie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses"
Date: 17 Jul 90 03:39:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID


>In brief, I have heard that at one time AT&T sent out "cleaning
>pulses" in the wee hours of morning to "fuse shorts in the line."

>Assuming this is drivel, is there any basis for such a thing?

>Andrew Houghton
>([e-mail])

  Actually, many switches have an automatic loop quality test that is
done on lines in the early morning hours. I had a friend with a cheap
phone who complained about this causing his phones to click at 2 A.M.


Dave Ritchie

[Moderator's Note: *Something* happens here every morning at 1:37 AM.
If I am online to Northwestern at that moment, the modem connection is
dropped and I have to dial back in. Every day, no exceptions. I do not
know if it is Illinois Bell or something at Northwestern.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: Connections Between Carriers Within a LATA
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 17 Jul 90 09:23:36 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>When there's more than one local exchange carrier operating within a
>LATA, is service between them provided by a long distance carrier, or
>by the carriers interconnecting directly, or both?

Within a LATA, the carriers hook up any old way they want.  In fact,
one LEC may use a second to get to inter-lata long distance carriers.
For example, my uncle's phone company in northwestern Vermont has
always connected only to New England Tel, with NET forwarding
inter-lata calls to AT&T.  AT&T recently ran a line directly to his
telco bypassing NET -- even though his call volume is pretty small,
NET was charging enough that it was worth their while to run a line
all the way from Manchester NH.

No other LD carrier has asked to be connected to his company, and he
doesn't even have billing arrangements with any of them.  I keep
meaning to call him collect via Sprint so we can see what, if anything
happens to the bill.  He's not looking forward to equal access, it
will be a lot of work and expense, and he expects nearly all of his
customers would stick with AT&T anyway, most of them being Vermont
farmers.

I have heard that in Indiana, all of the independent telcos have
banded together to form a peculiar long distance company called
Indiana Switch, which is the exclusive LD carrier for all of them.
Indiana Switch has a central POP to which all of the other LD carriers
can connect.  I assume that the telcos pass regular ANI info to
Indiana Switch, which looks up the numbers in one central database and
routes each call to the subscriber's preferred carrier.  In this way,
the telcos avoid having to implement equal access locally, except
perhaps to reprogram some more modern exchanges to pass 10XXX.

Regards,

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

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

From: Dave Michaels cccc <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Does a Telephone Receiver Work?
Date: 17 Jul 90 17:04:14 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology


A telephone handset has four wires going to it, two for mike, and two
for speaker.  How does the phone merge these two into a full duplex
pair of wires?  Also, I disconnected the transmitter disc trying to
make a 'mute' feature on a phone without one, and discovered my friend
can still hear me (at a reduced volume) from the earpiece ... hmm,
why?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #493
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02101;
          19 Jul 90 0:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23039;
          18 Jul 90 23:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21231;
          18 Jul 90 22:06 CDT
Date:     Wed, 18 Jul 90 21:32:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #494
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jul 90 21:32:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 494

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Connections Between Carriers Within a LATA [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Re: Touchtone History) [Julian Macassey]
    Re: How Does a Telephone Receiver Work? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Talking on Phones in Computer Rooms [Lou Judice]
    Re: Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom [Tad Cook]
    Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz [Kenny Crudup]
    Re: E911 Experience [Marc O'Krent]
    Re: E911 Experience [Clayton E. Cramer]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [Carl Moore]
    Re: Help with Rotored Lines/ Rack Mounted Modems [Julian Macassey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Connections Between Carriers Within a LATA
Date: 17 Jul 90 13:51:11 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


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

>Who drew up the LATA boundaries, and based on what criteria?

The whole Divestiture Thing (as ynk might say it) stems from an
ancient lawsuit against AT&T/Western Electric, where the Dept. of
Justice, as plaintiff, wanted AT&T to divest WECo.  AT&T had other
ideas and wanted to get into the computer business.  (They were using
3Bs internally and thought many people wanted to pay for them.)  So
they offered the Reagan Justice Dept. (some new guys there did NOT
believe much in anti-trust law, monopolies being the natural order of
laissez-faire) a deal: They'd spin off the local telcos in exchange
for keeping WECo. and being allowed to enter the computer biz.  (They
were kept out of it by the 1956 consent decree in essentially the same
case.)

The original deal gave AT&T _all_ existing "interexchange" calls,
leaving only local exchange calls to the divested telcos (who
eventually won use of the trademark "Bell").  Jurisdiction in the case
then shifted to Judge Greene (it had previously been with the court in
Newark), and the "Baby Bells" fought for more.  They won back Yellow
Pages, and the term "interexchange" was re-interpreted more loosely.
The result was the LATA, representing a compromise between AT&T and
the Bells.

The LATA boundaries were negotiated by the Bells, AT&T, the DOJ and
the court.  They were intended to allow metropolitan areas to remain
intact, and follow natural community of interest lines.  A lot of
dickering took place; for example, Massachusetts ended up with only
two LATAs, but there had been talk of splitting it in three, with
Worcester separate from Boston.  New York City got a big LATA plus a
corridor exception into NJ.

While it was pretty much assumed that inter-LATA calls would be
competitive, states retain the right to limit the franchise for
intrastate traffic.  Intra-LATA may be competitive or monopoly, at
state option.  Interstate is competitive, LATA or not.  But default
carrier selection was created for inter-LATA calls; intra-LATA calls
not via the local carrier may require dialing 10xxx first.


Fred R. Goldstein [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TouchTone(tm) in the U.K. (was Re: Touchtone History)
Date: 18 Jul 90 13:53:46 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> We might be way behind the Americans in offering state-of-the-art
> services, but at least the UK network is pretty much the same across
> the country (no hand-cranked phones(!), no non-automatic exchanges,
> international dialling from _anywhere_, easy and cheap LD access to
> the entire country).  I appreciate that these things are rare in the
> States, but they are non-existent here.

    But in the UK you have two telephone companies (BT and Hull)
and you have two Long Distance Carriers (BT and Mercury). Here is the
U.S. we have over 1,000 telephone companies - some with about 300
subscribers.  Also we have a ton of Long Distance companies - I would
guess over 100.

 There are three major Players, AT&T, MCI and Sprint and tons of
others including Cable and Wireless. BT also runs a packet switching
company here (BT Tymenet). There a few packet switchers which are
seperate from LD carriers even if they are owned by them.

    So the ancient stuff still around tends to be owned by the
"mom and pop" operations. Some of these "companies" have mom as the
operator and business office and pop as the CO tech and outside plant
lineman.  The "CO" is often in the back of the house.

> Now if only they'd offer me itemised billing ...

Hull Telephone has offered it for a few years.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does a Telephone Receiver Work?
Date: 18 Jul 90 18:08:39 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> A telephone handset has four wires going to it, two for mike, and two
> for speaker.  How does the phone merge these two into a full duplex
> pair of wires?

The telephone contains a hybrid (located in a little box often called
a network) which is supposed to direct the audio energy from the
transmitter toward the line, and energy from the line toward the
receiver.  A little bit of audio from the transmitter is deliberately
'leaked' to the receiver, so that you can hear yourself (which is
often called side-tone).  This leakage path is attenuated so that most
of your speech-energy is directed to the far end.  This attenuation is
called trans-hybrid loss.

> Also, I disconnected the transmitter disc trying to
> make a 'mute' feature on a phone without one, and discovered my friend
> can still hear me (at a reduced volume) from the earpiece ... hmm,
> why?

Your telephone receiver may act in reverse, as a low-level microphone.
Your friend can year the signal it generates due to the above-
mentioned leakage-path working in reverse.  The volume is
reduced partially because the receiver is not very efficient as a
microphone, and partially because of the deliberate trans-hybrid loss.


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: Wed, 18 Jul 90 13:52:29 PDT
From: "Lou Judice, 908-562-4103  18-Jul-1990 1026" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Talking on Phones in Computer Rooms


We've encountered this problem in the past. AT&T sells special
handsets for high ambient noise level areas. They also have PTT
(Push-To-Talk) handsets.

These worked well with our AT&T phone system. They also provide
super-loud ringers and strobe-light ringer attachements. All of this
is a bit pricey, but in a commercial computer center, you don't need
the headache of bad communications or missed phone calls.


Lou Judice
[e-mail]

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom
Date: 17 Jul 90 16:27:33 GMT
Organization: very little


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Blake
Farenthold) writes:

> Over the holiday I saw Die Harder: Die Hard 2.  When you go, leave
> your telecom background at home.  You know you are in for it when you
> see 2 telecom 'continuity' errors within the first five minutes...

I haven't seen the second movie, but in the first Bruce was using
Kenwood 440 MHz handie talkies that allowed him to 1) talk to the
terrorists 2) talk to the police 3) talk on CB channel 9 (!)  4)
operate full duplex, hands free when he was digging glass out` of his
feet!

Hams got a real kick out of this, and there was quite a discussion on
rec.ham-radio about this.

{Cinefex Magazine} had a great article last year about the making of Die
Hard, in which they showed how they used radio controlled helicopters
and models for the effects.  Neat!


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: Kenny Crudup LID-A0794 <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz
Reply-To: Kenny Crudup LID-A0794 <lotus![e-mail]>
Organization: Lotus Development Corp.
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 22:16:50 GMT


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

>Does this give anyone any ideas about saving money when checking your
>messages on your machine or voice mail? Oops, did I say that?

Don't worry. Beat you to it. What *I* need are frequencies....

($10 bucks says the mod ices this note....)


Kenneth R. Crudup, Lotus Development Corp. Contractor, NASD/QA system V
1 Rogers Street 6381D, Cambridge, MA 02142. [phone].
Work: [e-mail], Home: nubian![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You lose. I don't know what kind of 'frequencies'
you are seeking, but they all are of public record at the FCC. Could
you be more specific in your request, please?   PT]

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

From: Marc O'Krent <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Date: 18 Jul 90 19:52:53 GMT
Reply-To: Marc O'Krent <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cochran&Associates, Menlo Park, CA


In article <[e-mail]> Tom Perrine <[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 490, Message 8 of 10

>With all of the negative 911 experiences being described, I thought I
>would mention that, at least here in a backwater :-) of Pac Bell land
>(Poway, near San Diego), 911 works!

Well, I can add my two cents also with a 911 experience which
demonstrates that the system works, but not when the police force is
over-taxed.  You may have heard that we don't have enough police in LA
what with being the new gang and drug center of the U.S.

Several years ago I was home for lunch when I heard some arguing going
on next door.  I looked at the window to find a man standing on the
walkway of the house next door with a long-nose revolver pointed at
some workmen.

Upon calling 911 I was told that officers would be "right over."
Unfortunately, this is LA and the time was about 12-1pm which means
that we were reaching the time when the LAPA has about five calls for
every two officers.  Twenty minutes later the 911 operator called me
back and said "Is the man still there?".  And I said, "I'm not
sticking my head out the window again to find out, why don't you
*send* someone over here and see for youself before someone gets
shot!"

Shortly thereafter officers did arrive and arrested the man.  Upon
searching his apartment they found a cache of weapons and ammo.  The
story was that the owner of the building had sent exterminators over
to tent it, and this irate tenant was not too interested in leaving.

On balance, the LAPD does a good job, but is simply too spread out
which makes even 911 a risky bet a peak times.

If you saw the PBS special on the trauma system, you would see that
unfortunately the 911 system for medical emergencies is in even worse
shape at times.


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

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Date: 19 Jul 90 00:31:06 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> With all of the negative 911 experiences being described, I thought I
> would mention that, at least here in a backwater :-) of Pac Bell land
> (Poway, near San Diego), 911 works!

Well, I have two experiences with 911 service from Pac Bell.  In both
cases, 911 did their job, but the results varied greatly.

In the first case, a man with a bat was threatening a kid in front on
my apartment building in Santa Monica, CA.  (The guy with the bat
turned out to be the good guy).  From the time I dialed 911 to the
time three police cars showed up was three minutes, fifteen seconds.
I didn't have to provide any address or name information -- I just
reported it, and went back outside to be a witness or to intervene if
necessary.

The other case involved a drunk dragging a woman, kicking and
screaming out of her apartment, down the stairs in Costa Mesa, CA.  I
called, described the incident, but for reasons that remain unclear to
me, they spent quite a bit of time asking for a detailed description
of the EXACT location where this was happening (perhaps to distinguish
it from any similar events in that block :-)).  In this case, 911 did
their job, but this being a Saturday night in Costa Mesa, it took
Costa Mesa PD 45 minutes to show up, during which time I found myself
holding a gun, trying to decide at what point to intervene in the
situation.  (This was a considerably less pleasant experience than it
sounds -- and it sounds pretty unpleasant).  By the time the police
arrived, this guy was long gone.

I don't know about the rest of you, but 911 works just fine -- now if
they could just improve response time of the PDs to the point where
they can do something besides draw chalk marks around the bodies...


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 10:11:20 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination


W/R to people hanging around trying to spot credit card numbers:

There are probably loitering laws on the books (don't know the juris-
dictions involved), but further discussion of this is beyond the scope
of telecom.

As a reminder: If the phone is rotary (or pushbutton pulse), a credit-
card call requires you to read the card number to the operator, and a
common source of fraud was/is the overhearing of such card numbers.
If the phone is touchtone, you usually have the self-service credit
card number entry available, and the problem then becomes that of
someone watching over your shoulder(?).  Corrections or more details,
anyone?

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help with Rotored Lines/ Rack Mounted Modems
Date: 18 Jul 90 22:48:18 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug Faunt N6TQS
415-688-8269) writes:

> It turns out, that the way to busy-out a bad modem in a T2500

The simple way is short the damn phone line. This can be done with
high tech paper clips or fancy plugs across the 66 block. This is a
no-fail guaranteed way to do it. Funny I had to explain this to
"Sprint PC-Pursuit" last week. But they are a telephone company, so
how are they to know how to busy out a modem (-: I am always amazed
how ignorant and incompetant some employees are.

Anyhow a good administarator of telco gear should check all trunks and
associated equipment on a regular basis. This is a task an operator
can do first thing in the morning. It is also handy to check 800
numbers on thge local loops as well, they do die sometimes.

> Another solution is to check out various styles of "call
> distribution".  We have a ATT Systme 75 here at cisco, and one of the
> styles of call distribution is called "uniform call distribution".  It
> tries to route the next call to a group to the least-used line
> available, but never the same line as the last call, so if there's a
> bad modem, the user just hangs up and redials, and gets a different
> line.  Bad modems are indicated pretty reliably by various statistics
> that our, cisco, terminal servers keep.  I don't know if "UCD" is
> available from central offices, however.  good luck, [e-mail]

Yes, UCD is certainly available on the 5ESS switch. See Part 2 of "5
ESS Switch The Premier Solution - Feature Handbook" Number 235-390-500.
But you may not want to pay for it. It should be cheaper to check the
trunks and busy out the bad ones until the modem or loop is fixed.

When in doubt - check it out.


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 #494
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03294;
          19 Jul 90 2:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09887;
          19 Jul 90 0:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23039;
          18 Jul 90 23:12 CDT
Date:     Wed, 18 Jul 90 22:24:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #495
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jul 90 22:22:46 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 495

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Equal Access? [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: GTE/Contel Merger Questions [Marc O'Krent]
    Re: Intrastate Toll Free Non-800 Numbers [Marc O'Krent]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [Evelyn C. Leeper]
    Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles? [Alex L. Bangs]
    Re: Fun With ANI [John Higdon]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Mark Saum]
    Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down [Warren Tucker]
    Re: Radio Shack CT-102 [Brian Litzinger]
    Info Needed on UUCP Gateways [Joel Disini]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Equal Access?
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 06:55:29 GMT


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

| I was visiting friends in Queens, New York recently who have elected
| RCI (Rochester Communications, I think) as their default long distance
| carrier.  I tried to make an AT&T credit card call from their phone
| (718-544) and repeatedly got the NY Tel operator, who was always happy
| to connect me with AT&T, but never able to explain why, as soon as I
| dialed 10 (on the way to 10288), I was diverted.  Supervisors were no
| better; in fact, they argued harder that what I wanted made no sense.
| I gave up and reported the line to repair as being broken.  Was it, or
| is there a legitimate state of "partial equal access", where RCI could
| be the default carrier (I confirmed this via 700-555-4141), and AT&T
| would not be easily available?

Hey, we've had it that way for quite a while.  Out here in the
backwaters of GTE land, I can select among 4 (count'em! :-) LD
carriers.  But once I've locked in the choice, no variant of 10nnn
will get me out of it.  Yeah, I can go 1-800-877-8000 or 950-1022 to
get to use me FON-card, but there's no alternative for AT&T.

As an aside, does AT&T realize how much revenue they lose by not
having a dialable number?  Sheesh.  The only reason I *have* a
FON-card is to get at *some* LD company inside a hotel or behind the
company's PBX.

So, for my home phone, I pick AT&T, because I'm afraid of that one day
when Sprint wouldn't have been able to handle the call (capacity, some
international restriction, or whatever), and I'd be stuck without an
alternate.  (Somehow, I always see AT&T as having excess capacity...
maybe I'm wrong.)


Just another AT&T chooser,

| Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]===========|
| on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III      |
| [e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn |

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

From: Marc O'Krent <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE/Contel Merger Questions
Date: 18 Jul 90 05:01:29 GMT
Reply-To: Marc O'Krent <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cochran&Associates, Menlo Park, CA


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

>GTE loves to consolidate. When you try to call the business office at
>some 800 number, you get perpetual busy. When you finally break
>through, you are put on permanent hold. When I call the "local" GTE
>business office, the call goes to Thousand Jokes -- about 300 miles
>away.  Contel, on the other hand has a business office right there in
>Gilroy -- serving all two of Gilroy's prefixes. When I tried to pay a
>Victorville Contel phone bill there, they were very nice and handled
>it for me, but they had to call Victorville to make the arrangements.
>They are not centralized and it's a plus for the customer.

As another example of the "intelligence" behind GTE, the business
office here in LA had an 800 number that ended on 7713.  When you dial
that number, you now get a referral recording to the same NPA with the
last four = 7712!!

I suppose a bigger customer came alone and just had to have 7713.


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

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

From: Marc O'Krent <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Intrastate Toll Free Non-800 Numbers
Date: 18 Jul 90 05:25:12 GMT
Reply-To: Marc O'Krent <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cochran&Associates, Menlo Park, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 484, Message 4 of 8

>[e-mail] (Steve Elias) asks about toll-free non-800 exchanges.

>Maritime Tel & Tel, the only telephone company in Nova Scotia,
>provides an awkward toll-free service without the 800 prefix.  (800
>numbers are available, but they cost more, I suspect.)  A subscriber
>to the non-800 service can arrange for a regular seven-digit number
>(429-7111, which is or was the Air Canada reservations number in
>Halifax, for example) to be toll-free for anybody who calls from
>specified exchanges, or from anywhere in the province.  I assume the

An interesting side note realted to this is an obscure Pac*Bell tariff
which provides simmilar service.  I stumbled onto it a few years ago
when I was doing some research.  Formally known as CAL PUC No
A6.2.5.A.2.d or "Dial interexchange receiving service" first filed on
3/4/85 and effective 4/18/85 via advice letter #14889, this service
provides:

"A listing of the telephone number of the service on which calls will
be received may be furnished, at the customer's option, in the
directory serving each *exchange* in which the service is subscribed
for.  The listing will indicate that calls dialed ... to the listed
number will not be billed to the caller...

 ...Only those calls to this number which originate at stations served
from the exchange in which the service is subscribed for ... and then
only when the customer's telephone service where calls are received is
not included in the the local service area of the calling station...

 ...All customer notifications about the service must state clearly
all exchanges from which the advertised number may be called toll
free, and the fact that only direct dialed calls, and only calls from
these exchanges are toll free to the caller..."

The charge for this is $5.00 per exchange that you want to be toll
free to your number with USOC of EDZ.

This seems like some kind of bazzar Zenith service without the
"Zenith."  I can't imaginge that $5.00 per exchange covers the
programming expense of setting up special tables to make certain
exchanges (which are already non-local by tariff definition) toll free
to you number.

I doubt anyone ever used this service, but if you are out there, I'd
be curious to hear from you.


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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 10:17:07 EDT
From: Evelyn C Leeper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> As noted in messages here in TELECOM Digest, AT&T states in their
> advertising and in their tariffs that the calling card is universal
> and can be used to call anyone, anywhere, using the AT&T network.

> Anyone, that is, unless you are a Mexican living in southern
> California wanting to call home from a payphone at the place where you
> live ... or if you are an Israeli or Iranian citizen at JFK trying to
> call home before you board your flight. Then, the presumption by AT&T
> is you are likely to be committing fraud, so your call will not be
> processed.

Since I work for AT&T I may be considered a non-disinterested party,
but how does AT&T determine that you are an Israeli citizen or a
Mexican when you punch your number into the phone?  (Or when you apply
for the card, for that matter.)


Evelyn C. Leeper  |  [phone]  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: They can't tell 'what you are' when you apply for
the Calling Card or new credit card, other than perhaps making certain
observations about your name and address. But if credit card calls
from a certain ethnic neighborhood to a foreign country which is home
to the residents of that neighborhood are redlined, then it might be
safe to make some assumptions about AT&T's attitude in the matter,
particularly if calls to the UK and Sweden are permitted from the very
same coin phones, while calls to Iran, Mexico or Korea are refused.
Their argument 'we are doing it to protect YOU' doesn't hold water,
since calls to Israel cost the same, on the average as calls to
Norway, yet airport payphones block calls to Israel using a Calling
Card. If they were protecting me against fraud (instead of themselves,
in what I believe is an illegal manner), they would disallow *all*
credit card calls from phones in the areas in particular. Not just the
calls to places whose citizens they suspect are likely to make fraud
phone calls.  PT]

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

From: BANGS A L <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell Phones at Dulles?
Reply-To: BANGS A L <[e-mail]>
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 17:32:47 GMT


See last week's {Newsweek} for a miniarticle about the screwup.  It said
that neither the director nor producer would comment on the error.


Alex L. Bangs ---> [e-mail]         Of course, my opinions are
Oak Ridge National Laboratory/CESAR            my own darned business...


[Moderator's Note: I don't read News Weak very often, but I did check
out the article in particular. However, to deprive Kay Graham of the
profit from a sale, I read it at the 7/11 magazine rack while I was
having my luncheon sandwich a few days ago.  PT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Date: 18 Jul 90 11:23:36 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]> writes:

> Now, telecom experts, why didn't they get the correct number?  Is that
> because I'm in the backwaters of GTE-land, or because I called from
> behind a PBX?  I should try this from home, but I don't want my number
> to be junk-listed.

The day after I posted the original article, PollenTrak started asking
for the caller's phone number. I have no idea why this happened unless
the complaints that were being lodged somehow forced them to stop
using the ANI, or caused AT&T to stop sending it.

I have no InsideTrak on this; it's just a theory. There is, however,
no assurance that they have stopped recording the caller's number.
Remember, the whole "service" is there to generate a contact list.


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

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

From: Mark Saum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Date: 18 Jul 90 17:15:16 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University


>> An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen
>> Trak" (with the same announcer on the machine that did "Weather
>> Trak").  You call the number and you get a pollen report for your
>> area. Based on the ANI data obtained in real time you are given,
>> supposedly, the correct report. It gives me a Sacramento area report;
>> that's hardly useful since San Jose is somewhat outside Sacramento's
>> geographic sphere of influence.

> Just tried it from NJ.  It apparently didn't get the ANI, as it
> prompted me for my phone number.  I entered it (908-647-xxxx) and was
> then given the message for Buffalo (about 500 miles from here!).  I
> know that area code 908 is a recent addition to the geography, but I
> expected something more helpful than Buffalo!

When I called this number from our phone here at the lab. We are on
some sort of private exchange in which we control two exchanges
409-845-xxxx & 409-847-xxxx.  I'm still very fuzzy on the details.
Anyway, it also prompted me to enter my phone number.  I put in
409-555-1212, and it gave me the Dallas pollen count.


Mark Saum                           Remote Sensing/GIS Lab
Programmer/Student Technition       Dept. of Forest Science
[e-mail]   <---O.K.   Texas A&M University

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 13:06:52 EDT
From: Warren Tucker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down
Organization: Amateur Radio Station N4HGF


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

>Everyone has to learn this lesson the hard way it seems: *No beverages
>around telecom and computer equipment*. Ever.

Or (re: _Fat Mand and Little Boy_) around two hemispheres of exposed
plutonium :-).

Great posting: passing the tradition of letting some receive the
`benefit' of a hard lesson without losing the right to put it into
practice.

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

From: Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 13:05:21 PDT
Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-102
Organization: APT Technology, Inc.


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Lars
Poulsen):

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Faunt) writes:

>>The Radio Shack CT-102 is for sale for $299.  What does the Telecom
>>collective conciousness think of the unit?

I can't speak for the 'Telecom collective conciousness', however, I
like the phone.

> Radio Shack's ads indicate that the $299 price is conditional on
> signing up for service "with certain minimum commitments"

In California you are not required to sign up with their carrier and
you still get the $299 price.

You simply pay the $299 plus state and local sales tax and carry the
phone out of the store.  You can then have the service activated by
anyone you wish.  Also the units are field programmable so getting
them activated is pretty easy.

I and several of my friends have done so.  Most of use have added a
battery and some small circuitry and made transportables out of the
units.  The unit is actually a Nokia-Moriba (sp?), which is sold by
Nokia ... (sp?) as a car-portable, i.e. easily transported from car to
car because the base unit is so small.  But just add a battery and
you've got a transportable.

And for your information:

    Standby Current:    0.25 Amps @ 12 Volts
    Active  Current:    1.50 Amps @ 12 Volts

    (at least in my unit as tested with a bench power supply)
    (and HP current meter)

By the way, I've was able to avoid the $25 activation fee.  I'd been
looking for a cellular phone for awhile and several of the companies
I'd left cards at had called me to see if I had bought a phone or
needed cellular service.  Just about all of them were willing to waive
the $25 connect fee.  Also, just about all the custom calling features
are free.

The company I liked the best is called 'Communication Specialists' and
they are located in the Jet Center at the San Jose Airport. You can
reach them at 408 294 8656.  (Please try to be discreet about the $25
being waived).

I'm not affiliated when 'Communication Specialists' except that I am
a customer.


<>  Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA
<>  [e-mail]      {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian
<>  Disclaimer: Above are my opinions and probably wrong.

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

Subject: Info Needed on UUCP Gateways
From: "Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT" <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 Jul 90 07:18 GMT


Patrick,

I guess it's just not possible to get USENET news from Applelink.
Bummer. Do you know if there's a list somewhere of BBS/UUCP gateway
manufacturers/dealers & their E-Mail addresses available for
downloading somewhere?  Or could you just post this request at
alt.BBS?


Thanks,
Joel Disini
Disini Software Inc.


[Moderator's Note: Anyone with information, write him direct. Thanks. PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #495
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04584;
          19 Jul 90 3:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08336;
          19 Jul 90 1:22 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09887;
          19 Jul 90 0:17 CDT
Date:     Wed, 18 Jul 90 23:25:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #496
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Jul 90 23:25:27 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 496

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: E911 Experience [Ralph Sims]
    Re: State Rejects US West Bid for Caller ID [Peter da Silva]
    Re: White House Phone Trivia (Was: Touchtone History) [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Blake Farenthold]
    Re: Trouble Getting Telephone Service [Blake Farenthold]
    Re: Trouble Getting Telephone Service [Doug Faunt]
    Momentary Cutoffs (Was: The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses") [Jerry Altzman]
    Those Annoying Intercepts - Explanation Doesn't Fit [Jerry Leichter]
    Insulation Breakdown Test Sets [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz
Date: 17 Jul 90 18:26:13 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


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

> There are two ways around it. Give COCOTs answer supervision
> indication or coin COS lines is one. Not bloody likely to happen soon.

I understand thet the CPUC has ordered all phone companies in CA to
provide COCOTs with "identical service" to that provided to their own
COTs. I assume this would mean coin COS lines are now available to
COCOTs.

            R. Kevin Oberman
            Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
            Internet: [e-mail]
            [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my
typing and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

From: Ralph Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 08:24:52 PDT
Organization: The 23:00 News


[e-mail] (Steve Elias) writes:

>> Calling 911 about once a year for assorted emergencies has resulted in
>> prompt, efficient service. But I have a contingency plan for that day

> I imagine that San Jose has reasonable 911 services, but in many
> cities, it's true that "911 is a joke."  Why should they hurry when
> it's "just another gang murder"?

I would like to believe that the law enforcement services are a little
more concerned than _that_.  Interviews with big-city mayors produce
the feeling that there _is_ concern and they really _want_ to do
something about their city's problems.  My feeling is that 911 centers
dispatch the calls as they should; the problem seems to be with the
{law enforecement, fire department's} response to those calls.

911 (especially E911) works!  The system is in place in virtually all
of the continental U.S. and is accessed by millions of people a year.
I'm going to try to get some stats on 911 useage, etc., and will place
them here for perusal.

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: State Rejects US West Bid for Caller ID
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 13:36:21 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Randal Schwartz <merlyn@iwarp.
intel.com> writes:

> A spokeswoman for US West acknowledged the contract rejection by the
> commission includes the capability to view and store incoming phone
> numbers.  But she said the feature is incidental to the [ISDN package].

> (Washington State) Assistant Attorney General Charles Adams said it
> appeared US West was trying to sneak the issue past the public.

I doubt it ... they probably didn't even consider that ISDN included
the equivalent of Caller-ID. The contract rejection was probably as
big a shock to them as to the PUC.


Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
[phone].
<[e-mail]>

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: White House Phone Trivia (Was: Touchtone History)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 20:40:17 GMT


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

> >The burning question that Telecom readers want answered is: Why
> >doesn't the President's office have a nice little Merlin (R) or neat
> >IDSN set ???

> The answer may range from the sublime to the ridiculous, Roger. It
> might be:

(1-4 omitted)

5) Each department and agency that has a reason to have a line into
the President's office insists on having it's own phone. This is
somewhat reasonable for the DoD with their own network. I suspect that
some countries might have their own access to the President for
political reasons.


Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
[phone].
<[e-mail]>

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 16:07:11 CDT
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI


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

Called the Benadryl Pollen Count number myself, from the PBX at work
and from a POTS line at home.  Both times I was prompted for a phone
number so its not just Randal in backwater GTE Land whose ANI isn't
passes.  (I'm in Southwestern Bell land.)

Entering my modem numbers from home and work (512-889 & 512-882) got
me the HOUSTON pollen Count.  Houston (713-Almost Anything) is 5 hours
by car and 46 minutes by 737 away.  Guess its the closest place they
have a count from.


    UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake
Internet: [e-mail]

Blake Farenthold         | Voice: 800/880-1890   |    MCI: BFARENTHOLD
1200 MBank North         |   Fax: [phone]   |    CIS: 70070,521
Corpus Christi, TX 78471 |   BBS: 512/882-1899   |    GEnie: BLAKE

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 16:03:09 CDT
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Trouble Getting Telephone Service


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

You can probably get off without your roomate having to pay his old
roomates bill if you get the phone in your name alone (not yours and
the roomates) 'course you are on the hook for all the calls by
yourself that way.

I HATE Deposits with utilities.  In Texas the Public Utilities
Commission regulates the power company.  I've had a Southwestern Bell
phone so long I can't even remember having to use the section with
them (when I call they call up my record and say ... 'gosh Mr.
Farenthold you are a good customer can we sell you five more lines?)

I love section (3) (c) that purportedly requires them to give you
service if you have a good record with any utility. If the law firm I
was going to work for didn't represent CP&L I would have loved to make
an issue out of it ... but instead I just got a letter from my last
electric company saying I paid my bills on time.

16 TAC 23.43 (Title 16, Texas Administrative Code, Section 23.43)

    (3) Subject to these rules, a residential applicant shall not be
    required to pay a deposit :

        (A) if the residential applicant has been a customer of any
        utility for the same kind of service within the last two years
        and is not delinquent in payment of any such utility service
        account, and during the last 12 consecutive months of service
        did not have more than one occasion in which a bill for such
        utility service was paid after becoming delinquent and never
        had service disconnected for nonpayment; applicants are
        encouraged to obtain a letter of credit history from their
        previous utility, and utilities are encouraged to provide such
        information with final bills;

        (B) if the residential applicant demonstrates a satisfactory
        credit rating by appropriate means, including, but not limited
        to, the production of generally acceptable credit cards,
        letters of credit reference, the names of credit references
        which may quickly and inexpensively contacted by the utility,
        or ownership of substantial equity; or

        (C) if the residential applicant furnishes in writing a
        satisfactory guarantee to secure payment of bills for the
        service required;

            (i) unless otherwise agreed to by the guarantor, the
            guarantee shall be for the amount of deposit the utility
            would normally seek on the applicant's account.  The
            amount of guarantee shall be clearly indicated on any
            documents or letters of guarantee signed by the
            guarantor;

            (ii) when the customer has paid bills for service for 12
            consecutive residential billings without having service
            disconnected for nonpayment of bills and without having
            more than two occasions in which a bill was delinquent,
            and when the customer is not delinquent in the payment
            of current bills, the utility shall void and return any
            documents or letters of guarantee placed with the
            utility to the guarantor.

Of course this is the (old?) law in TEXAS, and your state may have
different regs.  It is worth investigating.


    UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!blake
Internet: [e-mail]

Blake Farenthold         | Voice: 800/880-1890   |    MCI: BFARENTHOLD
1200 MBank North         |   Fax: [phone]   |    CIS: 70070,521
Corpus Christi, TX 78471 |   BBS: 512/882-1899   |    GEnie: BLAKE


[Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I've had service in my name with
Illinois Bell for almost thirty years. When my first phone was
installed, they were not even requiring deposits in those days.  PT]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 11:11:24 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Trouble Getting Telephone Service


I had a problem like that with GTE in South Carolina, also.  I had
service installed at my fathers house, so I could get in touch with
him.  They wouldn't install it there until I or someone paid his long
overdue large past bill at that same address.  After that was done,
they installed the service, but several months later they transfered
his (also) long overdue large bill from his former business location
to my bill, and said that I owed that, also.  A letter to the PUC got
a response of "we're sorry, but that's the way it is".

In South Carolina, I guess that's the way it is.  Good luck.

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

From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Momentary Cutoffs (Was: The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses")
Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 14:56:00 GMT


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

>[Moderator's Note: *Something* happens here every morning at 1:37 AM.
>If I am online to Northwestern at that moment, the modem connection is
>dropped and I have to dial back in. Every day, no exceptions. I do not
>know if it is Illinois Bell or something at Northwestern.  PT]

And if you think *that*'s bad, our multimillion dollar ROLM switch has to
switch over from one set of nodes to the alternate set every morning at
0400, dropping outside modem connections (and for a while, also cutting off
voice communications and internal datacomm) I'm not sure if they still do
this, but for the first 6 months or so, every morning at 0400, >click<

DISCLAIMER: This isn't Columbia. This is me. Columbia is them.


jerry b. altzman        212 854 8058
[e-mail]     jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)  ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 09:37:10 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Those Annoying Intercepts - Explanation Doesn't Fit


Ken Abrams, in response to my complaint about intercepts for things
like a missing leading "1" which right for a while, then answer,
writes:

>"You can please some of the people all the time and all of the people
>some of the time" ...

>I'm not sure exactly what the complaint was since I didn't see it.
>The whole seven digit number must be dialed because a LOT of people
>get VERY confused when you interrupt them in the middle of dialing.

So much I can accept.

>This varies some depending on the place you are calling from and
>exactly what kind of invalid number you dialed.  Most announcements
>ring a few times to allow the message to play starting at the
>beginning instead of "barging in" in the middle.  Even digitally
>recorded messages are usually presented to the network in cycles and
>wait for the start of the cycle just like mechanical drums.

This doesn't match observation "on the ground".  If the announcement
had to make it back to the beginning, and were cycling continuously,
the number of rings before the intercept would vary from call to call.
In fact, it varies by at most about half a ring - pickup is ALWAYS
during the third ring, as far as I can determine.

BTW, I recently discovered exactly the same annoying behavior at some
phones set up at DECWORLD, currently going on in Boston.  They have
some phones with a very interesting configuration: There are some
non-dial phones available to the public.  The phones are labeled with
phone numbers, but are also claimed not to accept incoming calls.  (I
haven't tested this.)  Calls FROM those phones can only be made in 0+
form.  Generally, people are using them for credit card calls.  You
have to use 0+ and a credit card even for local calls!  You CANNOT
reach directory assistance in any way I've been able to find, short of
dialing 0, waiting for the operator timeout, then asking the operator
to make the connection.  (I wasted a lot of time on this one, and I've
seen other people also wasting their time.  555-1212?  1-555-1212?
0-555-1212?  With a couple of rings before intercept, plus time to get
dial tone back, you've already wasted a minute or so - and not yet
gotten anywhere.)  Some of the intercept messages you get can be very
bizarre - e.g., you can be told that you must not dial 1 before some
number when in fact you DIDN'T dial 1.


        Jerry

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

Subject: Insulation Breakdown Test Sets
Date: 17 Jul 90 23:00:14 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nickolas
Landsberg) writes:

> The voltage applied during testing has nothing to do with "cleaning
> pulses" or to "fuse shorts on the line."  About the only thing I saw
> which would "fuse shorts" is a "630" set. (630 Volts DC applied to the
> line.)  P.S.  Does anyone know if these are still in use?  It's been
> years since I left the Outside Plant Dept.

    Ah, yes the KS-14103 Breakdown Test Set.  These beasts are
still around, but are rarely used today.  Such breakdown procedures
only worked with paper and pulp insulated cable.  While quite a bit of
pulp cable still exists today, other test procedures employing
electronic capacitance measurement or a TDR seem to have largely
replaced this rather extreme measure for localizing high-resistance
faults.  Another disadvantage was that operation of this breakdown
test set on a working cable would introduce a tremendous amount of
noise on working pairs, despite the later addition of a large filter
inductor.  Definitely not great for any data being transmitted on
working pairs.

    The KS-14103 was nothing to trifle with since a fresh set of
batteries (it used something like 14 45-volt batteries) would put out
630 volts at almost three amperes.  That is a serious amount of energy
which can really knock someone on their ass (or worse).  Some, er,
idle plant personnel in years past have been known to, ah, investigate
the effects of the breakdown test set on various telephone components.
Most interesting was its effect on the neon glow lamps used in ANI-C,
which could be overdriven to the point of explosive decomposition,
replete with flying shards of glass.  :-)


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #496
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05691;
          19 Jul 90 4:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05508;
          19 Jul 90 2:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08336;
          19 Jul 90 1:22 CDT
Date:     Thu, 19 Jul 90 0:22:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #497
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Jul 90 00:22:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 497

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    This "Last Crank" or That "Last Crank" [John R. Covert]
    Cellular Phone Mail Order Houses [Jeff E. Nelson]
    Answer Supervision on International Calls [David E.A. Wilson]
    Disabling Panasonic Answering Machine Remote [Jon Sreekanth]
    Article on Florida Caller ID Delay [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Caller-ID Update (Pennsylvania) [Dwight Lee]
    Radio Interference on Line [R. Steve Walker]
    German Telecom [Mohsen Gamshad]
    Prefix Lists (NXX) for USA [David Leibold]
    Liquids and Telephone Apparatus [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 11:28:24 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  17-Jul-1990 1414" <[e-mail]>
Subject: This "Last Crank" or That "Last Crank"


The early news articles on the Shoup, Idaho, phone system correctly
described the system as "the last magneto party-line phone system in
the U.S.".  The key words are "party-line phone system."

Magneto toll-stations still abound, but they are not the same thing.
Toll stations are not subscriber telephones; they are phones placed by
a long-distance telephone company for the purpose of making
exclusively long-distance calls.

In Shoup, there were some thirty subscribers on the single line.

And it was really a single line: one wire, ground return.

To ring someone else in the system, you cranked their ringing
combination (some number of long and/or short rings).  Local calls
were free.  To reach the AT&T operator, you crank one VERY long ring.
The AT&T operator would answer on a normal, non-magneto, cord board
and handle the call.  Incoming LD calls were handled through the same
operator, who would ring the station with its ringing code from the
toll board.  There was a magneto-to-carrier interface somewhere at the
end of the line.

Bryant Pond was different.  Bryant Pond was the last magneto
switchboard in the country.  Although many of the customers were on
party lines, Bryant Pond had some two hundred drops on the
switchboard, which required two operators working very hard to handle
the call load.  Seeing the board (I have some nice pictures of it)
explains the origin of the term "drop."

On a magneto switchboard, when the customer turns the crank, a small
hinged metal plate actually drops to provide the visual indication
that there is a call on the line (or drop).

A magneto switchboard also explains the origin of the British term
"ring off" which means the same as "hang up".  On a magneto board,
when done with a call, the parties must turn the crank, or "ring off"
in order to cause the drop associated with the cord pair to fall,
indicating that the call is over.


john

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 05:59:35 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Phone Mail Order Houses


I'm in the market for a cellular phone (a transportable) and am
interested in purchasing one via mail order. I am hoping that this
will reduce my costs and allow me to choose my own carrier. However,
local electronics stores are offering "fantastic" prices (the catch
being that you are required to sign up for a given length of time with
a cellular phone company), so I'm not sure that going mail order will
be any cheaper. Please send recommendations for mail order companies
to me and I will summarize to the Digest. Thanks.


Jeff E. Nelson           | Digital Equipment Corporation
[e-mail] | Affiliation given for identification purposes only

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answer Supervision on International Calls
Date: 18 Jul 90 04:13:59 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Wollongong, Australia


Here in Wollongong, Australia we have just got fully itemised
international phone bills. A collegue of mine on the same exchange as
me makes numerous calls to the USA. His bill lists a number of four
second calls. We think these are calls that were never answered at the
US end.

Do international calls have answer supervision? Does it depend on
which telco is responsible for the subscriber in the USA?


David Wilson    [e-mail]

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Disabling Panasonic Answering Machine Remote
Date: 18 Jul 90 16:16:33 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


I have a Panasonic Answering Machine, KX-T1460, with the feature that
you can call from a touch tone phone, and after punching a two digit
code, read your messages, erase, re-record, etc.

My problem is that a two digit code does not really feel secure, and
it's no protection against even a casual snooper. I don't think the
machine even hangs up after an unsuccessful code, so how long does it
take to break in ...

I called Panasonic, and after some minutes of being put on hold, and
being passed from hand to hand, I was told that all current Panasonic
machines have the remote access feature, none of them can be disabled,
and all except one (a few ?) use two digit passwords. (They have some
units with three digit passwords).  The only way to disable the
feature is to pay $40 to an authorized service center to open the
machine and rip it out.

So ... does anyone know a simple way to hack up a Panasonic 1460 to
kill the remote access feature ? A photocopy of a schematic or pcb
layout with a "cut this wire" would be most appreciated. A cleaner
solution is to have some way of conditionally disabling the feature,
or having a longer password, but that's probably asking too much ...

Thanks,

Jon Sreekanth

US Mail : J Sreekanth, 79 Apsley Street, Apt #7, Hudson, MA 01749
          Digital Equipment Corp., 77 Reed Road, HLO2-1/J12, Hudson, MA 01749
email   : [e-mail]
Voice   : 508-562-3358 eves, 508-568-7195 work

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

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 13:45 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Police Raise New Objection to Caller ID
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


Sub-title: Barbarians of the Phone Multiply in Florida

While it's never as glamorous as "Miami Vice," there's no doubt that
chasing drug dealers involves a lot fo telephone use for law
enforcement in Florida. The following AP story, as printed in the
{Tampa (FL) TRIBUNE} for 7/15/90, reveals its impact on Florida's
Caller ID acceptance:

                 STATE PLANS HEARINGS ON 'CALLER ID'

      LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS SAY THE SERVICE COULD ENDANGER
          UNDERCOVER WORK AND THREATEN THE LIVES OF AGENTS,
                  PARTICULARLY IN DRUG TRAFFICKING


By Curt Anderson, Associated Press

        TALLAHASSEE -- State utility regulators Tuesday (7/17) ordered
formal hearings into telephone 'caller ID' services after law
enforcement officials said easy access tothe number of those calling
will jeoparadize undercover operations.

        The decision by the Public Service Commission means yet
another delay in the 8-month-old proposal by Florida's largest
utility, Southern Bell, to offer a service oroginally intended to
deter crank and obscene callers.  Other companies are awaiting the
outcome of the Southern Bell case.

        PSC Chairman Michael Wilson daid the panel needs a chance to
take sworn testimony and separate fiction from fact.  A hearing will
be held in the next several weeks in Tallahassee, to be followed by
other hearings around the state.

        "We need to take a look at how this is going to be
structured," he said.  "We're going to try to get the emotion out of
this and get to the facts."

        Southern Bell wants to offer Caller ID to its 4.5-million
customers in Florida at a cost of $80 for the unit to display incoming
numbers and $7.50 amonth after that.  At present, caller ID is
available in severn other states.

        The company contends that Caller ID cuts obscene and
fraudulent telephone calls and that most customers believe they have a
right to know who is on the other end of the line, said (Southern
Bell) spokesman Spero Canton.

        But Tuesday, representatives of the FBI, the federal Drug
Enforcement Adminstration,federal and state prosecutors, the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement and others insisted that caller ID would
endanger undercover work and threaten the lives of agents, particularly
in high-stakes drug trafficking.

        Southern Bell and a task force of law enforcement agencies met
several times over the past months but were unable to resolve an
impasse over how to protect the undercover work.

        According to a PSC staff analysis of the case, Southern Bell
offered to allow police to mask the source of calls by using false
numbers, by making single phone lines appear to come from various
parts of town and by blocking a number from coming up on a suspect's
caller ID machine.

        Those offers were rejected.  Law enforcement officials are
holding out for unlimited ability of all Southern Bell customers to
block out numbers, which company officials contend would render the
service meaningless.

        Another issue is how Florida's strict privacy amendment would
apply to Caller ID, particularly in light of a recent state Supreme
Court ruling that people have a right to know who is getting
information about them over the telephone.

 .-*.-*.-*.-*.-*

So there we have the Florida twist.  Surprising that despite
California's drug enforcement burden, the police (and not even the
Feds there) didn't raise their issue.  Also, PacBell didn't seem to
object to general blockability, as does Southern Bell.

  Then, there's Florida's own unique privacy law mentioned at the end
of the piece.  A lot of that seems to stem from what is becoming
multiple daily occurrences of unidentified, coarse people who start
off a phone conversation with a series of demanding questions.  It is
becoming impossible to be a courteous person when you answer the phone
here in the "Sunshine State."  Barbarians of the Phone won't let you
be that way!

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

From: dwight lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Update (Pennsylvania)
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: 17 Jul 90 07:26:09 GMT


In a 17 July 1990 edition of Neil Chayet's "Looking at the Law" radio
feature which I heard on WBBM-AM (780) Chicago IL, Caller-ID in
Pennsylvania was discussed.

Apparently Caller-ID has been deemed illegal in PA since it violates a
state law against wiretap devices (unless court-ordered).  It was also
deemed an invasion of privacy.  The telco argued that Caller-ID lets
the called party protect privacy, but the court (state supreme, if I
recall correctly) rules that the caller's right to privacy (ie,
unlisted telephone numbers, etc) must be taken into consideration as
well.

I wonder if this will set a precedent for other states.  Unfortunately
my net access has been rather sporadic so I've not been able to keep
track of this area.


Dwight A Lee / 416 Annie Glidden Rd #B6 / DeKalb IL 60115 / 815-758-1389
[e-mail] / I speak only for myself.

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

From: "R. Steve Walker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Interference on Line
Date: 17 Jul 90 11:38:36 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


What is the best method of eliminating radio interference on a
telephone line?  The cord from the phone to the wall jack is 25 feet
long.

Thanks!

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 09:49:05 EDT
From: Mohsen Gamshad <[e-mail]>
Subject: German Telecom
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Anyone,

Can some one give some information on the West German telecom network.
Specifically, information on customer loop specs, etc; e.g. can I take
a phone set made for the U.S. market and use it in West Germany.


Thanks,

Mohsen

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Prefix Lists (NXX) for USA
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 90 23:01:10 EDT


Thanx for all the requests for lists so far ... it will take a bit of
time to respond to some of the requests, but hopefully people should
start to receive their lists in a few days ... that is, for those who
ordered only a few.

At this point, it will be unwieldy to send along the entire set at
once.  Meanwhile, this site (contact.uucp) doesn't have the space at
present to hold the entire list until they can get a larger hard drive
on line. That could take some time. Those in the Toronto area with
modem equipment could get in touch with me ([e-mail]) for BBS
systems that carry the lists (CRS, Room 222, etc).

Is there a site that could come forward with an offer to house the
entire list for ftp/internet/mail access? If so, perhaps requests for
entire sets could be handled there.

A note about the lists ... they contain just the NXX code and a place
name abbreviated to ten characters. Some places may require a good
guess as to what they could be.

Meanwhile, for those wanting Canadian or Caribbean prefix/nxx codes,
they should already be available in the Telecom Digest Archives in a
better form than the lists I have for USA points (ie. more detail,
list of complete names).


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

Subject: Liquids and Telephone Apparatus
Date: 18 Jul 90 23:49:07 EDT (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> I'd been there all of five minutes, I guess, when the board got real
> busy for a couple minutes, and sure enough, my arm accidently knocked
> over that Pepsi and sent it dribbling down inside the ringing keys on
> the front panel. The board started buzzing, and lit up like a
> Christmas tree, various lights blinking off and on, etc.

    This is a fairly common problem, and many a PBX position has
suffered this affliction.

    A particularly serious case which comes to mind occurred in
the late 1970's, and was related to me by a friend who worked as an
PBX installer-repairman for N.Y. Telephone.

    To meet the pressures of interconnect competition, New York
Telephone offered some NEC wire-spring relay/crossbar PABX's during
the mid-1970's.  In particular, a NEC NA4-09 was installed at a
medium-sized local hospital.  There was only one console position.
One evening on a weekend, no less, the operator spilled a chocolate
milkshake all over the console.  Needless to say, it ceased to
function properly.  Both New York Telephone and the hospital were in a
panic because the telephone company had no spare NA4-09 consoles
*anywhere* in the state.  The installer-repairman spent several hours
laboriously cleaning switch contacts until some semblance of operation
was attained.  The console was then replaced a few days later.  What
made the situation even worse, was that the UNA (Universal Night
Answer) function was inoperative (after all, they never used it and
never knew that the pair to the night bell was broken), and that had
to be repaired first in order that *any* call could be answered while
the position was down.  Not a great situation for a hospital!  I think
a few people learned some hard lessons after that one.

    Having examined telephone equipment that has suffered water
damage, the worst problem I have seen is electrolytic corrosion which
*immediately* starts once a conductive path is created across a
contact switching 48 volts DC.  Merely removing the water using, say,
a hair dryer is not enough.  The contacts then have to be cleaned of
corrosion using a burnishing tool - IF the corrosion has not
progressed too far.


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


[Moderator's Note: And I'd venture to say the guys who did the
repairs were very dedicated and talented. The whole job was probably
the top priority for them for several days. An aquaintence of mine,
long since retired from Illinois Bell, did emergency switchboard
repairs for hospitals, police/fire units, etc. In April, 1968, during
the riots here which followed the assasination of Martin King, he was
right in the middle of the riot zone one night drying out/replacing
cables damaged from a broken water pipe at Bethany Brethren Hospital.
Those old timers at Bell in the '60s and '70s were very good.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #497
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06431;
          19 Jul 90 5:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17380;
          19 Jul 90 3:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05508;
          19 Jul 90 2:28 CDT
Date:     Thu, 19 Jul 90 1:35:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #498
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Jul 90 01:35:17 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 498

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Nicad "Memory" [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates [Jon Baker]
    Email VoiceMail Phone [Steve Blair via Peter M. Weiss]
    PollenTrak [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Tracing Calls Back to College Dorm Phones [[e-mail]]
    ANI From a Cellular Phone [Steve Forrette]
    Calling Cellular Prefix from GTE Coin Phone [Edward Greenberg]
    Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down [Christine Paustis]
    Re: The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses" [Kevin Mitchell]
    Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 06:19:24 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nicad "Memory"
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| Can someone recap the discussion of "memory" in nicad batteries?  I'm
| having a problem with my HT5300 AT&T cordless phone.  I had it
| unplugged for about two months, and like a dummy didn't disconnect the
| battery in the handset.  So, I assume that it was on standby (since it
| was off the base for awhile), and totally discharged the battery.

This is not the "memory effect" (which is something completely
different), but a case of your causing a "cell reversal". When you
completely discharge a multi-cell NiCd battery, *some* cell is going
to go all the way to zero volts first, and then as the other cells
continue discharging they're going to back-bias the one that zeroed
first, and start charging it "the wrong way".

| This is bad news, right?

Yup! The reverse current causes chemical changes in the cell which can
permanently damage it. Among other things, rumor has it that
conductive "whiskers" grow across the cell. There is urban legend to
the effect that you can cure a back-biased NiCd cell by zapping it
with a very strong (but brief!) forward charging current (as from a
large capacitor), supposedly to "blow the whiskers", but as I said, I
consider this in the urban legend category.

| It's been charging for over two days, and
| reads only 2.65 volts.  The battery is rated at 3.6V, 720mAh.  When I
| take the handset off the base, the LO BATTERY light comes on, and none
| of the keys do anything.  Any thoughts?

I think you need a new battery.  Sorry.


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: Jon Baker <noao!xroads![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates
Date: 17 Jul 90 04:48:59 GMT
Organization: Crossroads, Phoenix, Az


Brendan,

The first question regards the exhorbitant 'hook-up' fee.  Although
establishing service may involve only a few data-entry operators, the
cost to lay wire to your residence is factored in there also.  Even if
it's an existing residence, they need to average the cost out over all
new customers to avoid socking new home owners with a multi-hundred $
bill.  Of course, there's an easier explanation - you WILL pay it,
won't you?

The second question is about maintaining the same phone #.  I'm
surprised they even offered the service.  In the past, US West has not
offered this luxury.  To answer the question, you are most likely
moving from one CO to another CO.  To maintain the same prefix, they
have to lay copper from the old CO to your new residence, or set up an
FX line to the old CO.  Both will cost you $$$ for set-up, and higher
monthly charges (for the extra maintenance).

Lastly, why can you call CA for less than your brudder across the
street... ?  Undoubtedly, the vagaries of supply and demand.


\  /  C r o s s r o a d s  C o m m u n i c a t i o n s
 /\   [phone] 300-2400,9600 PEP Baud 24 hrs/day
/  \  hplabs!hp-sdd!crash!xroads!bakerj

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 17 Jul 1990 08:20:16 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Email VoiceMail Phone


I am cross-posting this from Usenet Comp.Society as it may interest
C.D.T'ers

Pete

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Steven C.
Blair) says:

There are currently 2 systems that I know of that can crossover
voicemail and email on the market. They are not sold as one, but
work together.

  1) All-In-One with a ROLM phone system: The voicemail sends a short
     mail message to the user <name>. Rudimentary, but functional.
  2) CE Software's Quickmail, and Farralon Voice Terminal: work together
     as one. You can voicemail someone, or have a copy of a voicemail
     appended to an email message.

The time is certainly ripe for some company to come up with something
and get the sucker shipping *now*. But having worked in the areas of
voice synthesis, and computer email strategies, the two are not as
simple as apple pie and ice cream to co-exist in a single system.


Steven C. Blair

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

Subject: PollenTrak
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 07:23:52 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen
> Trak" (with the same announcer on the machine that did "Weather
> Trak").  You call the number and you get a pollen report for your
> area. Based on the ANI data obtained in real time you are given,
> supposedly, the correct report. It gives me a Sacramento area report;
> that's hardly useful since San Jose is somewhat outside Sacramento's
> geographic sphere of influence.

I just had to try it. The recorded voice asked me to punch in my area
code and phone number. (So much for ANI!) Then, it was kind enough to
give _me_ the Sacramento pollen report, too!

It strikes me that Minneapolis is perhaps a bit farther afield than
San Jose, eh, John? I wonder who's programming this beastie?


    Roy M. Silvernail
    now available at:
 cybrspc![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Tracing Calls Back to College Dorm Phones
Date: 17 Jul 90 13:16:59 GMT


So if the phone company tries to trace a call that originated from,
say a college dorm, all they would get if the number to that dorms
switchboard?  I think I have found the source of my annoying calls.


[Moderator's Note: But something you should remember is the trace need
not stop at that point. Either a manual or automatic switchboard at
the dorm can still be traced as well. Once at UC, a telco guy came in
and put a tap on an extension on the campus. Calls in or out through
the main switchboard would trigger the little device on the line, and
tape-record the call. And when the guy put the tap on the line, Mrs.
Henderson saw me watching him and told me to keep my mouth shut and
say nothing about it to the owner of that extension, 'or you will get
in trouble too...'.  I said nothing, and a week or so later the tap
was removed.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 23:15:58 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject:  ANI From a Cellular Phone


If you call an 800 number that delivers the ANI to the customer, what
shows up if you are calling from a cellular phone?  I know it's not
the actual mobile number, but is it at least some (seemingly) random
number on one of the prefixes that your cellular carrier has dedicated
for their use?


[Moderator's Note: I tried it a couple months ago from my cell phone
to my 800 number (on which I get ANI). It reported back some wierd
number, and when I called the Name and Address Service, it came back
listed to 'IBT Company', at an address on the southwest side of town
which also happens to be a central office building with a cellular
antenna on the roof. Dialing the number produced an intercept: "The
number your have dialed, xyz-abcd is not in service for incoming
calls."  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Jul 90 10:15 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Calling Cellular Prefix from GTE Coin Phone


Well, the story is actually about AT&T.

I was in GTE country in Novato, CA, (415-897) and was trying to call a
Cellular One prefix (415-309).  The AT&T operator, who handles GTE
operator service, couldn't (a) get a cost on the call and (b) put the
call through.  Calling from the restaurant phone, also GTE, but not
coin service, the call went through just fine.

         -edg

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 17:13:30 PDT


I very much enjoyed your story.  Thanks for sharing it!


  %   Christine K. Paustian         %   [e-mail]             %
  %   Los Numeros On-Line          %%%  sun!portal!cup.portal.com!ckp  %
  %   PO Box 149                   %%%  1:272/39  FidoNet              %
  %   Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510    %   Where Radio Is Fun Again       %

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Mitchell)
Subject: Re: The Truth About "Cleaning Pulses"
Date: 19 Jul 90 05:09:00 GMT
Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago


Hi, Pat.

You may not remember me, but I used to frequent one of your BBSes. I
got interested in this telecom stuff mostly due to an insatiable
curiosity. My Uncle works for IBT, and my new boss at work used to run
the phone systems at NU (do you know Phil Atwood?). Anyway, I think
they do automatic line testing but he said it's only done on unused
lines.  At least I'm pretty sure; it was a while back.


Kevin A. Mitchell                [phone]
Datalogics, Inc                  Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron                     UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam
Chicago, IL  60610               FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: You were a regular on {Lakeshore Modem Magazine}
when I was operating it back in 1984-85. Sorry, I don't know Mr.
Atwood. All I know is what happens every morning at 1:37 AM. :)   PT]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 0:44:17 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation


Several of you wrote to correct one important flaw in my op-ed the
other day about Kapor, Lotus, lawsuits et al.

Your response was that Kapor has not been affiliated with Lotus for a
period of time, except as a stockholder, and that he has stated in the
recent past that he did not agree with the legal actions Lotus was
taking against people alleged to have ripped off 1-2-3. Apparently
Kapor has no authority over anything they do there.

Therefore my complaint of his hypocrisy was in error.  At least a
couple dozen messages pointed this out, and said nothing further, so I
won't print them, since they all say virtually what I stated above,
and it would be unfair to arbitrarily pick some and skip others.

There were however a few messages with additional commentary on the
work of the EFF and these will be excerpted and printed in an issue of
the Digest on Thursday evening.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #498
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25973;
          19 Jul 90 23:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27015;
          19 Jul 90 21:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11400;
          19 Jul 90 20:37 CDT
Date:     Thu, 19 Jul 90 20:26:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #499
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Jul 90 20:25:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 499

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Directory Assistance Outage in Philadelphia [Carl Moore]
    Re: E911 Experience [Tad Cook]
    Re: E911 Experience [Ihor J. Kinal]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Paul Wilczynski]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Kenny Crudup]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Chris Johnson]
    Re: Answer Supervision on International Calls [John Higdon]
    Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down [Keith Henson]
    Re: Caller-ID Update (Pennsylvania) [David J. Birnbaum]
    Re: Help with Rotored Lines/ Rack Mounted Modems [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz [John Higdon]
    Re: Radio Shack CT-102 [Doug Faunt]
    Re: Nicad "Memory" [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Special Issue: Electronic Frontier Foundation [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 19:05:29 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Directory Assistance Outage in Philadelphia


On KYW news-radio this morning (1060 AM, in Philadelphia, Pa.)  came
word that due to a power outage around 4:30 this morning (Eastern
time), directory assistance for Phila., other parts of (southeastern?)
Pa., and Delaware (how much?) was out except for emergency requests
which were done manually.  The reason: the computer which provides the
data was down.

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Date: 19 Jul 90 17:32:36 GMT
Organization: very little


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chris
Johnson) writes:

> I dialed 911 and said, "There's a knife fight going on in the Nicollet
> Island Park."

> The operator replied, "what's the address there?"  This was my first
> clue that either the operator was daft, or she was not getting any
> automatic information on my location.

This is standard.  They always try to verify what they see on their
ALI display.

> Me: "I'm in the Nicollet Island Park shelter building, the fight is
> about 50 yards away in the ampitheatre."

> Op: "Did you say they had knives?"

> Me: "Yes, one of them has a knife."

At this point you are getting panicky, and they are probably already
rolling a squad car ... at the same time they need more info to
determine if an aid car is needed and how much response to give.

> Op: "Did you see the knife?"

> Me: "No, another person here told me he saw one."  [meanwhile, fighter
> A is cutting away pieces of fighter B, bit by bit]

> Op:  "So you didn't see a knife..."

> Me:  [exasperated]  "No, but these guys are drunk or brain damaged.  They are
> way out of it.  They are scaring the people here..."

> Op:  "Let me talk to the person who saw the knife."

At this point you are going crazy, thinking that these jerks are
putting you through the 3rd degree before they will do ANYTHING, but
the fact is that they are probably already responding.

Also, what seems like a LONG TIME when you are panicked is actually a
few seconds.

> We ended up with four police squads, a rescue truck, an ambulance and
> two park police (where were they earlier, anyway?).

Sounds like an appropriate response.

> Still later, I found out a third person had also called 911.  I guess
> once they got three different calls about the same problem from three
> different phones they managed to figure out I wasn't kidding when I
> first called.

They probably responded to the first call.  The trick is to get the
caller to calm down and give good information while sending a
response, and do it in such a way as to not piss off or panic the
caller.  Without the info, they don't know whether to send two
officers, ten officers, an aid car, fire engine, bomb sqaud, etc.

911 in a metro area can be a real juggling act, figuring out quickly
how to allocate limited resources.

> Is this how E911 is supposed to work?

Yes!

> And why didn't they know my location right away?

They probably did, but procedure told them to verify it.


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]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 10:47:19 EDT
From: Ihor J Kinal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ralph Sims)
writes:

> 911 (especially E911) works!  The system is in place in virtually all
> of the continental U.S. and is accessed by millions of people a year.

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem available in New Jersey, which
otherwise is fairly well served in the telecom area.

Although I've heard rumors of it going in, and don't know of any hard
dates.

# include <standard_disclaimer>


Ihor Kinal
att!cbnewsh!ijk

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 04:20 EST
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI


John R. Levine <[e-mail]> writes ...

> Oh, well.  I thought that 800 ANI delivery was only implemented
> for extremely high volume Megacom applications, which this is probably
> not.

I have an AT&T ReadyLine 800 number ($20/month plus cost of the calls)
and I get the phone numbers of most of the people who call my 800
number.


Paul Wilczynski

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

From: Kenny Crudup LID-A0794 <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Reply-To: Kenny Crudup LID-A0794 <lotus![e-mail]>
Organization: Lotus Development Corp.
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 15:33:12 GMT


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

>When I called, it asked me to dial my number, so I gave them the
>number of the time-of-day lady in Boston (which happens to be a normal
>phone number, not a 976) and they give me the pollen count for New
>York.  Oh, well.

I tried it from my phone at work (behind a ROLM digital PBX) and it
too asked me for my number. Now the reason I'm putting in my two cents
is 'cause I got the report for Boston OK, but Lotus has just switched
to the old 693- exchange, which used to be Martha's Vineyard before
the 617/508 area code division (It's aggrivating, as my extension,
617-693-4111, used to be MV information, and anyone with an outdated
book will call this number (I should know, I keep a tally sheet and
have 41 calls since 6/25)). I am surprised that John Levine should
have gotten NYC info, as the 637-xxxx time number has been around for
a while, but Lotus has just started using (617)-693 in the last 6
weeks.


Kenneth R. Crudup, Lotus Development Corp. Contractor, NASD/QA system V
1 Rogers Street 6381D, Cambridge, MA 02142. [phone].
Work: [e-mail], Home: nubian![e-mail]

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 17:19:42 GMT


I tried the PollenTrak number too, hoping to be amazed by their ANI
knowing where I was, but of course, was requested to enter my number.
I did so, and it gave me the pollen count for St. Paul, which is
logically the closest large city (about 2-3 miles away).  I guess it
all depends on where you are geographically with respect to a news or
weather agency that reports pollen counts.


   ...Chris Johnson          [e-mail]   ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris
 Com Squared Systems, Inc.   St. Paul, MN USA   [phone]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on International Calls
Date: 19 Jul 90 02:18:24 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David E. A. Wilson <[e-mail]> writes:

> Do international calls have answer supervision? Does it depend on
> which telco is responsible for the subscriber in the USA?

Yes, of course international calls have supervision. With money like
that at stake, do you think they would "guess" whether to charge or
not?:-) Seriously, however, I can tell you for an absolute fact that
international calls (including those to Australia) supervise quite
reliably.

It may be that your local situation is not handling the supervision
properly for billing purposes. The local telco is getting the answer
indication back from the US; you should ask them why the problem with
your bills.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 20:35:53 PDT


Re the stories of beverages in the switchboard, I am reminded of a
time '79-'84 when I tried to run a walkin, rent 'em by the hour
microcomputer storefront.  Since most of the use was recreational, it
was hard to ban beverages -- not to mention the money we took in from
the coke machine!  Our response was to keep a gallon of distilled
water on hand, and on the infrequent times someone spilled a drink
into a keyboard, we rinsed them off.  Never lost a keyboard, those old
Apple IIs were tough!


Keith Henson

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

From: "David J. Birnbaum" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Update (Pennsylvania)
Date: 19 Jul 90 12:39:08 GMT
Reply-To: "David J. Birnbaum" <wjh12![e-mail]>
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dwight lee)
writes:

>Apparently Caller-ID has been deemed illegal in PA since it violates a
>state law against wiretap devices (unless court-ordered).  It was also
>deemed an invasion of privacy.  The telco argued that Caller-ID lets
>the called party protect privacy, but the court (state supreme, if I
>recall correctly) rules that the caller's right to privacy (ie,
>unlisted telephone numbers, etc) must be taken into consideration as
>well.

>I wonder if this will set a precedent for other states.

According to an article in Pittsburgh Magazine last year (about sales
of "spy" equipment for home use), Pennsylvania is unusual in its laws
about recording telephone conversations.  Apparently many states allow
you to record telephone conversations with the consent of one of the
parties, but Pennsylvania requires the consent of both.  Thus, it is
illegal to tap your own phone to record your own conversations.

FWIW, is there really any technical problem with protecting unlisted
numbers from caller ID?


David J. Birnbaum         [e-mail] [Internet]
                          [e-mail]   [Bitnet]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help with Rotored Lines/ Rack Mounted Modems
Date: 19 Jul 90 01:41:22 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Julian Macassey <[e-mail]> writes:

> Anyhow a good administarator of telco gear should check all trunks and
> associated equipment on a regular basis. This is a task an operator
> can do first thing in the morning. It is also handy to check 800
> numbers on thge local loops as well, they do die sometimes.

I'll second that. Even here at home, where I have five modems working
various trunks, in and out through the PBX, a weekly check is
performed. From a phone, I dial the extension number of each modem and
check for answer, and then using one of the electronic phones, punch
up each CO line that is involved with modem use and check for dial
tone.

This may seem silly, but this routine check solved a problem that had
gone unnoticed. One of my uucp neighbors calls on my 1200 bps modem at
night because they run out of Telebits due to heavy traffic. As a
courtesy, they don't tie up Telebits with a "slow" call. Somehow, I
had kicked the modular cord out of the modem, and it went out of
service.  All week, I noticed that my mailing list subscriptions were
coming in late but passed it off as just "net aberations". When I did
my weekly check, the 1200 bps modem failed to respond and the problem
was readily corrected. Suddenly, my Telecom Digests started arriving
on time once again.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz
Date: 19 Jul 90 02:01:13 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Kenny Crudup LID-A0794 <lotus![e-mail]> writes:

> Don't worry. Beat you to it. What *I* need are frequencies....

The complete description of SIT (Special Information Tones) including
frequencies, cadence, and tone duration, with listings concerning the
different "call failure" categories, is available from:

* Bellcore

* The Public Library

* Your local LEC (DID customers are required to have them for vacant
  lines)

* Your state PUC

* Half the readers of the Digest

In short, possession of this information is not a Federal crime. I'd
post is all here, but someone borrowed my big yellow Bellcore book and
didn't return it. (Or did the person I was borrowing it from take it
back? I can't remember.)

Call Pac*Bell and ask for their IXC information package. I did. It is
highly informative.


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


[Moderator's Note: But one thing puzzles me: What's to prevent anyone
or everyone from answering *all* their phone calls that way? In other
words, when you go off hook to answer a call, 'da da dee', then begin
your conversation. What prevents anyone from playing games like this
to provide the essence of a 'toll-free' number to callers?   PT]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 10:27:23 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-102


Thanks for the information.  I went into a Radio Shack last night to
buy one, but they didn't have one, so they cheerfully gave me a "rain
check" that gives me the right to buy one for the $299. through the
middle of September.  Also, one of the salespeople said that $299. for
that one, and $499. for the hand-held were going to be the new regular
price "soon".

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nicad "Memory"
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 16:38:59 GMT


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

>...There is urban legend to
>the effect that you can cure a back-biased NiCd cell by zapping it
>with a very strong (but brief!) forward charging current (as from a
>large capacitor), supposedly to "blow the whiskers", but as I said, I
>consider this in the urban legend category.

Not an urban legend.  *I* have done it several times.  Just use either
the charge from a large capacitor, or (better) a current limited power
supply.  I have a supply I can limit to 3 amps with an 18 volt
maximum.  Attach it to the battery in charging configuration and
slowly turn up the juice.  The current will go up rapidly (into the
shorting whisker) until it fries, then drop back to a more reasonable
value (100 ma or so).  At that point I revert to standard charging
techniques.

I can't tell you about the _ultimate_ service life of a recovered
battery, but it is certainly longer than the remaining life of an
unrecovered cell.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 20:18:06 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: Electronic Frontier Foundation


A follow-up special issue of TELECOM Digest will be distributed late
Thursday evening with a selection of the *many* replies to my comments
the other day.

Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #499
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28034;
          20 Jul 90 1:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04661;
          19 Jul 90 23:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02726;
          19 Jul 90 22:42 CDT
Date:     Thu, 19 Jul 90 21:56:13 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest: Rebuttals to EFF Commentary
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Jul 90 21:53:00 CDT    Rebuttals: EFF Comments

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Roar of the Crowd: Rebuttals to EFF Commentary [Many of You]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 20:28:32 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Roar of the Crowd: Rebuttals to EFF Commentary


Numerous replies were received to my message the other day asking if
it seemed strange that Lotus was suing the pants off of everyone and
anyone who had a product remotely similar to 1-2-3, while at the same
time Mitch Kapor's new organization was defending someone accused of
theft of the documentation connected with 911 software.

The responses pointed out that Kapor was no longer involved in any
management capacity with Lotus, and that he had in fact expressed his
disapproval of Lotus' actions.

Most responses stopped at that point, but some went further, and added
additional commentary. Here are a few:

  From: jt <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Response to Pat Townson's Swipe at the EFF

Pat Townson says:
>I guess as usual I don't know what I'm talking about."

Pat, on this one I agree with you. You don't seem to know what you're
talking about, have read the stuff you print, or keep up on the
issues.  Consider:

1. There is *NO* evidence that I know of to be introduced in the
Neidorf trial that claims he distributed software, and as you should
know, the contents of the documents in question can be found in a
library (see CuD 1.19, 1.20).  If you read Neidorf's indictment, you
will see that he is not charged with stealing software or with using
it in anyway that would subvert its value.

2. Law can abuse as well as protect. Mitch Kapor has been quite
explicit in distancing himself, and the EFF, from predatory behavior.
The EFF, as the founders have publicly repeated, as their documents
indicate, and as their behavior confirms, is focusing on *CIVIL
LIBERTIES* issues that affect us all, even you.  At stake is simply
the legal status of electronic communications and the protections it
will or will not have in the coming decades.  Why do you insist,
despite all evidence to the contrary, to reduce this to a "defending
hackers" issue, and then take cheap shots when he doesn't seem to be
defending people you have criticized in the past?

3. The EFF is *NOT* contributing to Craig Neidorf's defense. It is
funding to an amicus brief filed by New York lawyers on Constitutional
issues.

4. Why is it a contradiction to want to see a mugger who mugs you
prosecuted while simultaneously believing that even muggers have
rights, especially if the means of catching or punishing the mugger
threaten law-abiding citizens as well?

5. The Morris case hardly raises any Constitutional issues.  But, the
fate of Neidorf also may have consequences for the legal fate of Len
Rose, so what's the problem with putting resources where they're most
useful?

6. Neither the EFF, CuD, 2600, or any other group, to my knowledge,
has made folk heros out of any of the current defendants. If you have
evidence to the contrary, produce it. All that I've read quite
specifically focuses in the *ISSUES*! But, even if they did, so what?
Would this change the principles involved? Why do you find it so
necessary to focus on irelevant, inaccurate, and non-germane points?

There are documents, interviews, facts, and other stuff from which one
can obtain information. One would hope that a moderator would use
his/her position to at least inform an opinion with these rather than
take cheap shots from afar and distort reality for the sake of
blind-siding.  The EFF, CuD, and other groups are trying to bridge the
gap and reduce polarization. You, by contrast, seem intent on doing
the opposite.

Jim Thomas


  Subject: Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation
  Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
  From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>

Hey, Pat, chill out a little.  My reading of the EFF announcement says
that the two cases that they are working on have little to do with
theft of anything.  In the Steve Jackson Games case, nobody has been
charged with any crime and as far as I can tell, nobody is likely to
be, but they have had most of their business assets confiscated
without a trial.  In the Craig Neidorf case, there is considerable
evidence that the worst thing he is guilty of is not knowing the right
way to deal with unsolicited stolen property, sort of like somebody
running past you and throwing you a bag of money, with the cops
showing up shortly thereafter.

Also, keep in mind that Mitch Kapor left Lotus and apparently sold
most or all of his stock several years ago, and there is no reason to
think that he has any influence on what Lotus does, nor that he
benefits from any of their actions.

Regards,

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


   Subject: Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation
   From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]> writes:

> It seems Mr. Kapor can be very aggressive when it comes to protecting
> what he believes is his property. Lotus sues quite frequently when they
> are offended, and they seem to be easily offended. I wonder why Mr.
> Kapor does not feel the same way about software which belongs to
> telcos?

I'm not so sure that Mr. Kapor single-handedly made the policy
decisions to litigate against the look-and-feel offenders--in fact all
that I have been able to uncover indicated that he, personally, was
against that course of action. But the major thrust of the EFF is not
to defend the 911 document-lifters, but rather to inform the public
and our government agencies concerning matters technical and to effect
policies that intelligently deal with them.

> If the documentation for 1-2-3 was distributed far and wide
> you know Lotus would be all over your case in a minute ... why should
> the distribution of 911 documentation be different? Why are the people
> alleged to have ripped off 1-2-3 concepts to be held in contempt and
> sued, while those alleged to have distributed 911 stuff are treated as
> folk-heros?  Maybe it has to do with whose money is involved, eh?

To my knowledge, no one was ever threatened with criminal charges,
heavy fines, or jail time for distributing Lotus documentation. On the
other hand, the 911 documentation (which is readily available from
many sources) is threatening to ruin the lives of a number of people.
Those involved with 1-2-3 matters are well acquainted with the issues
involved while those prosecuting the 911 defendants are completely
ignorant. It is time that the police, judges, and especially our
lawmakers learn what is and what is not important when it comes to
technology.

> For next: In the flood of press releases received here last week
> announcing the establishment of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
> and their plans to defend the civil liberties of computerists -- as
> EFF and Kapor define those things -- not a word was said about a legal
> defense for Len Rose.

As I said, the EFF is not a computer ACLU. Defending people against
no-nothing prosecutions may be incidental to what they are trying to
accomplish, but that isn't their prime purpose. Their stated purpose
is public education and the support of litigation *in the public
interest*.

> And while we are on the subject, Robert Morris could
> probably use a good appellate-level attorney about now.

Mr. Morris intended to create a worm. He worked hard on it. It
performed beyond his wildest expectations. IMHO, he got what he
deserved.

> I guess as usual I don't know what I am talking about.

That's a matter of opinion. But my feathers get a little ruffled when
people are attacked for trying to do something that is sorely needed
in this world: educate the public regarding technology. Whatever his
history or motives, I hardly think it is appropriate to kick Mr. Kapor
in the teeth when he works in partnership with Steve Wozniak in
pursuit of a worthy cause. Do you hold the same reservations about
Woz?

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


   From: [e-mail] (Kurt Baumann)
   Subject: Re: Electronic Frontier Foundation
   Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA

Well I can tell that you read what was said.  First at the press
conference several times Mr. Kapor was questioned about the Lotus
suit, and everytime he said that he did not believe that what Lotus
was doing is correct.  It is also a fact that Mr. Kapor is now
involved with a new startup company and not involved in Lotus.  That
happened several years ago.

About the distribution of the 911 docuementation (if that is really
what it is, do you have a copy of it?), this is very similar to the
printing of the Pentagon papers back in the early 70's.  If the
government had come down on the {New York Times} like it did on the
poor person whose BBS contained the 911 document in question (and in
fact this person is the person who blew the whistle on the 911
document and cooperated with the Feds...), what do you think the
response of the public would be?  Consider that confiscating the
computer that contained the document is akin to confiscating the
printing presses of the {New York Times}.  The publisher is not at
fault, but perhaps the original article author is, if he broke laws in
obtaining the documents.  Go read the Pentagon Papers case for further
enlightenment.

Also, no one at the press conference thought that they were
"folk-heros".  The whole reason for the foundation is to protect those
basic rights that we all have, and make sure that those rights extend
to cover computers as well.  These rights are what give you the
ability to say what you feel in forums like this.  The way things are
headed in the future you may not have the right to say on a network
what you just said, after all it might contain something that would
"harm" the government or some large corporation.  The idea is to
educate those who make the laws so that they understand what the
technology can and cannot do.

> For next: In the flood of press releases received here last week
> announcing the establishment of the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
> and their plans to defend the civil liberties of computerists -- as
> EFF and Kapor define those things -- not a word was said about a legal
> defense for Len Rose. You'd think he would be a prime candidate for
> their services. And while we are on the subject, Robert Morris could
> probably use a good appellate-level attorney about now.

First, just a question for all of you out there.  Why do people feel
that it is ok to take away the rights on someone who we/public feels
is wrong?  When those same rights are taken away from someone who
we/public feels is right it is not ok?  If we are to have rights they
need to be applied to EVERYONE, don't they?

Len Rose admitted to breaking the law (read the Unix Today article in
which he was interviewed), and is in a different catagory.  The intent
of the EFF is to protect those who did not break laws, but whose basic
rights have been infringed.  Take for example Steve Jackson of Steve
Jackson Games, whose computers were taken from him because it was
thought that a game he was working on was actually a hacker training
manual.  Of course we all know that we can all hook into our computers
by just plugging them into our brain. Here again his First Amendment
right of free speach was infringed upon, as well as several other
rights that were broken in the SS's zeal to get their guy.  Robert
Morris did not have any of his basic rights taken away, so this case
is not of concern to the EFF.

The search done on this company basically let them take whatever they
felt like taking.  If you tried to get a search warrent that said "I
want to take all of the paperwork in this office" the judge wouldn't
allow it, but they said "I want to take all of the electronic data in
this office" the judge allowed that.  What is different between hard
copy and electronic copy?  Nothing in my mind, you probably feel the
same way, but to someone who doesn't know anything about computers,
how are they to decide?  This is where groups like the EFF come to
bear.  If you educate these people that electronic data is no
different than paper data, then they have a handle on how to react to
the above request.  I would be willing to bet that if the judge had
thought of it as paperwork he would not have allowed such a broad
warrent.  In fact no one knows exactly what was said on the warrant,
all they have said so far is that they were looking for computer/
electronic data.  Also, no arrests or charges have been made in this
case to date.

> I guess as usual I don't know what I am talking about.

You know what you feel, but you haven't really taken a close look at what
is being said.  A closed mind never learns anything new.


InterCon Systems Corporation
703.709.9890
703.709.9896 FAX

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

My thanks to all who wrote, including these folks, who simply noted
that Kapor was no longer with Lotus:

Alan Knight <[e-mail]>
Paul Pomes <[e-mail]>
Dave Platt <[e-mail]>
David Canzi <[e-mail]>
Lang Zerner <[e-mail]>
Walter Smith <[e-mail]>
James Jones <[e-mail]>
Fred R. Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Anthony Garcia <[e-mail]>
Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Tom Betz <[e-mail]>
Others I may have missed!  :(

I'm sure this conversation will continue in CuD, and if you are not
already subscribing, this is a good time to introduce you to the list.
The Computer Underground Digest was started partly because of the
overflow of messages here in telecom relating to the methods employed
in the federal crackdown on computer crime, particularly the 'Sun
Devil' case. To have each issue delivered to your email box, write the
moderators: TK0JUT2.NIU.BITNET.

A final word from Bob Dobbs, founder of the Church of the Sub-Genius:

"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person that
 I'm preaching to"  -- J. R. "Bob" Dobbs


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest: Rebuttals: EFF Commentary
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08418;
          20 Jul 90 12:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07375;
          20 Jul 90 9:52 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30152;
          20 Jul 90 8:47 CDT
Date:     Fri, 20 Jul 90 8:16:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #500
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Jul 90 08:15:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 500

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint in Trouble: 1000 Employees to be Dismissed [TELECOM Moderator]
    Sam Elkas, Quebec's Public Safety Minister [Nigel Allen]
    144 Access Barred on Mercury Phones [Nigel Roberts]
    Two Parents, Ten Kids and Call Waiting [Nigel Allen]
    Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Peter M. Weiss]
    Cellular Telephone as Emergency Service? [Doug Faunt]
    A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Cliff Yamamoto]
    Re: Answer Supervision on a POTS Line (Kind of) [John Boteler]
    Re: PollenTrak [Carl Moore]
    Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz [John Hidgon]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Jim Budler]
    Re: PollenTrak [Daniel M. Rosenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 23:59:40 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint in Trouble: 1000 Employees to be Dismissed


US Sprint announced Tuesday it plans to cut 1000 workers, or about
five percent of its work force, after its parent company reported
sharp losses at the number three long distance company in the United
States.

United Telecommunications, which owns 80.1 percent of Sprint, reported
a 55 percent drop in second quarter earnings because of continued,
difficult to control losses at the company.

Sprint said the job cuts would begin soon, and continue through the
end of the year, as part of an overall restructuring of the long
distance carrier. Most locations of the company will be involved in
the cutbacks, with the possible exception of the sales and marketing
staff, which might be slightly increased in size.

United Telecommunications had been planning to buy the 19.9 percent of
Sprint it does not already own ... but a corporate spokesperson said
Tuesday this was being put on hold indefinitly, due to Sprint's $42
million loss during the period April 1 through June 30, 1990.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Sam Elkas, Quebec's public safety minister
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 17:54:02 EDT


If you have been following the dispute between Mohawks and the Quebec
provincial police, you may be interested to know that Sam Elkas,
Quebec's Minister of Public Security (i.e. police and prisons) and
transport, was director of Bell Canada's coin phone operation before
he became a full-time politician. He also used to be mayor of a suburb
of Montreal.

As public security minister, he is politically responsible for the
Surete du Quebec (to give the provincial police force its correct
name), but the police raid on the Mohawk reservation was apparently
initiated without consultation with Elkas.

In any event, can anyone come up with any other telephone company
management personnel who became politicians?

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 17:59:40 PDT
From: Nigel Roberts 0860 578600  <[e-mail]>
Subject: 144 Access Barred on Mercury Phones


I had my first chance to play with a Mercury payphone recently, as
there are a couple installed in the Travelodge in Basingstoke where
I'm staying at the moment.

Couple of observations -- the phones themselves only accept
Mercurycards (pre-payment cards), or major credit cards (all
MC/VISA/AMEX/DC).  They do not take cash at all.

Credit card calls cost a minimum of 50p. One gotcha is that the
follow-on call button has no effect save that of eliminating the need
to swipe the card again -- you will still be charged a (second) 50p
minimum fee.

100 (operator), 192 (directory) etc. etc. all work quite happily.
(You get Mercury operators, of course, not BT ones).

But if you dial 144 (the access code for non-operator calls using
Chargecard) you get "BARRED CALL" on the phone's display.

Equal access? Forget it.


Nigel Roberts

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Parents, Ten Kids and Call Waiting
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 90 09:30:56 GMT


(from Playback Strategy, July 16, 1990)

Alberta Government Telephones is using a family of twelve to promote
call waiting - one of the special features in its custom services
package.

Dennis and Charleen Oberg with their ten children - age two through
seventeen - appear in double-page magazine ads under the headline "Two
Parents, Ten Kids and Call Waiting".

Nick Drinkwater, account manager at Baker Lovick Advertising in
Calgary, the agency responsible for the ad, says the concept of using
a large family to promote the benefits of call waiting was ideal.

However, taking the ad from initial inspiration to final form was no
easy task.

In fact, a province-wide search was needed to turn up a family that
fulfilled the concept's two main conditions: there had to be eight or
more children in the family and the household had to have call
waiting.

The ad, which will run until October in a variety of Alberta
magazines, is part of AGT's 1990 integrated advertising campaign,
themed "AGT - We bring the world to you."

The Baker Lovick campaign also includes various other print ads and
radio and TV spots.

[Note from NDA: It's interesting that AGT and its ad agency were
sufficiently honest to find a family that already had call waiting,
rather than hiring a bunch of models for the ad.  Regular readers of
comp.dcom.telecom will know that AGT is the main telephone company in
the province of Alberta, Canada. It is owned by the Alberta
government, which would like to sell the company.]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 19 Jul 1990 07:48:13 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room


Please relate your experiences in using either cellular or cordless
phones in a computer room, especially as it relates to any EMI that
affected the operation of a computing or electronic media device.


Pete Weiss, pmw1@psuvm or @vm.psu.edu
Penn State U

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 14:27:23 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Telephone as Emergency Service?


Do cellular nodes have emergency power?  If so, for how long?
Obviously some are at CO's and will be up for a long time, but what
about my neighborhood site?  Any "standard" answers?

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

From: Cliff Yamamoto <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Date: 19 Jul 90 20:54:43 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Greetings!

I've been reading this group lately and though I may be out of my
league with many of those who read here, I hope this is not a silly
question.

I recently got a cellular phone and have some questions.  This may be
a rumor, but I've heard that *all* cellular phones have the capability
to have their microphones/xmitters activated by the switching office?
Is this true?  Does that mean if I leave the power on, they can
actually "bug" the area my phone is left in?  Are there any other
"unusual" functions that can be performed on my phone w/o me knowing?

Secondly, I haven't had any dropped calls yet, but can anyone explain
the heuristic used for the following: say you are leaving a cell and
the cell you are approaching is completely tied up.  Will the cell you
are leaving boost your xmitter power and keep you on as long as
possible, or will it drop you?  I would hope it would keep you going
on a marginal transmission until you can gracefully kill your call or
until the tied up cell becomes freed.

I hope someone out there can enlighten me on these questions.  If
there is *A* reference book out there (like some sort of IEEE or ANSI
publication) about cellular phone, please let me know.


Thanks,

Cliff Yamamoto

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

From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on a POTS Line (Kind of)
Organization: Common Sense Computing, McLean, VA.
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 03:18:44 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Steve Forrette):

> If you have three-way calling, you can determine when the call
> supervises.  This is a result of a flash not breaking to a second dial
> tone until the call supervises...At least this is what happens on the
> 1AESS I'm on.
> A couple of questions for you experts:  Does this only happen on a 1AESS?
> Which other switches?

As you succinctly pointed out, this is what happens on your 1A, but
not on mine. Don't ask about #5s around here.

I rather fancy this, as a matter of fact; each switch has its own
personality :) Too bad for us when we build circuits and install
equipment depending on predictable behavior.

Postscript: On 1A Centrex around here (D.C.), answer supervision was
provided in the form of loop-interrupt. If you really, really needed
to have this information provided you, just order Centrex (and hope
they get the features right!)


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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 9:49:55 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PollenTrak


I called the PollenTrak number myself, and when I made a wrong entry
of the phone number, it said it didn't have information available
about the ZIPCODE area I selected?

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz
Date: 19 Jul 90 22:54:37 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Jul 19 at 20:26, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: But one thing puzzles me: What's to prevent anyone
> or everyone from answering *all* their phone calls that way? In other
> words, when you go off hook to answer a call, 'da da dee', then begin
> your conversation. What prevents anyone from playing games like this
> to provide the essence of a 'toll-free' number to callers?   PT]

There is nothing to prevent you from doing this, but why bother?
Except for COCOTs, I'm unaware of any equipment or carriers that use
the SIT for billing determination. Remember, SIT is for telco and
carrier trouble auditing purposes. COCOTs use of it for detection of
"non-answer supervision" is a hack. If you want to put SIT on your
answering machine (as a friend of mine has), the only people who might
save money would be COCOT users. Real answer supervision is either DC
reversal or out-of-band signaling. You can't mess with that.

Also, all this talk about frequencies, etc., is so unnecessary. If you
want to generate SIT, just record some off the phone. The frequencies
aren't critical and it doesn't even matter if there is a little flutter
thrown in for good measure. Enjoy!


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

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 05:59:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Blake
Farenthold) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 496, Message 5 of 10

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

>Called the Benadryl Pollen Count number myself, from the PBX at work

Me, too. Aren't we curious people 8^).

>me the HOUSTON pollen Count.  Houston (713-Almost Anything) is 5 hours
>by car and 46 minutes by 737 away.  Guess its the closest place they
>have a count from.

Earlier in this thread someone entered from 408 called and got a
report from Sacramento, 100 miles away. When I called I got a report
from Berkeley for "The Bay Area".

Maybe they don't have their network fully functional yet? Why don't we
try this all again in a week?


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6061
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PollenTrak
Date: 19 Jul 90 17:34:39 GMT
Organization: World Otherness Ministries


In <[e-mail]> cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
writes:

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

>> An OTC pharmacutical company is sponsoring something called "Pollen
>> Trak" [ uses ANI, etc. ] ... It gives me a Sacramento area report;
>> that's hardly useful since San Jose is somewhat outside Sacramento's
>> geographic sphere of influence.

>I just had to try it. The recorded voice asked me to punch in my area
>code and phone number. (So much for ANI!) Then, it was kind enough to
>give _me_ the Sacramento pollen report, too!

And so I did the same thing, and gave it my "phone number" at work --
really the number to an auto attendant. And the Pollen Trak thing
balked and said "Not available."

So, I called back and gave it the number of the {San Francisco
Chronicle's} Classified Ads department (same area code, different
exchange). And got the SF Bay Pollen Report fine.

And then I gave it the number of the inbound modem pool at AT&T Bell
Labs in Murray Hill, NJ,(with the old 201 area code) and correctly got
the pollen report for the Newark area of New Jersey, same woman's
voice.

Strangely enough, the pollen report seemed (except for place name)
identical in San Francisco and Newark ("bad but not so bad -- buy some
Benadryl").


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #500
******************************