Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss501-550

Text File | 1990-08-08 | 863KB | 21,177 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24356;
          21 Jul 90 2:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03522;
          21 Jul 90 1:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25581;
          20 Jul 90 23:57 CDT
Date:     Fri, 20 Jul 90 23:07:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #501
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Jul 90 23:06:51 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 501

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Pseudo PBX For the Home? [Martin Ewing]
    PC Card Satellite Receiver/Data Demodulator [Maurice R. Baker]
    Switching Device With Different Rings [David Dodell]
    COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc [Monty Solomon]
    Moderator's 800 Service [Jack Powers]
    Intelligent Network [Ken Donow]
    California PUC Sets Guidelines For COPTs [Steve Rhoades]
    Terradine Fortel System [[e-mail]]
    Caller ID Illegal in NC, Says NC AG [Henry E. Schaffer]
    Cellular Standby Power [Matt Carpenter]
    38.4kbps Async Limited Distance Modems [Jean-Francois Lamy]
    E911 Service: Data From the Horse's Mouth [Clayton Cramer]
    DJs and Telephone Humor [Matt Simpson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Martin Ewing <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pseudo PBX For the Home?
Date: 20 Jul 90 21:22:43 GMT
Reply-To: Martin Ewing <[e-mail]>
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT


In our new house we have expanded to quite a number of phone devices,
about six, using two lines.  As you might expect, the ringing voltage
is down.  We also don't get full value out of the second line, since
we have only one-line phones except at our Macintosh.  So much for
introduction, now the question:

Is there such a thing as a box that takes two normal residential lines
in on one side and six extensions in to the other side?  (All our
extensions are radially connected to a central phone block.)  The box
would function as a wannabee PBX, giving dialtone, handling intercom
calls, and dealing with incoming and outgoing calls.  (I assume a REAL
PBX with trunk lines to SNET would be expensive if possible at all.)

I have not seen such a home "PBX" advertised in consumer channels, but
I think it may exist.  The technology ought to permit it at a
reasonable price.

Thanks for any leads.


Martin Ewing, Yale University, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There are indeed some 'home PBX' units available.
Mitel is one example which comes to mind. The Melco 212 is another,
with its provision for two CO lines and twelve extensions. I think
Melco is over around Seattle somewhere. Of course, you might also
consider centrex, or Intellidial, or whatever it is called there.  PT]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 13:52:24 EDT
From: Maurice R Baker <[e-mail]>
Subject: PC Card Satellite Receiver/Data Demodulator
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Hi ---

This question falls in the "I saw an ad for it once when I didn't need
it, and now that I need it....." category:

    Could anyone out there direct me towards a company (or
    companies) which make a "PC" (ISA bus, for the purists)
    plug-in card that accepts L-band (950-1450 MHz.) from a
    standard satellite dish LNB and demodulates serial data from
    one of the received signals?

    I'm not sure if it used audio subcarriers or vertical
    blanking interval, and other details.  I guess some manufacturer's
    names and addresses would be the most useful info. at this time.
    If memory serves me correctly, the ad. was in a recent issue of
    BYTE magazine.

Thanks in advance for your help!


Maurice Baker
homxc!jj1028   -or-     jj1028 at homxc.att.com

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 07:47:11 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Switching Device With Different Rings


Now that they are offering custom ringing in my area, I understand
there are some devices that "route" the call to various devices (ie
two different answering machines) based on the type of ring.

Anyway have any information on where I can pick one of these devices
up, or does anyone have any experience with them?


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: Fri, 20 Jul 90 15:49:14 EDT
From: Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant <[e-mail]>
Subject: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc


I wish to complain (loudly) about various local COCOTs practices of
prohibiting access to long distance carriers via 10XXX or 950-10XX and
of disabling the keypad after the call is completed.

Who should I write to?  The FCC?  The local DPU?  Both?

What is the correct person/address to write to at the FCC?

Does anyone have any useful boilerplate to use for such a letter?

Thanks.

# Monty Solomon / <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 17:11:23 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Moderator's 800 Service


Pat,

 From what carrier do you buy 800 service with ANI?  How is the ANI
delivered?


Jack Powers


[Moderator's Note: I subscribe to Telecom*USA out of Cedar Rapids, IA.
It costs me $2.75 per month, plus about twenty cents a minute or so on
calls received. It rings in on my regular line. The ANI comes with the
monthly billing; however it is only about 75-80 percent complete. They
cannot seem to provide it on some of the calls.  One recent
peculiarity was a call I received via the 800 number from 'Toll
Station #2' in one of the teeming metropolis' of Nevada. It came on
the ANI report as 702-XXX-0002 with the place name 'Reno Microwave,
NV'. Usually the places they miss take the form 405-278-XXXX, for
example. PT]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 17:42:57 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Intelligent Network


Hi.  I need some help puzzling out what the political issues are
regarding CCS7 and Inteligent Network architectures in an Open Network
Architecture environment.  I'm guessing that the more advanced the
network technologies become, the trickier are the issues regarding
jurisdiction and tariffing, but I don't know for sure or why.  Is this
the place to make an appropriate posting?  Perhaps you can refer me to
someone who knows the topic intimately.  In either or any case, thanks
for your help.

Yours,

Ken Donow

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 17:08:24 PDT
From: Steve Rhoades <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calififornia PUC Sets Guidelines For COPTs


The following is an excerpt from a Pacific*Bell bill insert I received
today:

"The California Public Utilities Commission, on June 6, 1990,
established specific rules and guidelines to standardize the pay
telephone industry.

"This agreement between the CPUC, local telephone companies,
independent telephone owners and consumer groups assures public
telephone users of similiar rates and conditions when using any pay
telephone in the State of California.

"After August 5, 1990, all pay telephones will be required to provide:
- Basic local calls costing 20 cents (Probably limited to 1 minute :-) )

"Free access to:

- 911 emergency service
- 411 information service
- "O" operator service
- "OO" long distance operator service
- 800 services  (I wonder if there'll be a requirement to leave the TT pad on?)
- 950 dialing   ( " )
- repair service

"Clear, easy-to-read signs that explain:
- dialing instructions
- cost and any time limits that apply
- Company indentification

"Local phone companies and idependent private providers of pay phones
may charge 25 cents extra for completing calls that do not require
coins, such as Calling Card and collect calls.

"The agreement sets limits on pricing and establishes guidelines for
enforcing those limits."

[...]
(End of quote)

The bill insert doesn't specify any specific remedies if a customer
should find a phone in non-compliance.

Admittedly, the above does SOUND promising.  This being California, I
won't be holding my breath though.


!Steve

US mail:  Post Office Box 1000, Mount Wilson, Calif.  91023
UUCP: ...elroy!tybalt!slr       Internet: [e-mail]
voice-mail: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Terradine Fortel System
Date: 20 Jul 90 01:42:49 GMT


While up at North Texas this weekend, I needed have my phone ring, So
I entered the ringback number (971 3#) But this time after I entered
971, I got a message that said:

          "Terradine Fortel System..... Enter ID code"

WHAT is THAT?

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Illegal in NC, Says NC AG
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 13:13:20 GMT


My morning newspaper has an article that the NC Attorney General's
office has issued an opinion to the PUC that Caller ID is illegal in
this state.  Southern Bell (our local RBOC, a division of Bell South)
was asking the PUC to ok the offering of Caller ID.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 14:29:08 EDT
From: Matt=[e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Standby Power


I can only speak for the company I interned at a year ago, Cellular
Communications, Inc. (Cellular One, serving Cincinnati, Columbus,
Cleveland) but almost all of our current cell sites had provisions for
backup power.

Specifically, the "standard" sites had a battery rack AND a backup
diesel generator.  Unfortunately, I was not involved in the
configuration, so I cannot provide specifications, but I would say the
site could remain up under most power failures.

Interesting to note, that power was not as big of a problem as were
the microwave links.  Being the alternate cellular provider in the
service areas, we interconnected the cell sites using 2 GHz T1's.  A
map would look similar to a tree branching out; a particular cell site
close to the CO would receive T1's from other sites and feed it to the
switch.  If anything should disrupt this particular site's
communications, it would effectively sever communications of other
sites with the CO.  Alternate routes were not planned for (especially
since we had our hands full maintaining growth).

During one nasty thunderstorm, the weather and rain was so dense we
lost communication with one of the cell sites that acted as the hub.
Half of Columbus was without service for over an hour!


Matt Carpenter
[e-mail]

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

From: "j.lamy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 38.4kbps Async Limited Distance Modems
Organization: Sobeco Group - Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 19:24:07 GMT


Does anyone make such beasts?  We want to connect a MIPS box with an
Equinox serial board to a Cisco terminal server for an el-cheapo slip
link.  Both will apparently do 38.4bps.  The two end-points of the
connection are within 500m of each other, in the downtown core, so we
would expect that limited distance data sets would work (i.e. we would
be within the few miles limit typical for synchronous data sets -- I'd
expect async modems to have the same range).

I've seen sync data sets from Amdahl that do 48kbps over a few miles,
but nothing so far that does 38.4.

We could go for a 56kbps digital connection, provided we could find a
cheap enough capacity splitter (a full-blown mux would be overkill and
overpriced).  Anyone got any experience with these things?


Jean-Francois Lamy               [e-mail], uunet!sobeco!lamy
Groupe Sobeco, 505 ouest, bd Rene-Levesque, Montreal Canada H2Z 1Y7

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth
Date: 20 Jul 90 18:32:58 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


I attended a meeting last night, set up by our local police department
to inform and educate the public about our local gang problem.  One of
the people present was the E911 dispatch supervisor for our city.  She
explained that the reason they usually request name and address
information, even though it is already on the screen is:

1. The information comes out of the phone company data base, and may
not be 100% accurate.

2. You may be calling from a different phone number than your own.
(Example: you return home to find evidence of a burglary, and go to
the neighbor's house to request police assistance).

3. You may have moved, and it takes a few days for the information to
make it into the 911 data base.


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 09:49:12 EDT
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: DJs and Telephone Humor
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COMPUTING CENTER


The joke about telling people to put plastic bags over their phone so
the phone company could blow dirt out of the lines has been around for
a while. Several years ago, when I lived in Dayton, Ohio, one of the
morning DJs on a local radio station made that announcement several
times one morning. I'd heard about the joke before, but this was the
first time I'd actually heard it on the radio.

Since it was an old joke, I figured it needed some originality added
to it. So after about the third time he made the announcement, I
called in, identifying myself as "calling from the phone company" ...
I didn't say what phone company, so I couldn't be sued for
impersonation. I thanked him for his public service announcements, but
reminded him that he'd left out one important instruction, and asked
him to please ask the users to make sure the plastic bag fit loosely
enough for the dirt to blow into. If the bag was too tight, the
resulting back-pressure when we blew the lines would cause the dirt to
feed back into the lines, causing their neighbors to receive dirty
phone calls. He taped that, and played it on the air.

Apparently, he later got a call from the "real" phone company. The
next day, he mentioned something about the conversation he had with
the Ohio Bell people, and promised to play that, but I never got a
chance to hear it.  Apparently, the station didn't get the message
that it's not wise to mess around with Ma Bell.

About a year later, same station, their traffic reporter was touting
their new cellular traffic reporting system. They had an arrangement
with Cellular One, the non-wireline carrier in the area, so that
Cellular One customers could press *-something on their phones to call
the station to report traffic conditions, and not be billed for the
air time. He pointed out that this would work only for Cellular One
customers, and that it wouldn't work if "you have Ameritech or some
other inferior brand of phone' (Ameritech is the mid-west RBOC which
was the wire-line cellular carrier for the area, and also sold
cellular phones through a subsidiary).

Needless to say, the friendly folks at Ameritech were not amused.
Their attorneys contacted the station, and settled for a retraction
the next day, in the same time slot, explaining that there was nothing
really wrong with Ameritech phones or service in the same general vein
as blowing dirt out of the lines, one prank we used to pull when I was
a kid was call someone and identify ourselves as telephone repair
service. We would tell them that we would be working on their line for
about the next hour, and it was very important that they not use the
phone during that time. They should not make or answer any calls. If
the phone rang, they should not answer it. This was very important. If
they lifted their receiver in the next hour, our lineman would
possibly receive a severe, even fatal shock. After about 15 minutes,
we would call back. Let the phone ring long enough, and they''
eventually decide to pick it up ... when they do, scream like a dying
lineman.

[Moderator's Note:  Aaargh! Enough already!    PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #501
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25575;
          21 Jul 90 3:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18071;
          21 Jul 90 2:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03522;
          21 Jul 90 1:02 CDT
Date:     Sat, 21 Jul 90 0:13:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #502
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Jul 90 00:13:19 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 502

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Fun With ANI [John Higdon]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Henry Troup]
    Re: PollenTrak [[e-mail]]
    Re: PollenTrak [Tom Perrine]
    Re: Tracing Calls Back to College Dorm Phones [Daniel M. Rosenberg]
    Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Henry E. Schaffer]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Nick Sayer]
    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [John Higdon]
    Re: AT&T Interstate Rates [Wayne Scott]
    Re: Telecom Peeves [Ben Knox]
    Re: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone [Bob Hale]
    Re: Nicad "Memory" [Paul Elliott]
    Re: ANI From a Cellular Phone [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Amanda Walker]
    Last Laugh! Dan Rather [Steve Elias]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Date: 20 Jul 90 12:17:54 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jim Budler <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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".

It was I, and as of last night PollenTrak was once again automagically
giving me the "Woodland Clinic's" Sacramento area report. I would
think that the Berkeley report would be a little more sensible for a
Bay Area city such as San Jose.

But then a lot of those east coast types think that LA is the first
freeway exit south of San Francisco. Like when I called a firm in New
Jersey to ask about availability of their product.  "Sir, you should
call your LOCAL sales office. Here's the number--213...."

BTW, PollenTrak returned a busy all morning. I think they are getting
more response than they bargained for.


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


[Moderator's Note: Either that, or everyone reading our little digest
is having fun and games!  :)  PT]

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Date: 20 Jul 90 21:12:57 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]>
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,

Well, our private net has access to U.S. 800 service (from Canada). So
I tried it.  Interestingly enough, it prompted me to enter my phone
number - indicating some odd ANI property of private networks?  Then
it told me that service was not available to my zip code area ... and
tried to give me product id.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: PollenTrak
Date: 20 Jul 90 05:23:39 GMT


I called the 'Pollen Update' number and it did not prompt me for my
phone number. It gave me the pollen report for Dallas, which is where
I live. Looks like it works fine here.

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

From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PollenTrak
Date: 20 Jul 90 17:34:18 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 500, Message 9 of 12

>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?

That's funny. I gave it a San Diego phone number (area code 619). I
got the "national pollen report", which was rather vague, to say the
least!

That's life in this Pac*Bell backwater :-)


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]

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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tracing Calls Back to College Dorm Phones
Date: 19 Jul 90 17:38:46 GMT
Organization: World Otherness Ministries


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

>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.

An organization I work for at the University has the periodic need to
trace phone calls through the Stanford DMS-100 switch. The last time
we did it, a call went from Pac Bell land through to Stanford, and it
took forty minutes to trace (after calling 911). Things are supposed
to be set up now so that the trace works almost instantly, through
special lines to the E911 center that have been discussed here before.
(CLID? ANI? Some funky acronym.)

So anyway, for 911 (at least), yes, you can get the number of an
"extension" off of some PBX's.


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

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 13:20:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Al L Varney)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 475, Message 9 of 9

>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. ...
>There is no true reference for this, since the answer depends on where
>you look at the subscriber loop; central office or customer end. ...

  However, there are some references which give quite a lot of info
and which are a good place to start.  One book which I have given to
many people as a way to get started is:

Understanding Telephone Electronics
Developed and Published by Texas Instruments Learning Center
J. L. Fike, et al  1983
Radio Shack catalog number 62-1388

  I haven't checked lately to see if there is a new edition or even if
it is still available.  This is a self-teaching type of text with
quizzes and answers for each chapter.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

From: Nick Sayer <quack![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Date: 20 Jul 90 17:54:48 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA


[e-mail] (Peter M. Weiss) writes:

>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.

I have a Sun 2/170 in my living room and a cordless phone. The
"magnetic media devices" I use are built like an aircraft carrier and
are pretty immune to RF (as an example, my 300 MB hard disk weighs 165
lbs [70 kg or so]). However, depending on your location, it's nearly
impossible to talk on the cordless when its within about six feet of the
Sun. Computers use lots of square waves rich in harmonics.  Really
yucky.

Can't comment on cellular. I am a Ham, and the highest frequency I
deal with on a regular basis is 162.995 MHz. Everything from there
down gets trashed pretty good unless you use an outdoor antenna (which
is forbidden in my #&^@&#@^#*^*@!! condo complex) or cable (catv/cafm).


Nick Sayer
quack![e-mail]
209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Date: 20 Jul 90 12:06:29 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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?

All GTE Mobilnet cell sites have emergency power. The outfit that
installed their's installed mine.

Cliff Yamamoto <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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?

Not true. When your unit is address by the system, a two way audio
path is indeed enabled, but your transmitter is not turned on until
you answer the call.

> 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.

If the target site is busy, the current site will hold on to you until
there is an opening or until the call drops due to lack of signal.


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

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

From: Wayne Scott <rruxc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Interstate Rates
Date: 19 Jul 90 16:52:19 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


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

> AT&T's new rates as of 1 July 1990:

> Residential Reach-out-America:

That's good information to have.  Where did you get it from?  I
subscribed to the ATT Reach Out program a few months ago and I'm not
sure that I'm saving any money.  I compared many charges to those on
bills that I've been saving since last summer and there's little or no
difference.  Could it be that the standard rates have risen and the
Reach Out rates are now what the old rates were?


Wayne Scott
[e-mail]

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

From: dircon![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ben Knox)
Organization: The Direct Connection, UK
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 09:19:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Bill Berbenich <[e-mail].
edu> 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?

One thing that drives me up the wall is when the person on the other
end of the phone holds the handset so the microphone part is under
their chin instead of in front of their mouth.

I've seen many people doing this (when I've been in their office and
they've taken a call). Don't they realise that they should speak
directly into the mouthpiece for the best transmission?


[e-mail]   or   [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Hale)
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 23:21:05 GMT


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

>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.

Our most recent Pac*Bell bill had an announcement that charges for
touch tone were eliminated.


Bob Hale                        ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234                    ...!btree![e-mail]

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

From: Paul Elliott x225 <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nicad "Memory"
Date: 20 Jul 90 18:03:42 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> 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
> | [description of battery problem]

> [reverse-charging, etc] 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.

This isn't really a legend; it does work.  Unfortunately, It doesn't
work often or well.  You will occasionally get lucky, but my
experience has been that the restored cell is not reliable, and will
likely have excessive leakage (self-discharge), and will probably
short out again.  If you want a battery you can depend on, just
replace it.

> | It's been charging for over two days, and
> | reads only 2.65 volts.  The battery is rated at 3.6V, 720mAh.  When I

Definitely a shorted cell.  NiCd cells charge up to about 1.3 to 1.45V
when they are charging and fully charged (in the "overcharge" state),
so the voltage you are measuring corresponds to two fully-charged
cells and one shorted cell.


      Paul M. Elliott      Optilink Corporation     [phone]
               {uunet, pyramid, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 90 23:35:45 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI From a Cellular Phone
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>[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]

Was the number you got on one of the cellular carrier's dedicated
prefixes?  Or was it from a "regular" prefix, that local POTS
subscribers might be on?


[Moderator's Note: It was an Illinois Bell prefix. 312-229 in fact.
Apparently it is the place where Ameritech connects with IBT.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Amanda Walker)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 17:16:58 GMT


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

> 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.

I haven't tried one in an actual computer room, but our company
regularly uses cell phones from the floors of computer trade shows,
which are pretty rich in EMI from all of the computers and jury-rigged
cabling.  The biggest factor we've found is that it *really* helps to
have a 3W radio.  1.5W units don't seem to be as good at punching out
of the building to the nearest cell site.


Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
InterCon Systems Corporation

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Last Laugh! Dan Rather
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 12:01:03 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Kenny Crudup wrote:

>Don't worry. Beat you to it. What *I* need are frequencies....

"KENNETH!  WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY?"

[Moderator's Note: Its a laugh, all right! Dan Rather came off the
innocent party in that incident, but am I the only person who has a
gut-reaction that Rather knows more about that incident than he
admitted to the police and press?  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #502
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11840;
          21 Jul 90 23:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12363;
          21 Jul 90 21:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19090;
          21 Jul 90 20:09 CDT
Date:     Sat, 21 Jul 90 20:07:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #503
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Jul 90 20:07:23 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 503

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? [John Higdon]
    Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? [Dave Platt]
    Re: Fun With ANI [Jack Winslade]
    Re: ANI From Cellular Phone [Blake Farenthold]
    Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc [John Higdon]
    Re: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone [John Higdon]
    Re: Magneto Telephones [Joe Talbot]
    PT's Moment of Fame [Mark Seiden]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home?
Date: 21 Jul 90 01:17:50 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Martin Ewing <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have not seen such a home "PBX" advertised in consumer channels, but
> I think it may exist.  The technology ought to permit it at a
> reasonable price.

The "king" of small PBXes, the Panasonic KX-T series is readily
available once again. The new units are flowing right readily out of
Great Britain. The 308 handles three trunks and eight stations. It is
a most capable unit that can perform any way you require.

Needless to say, I'm still delighted with my KX-T1232, although it now
looks as though I could outgrow it at some point in the future.


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

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

From: Dave Platt <coherent![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home?
Date: 21 Jul 90 18:28:31 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Platt <coherent![e-mail]>
Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA


In article <[e-mail]> Martin Ewing <ewing-martin@cs.
yale.edu> writes:

> Is there such a thing as a box that takes two normal residential lines
> in on one side and six extensions in to the other side?  (All our
> extensions are radially connected to a central phone block.)  The box
> would function as a wannabee PBX, giving dialtone, handling intercom
> calls, and dealing with incoming and outgoing calls.  (I assume a REAL
> PBX with trunk lines to SNET would be expensive if possible at all.)

One such unit that I've heard about (and researched slightly) is the
Panasonic KXT-308 ... a three-trunk-line, eight-extension unit.  It
does everything you're asking for, and also has music-on-hold if you
want to wire it in.  It's intended for sale to small businesses, but
can be used in the home just as easily.  There's a larger unit (the
616) for folks with >>LOTS<< of extensions.  Both units work with
plain old telephone sets (tone-phones are preferred) as well as with
Panasonic's proprietary LCD-display phones.

What are the catches?  Price and availability, mostly.  The 308 lists
for $900, and the 616 lists for $1600.  If you want to be able to
program special features into the system, you must buy one of the top-
of-the-line LCD phones for use as your master station, at an
additional $300 or so.

I've been told that the 308 and 616 are among the models that AT&T
complained about in a "dumping" allegation, and that they are [a]
subject to a tariff and/or [b] are in short supply.  The Northern
California sales-rep for this line of equipment told me that Panasonic
is shifting production of this line to its facilities in England ...
apparently only units manufactured in Japan are subject to the
anti-dumping tariff ... but that some equipment in the line is in short
supply at the moment.

Not many Panasonic dealers carry this line ... it's only sold by those
who can do installations and can service the equipment.  Normal
consumer-type Panasonic dealers cannot special-order it, I'm told.

It sounds like nice equipment ... but it's a bit pricier than I want
to invest in at the moment.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 18:36:31 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fun With ANI
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <17 Jul 90 02:48:10>, John Higdon (200:30102/2) writes:

 >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 ...

I've determined that it depends on the specific prefix from which you
are calling if you will or will not be prompted for your number.  This
morning I tried that number from work, 559 prefix in midtown Omaha,
newer ESS, not sure exactly which type.  After hearing (ring)
(supervise) (ring), I received a recording '... we are sorry, the
pollen count is not available for your ZIP {sic} code'.

I tried it again from home this evening, 895 prefix in west Omaha, an
aging 1A ESS (I think).  Again I got (ring) (supervise) (ring), but
was prompted for my phone number.  I entered a valid Omaha number and
was then told no pollen count was available.  I tried again using a
valid NYC area number -- I was SURE they had data for that city -- but
again, not available.  I tried the third time using a valid Chicago
number and it worked.

I guess the conclusion is that some of the older ESS machines do not
give on-the-fly calling number ID to those 800 services.

Comments ??

Good Day!        JSW

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

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 13:30:32 CDT
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI From Cellular Phone


>[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...

Do you get realtime ANI from your 800 service or just detailed
billing?  I'd be curious as to the details if you get it realtime.
For example who is your service provider, is it a readyline type
service or dedicated service?  Is ANI available from your local BOC?
Is the format of the ANI data compatible with the inexpensive
(relatively) adapters that give it to you in RS-232?

My 800 number (National Telecommunications in Austin) provides "ANI"
on my readyline-type 800 bumber by printing the number on my monthly
bill or a supplement they send six weeks later because only about 30%
of the numbers show on my bill because they 'don't get the data in
time' Still about 5% show the incomming number and location as
000-000-0000 *** NOT AVAILIBLE ***.

I can think of a lot of applications for realtime ANI on both my home
and work lines.


    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: All I get is detailed billing each month from
Telecom*USA. See the comments in the Digest yesterday.  PT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc
Date: 21 Jul 90 01:09:04 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant <[e-mail]> writes:

> I wish to complain (loudly) about various local COCOTs practices of
> prohibiting access to long distance carriers via 10XXX or 950-10XX and
> of disabling the keypad after the call is completed.

> Who should I write to?  The FCC?  The local DPU?  Both?

Oh, brudder. Get in line. Line forms to the right, down the block,
left at the second star and on till morning. Realistically, don't
bother.  The FCC has on two major occasions admitted that COCOTs
stink. They issued a bunch of guidelines, followed by a bunch of
regulations with no teeth in them. Guess what! No improvement.

I could give you a list a half-inch thick (in fact, the size of the
document I submitted to the CPUC) of COCOT deficiencies. The CPUC sent
me back a form letter thanking me for my thoughts and ASSURED me that
my complaints would be turned over to the appropriate people involved.
That was over two years ago. What's changed? Hint: An infinitely small
number of things.

Oh yes -- the FCC has decreed that COCOTs will allow access to all
long distance carriers doing business in the area. That really got the
COCOT owners worried. I believe the real penalty for non-compliance is
that the FCC will think bad thoughts about the guilty COCOT owner. Has
anyone ever--repeat EVER--found a COCOT that allows 10XXX access to
multiple carriers? I rest my case.

At either the Federal or state level, there will be no change in
COCOTs until the agencies devise some mechanism for detection and
enforcement of rule violations. The ultimate weapon, disconnection of
service, is seldom used since the procedures are so cumbersome and the
real arm of enforcement, the local telco, has many other things to
worry about.  Besides, why would they care? Disconnecting a COCOT
would just mean less revenue. In the meantime, the CPUC's latest
blatherings about new COCOT rules and regulations are just so much hot
air.

Frankly, short of tactics that are not to be mentioned in this forum,
I have pretty much dropped the COCOT cause. The slimeball COCOT owners
are laughing at us all the way to the bank, and the government that
can seize computers, throw rock musicians in jail, grab the life's
work of a San Francisco photographer, etc., etc., is powerless against
the teflon owners and operators of fraudulent one-armed bandits
masquerading as payphones.


        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: Rate Request - No Joy For New York Telephone
Date: 21 Jul 90 01:46:58 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]> writes:

> Our most recent Pac*Bell bill had an announcement that charges for
> touch tone were eliminated.

Then why are they still appearing on your bill? Read that announcement
again. It says that Pac*Bell is holding discussions on how it will
replace the revenue from the dropping of the TT charge. Pac*Bell is
still some distance away from actually dropping the charge (you know
 -- so that it doesn't show up in your itemized list of services
anymore.) Until that happens, it's not dropped.


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

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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Magneto Telephones
Date: 21 Jul 90 10:02:00 GMT
Reply-To: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>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.)

The "Fenner roadside rest stop" phones were Fenner #1 and #2.  They
finally went away last year and became very unreliable Baker phone
numbers. It was part of Pac*Bells project to eliminate toll stations.
The projest involves the construction and use of many new microwave
sites and disital carrier. Here's a summary of what happened to the
toll stations:

Amargosa #1,3,5,  -  were converted to something dial (probably Baker.)

Halloran Springs/Summit -  were changed to Baker numbers.

Ludlow - Baker numbers (out of service all the time, the whole town
dies for days at a time. The service comes from a van parked near town
with a dish on the roof and a fence around it. Odd.)

Amboy -  Baker numbers (frequent outages).

Essex, Saltus - Baker numbers.

Lanfair Valley - Baker numbers.

Fenner - Baker numbers.

Chiriaco Summit - GTE numbers from Desert Center (on Pac*Bell carrier
and lines. Imagine paying for Pac*Bell service and getting GTE piped
in. Frightening!)

Some just turned into charge a calls (so they wouldn't have to collect
the coins I'll bet). With the restriction being done IN THE SET! Smart
pay phones! On POTS (plain olde telephone service) lines. Amazing.

Those of us who frequent the desert are pleased that cellular service
is coming even to the most remote area due to the heavy traffic on
I-15 and I-40. The landline service isn't reliable enough yet.


Joe Talbot    "What am I doing here?"        Voice Mail 011-813-222-8429

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 01:37:01 EDT
From: Mark Seiden <[e-mail]>
Subject: PT's Moment of Fame


Patrick:

I've just received the governments's response to the motions of
Electronic Frontier Foundation and the defendant Neidorf to dismiss
the indictment.

You may not be aware that an article by you in Phrack 21, entitled
"Non-Published Numbers" is mentioned in a recitation of the icky and
allegedly felonious stuff Neidorf has been indicted for distributing.
I quote:

"On November 4, 1988, "Phrack 21" was published containing a tutorial
on how to obtain non-published numbers from Illinois Bell, and an
article by Neidorf outlining the critical role played by the telephone
company's Network Management Center in telecommunications and "the
protection of essential services such as 911, during abnormal network
situations."... etc.

The government lies. I just read the article.  What it says is that if
there's an emergency (or some other nontrivial reason) there is a
*procedure* by which an authorized intermediary will get in touch with
a nonpublished number and ask them if they want to talk to you, either
by calling you back or by releasing their number for you to call them.
I see no mechanism shown by which a nonpublished number can be
obtained without the consent of the subscriber.

I'm surprised you haven't been indicted over this one.


Mark Seiden, [e-mail], 203 329 2722


[Moderator's Note: There is nothing indictable about it. As you point
out, that very old article by me (I stress this, since the procedures
have changed somewhat in recent years), was a discussion of the
procedure to follow in making emergency contact with a subscriber with
a non-pub number, and the efforts taken by telcos (or at least IBT) to
protect the privacy of their customers. Several years ago, much of the
same information was distributed as a form letter response to people
who called or wrote to complain, "why can't I get the number of
so-and-so because my call is very important, etc".

Interestingly enough, no, I did not know that it was picked up by
Phrack and used in an issue of that publication. Since I was never a
reader of Phrack, I really would not know what all of mine they
published in the past. Truth be told, I can't remember now *who* I
wrote that article for; I can't find it in the old issues of the
Digest, however the Telecom Archives prior to October, 1988 is missing
many old issues. I think I originally wrote it in 1982/83 for the BBS
I sysopped briefly for the Chicago Public Library. I don't even have a
copy of it in my old files, or I would re-run it here.

The essence of it was that the Non-Pub Number Bureau was the keeper of
subscriber phone numbers of that type. The Non-Pub Number Bureau
itself had a non-pub number, available to a few employees at IBT with
a 'need to know'. If such a number was needed in a dire emergency;
i.e. a death in the family, a fire, something of catastrophic
proportions, then the person needing to make contact could plead his
case to a Directory Assistance supervisor. The supervisor would take
the matter to the Chief Operator. Their stock answer was "don't call
us, we'll call you back later", and after someone conferred with the
non-pub subscriber, giving them *your name* and *your number*, then
you would be called back and advised (a) of the phone number you were
seeking, or (b) that the non-pub party had been alerted to your
request and elected to call you instead, or (c) chose to ignore your
request.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #503
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13274;
          22 Jul 90 0:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20102;
          21 Jul 90 23:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae18731;
          21 Jul 90 22:15 CDT
Date:     Sat, 21 Jul 90 22:07:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #504
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Jul 90 22:07:09 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 504

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ANI Suggestions for Businesses [Inbound/Outbound via Lenny Tropiano]
    How Does ANI Get to Your System for Processing? [Lenny Tropiano]
    Is Centrex Secure? [Thomas Lapp]
    Using 'Other' Cellular Carrier [Jack Winslade]
    How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? [Todd Day]
    Call for Discussion: comp.dcom.fax [Steve Elias]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: ANI Suggestions for Businesses
Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, New York
Date: 21 Jul 90 21:12:05 EDT (Sat)
From: Lenny Tropiano <[e-mail]>


In July 1990 issue of INBOUND/OUTBOUND magazine, devoted to ANI
("Improving the way America does business"), there was a column called
"Yellow Pages ANI Directory".

They stated, that there's not an industry or business that couldn't
use 800 lines and ANI to forge closer ties to its customers.  Here are
but a few examples of how industries might use ANI.

SPEEDING UP ORDER PROCESSING
Pizza Delivery

    "Desperate for some pizza?  Call the 800 pizza ordering number.
     As the call answers, the pizza company says, "Hello, Mr. Smith,
     would you like what you ordered last week?  You still live at
     123 Elm Street with that big black dog?"

THE FREQUENT BUYER IDENTIFIER
Manufacturer

    "90% of our sales are made by 10% of buyers.  These frequent
     buyers generate a lot of revenue for our manufacturing company.
     How do we treat these important buyers like royalty?

     When they call, we get their ANI.  We bounce them quickly to the
     top of the queue.  We send them our most knowledgeable sales rep.

     We also hae identified 15 very special customers.  When they
     call, we ring bells and alert our sales manager.  If he's around,
     he gets on the phone and thanks them for the order -- even though
     they didn't ask for him.  It's a nice touch.  Our customers love
     it.  High tech, high touch."

AUTOMATIC DEALER ORDER ENTRY
Food Wholesaler

    "We sell food to restaurants and small supermarkets.  The owners
     of these businesses have no time to dilly-dally ordering from us.
     Most of their orders are the same from one week to the next.

     We've set up an automated ordering system with ANI and a voice
     processing system.  Our buyers call up.  Our machine starts with
     the presumption they want what they ordered last week with minor
     exceptions.  With a touchtone pad, they can easily make their
     exceptions.

     Better yet, the system works 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
     Many of these people simply can't order during business hours."

THE ANI TECHNICAL SUPPORT CENTER
Software

    "When you wanted technical support from us in the past, you needed
     to register your software's serial number on business reply cards.
     An awful system.  You often had to wait a week or two before you
     could make your first call.

     Now no more.  All software registration is done over the phone.
     We no longer check serial numbers.  ANI does it automatically for
     us.  It tells us instantly if the caller is a registered user, and
     which of our other products he's bought.

     Even better, we only offer free service for 90 days.  With ANI
     we can put our reports and target telemarketing campaigns to
     get our users to subscribe to our extended software support."

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

[Lenny's opinions -- although some of these ideas sound nice in practice,
 I'm wondering what happens to companies that have a PBX or many inbound
 and outbound telephone numbers, will the systems mention above keep
 track of all the numbers, or will I be FORCED to call from one extension
 only, each and everytime I call.  It could be a problem, don't you think?]


| 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 ------+

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

Subject: How Does ANI Get to Your System for Processing?
Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, New York
Date: 21 Jul 90 21:41:52 EDT (Sat)
From: Lenny Tropiano <[e-mail]>


An example of multi-frequency inband ANI signaling (from INBOUND/
OUTBOUND magazine, July 1990):

By the way, it appears that MCI is sponsering this -- but it obviously
isn't just an MCI technique, we all know that.


        ANI and/or DNIS
   MCI                        Customer Telephone
                        System

+--------+                    +--------+
|        |                    |        |
|        +--------------------------------------+        |
|        |                    |        |
+--------+                    +--------+

     -------------- SEIZE ---------------->

     <------------- WINK  -----------------

     ---------- KP + ANI + ST ------------>
               and/or
     -------- + KP + DNIS + ST ----------->

     <------------ ACK WINK ---------------

     <------------ OFF HOOK ---------------


How in-band ANI gets from MCI to your equipment sounds complex.  But
it's not.  It's a matter of simple signals.  In telephony, they just
have fancy names.  When the phone call comes in, MCI sends your phone
system a signal that says, "Something's about to happen."  That's
called seizing the line.  Your phone system responds with a "wink."
That's what they call acknowledging the call.  MCI then sends a "key
pulse" (a start signal) and the 10-digit ANI (phone number) plus a
stop bit.  When all the MCI ANI and/or DNIS signaling is done, your
phone system (or the interface to your phone system) acknowledges it
got the digits, and goes "off hook," i.e. lifts the handset and
answers the incoming call.  You also need to do something with the ANI
you just go.  The options are:

    1. Record it;
    2. Send it to a telephone sales agent computer screen;
    3. Route it through your database, or;
    4. Send it to a voice processing unit (VRU)


HOW ANI IS CARRIED ACROSS THE COUNTRY

        FGD 800/900         MCI network               800/900
    call                SS#7 transport            DAL ANI
 Local             MCI                       MCI
 Phone  -------->  Network  -------------->  Network  -------->  PBX/ACD
 Company           Switch                    Switch


     ANI Received        ANI Transported        ANI Delivered    ANI Processed
 -------------------->|----------------------->|-------------->|<------------->


AN ANI GLOSSARY:

ANI:  Automatic Number Identification.  The process whereby the long distance
      carrier provides its customers with the phone number of the incoming
      caller -- either as the call happens or in the next month's phone bill.

DAL:  Dedicated Access Line.  A private tie line from your long distance
      phone company.  The line may be analog or digital.  If digital, it's
      probably a T-1 circuit.

DNIS: Dialed Number Identification Service.  The process whereby the LD carrier
      provides its customers with the 800 phone number the caller dialed.
      A customer calls an 800 number, e.g. 800-999-0345 DNIS signals the
      customer that the number the caller dialed was 800-999-0345.  Why would
      you want this?  A company might have many 800 numbers in one group of
      lines and not be able to distinguish them easily.  Knowing the number
      dialed lets the customer know how to answer the call.

FGD:  Feature Group D.  FGD lines carry ANI from your local, equal-access
      CO (central office) to your long distance carrier.  A LD Carrier must
      subscribe to these lines to receive ANI.

SS#7: Also SS7.  Once called common channel signaling system 7.  Now just
      called Signaling system 7.  The telephone industry's electronic way of
      putting an address, a return address, a small message and a stamp on
      every phone call.  SS#7 does basically four things.  1. It supervises
      the telephone network, monitoring lines to see which are busy, idle or
      requesting service;  2. It routes calls through the network, picking
      out one free circuit for that particular call;  3.  It carries
      information about the call for billing and ANI;  4.  And, finally it
      alerts the arrival of an incoming call.

T-1:  Also T1. Pronunced Tee-One.  T-1 is a digital phone line delivering
      1,544,000 bit per second (aka 1.544 Mbps).  T-1 comes to your
      office over two pairs of phone lines.  T-1 normally can handle 24
      voice conversations with each conversation being digitized at 64 Kbps.



| 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 ------+

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

Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 09:06:44 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is Centrex Secure?
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I know that the Centrex system is sort of a precursor to the Class
features and so forth in that it is a PBX-type system where the PBX
itself is "part of?" the CO's switching equipment.  (Of course, I
could be wrong here too...).  Anyway, I've heard two rumours lately
and would like someone to confirm/deny them or tell me what is truth
and what isn't.

The first is that it is possible for a customer (administrator?)
off-site of the Centrex system to "program" the system, make changes
to services allowed on a particular line, etc.  Is this true?

The second rumour comes from the assumption that the first part is
true: How good is the security on this system -- in other words, if
you CAN program from off-site, what keeps "phreaking joe" from
cracking the security on the Centrex system and doing whatever he
likes to lines on it?
                         - tom


internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location     : Newark, DE, USA


[Moderator's Note: Almost all modern phone switches and/or central
offices can be remotely programmed as the need may arise. How secure
are any of these arrangements?  Much depends upon the complexity of
the password, and the use of call-back modems. The answer to your
question is yes, unauthorized changes can be made. But the use of
centrex or regular CO lines is not the issue: Phreaks have disrupted
single line residential service also, using the same techniques. PT]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 90 18:37:26 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using 'Other' Cellular Carrier
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


My cellular carrier here is US West, which gives good coverage in the
city and to the east and northeast.  However, there are a couple
places just southwest of Omaha where their signal drops out and I get
the ROAM light from Centel, the other carrier in the area.

The other day, for the heck of it, I switched the unit over to the
Centel system and tried to get through.  I received a line busy tone
after the expected delay.  It was strange, since I knew the number I
was calling was not busy.  I tried using the normal US West service,
and found the line clear to ring.  I switched back and forth a few
times and tried a couple of other numbers.  Same thing.

I'm puzzled as to why Centel would return LINE BUSY, as opposed to ATB
or some type of voice intercept, for the 'foreign' carrier here in the
area.  Another thing that has me wondering -- the manual for the phone
(an older Mitsubishi) states that for the way it is programmed, it
will first try the assigned carrier, but if no channel is available it
will attempt to place the call on an alternate carrier, if available.
I wonder if any busy signals I have gotten during 'drive time' over
the past few years have actually been due to this.


Good Day!        JSW

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

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

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

From: Todd Day <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? (UCSB)
Organization: QuickSilver Rallye Team, Santa Barbara, CA
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 23:38:03 GMT


Here is an interesting bit of information packed in with my latest
GTE bill here in Santa Barbara, CA:

        UCSB Telephone Prefix Changes to 893

Beginning at 8 a.m. on August 4, you'll need to dial a new prefix when
calling University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) telephone
numbers.  To meet increasing University telephone service needs, all
3,800 UCSB telephone numbers will change from the 961 to the 893
prefix at that time.  The last four digits will remain the same.

GTE is assisting UCSB in notifying you of the change to help make the
transition a smooth one and lessen its impact on GTE's telephone
number referral service, which also serves many other customers.
Starting August 4, calls to UCSB's old 961 prefix will be intercepted
by a message informing callers of the new prefix.

UCSB is also publicizing the new prefix on campus, in the community
and will notify students of the change prior to the start of classes
on Sept. 20.

                    GTE California


Now, my questions for the net are:

(1)    Why did GTE feel it necessary to change UCSB at all when it
    appears that there were many numbers left in the current prefix?
    9999 - 3800 = 6199 extensions left, right?

(2)    What does changing prefixes buy GTE?  As far as I know, UCSB
    was the sole "owner" of the 961 prefix, although I had heard
    rumours that Delco GM and Santa Barbara Research Center had
    a couple of 961 phone lines that had something or other to
    do with the university.

(3)    If there is some kind of new magic box that GTE is installing
    to handle special needs of the univeristy, why couldn't they
    keep the 961 prefix and swap the lines from the old box to
    the new box on August 4?

(4)    If I call the university at 7:59am on August 4 using the 961
    prefix, what will happen to my call at 8:00am?  If we had
    caller ID out here, what would happen to an outgoing call?

(5)    Finally, a general question about intercepts.  Why does it
    seem that the intercepts know exactly what you're trying to
    do, but just chastise you about dialing in the future and
    don't complete your call?  Kinda reminds me of the parent
    who tells the child, "Now, go close the door again, and this
    time, do it GENTLY!"  I've had this happen here where I forget
    to dial "1" to get out of the 805 area code.  GTE knows I'm
    trying to dial long distance, 'cause they tell me that "calls
    to this number must be preceded by a '1'".  But do they
    complete the call?  NOOOO...  Now, in the case of UCSB,
    instead of intercepting the 961, why don't they just tell the
    dialer about the change and complete his/her call to the 893
    prefix anyway?


Todd Day  |  temp@ ivucsb![e-mail]  |  soon@ ivucsb![e-mail]

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

From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call for Discussion: comp.dcom.fax
Date: 20 Jul 90 21:33:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Elias)
Followup-To: news.groups


This is a call for discussion for a newsgroup called "comp.dcom.fax",
or just comp.fax.  There is currently an "alt.fax" newsgroup, but it's
my humble homey opinion that fax technology is real enough and
interesting enough to warrant a "real" technical newsgroup.  Fax
technology involves modems, graphics, printing, bus interfaces, serial
port interfaces, email, and "fax over internet", etcetera.  I think
that comp.fax might be a better idea than comp.dcom.fax, since there
are some fax issues which have zero to do with datacomm, such as
graphics-ish stuff like dithering and aliasing, and tcp-ish stuff like
email2fax and fax2email.

Perhaps these issues can be discussed individually in the "most
relevant" newsgroup for each area listed above, and perhaps the
alt.fax group does have enough "propagation" such that it will do the
job.  But if a comp.fax group would include more people in the
discussions, I think it's worth considering.

What do you think?  Please follow up to news.groups.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Also, feel free to send junk (or funk) faxes to 508 294 0101 or 508
294 7447.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #504
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23968;
          22 Jul 90 13:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19587;
          22 Jul 90 11:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01962;
          22 Jul 90 10:30 CDT
Date:     Sun, 22 Jul 90 9:45:55 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #505
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Jul 90 09:45:19 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 505

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: PT's Moment of Fame [John Higdon]
    Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? [John Higdon]
    Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Miquel Cruz]
    Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates [David Wilson]
    Re: Switching Device With Different Rings [portal!cup.portal.com!MVM]
    Re: 38.4kb Limited Distance Async Modem [Hank Nussbacher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PT's Moment of Fame
Date: 21 Jul 90 22:11:48 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Mark Seiden <[e-mail]> writes:

> You may not be aware that an article by you in Phrack 21, entitled
> "Non-Published Numbers" is mentioned in a recitation of the icky and
> allegedly felonious stuff Neidorf has been indicted for distributing.

Taken out of context, most of what appears in TELECOM Digest is at
least as incriminating as the material published in Phrack. Think
about it: over the past year alone there have been discussions of 911,
telco plant security, billing procedures, unlisted numbers, "infinity
transmitters", credit card verification and security, telco account
records security, cellular billing and call verification procedures,
campus phone systems, police mobile data systems, and much more. Some
of the contributors have submitted detailed articles discussing these
things.

Now that I have seen what a flimsy case exists against Craig Neidorf,
my paranoia has reached new heights. Never mind that my book shelves
are filled with communication reference books. Never mind that my file
cabinets are packed with Pac*Bell technical data. Never mind that my
garage is filled with manuals for dozens of PBXes. Never mind that
there are Bellcore books under the bed. What's really evil is that
"secret and sensitive" material stored in my computer known as Cud,
TELECOM Digest, and (probably) the USENET spool.

If you think I'm over-reacting, consider Mr. DeArmond's detailed
article on how to conduct clandestine surveilance. Or how about Mr.
Townson's articles on how to program cellular phones to "get free
service"? Just those two examples make the material in the Neidorf
case look like a first grade class on how to use the telephone. Notice
how just a slight shift in wording can change the entire context? Five
minutes with vi and some bozo could make life very miserable for many
Digest contributors.

Now, for the moment, forget about the chilling effect on all of us
die-hard telecom nerds. Consider instead the question: "Why is
electronic communications treated in such an unwarranted manner by the
government and law enforcement?" If I was inclined to be an auto
mechanic, I would be trying to find out all I could about cars. If I
was an aspiring banker or financier, I would be hanging around
financial institutions, learning all I could about money. If
photography turned me on, much of my conscious life would be spent
around cameras and photographic equipment, as well as any
professionals that would spare me their time. But those interested in
computers and telephony are looked upon as sinister beings. Any
digging for information is viewed as preparatory to an attack on the
system. And heaven forbid that a telecompunerd would actually use the
technology related to his interests to learn more more about it.

For some reason, information on a computer disk is more sensitive,
valuable, dangerous, and proprietary than the exact same information
in a dusty book on a library shelf. Why is that? And now for a really
scary question: What makes the information in Phrack more "criminal"
than the information in the Digest? Wait until the Keystone Kops
discovers THIS international ring of telephone hackers. Where are they
going to store all the computers they seize that have Digest messages
on them?

IMHO, the Neidorf case could very well be a major turning point in the
future of the freedom of electronic communications. We should all be
watching this one very closely.


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


[Moderator's Note: You say it might well be 'a major turning point in
the future of electronic communications', but I don't think it will be
quite that dramatic. It may well (I think it already has) be the
impetus which forces small electronic publishers to maintain the same
(generally) responsible standards in publishing observed by the larger
operations, i.e. Compuserve, Dow Jones, etc. You have to take an
overview of the entire purpose, scope and production of an electronic
publication; the individual articles won't tell the whole story.

The name 'Phrack' seems to be a combination of the two words 'phreak'
and 'hack', two words with a derogatory inference even to many of the
people who use them to describe themselves. It is almost as though it
was being stuck up under the government's nose with the attitude
'see if you can stop us'. And how do you address security flaws in
telecom systems without at the same time giving hints to the no-goods
who would abuse the system? You can't, so the question becomes one of
intent: are the articles mainly there to educate the no-goods under
the guise of 'improving security'?  You do not need to print actual
code numbers and complete descriptions of successful attacks to alert
the security concious to the problem. You did not see any in-depth
information about *which* phone numbers were exempt from serial
checking in the cell phone articles, nor will you see that sort of
detail here. Another thing that annoys the government and the telcos
is the constant (and I think sick) swapping out of /f/ with /ph/ on
words out of some misplaced reverence to the telephone network. This
is a whole topic in itself: the swapping of /f/ and /ph/ to make some
point to readers could be discussed in detail.   PT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service?
Date: 21 Jul 90 23:19:39 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Todd Day <[e-mail]> writes:

> (4)    If I call the university at 7:59am on August 4 using the 961
>     prefix, what will happen to my call at 8:00am?  If we had
>     caller ID out here, what would happen to an outgoing call?

No matter when you make the call, it will be screwed up all day.
Remember this is GTE. Why do you think they are making the change in
the middle of summer? Since the CPID info is only transmitted at the
beginning of the call, if you remained connected during the cut,
nothing would happen on your display. I pity the university.

> (5)    Finally, a general question about intercepts.  Why does it
>     seem that the intercepts know exactly what you're trying to
>     do, but just chastise you about dialing in the future and
>     don't complete your call?

Obviously, you've never heard the Lily Tomlin routines or watched "The
President's Analyst". Otherwise, you wouldn't ask such a silly
question. I don't remember much about long distance calling before
DDD, but I suspect that there was some truth to the routine.
"Operator, I would like to call Washington, DC. The number is
736-5000." "Sir, the area code is 202" "Thank you, Operator" "What is
the area code, please?" "Huh?" "The area code for Washington, DC is
202. Now what is the area code?" "202, Operator. The area code is
202." "Thank you, sir."

>     Now, in the case of UCSB,
>     instead of intercepting the 961, why don't they just tell the
>     dialer about the change and complete his/her call to the 893
>     prefix anyway?

Because, ultimately the caller WILL have to dial the 893 prefix. It's
best to get them in the habit as early as possible. Otherwise, no one
would change what they dialed until 961 actually became something
else.  And then you would have some customer really annoyed at the
wrong numbers.

I had a client move from the financial district to the south of Market
area. This meant a change from the Bush/Pine CO to the Folsom St. CO
and with it a number change. Their idea was to simply forward their
old phone when they moved to their new number "to make the transition
easier". I convinced them that it was a stupid idea. First,
notification of the number change would become their sole responsibilty,
since there would be no referral. If someone dials a number and it
works, why change? All they would be doing is postponing the day of
reckoning when the old number would eventually be disconnected.
Second, they would be paying local charges for most of their incoming
calls until they had the old number removed.

Up until 1982, it was not necessary to dial an area code when calling
across the 408/415 boundary within the metro Bay Area because it had
been possible to avoid duplicating prefixes around the bay perimeter.
Growth put an end to that, and a recording appeared that said "it is
necessary to dial 415 when calling this number. Please hang up and
dial your call again." There were the inevitable complaints about "if
it knows that I need to dial 415, why not just put the call through?"
Well, simply put, if that happened, suddenly that person would dial
the seven digit number and find himself connected to a party in the
wrong city since the prefix had been reused within his own area code.

It's amazing how long a change has to be in place before the public gets
the hang of it.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service?
Date: 22 Jul 90 12:29:35 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Todd Day)
writes:

>         UCSB Telephone Prefix Changes to 893
> (1)    Why did GTE feel it necessary to change UCSB at all when it
>     appears that there were many numbers left in the current prefix?
>     9999 - 3800 = 6199 extensions left, right?

I have no direct knowlege of the numbering plan used by GTE in the
Santa Barbara area, but generally, these changes enable a larger block
of numbers to be available to the customer.  Perhaps some of those
apparently-available 6,199 extensions are assigned somewhere else?

Perhaps the university centrex is being re-implemented on a physically
new switch.  This might be done to enable new and exciting telecom
services not available on the present switch. If the old switch is
being kept in service for other subscribers, the two switches probably
can't share a prefix.

> (5)    Finally, a general question about intercepts.  Why does it
>     seem that the intercepts know exactly what you're trying to
>     do, but just chastise you about dialing in the future and
>     don't complete your call?  Kinda reminds me of the parent

For now, the telco knows what you're trying to do, so they have enough
information to complete your call.  But the new dialing procedure,
whatever it is, is being done to accomodate future expansion.  At some
point in the future, your invalid call attempt will not give them the
information you meant.  You will, in fact, be placing a call to a
valid number that wasn't the one you wanted.  If they just intercept
and redirect your call, a lot of subscribers will ignore the intercept
message and continue to use the obsolete calling procedure.
Eventually, this will lead to trouble as the old numbers get
re-assigned.  The apparently-unnecessary intercept is being done to
condition subscribers before it leads to an annoyance to new
subscribers.

For example, here in NJ they've just turned on a new area code.  If
callers call my old 201 number, they still reach my 908 number, but
only for a while.  Eventually, they'll be given a recording telling
them to place the call using the 908 area code.  Why can't they
continue to be redirected?  Because my old 201 number will eventually
be re-assigned to a subscriber elsewhere in the 201 area code, while
I'll keep the same number in the 908 code.  The interval between when
201 calls are no longer re-directed, and when my number gets re-used
in the 201 area code is done to protect the new subscriber from the
folks who call me and ignore the advertising that we and the telco are
doing to convert them.


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] (Miguel Cruz)
Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones
Organization: Univ. of Michigan ITD Consulting & Support Services
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 23:36:00 GMT


In article 9970, Henry Schaffer writes:

>Understanding Telephone Electronics
>Developed and Published by Texas Instruments Learning Center
>J. L. Fike, et al  1983
>Radio Shack catalog number 62-1388

>  I haven't checked lately to see if there is a new edition or even if
>it is still available.  This is a self-teaching type of text with
>quizzes and answers for each chapter.

Well, I saw this book at Radio Shack not a year ago ... bought it, in
fact. It's a paperback with a red cover. Most likely they still have
it - Radio Shack is has one of the less dynamic stocking systems -
They still have the disco traffic strobe lights.


Miguel Cruz

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates
Date: 22 Jul 90 05:20:48 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Wollongong, Australia


noao!xroads![e-mail] (Jon Baker) writes:

>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.

Here in Australia that is exactly how it is done. Back in 1982 the
costs were:

Providing new service: $150 or $15 if only exchange work is needed.
(Handset and line still in place.)

Moving service to new address: $75 or $15 (as above).

By 1985 it had risen to $190/$30 and $110/$30 and in 1989 it
was $225/$45. (No figure for moving.)

Even though I had to pay the $225 I still think this reflection of the
costs seems fairer.


David Wilson    [e-mail]

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Switching Device With Different Rings
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 21:30:09 PDT

 > Now that they are offering custom ringing in my area, I understand
 > there are some devices that "route" the call to various devices (ie
 > two different answering machines) based on the type of ring.

 > Anyway have any information on where I can pick one of these devices
 > up, or does anyone have any experience with them?

I use a RingDirector from:

    Lynx Automation, Inc
    P O Box 99068
    Seattle, WA 98199
    206 285-1754

It comes in dual (2) and quad (4) "line" versions.  I have the
quad-line one, and can easily recommend it; when you take yours apart
and look at its construction you will see why.  (It also functions
quite well.)

I believe the dual-line one is priced at $89.95 and the quad-line one
at $149.95.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 13:12:53 P
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 38.4kb Limited Distance Async Modem


>Does anyone make such beasts?  We want to connect a MIPS box with an
>Equinox serial board to a Cisco terminal server for an el-cheapo slip
>link.  Both will apparently do 38.4bps.  The two end-points of the
>connection are within 500m of each other.

RAD makes one called SRM-6DC which can go up 2.5 miles at 38.4kb.  You
can contact them at either 201-587-8822 or fax them at 201-587-8847.


Hank Nussbacher
Israel

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #505
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05241;
          23 Jul 90 1:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01540;
          22 Jul 90 23:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31673;
          22 Jul 90 22:36 CDT
Date:     Sun, 22 Jul 90 21:48:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #506
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Jul 90 21:47:51 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 506

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Customers Have Long Memories [TELECOM Moderator]
    Comparison of U.S Sprint and ATT Phone Cards [Randy Day]
    Strange Reorder Signal With Speed Dialing [Jeff Wasilko]
    TeleMouse [John Higdon]
    E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [John C. Fowler]
    Security Risks Using IBM's RSCS-to-RSCS? [Joe Jesson]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [John C. Fowler]
    Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? [Larry M. Geary]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Dan Flak]
    Re: Touchtone History [Tad Cook]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 21:20:46 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Customers Have Long Memories


Something that some telco employees learned long ago, and some telco
employees will *never* learn is there is a direct relationship between
how you treat your customers and how loyal they remain to your
organization. Yes, there are some exceptions to this, and a few
customers who are never happy about anything, but most will remember
the good and bad parts of their relationship with you and be governed
accordingly when shopping for telecom services.

Since some of you enjoy those 'telco of the past' type stories, here
is one for you to meditate on.

April, 1968: Martin L. King was assassinated in Memphis. Everything
that week was up for grabs, so to speak, and in Chicago, riots racked
the west side of the city for several days. IBT people were on special
alert for trouble, and the guys in 'night plant' were especially alert
as they drove through the city to their tasks.

One of the fellows, Ron, generally worked the west side, and he
related to me some of the events from that week in April:

"We never had much trouble with harassment or anything. Even though we
were white, I think they knew we were not there to hassle them; we
were just doing our work. They pretty much left us alone. I know they
did harass the crews from People's Gas, because almost always the crew
was out there to dig in the parkway and shut off service somewhere.
But they never bothered us, or at least me.

"Next to one of the Chicago Housing Authority buildings was a liquor
store with a payphone. Some fool had ripped it right off the wall, and
I put it up Tuesday night, only to find out the next evening it had
been ripped down again. Now when it happened the second time, a lot of
the guys I worked with would have said 'f--k the animals!' and let the
phone stay down until the day crew could get to it later on.

"But I figured a lot of innocent people were harmed by that. There was
no other pay phone for about three blocks, and most of those people in
the projects had no private service, so it was either use the phone at
the liquor store or go without. They're entitled to service like
anyone else, so we put the phone back up on the wall Wednesday night,
but we did mount it a lot better the second time.

"It was been about midnight when we finished. The office made us use a
'buddy system' during the riots, so my partner and I were ready to
leave and he called the office to check in. The office patched through
a call to us; it was the operator at Bethany Brethren Hospital, about
half a mile from where we were then.

[Moderator's Note: Bethany Brethren was located almost in the middle
of the riot zone. During that decade it had become a hospital with a
95 percent black patient population and 50-60 percent black staff. PT]

"The poor operator was in tears, almost hysterical. A water pipe had
broken in a storage room with some phone wires. They got the water
pipe shut off, but the flood had knocked out the switchboard. And she
'just knew' there was no way anyone from Bell was going to come out
there and work on her board in the middle of a long night with the
riots going on.

"Generally the rioters left the hospitals alone and the old-people's
home on Kedzie Avenue. At the Kedzie Bell everything was secure, but
they sure torched everything else for a mile in all directions.

[Moderator's Note: 'The Kedzie Bell' was an old nickname for the CO
located at Kedzie and Monroe Sts. on the west side. PT]

"My partner and I parked in the lot at Bethany and went inside. That
poor woman would have kissed the ground we walked on, I think.

"It turned out the trouble was not that severe. We had to replace a
little bit of the cable run to the board and dry out some other stuff.
It took us maybe an hour or so. I wanted to make sure the board was
working okay, so I told the lady I'd run the board for a few minutes
while she went to get coffee for us from the cafeteria. We drank the
coffee, I ran the board and we just talked for about half an hour.  I
guess about 2:00 AM we decided to leave. The office had nothing for me
and I was going home to get some sleep.

"We went out to the parking lot ... I'll be damned if they hadn't
broken into our truck and looted all of our tools and supplies. Then
they had set the truck on fire. We went back inside and called the
office; the supervisor had a couple of guys drive out to get us and
bring us back downtown."

[Moderator's Note: The west side was devasted in the rioting and
burning of every business place. Today, 22 years later the community
has not recovered, indeed, things are worse. A few things were
rebuilt, but today there are still entire blocks totally empty. No
place to work, no money in the community, nothing. People still get
sick, and hospital bills go unpaid. The hospitals in the area are in
very poor financial condition. To avoid bankruptcy and closing, they
all merged a few years later ... PT]

(Ron related this to me about 1977 or 1978) ...

"The hospital is still out there; they don't call it Bethany Brethren
any longer ... it merged with those other two or three when they were
in bankruptcy; the parent company is the Evangelical Health Care
System, and they call it the Bethany Medical Center of EHCS.

"They were going to yank out those old switchboards they had in each
hospital and get some modern stuff [Moderator's Note: By 1976
standards!], so I guess they got bids from from a few places for new
equipment. One of our (IBT's) sales guys was over there to talk to the
Board of Directors and this woman who was the Vice President - Telecom
Services at Evangelical insisted -- absolutely insisted! -- that they
go with our centrex service tying all their locations together under
one centrex system.

"Do you know she actually remembered my name from eight years before?
I couldn't believe it! This lady knew my name, when I had been out to
Bethany, that we had 'done the job right the first time', and she
thought it best to 'stick with the people who cared enough to come out
and make immediate repairs'.

"When I heard this from someone at the office, I was absolutely
floored. That's a million dollars in business per year. But it goes to
show that when you really care about your customers, and make it
obvious to them, they will stick around."

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

Are customers today still that loyal? Something tells me most of them
are, if you put out a real effort to show you care about quality
telecom service, and are responsive to their needs.


PT

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

From: microsoft![e-mail]
Subject: Comparison of U.S Sprint and ATT Phone Cards
Date: Sat Jul 21 21:31:18 1990


I have both a U.S. Sprint FON card and an ATT Universal Card, so I
decided to do a simple price comparison of a six-minute call from
Seattle WA to Boulder CO.  The results:

ATT:           $1.57
U.S. Sprint    $1.61

These results reflect the 10% discount that ATT gives to calls made
using the Universal Card. These results do not include tax. Even more
interesting: ATT charged only federal excise tax. Sprint charges state
and local sales tax in addition to the federal excise tax. Since in
this location the state and local sales tax is about 8.7%, ATT starts
off with an 8.7% advantage!


Randy Day
(I do not represent the views of my employer.)

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 01:31:44 EDT
Subject: Strange Reorder Signal With Speed Dialing


I've been having some strange problems with speed dialing since I
moved from one part of Rochester to another (from south Henrietta to
the northeast part of Rochester). About 25% of the time when I speed
dial a number (particularly our terminal server's number), I just get
reorder.

I called repair service, and they said that there's not any problem
with the switch (a 5E), and that if I want them to look into it, I'll
have to pay if the problem turns out to be in my equipment. Is there
any chance that a problem like this (that started when I moved, and
occurs on two speed dialers) could be my problem? Should I go ahead
and call it in?

BTW, Rochester Tel decided to violate the standard (in the eastern
part of the US) number for repair sevice: its 777-1611.

Any advice on how best to approach this is appreciated.


Jeff

| RIT VAX/VMS Systems: |     Jeff Wasilko     |     RIT Ultrix Systems:     |
|BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:[e-mail]|
|INTERNET: [e-mail]              |____UUCP:[e-mail]____|
|'claimer: I speak only for myself. Opinions expressed are NOT those of RIT.|


[Moderator's Note: It is quite likely that your speed dialers are
going too fast for the exchange. Trying dialing numbers *as fast as you
can* manually. Does the equipment lose track of you also? Conversely,
can you slow down how fast the dialers work? Try tone dialing via your
modem at different speeds. How fast can you go before the exchange
loses some or all of the digits?  PT]

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

Subject: TeleMouse
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 21 Jul 90 22:25:26 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Remember the data circuit that I mentioned last week that runs between
GTE and Pac*Bell land? This morning the client reported the circuit
down once again. As is my practice, I verify the customer's equipment
before turning in the report to telco. This, of course, is just a
formality since the trouble is always found to be somewhere in GTE's
equipment or lines. A call to the studio in San Jose revealed that the
unit was functioning properly, it just didn't have data. So I took off
to the mountaintop site in Los Gatos. Again the unit was functioning
and transmitting data that was not getting through to the studio.

I called telco and reported that the Los Gatos-->San Jose direction
was not functioning. In the meantime I decided to do a little on-site
inspection of the telco facilities. Who knows, maybe a jumper came
loose or something like that. Opening the 1.1 box cover revealed six
(count em), six very startled mice huddled in among the wiring. Yucch!
I beat on the box causing the mice to scatter in every direction and
then located the jumper for the data circuit. It had been chewed
through. Reconnection restored normal operation.

I called and cancelled the trouble report. It was the usual Mickey
Mouse GTE trouble, but with a slightly different twist. BTW, anyone
know how to clean mouse p*ss off of a terminal box?


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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 12:12 EST
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy


The County of Los Alamos (population approximately 20,000) has E911,
one 911 operator, and five 911 lines available.  My question is, what
do 911 services do if there are more calls than operators available?
Surely not "Thank you for calling 911.  All of our operators are
currently busy, but if you will hold, the next available operator will
assist you."


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: They've probably done a traffic analysis which
gives them the information needed for staffing so that the problem you
describe would be very rare. Additional incoming calls would keep on
ringing until someone picked up or the call was abandoned. Here in
Chicago, the police dispatchers work in clusters: After the third ring
with no answer in a given cluster, the call is re-routed to another
cluster nearby. After six rings in total, the call is re-routed to the
supervisor's desk. But their staffing levels are based on known
traffic patterns; it takes a major incident to cause an overflow like
that.  PT]

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

From: joe jesson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Security Risks Using IBM's RSCS-to-RSCS?
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 15:50:27 GMT


 I am trying to ascertain the security risks of installing an
RSCS-to-RSCS link from our large (very) SNA network to IBM's
Information Network (IN) to be used for E-Mail (IBM's Expdedite Mail).
The fear is not knowing how a hacker can bring down my network from
IBM's network. Specifically, I remember the infamous "Christmas Card"
sent to all users on IBM's network.

What can be done through RSCS? My network has 30,000 PROFS users on
VM.

Any hackers or security buffs willing to tell?


joe

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 12:08 EST
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination


When I call up one of my credit card customer service lines, they
frequently require that I give them my mother's maiden name, or my ZIP
code, or when was the last time I ate at a restaurant and charged it
to that card, or something else designed to insure that it really is
me calling them and not just somebody who found my card.

How difficult would it be for AT&T to do something like this in
red-lined areas?  An AT&T Calling Card application is rather long and
asks for all sorts of personal information, so they should have no
problems asking something that only the true cardholder would know
off-hand.

Expense would prohibit implementation of this feature everywhere, but
I think customers would prefer it to "Sorry, we won't put your call
through" in areas known for high incidences of fraud.


John C. Fower, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 13:26:53 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home?


In article <[e-mail]> Martin Ewing <ewing-martin@
cs.yale.edu> writes:

>In our new house we have expanded to quite a number of phone devices,
>about six, using two lines.  As you might expect, the ringing voltage
>is down.

At what load would one start to have problems? I checked the ringer
equivalence numbers of the devices on one line, and I got:

Modem            0.3B
Answering Machine    0.4B
1 Line Telephone    0.7B (and 0.4A)
2 Line Telephone    1.0B

The other line has:

2 Line Telephone    1.0B
1 Line Telephone    1.0A
1 Line Telephone    1.0B
1 Line Telephone    unknown
Answering Machine    0.4B

I haven't noticed any problems, but I'm not sure what to look for.
And what are the A's and B's all about?


Larry Geary: [e-mail]
         [e-mail]

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

From: Dan Flak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Date: 22 Jul 90 05:43:53 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc, Seattle, Wa


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

>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.

We have a whole office full of people using portable (cellular) phones
from any where in the building to "point blank" range. So far, no
problems. We have PC's, Macs, Vaxen, 3B2's, 386's ...


   Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W.,
Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak)

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 22 Jul 90 18:24:57 GMT
Organization: very little


In article <[e-mail]>, drivax![e-mail]
(M.Marking) writes:

> *Dual* Tone Multi Frequency.) The frequencies are:
>
>             1209    1336    1477    1653 Hz
                                                ^^^^WRONG!


Actually, the fourth column tone is 1633 Hz.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #506
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00266;
          24 Jul 90 3:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01878;
          24 Jul 90 1:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27637;
          24 Jul 90 0:03 CDT
Date:     Mon, 23 Jul 90 23:44:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #507
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 Jul 90 23:44:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 507

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Dan Flak]
    Re: Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query [Gord Deinstadt]
    Re: How Does a Telephone Receiver Work? [Todd Inch]
    Re: PollenTrak [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Jane M. Fraser]
    Re: ANI Suggestions for Businesses [Stephen J. Friedl]
    Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [John Higdon]
    Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Kauto Huopio]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Touchtone History [M. Marking]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dan Flak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Date: 22 Jul 90 06:05:37 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc, Seattle, Wa


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Cliff Yamamoto) writes:

>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.

Several things can happen when you are moving away from a cell
site.

When your signal drops below a certain threshold, it is detected by
the switch servicing the cell to which you are speaking. The switch
sends out a signal to the neighboring cells asking them to "take a
look" at your signal. The one with the strongest signal wins, and the
switch arranges a hand off between the old cell site, and the new one.

Now, if the cell with the best read of your signal has all of its
channels in use, the switch will tell it that it can't take the call
because it's busy. (The mobile is a very dumb piece of equipment, but
it has to know how to make a call. The cell is dumber still. All of
its "thinking" is done at the switch). Some switches will have an
alternate list and redirect you to another servicable cell, even
though it doesn't have the best read of your signal. This may explain
why you may get "scratchy" service in an area where you normally get
good service. Your "normal" cell is busy, and you are handled by one
further away.

The last choice is to try to hang on to you as long as possible.

The threshold levels are (should be) set in accordance with some
common sense engineering. Cell sites on the fring areas of the
coverage will probably have the threshold set way down so that the
weakest signals are still attempted to be processed. Theory is that
the cell probably isn't that busy and can afford to keep calls for a
long time. The attempt is to get as much range as possible. On the
other hand, the "DOWNTOWN" cell site (every system has a "DOWNTOWN"
cell site :-) will probably have its threshold set so as to "force"
handoffs as soon as possible. On busy cells, its a good idea to get
rid of you as soon as somebody else can handle you.

Pittsburgh is a unique example of this. As you leave town to the
southwest, you enter a tunnel. You are most definately knocked off the
"DOWNTOWN" cell site as cellular signals have problems penetrating
rock. So, we've put a cell site in each of the tunnels. These sites
only have a couple of channels each, and they are intended to handle
the traffic in the tunnel only. The threshold on those puppies is set
very high, so that you are constantly causing the switch to ask for a
handoff, and such occurs as soon as you leave the tunnel.


   Dan Flak - McCaw Cellular Communications Inc., 201 Elliot Ave W.,
Suite 105, Seattle, Wa 98119, 206-286-4355, (usenet: thebes!mcgp1!flak)

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

From: Gord Deinstadt <cognos!geovision![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 1990 16:30:50 -0400
Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario


[e-mail] (Velu Sinha) writes:

  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.

This is a good summary description of a system put together by
GeoVision for Southwestern Bell.  I believe the system is now in
routine use.  I didn't work on the project, but if there is general
interest I could probably find someone to post a technical
description.  (Original poster, please send me e-mail; my reply
bounced.)


Gord Deinstadt   [e-mail]
reachable via  ...!uunet!geovision.UUCP

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does a Telephone Receiver Work?
Organization: Global Tech International Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 23:25:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
Levenson) writes:

>Your telephone receiver may act in reverse, as a low-level microphone.

In fact, you can build a "high-tech" tin-can quality phone by
connecting two of these telephone handset "speakers" together with a
pair of wires.  No amp, no battery.  They just provide enough of a
miniscule signal to drive one other and will act as either a
microphone or a speaker.  Amazing.

They're also great for crystal radios because they're so sensitive.

Using the speaker as a microphone is quite common in inexpensive
push-to-talk station intercoms such as the $15 two-wire type from
Radio Shack.  One end has the amp and battery, the other end is just a
speaker (plus a push button which shorts a DC-blocking capacitor to
signal the "base") and the push-to- talk button on the base unit
essentially just swaps the two speakers.

I've also seen PA systems on boats that use a horn-type speaker on the
mast to talk to land or another ship which also allow eavesdropping,
er, listening via the same horn speaker.


Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PollenTrak
Date: 22 Jul 90 23:08:19 GMT
Organization: UESPA


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" (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!

This is interesting.  My experience is slightly different.  It may be
that there are two Pollen Trak numbers, since the one I've seen on TV
lately is not the one I use.

Anyway, the first few times I called, I got the report for my area,
without my having to enter anything.  I also got a coupon offer (you
leave voice mail with your name and address), which I ignored.
Subsequent calls got the pollen report and a brief commercial, but not
the coupon offer.  This piqued my curiousity: could they possibly be
keeping a database of phone numbers?  So I tried calling from various
pay phones.  Usually a pay phone gets the Sacramento report
(especially if it's long distance carrier isn't ATT), but not always.
Sometimes (but no more often than on a private phone), I'm asked to
enter my phone number.  The coupon offer is repeated at what seem to
be random intervals.

I never get the Sacramento report from my home phone.  And yes, I'm
one of those wimps who stuck with ATT!


[e-mail]            Isaac Rabinovitch
atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo        Silicon Valley, CA
uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo

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

From: "Jane M. Fraser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones
Date: 23 Jul 90 17:14:55 GMT
Organization: Ohio State Univ CAST


>>Understanding Telephone Electronics
>>Developed and Published by Texas Instruments Learning Center
>>J. L. Fike, et al  1983
>>Radio Shack catalog number 62-1388

I (rather, my TA) tried very hard to get our local Radio Shack to get
copies of this book for a class I am teaching this summer.  We made it
very clear that ten people would buy copies.  We gave up and made
photocopies of the whole book, something I hate doing.


Jane Fraser

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

From: "Stephen J. Friedl" <mtndew![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ANI Suggestions for Businesses
Date: 22 Jul 90 20:07:53 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Center


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lenny
Tropiano) writes:

> In July 1990 issue of INBOUND/OUTBOUND magazine, devoted to ANI
> ("Improving the way America does business"), there was a column called
> "Yellow Pages ANI Directory".

This was a special supplemental issue put together by Harry Newton and
MCI Corp., the latter of whom is pushing their real-time ANI service.
I happen to like Harry Newton a great deal, and the issue at hand was
really excellent -- very enlightening -- but when one reads
advertising concealed as editorial, one must be aware that one might
not be getting The Whole Truth.


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy
Date: 23 Jul 90 01:03:21 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Surely not "Thank you for calling 911.  All of our operators are
> currently busy, but if you will hold, the next available operator will
> assist you."

In the first month of operation, the Santa Clara County E911 did just
that. There was a MAJOR stink, particularly fanned by the media, and
those in charge of the project were called on the carpet. The
initially offered explanation? "Well, a lot of the time there isn't a
lot of traffic and we can't just have people sitting around doing
nothing most of the time." Needless to say, this didn't fly very well.
Ultimately the solution was along the lines of that described by
Patrick, with calls being routed to alternate positions.

But one interesting problem of 911 surfaced at this time. Sometimes
the system is overloaded by multiple calls reporting the same major
event.  Even though only one call would be sufficient to summon aid
for the incident, the PSAP has no instantaneous way of knowing that a
cluster of calls are not for separate incidents.


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

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy
Date: 23 Jul 90 14:34:48 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> The County of Los Alamos (population approximately 20,000) has E911,
> one 911 operator, and five 911 lines available.  My question is, what
> do 911 services do if there are more calls than operators available?

    Here in Los Angeles they put you on hold. I know this because
I once called in to report a hillside fire. They put me on hold while
I watched the fire spread. But here in California they cut back on
libraries and emergency services when short of cash so they can keep
the Gay and Lesbian services running. This is how the "gummint" lets
us know they are short of money and punishes voters for reducing
gummint funds.


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


[Nervous Moderator's Note: This thread is starting to make me fidget.
How many special issues will be needed to handle responses?  How about
a blanket response from me: I am sure not everyone agrees with your
assessment of which government-funded services are less important than
others. Other readers will probably contact you *personally* (my
emphasis!) to discuss this further.  PT]

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

From: Kauto Huopio OH5LFM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Date: 23 Jul 90 21:19:11 GMT
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Flak) writes:

> >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.

Well, I went to a local store once and made a "RF-Reset" to an Omron
cash register :) by talking at a NMT cellular phone operating around
450 MHz, with about five watts out.. The cash register wrnt totally
mad, printing random numbers, but it did NOT open the cash box.

NMT 900 is _nice_ !! I can take a phone from Finland and go to
Switzerland and the cellular works just fine.


                 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: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 16:59:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> quack![e-mail] (Nick
Sayer) writes:

> Can't comment on cellular. I am a Ham, and the highest frequency I
> deal with on a regular basis is 162.995 MHz. Everything from there
> down gets trashed pretty good unless you use an outdoor antenna (which
> is forbidden in my #&^@&#@^#*^*@!! condo complex) or cable (catv/cafm).

Have you tried the old slinky-in-a-soup-can technique? When you want
reception, "accidentally" knock the slinky off your windowsill so it
hangs down over the edge.


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

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

From: "M.Marking" <drivax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 23 Jul 90 19:29:43 GMT
Reply-To: drivax![e-mail]
Organization: Digital Research (Japan) Inc.


ssc![e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

) In article <[e-mail]>, drivax![e-mail]
) (M.Marking) writes:

) > *Dual* Tone Multi Frequency.) The frequencies are:
) >
) >             1209    1336    1477    1653 Hz
)                                                 ^^^^WRONG!

) Actually, the fourth column tone is 1633 Hz.

You seem to be right.

My reference was page 88 of "Telecommunications Switching" by J.
Gordon Pearce, Plenum Press, 1981.

It seems I reached for the wrong reference first. 1633 Hz is the
choice of:

    den Heijer and Tolsma, Data Communications, Glentop, 1986

    Martin, Introduction to Teleprocessing, Prentice-Hall, 1972

    Signetics, TEA1046 data sheet, 1985

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the Standard.

So 1633 Hz wins over 1653 Hz by 3 to 1.

I offer my apologies.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #507
******************************










ISSUES 508 AND 509 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 508 FOLLOWS 509.

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01708;
          24 Jul 90 4:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21564;
          24 Jul 90 2:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01878;
          24 Jul 90 1:07 CDT
Date:     Tue, 24 Jul 90 0:48:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #509
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Jul 90 00:47:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 509

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell Canada Ontario Toll Network 100% Digital [Henry Troup]
    What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [Phil Earnhardt]
    College Phracking [Tareq Hoque]
    BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues [David Leibold]
    Strange Recordings [Doug Lee]
    Urban Folklore and Nicad Zapping [Jack Winslade]
    Questions of International ISDN Developing [Jundar Huang]
    User Document Needed [Ben Hawkins]
    Conference Bridge [Jayson Raymond]
    US Sprint's FON FRIEND -- Will You be Mine? [Steve Huff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Ontario Toll Network 100% Digital
Date: 23 Jul 90 15:01:22 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


This is from Bell News, Bell Canada's Ontario Region newspaper for
employees.  An SP-1 (installed 1974) in Thunder Bay, Ontario was the
last analog toll switch in Ontario.  It was replaced by a DMS-200.  In
the last ten years, Ontario has gone from 57 analog toll switches to
22 digital.

"The digital equipment has improved efficiency in Thunder Bay's
Operator Services with the implementation of TOPS enhancements such as
automatic calling card service and AOSS with voice response."

"The actual cutover involved 89 offices from White River to the
Manitoba border and noth to James Bay."

(Thunder Bay is pretty far north and west in Ontario, and the
population density is low.  The 89 offices are likely local and
adajacent toll offices, probably ranging down to 100 line rural
service boxes of a variety of kinds, including DMS remotes with
standalone capability.)

This table appears:

          Ontario Toll Switches

Machine Type                       Year-End Count

                         1980   1987  1988  1989  1990
SXS ITD                    14      1     1     0     0
#5 XBAR                    23      5     2     2     0
XBT                         8      0     0     0     0  (Crossbar Tandem)
4A XBAR                     3      2     2     0     0
SP-1 4W                     8      5     4     2     0
DMS 100/200                 0      6     5     4     1
DMS 200                     1     10    14    16    21

Total                      57     29    28    24    22


"Another modernization thrust is ... installation of DMS 100.  Ontario
will modernize about 400,000 lines using [digital] technology in 1990.
This, combined with the Region's growth, will [add] 650,000 lines of
digital ... this year resulting in a base of 3.2 million digital lines
by [year-end].... 'We're aiming for 90 per cent digital by 1995' John
[Wylie, senior operations manager, Network Planning] states.

Part of the local modernization program involves putting LAMA (Local
Automatic Message Accounting) into all DMS 100's.  'With LAMA we can
introduce direct trunking from end offices to remote offices and
capture billing data at the end office on the LAMA tape resulting in
trunking economies and efficiencies couples with improved
survivability,' John notes."


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

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 21:32:11 MDT
From: Phil Earnhardt <netwise![e-mail]>
Subject: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom?


My folks have developed a rural area in central North Carolina of
about a dozen 10-acre tracts. They put in a private road and have a
power gate at its entrance. There's also a telephone. The phone will
be programmed with 2-digit codes for each residence and the owners
will be able to open the gate via the phone connection.

The problem is that Southern Bell wants to charge business rates for
the line. Southern Bell said that there are about five lines in the
state that fall into this category and that they had decided that they
qualify as business lines, even though they seem to fall through the
cracks of the guidelines. I can see a reasonable case for calling this
either a residence or a business line.

Does anyone have any insights about this particular case? If not, what
sort of procedure can my folks go through to appeal this decision?


phil

PS As an aside, it was very sad to see the electric and phone lines
   being buried separately. Is there a good reason why they couldn't
   use the same trenches?

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 16:13:01 edt
From: Tareq Hoque <[e-mail]>
Subject: College Phracking


These college phracking stories remind me of my days at MIT and
dealing with Dormline ( . . . collect and third party calls, not
accepted).  Since Dormline was 1940's era step-by-step, it didn't have
any billing mechanism, thus it only accepted incoming calls, and you
could only make internal, toll-free or collect calls.  Anyhow, the
only way to get full telephone service was to get Netel to install
your own personal line.

A common thing to do in the dormitories was to share local lines with
several rooms, which required bridging lines and reconfiguring if
anyone changed rooms).  One day I lent my friend my Western Electric
lineman's set to do some maintenance on the bridge.  It turns out that
someone in the dorm saw him playing in the phone box in the basement
and called the Campus police.

When the campus police arrived, they questioned him on what he was
doing and seemed confident that he wasn't doing anything malicious.
They let him proceed with modifications but they did take down his
name for their notes.  After my friend was done, he gave me the
lineman's set back.  However, later in the week I got a frantic phone
call from this friend saying that the CP's have been calling him
because they want him to turn in the line set to the CP headquarters,
because he would be breaking the law if he didn't.

Well I told my friend that it was not illegal to own or use this
equipment for legitimate purposes, but he asked me to talk to the
police.

I asked the police why they thought I should give them my own personal
property.

They said it was against the law to own a lineman's set.

I asked them to cite the law that prohibits possession of the
equipment.

They couldn't answer.  Then they said they wanted it because I could
do illegal activities with the set.

I told them I could kill somebody with my kitchen knife, did they want
that too?

In the end I told them I was refusing to give my property to them.
They said they would turn me in to the Dean of Student affairs if they
didn't receive it in 24 hours.  I never turned it in, and I never
heard about the incident again.


The good old days.

tareq

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 90 23:19:01 EDT


The _Toronto_Star_, 21st July 1990 had an article entitled "Phone puts
B.C.  whiz kid's career on hold". It was about the controversy
surrounding former British Columbia Attorney-General Bud Smith, after
some tapes of some of his cellular phone calls were released.

Brian Graves, a freelance radio reported in Victoria, BC started to
tape {_some of Smith's cellular calls, particularly those exposing a
dubious liaison with TV reporter Margot Sinclair. Smith also let loose
with some nasty rhetoric about his politician buddies (within the same
party at that).

These cellular recordings were referred to as the "Rocky and
Bullwinkle Show" tapes, considering that "Rocky" was a nickname Smith
used for TV reporter Sinclair. Needless to say, a whole mess of
ethical and legal questions has come up, for both reporters and
politicians.

It should be noted that Canada does not have the same restrictions on
actual reception of cellular telephone frequencies that exist with the
ECPA in the US. Technically, it is legal in Canada to receive the
cellular frequencies, but there is a "secrecy of communications" law
which would prohibit divulging any information gained from receiving
non-broadcast radio transmissions.

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

From: Doug Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Recordings
Date: 22 Jul 90 18:28:24 GMT
Reply-To: Doug Lee <[e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc., Springfield, IL


All this talk of late intercepts fits well with what happened to me
just last week:

I have a good friend in Maine who I call periodically.  Last week,
however, her phone line was disconnected (for reasons having nothing
to do with her).  Rather than getting the standard "The number you
have reached -- ... -- has been [temporarily] disconnected," I received
the following message:

     "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed.  You must now
     dial seven digits for a local call."

To slightly modify a quote from a Douglas Adams book, "That's
obviously a strange new use of the word _local_ with which I was not
previously acquainted."

Actually, I suspect the normal intercept, for whatever reason, missed
its opportunity to enlighten me as to the line's supposed condition,
allowing a Maine switch the honor.  As long as I'm not charged for
that (actually, those--I tried several times) "local" call, I guess I
don't care who's responsibility it is to give me the bad news.


Curious as always,

Doug Lee  ([e-mail] or uunet!pallas!dgl292)

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 14:07:26 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Urban Folklore and Nicad Zapping
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


I can assure you first-hand that zapping nicad cells does not fall in
the same category as the 'Mouse in the Soda Bottle' and the 'Kentucky
Fried Rat'.

Two people with whom I work (one a CBET, the other a PhD.) have made
nicad zapping devices.  I have used both.  They work.

I should qualify that by saying that in SOME cases, SOME shorted nicad
cells can be brought back to life by the careful application of energy
from a charged capacitor.  Using this technique will not, however,
restore old, dead, cold-in-the-morgue nicads back to their original
virility.

The technique seems to work best on relatively new nicads that
seemingly will not take a charge.  A good candidate would be a cell in
a 'stack' that shows zero volts, while the others in the stack show
normal or close to normal voltage.

Here's the tricky part.  By trial, error, and experience, you must
gain a 'feel' for just how much energy it will take to burn out the
short without significantly damaging the rest of the cell.  The zapper
will usually have a potentiometer to vary the charging voltage, and
maybe a switch to select a couple of different values of capacitors.
The idea is to let the shorted area dissipate almost all of the energy
stored in the capacitor -- that being in the form of the heat that
burns open the short.  After the short is burned open, any additional
energy will be dissipated as heat by the good portions of the cell
itself.  This can damage it.

A couple of caveats.  Zap one and only one cell at a time.  NEVER zap
across a battery ('stack') of more than one cell.  If you do, most of
the energy will be dissipated in the form of heat in the good cell(s),
and it will have almost no effect on the bad one.  If one zap burns
the short out, do not repeat it '... to see if it gets even better'.
Charge it and use it.  If a zap does not burn out the short, raise the
energy a bit and try again.  Stop after the first zap that
significantly raises the impedance of the cell.

In some cases, zapped nicad cells will appear to have close to their
rated capacity for close to their rated life.  In other cases, they
will be weaker and fail prematurely.  I would not recommend this
technique on cells used in critical applications, such as in
defibrillators, but for use in cellular phones, I don't see any major
problems.  If it works, you've saved the cost of a new pack, if not,
well at least you've tried.

Good Day!        JSW

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

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

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

From: Jundar Huang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions of International ISDN Developing
Date: 21 Jul 90 01:29:49 GMT
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica


I am looking for some information regarding to ISDN development in
different countries outside of United States, such as U.K, Germany,
France, Japan, and etc. What is their current stage of ISDN and what
kinds of services is provided today? Are international ISDN services
also available in these countries? Who and how are the carriers
providing the international ISDN services ? Can anyone give some hints
about my questions or point me to where I can get these information ?

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

Date: 23 Jul 90 19:21:22 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: User Document Needed
Organization: University of Cincinnati


   I am posting this for someone who does not have net access.  I do
not personally read this group, so please either call [phone]
collect, or respond to me via e-mail, at the address listed below.

   The University of Cincinnati's Telecommunications department needs
documentation on a Mitel SX-5, showing programming and feature access
codes.  If you call collect, ask for Tom Ridgeway.


Ben Hawkins    University of Cincinnati
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Are you unable to get this documentation direct
from Mitel?  PT]

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

From: Jayson Raymond <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conference Bridge
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 14:56:13 PDT


    I am hoping to tap from the invaluable knowledge source of
this list, and would appreciate any leads some one could provide me
with. I am in need of a conference bridge or similar device for an
information provider service that will allow me to do the following.

    Given about 32 simultaneous callers, I would like to
dynamically select between who speaks to who, and allow multiple
people to converse at the same time. Dynamically reconfigurable so
that ideally it could be one big 32 caller conference or, while all
callers are still online, be reconfigured for as many as 16 two party
conversations, or any configuration inbetween. Ideally this would also
be PC based, and hopefully easily interfaceable to call processing
boards by Natural MicroSystems, Dialogic, or others.

    The ideal system would be as described above, but if I have to
make compromises in the system design, I will. I currently am
contemplating utilizing the Dialogic AMX81 to allow for only one on
one conversations, if I can't find something better. The number of
simultaneous callers is flexible, hopefully expandable from 4 to 32 or
so.

    Thank you in advance for any info you may be able to provide.

Jayson

[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: US Sprint's FON FRIEND -- Will You be Mine?
Date: 23 Jul 90 20:41:36 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


Enclosed with my US Sprint bill today I recieved a FON-FRIEND
application.  It's designed for me to send it to one of my friends who
doesn't have US Sprint.  According to the literature:

    ... to help us introduce them [your friend(s)] to
    the many advantages of US Sprint long-distance service--
    and to help you earn $15 of free calling-- simply complete
    your portion of this mailer and send it to your
    best FON-FRIEND.

The FON-FRIEND receives thirty minutes free calling (which just about
covers the l.d. carrier switchover costs.

Does anybody want to be my friend?


Steve Huff, MBA student, University of Kansas
(currently interning at Hill's Pet Products, Topeka, KS) WorkNet: 913 231 5760
My electronic dicta may or may not represent views of either organization.
Internet:  [e-mail]      Bitnet:    [e-mail]
Snail:     P.O. Box 1225, Lawrence, KS  66044-8225    HomeNet: 913 749 4720

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #509
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02133;
          24 Jul 90 4:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21564;
          24 Jul 90 2:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01878;
          24 Jul 90 1:07 CDT
Date:     Tue, 24 Jul 90 0:12:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #508
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Jul 90 00:12:22 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 508

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home? [Julian Macassey]
    Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Caller ID Update [Benjamin Ellsworth]
    Re: AT&T Redlining [Robert Savery]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pseudo PBX For the Home?
Date: 23 Jul 90 14:50:09 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> In article <[e-mail]> Martin Ewing <ewing-martin@
> cs.yale.edu> writes:

> >In our new house we have expanded to quite a number of phone devices,
> >about six, using two lines.  As you might expect, the ringing voltage
> >is down.

> At what load would one start to have problems? I checked the ringer
> equivalence numbers of the devices on one line, and I got:

    It's dejavu time again here on TELECOM Digest. Those of you
tired of this stuff can move on here. Those seeking insight to the
mysteries of telephone ringers hang on.

> Modem            0.3B
> Answering Machine    0.4B
> 1 Line Telephone    0.7B (and 0.4A)
> 2 Line Telephone    1.0B

So your total REN is 2.4

> The other line has:

> 2 Line Telephone    1.0B
> 1 Line Telephone    1.0A
> 1 Line Telephone    1.0B
> 1 Line Telephone    unknown
> Answering Machine    0.4B

So your total REN is 3.4

> I haven't noticed any problems, but I'm not sure what to look for.
> And what are the A's and B's all about?

    You shouldn't have noticed any problems. You are well within
limits for RENs. The exception would be if you were using "Subscriber
Carrier" which handles an REN of about 2.

    The A ringer is sensitive to an AC waveform of 20 or 30 Hz
+or- 3Hz.  A B ringer is sensitive to AC frequencies between 15.3 and
68 Hz.

    Below is part of an article I once wrote. It should explain a
bit about ringers.


The Ringer

     Simply speaking this is a device that alerts you to an incoming
call.  It may be a bell, light, or warbling tone.  The telephone
company sends a ringing signal which is an AC waveform.  Although the
common frequency used in the United States is 20 HZ, it can be any
frequency between 15 and 68 Hz.  Most of the world uses frequencies
between 20 and 40 Hz.  The voltage at the subscribers end depends upon
loop length and number of ringers attached to the line; it could be
between 40 and 150 Volts.  Note that ringing voltage can be hazardous;
when you're working on a phone line, be sure at least one telephone on
the line is off the hook (in use); if any are not, take high voltage
precautions.  The telephone company may or may not remove the 48 VDC
during ringing; as far as you're concerned, this is not important.
Don't take chances.

     The ringing cadence - the timing of ringing to pause - varies
from company to company.  In the United States the cadence is normally
two seconds of ringing to four seconds of pause.  An unanswered phone
in the United States will keep ringing until the caller hangs up.  But
in some countries, the ringing will "time out" if the call is not
answered.

     The most common ringing device is the gong ringer, a solenoid
coil with a clapper that strikes either a single or double bell.  A
gong ringer is the loudest signaling device that is solely phone-line
powered.

     Modern telephones tend to use warbling ringers, which are usually
ICs powered by the rectified ringing signal.  The audio transducer is
either a piezoceramic disk or a small loudspeaker via a transformer.

     Ringers are isolated from the DC of the phone line by a
capacitor.  Gong ringers in the United States use a 0.47 uF capacitor.
Warbling ringers in the United States generally use a 1.0 uF
capacitor.  Telephone companies in other parts of the world use
capacitors between 0.2 and 2.0 uF.  The paper capacitors of the past
have been replaced almost exclusively with capacitors made of Mylar
film.  Their voltage rating is always 250 Volts.

     The capacitor and ringer coil, or Zeners in a warbling ringer,
constitute a resonant circuit.  When your phone is hung up ("on hook")
the ringer is across the line; if you have turned off the ringer you
have merely silenced the transducer, not removed the circuit from the
line.

     When the telephone company uses the ringer to test the line, it
sends a low-voltage, low frequency signal down the line (usually 2
Volts at 10 Hz) to test for continuity.  The company keeps records of
the expected signals on your line.  This is how it can tell you have
added equipment to your line.  If your telephone has had its ringer
disconnected, the telephone company cannot detect its presence on the
line.

     Because there is only a certain amount of current available to
drive ringers, if you keep adding ringers to your phone line you will
reach a point at which either all ringers will cease to ring, some
will cease to ring, or some ringers will ring weakly.  In the United
States the phone company will guarantee to ring five normal ringers.
A normal ringer is defined as a standard gong ringer as supplied in a
phone company standard desk telephone.  Value given to this ringer is
Ringer Equivalence Number (REN) 1.  If you look at the FCC
registration label of your telephone, modem, or other device to be
connected to the phone line, you'll see the REN number.  It can be as
high as 3.2, which means that device consumes the equivalent power of
3.2 standard ringers, or 0.0, which means it consumes no current when
subjected to a ringing signal.  If you have problems with ringing,
total up your RENs; if the total is greater than 5, disconnect ringers
until your REN is at 5 or below.

     Other countries have various ways of expressing REN, and some
systems will handle no more than three of their standard ringers.  But
whatever the system, if you add extra equipment and the phones stop
ringing, or the phone answering machine won't pick up calls, the
solution is disconnect ringers until the problem is resolved. Warbling
ringers tend to draw less current than gong ringers, so changing from
gong ringers to warbling ringers may help you spread the sound better.

     Frequency response is the second criterion by which a ringer is
described.  In the United States most gong ringers are
electromechanically resonant.  They are usually resonant at 20 and 30
Hz (+&- 30 Hz).  The FCC refers to this as A so a normal gong ringer
is described as REN 1.0A.  The other common frequency response is
known as type B.  Type B ringers will respond to signals between 15.3
and 68.0 Hz.  Warbling ringers are all type B and some United States
gong ringers are type B.  Outside the United States, gong ringers
appear to be non-frequency selective, or type B.

     Because a ringer is supposed to respond to AC waveforms, it will
tend to respond to transients (such as switching transients) when the
phone is hung up, or when the rotary dial is used on an extension
phone.  This is called "bell tap" in the United States; in other
countries, it's often called "bell tinkle."  While European and Asian
phones tend to bell tap, or tinkle, United States ringers that bell
tap are considered defective.  The bell tap is designed out of gong
ringers and fine tuned with bias springs.  Warbling ringers for use in
the United States are designed not to respond to short transients;
this is usually accomplished by rectifying the AC and filtering it
before it powers the IC, then not switching on the output stage unless
the voltage lasts long enough to charge a second capacitor.


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 13:19:47 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc
Organization: Summit NJ


> > I wish to complain (loudly) about various local COCOTs practices of
> > prohibiting access to long distance carriers via 10XXX or 950-10XX and
> > of disabling the keypad after the call is completed.

> Oh yes -- the FCC has decreed that COCOTs will allow access to all
> long distance carriers doing business in the area. That really got the
> COCOT owners worried. I believe the real penalty for non-compliance is
> that the FCC will think bad thoughts about the guilty COCOT owner. Has
> anyone ever--repeat EVER--found a COCOT that allows 10XXX access to
> multiple carriers? I rest my case.

When I was in Las Vegas last week, my observation was that at least
75% of the public telephones are COCOTs (CenTel is the local operating
company).  What made things really rough is that the COCOTs I did use
looked like the Bell company phones.

First of all, besides not supporting 10XXX, these phones do not
support 1 [phone] either, so users cannot determine the LD
carrier without asking.

Anyway, when I hit "0" and got the CenTel operator, she said she
couldn't connect me to AT&T, and that I should use a CenTel public
phone.  When I then hit "00", I got a recording telling me how to
place the call directly, but to hit a "3" if I need a live person.
Anyway, an ITI operator answered, and I asked to be connected to AT&T;
she did connect me.

Now, I asked the second operator if he was AT&T, and when he said he
was, I placed the call through him, asking for the calling card rate.
So if I do find an AOS charge on my phone bill next month, I will
merely report to NJ Bell about the fraudulent misrepresentation by the
LD carrier, and that they should stop trying to collect the money from
me for the AOS.

Finally, from other sources, I believe the COCOT owner position on LD
selection is that as long as they do connect you, they are in
compliance with the FCC regulations.  Giving customers a choice of LD
carrier doesn't mean they have to support 10XXX.  Also, what the COCOT
owners want for having to support LD carrier selection is payment for
the use of their phone, either in the coin slot or from the selected
LD company.


-- Stan Krieger Summit, NJ
 ...!att!attunix!smk

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service?
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 17:25:58 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Todd Day)
writes:

>        UCSB Telephone Prefix Changes to 893

I would hope that somebody from UCSB Telecom can give better
information, but the following represents what I as a "neighbor"
believe.

>(1)    Why did GTE feel it necessary to change UCSB at all when it
>    appears that there were many numbers left in the current prefix?
>    9999 - 3800 = 6199 extensions left, right?

Not necessarily, see below.

>(2)    What does changing prefixes buy GTE?  As far as I know, UCSB
>    was the sole "owner" of the 961 prefix, although I had heard
>    rumours that Delco GM and Santa Barbara Research Center had
>    a couple of 961 phone lines that had something or other to
>    do with the university.

I have always heard that the 805-961 prefix was shared between UCSB,
SBRC, Delco and other companies with Centrex in the research park
area.

>(3)    If there is some kind of new magic box that GTE is installing
>    to handle special needs of the univeristy, why couldn't they
>    keep the 961 prefix and swap the lines from the old box to
>    the new box on August 4?

UCSB a couple of years ago replaced the Centrex service with a PBX.
At the time they were allowed to keep the old number block. I suspect
that the agreement at the time guaranteed the old numbers for a
minimum period, which has now expired, and that GTE now wants to
reclaim the old block either to expand other Centrexes in the area.

>(4)    If I call the university at 7:59am on August 4 using the 961
>    prefix, what will happen to my call at 8:00am?  If we had
>    caller ID out here, what would happen to an outgoing call?

I don't know whether they will be moving the trunks to a different
switch; if they do, the calls will drop (and there may actually be a
few seconds when the lines are dead). If the cutover is all software,
the calls will survive. I don't know if such cutovers are timed
exactly enough that you'd be able to test it by placing such a call.
(If the cutover actually happens 15 minutes later, your test would be
invalid).


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 17:35:33 pdt
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Update


Does anyone know, or will anyone speculate about the impact the recent
state rulings regarding CID will have on 800 ANI?  I mean if it's
illegal for an individual to find out the caller's number, then it's
illegal no matter how it is marketted.  Right?


Benjamin Ellsworth      | [e-mail]                | INTERNET

                     All relevant disclaimers apply.


[Moderator's Note: Except that you are entitled to the information if
you are paying for the call, which is what 800 calls are about: the
receiver automatically paying for the call, although there is a
difference between real-time delivery of the information such as
American Express receives versus billing information supplied up to a
month later, such as I receive.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 18:17:25 EDT
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Redlining
Reply-to: [e-mail]


In a message of <16 Jul 90 14:05:00>, Gregg Siegfried writes:

 GS>It is my impression that the "redlining" of various high-fraud areas
 GS>by AT&T is more for their customers' protection than their own.  The
 GS>concern is that there are many people hanging around these areas
 GS>trying to 'spot' credit card numbers as they're used to make calls.
 GS>Disallowing the use of credit cards in these areas has a twofold
 GS>effect ... First, since you cannot use your credit card, an insidious
 GS>individual cannot spot it as you make a call, and second, the thief
 GS>with a stolen credit card number cannot use it in that particular area
 GS>as a "long distance reseller" as is the practice.

 GS>As such, I believe a class-action suit would be overkill.  You may
 GS>argue that it is your right to give your credit card number away to an
 GS>onlooker if you feel like it, and to a certain extent I agree.  On the
 GS>other hand, since the telephone company usually ends up footing the
 GS>bill for fraud ("Hey!  I didn't make these calls!  Take them off my
 GS>bill."), you can hardly blame them for taking such minimal measures to
 GS>cover their backs.

Protecting your card numbers has very little if anything to do with
it. AT&T, as well as the other LD carriers got tired of getting stuck
with the bill when charge calls were made from these areas. It was
common practice to make collect calls and then later use the " I don't
know anyone there!! " argument to get the bills taken off.

I can't blame the LD carriers. They are stuck in a no win situation.
They can allow the charge calls and loose millions in fraud or they
can force everyone to use coins and end up getting nailed with bad pr
and lawsuits.

If I recall, a group of prisoners tried a lawsuit after the LD carrier
serving their prison put them on coin only calls. After the LD company
showed the judge their records of the millions of dollars lost in 1
year on the half dozen phones in the prison, he threw the case out.

I'd chalk this one up as one of the downsides of life and make sure
I've got enough change next time you need to use a locked out phone.


Bob

[1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista  (1:285/666.5)

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #508
******************************












ISSUES 508 AND 509 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 509 IS IN FRONT OF 508.

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24258;
          25 Jul 90 4:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18738;
          25 Jul 90 2:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02167;
          25 Jul 90 1:21 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Jul 90 1:02:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #510
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Jul 90 01:02:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 510

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Opening Days of Craig Neidorf's Trial [Computer Underground Digest]
    Precedents Could be Set in Neidorf's Trial [Jim Thomas]
    PT/Phrack Article Cited in Niedorf Trial [David Schanen & Glen Overby]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 02:20 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Opening Days of Craig Neidorf's Trial


The first day: Jury selection.

The trial of Craig Neidorf began in federal court in Chicago today,
Judge Nicholas Bua presiding. The first day was devoted entirely to
jury selection. The twelve jurors were selected by 4 p.m., and the
altenrates by about 4:45. The judge indicated that the trial could
take from seven to ten days. Craig's parents and grand parents
attended and, not counting the prospective jurors, about a half dozen
other non-participants.  Only one mainstream media person was evident,
a television reporter from Channel 7 in Chicago.  Those present
indicted that the jury represents a reasonable cross section of
Chicago's population.

In the second day of Craig Neidorf's trial in Chicago, both sides
presented their opening arguments.  The prosecution wheeled in two
shopping carts containing documents, presumably to be used as
evidence.  Bill Cook, the prosecutor, down-played the technical
aspects of the case and tried to frame it as a simple one of theft and
receiving/transporting stolen property. Sheldon Zenner's opening
statements were described as "absolutely brilliant," and challenged
the definitions and interpretations of the prosecution.  More detail
will follow as the trial progresses.

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

[Moderator's Note: My thanks to the folks at Computer Underground
Digest for sharing these reports, which will appear here on a frequent
basis for the duration of the trial. A much more detailed report,
including a look at the jurors who will decide the case is in the
current issue of CUD. To receive CUD on a regular basis in your
mailbox, write to the address shown above.   PT]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Jul 90 17:37 CDT
From: jt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Precedents Could Be Set in Neidorf Trial


In TELECOM DIGEST V10, #505, Pat Townson writes:

>You say it might well be 'a major turning point in the future of
>electronic communications', but I don't think it will be quite that dramatic.

Unlike simple "access" cases, Craig Neidorf's trial raises, for the
first time to my knowledge in a federal court, the Constitutional
protections accorded to electronic journals. Depending on how the
issues are presented and on Judge Bua's rulings, the consequences
could be minimal. On the other hand, they could be dramatic, and those
who have read Judge Bua's memorandum order in denying Craig's motions
to dismiss believe that the judge would like to establish some
precedent on at least some of the issues.

No single case in a federal district court is likely to be a
"landmark" decision, but it can establish precedent for several years
within the court's jurisdiction and also shape law in other federal
and state jurisdictions.  A decision that weakens the protections of
electronic communication could encourage over-zealous prosecutors to
continue their witch hunts by targeting such digests as TELECOM
Digest.  This Digest has been far more helpful in learning the
techology of the telecom companies than any of the hacker journals.

And, if memory serves, the Moderator quite explicitly advocated
ripping off Lotus solely for the purpose of retaliating against Mitch
Kapor's EFF participation, and not for the challenge of learning more
about the software. How does this differ from the actions of those he
criticizes?

>The name 'Phrack' seems to be a combination of the two words 'phreak'
>and 'hack', two words with a derogatory inference even to many of the
>people who use them to describe themselves. It is almost as though it
>was being stuck up under the government's nose with the attitude
>'see if you can stop us'.

The name "PHRACK" is, indeed, a combination of those two "nasty"
words.  But, the claim that these have a "derogatory inference"
(perhaps Pat means "derogatory connotations," because words don't
"infer") is ludicrous. The term combines two separate activities
which, at the time of introduction, were hardly derogatory.  PHRACK
first appeared in November, 1985, when the founders were in their
early-to-mid teens (I think the average age was about fifteen).  It
may be comforting to impute motives to those you dislike many years
after the fact, but more often than not such imputation reflects more
about our own motives than those of our adversary.

>Another thing that annoys the government and the telcos is the constant
>(and I think sick) swapping out of /f/ with /ph/ on words out of some
>misplaced reverence to the telephone network. This is a whole topic in
>itself: the swapping of /f/ and /ph/ to make some point to readers could be
>discussed in detail.

If one group, even if that group is law-enforcement, becomes annoyed
at the language usage of another, so what? Should a culture be shaped
in accordance with the preferences of some more powerful group lest we
displease that group? Pat invokes a pathological imagery
("SICK?? -- c'mon!)  to discredit a form of language use. Gordon Meyer
and I have argued in a recent article (in Frank Schmalleger's volume
on Computers in Criminal Justice) that there is a postmodernist
component to the computer underground reflecting, among other things,
a playful irony in word use.

One needn't agree with us, but it's difficult to dispute that, like it
or not, the CU is a separate culture with specific norms, language
use, and other characteristics that set it apart from those who modem
(yes, "modem" is a verb). One aspect of this culture is a tweak at
common conventions of language.  Technological changes impel social
responses, and one response has been to move beyond "modernist"
conventions that seem anachronistic as we move into the 21st century.
We can send a copy of this paper to anybody who wants it (ask for "The
Baudy World of the Byte Bandit: A Postmodernist Interpretation of the
Computer Underground).

Pat does us all a service by keeping this issue alive and by having
the courage to voice opinions that others might share but are hesitant
to do lest they be flamed. Despite his occasional comments that some
of us find maddeningly off-the-wall, he is also to be commended for
his unequivocal support of allowing "the other side" to air issues
(specifically, his supportive interview of Len Rose and many of his
other articles that have been invaluable in providing information not
otherwise available).  Sometimes I cannot but wonder if his comments
aren't in fact intended to be ironic, a way of raising an issue
knowing that others will respond with counter-arguments that further
clarify the issue.  He would have made a good co-editor of PHRACK
(suppressed grin).


Jim Thomas /[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Thomas is one of the Moderators of the Computer
Underground Digest, and our correspondent at the trial now going on.  PT]

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: PT/Phrack Article Cited in Niedorf Trial
Date: 22 Jul 90 15:13:27 GMT
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


Thought you might like to see it...

Ps. Did we ever see the results of your hacker poll?

    -Dave

[Moderator's Note: Yes, the hacker poll was published several weeks
ago, both in its original version, and a couple weeks later in a
different format. Maybe someone with a copy of that issue will mail it
to you.

In addition to Mr. Schanen, the article which follows was also
forwarded to me by Glen Overby <[e-mail]>, and I thank
him also for passing it along. The article was originally written
about 1982-83, and was later posted to Portal by myself, and used here
in TELECOM Digest in the summer of 1988. It was then picked up by
Phrack sometime in the fall of 1988.  Thus, the details are a little
dated, and not entirely accurate at this time.  The article is
presented because people have expressed curiosity about it.  I have no
idea who 'Hatchet Molly' is. I guess the only legitimate names those
folks used were of unsupecting folks like me.  PT]


                                ==Phrack Inc.==

                      Volume Two, Issue 21, File 7 of 11

         ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()
         ()                                                        ()
         ()                  Non-Published Numbers                 ()
         ()                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                 ()
         ()             An Observation Of Illinois Bell            ()
         ()                                                        ()
         ()                   by Patrick Townson                   ()
         ()                of The Portal System (TM)               ()
         ()                                                        ()
         ()             Special Thanks to Hatchet Molly            ()
         ()                                                        ()
         ()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()()


All examples in this message pertain to Illinois Bell Telephone
Company, which covers the Chicago metropolitan area, and quite a bit
of the rest of Illinois.

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

There are three types of phone numbers which do not appear in the
printed and publicly available directory;

     (1)  Too new to list
     (2)  Non-listed
     (3)  Non-published

The third category of numbers not in the phone book or available from
the Directory Assistance Bureau are non-published numbers.
Non-published numbers are NOT available at the directory Assistance
level.  Inquiries about same which are input into a DA (Directory
Assistance) terminal simply come up with a message that "at the
customer's request, the number is not listed in our records; the
number is non-published."

Well, who does keep non-pub records then?  The Business Office has no
handy way to retrieve them, since they depend on an actual phone
number when they pull up a record to discuss an account.  Once a
service order is processed, the number and associated name are no
longer available to the average worker in the central office.

There was for several years a small group known as the "NonPub Number
Bureau" which at the time was located in Hinsdale, Illinois.  Needless
to say, the phone number to the NonPub Number Bureau was itself
non-published, and was only available to specified employees at
Illinois Bell who were deemed to have a "need to know clearance."  Now
with all the records being highly computerized, the keepers of the
Non-Pub phone numbers are themselves scattered around from one phone
office to another.

When there is some specific need for an employee at the phone company
to acquire the non-published number of a subscriber, then certain
security precautions kick into place.  Only a tiny percentage of
telephone company employees are deemed to have a "need to know
clearance" in the first place; among these would be the GCO's (Group
Chief Operators), certain management people in the central offices,
certain people in the Treasury/Accounting office, and of course,
security representatives both from Illinois Bell and the various long
distance carriers, such as AT&T, US. Sprint, and MCI.

Let us have a hypothetical example for our correspondent; Your mother
has taken seriously ill, and is on her deathbed.  Your brother is
unable to reach you to notify you of this because you have a non-pub
number.  When his request for the number has been turned down by
Directory Assistance, simply because they do not have it, he asks to
speak with a supervisor, and he explains the problem.  He provides his
own name and telephone number, and the supervisor states he will be
called back at a later time.  The supervisor does not question if in
fact an emergency exists, which is the only valid reason for breaking
security.  The supervisor may, if they are doing their job correctly,
ask the inquirer point blank, "Are you stating there is an emergency
situation?"

Please bear in mind that the law in Illinois and in many other states
says that if a person claims that an emergency exists in order to
influence the use (or discontinuance of use) of the telephone when in
fact there is no emergency is guilty of a misdemeanor crime.  You say
yes this is an emergency and I need to contact my brother/sister/etc
right away.  The supervisor will then talk to his/her supervisor, who
is generally of the rank of Chief Operator for that particular
facility.

The Chief Operator will call the NonPub people, will identify herself,
and *leave her own call back number*.  The NonPub people will call
back to verify the origin of the call, and only then will there be
information given out regards your brother's telephone number.  It
helps if you know the *exact* way the name appears in the records, and
the *exact* address; if there is more than one of that name with
non-pub service, they may tell you they are unable to figure out who
it is you want.

The NonPub person will then call the subscriber with the non-published
number and explain to them what has occurred, "So and so has contacted
one of our operators and asked for assistance in reaching you.  The
party states that it is a family emergency which requires your
immediate attention.  Would it be alright if we give him/her your
number, or would you prefer to call them back yourself?"

Based on the answer given, the number is either relayed back to the
Chief Operator, or a message is relayed back saying the non-pub
customer has been notified.  If the customer says it is okay to pass
his number, then the Chief Operator will call you back, ask who YOU
are, rather than saying WHO she wants, and satisfied with your
identification will give you the number you are seeking or will advise
you that your brother has been given the message by someone from our
office, and has said he will contact you.

Before the NonPub people will even talk to you, your 'call back
number' has to be on their list of approved numbers for that purpose.
A clerk in the Business office cannot imitate a Chief Operator for
example, simply because NonPub would say that the number you are
asking us to call back to is not on our list.  "Tell your supervisor
what it is you are seeking and have them call us..."  Other emergency
type requests for non-pub numbers would be a big fire at some business
place in the middle of the night, and the owners of the company must
be notified at their home; or a child is found wandering by the police
and the child is too young to know his parent's (non-pub) number.

They will also handle non-emergency requests, but only if they are of
some importance and not frivolous in nature.  You have just come to
our city to visit and are seeking a long lost friend who has a non-pub
number; you are compiling the invitations to your high school class
fiftieth re-union and find a class member is non-pub.  Within certain
reasonable limits, they will pass along your request to the desired
party and let them make the choice of whether to return the call or
not.  But always, you leave your phone number with them, and in due
time someone will call you back to report what has been said or done.

You would be surprised -- or maybe you wouldn't -- at the numerous
scams and stories people tell the phone company to get the non-pub
numbers of someone else.  Fortunately, Bell takes a great deal of
pride in their efforts to protect the privacy of their subscribers.

-PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #510
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24939;
          25 Jul 90 5:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22644;
          25 Jul 90 3:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18738;
          25 Jul 90 2:26 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Jul 90 1:32:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #511
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Jul 90 01:31:43 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 511

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Whole Story on America's Last Magneto Exchange [Donald Kimberlin]
    Re: Magneto Telephones [Neal Goldsmith]
    Multi-City Pagers [Cliff Stoll]
    AT&T "Call Me" Card [Steve Forrette]
    415 0+ Dialing [Douglass Scott Reuben]
    Local/State Taxes [David Dodell]
    Noisy Environments and Sidetone [Steve Gaarder]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 22:38 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Whole Story on America's Last Magneto Exchange
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


        In earlier articles, we first had an inaccurate press report
that America's last magneto "exchange" had been replaced in Shoup,
Idaho.  Knowledgable Digest readers corrected it to say it was but one
line, and therefore not an exchange; that Bryant Pond, Maine had
accurately been previously reported as the "last magneto exchange in
America" several years ago.  Now, it seems the trade journal
{Communications Week} sent a reporter to get the whole story accurately.
The following appeared on Page 1 of {Communications Week}, July 23,
1990:

                            AN ERA ENDS

                    Hand-Cranked Switch Retired

                          By Dawn Bushaus

        Surrounded by mountains in the Salmon National Forest lies the
tiny town of Shoup, Idaho.  The people who live in and near this
isolated hamlet on the River of No Return grew accustomed to losing
their phone service when the wind kicked up or heavy rains fell.

        No longer.  What is believed to be the last manually operated
telephone switch in the country was replaced earlier this month with a
new digital switch and buried cable, making reliable touch-tone
service a reality,but at the same time relegating a part of the town's
culture to the history books.

        "We're excited about the new switch.  The old one doesn't
serve us very well," said Peggy Pedrow, a town resident, "but we also
hate to see it go."  Pedrow and her husband Garry own the Shoup Store
and Cafe, a combination general store, reataurant, post office and gas
station.

        The Pedrows are the only people who actually reside in Shoup.
But the old magneto telephone system -- operated manually during the
past year by the owners of the Motel Deluxe in the town of Salmon
about 50 miles from here -- served them and 15 other people living
nearby.

        The new switch, actually located 30 miles away in North Fork,
Idaho, serves more than 60 customers.  Since the Shoup area is not
served by commercial power, butis supplied with energy generated by
the river and a wooden paddle wheel, the switch had to be located
where commercial power was available.

        The new system consists of 52 miles of buried copper wire and
a small digital switch manufactured by Redcom Laboratories Inc.,
Victor, NY.  The switch is designed to serve small markets that are
often in hard-to-reach places, said Lou Bender, director of new
business development at Redcom.  A distributed-processing architecture
make the switch highly reliable and economical.

        Rural Telephone Company of Glenns Ferry,Idaho, which supplies
phone service to remote locations, installed, owns and maintains the
system.  The switch can accommodate up to 200 subscribers without an
upgrade, said David Carpenter, manager of Rural Telephone Company.

        The old magneto was an AC generator that created the
electricity needed to ring the local's telephone bells. The system,
which had a single 20-party telephone line, had to be cranked by hand.
The line itself was strung across 40 miles on trees, fence posts and
rocky cliffs.  It was not uncommon for a heavy rain or rockslide to
pull the line down, leaving area residents without phone service for
up to three weeks at a time, Peggy Pedrow said.

        The system dated back to 1931, when it was installed by the
National Forest Service. In 1952, the agency sold the antiquated line
to local residents for one dollar.  The residents maintained the line
themselves over the years, but Century Telephone of Idaho provided the
operator services.

        Then, last December, Century Telephone, a subsidiary of
Monroe, LA - based Century Telephone Enterprises, closed its operator
services center in Salmon, while still providing phone service there.

        "That left a technological gap between the magneto line and
the rest of the world," said Ron Schleuter, division manager at
Century Telephone of Idaho.  "That switch had to be operated manually."

        Shoup locals were worried.  It appeared they might actually be
stranded without telephone service.  Then Rural Telephone stepped in.
Officials there suggested to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission
that -- with a loan from the Rural Electrification Administration --
they could construct a new digital telephone system for area
residents.

        Still, the residents of this area near the Continental Divide
needed to find someone who would operate the manual switch 24 hours a
day while the new system was being built.  "The solution to that was a
stroke of genius," Schleuter said.

        Century Telephone used its digital switch in nearby Salmon to
trunk the magneto line to the Motel Deluxe.  The motel owner, who
lived there and was necessarily on round-the-clock duty, was able to
remotely operate the switch, by setting up conference calls.

        Pat Fitzgerald, the motel's former owner, did the switching
until she sold the property last month, when Steve Freestone and his
wife, Donay, tookover the duty.

        "I know they'll be glad to have the new switch, especially for
emergencies," Steve Freestone said.

        He said there was an unwritten agreement between him and the
folks served by the old switch.  "They didn't make calls after 10 PM
or before 6 AM unless it was an emergency," he said.

        But now, Shoup residents won't have to worry about when they
place a call or whether it will go through.  Digital technology has
arrived in a town that, for many years, was an anachronism.

        Still, it will likely be some time before they upgrade to
ISDN.
                  -------------------------

And so, as Paul Harvey puts it, "Now you know the REST of the story!"

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

From: Neal Goldsmith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Magneto Telephones
Date: 23 Jul 90 22:15:50 GMT
Reply-To: Neal Goldsmith <[e-mail]>
Organization: Network Research Corp., Oxnard CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joe Talbot)
writes:

>Ludlow - Baker numbers (out of service all the time, the whole town
>dies for days at a time. The service comes from a van parked near town
>with a dish on the roof and a fence around it. Odd.)

If I remember correctly, this Van is/was used because all of the
copper wire feeding the town was stolen on SEVERAL occasions, this
took the town out for extended periods of time. They finally put in a
Microwave arrangment to eliminate the wire all together.

It seems that the remote locations of the poles made the wire easy to
steal.


  Neal E. Goldsmith                            Network Research Corp
  Internet: [e-mail]                        1620 Federal Ave #2
  America Online: NEG1                         Los Angeles, CA 90025
                                               [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 19:01:40 EDT
From: Cliff Stoll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi-city Beepers


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Nicholas J.
Simicich):

> 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.

I know of two nation-wide paging systems: SKYPAGE and CUE paging.

Similarities:

   Both let you receive numeric pages, up to 20 digits.
   Both have 800 number dial-ins to send pages.
   Both let you check for missed pages by calling an 800 number.
   Both interconnect metro centers via domestic satellite links.
     The pagers do not pick up signals straight from the satellite.
     Rather, these systems rebroadcast page signals over VHF or UHF
     transmitters in cities.  The pagers won't work out in the countryside.
   Pages take about 30 seconds to 2 minutes to get through.
   Each system broadcasts its pages into all metro regions simultaneously
     (So you don't have to inform the system when you arrive in a new city)


Differences:

   SKYPAGE paging relies on 900 MHz transmitters (I think these are
      a sub-band of the cellular service)
   SKYPAGE uses Motorola pagers which can beep or vibrate
   CUE paging uses FM broadcast subcarriers (88 to 108 MHz).
   CUE pagers use special pagers from Finland that only beep

Although a good friend of mine works at CUE paging (and he's very
proud of their system -- showed me how they interface into FM
broadcasters), I carry a SKYPAGER, mostly because the local sales rep
for Skypage didn't require a $100 deposit (CUE did).

Local paging services (for Boston) typically costs $20/month.

Nationwide paging services from either CUE or SKYPAGE costs around $45
plus 50 cents per page, or else $60 and unlimited pages per month.

I've been entirely happy with this skypager.  While on booktour, my
publisher could reach me instantly and I wired it up to notify me when
my computer had problems.  In a year of using Skypager, the pager has
missed only one page, and that happened while I was in a subway.


Cliff Stoll     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 20:22 EST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T "Call Me" Card


When I got my AT&T "Call Me" card a few months ago, there was an insert
enclosed.  The first part reads:

"Don't forget that the Card can only be used to call one number -
yours.  In order to guarantee this restricted calling feature of the
AT&T Call Me Card, callers should make certain that they place their
calls over the AT&T Long Distance Network.  It is important for them
to look for AT&T Long Distance Service identification and to listed
for 'AT&T.' "

Does this not imply that if the caller uses the Call Me card on
another long distance carrier that accepts AT&T cards, that they may
accept it for calls to anywhere?  I went to a Pacific Bell payphone
nearby whose long distance carrier was "ComSystems", some odd-ball
name I'd never heard of.  I called an out-of-state number that I knew
was out of service and entered my Call Me number.  Sure enough, it was
accepted!  I listened to about ten seconds of the out-of-service
recording, then hung up.  When I got my bill, I had a charge for a
three minute call totalling around $4.50.  :-( :-( I called the
Pacific Bell business office, and explained the situation.  They said
"But sir, if it was out of service, why was the call 3 minutes long?"
I told them that perhaps the carrier was lying.  The rep said "well,
okay, since it's only one call, and I know this is a 'problem'
carrier, I'll take it off your bill."

The moral of the story is - your resticted calling card, *isn't*!

(Further details - I then tried a call with a random PIN, to test to
see if they verified them at all, and that one didn't work.  Then, I
tried it with my unresticted PIN, to check for the situation where
they may have thought "well, we just accepted a call with valid PIN
xxxx, so PIN yyyy must be invalid", but that call worked, so
apparently they do have access to the PIN database, whereever that may
be.  Either they do not get the information regarding whether a PIN is
restricted, or they choose to ignore it!)

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

Date: 24-JUL-1990 02:14:42.54
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 415 0+ Dialing


Hello Everyone!

A while back the Digest covered 0+ dialing procedures in the 415 (San
Francisco Bay) area, and, from what I recall, it was mentioned that
all local calling in 415 is now in the format 0+415-xxx-xxxx, ie,
there is no 0+xxx-xxxx dialing.

I've been out here for five weeks now, and EVERY phone in 415 (and a
good deal in 408) accept, and most REQUIRE 0-xxx-xxxx dialing when
placing a calling card call within your own area code. I've tried it
from Pac*Bell payphones and COCOTs, as well as from GTE in Novato
(415) and Los Gatos (408). (BTW, I must apologize for some of my
previous cracks about GTE ... I've been used to GTE in the LA area
which is plain awful, whereas GTE in the Bay Area, at least in my
limited experience, seems up to par with Pac*Bell in some areas, and
exceeds Pac*Bell in the speed with which it processes 0+ calls from
its payphones, at least in Novato.)

Additionally, the "#" sign can be used as a terminator for 0+ calls
that are ambiguous. IE, there is a 415-302 exchange, so if I dial
0-302-9999, the exchange doesn't know if I am dialing "415-302-9999"
or "302-999-9xxx", and I just didn't fisnish dialing in the "xxx"
part. So, if you want to dial 415-302-9999 from area code 415 as a
calling card call, you can dial "0-302-9999 #", and the call will go
through to Pac*Bell's calling card equipment much faster.

Anyhow, I've overstayed my welcome at the computer center incurring
large long distance charges from CA, so I best be going ...

If anyone has any info to the contrary, let me know where these
exchanges are so if I pass by I can give 'em a try.


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

P.S. I've been away for five weeks allready, so if anyone from the Digest
sent me any mail, please be patient and I'll try to get back to you
the next time I log in from here. (As if you're waiting on pins and
needles to hear from me...! :-) )

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

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 90 22:52:37 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local/State Taxes


Randyd@microsoft writes:

 >using the Universal Card. These results do not include tax. Even more
 >interesting: ATT charged only federal excise tax. Sprint charges state
 >and local sales tax in addition to the federal excise tax. Since in
 >this location the state and local sales tax is about 8.7%, ATT starts
 >off with an 8.7% advantage!

Anyone have any idea why this is true, I would think that both would be
subject to collecting the same taxes?


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: Tue, 24 Jul 90 12:20:46 EDT
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Noisy Enviroments and Sidetone


>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?)[yes] 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?

What you really want is a "push-to-listen" phone.  The button disables
the mike.  Many fancy phones have this, usually called a "mute"
button.  My ATT cordless has one, and it's even placed where I can
push it using the hand holding the handset.  It has come in real handy
when trying to have a conversation with a screaming baby in my lap
(talk about noisy environments..).

A good old 500 set can be modified pretty easily - just install a
normally open pushbutton so it shorts the mike, or a normally closed
so that it opens one of the wires to the mike.  I even have a couple
of 500 handsets with built-in buttons that I think could be wired as
mute buttons.  If you want one, let me know - I'll swap it for a
standard 500 handset.


Steve Gaarder
[e-mail]
...!cornell!batcomputer!gaarder

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #511
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24994;
          25 Jul 90 5:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22644;
          25 Jul 90 3:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac18738;
          25 Jul 90 2:26 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Jul 90 2:11:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #512
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Jul 90 02:10:14 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 512

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [John Slater]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [Roy Smith]
    Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits the Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down [Mark Harris]
    Re: College Phracking [Paul J. Zawada]
    Re: College Phracking [John Higdon]
    Re: Caller ID Update [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Strange Recordings [Steve Schwartz]
    Re: Customers Have Long Memories [Irving Wolfe]
    Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth [Tom Neff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Date: 24 Jul 90 10:52:06 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, quack![e-mail] (Nick
Sayer) writes:

>I have a Sun 2/170 in my living room and a cordless phone.

> ... it's nearly
>impossible to talk on the cordless when its within about six feet of the
>Sun.

The 2/170 is *old*! Our latest desktop machines (SPARCstation 1+ for
instance) leak very little RF. I think they're even shielded
sufficiently for use in residential areas, but I'm not certain. If you
upgrade to one of our modern machines you shouldn't have any problems.

I forget exactly which FCC regulations we comply with - they're not
really relevant in the UK. Contact your local Sun sales office for
more details.


John Slater
Sun Microsytems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: Alan_Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Date: 23 Jul 90 15:38:53 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


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

> 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.

We have computer systems installed in telco central offices along with
T1 carrier systems, D4 banks, DACS frames, and other network
equipment.  Some of our CEs are equipped with portable cellular
phones.  I have been called by the CEs from these locations, and
transmission quality has been quite good.  The computer equipment is
FCC Class B certified for RFI emissions (computer room environment -
not personal computer Class A).


 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>

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom?
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 11:42:38 GMT


netwise![e-mail] (Phil Earnhardt) writes:

> The phone will be programmed with 2-digit codes for each residence and the
> owners will be able to open the gate via the phone connection [...] The
> problem is that Southern Bell wants to charge business rates for the line.

    We have a similar situation in our coop (I don't know how
popular coops are outside of the US; it is an apartment building,
owned jointly by the residents of the building) with the phone for the
superintendant's apartment.  NYTel insists that we have two choices;
either the phone can be listed in the super's name and get residential
rates, or it can be listed as "Superintendant, 295 St. John's Place",
in which case we will get charged business rates.

    The reason we want the latter is because we change supers
about once a year.  We don't plan it that way, but that's how it seems
to work out :-(.  If the phone is in the super's name, it's either
ends up staying listed in the old name, or it's a hassle to get the
listing changed to the new name.  Besides, we would like people to be
able to look up our super by the address of the bulding, not by the
super's name, which they probably don't know.  Is NYTel correct to try
and charge us business rates?


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


[Moderator's Note: The reason you are being asked to pay business
rates for the super's phone is because the conducting of business is
the main reason the phone is installed there, as per your request for
an entry which reflects your building's location and management.  PT]

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

Subject: Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom?
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 24 Jul 90 16:27:48 EDT (Tue)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>..., it was very sad to see the electric and phone lines being buried
>separately. Is there a good reason why they couldn't use the same trenches?

I suppose it depends on how you feel about the possibility of 10KV
shorting to your phone line.  My sister-in-law recently arranged to
have the power lines in front of her house buried (it really improves
the view.)  The power company did a great deal of design, followed by
a great deal of excavation, to get the power lines nice and deep and
out of the way.  I expect the phone company will just use the usual
little plow to run the wires down the middle or side of the road.  The
phone company doesn't have to be anywhere near as careful since the
voltages are so much lower, and with the wires underground, the
lightning problem is also greatly reduced.


Regards,

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

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

From: harrism@omhftre (Mark Harris)
Subject: Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down
Date: 21 Jul 90 16:55:46 GMT
Organization: Omhftre BBS


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

> Everyone has to learn this lesson the hard way it seems: *No beverages
> around telecom and computer equipment*. Ever.

So, how many people out there in telecom land were sucking on a drink
as they read Patrick's article?

Guilty as charged, but then it's only a PC/XT.  :-)


Mark Harris
UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!raider!omhftre!harrism
Domain: omhftre![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 09:05:17 -0500
From: Paul J Zawada <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: College Phracking


[e-mail] (Tareq Hoque):

> When the campus police arrived, they questioned him on what he was
> doing and seemed confident that he wasn't doing anything malicious.
> They let him proceed with modifications but they did take down his
> name for their notes.  After my friend was done, he gave me the
> lineman's set back.  However, later in the week I got a frantic phone
> call from this friend saying that the CP's have been calling him
> because they want him to turn in the line set to the CP headquarters,
> because he would be breaking the law if he didn't.

> Well I told my friend that it was not illegal to own or use this
> equipment for legitimate purposes, but he asked me to talk to the
> police.

> I asked the police why they thought I should give them my own personal
> property.

Actually, both of my Western Electric butt sets say "BELL SYSTEM
PROPERTY" "NOT FOR RESALE".  I bought them at a hamfest. I realized
that this "warning" as such didn't appear on phones 'till the early
seventies or so, but wasn't this assumed before the labelling?  I mean
back then, the phone company provided the customer with the phone
equipment, so they owned most of it, if not all of it.  Right?  Was it
possible to buy regular Western Electric phones, let alone butt sets,
before the divestiture?  I don't recall ever being able to buy WE
equipment from the Bell System.  It was almost always leased.  Correct
me if I'm wrong.

On the lines of doing your own rewiring ... I believe I heard
somewhere that unauthorized entry into telephone comapany plant was a
federal offense.  This is probably mumbo-jumbo, so if anybody knows -
what really are the laws governing access to telephone company plant?


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: College Phracking
Date: 24 Jul 90 10:39:19 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Tareq Hoque <[e-mail]> writes:

> In the end I told them I was refusing to give my property to them.
> They said they would turn me in to the Dean of Student affairs if they
> didn't receive it in 24 hours.  I never turned it in, and I never
> heard about the incident again.

Whatever anyone says, the MFJ had its benefits. This is one of them. I
remember from the time I was a kid until about the time I founded my
own telecommunications vending company, there was this air of panic
everytime a telephone repair person showed up on the premisis.

If there was trouble on the line a pit in the stomach would occur from
thinking about all of the "cleaning up" that would have to be done
with all the wiring. Disconnect the extra phones, get rid of the
"construction projects", can the experiments. And never, never have
any telco-type test equipment around -- even if you bought it
legitimately.

Now, of course, when a phone man comes out it is a totally different
story. On several occasions I have provided my lineman's handset to
the repairperson when s/he needed two. One of the things that has
helped is the "network interface", a direct result of divestiture. I
leave everything the way it is and with one simple motion, telco can
isolate its line and find the fault.

Oh, there's still a lot of the old attitude among the front line
folks.  In the not too distant past, I had tried to get the projected
cutover date for a particular CO. Everyone I talked to through normal,
front-line channels seemed to indicate that such information was
proprietary. Then I did an end run via one of my friends. Not only did
I get the info that I wanted, but he pointed out a Pac*Bell periodical
that lists cutover dates six months in advance.

Of course, Pac*Bell now sends announcements to customer's advising
them of planned cutovers. They are detailed form letters stating the
equipment to be removed, to be installed, and the generic release
along with info as to what kind of changes might occur in the service.

> The good old days.

Back in the good old days, none of this information would have been
considered to be any of the public's business. And why would it have
been? The "telephone company" provided everything end-to-end and no
one else need be concerned over what equipment is in the CO.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID Update
Date: 24 Jul 90 11:37:07 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Our moderator, in reply to another posting, writes:
 ...regarding caller-id delivery, non-real-time...

> difference between real-time delivery of the information such as
> American Express receives versus billing information supplied up to a
> month later, such as I receive.  PT]

In an earlier posting, Patrick tells us his 800 service is provided by
Telecom USA.  We recently signed up for their low-usage 800 service,
and we were told that detail billing giving the calling number is not
offered.  They'll tell us the originating city only.  Is this a recent
change in their policy? (just curious)


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]


[Moderator's Note: I've had the service over a year, however ANI in
any form only came with the billing starting two months ago. Someone
else write to say they were advised by Telecom*USA that the service
was no longer available, and gradfathered to existing customers.  It
includes full ten-digit numbers about 75-80% of the time. PT

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Strange Recordings
Date: 24 Jul 90 13:49:38 GMT
Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


 - a party line, in which a special code is used to call other phones on
the same line;
 - some one-exchange municipalities, in which the exchange can be
omitted, and only four digits need be dialed.

Obviously, coming from the outside, you should not hear such a
recording.  On the other hand, if the second situation above was the
case, and the local network was recently "upgraded" to require
seven-digit dialing, there might be bugs, one of which was waiting
there for you.


Steve

Disclaimer:  I don't believe Digital -has- any opinions about the phone
company.

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

From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Customers Have Long Memories
Date: 24 Jul 90 18:52:12 GMT
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Seattle


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

>Are customers today still that loyal? Something tells me most of them
>are, if you put out a real effort to show you care about quality
>telecom service, and are responsive to their needs.

Of course they are.  That's why AT&T still has the lion's share of the
nation's long distance business.  We all remember being treated with
courtesy and respect -- like human beings rather than "consumers" --
and we all remember phone that you could throw hard against the floor
with no ill effect.  We also remember phone service that stayed up
when the power was down, quick and easy connections, etc., etc.


Irving Wolfe    Happy Man Corp.   [e-mail]    206/463-9399 ext.101
SOLID VALUE, the investment letter for Benj. Graham's intelligent investors
Information (not sample) free: email [e-mail] with US mail addr.

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth
Date: 24 Jul 90 07:34:06 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> optilink![e-mail]
(Clayton Cramer) writes:

>1. The information comes out of the phone company data base, and may
>not be 100% accurate.

>2. You may be calling from a different phone number than your own.
>(Example: you return home to find evidence of a burglary, and go to
>the neighbor's house to request police assistance).

>3. You may have moved, and it takes a few days for the information to
>make it into the 911 data base.

Nevertheless, it's dehumanizing and a waste of time making the
distraught caller recite everything from scratch when there's already
information up on the screen.

If the above three possibilities are a worry, why can't the operator
simply say,

   "OK, I see you calling from 1471 Elmhurst Drive on the 2nd floor.
    Is that correct?"

   "Yes"

   "Is that where the (accident etc) is?"

   "No it's on the fourth floor, I just ran downstairs to the neighbor's"

   "OK we have a unit on the way, stay near the phone"


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #512
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16013;
          26 Jul 90 0:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11958;
          25 Jul 90 22:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00398;
          25 Jul 90 21:40 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:30:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #513
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:30:27 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 513

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Summary: Briton Needs Phone Help in U.S. [Nigel Roberts]
    Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular [Rich Sims]
    System 75 Abbreviated Dialling [Scott D. Green]
    Pac*Bell Billing Complaint [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Dialing With Multiple Extensions Off-Hook [Ron Newman]
    PC Voicemail Sources [Larry Rachman]
    Village Voice Article, July 24th Issue [Bob Izenberg]
    400-H Adaptors, the Final Chapter [Roy Smith]
    Using a US Modem in the UK [Toby Loftus]
    ROLM Data Network Auto-answer Problem [Philip Harriman]
    John Galt, MCI and Wrong Numbers [Tom Perrine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 03:59:09 PDT
From: Nigel Roberts 0860 578600 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Summary: Briton Needs Phone Help in U.S.


A few weeks ago I asked the readers of the Digest to send me their
suggestions as to how a European visitor can survive in the very
different world of U.S. telecommunications in such a way that he or
she can avoid rip-offs and maybe even get a few good deals.

Thanks to those people who did reply to me - although I didn't quite
get as much response as I'd hoped, your suggestions were very welcome.
(Any further suggestions are still welcome, of course). Most of the
suggestions I received were also sent direct to the Digest, so I won't
repeat them.

One thing that does seem much more difficult than I'd expected is
obtaining a U.S calling card (e.g. AT&T, Sprint, MCI).

I had thought that it would be easy to get such a card which was
billed via MasterCard, VISA or American Express. Not true. You can't
even get an American Express 'Amex Expressphone' card billed to your
Amex account if you live outside the U.S.A. (Shame on American
Express). You CAN get an AT&T calling card if you live in Germany
(billed via Diners or VISA), or if you are an American citizen living
anywhere abroad (billed via a major credit card), but neither applies
to me at the moment.

With one thing and another, our trip has been postponed, so I have
more time to do some research on the original subject. And as a number
of people in Europe I have spoken to have expressed an interest, it
seems likely that I will be putting my findings together in a small
"self-help" booklet later in the year. Contributions are welcome, by
MAIL or FAX [phone]). I'll also be looking for one or two
reviewers, to catch any obvious telecom howlers.

Thanks again for your help.


Nigel Roberts; P. O. Box 49; MANNINGTREE; Essex; CO11 2SZ; United Kingdom

Tel:    [phone] and [phone]
Fax:    [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 00:29:27 EDT
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular


My wife just purchased a Motorola cellular phone (transportable) and
I'd like to know if anyone has any info on it that might be of
interest to me.  (She makes phone calls, I play with things!)

It's a model 8000L, and the literature that comes with it is amazingly
sparse in terms of any "real" information.

Since this is my (our) first foray into the field of cellular
communications, I'm woefully uninformed on the subject.  Any
information that anyone would care to share with me would be
gratefully accepted.  I'd also like to know if anyone has anything to
say about this particular model (good, or bad), and I'd like some
answers to questions on one specific area, in particular.

What are the issues, both legal and technical, in operating two
cellular phones on the same account number?  How are these widgets
"identified" when a call is originated or received?  Is it "field
changeable"??  If this is possible at all, can it be done with two
different models of phone?


Rich Sims

UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!rich
ARPA: crash!pro-exchange![e-mail]
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 11:02 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: System 75 Abbreviated Dialling


Does anyone out there in PBX-land know how to program a # or * into a
S75 Abbreviated Dial (1-button speeddial) string?  In a normal dial
pattern, it expects a feature access code (call park, call pickup,
etc) following those character.  What I'm trying to do is call a
voicemail system which requires a # before you may enter your own
mailbox number.  (save your "security violation!" warnings - users
would still manually enter their passwords).  Anyway, I spoke with my
AT&T systems "consultant" and got the usual answer: "Gee, I dunno.
That's a new one on me."

There must be a way, mustn't there?  It's certainly ok to manually
enter the octothorpe following either a manual dial or speed dial to
the system.  I've tried the various switches including Pause (to wait
for the system to answer) and Mark which treats "all digits following
the Mark as end-to-end signalling digits to be outpulsed over an
outgoing trunk in touch-tone signal form."  It doesn't.  Any ideas?
Software is R1V3.


scott

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

Date: 24-JUL-1990 23:39:00.47
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell Billing Complaint


I noticed on my Pac*Bell bill a few days ago that Calling Card calls
made within Pac*Bell's service area do not show a "FROM" number.

IE, the bill looks like this:

1. Fri, Jul 13, 1990  5:00PM  Oakland, CA 710-9999 from:
                              Menlo Park

Thus, I called to (415) 710 - 9999, but what number in Menlo Park did
I call from? It sipmly doesn't show this on the bill...

Every other Bell Co. that I've dealt with shows the FROM number, so I
called 811 (Pac*Bell's toll-free in-house network), and the account
representative told me: "Oh, we don't show the 'from' number, but I
can tell you where it came from if you want me to look it up...".
Since there was only 1 call I didn't want to bother her, but in the
future, I think I'll make multiple calls and have them print out and
mail me the list, free of charge, of course.

Hopefully, after a few months of doing this, they will get tired of my
calls and either include the info on the bill (which would be
difficult to do just for me) or just automatically send me the list,
in addition to my usual bill, without my having to request it from
them each month.

Also, I think I got something in the bill about the expansion of local
calling to more distant areas. I didn't pay much attention to it,
since I have a "Bonus" package (sort of like "Circle Calling" in New
England and some other Bell Co's), but from what I recal, local
calling was to be expanded from the seven or eight miles which
Pac*Bell says it is presently to twelve to twenty miles, depending on
the community/exchanges you reside in. I'm not sure if this has to do
with expanded Zone 1 calling, but it seems like some progress at
least.


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: Ron Newman  <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing With Multiple Extensions Off-Hook
Reply-To: Ron Newman  <lotus![e-mail]>
Organization: Lotus Development Corp.
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 20:13:29 GMT


If I try to pulse-dial a telephone while another extension is off the
hook, it doesn't work.  The pulses don't even break the dial tone.

But if I tone-dial the same phone while another extension is off-hook,
it works just fine.

Can someone explain why?


Ron Newman


[Moderator's Note: Tone dialing and pulse dialing are completely
different techniques. In tone dialing, the central office receives
instructions through audible sounds: the tones of various frequency.
In pulse dialing, the central office receives instructions from a
rapidly changing series of off-on-off again electric pulses. This
rapid off/on switching of the electrical current cannot occur if
another phone is off-hook, completing the loop.   PT]

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

Date: 25 Jul 90 08:22:05 EDT
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: PC Voicemail Sources


I'm looking for a specific piece of telecom hardware, and I suspect
that someone out there may have the answer readily available so I
decided to post, rather than wading through reams of catalog and
magazine back issues.

What I'm trying to find is an IBM/clone-compatible PC card that can
will perform the basic voice mail primative functions, such as record,
playback, dial, off/on-hook control, etc. _under control of a user
program_. There seem to be any number of boards out there that will
transform a PC into an answering machine, but invariably, they must be
run with the dedicated appication software they're shipped with.

I'm currently sitting on a perfectly good WATSON board that comes with
what must be the most bizzare developer's interface I've ever seen,
involving a virtual deck of cards that one can 'jump' between or
`search' for.

What I'm after is a board that comes with a library of assembly or
high-level language routines that perform the functions described
above.  Natural Microsystems will gladly sell me their 'value-added
reseller's developer's kit for the WATSON for *BIG* bucks, but I've
declined their offer since this is a strictly avocational project.

Does anyone know of a reasonably priced card ($150-$250, or so) that
includes rudimentary development software. Are there any third parties
out there that provide it for the WATSON?


Larry Rachman,WA2BUX  - 74066,[e-mail], or 516-427-8705 via fax

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

From: Bob Izenberg <halley![e-mail]>
Subject: Village Voice Article, July 24th Issue
Date: 25 Jul 90 12:20:32 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Izenberg <halley![e-mail]>
Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX


The front page story is "Rebel Hackers: the computer kids who phreak
out the feds."  I wondered when the Voice would pick up the story...


             Bob Izenberg [ ] Tandem Computers, Inc.
 cs.utexas.edu!halley!bei [ ] 512 244 8837

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 11:48:27 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: 400-H Adaptors, the Final Chapter


    A couple of months ago, I really lambasted AT&T for the grief
they were giving me trying to order some 400-H adaptors.  The story
does have a happy ending, and I don't think it would be fair to not
relate that part as well.

    To make a long story short, I eventually got a letter from a
Vice President at AT&T apologizing for the trouble I was having, but
basically saying I still couldn't have the adaptors I wanted, even
though they did exist.  I let the letter sit for a while, and then
picked up the trail again, calling back the Vice President.  His
assistant put me on to somebody else, (RoseMary DeRosa, BCS/MMS
Product Planner, whatever that is).  Over the course of a few weeks,
RoseMary and I spoke a few times about the problem, and this morning,
a box arrived with a letter of apology from RoseMary, and 10
complementary 400-H adaptors.

    So, while on the one hand, I think AT&T still has to get their
act together on a lot of stuff, it is clear that at least some people
there do care about their customers, and are willing to fight internal
red tape to make us happy.  RoseMary seems to be one of those people.
I just wish there were more of them.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 12:47:13 EDT
From: Toby Loftus <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using a US Modem in the UK


  I'm a recent subscriber to the list, and I would like to find out
what I need to do to use a US modem in London.  I believe the modem
supports CCIT coding, and think I can get the proper power supply.
I'm just wondering how to connect the modem into the UK phone plugs.
Is there some hardware I can buy to simply connect the modem?  -Toby
Loftus P.S.  I want to use Compuserve in London.  Anyone know the
phone number?


TOBY@BROWNVM
[e-mail]

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

From: Philip Harriman <[e-mail]>
Subject: ROLM Data Network Auto-answer Problem
Date: 25 Jul 90 19:29:17 GMT
Reply-To: Philip Harriman <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Rochester


Executive summary:

I am looking for help with auto-answer programs (such as Procomm
Plus's host mode, Carbon Copy, etc.) working with a ROLM data network.
I have learned of a disk from ROLM, Model #43096A, which contains a
patch to fix the problems I am experiencing, and I am trying to get
this disk from ROLM.  While I wait (rather impatiently), I'd like to
hear from others who might have experienced this problem, any
solutions they have found, and a copy of the patch.

Background:

Here at the University of Rochester we have a ROLM digital voice and
data telephone system.  While the switch-over from our old analog
telephone system to the ROLM switch was being planned, we were all
told that our analog modems would no longer work, but that the ROLM
switch would be better, including outbound and inbound modem service.
ROLM was installed, but things are not all great.  We have experienced
problems with auto-answer telecommunications packages, like Procomm
Plus's host mode and Carbon Copy, which have the ability to answer an
incoming call.  These packages expect to find a Hayes-compatible modem
sitting at their COM port, not a ROLM switch.  When I put Procomm Plus
into host mode, it sets DTR high.  This has the effect of getting the
attention of the ROLM switch, which responds with its prompt, "CALL,
DISPLAY, OR MODIFY ?"  This is interpreted by Procomm as someone
trying to log in, and mass confusion results.

Request:

We would really like to be able to dial into our PCs, either from
other offices on campus or from off-campus using the in-bound modem
pool.  As mentioned above, I am waiting for a patch disk from ROLM
which claims to fix this problem.  I was wondering if anyone out there
has experienced similar problems, has found a solution, and could
possibly send me the patch (I have low hopes of getting it through
other channels).

Please send email direct to me; I will summarize to the net.

Thanks!

Phil Harriman   Coordinator of IBM PC Consulting  University of Rochester
[e-mail] (Internet)     PAHA@UORDBV (BITNET)

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

From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Subject: John Galt, MCI and Wrong Numbers
Date: 25 Jul 90 17:49:38 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


Yesterday, one of the people here was cleaning an old office and came
across a PC 5.25" diskette with a business card attached:

    John Galt +
    Computer Corporation

    xxxxxx San Francisco CA
XXX-XXX-XXX    CA ONLY 1-800-445-3313        1-800-JGC-COMP

(Note: the + is actually a little dollar sign in a circle! )

Being the curious sort (and wanting to know what might be on the disk,
WITHOUT TRYING IT OUR PCs), I decided to find out "who is John Galt" :-)

When I called the CA 800 number, I got a golf course in Evans GA !!,
which doesn't even have 800 service! I tried this twice, to make sure
I wasn't mis-dialing.

The other 800 number rang (over 20 rings), and the non-800 number is
disconnected.

Our PBX uses MCI as the default carrier, so I called the MCI operator
and explained the problem. She insisted that this was not possible, so
I asked to speak to a supervisor. He agreed to take the charges off
and report the problem. When I asked for the trouble ticket number, he
got *very* upset that I should even ask for such a thing, and
proceeded to lecture me about what was and wasn't my business.

That was yesterday. Today, I used 800-555-1212 to find "John Galt",
which got me the number of John Galt Construction in Owensborough KY,
which got a rash (over 200) of calls (in a one month period) for the
John Galt Computer Company about nine months ago.

It looks like the John Galt Computer Company went under and their old
CA-only 800 service was "lost" in the shuffle.

Is this mis-route just an MCI problem? Why didn't I get a disconnected
message on the generic 800 number? Why was the MCI supervisor so upset
when I asked for a trouble ticket number? Why is the sky blue? Who
*is* John Galt? And what is on the diskette :-) ?


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]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #513
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16979;
          26 Jul 90 1:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13440;
          25 Jul 90 23:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac11958;
          25 Jul 90 22:44 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:57:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #514
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:56:38 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 514

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [David Lesher]
    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Rob Warnock]
    Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc [John Higdon]
    Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703 [Greg Monti via John R. Covert]
    Re: Call Me Card / Comm Systems [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: 415 0+ Dialing [John Higdon]
    Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [David Lesher]
    Re: 144 Access Barred on Mercury Phones [John Slater]
    Re: Nicad "Memory" [Tad Cook]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 22:14:16 GMT

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Flak) writes:

>Several things can happen when you are moving away from a cell
>site.

>Now, if the cell with the best read of your signal has all of its
>channels in use, the switch will tell it that it can't take the call
>because it's busy.

Is the switch smart enough to look at OTHER users of the busy cell,
and try to move one of them to yet another cell? After all, those
other users may be at the other side of the cell, and/or headed
another direction.


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM   pob 570-335  33257-0335

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 11:35:00 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


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

| Cliff Yamamoto <[e-mail]> writes:
| > 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?

| Not true. When your unit is address by the system, a two way audio
| path is indeed enabled, but your transmitter is not turned on until
| you answer the call.

Uh, I think you have it backwards, John. Your transmitter turns on to
answer the broadcast poll on the setup channel [sent to *all* cells,
in order to find your phone], and you're switched to what will be the
talk channel, *before* the local ringer on the addressed phone starts
tweeting. It's the talk path (mic, earphone amplifier) that doesn't
open 'til you hit SND.

The "dead time" before the first ring you sometimes get when calling a
cellular number is the broadcast poll while the system's trying to
locate the mobile phone. (I have seen this time be as long as fifteen
seconds.) When you [the caller] finally hear the ringing tone, the
mobile has already got its transmitter on, tuned to the assigned talk
channel, and is also ringing.

I actually proved this to myself one day by setting my handheld near a
field-strength meter (el cheapo Radio Shack FSM, with a ~1/4-wave
piece of wire hanging out the top), and calling the handheld from a
landline.  The FSM went offscale *before* either the mobile phone
started ringing or I heard ringing tone the calling phone.

I have no idea whether there is any magic a cellular CO can do to
create an "infinity tap" without causing ringing. I would doubt it,
but, hey, bugs and Trojan horses *have* been known to exist in
software, no?  And cellular phones *are* controlled by the software in
the phone's local microprocessor.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc
Date: 24 Jul 90 13:05:08 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


S M Krieger <[e-mail]> writes:

> When I was in Las Vegas last week, my observation was that at least
> 75% of the public telephones are COCOTs

Ain't it the truth. And when looking for a utility phone, you have to
reverse your COCOT detection methods: look for the stupidest
COCOT-looking phone and you probably have found a genuine Centel
phone.

> Anyway, an ITI operator answered, and I asked to be connected to AT&T;
> she did connect me.

ITI is right up there as the worst slimebucket AOS on the planet. I
cannot believe that you were actually connected to AT&T by someone
from that den of thieves.

> Finally, from other sources, I believe the COCOT owner position on LD
> selection is that as long as they do connect you, they are in
> compliance with the FCC regulations.  Giving customers a choice of LD
> carrier doesn't mean they have to support 10XXX.

But what good is carrier selection if there is no standardized way of
doing it? I have been able to coerce COCOTs into giving me the AT&T
operator using a multitude of methods, but I would hardly consider
them to be in compliance with FCC regulations. The average user
shouldn't have to "trick" a phone into giving him the carrier of his
choice.  Asking an AOS operator for another carrier doesn't cut it.

And what if you were a user of some other carrier? How would you place
the call through Sprint? MCI? Telesphere? What if 950 wasn't allowed
(or available)? Unless the slimebuckets can come up with a better
standardized way of selecting a carrier, then I think 10XXX is the
way.  That is the way that the utility phones handle it.

> Also, what the COCOT
> owners want for having to support LD carrier selection is payment for
> the use of their phone, either in the coin slot or from the selected
> LD company.

No tears shed here. In any business there are certain "pro bono" items
that come along. In the COCOT business, one of them is free handling
of 911 calls. If the slimebuckets want people to use THEIR carrier,
how about making it competitive, posting a rate comparison, and using
the generally accepted methods of free market competition rather than
technically preventing people from shopping elsewhere.

No one is holding a gun to a COCOT owner/creep's head forcing him to
stay in that business, ripping off the public. Six years ago, the
business didn't even exist, so there are hardly any family traditions
in danger of upset. If the scum can't make it with local calls and
COMPETITIVE long distance, then replace his garbage with a utility
phone which will serve the public better anyway.

This area of COCOTs is possibly the MFJ's worst legacy. It takes a 100
year tradition of customers dealing directly with a company and
artificially inserts a middleman (the COCOT owner) who SUBTRACTS value
from the service who then expects to be paid handsomely for his
existence. I know of no other industry that has "value-subtracted"
resellers who want such a major piece of the action.


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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 10:50:49 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  25-Jul-1990 1347" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703


  From:    Greg Monti: 23-JUL-1990 18:31:00.66
  Subj:    Re: Pentagon Moved to Area Code 703

Carl Moore recently asked, regarding this thread, whether the
Pentagon's local calling area, especially to the north into Maryland,
would change at all as a result of the area code change.

Test calls were made to 703 Pentagon prefixes (with the 703 appended,
but not a "1") from the Gaithersburg, Ashton and Laurel rate areas,
without depositing money, from true C&P of Maryland pay phones.
Unlike COCOTs, C&P pay phones allow one to verify, without depositing
money, whether a call is local by dialing it as if it were local and
listening for the intercept message. If you get the "call cannot be
completed as dialed" or the "you must first dial a 1" intercepts, the
call is toll from that pay phone.  If you get the "a 25 cent deposit
is required before dialing this call" message, it's local.

 From all three rate areas I got the 25-cent message, indicating that
Pentagon is local from Gaithersburg, Ashton and Laurel.

This appears to represent an improved local calling area from the
Pentagon, not a shrinking of it.  If the Northern Virginia white pages
local calling area tables can be believed, Laurel used to be toll from
Pentagon and it's local now.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

Date: 25-JUL-1990 14:17:12.59
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Me Card / Comm Systems


I think Comm Systems is some slimey AOS that does a lot of business in
the Bay Area and Northern CA in general. I have even seen them in
Reno, but they are much less prevalent there.

If anyone has any dire interest to try them out and can't find a
Safeway COCOT (most of which use Comm Systems), the Equal Access code
is, neatly enough, 10266. (10-C-O-M). I figured this out by
experimenting for a while, but I could have just as easily got it from
the Nevada Bell phone book, which lists all the 10xxx carriers in the
Nevada Bell area, their 800 numbers, their 10xxx codes, etc. They also
say that 10xxx access codes are available for the asking, free, from
Nevada Bell Directory Assistance. Why can't other Bell Co's be so open
with the information? It doesn't favor any Long Distance carrier over
the other, and I doubt THAT many people would call DA just to get
access codes, so why doesn't Pac*Bell do this?

(I called Pac*Bell to try this, and said, "But Nevada Bell always
gives me instant access numbers for alternate carriers ...", and the
Pac*Bell operator said, "Sir, you are not dealing with Nevada Bell!"
Sort of sounds a bit familiar, huh? I think the people at Pac*Bell are
watching too much TV! :-) [Well, OK, she didn't say that EXACTLY, but
sort of...] )

Anyhow, from my unfortunate experience with Comm Systems, they don't
seem to check the PIN all the time from payphones and COCOTs that have
them as their primary 0+ carrier. Hence, if you go to a COCOT or
Pac*Bell phone that says "Comm Systems is the 0+ carrier for calls
outside the area", and make up a PIN or an entire calling card number,
they don't always check, and probably just pass the bill along to the
appropriate local Bell and make the Bell figure it out. (Why they
should be allowed to do this, costing some Bell and eventually their
customers more money I'll never know...).

If you dial from a non-Comm Systems payphone, they almost universally
check. I tried making up a PIN for my NY number from a Comm Systems
phone about 4 months ago, and I was billed for the call (some
outrageous amount). I called NY Tel, which has a *special office* just
to handle AOS problems (I wonder how much THAT costs us ratepayers!),
and the rep. instantly took it off and said, quite frankly, "Please!!!
Sir, if you can, just use AT&T!".  When I told her that the PIN wasn't
even valid, she said "Oh, sure ... sounds like them ... you could
probably dial in 411 and they'd let that go through
 ... I've done 35 or so complaints about them today already!".

So much for divestiture...(but let's not start on THAT again...)


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(hopefully getting a CA account soon...)

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 415 0+ Dialing
Date: 25 Jul 90 13:53:47 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> (BTW, I must apologize for some of my previous cracks about GTE

Never apologize about GTE put downs. They always deserve it.

> ... I've been used to GTE in the LA area
> which is plain awful, whereas GTE in the Bay Area, at least in my
> limited experience, seems up to par with Pac*Bell in some areas, and
> exceeds Pac*Bell in the speed with which it processes 0+ calls from
> its payphones, at least in Novato.)

You're lucky to find a phone in Los Gatos that works at all.

You mean to say that it's WORSE in LA? How can that be? And in LA you
have the advantage of being somewhere in the same region as their
centralized everything. Also, I'm sure they have heard of equalized
lines, data circuits, OPXs, and tie lines in the southland. There is
so litte demand for that in the sleepy town of Los Gatos that
installers take on their jobs with blank stares.

Live a local call away from Los Gatos and say that again. I dare you.


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom?
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:35:42 GMT


List the phone in the name of Lester P. Zygote or such. That won't
solve the problem of listing the building, but it will solve the
problem of listing the super's name every year. If the super wants
her/his name in the book, buy a second listing. Oh, and get a deposit
to cover his calls to Timbucktoo.


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM   pob 570-335  33257-0335

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 144 Access Barred on Mercury Phones
Date: 24 Jul 90 10:27:20 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nigel
Roberts 0860 578600) writes:

>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.

Is this not the case with BT credit-card payphones? I was under the
inpression that they had a similar 50p minimum charge per call. If
they let you make multiple calls for a single 50p minimum charge, then
I'm pleasantly surprised with BT. Anyone know what the story is on
this? I don't see one of these beasties very often, so I can't try it
out.

>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.

Hmmm ...

(1) 131 is barred on BT payphones, so there's equal inter-company
inflexibility

(2) 131 is also barred from Mercury payphones (so you can't use your
own account on them) - at least they're being consistent!

Not so much Equal Access as Equal Refusal  :-(


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nicad "Memory"
Date: 24 Jul 90 18:29:20 GMT
Organization: very little


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

> Can someone recap the discussion of "memory" in nicad batteries?  I'm
> I had it unplugged for about two months, and like a dummy didn't
> disconnect the  battery in the handset.

> 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?

This is not a case of nicad memory, but reversed polarity.  The
batteries have disharged so far that they have probably reversed, and
may be non-recoverable.

Its time for new batteries.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #514
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18067;
          26 Jul 90 2:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17634;
          26 Jul 90 0:52 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13440;
          25 Jul 90 23:45 CDT
Date:     Wed, 25 Jul 90 22:43:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #515
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Jul 90 22:42:57 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 515

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Darrel J. Van Buer]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Rob Warnock]
    Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Radio Shack CT-102 [Scott R. Myers]
    Inexpensive Cellular Phone [Roger Clark Swann]
    Re: COCOTs and 10xxx Access [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [Monty Solomon]
    Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones [Howard Siegel]
    Re: 415/408 0+ Dialing [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    AT&T Universal Calling Card Number [Andy Malis]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Darrel J. Van Buer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Date: 24 Jul 90 21:08:05 GMT
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Paoli Research Center; Paoli, PA


Computers and radios have an uneasy coexistence.  I have had problems
of mutual interference at home between a PC and my ham radio gear.
Most of the time, problems are minor (slight interference with radio
reception mostly), but on some bands my shortwave transmitter causes
the PC to act like someone is leaning on the keyboard.  They do share
a power circuit and cables from both share a rats nets of wires behind
my desk.  Problems will vary with distance, orientation, power levels
and operating frequency (since some poorly shielded wire in the
computer could resonate and absorb a lot of energy).  Some hams have
had problems with transmitters confusing the new computerized cars.

I would certainly avoid trying novel combinations of gear during
important computer activities.  Since power falls off rapidly with
distance, you can also move away before transmitting to reduce risks.


Darrel J. Van Buer, PhD; c/o Unisys; 5731 Slauson Ave, Culver City, CA 90230
[phone]        KI6VY        [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 11:08:33 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan
Sanderson) writes:

| FCC Class B certified for RFI emissions (computer room environment -
| not personal computer Class A).

Sorry, you got it backwards (typo, no doubt):

FCC Part 15 Sub-Part J Class B Computing Devices is stuff used in
residential environments (PC's, answering machines, smart phones,
Teddy Bears that record/echo you, etc.); Class A is office/industrial.

A "Computing Device" as defined and covered by Part 15/J is *anything*
which contains a device for generating frequencies in excess of 10
KHz, except things covered in other FCC Parts (radios, microwave
ovens, etc.), and wrist watches (which are specifically exempted in
15/J, although I would assume they have the potential to emit
harmonics of 32,768 Hz, the most commonly used crystal).


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: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Intercept Quiz
Date: 25 Jul 90 13:39:31 GMT
Reply-To: Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Incorporated


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]>
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 500, Message 10 of 12

|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!

In fact, this will make it sound more like the real thing than freshly
generated pure tones.  Better yet: turn the gain up high enough to
induce distortion as well.


    /JBL

Nets: [e-mail]
 or {...}!bbn!levin
pots: [phone]

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

From: "Scott R. Myers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack CT-102
Date: 25 Jul 90 18:33:58 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University


Typically when Radio Shack puts an item on sale a few times during a
short time period or once for quite a long time it either means the
will be selling it at that regular price or the are discontinuing it
for a newer model which probably will still be around the same sale
price.

That's been my experience with them so that information is more than
likely true.


Scott R. Myers

Snail:    1418 Kerbaugh St        Phone: [phone](HOME)
    Philadelphia, PA 19140

Arpa:    [e-mail]        Uucp: ..!topaz!srm

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Subject: An Inexpensive Cellular Phone
Date: 25 Jul 90 04:40:13 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Seattle WA


There have been several articles here recently talking about cellular
phones; what's the lowest price, etc.

Here is the cheapest one that I have seen to date:

*FAMOUS MAKER* transportable cellular telephone $99.99

    3 watts
    9 number memory
    automatic call retry

    Battery pack and charger:   $39.99

sold by DAMARK International, Inc.  7101 Winnetka Ave. N.,
                    Minneapolis, MN  55428-1619
                    1-800-729-9000
                    1-612-531-0082

** Special price requires one year new activation and minimum
service conmmitment through International Ventures, Inc.
Phone not available in CA, N. Carolina, & Hawaii.
This offer void where activation requirement is prohibited by law.
           ^^^^
This might answer the recent question about getting a
$299 Tandy special without the service commitment...

Anyone know if these units are any good? Who is International Ventures?


    Roger Swann               |    uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @                    |
The Boeing Company            |


[Moderator's Note: Some of those cheapie phones come with deals
attached that are *so* sleazy. Fretters is good like that: They were
selling a cell phone for $79.00 (yes, *seventy-nine* dollars) which
was -- according to the advertisement -- 'ready to use'. Except, you
had to buy a battery ($69); a battery charger ($119); pay an
obligatory 'installation fee' ($100); and the real gem: sign up with
Ameritech for $1000 in service, payable up front. They told you about
the first three conditions in small print near the bottom of the ad,
but they waited until you were in the store and ready to sign up
before they dropped the '$1000 in advance to Ameritech' on you. It
stunk, and people were turning around and walking out of the store as
fast as they had walked in. I left, went to Radio Shack and got a
CT-301 for $499 instead, with a short term commitment to Ameritech and
no minimum use.  PT]

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

Date: 24-JUL-1990 23:27:33.36
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs and 10xxx Access


Although I totally agree with John Higdon's post about COCOTs and the
CPUC which appeared in the Digest a few days ago, I must differ on one
point:

I have actually found a COCOT that allows 10xxx access! And it is NOT
one of those "converted" Pac*Bell payphones which Pac*Bell decided to
abandon and hand over to some slimey COCOT/AOS outfit...

If anyone is driving south from Sacramento on I-80, to the right,
about seven miles before the Vacaville (err ... the "Nut Tree") exit,
there is a Chevron and Unocal-76 gas station. (I think those were the
two...) There are always lots of trucks there. There are actually TWO
real-life COCOTs on the Chevron property that allowed 10xxx access
every time I tried. (Of course, less than two feet away on the Unocal
lot there were those ex-Pac*Bell COCOTs which blocked all 10xxx
calls...). So there do exist at least *two* COCOTs in the USA that
allow 10xxx access. I can just see the people at FCC Informal
Complaints in DC using that as an example, saying "See, we got a few
working ... don't rush us!" Yeah ... right...

Actually, for those not familiar with COCOTs in California, all COCOTs
(at least the ones I've used) use Pac*Bell for their local calling
card and operator services, and you only get into the problem of
blocking when you want to make a long distance call. Of course, many
of them still disable the Touch Tone pad after you enter your card
number, so you can't make sequence calls or tone in digits to
voicemail or an answering machine.

It also seems that all Safeway stores in the Bay Area now use private
payphones, as I couldn't find any Safeway with a real Pac*Bell phone
on their property.  (However, the one off of I-80 in Truckee has a
couple of Pac*Bells.)

Accordingly, I just shop at Lucky's!


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 23:37:26 EDT
From: Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John C.
Fowler) writes:

>When I call up one of my credit card customer service lines, they
>frequently require that I give them my mother's maiden name, or my ZIP
>code, or when was the last time I ate at a restaurant and charged it
>to that card, or something else designed to insure that it really is
>me calling them and not just somebody who found my card.

Most of the time, the credit card companies just ask for name, address
and zip code.  This is an annoying farce.  Almost anyone can obtain
this information about you, especially any mail order firm where you
have placed an order.

Citibank has an automated attendant which asks for your credit card
number and zip code.  After keying in that information using a tone
phone, you can find out your available balance and date and amount of
last payment.

There are no privacy protections here.  I'm sure that lots of
customers find this to be convenient though.  I would like them to
require a PIN or some other code instead of the zip code for
identification/verification purposes.


# Monty Solomon / <[e-mail]>

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Calling Card Discrimination
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 02:45:24 GMT


[e-mail] (John C. Fowler) writes:

>An AT&T Calling Card application is rather long and
> asks for all sorts of personal information, so they should have no
> problems asking something that only the true cardholder
> would know off-hand.

If you want an AT&T calling card and do not already have an account
with AT&T, you have to fill out an application form, which asks many
of the questions a Visa or MasterCard application would.  (There is a
separate application form for university students, by the way.)  The
information collected on the form would allow AT&T to ask verification
questions, as John C. Fowler suggested.

However, I think that most AT&T calling cards are issued to people or
companies who have selected AT&T as their primary carrier, or at least
who can be billed on an existing LEC telephone account.  AT&T might
have extensive information about someone's calling patterns at its
fingertips, but it would not know personal information about the
cardholder, such as his or her mother's maiden name.

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones
Date: 25 Jul 90 04:58:39 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]-state.
edu (Jane M. Fraser) writes:

>>>Understanding Telephone Electronics [...] J. L. Fike, et al  1983

>I (rather, my TA) tried very hard to get our local Radio Shack to get
>copies of this book for a class I am teaching this summer.

There is a newer edition available.  Sams publishes it; I believe Rat
Shak just puts their name on it.  Sams can be contacted at
800-257-5755.

However, for any telecom books, the Telecom Library is always a good
bet.  They are at 800-LIBRARY (or 212-691-8215).


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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 21:25:51 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Reference Book Wanted on Telephones
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Howard Siegel)
Organization: TRW, c/o Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore Md.


In <[e-mail]> "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
writes:

>  However, there are some references which give quite a lot of info
>and which are a good place to start.  One book which I have given to
>many people as a way to get started is:

>Understanding Telephone Electronics
>Developed and Published by Texas Instruments Learning Center
>J. L. Fike, et al  1983
>Radio Shack catalog number 62-1388

>  I haven't checked lately to see if there is a new edition or even if
>it is still available.  This is a self-teaching type of text with
>quizzes and answers for each chapter.

I have looked for this book since it was mentioned here a few weeks
back.  I have not been able to find it.  It is not listed in any
current Radio Shack catalogs nor do they have it on the shelves.  They
some other books that have the same kind of information but I don't
know how good these others are.

Since I didn't know the catalog number that was used I didn't actually
ask any of the salesfolk if it was available.  Now that I have the
catalog number I'll have to go back and ask.

Does anyone have another source for this book should Radio Shack turn
into a non-source?

    ==-->> Standard disclaimers applied.  Your mileage will vary! <<--==

    Howard Siegel    [phone]
    TRW   c/o Space Telescope Science Institute   Baltimore, MD 21218
    Internet:  [e-mail]          SPAN:  STOSC::SIEGEL
    uucp:  {arizona,decvax,hao}!noao!stsci!siegel

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

From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 415/408 0+ Dialing
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 10:52:29 EDT


(Reply is to note by DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN <[e-mail]>
written to Carl Moore <[e-mail]>)

You are saying some phones in 408 require you to use 0+NPA+7D if the
call is wihin 408 area?  And some phones in 408 will not accept this
particular usage of 0+NPA+7D?  408 area does not have N0X/N1X prefixes
that I know of, and I am not aware of its calling instructions being
changed to match those of 415 for "area-wide uniformity".  (This could
also be a VERY early accounting for the coming of NXX area codes.)

All the areas which I know have N0X/1X prefixes have, with the past(?)
exception of 213 in Los Angeles, required 0+NPA+7D for 0+ calls within
one's own area.  (213's instructions were to use 0+7D within that
area.)  213 was the first area to get N0X/N1X prefixes, in July 1973;
the 2nd such area, 212 in New York City in late 1980, had its 0+
instructions changed at that time to 0+212+7D for calls within NYC
(this was before 212/718 split).  It was written in this digest that
some NYC equipment could not handle 0+7D with timeout.

When 201 area in northern NJ got N0X/N1X prefixes, both 201 and 609
areas (for statewide uniformity, I am told), changed their calling
instructions; 0+7D within own area became 0+NPA+7D.

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

Subject: AT&T Universal Card Calling Card Number
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 14:58:01 -0400
From: Andy Malis <[e-mail]>


I just received my AT&T Universal Card, and its calling card number
has no relationship to my home phone number, as might be expected.
This probably means that I now have a COCOT-proof AT&T calling card
number; only AT&T should accept it.  However, I haven't actually tried
it from a COCOT, and I was curious if anyone out on the net had.

I also like the fact that the PIN is not printed on the card, and can
be changed.

Andy Malis <[e-mail]>    UUCP: {harvard,rutgers,uunet}!bbn!malis

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #515
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19229;
          26 Jul 90 3:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12200;
          26 Jul 90 1:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17634;
          26 Jul 90 0:52 CDT
Date:     Thu, 26 Jul 90 0:19:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #516
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Jul 90 00:18:53 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 516

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Calendar of Events [TELECOM Moderator]
    Information Wanted on Digipac X.25 Gateway [Scott Ferguson]
    Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom? [Dale Neiburg]
    Re: Telecom Peeves [Bob Hale]
    Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth [Roy Smith]
    Re: E911 Service [Mike Koziol]
    911 Overflow [Steve Forrette]
    Re: The Roar of the Crowd: Rebuttals to EFF Commentary [Chip Rosenthal]
    A Public "Thank You" [Roy Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 23:40:28 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Calendar of Events


Here are some events planned for the summer and fall. Contact each
organization for more details, or to register.


Conference: Long Distance Call Aggregation/Rebilling

This is the well known program led by Dr. Robert Self, one of the best
known long distance experts in the United States. This two day
conference will cover all aspects of long distance service, including
third party marketing and other resale programs.

August 6-7, 1990 in Chicago, at the Marriott O'Hare.  Registration fee
is $575 per person, and $495 each additional person on the same
registration/from the same organization.  For more information, phone
1-800-678-0398, and have your credit card number handy if you wish to
register at the same time. Inquire by FAX: [phone].

This program is sponsored by Lexicom, 2263 West Liberty Street, Ann
Arbor, MI 48103-4405.  For other business phone [phone].


Seminar: Understanding Data Communications and Computer Networks.

The instructors are James Peck (formerly Bell Labs, AT&T, and
McGraw-Hill) and Mayer Rubin, who has developed networks for the
Associated Press, British Petroleum and others.

Boston, MA  -- September 24-25, 1990   Detroit, MI -- September 26-27, 1990
Houston, TX -- October 25-26, 1990     Chicago, IL -- October 29-30, 1990

This seminar is sponsored by Quest, 124 Madie Avenue, Spotswood, NJ 08884.

Registration fee is $690, which includes all class materials, and
refreshments both days. Additional registrants from the same
organization get a $100 discount. (Fee is $590). Classes are 8:30 AM
to 5:00 PM both days. For information and registration, 1-201-251-3217.


Conference and Exposition:  NATA Unicom '90

The North American Telecommunications Association sponsors this annual
event, which this year is entitled, "Networking Communications
Technology".

Over 100 exhibitors and a presentation by Harry Newton make this a
very worthwhile event. Anything and everything concerned with telecom
comes up at these programs every year.

October 31 through November 2, 1990 - Sheraton Hotel, Washington, DC.

Rates:
Full package, includes admission to exhibit halls, all conferences,
hospitality suites, awards banquet:

          $250  early registration before October 12, 1990
          $350  registration on-site at the exposition.

Daily package allows choice of attendance on one of the three days
plus exhibit hall admission *on all three days*, and one hospitality
session:

  Wednesday:

          $145  early registration before October 12, 1990
          $180  registration on-site at the exposition.

  Thursday:
          $105  early registration before October 12, 1990
          $140  registration on-site at the exposition.

  Friday:
          $60   early registration before October 12, 1990
          $75   registration on-site at the exposition.

If you are interested just in the exposition and the exhibit halls,
admission you may purchase a ticket for unlimited admission on all
three days. *No admission to any conference will be permitted*.


          $30   early registration before October 12, 1990
          $35   registration on-site at the exposition.


For more information about NATA Unicom '90, or to register and pay
with your credit card, phone [phone]. In Illinois or from
outside the United States, phone [phone]. For more information
about the North American Telecommunications Association, write them
at:
          North American Telecommunications Association
          2000 'M' Street NW   Suite 550
          Washington, DC  20036


Of these three events, my recommendation would be if you can only go
to one, go to the NATA conference and exposition, above. And if the
cost is a consideration, then simply visit the exhibit halls ... a lot
of fun and a very educational way to spend a couple days.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Scott Ferguson  <system@pink>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 20:13:14 CDT
Subject: Information Wanted on Digipac X.25 Gateway
Organization: PINK [phone]


I'm interested in hearing from anyone who has firsthand experience
using US West's Digipac X.25 gateway.  I'm thinking of putting up my
BBS on Digipac using a dedicated connection and their public dial
access ports.  Seems like a lot cheaper deal than getting Telenet or
BT Tymenet or AT&T Accunet to wire up a drop.  Cheers!


S c o t t   F e r g u s o n
cybrspc!pink![e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 10:47:00 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  25-Jul-1990 1345" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Rate Applies For Phone Used as an Intercom?


  From: Dale Neiburg
  Organization: National Public Radio

In TELECOM Digest, vol 10, issue 509, Phil Earnhardt asks:

> As an aside, it was very sad to see the electric and phone lines
> being buried separately. Is there a good reason why they couldn't
> use the same trenches?

One reason is a problem that at this very moment has my wife turning
gray before her time.

She's a civil engineer, employed by the water authority in a Virginia
jurisdiction suburban to Washington, D.C.  Their main pumping station
has just added three new pumps (don't know the horsepower, but each is
driven by an electric motor about four stories tall).

Everything is just fine till one or more of the pumps are run at
variable speed.  When that happens, high order harmonics (we're
talking 30th-40th harmonics) are generated back onto the VEPCO power
line and crosstalk into C&P telephone cables buried in the same
trench, with such levels as to overpower phone signals (I assume
non-multiplexed analog, since we're still talking audio-frequency
harmonics).

Incidentally, the power service to the pump station has harmonic
filters on it.  Maybe.  All the consultant has been able to tell her
about what's inside the cabinet is that it's "either transformers or
capacitors", which in turn tells you something about consultants.  All
parties insist that their parts of the system are in spec--it's just
that now and then phone service gets screwed up for about 1/4 of the
county.

This probably wouldn't be a problem for a residential installation,
unless you have one helluva home workshop -- but is one good reason to
keep power and telco separated as far as possible.

Opinions expressed are my own.


Dale Neiburg (202)-822-2402  (Voice only)

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Hale)
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 18:24:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Glenn R.
Stone) writes:

>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.

The fidelity of a throat microphone is *awful*, to the point where it
impairs intelligibility. I'm speaking of the war surplus ones that I
used to be able to buy in the surplus stores in Southern California in
the late 50's.

Maybe the technology has improved but I'd have to hear it to believe
it.


Bob Hale                        ...!ucsd!btree!hale
619-535-3234                    ...!btree![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 16:09:13 GMT


In <[e-mail]> Tom Neff <[e-mail]> writes:

> Nevertheless, it's dehumanizing and a waste of time making the
> distraught caller recite everything from scratch when there's already
> information up on the screen.

    I don't think worrying about dehumanizing somebody enters into
the equation when a house is on fire or somebody is being held up at
gunpoint.  Besides, it's a lot easier to just say "Yes" to every
question than to actually supply information yourself.  I suspect that
a frantic caller would just keep saying "Yes", regardless of whether
the information the E911 operator was trying to confirm was indeed
correct or not.

    We have a sizeable number of people around here who don't
speak English very well, or at all.  They tend to just say "Yes" to
whatever you ask them.  Ever see the movie Rain Man?  There is a bit
near the end where Dustin Hoffman (playing an autistic adult) is being
interviewed to see whether he wants to stay "on the outside" with his
brother or go back to the institution.  He appears moderately lucid
and rational, yet it turns out that all he's doing is just saying
"Yes" to every question put to him.


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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 16:10:51 EST
From: Mike Koziol <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Service


A small city (Olean - pop 19,000) in Western New York state is going
to start up their E911 system soon. Currently, idle, on-duty fire
fighters are calling each phone in the city to verify the address
information that the phone company has provided them. They started
doing this without any advance notice to the public and the local
police received many calls about suspicious phone calls.

On another note I attended a presentation at an APCO (Association of
Public Safety Communications Officers) national conference two years
ago that dealt with 911 horror stories. In one case a store owner
called 911 to report that a customer had just been shot in the head 3
times. The telecommunicator would not send an ambulance until she
spoke with the victim! The victim was able to babble a few incoherent
sounds over the phone and help was dispatched.

One of the presenters was a retired Chicago police officer that had
headed their 911 center. For the life of me I can't recall his name
but he did bring along some video tape of his appearance on the
Donahue Show.

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

Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 04:15 EST
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 Overflow


A couple of years ago I had the occasion to call the Oakland, CA
police to report a auto-bicycle accident.  I got a recording "Hello,
you have reached the 911 answering point.  All operators are busy.
PLEASE stay on the line.  Hanging up will only further delay your
call."

A couple of notes: I had called the 7-digit emergency number - not
911.  Also, there were no injuries, just a argument/fight.  It looked
like the driver was about to have is *ss kicked - that's why I called
the police instead of the fire department.

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

Subject: Re: The Roar of the Crowd: Rebuttals to EFF Commentary
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX
Date: 24 Jul 90 23:49:13 CDT (Tue)
From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>


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

>To have each issue delivered to your email box, write the
>moderators: TK0JUT2.NIU.BITNET.

USENET readers can currently receive it as alt.society.cu-digest.


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


[Moderator's Note: Yes, this is another way of recieving it. And the
preferred policy is that when one can receive the same thing via news
instead of a mailing list, one should use that option. It does save
valuable network resources. Not every site receives the alt groups, of
course, so the mailing list also remains available. Like TELECOM
Digest and comp.dcom.telecom, it is your choice as reader.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Jul 90 14:06:39 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Public "Thank You"


    A week or so ago, I asked for help getting the ringer on a 500
set to work right again.  I knew I would get the help I needed on this
list, but didn't expect I would actually get an annotated schematic
diagram sent to me in the paper mail!  That is exactly what I got in
this morning's mail from Robert Sklar (ihlp1!sklar).  I was going to
send him a thank you by private email, but figured he deserved a more
public accolade.  Thanks, Robert!


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Sklar does receive our thanks for coming forth
with an answer to the question, but he is not unique on this net: Time
and again, a question is asked, and many answers received. It is what
I call the 'Spirit of Usenet' in action: a User-Network of people
helping people. And as the feds and the newspapers are starting to
find out, it is indeed a powerful communications tool. I'm glad to be
part of it, aren't you?  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #516
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08622;
          26 Jul 90 22:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20414;
          26 Jul 90 21:05 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09030;
          26 Jul 90 20:00 CDT
Date:     Thu, 26 Jul 90 19:48:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #517
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Jul 90 19:47:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 517

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Day Three of Craig Neidorf's Trial [Jim Thomas, CUD Moderator]
    Outside US AT&T Cards [Joseph C. Pistritto]
    High Voltage (was: Pseudo PBX For the Home?) [Michael L. Starr]
    Answer Call Service [Greg Monti via John R. Covert]
    NEC "NEAX 2400" Phone System [Will Martin]
    Motorola Micro-Tac Programming [Jerry Durand]
    Book Review: Long Distance Services: A Buyer's Guide [Nigel Allen]
    Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone [Rich Zellich]
    Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom? [Rich Zellich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 01:46 CDT
From: jt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Day Three of Craig Neidorf's Trial


Weds, July 25:

The prosecution continued presenting its witnesses.  The most damaging
to the prosecution (from a spectator's perspective) was the testimony
of a Ms. Williams from BellSouth whose primary testimony was that the
E911 documents in question were a) proprietary and b) not public
information. Following a lunch break, defense attorney Sheldon Zenner
methodically, but politely and gently, attacked both claims.  The
"properietary" stamp was placed on *all* documents at the source
without any special determination of contents and there is nothing
necessarily special about any document with such a statement attached.
It was established that it was a bureaucratic means of faciliting
processing of documents.  The proprietary claims were further damaged
when it was demonstrated that not only was the content of E911 files
available in other public documents, but that the public can call an
800 number and obtain the same information in a variety of documents,
incuding information dramatically more detailed than any found in
PHRACK.

Also in the afternoon session, Secret Service Special Agent Timothy
Foley, in charge of the search of Craig Neidorff and others, related a
detailed account of the search and what he found.  A number of files
from PHRACK and several additional e-mail documents were introduced as
government exhibits. The testimony of Agent Foley continues on
Thursday.

The attornies are a contrast of styles. Bill Cook appears slow,
meticulously detailed, and methodical. He seems a master at eliciting
images and descriptions of events. Sheldon Zenner, by contrast, has a
subtle razor-sharp style that, while precise and methodical, is
deceptively gentle and reassuring.  From their performance on
Wednesday both seem to be expert courtroom players, and each, in their
own way, is fun to watch.

The jury seemed alert, never inattentive, and no "MEGO" (my eyes glaze
over) effect was apparent.

If the issues were not important and the future of a young man at
stake, one could take more pleasure in enjoying the drama as
intellectual combat. The prosecution is expected to continue at least
through Friday and probably into next week, followed by the defense,
so it is likely the trial will last at least until next Friday (Aug 3).

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

Subject: Outside US AT&T Cards
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 8:54:00 MESZ
From: Joseph C Pistritto <[e-mail]>


A couple of years ago I got an AT&T Calling Card for using USA Direct
from Switzerland (the rates are about half the PTT's here).  Anyway,
its one of the ones billed to my VISA card, and the number on the card
bears no relation to a US phone number, (I don't have one...).  When I
got it, the operator I spoke with said that it was a 'restricted'
calling card, and that I could not use it IN the US, just on USA
Direct.

Well, always being one to test these things, I had the chance to use
it while in the Bay Area a couple weeks ago.  In an AT&T 'CardCaller'
phone no less.  I used it sucessfully to make an international call,
as well as several long distance calls in the US, obviously using AT&T
as my carrier.  So what gives?  Has this restriction been phased out,
or was it just a load of crap from the beginnning?

An annoying thing is that those 'card caller' phones (you know, the
ones with the fancy green CRTs in them), don't seem to allow
international calls without operator assistance.  I tried from several
in the SFO Airport with no success.  On the other hand, the operator
(always AT&T) completes these calls without asking any questions
charging normal card call rates.  Is this international restriction
true from all payphones in the US?


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

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

From: "Michael L. Starr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: High Voltage (was: Pseudo PBX For the Home?)
Reply-To: "Michael L. Starr" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T HRISO, Morristown, NJ
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 90 16:38:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 508, Message 1 of 5

>The Ringer

>The voltage at the subscribers end depends upon
>loop length and number of ringers attached to the line; it could be
>between 40 and 150 Volts.  Note that ringing voltage can be hazardous;
>when you're working on a phone line, be sure at least one telephone on
>the line is off the hook (in use); if any are not, take high voltage
>precautions.  The telephone company may or may not remove the 48 VDC
>during ringing; as far as you're concerned, this is not important.
>Don't take chances.

This reminds me of an incident many years ago that happened to me.  I
was setting up equipment in a hotel conference room for a demo when I
hit on the problem of connecting the modems to the phone line.  The
hotel phone was hardwired, and of course we needed a modular
connection.  The simple solution seemed to be to tap a modular
junction box into the hardwired junction box.  Although I had
experienced the thrill of being shocked by military field phone
magnetos, it never occurred to me to take the receiver off the hook
(after all, I was only dealing with 48 VDC).  As you might have
guessed, a call came in during my wiring, and gave me quite a jolt!
It only takes one time to learn your lesson.


 __/\__  ********************  __/\__   |       [e-mail]
 \    /  * Michael L. Starr *  \    /   |       att!hriso!starr
  |/\|   ********************   |/\|    |       attmail!starr

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 06:01:52 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  26-Jul-1990 0901" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answer Call Service


  From: Greg Monti
  Date: 25 July 1990
  Subject: Answer Call Service


The brochure arrived in this month's bill from C&P Telephone of
Virginia.  This is not intended to be an advertisement; I thought
Telecomers would be interested.

"Announcing Answer Call from C&P Telephone.  Thanks to the Bell
Atlantic Intelligent NetworQ(sm), you no longer need to buy an
answering machine to enjoy all the advantages of automatic telephone
messaging.  In fact, you don't need *any* new equipment whatsoever -
just the touch-tone equipped phone you have right now!

"Call in to retrieve messages quickly and easily ... at home or away
from home.  Save the $10.80 connection charge if you order by July
28th!"

The list of features (edited for space):

"- Special dial tone alerts you...if you have messages.
"- Call in to retrieve messages...give your password and your messages will be
played back for you.
"- Callers hear your personal greeting.
"- Retrieve your messages from anywhere.  You don't need a pocket beeper.  You
can operate Answer Call from any touch-tone equipped phone...
"- Protects your confidentiality at all times.  No one - not even at the
phone company - can retrieve your messages unless you request it.
"- 30-minute message capacity.  When your mailbox is "full," you clear it by
erasing messages you've heard.
"- Skip, replay, fast forward, erase or save.  ...You can even hear the date
and time of each call.
"- Takes messages even when you're on the phone.  ...Plus, if you have Call
Waiting, use Tone Block when you're on the phone and Answer Call will take the
second call.  (With Call Waiting, Answer Call will not pick up the second
incoming call unless you use Tone Block to temporarily deactivate Call
Waiting.)  A third caller will either hear a busy signal or will be
forwarded to Answer Call.
"- Option of multiple "mailboxes."  For a small additional charge, each member
of your household (up to 8) can have his or her own personal mailbox and
password - all on one line!

"...for as little as $5 a month - total.  (Each time a call is forwarded to
your Answer Call access number, or you call to retrieve messages, a message
unit may be charged if you have measured service.)

"Call now toll-free 1 800 321-7176, Operator 4501."

I think not.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

[Moderator's Note: Perhaps, Mr. Monti, you will write again and
explain your objections to voicemail over traditional answering
machines. Is it just a matter of personal taste, or do you have
serious objections to the service? I've had voicemail from Centel here
in Chicago for quite awhile, and like it a lot.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 12:52:13 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: NEC "NEAX 2400" Phone System


Does anyone else out there have a NEC "NEAX 2400" phone system with
"6-button Dterm Series II" telephone instruments? We recently moved to
a new office with such a phone system, and unfortunately have received
little information on it. For some unknown reason, the powers-that-be
decided not to even distribute the manuals that were supposed to come
with the phones. I managed to scrape one up, but it still isn't very
helpful; what I think I need is info that is in a "service"-level
manual, or one for the system administrator.

For example, these phones have a row of ten programmable buttons on
them.  We know how to set them up as "speed call" buttons; that's
fairly straightforward. But the phones came with cardboard inserts and
peel-off sticky labels that show those buttons labelled as "OFF", "C",
"CE", the division sign, "X", "-", "+", ".", and "=". So obviously
there is *some* way to set these phones up so that they can be used as
calculators -- they have an LCD display that shows the number you
dial, the number calling you if a local extension, etc. plus another
line showing date and time, so there is a display that would be
suitable for a calculator. But how does one "turn on" this calculator
mode?!? It isn't mentioned in the manual at all!

If anyone can tell me the secrets to comprehending this system, I
would be grateful.

Regards,

Will Martin
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Motorola Micro-Tac Programming
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 11:10:35 PDT


I recently purchased a Motorola Micro-Tac phone and by mistake picked
up a copy of the NAM programming guide as I left the store.  If anyone
needs a copy of this information, please contact me directly.


Jerry Durand    Durand Interstellar, Inc.
[e-mail]   MCI:  DISTAR

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Book Review: Long Distance Services: A Buyer's Guide
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 07:50:22 GMT


     Long Distance Services: A Buyer's Guide  - By Daniel D. Briere
     --------------------------------------------------------------

I just received a flyer for a book that may be helpful for some
TELECOM Digest readers. (Other readers could probably have written the
book themselves.)  I haven't seen the book itself, but I'll quote from
the flyer.

By the way, the book is published by Artech House (685 Canton Street,
Norwoo, MA 02062 U.S.A.), which also publishes other fairly technical
telecommunications and microwave books.

You may want to request the company's catalog, and a flyer that
describes Long Distance Services: A Buyer's Guide in greater detail.

The phone number is 800-225-9977, ext. 4002 within the U.S., or
617-769-9750, ext. 4002. The fax number is 617-769-6334.

Hardcover, 300 pages, $66 (but pre-publication price is $56 until
September 28, 1990). The author is president of TeleChoice, a
telecommunications consulting firm in Manchester, Conn.

Refer to book #439439 when you order.

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 13:35:04 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone


Speaking of phones used as an intercom ... does anyone have any
recommendations (or pointers of *any* kind) for these things?

My condominium building has a Trigon phone in the courtyard; this
phone allows a two-digit code to pulse-dial residents' regular
seven-digit numbers through a dedicated residential line to the CO (we
had to get the line connected from one of the residences to get a
residential rate).  It also looks for a "5" DTMF tone and, on seeing
one, sends an electrical signal to two solenoid-operated locks in
upper-level entry doors.

The Trigon has died - two batteries hard-soldered to a circuit board are
now trash, and the service company says they have to send the board
back to the manufacturer to replace the batteries, expected to take three
weeks or so and cost at least $300!  They will also sell us a
replacement - "better", what- ever that means - system for about
$1000.  I have talked to one local business phone supplier so far, and
he has spent almost two weeks researching possible replacements, with no
luck as far as I can tell (no call-back, anyway, after one followup to
make sure he hadn't forgotten about me).

Considering I can buy a whole Panasonic PBX cheaper than the $1000
they want for what amounts to one memory-phone with one added feature
(looking for a tone, and activating an electrical signal for 10
seconds), both the $300 repair and $1000 replacement costs seem just a
tad steep.

One catch is that the phone is out in the weather, on our mailbox wall
under an overhanging entry deck, so it has to be waterproof and also
able to take extremes of heat and cold (the Trigon doesn't like
anything below about twenty degrees F, and is apparently only
moderately moisture proof).

At this point, we're considering just buying a memory phone, if we can
find a weatherproof one, and ignoring the requirement to remotely open
solenoid-operated locks (that circuit has been mostly out of order
for over 18 months, anyway).  We *must* have at least an 18-number
capacity, and 36 is desirable (the downstairs units have open access
to their doors, so don't really need the phone access).

Any help would be much appreciated.


Rich <[e-mail]>
     <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 14:54:36 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom?


In the case of our condominium, since we are registered with the state
as a corporation (of some special sort devised for such
owner-associations), SW Bell insisted on the business rate.  So,
instead, we had a second residential line run from one of the units
with a cooperative owner and now have it billed as a residential line.
We also did two other things:

(1) We had outgoing long-distance disallowed, just as a safety (since
the phone only accepts two-digit codes and dials corresponding local
seven-digit numbers, there's not much chance for toll fraud, but
somebody could always foul up programing the seven-digit numbers ...
or tap into the line, I suppose, since it's more exposed than the
other lines in the building);

(2) Selected measured service instead of flat rate (in Missouri, we
have the luxury of flat rate still being the norm, and measured
service only an experiment - the PUC is on *our* side in this state!)
 - this was done based on the idea that "security" let-me-in calls
would be relatively low in number, and normally of only a few seconds,
rather than minutes, duration.  So far this has worked well, and we
get monthly bills of around $2.50 for this line.


Cheers,
Rich

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #517
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09993;
          26 Jul 90 23:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14914;
          26 Jul 90 22:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20414;
          26 Jul 90 21:05 CDT
Date:     Thu, 26 Jul 90 20:26:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #518
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Jul 90 20:25:55 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 518

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [Tim Pozar]
    Re: E911 Experience [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth [Marty Brenneis]
    Re: Cell Phones, Voice Channel, Etc. [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [John Higdon]
    Re: An Inexpensive Cellular Phone [Peter M. Weiss]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Julian Macassey]
    Re: 415/408 0+ Dialing [John Higdon]
    Re: 415 0+ Dialing [Isaac Rabinovitch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tim Pozar <hoptoad!kumr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy
Date: 25 Jul 90 17:55:00 GMT
Reply-To: Tim Pozar <hoptoad!kumr![e-mail]>
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)


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

>But one interesting problem of 911 surfaced at this time. Sometimes
>the system is overloaded by multiple calls reporting the same major
>event.  Even though only one call would be sufficient to summon aid
>for the incident, the PSAP has no instantaneous way of knowing that a
>cluster of calls are not for separate incidents.

    Yet, we have seen discussion here that sometimes one call does not
summon help.  It is only after a number of calls to 911 that any
action happens.


Tim Pozar    Try also...
uunet!hoptoad!kumr!pozar      Fido: 1:125/555      PaBell: [phone]
      USNail:  KKSF-FM / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Experience
Date: 26 Jul 90 12:26:27 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


One day my children were involved in a typical sibling-type quarrel
over something or another; I think it was my son who "jokingly" picked
up the phone, announced he was calling the police, dialed 911, and set
the phone back down as soon as he heard the ringing.

Needless to say, the connection took; although it was satisfying that
the Authorities called back to find out why the connection was
dropped, I was not amused, as you can imagine.

We immediately had a family talk about *exactly* what 911 is for, what
it does, etc.  That stunt has not been repeated at our house!  Nice to
know, though, that 911 'works' in Franklin Co OH.

P.S.  I suppose my phone number etc. is now in the authority's
database?  Should I be paranoid?


Bob Zabloudil
Opinions my own, etc.


[Moderator's Note: Your number was in the data base from the time 911
was first implemented in your community. And no, there is no reason
for paranoia, unless you are the type of person who is ordinarily
paranoid about the police.  PT]

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

From: Marty Brenneis <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 Service: Data From The Horse's Mouth
Date: 26 Jul 90 11:46:04 GMT


[e-mail] (Tom Neff) writes:

>Nevertheless, it's dehumanizing and a waste of time making the
>distraught caller recite everything from scratch when there's already
>information up on the screen.

>If the above three possibilities are a worry, why can't the operator
>simply say,

>   "OK, I see you calling from 1471 Elmhurst Drive on the 2nd floor.
>    Is that correct?"

>   "Yes"

>   "Is that where the (accident etc) is?"

>   "No it's on the fourth floor, I just ran downstairs to the neighbor's"

This is a common problem that I've had experience with.  I work in a
hospital as an aide, part of my job is to move patients from place to
place. i.e. ER to Xray. I've seen people say, "Are you Mr. Jones?" to
a patient wh looks up and says, "Yes." They then wheel him off to
Surgery and find that they have Mr. Thompson who can't hear very well.

In all forms of contact most prople in our business will ask you for
your name, or other information and not prompt you with any other
information.  You may be someone who says "Yes" to anything to speed
it up.


droid

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

Date: 26-JUL-1990 01:01:23.68
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cell Phones, Voice Channel, Etc.


In regard to the recent discussion about creating an "infinity
transmitter" for cell phones:

I have an Audivox CMT-450, and when I want to make it transportable, I
have to place it in an awkward carrying case, with lots of cable, and
then add an antenna lead that bleeds the RF of the cell phone so badly
that even when the handset is removed from the main unit (and hence
the speakerphone in the cradle is "off"), you can hear the
conversation just as clearly, and even more loudly, through the
speakerphone. You can also hear the call through any nearby FM radio,
or I've noticed that it slightly alters a TV signal as well. Note,
this only occurs in the portable unit, not while it is installed
properly in the car. (I don't have Audiovox's designated unit [which
costs more then the phone], but some cheap, generic one that is really
a piece of plastic, a rechargable battery, a few wires, and a cloth
carrying case.)

Anyhow, when a call comes in, I can hear the phone click and send
signals (high pitched tones, it seems) back and forth, and if there is
any static I can hear that too. So, I can generally tell if someone is
calling WAY before that phone starts ringing. What's more interesting,
when I switch from one service area to another (like along I-80
between San Francisco and Sac), you can hear the phone drop the old
system, and "communicate" with the new system that it is in the new
system's area. (Or at least it makes some clicks and you can hear some
signals when the ROAM light goes on or off.) (Every time it
establishes itself in a new system it also sets my radar detector off,
which a real pain on roads that straddle two service areas, and thus
tend to go back and forth between systems!)

What this all has to do with listening in before someone presses the
"SEND" button is that I gave the phone to my brother to use while
driving around in San Francisco. I called him at about 5:30PM, and he
was in a bad area and/or all the "good"/clear channels were being used
in his site, so there was a really bad connection. The weird thing was
that I HEARD the static BEFORE the call even started ringing, and
during the ringing the static went in and out, as if the ringing were
being sent from the cell phone, over the air, to the cell tower. From
what I understand, it is the MTSO or some central device which creates
the ring signal, so why did I hear static mixed along with the signal?
It seems as if some channel were being opened to the cell phone (hence
the static which I heard from the land line phone I was calling from),
while at the same time ringing was being generated from the central
switch and was being intermixed with the "signal" from the cell phone
my brother had in his car.

Again, I'm not sure, but it SOUNDS to me like I was getting some sort
of signal from my phone, (and not just progress signals generated at
the switch), which leads me to think that although maybe I can't hear
the actual sounds in the car becuase the handset/speakerphone isn't
activated, I am getting a real signal from the phone itself. Note that
in most other instances when I called the car in good-reception areas,
I heard nothing until the call was actually answered.

This happened on both GTE Mobilnet and Cell One (I ROAM with Cell One
and have HOME service with GTE ... long story) so I doubt it's
specific to just one company or the specific location my brother was
in.

Oh, and I also managed to get my hands on the complete set of
parameters for programming an Audioxov CMT-400 series phone. (I think
500's as well ... or is it 5000?) Basically, its a list that tells you
what each of the registers are used for and how to program your phone.
If anyone is interested, I'll type it up and send it along for posting
on the Digest.

P.S. to John Higdon: YES, GTE in LA *IS* worse ... Lesse: I've lost
maybe $10 worth of coins in their payphones in LA and Palm Springs and
then the phone went dead. I've gotten the INWARD Operator by making
calling card calls to New York City, I've killed the phone (made the
line go dead) by making local calling card calls, I've gotten
call-waits while I'm on a 0+ call and couldn't drop the party that
call-waited me without hanging up the whole call, and, GTE LA *JUST*
got call-waiting in most of their exchanges in 1985, or so they
announced in a full-page ad I clipped from the {LA Times} ... wow!
What progress!.

In comparison, GTE in the Bay Area seems like a real company compared
to what I had to put up with in LA a few years ago ... (But since you
deal with them a lot more often than I probably do, I'll take your
word as to how bad they are.) Oh, and there are LOTS of GTE
payphones along CA-17 near Los Gatos, all which never stole my money
and connected my calling card calls correctly (as to the bill,
well, we'll know in a month! :-) )


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yes, please send along the CMT-400 information.  PT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Date: 25 Jul 90 23:51:24 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Rob Warnock <[e-mail]> writes:

> | Not true. When your unit is address by the system, a two way audio
> | path is indeed enabled, but your transmitter is not turned on until
> | you answer the call.

> Uh, I think you have it backwards, John. Your transmitter turns on to

Sorry, it was the telephony in me that caused an ambiguity. What I
meant by "transmitter" was the mouthpiece in the phone. I am aware
that the RF transmitter comes on immediately when the mobile is paged,
and that is what I meant by "a two way audio path is indeed enabled".


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

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 26 Jul 1990 09:27:34 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An Inexpensive Cellular Phone


In article <[e-mail]>, ssc-vax![e-mail].
washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) says:

>There have been several articles here recently talking about cellular
>phones; what's the lowest price, etc.

>Here is the cheapest one that I have seen to date:

>sold by DAMARK International, Inc.  7101 Winnetka Ave. N.,

Many of the items in the DAMARK catalog indicatate _factory new/
factory perfect_.  In my reading of a (not _the_) recend catalog I
didn't see this inscription.  One might be led to believe that this is
reconditioned.


Pete ([e-mail] | @vm.psu.edu)

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Date: 26 Jul 90 14:47:05 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> The computer equipment is
> FCC Class B certified for RFI emissions (computer room environment -
> not personal computer Class A).

    The above statement is logical but not right. Equipment
meeting Class A requirements are Industrial/commercial. Class B covers
domestic.  The requirements for class B are far more stringent. The
FCC recommends that all equipment should strive for Class B
compliance.  The requirements of Part 15 Subpart J have recently been
revised.

    In reality you may find Class A equipment that causes less
interference than Class B equipment. You may also find equipment that
is supposed to be Class B that causes so much interference as to be
unusable. I usually get flamed mercilessly for saying this sort of
thing. Alas, no one ever wants to pay to challenge me at a test site.

    The reason for the above anomaly is that the model that passes
the FCC class B test is often not the model that goes into production.
All the capacitors, lumps of ferrite, bits of finger-stock etc that
were used to reduce emissions and meet compliance, often fail to enter
the production bill of material. Only a cynic would say this was
callous cost cutting. The other thing is that peripherals are usually
tested in an old IBM PC, well shielded and running with a nice slow
clock. That peripheral then is sold to put in high speed poorly
shielded clones.

    Just as a matter of interest, I have an apartment loaded with
a PBX, several CPUs, and sundry radios (both receivers and
transmitters). My main source of interference is a light dimmer in the
apartment building next door. When are the FCC going to do something
about light dimmers?


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 415/408 0+ Dialing
Date: 26 Jul 90 01:35:00 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> You are saying some phones in 408 require you to use 0+NPA+7D if the
> call is wihin 408 area?  And some phones in 408 will not accept this
> particular usage of 0+NPA+7D?  408 area does not have N0X/N1X prefixes
> that I know of, and I am not aware of its calling instructions being
> changed to match those of 415 for "area-wide uniformity".  (This could
> also be a VERY early accounting for the coming of NXX area codes.)

Ok, here's the real poop. First, for those not familiar with the area,
408 is really two planets: northern and southern. The northern part,
which includes San Jose and the Silicon Valley is considered part of
the Greater Bay Area and is part of the San Francisco LATA which
includes all of 415 and all of 707.

The southern part (to the south of the Santa Cruz mountains) is mostly
in the Monterey LATA (except Santa Cruz and Watsonville) and is a
completely different animal. There are no N0X/N1X prefixes anywhere
within 408.

In the north (SF LATA) 408 telephones do not dial "1" for long
distance. The CO switches determine 7/10 digits from the number being
dialed. There is also no delay time out. If the number begins with an
NPA the exchange expects 10d. Otherwise the call is handled
accordingly. My particular CO will absorb a "1", but it is not
required. It will not accept a "1" for a call within 408.

As of this evening, my CO will accept either 0+7D or 0+NPA+7D for
calls within 408. This applies to calls in either SF or Monterey LATA.
Calls that terminate in the Monterey LATA get the KaBong followed by
"AT&T".  For what it's worth, my CO switch is an ANCIENT 1ESS
(probably the skankiest switch in San Jose other than the grossbar.)

South of the Santa Cruz mountains, a "1" IS required for long
distance.  I don't know how 0+ calls are handled. Someone from UC
Santa Cruz could maybe fill us in?


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

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 415 0+ Dialing
Date: 26 Jul 90 19:31:16 GMT
Organization: UESPA


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]) (DOUGLAS SCOTT
REUBEN) writes:

> (BTW, I must apologize for some of my
>previous cracks about GTE ... I've been used to GTE in the LA area
>which is plain awful, whereas GTE in the Bay Area, at least in my
>limited experience, seems up to par with Pac*Bell in some areas, and
>exceeds Pac*Bell in the speed with which it processes 0+ calls from
>its payphones, at least in Novato.)

I dunno.  A few years ago, some GTE employees crashed the
newly-installed digital switch (I'm sure that's not the right telecom
jargon, but you know what I mean) in Los Gatos.  I believe there was
*no* phone service in the entire town for over a day!  Lucky there wer
no fires or anything!


[e-mail]            Isaac Rabinovitch
atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo        Silicon Valley, CA
uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #518
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11318;
          27 Jul 90 1:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13635;
          26 Jul 90 23:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14914;
          26 Jul 90 22:10 CDT
Date:     Thu, 26 Jul 90 21:13:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #519
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Jul 90 21:13:34 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 519

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: PT's Moment of Fame [Jon Baker]
    Re: Precedents Could Be Set in Neidorf Trial [Peter da Silva]
    Re: ANI Suggestions for Businesses [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [Lawrence Roney]
    Re: Terradine FORTEL System [Lawrence Roney]
    Re: COCOTs and 10xxx Access [John Higdon]
    Re: Customers Have Long Memories [Jon Baker]
    Re: Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates [Jon Baker]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card Calling Card Number [Jim Olsen]
    Re: John Galt, MCI, and Wrong Numbers [Jerry Durand]
    Business Rates [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Close-Talking Mikes (was Telecom Peeves) [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PT's Moment of Fame
Date: 26 Jul 90 16:26:30 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> bla bla bla
> Now, for the moment, forget about the chilling effect on all of us
> die-hard telecom nerds. Consider instead the question: "Why is
> electronic communications treated in such an unwarranted manner by the
> government and law enforcement?"
> If photography turned me on, much of my conscious life would be spent
> around cameras and photographic equipment, as well as any

nudge, nudge, *wink* *wink*

> But those interested in
> computers and telephony are looked upon as sinister beings. Any
> digging for information is viewed as preparatory to an attack on the
> system. And heaven forbid that a telecompunerd would actually use the
> technology related to his interests to learn more more about it.
> For some reason, information on a computer disk is more sensitive,
> valuable, dangerous, and proprietary than the exact same information
> in a dusty book on a library shelf. Why is that? And now for a really
> scary question: What makes the information in Phrack more "criminal"
> than the information in the Digest? Wait until the Keystone Kops
> discovers THIS international ring of telephone hackers. Where are they
> going to store all the computers they seize that have Digest messages
> on them?

Don't be paranoid!  This is new ground for the SS (Secret Service,
that is), and at this time they don't where the legal boundaries are.
They don't know what they can and can't do.

In the LOD case, they have deliberately over-stepped the bounds of
legally acceptable behavior.  The courts will review the case, and the
actions of the SS, and decide what is and isn't legal for both the
accused and accuser.  In so doing, they will have established legal
precedent governing the rights of the accused, in the context of
electronic media, to guide the SS in all future investigations.  Thus,
if the legal boundaries are reasonably drawn, we should never again
see this sort of abuse, in this context.

I consider this to be the best course of action for the SS.  It is
best to draw the legal boundaries up front, rather than dance around
the line for the next 50 years, never sure of where it is.  Do you
expect them to behave 'approriately' from the very beginning?  What is
'appropriate'?  Everyone has their own opinion.  But, only one opinion
counts : the courts'.  In our judicial system, the SS can not just ask
any ol' judge what they're allowed to do.  They have to force a case
to the courts, in order to force a decision.

This may be the same reason for the 'LOD Defense Fund' - I doubt their
motives are altruistic.  Rather, it is in their best interest, as
well, to know the legal bounds that govern or affect their industry.
They want to see equal force applied in both directions on the case,
in the hope of having the legal lines drawn fairly and equitably.

However, my sympathies to all those caught up in the LOD affair.  They
didn't volunteer to be the litmus test, but had it thrust upon them.

> IMHO, the Neidorf case could very well be a major turning point in the
> future of the freedom of electronic communications. We should all be
> watching this one very closely.

IMHO?  Since when are your opinions humble?  Anyway, I'm sure it will
be a major precedent-setter.

JB

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Precedents Could Be Set in Neidorf Trial
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 19:39:37 GMT


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

> The term combines two separate activities
> which, at the time of introduction, were hardly derogatory.  PHRACK
> first appeared in November, 1985, when the founders were in their
> early-to-mid teens (I think the average age was about fifteen).

I don't know about you, but I don't think of 1985 as being so long
ago. And my opinion of phreakers and that particular type of hackers
hasn't changed any in those five years. If you have that sort of spare
time, how about creating some new code instead of figuring out ways to
grab old stuff?

> >Another thing that annoys the government and the telcos is the constant
> >(and I think sick) swapping out of /f/ with /ph/ on words out of some
> >misplaced reverence to the telephone network.

On the other hand, I think our esteemed Moderator is way out in left
field on this one.

Personally, I'm sure that Neidorf must have done something worth
prosecuting him for ... but if they can't find it out or prove it they
should certainly not be hitting him with this bogus 911 file business.
And the freedom of speech issues bring to mind the hypocritical
ravings of our own {Houston Chronical}. They believe in freedom of
speech ... so long as it's not in a competing medium.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: ANI Suggestions for Businesses
Date: 26 Jul 90 01:05:43 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


In the Bell Canada tariff which has Caller ID (actually they call it
Call Management Services - CMS) the tariff indicates that the service
is *NOT* available on "Trunk" lines although it is available on
individual business service.  Given that CLID or ANI has more uses for
business than otherwise, is anyone aware of the reason for this
restriction?


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

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

From: Lawrence Roney <ucla-cs!smcnet.smc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing
Organization: Santa Monica College, CA 90405
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 05:42:03 GMT


Your system administrator should be able to pull up form:

    abbreviated personal xxxx   <--- your extension here

On the console they should be able to enter # and * symbols in the
provided field.  E-Mail me for further info as to save net bandwidth.


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]

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

From: Lawrence Roney <ucla-cs!smcnet.smc.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Terradine FORTEL System
Organization: Santa Monica College, CA 90405
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 05:37:04 GMT


GTE in our area now has the voice response FORTEL system.  It is a
rather neat piece of equipment that seems to do much of the work that
the testboard operators of the past used to do.  When installers or
repair people come out, they often use the system.  I have seen it do
the following:

    -- Tell distance in 1/10th of a mile to our demarcation point.
    -- Check for ringers on the line and read back the number found.
    -- Produce a tracer tone on the line.
    -- Ring the line.

One installer told me that they were supposed to login to FORTEL and
test any new lines.  A report was generated at the CO that confirmed
that they did the job correctly.


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]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs and 10xxx Access
Date: 26 Jul 90 01:10:21 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> It also seems that all Safeway stores in the Bay Area now use private
> payphones, as I couldn't find any Safeway with a real Pac*Bell phone
> on their property.  (However, the one off of I-80 in Truckee has a
> couple of Pac*Bells.)

> Accordingly, I just shop at Lucky's!

And just where will you shop when YOUR local Lucky's installs COCOTs
by U.S. Commercial Telephone#Corp. (sic)? These are most vile. Pad
dies after call completion. No way to get AT&T operator. No way to
reach repair/refund except 8 to 5 weekdays. Wants $1.05 for 811-XXXX
(free call). No 950. I have written a strongly worded letter to Lucky
headquarters.

The COCOT at my Safeway, on the other hand, is somewhat easier to live
with. Pad stays active. Phone is easily tricked into giving the AT&T
operator. Allows 811-XXXX. Repair/refund available on weekends. 950
allowed.

If it comes down to the battle of COCOTs, Safeway wins!


        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: Customers Have Long Memories
Date: 26 Jul 90 16:41:01 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> Are customers today still that loyal? Something tells me most of them
> are, if you put out a real effort to show you care about quality
> telecom service, and are responsive to their needs.

I think so.  Suffice to say I'm not enamored with boxes with little
pictures of bells on them, and Mr. Higdon shuns boxes with blue ovals.
It all depends on the customer's personal prior experiences.

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

From: Alan_Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone "Plant Management Systems" Query
Date: 25 Jul 90 23:53:46 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


My E-mail reply seems not to have made it through the mailer.  Two
possible sources of cable management systems are:

    ISICAD Ltd.
    Attn:  Gerry Mcdonald
    Mulberry Business Park
    Fishponds Road Wokingham
    Berkshire RG11 2QY
    PH [phone]
    Fax [phone]


    ExperTelligence
    5638 Hollister Ave., Suite 302
    Goleta, CA 93117
    PH 805 967 1797
    Fax [phone]


 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>

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!gtephx!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About Local Service and Long Distance Rates
Date: 26 Jul 90 16:32:10 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David E A
Wilson) writes:

> By 1985 it had risen to $190/$30 and $110/$30 and in 1989 it
> was $225/$45. (No figure for moving.)

> Even though I had to pay the $225 I still think this reflection of the
> costs seems fairer.

I don't see how it's fairer.  It would preclude many people from
having telephones.  Is a telephone just a toy for the rich?  It may
not be a 'right', per se, but nobody should be excluded from having a
phone due to exhorbitant hook-up fees.  And, if the government offers
subsidies to lower-income households to hook up a phone, in the end
I'm paying for it anyway.  I'd much rather the money not make the trip
through Washington ... it seems some of it always disappears on the
way :-).


JB

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 13:44:51 EDT
From: Jim Olsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card Calling Card Number
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA


>I just received my AT&T Universal Card ... This probably means that I
>now have a COCOT-proof AT&T calling card number ... However, I
>haven't actually tried it from a COCOT, and I was curious if anyone
>out on the net had.

I tried it, unknowingly, two days ago.  I used a COT which proudly
proclaimed that credit-card calls from it were handled by AT&T.  After
I entered my Universal Card number, a recorded voice told me that US
Sprint couldn't handle my call with this card number.

Fortunately, this was a Genuine New England Telephone COT, so 10288
worked with no problem.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: John Galt, MCI, and Wrong Numbers
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 11:05:07 PDT


Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>, Message-ID: <[e-mail].
edu> states:

>Yesterday, one of the people here was cleaning an old office and came
>across a PC 5.25" diskette with a business card attached:

[...]

>                And what is on the diskette :-) ?

You can check any disk for virus infections by running a program such
as SCAN _BEFORE_ executing any programs on the disk.  A virus can not
infect your computer if you do no execute an infected program.  You
should keep the latest copy of SCAN around and check your system from
time to time.

SCAN is available from many locations.  If you wish, you may download
the latest version (currently V64) from my BBS or I can send you a
UUENCODED copy.  It's a shareware program.


Jerry Durand    Durand Interstellar, Inc.  [e-mail]
BBS:  408 356-3886 (6pm to 8am PACIFIC time _ONLY_)

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Business Rates
Date: 26 Jul 90 19:25:49 GMT
Organization: UESPA


The discussion of business rates reminds me of a story I heard some
time back.  Supposedly a Stanford dormie thought it would be cute to
have the following annoucement on his answering machine: "You've
reached Smith House, an experiment in modern living!"  Pac Bell told
him he'd have to change it or pay a business rate!


[e-mail]            Isaac Rabinovitch
atina!pyramid!apple!netcom!ergo        Silicon Valley, CA
uunet!mimsy!ames!claris!netcom!ergo

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

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 13:49 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Close-Talking Mikes (was Telecom Peeves)
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


Responding to: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>

 ..Hale responded to a Digest article <[e-mail]> by
 [e-mail] (Glenn R.Stone) about close-talking
 microphones with reference to WWII "throat mikes".  Stone had
 said:

>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.

 ..Hale's response ended with:
>Maybe the technology has improved but I'd have to hear it to believe
>it.

Well, perhaps you haven't listened to the helicopter traffic reports
on radio or TV of recent times.  There's been a LOT of improvement.
Among several sources I found, the products of a firm called
Global-Wolfsburg seem to be most highly thought of.  Their products
are used not only by broadcasting people, but many law enforcement
agencies at all levels of government.

For anyone with a serious interest, you can get good advice from Jack
Hammill at Florida Avionics, [phone].  I reckon Jack probably
knows. We do have more than a few pilots chasing drug dealers around
Florida, you know!  Not much time for asking, "What did you say?" on
their radio nets.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #519
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14796;
          27 Jul 90 4:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14802;
          27 Jul 90 3:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08593;
          27 Jul 90 2:15 CDT
Date:     Fri, 27 Jul 90 1:25:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #520
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 27 Jul 90 01:25:02 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 520

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone] [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Call Me Card / Comm Systems [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom? [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 22:26:33 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone


I've seen some units which are nothing more than autodialers
programmed to ring the seven-digit number of the tenant desired, who
in turn must press a button to unlatch the lock on the front door.
There are various problems with this arrangement.

1) The tenant must have phone service, else no front door intercom.

2) Not only must the tenant have phone service, the line has to be
   equipped with call-waiting. Otherwise, a guest at the front door
   gets a busy signal and may have to wait several minutes to be
   admitted to the building ... not a nice thing on a cold or rainy
   day.

3) If the tenant changes phone numbers and forgets to notify the
   management of the building, front door calls will go to an
   intercept, or to perhaps the new owner of the number.

4) The tenant must *not* have call-forwarding, otherwise in his
   absence, his front door calls will be forwarded also, causing
   confusion for the person at the front door and perhaps the
   recipient of the call.

Generally, an autodialer arrangement at the front door is not a very
good setup ... particularly in a large, multi-unit apartment complex.

A far better alternative is to use a type of hybrid centrex offered by
some telcos, or premises equipment available from many telecom vendors
specially designed for the purpose of front door intercom service.

The best service of its kind is, thanks to the MF Judgment, no longer
available except to grandfathered customers of Illinois Bell. Called
"Enterphone Front Door Service", it was contained entirely in the
central office. The next best system I've seen comes from GTE/Canada,
and is called "Interphone Service". Please note the only difference in
the name is the /I/ and the /E/ of the first word. The big difference
is that the GTE/Canada version is Customer Premises Equipment which
functions precisely like the central office version banned by the
judge.

In both versions, here is how it works:

A weather-proof, very sturdy phone is mounted at the front door or
gate of the apartment complex. Two pairs serve it; one for the phone
and the other to operate the latch on the door.

The phone itself is a speakerphone, with nothing for the public to
touch or get their hands on except the touchtone buttons. No
switchhook, no exposed wires. A metal grill over the speaker.

"Dial Code Numbers" are two, three or four digits, depending on the
size of the apartment complex. Dialing zero defaults to the management
office or caretaker. Pressing the first button of the code number
activates the phone, and opens the line to receive the remaining one,
two or three digits, which are the actual code numbers. Typically, the
first digit pressed is '1' or '0'. Pressing '0' both opens the phone
line and dials zero.

Calls are timed out after 45 seconds or one minute, at the option of
the owner of the system. The rationale is that the phone is intended
only for identifying and authorizing a visitor, or to conduct a
limited amount of business on the way in or out of the property.

The central office version requires dedicated pairs to the apartment
complex. A tenant may change phone numbers, but the pair serving the
apartment must never be changed. In the central office, jumpers from
the Enterphone equipment to the pairs serving the tenant need to be
correctly attached. If an installer working on the street or at the
tenant's apartment building has some reason to swap out pairs, then a
corresponding change has to be made in the CO.

The CPE (Customer Premises Equipment) version merely requires that
*house pairs* never be swapped out without reprogramming the unit.
The GTE/Canada device (the CPE version) merely calls for all incoming
CO pairs to the apartment building to go in one side of the unit, and
all the house pairs to come out the other side.

In both versions, a call is handled like this:

The front door phone cannot be called. It will only handle *outgoing*
calls, of a minute's or less duration. Visitor looks up the name of
the person they are visiting, and dials the associated code number. No
where in the entrance directory is reference made to apartment number
or actual phone number.

The unit receives this information, and translates it into a *wire
pair* associated with the apartment (or, as the case may be, with the
management office, the janitor's quarters, etc). It tests the line for
busy. If the line is not busy, it breaks the connection to the CO,
seizes the pair, and sends ringing voltage to the telephone in the
apartment. The ringing cadence (usually, two short, clipped rings, a
pause, and two more short rings) identifies the source of the call to
the resident.

The resident answers the phone in the usual way, and is connected to
the front door speaker phone. The door can be opened by dialing '4',
or admission can be denied by simply hanging up. Either dialing '4'
breaks the phone connection (while holding the electric latch open a
pre-detirmined number of seconds -- usually five or six seconds), or
simply hanging up breaks the connection without unlatching the door.
In any event, the connection will be broken after 45 seconds or one
minute.

If an outside call should arrive on the line while the pair is hooked
to the door circuit, then the unit detects this. The caller continues
to hear ringing, and the tenant gets a 'call-waiting' signal. The
tenant can open the door by dialing '4', at which point the connection
will immediatly break and the central office call will be put through
immediatly, or the tenant can dial '8' to deny admission at the door,
disconnect and pull the central office call. If the tenant simply
hangs up the phone, the door is disconnected, admission denied, and
the central office call commences ringing on the tenant's phone.

If the unit receives a front door call and in picking the associated
house pair find it to test busy, then the same thing more or less
happens in reverse: the tenant receives a 'unique-sounding'
call-waiting tone (different than telco's call-waiting tone), and can
either ignore it or flash to answer it.

By flashing, the tenant cause the door system to split the connection;
put the central office on hold and bring in the front door call. The
tenant then does the same as stated above, by dialing '4' to open the
door and return to the central office call in progress; dialing '8' to
deny the door and return to the central office call in progress, or
replace the receiver to deny admission and disconnect both parties.
(In some exchanges, merely hanging up causes the central office to
send a ring back, as a reminder that you 'left someone on hold').

Both versions, CO or CPE, allow the use of rotary or touchtone phones
by the tenant. Neither version is influenced by call-forwarding, since
they seize the actual pair to the apartment without going through the
central office switch. Both versions supply sufficient ringing voltage
to trigger an answering machine; thus your answering machine could
answer the front door for you and request that the visitor leave a
message. Neither version relies on the tenant having actual phone
service. If the tenant's phone service is disconnected, or not yet
turned on, then the phone instrument will be dead except for those
times when there is a front door call.

Unfortunatly, both versions cause an adverse reaction to modems on the
line, just like 'regular' call-waiting will do, and there is no way to
suspend front door calls, as can be done using *70 on central office
calls.

The CO version runs a pair from the central office to a relay at the
customer's premises which in turn triggers the door latch. The CPE
version has the circuitry built into it, and a pair runs from the unit
direct to the front door latch to open it on command. The length of
time the door stays unlocked is adjustable; typically five seconds is
adequate, but ten seconds may be preferred. Although the dial code
number is usually assigned permanently to the wire pair serving the
apartment, the code can be changed in the event of abusive behavior by
someone at the door. Sometimes tenants will request that their dial
code *not* be listed in the lobby directory, preferring only to give
it to persons of their choice.

The building manager can recieve calls on his regular phone in the
same way with the appropriate dial code; in addition, dialing zero
from the front door phone defaults to the manager's wire pair. In
addition, the manager may choose to have an 'extension' of the actual
front door phone in the office: this permits a limited amount of
inter-building calls to tenants from the office, etc. With a special
relay attached, it also permits audible supervision of visitors
entering the building to see tenants.

The manager can have a secret four digit code which functions like a
loop-around, which when dialed simply 'rings back' and unlatches the
door. This allows the manager, other employees, or trusted tenants to
enter without a key if necessary. Another four digit code functions as
a fire department bypass, unlatching the door and holding it unlatched
until the system is reset. Still another four digit code functions as
an emergency all-call, ringing all phones on the system at the same
time to permit the manager to make an emergency announcement to
tenants in the event of a fire, power outage, etc.

The Interphone system from GTE/Canada can serve from as few as two to
as many as 200 apartments. You purchase cards for the unit, with each
card capable of handling a certain number of lines. The number of
cards you must purchase to equip each apartment detirmines the overall
cost of the unit.

When Illinois Bell had their system on the market (prior to
divestiture) they charged as follows:

$5.50 per month for the lobby speakerphone and pair to the CO.
$5.50 per month for the pair back to open the door.
$50.00 per month for the common equipment in the CO.
$1.10 per month for each apartment on the system.

Useage was unlimited. Calls were not counted. Illinois Bell's contract
gave a four hour turnaround on repair service at any time, where the
common equipment or the door opening circuit and lobby phone were
concerned. For the phones in the apartment, Bell's regular repair
policies and charges applied. They usually gave four or five spare
phones -- rotary dial, black, POTS instruments -- to the building
manager as spares for placement in vacant apartments or in cases where
a tenant did not otherwise have phone service for whatever reason.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Date: 27 Jul 90 02:19:45 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I have no idea whether there is any magic a cellular CO can do to
> create an "infinity tap" without causing ringing. I would doubt it,
> but, hey, bugs and Trojan horses *have* been known to exist in
> software, no?  And cellular phones *are* controlled by the software in
> the phone's local microprocessor.

There appear to be tens or hundreds of companies manufacturing
cellular telephones.  A trojan horse of the type described could,
conceivably, be in one or two of them, but probably not in *all* since
they don't all contain the same code.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular
Date: 27 Jul 90 02:02:36 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rich
Sims) writes:

> What are the issues, both legal and technical, in operating two
> cellular phones on the same account number?  How are these widgets
> "identified" when a call is originated or received?  Is it "field
> changeable"??  If this is possible at all, can it be done with two
> different models of phone?

Your cellular service provider may offer to include two telephone
numbers on the same bill, if that's what you meant by 'account number'
but for technical reasons, two units can't have the same telephone
number.  These 'widgets' are identified by an electronic serial number
(ESN), a home system identifier, and a mobile telephone number.  All
but the ESN are field changeable -- on some models it requires burning
a PROM, others allow keyboard-entry administration of the same data.


Dave Levenson                Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: 908
647 6857 Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers |
att}!westmark!dave Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail:
!westmark!dave

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Me Card / Comm Systems
Date: 26 Jul 90 14:16:03 GMT
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


[e-mail]) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes:

>I think Comm Systems is some slimey AOS that does a lot of business in
>the Bay Area and Northern CA in general. I have even seen them in
>Reno, but they are much less prevalent there.

You think that's bad?  At one phone where Com Systems was the AOS,
when I dialed 10ATT, I was asked to deposit 60 cents!  At another
phone (a Safeway) 10ATT worked.


Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor [e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom?
Date: 26 Jul 90 21:22:07 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Rich Zellich <[e-mail]> writes:

> (2) Selected measured service instead of flat rate...
> So far this has worked well, and we
> get monthly bills of around $2.50 for this line.

How on earth do you pull that off? Here in Sunny California, the
"FCC-Mandated 'Long Distance' access charge" is $3.50 alone. Then
there is the four-something a month basic charge plus taxes. A friend
who has some measured residence lines billed separately -- no feature
(except TT) and no outgoing calls. The monthly bill comes to exactly
$10.00.

Looks like in Missouri you could get four lines for that!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #520
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04832;
          28 Jul 90 5:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27049;
          28 Jul 90 1:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29897;
          28 Jul 90 0:29 CDT
Date:     Fri, 27 Jul 90 23:38:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #521
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 27 Jul 90 23:38:02 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 521

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    NEIDORF TRIAL OVER! GOVERNMENT DROPS ALL CHARGES! [CUD, via Jim Thomas]
    Days Three and Four of Craig's Trial [CUD, via Jim Thomas]
    White House Phones, TT, Autovon and FTS [David Lesher]
    Alternate Access to LD Carrier [Thomas D. Davis]
    Panasonic KX-T3900 Revisited [Ken Jongsma]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 16:55 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: NEIDORF TRIAL OVER! GOVERNMENT DROPS ALL CHARGES!


Less than halfway through the trial, and before it had presented its
remaining witnesses, but government dropped all charges against Craig
Neidorf. Defense Attorney Sheldon Zenner said that Prosecutor Bill
Cook's decision was "in line with the highest standards of good
government and ethical conduct." Zenner said that the government could
have continued to the last and let the jury decide, but did the
honorable thing.

One reason for the surprise decision, according to one inside source,
was that, as the testimony and cross-examination proceeded, the
government realized that BellSouth had not been forthcoming about the
extent of availability of the document and its worth. The prosecution
apparently relied on the good faith of BellSouth because of the
previously good working relationship it had with it and other telecom
companies.

Craig Neidorf was ecstatic about the decision, and feels vindicated.
He can now resume his studies, complete his degree, and seriously
consider law school.  He *WILL NOT* resume publication of PHRACK!

Zenner praised Bill Cook's decision to drop all charges, and added he
is not angry, but appreciative. Zenner also felt that the the efforts
of EFF, CuD, and the many individuals who supported Craig were
instrumental in creating credibility and visibility for the case,
generating ideas and information for the defense, and facilitating
enlisting some of the prospective defense witnesses to participate.

There are those who have taken the Ed Meese line and assumed that
Craig must have done *something* or the government wouldn't be
prosecuting him. Others have not been as strident, but have put their
faith in "The System," assuming that the process works, and as long as
Craig's procedural rights were protected, we should "wait and see."
Others on the extreme end have said that those of us who supported
Craig would change our minds once all the evidence has come out, and
we were criticized for raising issues unfairly when the government, so
it was claimed, couldn't respond because it had to protect Craig's
privacy and was required to sit in silence. One prosecutor even said
that when all the evidence comes out, Craig's supporters would slink
back under their rocks.

There is little cause for Craig's supporters to gloat, because the
emotional and financial toll on Craig and his family were substantial.
Dropping the charges hardly means that the system works, because if it
worked, there would have been no charges to begin with. From the
beginning, Craig expressed his willingness to cooperate, but the
government made this impossible with its persecution. Craig's
supporters, from the beginning, have published the evidence, explained
the issues, and we can still see no reason for his indictment. The
evidence presented by the government in some cases could have been
presented as well by the defense to show that *no* criminal acts
occurred.  When witnesses must be coached into how to present negative
evidence, and when little, if any, can be adequately constructed, one
would think that somebody in the prosecutor's office might realize
there simply isn't a case there.  The government had no case in the
beginning, they could not construct one, and they had nothing at the
end. So, dropping the charges does not indicate that the system works,
but rather that sometimes a just outcome may result despite unjust
actions of over-zealous agents. The prosecution not only lost the
case, but reduced its credibility in all areas of computer
enforcement.

The claim that a recent TELECOM Digest contributor made that the SS
and others may intentionally overstep bounds to establish more clearly
the lines of law may be true, but what about the costs to innocent
victims of such Machiavellian tactics?  Do we really live in such a
cynical society that we find it acceptable to place lives, careers,
and reputations at great risk?

Now, however, it is time to move on and address the lessons learned
from the experience. Some of the issues include how computerists can
be protected from overzealousness, how law enforcement agents can
perform their legitimate tasks of gathering evidence without violation
rights, and how legislation can be written to reflect technological
changes that protect us from predators while not subverting our rights
with loose, broad, or inaccurate language. This has been the goal of
Mitch and the EFF, and it is one on which we should *all* unite and
focus our energy.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 03:23 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Days Three and Four of Craig's Trial


Some final comments on Day Three of Craig Neidorf's trial:

It was curious that, in introducing the PHRACK/INC Hacking Directory,
a list of over 1,300 addresses and handles, the prosecution seemed it
important that LoD participants were on it, and made no mention of
academics, security and law enforcement agents, and others. In some
ways, it seemed that Bill Cook's strategy was to put HACKING (or his
own rather limited definition of it) on trial, and then attempt to
link Craig to hackers and establish guilt by association.  It was also
strange that, after several months of supposed familiarization with
the case, that neither Bill Cook nor Agent Foley would pronounce his
name correctly.  Neiforf rhymes with eye-dorf. Foley pronounced it
KNEEdorf and Cook insisted on NEDD-orf. Further, his name was spelled
incorrectly on at least three charts introduced as evidence, but as
Sheldon Zenner indicated, "we all make mistakes." Yeh, even Bill Cook.
One can't but think that such an oversight is intentional, because a
prosecutor as aware of detail as Bill Cook surely by now can be
expected to know who he is prosecuting, even when corrected.  Perhaps
this is just part of a crude, arrogant style designed to intimidate,
perhaps it is ignorance, or perhaps it is a simple mistake.  But, we
judge it an offense both to Craig and especially his family to sit in
the courtroom and listen to the man prosecuting their son to
continually and so obviously mispronounce their name.

DAY FOUR OF THE TRIAL (THURSDAY, JULY 26):

Special Agent Foley continued his testimony, continuing to describe
the step by step procedure of the search, his conversation with Craig,
what he found, and the value of the E911 files.  On cross-examination,
Agent Foley was asked how he obtained the original value of the files.
The value is crucial, because of the claim that they are worth more
than $5,000. Agent Foley indicated that he obtained the figure from
BellSouth and didn't bother to verify it. Then, he was asked how he
obtained the revised value of $23,000. Again, Agent Foley indicated
that he didn't verify the worth.  Because of the importance of the
value in establishing applicability of Title 18, this seems a crucial,
perhaps fatal, oversight.

Next came the testimony of Robert Riggs (The Prophet), testifying
presumably under immunity and, according to a report in the last issue
of CuD, under the potential threat of a higher sentence if he did not
cooperate. The diminutive Riggs said nothing that seemed harmful to
Craig, and Zenner's skill elicited information that, to an observer,
seemed quite beneficial. For example, Riggs indicated that he had no
knowledge that Craig hacked, had no knowledge that Craig ever traded
in or used passwords for accessing computers, and that Craig never
asked him to steal anything for him.  Riggs also indicated that he had
been coached by the prosecution.  The coaching even included having a
member of the prosecution team play the role of Zenner to prepare him
for cross-examination. It was also revealed that the prosecution asked
Riggs to go over all the back issues of PHRACK to identify any
articles that may have been helpful in his hacking career.  Although
it may damage the egos of some PHRACK writers, Riggs identified only
one article from PHRACK 7 that MIGHT POSSIBLY be helpful.

What are we to make of all this? So far, it seems that the bulk of the
evidence against Craig is weak, exaggerated, and at times seems almost
fabricated (such as the value of the E911 file and Craig's "evil"
attempt to organize a league of "criminals." We have been told
repeatedly be some law enforcement officials and others that we should
wait, because evidence will come out that could not be discussed in
public, and that this evidence would silence critics. Some have even
said that those who have criticized law enforcement would "slink back
under their rocks" when the evidence was presented. Perhaps. But, so
far at least, there has been no smoking gun, no evidence that hasn't
been discussed previously, and no indication of any heinous conspiracy
to bring America to its knees by trashing the E911 system, robbing
banks, or destroying the technological fabric of society.  Perhaps a
bombshell will be introduced before the prosecution winds up in a few
days.  But, even if Craig is ultimately found guilty on any of the
counts, there is certainly nothing presented thus far that appears to
justify the severity of the charges or the waste of state resources.
To paraphrase that anonymous writer in the last issue of CuD, I can't
help but wonder why we're all here!

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: White House Phones, TT, Autovon and FTS
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 90 22:14:57 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


There are several reasons why the Oval Office has retained a Call
Director for many years. Both that set and the Secy of Defense's
terminate many ring down lines. They also provide AutoVON service. Now
many folks have mentioned that AutoVON was an early user of Touch
Tone, with all 16 tone pairs used. The four precedences those provide
serve to knock lesser calls off {FAST!} so as to free the limited
trunkage for more important calls, such as checking on General
Bullmoose's pizza order :-}

What others seem to have ignored is the more important difference
between AutoVON and POTS or FTS: AutoVON is end to end four wire. In
other words, separate {pairs/circuits} carry the audio from X-->Y and
from Y-->X. Now, in general, most calls of any distance end up getting
converted from two wire (your local loop) to four wire either in the
first CO or in the toll switch. That's because {most} amplifiers work
in only one direction {at a time}. There are loop gain extenders of
various types (somewhere I have one Lorain Products made) around that
try to switch directions and keep up with a conversation, but in
general they don't work very well. The problem with hybrids (that
convert two to four wire and verse vica) is that they are not perfect.
If they were, all the energy would go where it should. But since the
hybrid reflects a little of the incoming (4w) signal back out the
outgoing, instead of sending it all down the 2w side, problems ensue.
One of these is "talk echo" where you hear yourself, fractions of a
second later, as the far-end hybrid echos. Another is "singing" or
feedback, where the whole system oscillates. You can minimise these by
keeping the gain low, among other things.

But an important function of AutoVON is the conference call. The Secy
Def or the CIC {or both} may, in a crisis, want to have five to ten
bigwigs all on at one, some of whom are in DC, others in Texas, plus
the guy in Seoul and the other one at Frankfurt. So you need that gain
we just turned down last paragraph. At least when AutoVON was
designed, the only way to do this was to use true, end to end four
wire.

But that's not very hard to do, at least in the set. You see, you and
I are four wire. We speak and listen by different ports.  But the
network in your set turns it into two wire so as to keep the local
loop cost low.  Thus all you need to do is {basically} NOT USE A
NETWORK. Just connect the handset transmitter to your talk pair, and
your receiver to the listen side. It's really not quite that simple,
but you get the idea.  But wait, that's the AutoVON line.  What about
all the REST of the lines on the Call Director? They're normal
two-wire, right?  Yep, gold star Jamie, they are.

I have seen schematics for, and photographs of, the wiring in the
closet by the Secy Defense's desk. {I am VERY glad that I am not the
one who has to maintain it. I think it has about the same number of
jumpers as a small town CDO :-]} Somewhere in there is one of those
little cute gray can WECO relays labeled "four wire". It in turn is
controlled by the A-control circuits from the set. If The_Man punches
up a four wire line, it disables the network. If not then it is used
normally.

So at least one reason that those phones have been there so long is
that they provide switchable two/four wire service. Another is that
they offer lots of customabilty, mainly cuz there's room in the closet
for more relays. It may be crude, but it IS time-proven.

Plus, do YOU want to be the guy who replaces it with a Whiz-Bang-Boof
X-3060, that works FINE everywhere else in the world?  Not me, Mr.
Murphy, not me....

Unexplained is why, after all this trouble, is AutoVON's service so
awful, that even on normal, two port domestic calls, you can't hear a
thing? Danged if I know......

Mention of the photo of JFK's desk brings a piece of trivia to mind.
FTS, the Federal Telephone System, the large disjoint system that {in
theory!} provides intra-government telecommunications, came about
because at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he could not, at a
critical juncture, get a dial tone!

I seem to recall that FTS started out with four underutilized CO's
serving as tandems. DC's is in the middle of Maryland somewhere.


[e-mail]  (305) 255-RTFM
pob 570-335   33257-0335

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

From: "Thomas D. Davis" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternate Access to LD Carrier
Organization: Michigan State University, East Lansing
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 14:29:39 GMT


We've been approached by a well-known LD carrier as a possible
candidate for alternate access to their services.  Their big selling
point is, of course, eliminating the access fees imposed by the local
CO.  I'm sure other universities have similar arrangements.

Would anyone care to share their experiences and/or advice with us
before we dive into this head-first?


Tom Davis                 | The above statement shall be construed,
Network Software Services | interpreted, and governed by me alone.
Michigan State University | EMail: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Panasonic KX-T3900 Revisited
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 11:58:04 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Some of you may recall my problems with a Panasonic cordless phone. I
really liked the features and range of the unit, but it had two
problems:

  1) Certain digits would not break dialtone (in tone mode), when
     dialed from the remote unit.

  2) The base would revert to tone mode by itself, even though it
     was programmed to operate in pulse mode, after a few days.

Seeing that I was going to be on vacation for a few weeks, I decided
to send the unit in to Panasonic for repairs along with a detailed
letter explaining what was wrong. I returned home today to find the
unit waiting for me.

I did not have high expectations after I read the techs' service
report.  He "cleaned contacts" and "replaced battery". I assume there
is a non user serviceable battery in the base.

In any case, the phone works fine now.


Ken Jongsma                                  [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                            [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan                       ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #521
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04986;
          28 Jul 90 5:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27049;
          28 Jul 90 1:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29897;
          28 Jul 90 0:30 CDT
Date:     Sat, 28 Jul 90 0:08:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #522
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Jul 90 00:07:54 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 522

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Asking For the Right Thing (was: What Rate Applies?) [Rob Warnock]
    In Defense of 911 Service [Rich Sims]
    Security Risks Using IBM's RSCS-to-RSCS? [Craig R. Watkins]
    Telecom MAGIC '90 (Disney) Cancelled [Craig R. Watkins]
    Caller*ID Tech Question [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    A Couple Questions About Cellular Phones [Jerry Durand]
    Re: Answer Call Service [George A. Theall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 13:28:13 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Asking For the Right Thing (was: What Rate Applies?)
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


For some reason, the articles about rates for "phone as intercom"
reminds me of a situation some 26 years ago...

I was a freshman at Emory University in Atlanta, and a guy named Jeff
Miller had interested a bunch of us in starting a campus radio
station. It was to be an unlicensed carrier-current station; that is,
the modulated R.F. would be fed into the 60 Hz A.C. power mains wires
at a fairly low level, and only receivers in the same building (near
the wires) could pick up the signal.  [This is quite legal if you obey
certain restrictions in "Part 15" of the FCC Rules and Regulations.] I
was to be the "chief engineer" of the station.

Because the step-down power transformers in each building have massive
amounts of iron in them, they tend to do a pretty good job of blocking
R.F., so we needed a way to get the signal into each building we
wanted to serve (dorms, mostly). Some campus carrier-current stations
generate R.F. in a central location, and then distribute it via coax
cables to each building, where it's fed into the power lines behind
the step-down transformers. We chose not to do that because of the
very high cost of the coax and the installation of same. [We were on a
*tiny* budget -- we built *everything*, including the transmitters,
sound-proofed studios, studio consoles, fast-attack limiters, the
works. What we didn't build we begged from area radio stations. "Give
us your old, your tired, your junk!"]

Also, we knew (from investigation) that the campus had been wired with
plenty of pairs by Southern Bell, who had a "frame room" (in an area
they rented from the University, behind the cafeteria) where all the
wires went. The "frame room" was also where the PBX for the campus was
located -- a kind of hybrid: about a dozen manual-operator plug-board
stations for incoming calls [the operators were University employees],
and some step-by-step gear for internal and outgoing calls. [They
later went Centrex, long after I'd graduated.] So we figured we'd rent
pairs from Southern Bell, and use them to distribute audio from the
studio out to twelve small transmitters, one in each dorm. We thought
we knew all the technical details: A.F. signals no more than +8 dBm (0
dBm preferred), D.C. less than 100 v. (48v. preferred), etc.  So all
we had to do was order them.

Riiight...

As it turned out, our first mistake was mentioning the word "radio"
anywhere within a mile of a Southern Bell sales representative. "A
radio station? Oh, you'll want AAA Grade or AA Grade lines, depending
on whether you want us to equalize to 20 kHz or not. FM stations
usually go with the AAA. Let's see, that's $6.00 per 1/4-mile (airline
miles) per month for the AAA, and $5.00 for the AA. It's about 6 miles
from your studio to the central office, and about the same back, so
that'll be about 12 x 12 x 4 x 6 = $3456 per month for the AAA, or
$2880 per month for the AA.  We can get a more exact price for you
after the installer works up the numbers. Which would you like?"

After we came recovered from the first heart attacks of our young
lives (almost ended them right there!), we thanked her very kindly [it
usually was a "her", in those days], and said we'd call back, and
started looking for some *HEELLLLP*!

Another classmate, Bob Brown, then demonstrated to me to a skill which
has served me in good stead ever since: How to "walk an organization"
on the telephone. [Never mind that it was Southern Bell we were
"walking", it still worked.] Others have mentioned it in Telecom: Each
time you talk to anyone, very politely but firmly find out their name,
their position, and their supervisor's name & posiition, and if
possible do this *before* you give them too much detail about what
you're asking for. Then don't hesitate to ask to speak to
<supervisor's name> as soon as you experience any significant
balking/waffling/evasion.

Using this time-honored technique, we slowly walked up the
organization of Southern Bell, getting the same story at each level
($thousands/month), but determined that there just *had* to be some
way to rent a few of those idle pairs direct from the studio to the
frame room to the dorms (none of this dead-heading out to the CO), and
affordably, too.

Finally we got an appointment to see a "Vice-President" [I forget of
what] in person. And finally we struck paydirt (or at least a
sympathetic ear).  After listening to our whole long story [about as
long as this message ;-} ], he gave us the following instructions: "Go
back home and call up the New Service number, just as if you'd never
done any of this before. Tell them you want to rent some 'E Grade or
Message Grade pairs, for an intercom.'  Give them the building and
room numbers, and whatever you do, *don't* mention the word 'radio'.
Those E Grade pairs will be routed directly through your frame room,
without going off campus. The price will be $0.75 per 1/4-*wire*-mile,
not airline mile, which will be a little longer, but at least you
won't be paying deadhead to the CO. We don't guarantee any frequency
response for E Grade, but with lines that short, it should be fine for
carrier-current A.M., which isn't going to be super-high fidelity
anyway. So go try it just the way I said, and it should work."

So we did, and it did.

Among the twleve pairs we totalled just under seven "wire-miles", and
our bill was somewhere around $20 a month.

So I learned several important things in college, even if there was
never a class on them: (1) How to "walk an organization" on the phone,
(2) To be careful what you ask for, you might get it, and (3) If it
looks "reasonable", you probably have to ask for something
"unreasonable" to get what you want.

Next week's lessons: "17 Ways a Telephone Installer Can Miss the
Special-Service Tags on Your Lines and Give the Pairs Away to
Somebody's Telephone."  "A Toolbelt, a Plaid Wool Shirt, and Blue
Jeans: Your Badge to the Frame Room."  And a bonus special, "How to
Place a Service Call Against Telco Internal Cross-Connects Without
Making Anyone Suspicious About How You Knew the Trouble Just So
Happened to be Right *There*."


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

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 04:28:46 EDT
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: In Defense of 911 Service


While this is *not* intended to excuse incompetence or just plain
stupidity, the 911 service is not as bad as some of the recent
comments would indicate.

Consider ... people tend to remember and relate the things that go
wrong, not the ones that go right ... which the vast majority of 911
calls appear to do!

The system isn't perfect, but then, it was designed by, and is
implemented by, less than perfect creatures ... human beings.  It is
not now, and never will be a 100% infallible system.  There will
always be the possibility of getting an operator who is new to the
job, poorly or incompletely trained, moderately incompetent,
overworked, or any of a multitude of other problems.  Even if
everything works out perfectly on the call, the response may be less
than what was desired or necessary, again for one (or several) of a
large number of reasons.  Unfortunately, the result of any of this is
frequently tragic.

The system isn't perfect, but it does work, most of the time.  As with
any other system involving the interaction of several people in a
high-stress situation, there are going to be some screw-ups.  The best
we can hope for is that the respective participants in such screw-ups
learn from the problems, and take the necessary steps to improve the
response the next time around.

Of course, one of those "necessary steps" is to make the facts known,
so others can also learn from such cases.  However, I suspect that not
many of the people actually involved in handling 911 calls are reading
this group!

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 15:38 EDT
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Security Risks Using IBM's RSCS-to-RSCS?


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (joe jesson)
writes:

> The fear is not knowing how a hacker can bring down my network from
> IBM's network. Specifically, I remember the infamous "Christmas Card"
> sent to all users on IBM's network.

The "Christmas Card" was basically a program (an "EXEC" or a "command
procedure") that was sent to a few random users.  These users, without
knowing what it did executed it.

The beginning of the file said "LET THIS EXEC RUN AND ENJOY YOURSELF."
When it was run, it printed out a character-based X-mas tree and and a
nice holiday wish.  The program then looked up the network addresses
of the user's "friends" in their address book (NAMES file in VM terms)
and looked up addresses in the user's network file log file (NETLOG).
It then sent a copy of itself to all of these people.

The neat (?) thing about this is that while you may be the mildly
suspicious type, you may run a program without checking it if it came
from your boss/wife/system manager/secretary/butler.

The program did no other "damage"; it didn't delete files or change
data, etc.  It just replicated itself.  It was reported, however, that
this was enough to clog up some decent size networks.

> What can be done through RSCS? My network has 30,000 PROFS users on
> VM.

RSCS is fairly straightforward since you can only SEND things.  You
can send files.  You can send messages.  You can send commands.  That
doesn't leave much to protect against.  One thing to note when you
configure your RSCS is to be careful when you allow remote users
access to RSCS configuration commands and especially CP commands thru
the AUTH statement.  Be aware that given full access to a remote
system and possibly the code of the networking software, it would be
possible to "spoof" your network identity.  Either don't allow such
remote operators (as I believe they are called) or guard their
identities are you would as password.

> Any hackers or security buffs willing to tell?

Nope.  Just someone who's written some RSCS emulation code.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 16:40 EDT
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom MAGIC '90 (Disney) Cancelled


Telecom MAGIC '90 was a conference to be held at Disney in Florida
Sept 4-7 as mentioned previously in this forum.  Upon contacting the
information number ([phone]) I was told it was cancelled
because the Vista-United Telecom people would be too busy with
European work to adequately prepare.

On further prodding, I found out that they did indeed plan to present
it at some time in the future (exact date unknown).  They are taking
names for a mailing list.


Craig R. Watkins        Internet: [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:      [e-mail]
[phone]            UUCP:    ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Date: 27-JUL-1990 06:32:53.06
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID Tech Question


Yet another question:

An associate of mine (and a good friend too!) is trying to experiment
with Caller*ID and using Caller*ID in a variety of devices. (PCs,
pagers, etc.)

He asked me about getting technical info on how the info is sent, so I
thought someone here may know.

Basically, all he needs to do is build a device that gets the number
and can send it along digitally to whatever circuit he wishes to
connect to the Caller*ID device. (Sort of like a regular Caller*ID
device but without the screen...).

So what he/I need to know is what "signal" to look for between the 1st
and 2nd rings (which, I think, is when the number is sent), and how it
is to be decoded, if at all.

I realize that some info to this effect has been posted here before,
so if anyone can direct me to it, I'd be most appreciative. (If anyone
else is curious, I'll summarize any/all replies that I get.)

Thanks in advance!

Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: A Couple Questions About Cellular Phones
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 09:54:46 PDT


Is it possible for your cellular phone to be paged without ringing it?
This would be very useful in tracking someone without them knowing it.
I know that drug dealers use directional antennas to appear in a
different cell when they are using the phones, but they might not
think about it at other times.


Jerry Durand
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 09:23:25 EDT
From: "George A. Theall" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Call Service
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


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

>"Announcing Answer Call from C&P Telephone.  Thanks to the Bell
>Atlantic Intelligent NetworQ(sm), you no longer need to buy an
>answering machine to enjoy all the advantages of automatic telephone
>messaging.

    Bell Atlantic is offering Answer Call now with what look to be the
same features as the service from C&P Telephone. Since I frequently
tie up my phone while dialing into the campus computing system I have
been considering this service. Here are a few of my concerns:

    - When the service is initiated you must specify how many
    rings occur before the call is passed to Answer Call. Bell
    Atlantic will change this setting in the future, albeit for
    for a $16 fee. What's involved in this change that would
    justify such a fee? Are there similarly high (IMHO) charges
    for, say, altering the mailbox password?

    - Each mailbox will store up to 30 minutes of messages, as
    Greg noted. Apart from this, though, there is no limit on
    the size of any single message. Once the mailbox is full,
    subsequent callers get a recording saying there is no space
    for their message. Does this means callers at least would
    hear a message saying "I'm unable to come to the phone right
    now..."? How likely is it that an abusive or talkative
    caller would monopolize the mailbox?

    - Those with measured phone service are charged for not
    only their own calls to check the mailbox but also calls
    forwarded there. I'm curious as to the reason(s) for these
    charges. Is Answer Call targeted primarily at users with
    unmeasured service? From perusing the articles in this
    newsgroup I gather Answer Call works by intercepting calls
    to a number; hence the charge. Isn't this the same way,
    though, that the phone company handles calls to numbers
    that have been changed?

    - Would it be better (in terms of cost and convenience)
    to simply install another phone line with basic service
    and hook an answering machine up to that line? How long
    does the average answering machine last?

I'd appreciate your comments on Answer Call, especially if you've ever
used it. If there's sufficient interest, I'll summarize my findings
for the group.


George A. Theall, Dept of Economics, Univ. of Pennsylvania
[e-mail]
(yes, I know our mailer's broke and the "From:" line is wrong)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #522
******************************











ISSUE 523 DELAYED IN MAILING. IT IS POSTED HERE AFTER ISSUE 524.

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16781;
          28 Jul 90 17:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05501;
          28 Jul 90 16:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04558;
          28 Jul 90 15:21 CDT
Date:     Sat, 28 Jul 90 14:41:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #524
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Jul 90 14:40:11 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 524

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Expensive Telephone Plant??? [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Bell Canada Tele News [David Leibold]
    Redialing, Paul McCartney and AT&T [Jim Riddle]
    Home-grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme [Subodh Bapat]
    Programming NEC P9100 Handheld [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Asking for the Right Thing [Craig R. Watkins]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 10:42 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expensive Telephone Plant???
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


It seems many readers continue to support the archaic notion that the
costs of capital investment drive the telephone business ... a
principle that was established in 1913.  It's a principle that still
prevails for utility companies that have had little real technology
change.  It takes heavy pipe and large tanks to deliver water or gas;
it takes heavy copper wire and massive generators (even with nuclear
power) to deliver increasing amounts of electricity.  But, the
semiconductor revolution coupled with the age of computers has so
changed the nature of "the phone business" that capital needs are now
trivial compared to even a decade ago.

        The "phone industry's" nature has changed, but it continues to
parade behind the mask of its 1913 face, aided and abetted by state
regulators and a public that simultaneously is enjoying its romance
with the phone <Time for a movie called "Romancing the Phone"?> and
fears its power as well as that of its suppliers.

        Come to think of it, I seem to recall that's the sociologists'
definition of a religion ... respecting an entity that combines loving
grace and fear in one; an entity of incomprehensible makeup and
structure.  Isn't that how most people see "the phone"?

        Here's an attempt to make it clear to those who refuse to
understand just how much the capital needs of telecommunications have
plunged and will continue to fall. For those who do not understand the
technology, suffice it to say that today, the fiber optics
communications systems in place and being installed are in a similar
development state to where radio was in 1912.  We have yet to deploy
controlled, controllable lightwave generators that produce pure,
stable bearer signals for our information.  In a lightwave sense, we
are blasting away at the fiber as "Sparks" did with his
Frankenstein-like machine in the radio shack aboard the Lusitania.
Once we do get stable, pure transmitters in use, we will be able to
multiply use of the spectrum in every fiber by exponential amounts.

The following (edited) news story is from {Communications News} for
July, 1990:

             "CAN A SINGLE FIBER CARRY 56 MILLION CALLS?

        "British scientists say they have proved the ability of a
single fiberoptic telephone line to carry 56 million simultaneous
telephone calls.

        "Testing a new coherent" <and that's the key physics term,
readers, just as "coherent waves" were in 1912!> "optical system,
researchers transmitted two wavelengths over that same fiber for 75
miles with an optical repeater" <get this ... "optical repeater" means
"analog amplifier!"> "43 miles from the transmitter.

        "Each of the two" <lightwave channels on one fiber> "carried
622 megabits per second, equal to about 8,000 telephone lines per
channel.

        "The British Telecom scientists found that separation of the
two wavelengths could be reduced to as little as 7 Ghz before they
began to interfere with each other."  <For the uninitiated, the
frequency of the 1300 nanometer light used by most common carriers is
about 230 million megahertz and 7 gigahertz is 7 thousand megahertz.>
But with" <a bandwidth of about> "50,000 Gigahertz" <available> "on
one fiber, each fiber could in theory carry 7,000" ... "channels with
8,000 calls on each -- 56 million calls.

        "In practice, the researchers concede, it is more difficult."
<It was pretty tough in 1912, too!> "The power spectrum of the fiber
and the power budget, the difference between the maximum power optical
devices can provide and the noise floor, are shared among the many
wavelengths used.

        "Still, the scientists say, it is clear that it will be
possible to transmit a vast number of wavelengths on one fiber.

        "Coherent optical systems along with optical amplifiers"
<a.k.a. ANALOG, dear Reader!>" make it possible to transmit calls and
data over long distances.  With the number of wavelengths possible, it
should be possible to route through the telephone network and avoid
the need for electronic switches, whose limited capacity can cause
bottlenecks."

        Pause for My editorial commment: So now we see not only less
need to keep plowing in more fiber cable just for capacity, but also a
reduced need for switching machines, eh?  Just HOW much new capital
investment do you really need, Mr. Telephone Company? Now, back to our
story:

        "Coherent transmission makes electronic regenerators
unnecessary because very low noise amplification and distortion- free
pulse transmission techniques are involved."

        Pause again: But haven't we all been proseletyzed for two
decades that digital transmission with regenerators got rid of all the
noise of those nasty, fussy analog methods?  It seems now that we are
in a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum with a nice
enclosed, impervious transmission pipeline that analog is back again.
But the story continues:

        "The scientists are also working on another transmission
system that shows promise of handling more phoen calls on a single
channel.

        "Demonstrating a non-linear" <now we're talking digital again>
"high-capacity transmission system, they simulated a 20 gigabit per
second data rate over a 62-mile fiber span in non-laboratory
conditions.  This is equivalent to 300,000 phone calls.

        "Current linear" <read analog> "systems transmit the
equivalent of 4000 calls over 18 miles, while the next generation
should handle 30,000 calls over 30 miles.

        "Linear systems are expected to ultimately transmit up to
150,000 phone calls over a distance of 60 miles...

        "Beyond that, improvements in performance are unlikely because
of a phenomenon that blurs the edges off transmitted data pulses" ...
"and makes received data unintelligible."

         Well, all that the last sentence said was that we have
identified the limit of pulse length at which the smallest element
gets so small it gets mixed up with the medium.  We've been around
that loop in telecomm history several times.  But, look how far below
that limit we are today, and how much additional capacity can be wrung
from glass strands that are far cheaper than equivalent copper
capacity!

         What with the prospects for being able to increase its
capacity manifold without buying more real estate, buildings and heavy
machinery, "the phone company" is clearly no longer in the capital-
intensive business "the phone" was 80 years ago when we set the
current rate policy track.

         This being a forum full of educators, there should be plenty
of fodder in such news for graduate work.  And, the public needs to
know ... somehow... that "the phone" is no longer pounds of copper on
a pole and the plain black subset on the stand in Aunt Sally's
hallway!  Power, water, gas and sewer utilities may still be trapped
in heavy,expensive technologies by the very nature of their product,
but "the phone company" is freed of all that ... whenever it chooses
to take up the freedom.  The focus of our attention and wrath, if need
be, ought to be the state regulators ... in every state.


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for an excellent message today.  PT]

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Tele News
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 16:59:00 EDT


Bell Canada operates a recorded message service containing various
news items about Bell Canada and the telecom industry. The "Tele News"
hotline can be reached at [phone] and is updated each business
day. A touch tone dialer would be handy to access the specific
messages on Tele News, Bell Canada stocks, and Employee Relations
update.

Included in recent episodes are stories relating to the Unitel bid for
long distance competition in Canada, news about Bell's upgrades to its
network, and what Bell employees are up to. Sometimes there is news
from other fronts (like US/international news) and the occasional
interview.

The recording lasts a few minutes, and be warned that some contents on
the tape from time to time might only be relevant for those working
for Bell Canada (long distance callers especially).

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 22:00:32 EDT
From: Jim Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Redialing, Paul McCartney and AT&T
Reply-to: [e-mail]


I got my monthly negative dividend statement from US West two days
ago, and on the sheet of AT&T details "billed as a courtesy" appeared
38 calls from Omaha to Lincoln of duration 1 minute each.  It didn't
take me too long to remember that that had been the Saturday that the
Paul McCartney tickets went on sale and I had spent the better part of
2 hours dialing and redialing not only the local Omalot number (which
was hopeless) but also via long distance to Lincoln, Cedar Rapids, Des
Moines, Sioux City, Sioux Falls and Chicago.

The inter-area-code numbers apparently were no problem; however, all
of those busy signals in Lincoln got charged a minute apiece.

So, I called AT&T yesterday and found out that when you use the redial
feature on "some phones" (in this case a 4200 series portable AT&T) it
"generates a tone which our computer interprets as a completed long
distance call."  This was at least cute news to me; it may be old hat
on the echo by now, but thought I would pass it along.

OBTW: I did get through (actually to Lincoln in the long run) and got
two pretty good tickets; unfortunately they were for my sister-in-law,
as I couldn't go to the concert which was, of course, reported by her
in full detail as having been something I shouldnta missed! :)


Jim Riddle
@ Inns of Court on Fidonet

  --- 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]

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 21:36:06 EDT


Okay, after some discussion among friends we've hit upon a two-line
method of beating Caller ID. This is for people who don't want to be
harassed by telemarketing calls driven off Caller ID-generated
databases. (And again, this is NOT intended to be a debate about
merits/demerits of Caller ID and related public policy, but merely a
hacker's response to it.)

- Get two lines coming into your home. Designate one your "public" line
  and the other your "private" line. The private line is unlisted, the
  public line may be listed.

- When you need to give out a number to any commercial organization
  (e.g. while writing a check) give out your public number.
  Disclose your private number only at your discretion (e.g. friends,
  relatives).

- Get a two-line answering machine (or two one-line answering machines)
  and two one-line telephones. Set the telephone on your public line NEVER
  to ring, i.e. telemarketing calls will always be fielded by
  your answering machine. You therefore only pick up on calls received
  on your private line.

- All outgoing calls are made ONLY on the public line. So now you don't
  care if "they" know what number you're calling from, since you're never
  going to answer when they call back. At the same time, friends/relatives
  can reach you in an emergency on your private line. And that long-lost
  college buddy who looks you up through information and calls your public
  number won't get you the first time, but if he leaves a message you can
  always get back to him.

Anybody spot any flaws in the above scenario? Anybody wanna try to go
one better? We were trying to work out a similar scheme with just one
line with two numbers mapped to a distinctive ringing service, but
couldn't quite hack it.

We'd be interested in any cost-saving improvements to the above scheme :-).


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


[Moderator's Note: This seems to me to be a lot of work and expense
merely to accomodate someone's paranoia about the possibility he may
have to listen to two seconds of some sales pitch. I have two lines
here, and various things going on, but it is because I need the second
line, not because I'm afraid the phone might ring and I have to hang
up on someone I don't want to listen to.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 11:33 EDT
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programming NEC P9100 Handheld


When I purchased my NEC P9100 handheld cellular about two years ago, I
was interested to find that the service provider had what NEC calls a
"programming battery."  At first, I thought this battery must have
some higher voltage to be able to program the (I supposed "older")
EEPROMS in the phone.  After convincing the tech to let me play with
this programming battery and his VOM, I found that all this special
pack did was short one of the two extra contacts in the phone's
battery well to ground (to enable programming).

I made some quick notes while he was programming my phone, but I
seemed to have lost them.  I also don't remember which of the two
contacts needs to go to ground (and I never knew what the other one
was for).

Being able to program my phone for the system I'm roaming in to find
out when I leave that system sounds like a great idea; I've been burnt
by calling from a system that I didn't know I was calling from.

Anyone have programming info the P9100? (P9000 is probably very
similar).

Also, does anyone have the pin-out (or other info) on the connectors
on the P9100 that mates to the car kit?  I've noticed RJ11 adapters
for the P9x00, but they all interface to the car kit (which I don't
have nor would want to carry around).  I'd love an RJ11 off of my
P9100 for a modem.


Craig R. Watkins        Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]            UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 11:05 EDT
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Asking For the Right Thing


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

> Next week's lessons: "17 Ways a Telephone Installer Can Miss the
> Special-Service Tags on Your Lines and Give the Pairs Away to
> Somebody's Telephone."

In college, we had this problem all the time.  We had dedicated pairs
to the building where basketball was played so that we could do
broadcasts.  (We got in on the same rate structure that Rob talked
about since the wires never left the "customer premises.")

We knew that our pairs were often given out so we would check the line
before an event.  One such Saturday at 2AM (college, remember?) we
checked the line and we were not surprised to find it down.  At 2AM,
do you call repair and tell them your intercom line isn't working and
have them promise to have it fixed by 5PM on Monday?  No, you call the
Radio/TV Special Services line, which we did.  Bell had someone out
(of bed) in about an hour to fix the line.  We ran our tests and were
happy that we were ready for the game coming up within hours.  Another
example of "asking for the right thing."

While looking for our line in the press box, we would find that the
other stations had their stations' broadcast audio on their pairs.  We
soon realized that this was a neat way to identify who's line was
whose AND a great way to keep the installers from mistaking your pair
for being "unused" between events.


Craig R. Watkins        Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]            UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #524
******************************











ISSUE 523 AND 524 WERE REVERSED IN MAILING. AFTER 523 (NEXT) COMES 525.

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21262;
          28 Jul 90 22:46 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad08115; 28 Jul 90 21:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01884;
          28 Jul 90 3:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae27049;
          28 Jul 90 1:38 CDT
Date:     Sat, 28 Jul 90 1:15:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #523
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 28 Jul 90 01:14:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 523

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Business Rates [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Technical Question [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: An Inexpensive Cellular Phone [Dave Lockwood]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Russ Kepler]
    Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [Jerry Durand]
    Re: 415 0+ Dialing [John Higdon]
    Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc [John Macdonald]
    Re: Telecom Masters Degree [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: US Sprint's FON FRIEND -- Will You be Mine? [Dennis Lukeman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Business Rates
Date: 27 Jul 90 00:06:14 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


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

> Supposedly a Stanford dormie thought it would be cute to
> have the following annoucement on his answering machine: "You've
> reached Smith House, an experiment in modern living!"  Pac Bell told
> him he'd have to change it or pay a business rate!

I would not be surprised if this actually happened. But for future
reference it should be pointed out that they could have stood their
ground and left the announcement any way they pleased without fear of
class of service change.

Not long ago this matter came up and it was necessary to obtain a copy
of the tariff that applies to determining whether business or
residence rates apply to an account. The document is about four pages
long and deals with things like use to which the phone is put
(personal, hobby, business purposes), where the phone is installed
(apt. building or office building), and a number of other
considerations.

None of them involve:

1. Number of lines associated with the account.

2. How the telephone is answered.

In other words, don't let a front line rep bozo ever try to intimidate
you over how you answer your phone or over how many lines you want in
your house. Those things are not a consideration for your qualifying
for residence service. I have ten lines and answer the phone with a
variety of messages for amusement. There are about to be four more
installed.  All of it residence.


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

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

Date: 27-JUL-1990 06:39:53.56
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Technical Question


And yet ANOTHER question:

Does a Cell phone actually send out the system ID code (5 digits) to
the switch?

I've used various ID codes in various systems (leaving the number the
same) and the systems never seem to even notice. IE, if I go to New
York, I program in 00025 for Metro One (the "A" carrier), so that I'll
know when I leave the Metro One system becuase the ROAM light comes
on. This way, I won't get ripped off for a $3 "Daily access charge"
becuse I briefly entered into another system that is adjacent to the
New York system.

I've done this lots of times, and the cellular systems never seemed to
"mind" or to lock me out, yet the delightful (yeah, right...).
Customer (dis)service people at Metro One New York told me "Oh, it is
VERY dangerous to switch ID numbers ... You phone continuously sends
that out, and if we see the wrong system code in our system, we lock
your phone out of the entire nationwide system."

Well, I've changed it maybe twenty times in Metro One's service area
(as well as Cell One San Francisco, Sac/Reno/Stockton, Boston, etc.)
and I've never been locked out yet.

I asked someone in the switchroom at Cell One-Stockton, and he told me
that all the phone sends out is the phone # and the ESN #. He said
that the System ID code really makes no difference to the switch. Most
other systems that I've used freely give out their ID Code, and
realize that knowing when you leave their system is a good way to
avoid missing calls and/or unecessary Roam charges from systems that
"spill over".

Is Metro One correct that the ID number is sent out, or did I get the
right info from Cell One in Stockton?

Thanks,

Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Lockwood <vision![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: An Inexpensive Cellular Phone
Date: 27 Jul 90 15:36:38 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Lockwood <vision![e-mail]>
Organization: VisionWare Ltd., Leeds, UK


In article <[e-mail]> ssc-vax![e-mail].
washington.edu (Roger Clark Swann) writes:

>There have been several articles here recently talking about cellular
>phones; what's the lowest price, etc.

>[Moderator's Note: Some of those cheapie phones come with deals
>attached that are *so* sleazy....

Over here in the UK, there have been various adverts for cellphones
ranging from 50 pounds (regularly seen) down through "Bring us your
old car phone and we'll upgrade it to the latest technology phone free
of charge" right down to "Cellphone - FREE OF CHARGE". Yes. Complete
give away.

HOWEVER! Just like PT says, a sleazy deal goes with it. Like:

1 Sign up an air-time contract for _three_ years.
2 Network connection fees of 150% of standard.
3 Monthly service fee 150% of standard.
4 Whole minute billing (this one is a goldmine for the provider).
5 Failed call billing (incredible!).

Other than those five items, it's a pretty good deal !-).


Dave Lockwood   ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!vision!davel      [e-mail]
Technical Consultant  ...!uunet!bulus3!bungia!vware!davel   [e-mail]
VisionWare Ltd,       [e-mail]        [e-mail]
57 Cardigan Lane,         D.LOCKWOOD@ICLX            [e-mail]
Leeds, LS4 2LE,           [phone]                [phone]
United Kingdom            [phone]                   "Hey, You!"

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

From: Russ Kepler <bbx!bbx.basis.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Date: 27 Jul 90 20:05:45 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Albuquerque NM


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

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

>(Alan_Sanderson) writes:
>[regarding 'good' class A and 'bad' class B]

>    The reason for the above anomaly is that the model that passes
>the FCC class B test is often not the model that goes into production.
>All the capacitors, lumps of ferrite, bits of finger-stock etc that
>were used to reduce emissions and meet compliance, often fail to enter
>the production bill of material. Only a cynic would say this was
>callous cost cutting. The other thing is that peripherals are usually
>tested in an old IBM PC, well shielded and running with a nice slow
>clock. That peripheral then is sold to put in high speed poorly
>shielded clones.

This isn't always the case.  In the one certification I worked on
there was an intense effort to add extra shielding to the serial and
parallel cables.  In addition the cables were cut to the exact length
to reduce the peak power radiated in those frequencies where we were
radiating the most.

Changing the cables or using cables with poor shielding would have
removed the B compliance.

But the real killer in a PC chassis is the single point ground on a
lot of the cards in the cage.  I've always wondered if you could DX on
CW with the power switch on a PC...


Russ Kepler -  Basis Int'l     SNAIL:  5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
UUCP: bbx.basis.com!russ                                    PHONE: [phone]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy
Date: 27 Jul 90 20:55:45 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, hoptoad!kumr![e-mail]
(Tim Pozar) writes:

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

> >But one interesting problem of 911 surfaced at this time. Sometimes
> >the system is overloaded by multiple calls reporting the same major
> >event.  Even though only one call would be sufficient to summon aid
> >for the incident, the PSAP has no instantaneous way of knowing that a
> >cluster of calls are not for separate incidents.

>     Yet, we have seen discussion here that sometimes one call does not
> summon help.  It is only after a number of calls to 911 that any
> action happens.

At the same event I previously mentioned, where the 911 dispatching
supervisor explained why they ask for the information, one member of
the audience told of her roommate being beaten in the parking lot, and
chased in doors by three young women, one of them armed with a gun.
She called 911 to report what had happened, and that they were at the
door, trying to get in.  Eleven minutes later, she called 911 again.
THIS time, they decided it was serious enough to send a police
officer.  Not surprisingly, this young woman's perception of 911
dispatching wasn't very high.

Note that the city in question is Rohnert Park, where rapes are front
page news, and years go by without a murder.  I can't imagine why the
dispatcher didn't consider an armed attacker at the door to be a
serious enough problem to send an officer on the first report.


Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer
Disclaimer?  You must be kidding!  No company would hold opinions like mine!

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 09:43:16 PDT


I've reported two auto accidents through 911 using my cellular phone
(which is on GTE Mobilnet).  The calls were intercepted by "GTE 911"
and one call was forwarded to the real 911 after they determined that
I was the first person reporting the accident.  This seems to be a
good way to reduce the load on 911 since I would assume most auto
accident reports now come from cellular phones.  They also did not ask
me who I was, so I guess ANI works all the way to the real 911.


Jerry Durand
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: On my way home from downtown tonight, two cars just
ahead of my taxicab collided when one tried to change lanes. I used my
cell phone to call it in. Our options here are to dial *999 for the
Illinois State Police Expressway Patrol, or dial '0' and ask the
operator for the Chicago Police Emergency line (911 from a landline
phone). I dialed the operator. She knew I was using a cellular unit,
by the way she answered me: "Good evening, mobile! How can I help
you?" I asked for Chicago Emergency; she put me through.  The
dispatcher took the information and asked if I had noticed any
injuries. I told her it appeared everyone had gotten out of the two
vehicles under their own power.

Since I happened to also have my Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner with me, I
turned it on immediatly. Within thirty seconds, the dispatcher was
giving it out: "Half a block north of Addison on the LSD" (Lake Shore
Drive) ... " Two car collision, no injuries noted. From a citizen,
refused." (I had not been asked, and had not given my name). "Whose
going?" (Two or three cars answered).  "Alright, now I've got three
calls on it, one says there are injuries; Fire is rolling ... they'll
meet nineteen and double duece there".  Before we had gotten a mile
further north, two speeding police cars and an ambulance passed us
going south.  Generally, Chicago Emergency works quite well.  PT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 415 0+ Dialing
Date: 26 Jul 90 22:19:14 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Isaac Rabinovitch <[e-mail]> writes:

> I dunno.  A few years ago, some GTE employees crashed the
> newly-installed digital switch (I'm sure that's not the right telecom
> jargon, but you know what I mean) in Los Gatos.  I believe there was
> *no* phone service in the entire town for over a day!  Lucky there wer
> no fires or anything!

In all fairness, it was the 1EAX that preceeded the GTD-5 that caused
the Los Gatos town council to resolve that the town no longer desired
to have GTE as the local operating company. There are three COs in Los
Gatos: Town Center (Montebello), Northeast (Vasona), and Mountain.
Town Center was the first to convert from SXS and did so with the
1EAX.  (NE and Mountain converted directly to GTD-5 somewhat later.)

As you might guess, Town Center serves Town Hall, the police, the fire
dept., and all of the quaint touristy businesses near town square.
After the town resolution, many rumors sprang up about the possibility
of Pacific Telesis buying up the GTE system. There were even dates
mentioned. We just KNEW it was going to happen because all of the
(then) local GTE people were so firm in their denials. This HAD to
mean that something was afoot.

Unfortunately, it never happened. Too bad because we missed a great
opportunity to see how a real phone company would handle all that
awful GTE junk.

 From the GTE glossary:

reorder -- end-of-dialing signal


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

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

From: John Macdonald <eci386![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTs, FCC, DPU, etc
Reply-To: John Macdonald <eci386![e-mail]>
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Date:     Fri, 27 Jul 1990 11:23:21 -0400


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (S M Krieger)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 508, Message 2 of 5

|When I was in Las Vegas last week, my observation was that at least
|75% of the public telephones are COCOTs (CenTel is the local operating
|company).  What made things really rough is that the COCOTs I did use
|looked like the Bell company phones.

Is it not possible for the Bell companies to sue the COCOTs who do
this sort of thing for copyright/trademark infringement?  Surely they
don't like to have customers compaining about "their" phone booths not
providing proper service, etc.

This comment about (presumably intensional) look-alike phone booths
has been made a number of times in the telecom digest.  It sounds like
a widespread practice across much of the US - has anyone heard of a
Bell company taking action?


John Macdonald
 jmm@eci386

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

Subject: Re: Telecom Masters Degree
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 90 14:59:02 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Six or eight weeks ago, I requested that anyone having information on
schools offering a Masters in (Tele)Communications please get in
touch, as I am considering such a career move.

At that time, I said I would summarize at a later date. I would like
to fill you in on what I have discovered:

Paul (Tad) Cook, a frequent contributer to the Digest, sent me a
rather exhaustive list extracted from the TE&M Directory. This list
contained schools ranging from the traditional universities to places
like "Broder Enterprises, Dallas, TX." There were also several
international schools listed. Some of the entries are dated and many
trade, vocational, and short course/seminar type organizations are
listed.

Someone refered me to ICA, a trade organization in Dallas. They
maintain a limited (though very detailed) program description of
degrees offered at traditional universities. The nice lady at ICA was
happy to send me a copy of their list. Note: These schools appear to
be ones that ICA supports through some type of grant or scholarship
program.

In addition to these lists, several people wrote to mention a
particular school they were associated with or liked. I appreciate all
the leads and have already begun to follow up on several of them. I
would like to list all the schools I've found, but I'm afraid the list
would be too long. I'd suggest that anyone interested look up a copy
of the TE&M directory or contact ICA.

Thanks!

Ken Jongsma                  [e-mail]
Smiths Industries            [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan       ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

From: [e-mail] (Dennis Lukeman)
Subject: Re: US Sprint's FON FRIEND -- Will You be Mine?
Date: 28 Jul 90 03:36:13 GMT


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

Good luck with Sprint, you'll need it!


ProLine: dlukeman@pro-graphics         UUCP: ...crash!pro-graphics!dlukeman
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics![e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #523
******************************











ISSUE 524 APPEARS IN THE ARCHIVES AHEAD OF 523 DUE TO MAILING DELAY.

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27217;
          29 Jul 90 4:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12130;
          29 Jul 90 2:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11424;
          29 Jul 90 1:31 CDT
Date:     Sun, 29 Jul 90 1:10:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #525
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Jul 90 01:10:37 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 525

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock [Charles Buckley]
    How Bad is Your Intrastate Rate Ripoff? [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Yet Another MCI Switchover [Bruce E. Howells]
    Unix/Uucp Expert Needed for EFF [Ken Levitt]
    Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme [Peter Clitherow]
    Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme [[e-mail]]
    Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [John Debert]
    911 is a Joke (Lyrics) [Dan Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 12:55:07 PDT
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nigel
Roberts 0860 578600) writes:

>One thing that does seem much more difficult than I'd expected is
>obtaining a U.S calling card (e.g. AT&T, Sprint, MCI).

><details on felt-covered brick wall treatment by issuers of US
>phone credit cards deleted>

Practically every other country in the world I've been to bills long
distance calls for a fixed unit price (about a nickel) for a variable
unit of time (unlimited down to a second or so), instead of the US
scheme whereby a fixed unit of time (a minute) is billed at a variable
price (free up to several dollars).

The former, most popular scheme makes it possible:

1. to have telephones which receive pulses and count how much the
   call costs (so you can reimburse your host for it on the spot if
   appropriate), which eliminates the need for itemized monthly billing,

2. to have inexpensive pay phones which accept fixed price debit
   cards that are debitted for the call (according to the number of
   pulses received), allowing you to telephone as easily as from home,

3. to make a short, 10 second call for a low price, therefore, to a far
   away place, just to say "Hi, this is <x>, please call me back on
   pay station <y>", which eliminates the need for most collect calls,

4. to largely dispense with huge, complex, error-prone, fraud-prone
   billing networks which funnel call charges, yours and the last four
   guys who overheard your credit card number, each with hefty
   calling-card or operator billing surcharges which average (for me)
   30% of the price of each call, back to your monthly bill, which (in
   Cal.) you have to pay every month by check, and can't have debitted
   from your bank account automatically, and

5. last but not least, to avoid the problems Mr. Roberts
   complains about.  When was the last time any 'red-blooded American'
   tried to make an international call using coins?  You get the
   automated voice saying "Deposit ten dollars and 30 cents, please,
   for three minutes", which leaves you just stunned, staring at a coin
   slot which takes nickels, dimes, and quarters.  After asking at the
   next store for ten dollars worth of quarters (if you're lucky
   enough to find one around which is open) and getting your head
   bitten off ("We're not a bank, you know!".  No kidding.), you tends
   to give up, and the impression of telephoning in the US as being
   similar to telephoning in Baghdad has just been validated.

WHY, WHY, WHY is the United States still mainly dependent on a system
which has so many procedural liabilities built into it???

Agreed, the telecom employees who are stuck with providing service
amid these obstacles do about as good job as can be expected, but they
also do a good job insulating those who employ them from just how
ineptly conceived things are, which means that things remain the same,
and will likely do so for a long time to come.

Agreed, when telephoning from home, it is *much* cheaper in the US
than most other places I know, but that doesn't legitimize resting on
one's laurels and not further reducing overhead.  Surely there must be
better ways of generating employment than artifically maintaining a
need for large numbers of clerks and phone answerers who have ample
opportunity to perfect their technique at putting you on hold.  Surely
corporate planners and strategists would be relieved not to have to
worry about taking into account a large billing apparatus in their
plans.

Other countries with a far smaller market and far less capital have
managed to put in place better solutions.  As I see it, the regulatory
agencies of the US and the utilities which lead them around by the
nose (until the agencies get fed up and balk) have no excuse on this
one, and should take corrective measures forthwith.  That is, if
regulatory agencies still know how to do anything other than give
utilities a symbolic hard time before finally giving in.

Now is an especially good time to do it, since one sees evidence that
the nation's coin station stock will be largely changed out over the
next few years.  The new models I've seen can read bank cards or phone
company credit cards (as if anyone actually carried the latter
around), but don't tell you how much the call in progress costs.  You
still have to pay the huge surcharge.

Can't we do better than this?  I wouldn't at all mind continuing to
pay the surcharges, if I knew the proceeds were going to finance
putting in place a more flexible system such as the one I've
described, which would no longer make such surcharges necessary.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 01:34 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Bad is your Intrastate Rate Rip-off?
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


A recurring thread in the Digest has to do with the intrastate dial
telephone rate in every state, explainable only as a vestige of the
politics of Utility Commissioners in every state proliferating the
1913 notion that "long distance MUST subsidize local rates."  I have
no surcease for any reader about the rip-off; it just continues.  But,
at least there's a report that might show where you stand.  The July,
1990 {Communications News} printed in part a report from the National
Utility Service showing the five most and five least expensive states
for daytime three minute intra-LATA DDD as follows:

        MOST EXPENSIVE                LEAST EXPENSIVE

  West Virginia       $1.44        Delaware              39 cents
  Vermont              1.07        New Jersey            40 cents
  Maine                 .98        Minnesota             47 cents
  Louisiana             .98        Pennsylvania          49 cents
  Hawaii                .94        Illinois              50 cents

                     NATIONAL AVERAGE 70 CENTS

So, place yourself on that scale and weep with all of us.  Only thing
I find curious is that it largely seems that poor states have high
rates, while wealthier states have lower rates.  It may be some proof
that intraLATA prices are subsidizing local telephone prices for the
lower-income areas.  <OK, OK, I know that GTE is ripping off Hawaii;
that's well known.  And Illinois' benefit has to be due to our
Moderator's omnipresence on the scene there!> But, the amount of the
subsidy Telcos claim from LD within their territories must be huge.
Can it really be necessary to THAT extent?

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

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 00:25:45 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Yet Another MCI Switchover


About two months ago, I received a call from your typical friendly MCI
telemarketer, pitching their MCI Plus plan.  After listening to quite
a bit of plugging, and having to explain my current Sprint Plus plan,
(ok, I'll admit it) I managed to get confused and agreed to the MCI
plan, forgetting about the Sprint volume-based discount.

After I finished waking up, I called MCI Customer Service and spoke
with someone who assured me that she'd hold my number and try to kill
the service order every couple days, and that all I had to do to
refuse the service was not sign or return any of the confirmatory
stuff they mailed.  Considering what I've read of MCI's changeover
trouble in the past, that made sense, so I threw out all of their
mailings, and forgot about it - after calling New Jersey Bell to ask
them to flag my record to not change Dial-1 LD without my approval.

Well, this month, my phone bill shows billing to MCI for three weeks...

First call to NJB:
  Local Bell Customer Service:  "It looks like MCI shouldn't have switched
          you, I'll refund the switchover fee.  Call MCI and ask them to
          refund their fees."  [Didn't ask why it changed over when the
          record was allegedly flagged...]

Second call to MCI:
  Generic MCI Customer Service:  "She told you WHAT?"
    [insert 20 minutes explaining Sprint Plus, and why NO!, I really
      wouldn't rather have your wonderful MCI service...]
    [insert 10 minutes assuring her that the previous MCI-critter
      assured me it wouldn't be a problem...]
    "Well, I'll refund the charges for the month...  The bill total was
      $nnn, correct?"

I was quite amazed at this point that they'd write-down the entire
month.  I was expecting maybe their service fee, but definitely NOT
the whole thing.  Could they really be this paranoid about people
screaming "improper changeover", or are they simply messed up enough
that it's easier to write the calls off than figure out what happened?

By the way, the MCI Customer Service person apologized that she wasn't
able to credit my NJB account directly, but would have to go through
her supervisor to take care of it ... I'm half looking forward to,
half dreading my next phone bill to see if all this worked or not.


Bruce Howells,   [e-mail]   |   engnbsc@buacca (BITNet)

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 22:37:36 EDT
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unix/Uucp Expert Needed For EFF


Mitch Kapor is looking for an expert on Sun Unix and Usenet/Internet
to help set up a SUN IV for Electronic Frontier Foundation in
Cambridge, Mass.  Who ever does the work will be paid for their time.
Mitch would like to have this work done ASAP.  He said that he
expected the initial installation to take a few days.

System consists of:

Sun IV
Newest release of OS (believed to be V4.1)

There's some hardware installation:
   600Mb hard disk
   16 port serial board
   8 Mb of memory
   some telebit modems to be hooked up and configured.

He has asked for "somebody really good".

You can contact him at:   well!mkapor
I believe that   [e-mail]   will also work.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: CLITHEROW PETER <boulder!snoopy![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme
Date: 28 Jul 90 22:59:27 GMT
Reply-To: CLITHEROW PETER <boulder!snoopy![e-mail]>
Organization: University of Colorado, boulder


I use a slightly easier version to avoid telemarketers.

o two lines, one data, one "public" (might be unlisted)
o make all outgoing calls from the data line.
o pick up on "public" unlisted phone

o incoming calls to the data phone will either get busy, or never
  be answered.  (Sometimes, i pick up the phone and say "wrong number")

pc

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

From: siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme
Date: 29 Jul 90 00:18:47 GMT
Organization: Stanford University


I'm responding to the Moderator's comments here, not the original
message.  (You responded, you can listen to the responses!!).

>[Moderator's Note: This seems to me to be a lot of work and expense
>merely to accomodate someone's paranoia about the possibility he may
>have to listen to two seconds of some sales pitch. I have two lines
>here, and various things going on, but it is because I need the second
>line, not because I'm afraid the phone might ring and I have to hang
>up on someone I don't want to listen to.  PT]

Telemarketing calls break my train of thought when I'm deep in some
calculation, or writing task.  They interrupt our dinner hour.  They
shatter my relaxation when I'm out on the porch with a beer.  They
arrive when I'm trying to cope with a crying child (and waiting for a
call I don't want to miss).

I've never raised a fuss about junk mail; if the sender wants to pay
for it fine -- I can cope with it at my leisure.  But junk phone calls
(i.e. telemarketing) should be outlawed.

Paranoia indeed!  (My reaction is to tell any phone solicitor --
including organizations I'd like to support -- that we absolutely
boycott ANY organization making sales or solicitation calls to us.)

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

From: John Debert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy
Date: 28 Jul 90 21:44:34 GMT
Organization: NetCom - The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John
C. Fowler):

> The County of Los Alamos (population approximately 20,000) has E911,
> one 911 operator, and five 911 lines available.  My question is, what
> do 911 services do if there are more calls than operators available?
> Surely not "Thank you for calling 911.  All of our operators are
> currently busy, but if you will hold, the next available operator will
> assist you."

Believe it or not, yes, that is exactly what happens - at least in
some places.  I made a 911 call in the Motnerey Bay Area last Sunday
and after three rings got the recording saying "All 911 operators are
busy on other calls, please stay on the line and your call will be
answered in the order received."  In San Jose, the very same thing
happened more than once in the past year.

In San Jose, at least, it seems that there are just barely enough
people working the 911 board and if more than one is absent at one
time, there are delays. I heard a radio dispatcher say this week on
the air that the 911 staff was so small that dispatchers had to take
911 calls themselves. (Dispatchers do not take calls but dispatch full
time.)

(Does anyone know if it's true that Pa Bell provides the 911 staff?)

jd
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 911 is a Joke [Lyrics]
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 22:30:00 GMT


Since folks are discussing 911, I thought I'd post these lyrics,
obtained from the Lyrics Server.  [Send a message with "HELP" in the
body to [e-mail] or [e-mail].  By
the way, the Funky Digest ([e-mail])
discusses such music.]

flames >> /dev/null, also I can't explain slang words.

Author: Public Enemy
Album title: Fear of a Black Planet

911 is a Joke
-W. DRAYTON-K. SHOCKLEE-E. SADLER-

Hit me
Going, going, gone
Now I dialed 911 a long time ago
Don't you see how late they're reactin'
They only come and they come when they wanna
So get the morgue embalm the goner
They don't care 'cause they stay paid anyway
They teach ya like an ace they can't be betrayed
I know you stumble with no use people
If your life is on the line they you're dead today
Late comings with the late comin' stretcher
That's a body bag in disguise y'all betcha
I call 'em body snatchers quick they come to fetch ya?
With an autopsy ambulance just to dissect ya
They are the kings 'cause they swing amputation
Lose your arms, your legs to them it's compilation
I can prove it to you watch the rotation
It all adds up to a funky situation
So get up get, get get down
911 is a joke in yo town
Get up, get, get, get down
Late 911 wears the late crown

911 is a joke

Everyday they don't never come correct
You can ask my man right here with the broken neck
He's a witness to the job never bein' done
He would've been in full in 8 9-11
Was a joke 'cause they always jokin'
They the token to your life when it's croakin'
They need to be in a pawn shop on a
911 is a joke we don't want 'em
I call a cab 'cause a cab will come quicker
The doctors huddle up and call a flea flicker
The reason that I say that 'cause they
Flick you off like fleas
They be laughin' at ya while you're crawlin' on your knees
And to the strength so go the length
Thinkin' you are first when you really are tenth
You better wake up and smell the real flavor
Cause 911 is a fake life saver

So get up, get, get get down
911 is a joke in yo town
Get up, get, get, get down
Late 911 wears the late crown

Ow, ow 911 is a joke

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

[e-mail]  Naperville IL USA  [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #525
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15131;
          30 Jul 90 1:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31631;
          29 Jul 90 23:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07714;
          29 Jul 90 22:43 CDT
Date:     Sun, 29 Jul 90 21:56:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #526
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Jul 90 21:56:38 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 526

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Redialing, Paul McCartney and AT&T [Mary Winters]
    Re: Redialing, Paul McCartney and AT&T [John Higdon]
    Re: Redialing, Paul McCartney and AT&T [John R. Covert]
    Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme [Kent Borg]
    Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme [D. Swinehart]
    Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme [Gordon Letwin]
    Re: Answer Call Service [Dave Levenson]
    Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [Marty Brenneis]
    LCD Clock As Line Status Device [Jeffrey Jonas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mary Winters <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Redialing, Paul McCartney and AT&T
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 18:59:35 GMT


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

>I got my monthly negative dividend statement from US West two days
>ago, and on the sheet of AT&T details "billed as a courtesy" appeared
>38 calls from Omaha to Lincoln of duration 1 minute each.

>The inter-area-code numbers apparently were no problem; however, all
>of those busy signals in Lincoln got charged a minute apiece.

>So, I called AT&T yesterday and found out that when you use the redial
>feature on "some phones" (in this case a 4200 series portable AT&T) it
>"generates a tone which our computer interprets as a completed long
>distance call."  This was at least cute news to me; it may be old hat
>on the echo by now, but thought I would pass it along.

This is the first time I have heard of this "feature". Can anyone
elaborate further on this? I have two phones (made by GE) which have
the auto-redial feature. How can I tell (aside from making a few long
distance calls to Lincoln ;-) if my phone generates this tone?

Thanks,

[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Ahem! There ain't no such thing. Like some others,
you have been decieved. Mssrs. Higdon and Covert respond in the next
two messages of this issue.   PT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Redialing, Paul McCartney and AT&T
Date: 28 Jul 90 18:10:41 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jim Riddle <[e-mail]> writes:

> So, I called AT&T yesterday and found out that when you use the redial
> feature on "some phones" (in this case a 4200 series portable AT&T) it
> "generates a tone which our computer interprets as a completed long
> distance call."  This was at least cute news to me; it may be old hat
> on the echo by now, but thought I would pass it along.

This is 100% pure beef baloney. There is no tone you can generate to
simulate supervision on AT&T's network. Even in the old days of inband
signaling, if you generated the "supervisory tone" of 2600 Hz the
usual result would be disconnection of the call. Nowadays all of that
housekeeping is performed on data circuits that are totally separate
and distinct from the audio path.

Now just use a little logic. Would AT&T design a cordless phone that
would be incompatible with its own network? Even though it might seem
advantageous for them to design a phone that racks up bogus LD
charges, the public wouldn't stand for that very long.

Sorry, but you have been victimized by the "tell the customer anything
as long as it seems to satisfy them" principle.  If you were billed
for calls that didn't answer, THEY screwed up and it has nothing to do
with your equipment.


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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 10:35:40 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  29-Jul-1990 1326" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Redialing, Paul McCartney and AT&T


>The inter-area-code numbers apparently were no problem; however, all
>of those busy signals in Lincoln got charged a minute apiece.

>So, I called AT&T yesterday and found out that when you use the redial
>feature on "some phones" (in this case a 4200 series portable AT&T) it
>"generates a tone which our computer interprets as a completed long
>distance call."  This was at least cute news to me; it may be old hat
>on the echo by now, but thought I would pass it along.

Stuff and nonsense.  There is ABSOLUTELY no tone your phone could
possibly generate which would confuse the call supervision system in
this fashion.  The AT&T rep you talked to made up that totally bogus
story to get rid of you.  But I'm sure you at least were given credit
for the uncompleted calls.

You have discovered a problem with the Lincoln number you were
calling.  The two most likely possibilities are:

(1) there are bad trunks from the toll switch to the C.O. providing
service which occasionally return answer supervision even on a busy or
no answer.  (My C.O. in Acton had this problem, and it was probably
only one trunk.  We never got it fixed, and the phone company denied
it was a problem even though I had verified the problem from a line
providing answer supervision.)

(2) The Lincoln number terminates in an automatic call-distributor of
some sort which takes more calls than it can handle and provides its
own busy signal, even though it answers the calls.

Send me the number by Email and I'll have it checked out.


john

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

From: Kent Borg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme
Date: 29 Jul 90 21:46:49 GMT
Reply-To: Kent Borg <[e-mail]>
Organization: Camex Inc., Boston, MA


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

>Paranoia indeed!  (My reaction is to tell any phone solicitor --
>including organizations I'd like to support -- that we absolutely
>boycott ANY organization making sales or solicitation calls to us.)

I would love to boycott every organization which sends me automated
junk calls -- except they never seem to identify themselves.  I have
to give out all kinds of information about myself to get any back from
them.  I am not willing to do that.

(I would also love to see automated junk calls outlawed.  I am a
devout defender of free speech rights, but I don't think they extend
to machines bothering me in the bathroom.  A person should be allowed
to bother me in the bathroom, but not a machine.)


Kent Borg    internet: [e-mail]             MacNet: kentborg
                                H:[phone]  W:[phone]

[Moderator's Note: You liberal, you! No one had better come near me
when I am in the bathroom, free speech rights or not.  PT]

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

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 16:03:58 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme


In TELECOM Digest V10 #525 [e-mail] responds to the
Moderator's claim that telemarketers should be politely tolerated:

> My reaction is to tell any phone solicitor --
> including organizations I'd like to support -- that we absolutely
> boycott ANY organization making sales or solicitation calls to us.

Being more whimsical by nature, and believing that the one person who
deserves no mercy from my rapier-like wit is the telemarketing
solicitor, I merely inform the caller that I do not speak English.  I
am willing to converse with the caller on this topic, in English, in
my best northern Hoosier accent, for as long as he or she is willing
to stay on the line.  What I am not willing to do is discuss their
topics.  How can I?  I don't understand a word they're saying!  (One
multilingual securities salesman spent ten minutes looking for a
common language -- unsuccessfully, as it turned out -- but most are
not so persistent.)

My family finds this perfectly rational response embarrassing, and
will not permit me to use it when they are around.  But if we all did
this, the cold-call telemarketing industry would be dead within a
week.


D. Swinehart

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon LETWIN)
Subject: Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme
Date: 29 Jul 90 21:58:00 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


In article <[e-mail]>, mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat@
uunet.uu.net (Subodh Bapat) writes:

> - Get two lines coming into your home. Designate one your "public" line
>   and the other your "private" line. The private line is unlisted, the
>   public line may be listed.

> - When you need to give out a number to any commercial organization
>   (e.g. while writing a check) give out your public number.

> - All outgoing calls are made ONLY on the public line.

I have two lines and use this approach.  A lot of folks want to call
me up and pitch me stuff - I'm on a lot of public lists as someone who
donates to charities and uses brokers, etc.  The unlisted private line
and the listed public line works quite well.

The listed answering machine outgoing message is "This answering
machine is ALWAYS connected, so if you want to reach us you must leave
a message".  It rings a dozen times a day with no one leaving a
message, so you know for a fact that these are junk calls editing
themselves.

This is the number you give out to businesses so they can call you when
your widgit is ready, and this is the line that out of town or
forgetful friends can find in the phone book to get in touch with you.
We turn the ringer on during the day and our secretary takes the
business calls; the ringer goes off otherwise.

We very rarely get block dialed junk calls on our private line; the
only garbage calls on the private line are from wrong numbers.  And
yes, we know about ANI so all 800 calls are made on the public line.

True, you pay for two lines, but you get the above benefits, as well
as a kind of "call waiting" - make your outgoing calls on the public
line and you can still be called by friends on the private line, if
you wish.  Ditto modem calls on the public line, etc.


gordon letwin


[Moderator's Note: I've got a friend who has his answering machine on
all the time, but in his case I think it is to avoid debt collectors
rather than telephone sales people. His outgoing message says, "For
your convenience, this phone is answered 24 hours per day by an
answering machine ... " etc.  For the caller's convenience, mind you!
(smirk).  PT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Call Service
Date: 28 Jul 90 21:16:48 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu.sas.upenn.edu (George A. Theall) writes:

>     Bell Atlantic is offering Answer Call now with what look to be the
> same features as the service from C&P Telephone. Since I frequently
> tie up my phone while dialing into the campus computing system I have
> been considering this service. Here are a few of my concerns:

Bell Atlantic is the holding company who owns C&P, so this should not
be surprising!  George asks some good questions, and I'd like to take
a stab at responding:

>     - When the service is initiated you must specify how many
>     rings occur before the call is passed to Answer Call. Bell
>     Atlantic will change this setting in the future, albeit for
>     for a $16 fee. What's involved in this change that would
>     justify such a fee? Are there similarly high (IMHO) charges
>     for, say, altering the mailbox password?

It probably requires a human being to process your change order by
using one or more administrative functions on their Voice Mail system.
They probably divide the total cost of this system administration
function by the number of service initiations and service changes they
expect when they price such things.

>     - Each mailbox will store up to 30 minutes of messages, as
>     Greg noted. Apart from this, though, there is no limit on
>     the size of any single message. Once the mailbox is full,
>     subsequent callers get a recording saying there is no space
>     for their message. Does this means callers at least would
>     hear a message saying "I'm unable to come to the phone right
>     now..."? How likely is it that an abusive or talkative
>     caller would monopolize the mailbox?

It would be nicer if they'd provice a per-message limit as well as a
per-mailbox limit.

>     - Those with measured phone service are charged for not
>     only their own calls to check the mailbox but also calls
>     forwarded there. I'm curious as to the reason(s) for these
>     charges. Is Answer Call targeted primarily at users with
>     unmeasured service? From perusing the articles in this
>     newsgroup I gather Answer Call works by intercepting calls
>     to a number; hence the charge. Isn't this the same way,
>     though, that the phone company handles calls to numbers
>     that have been changed?

They're probably using CO features like call-forward busy as well as
call-forward no-answer to transfer inbound calls to voice mail for
coverage.  Calls forwarded to another working telephone line are
charged to the forwarding party.  This includes toll charges, if the
forward-to number is toll, and message-unit charges if it's local and
message-rate service applies.

>     - Would it be better (in terms of cost and convenience)
>     to simply install another phone line with basic service
>     and hook an answering machine up to that line? How long
>     does the average answering machine last?

Answering machines in the $100 - $150 range probably last long enough
to end up costing less than you would pay for CO-based call-coverage.
A second line, however, might cost more.  A machine without a second
line, of course, can only provide coverage for no-answer, not for
busy.  The second line answering machine can provide coverage-busy, if
you provide hunting.  It can also provide coverage no-answer if your
CO offers the forward no-answer feature.  You might want to price 1)
additional lines, 2) hunting service, 3) forward no-answer, and 4)
answering machines to properly compare what you'd pay for
alternatives.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 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: Marty Brenneis <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy
Date: 29 Jul 90 19:54:40 GMT


claris!netcom![e-mail] (John Debert) writes:

>(Does anyone know if it's true that Pa Bell provides the 911 staff?)

911 Operators are provided by the local 911 agency. In some counties
this is a common answer point for all emergency services in the
county. In other counties it is the various cities that answer.

This question of who answers has caused many delays in the
implementation of the 911 and E911 systems while the various agencies
argue it out.


Marty the Droid
Industrial Magician

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

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 05:49:35 -0400
From: synsys![e-mail]
Subject: LCD Clock as Line Status Device


Dear Pat Townson (Telecom Moderator):

I have a question for you:

There have been several requests in TELECOM Digest for a device that
shows a line's status (on/off hook).

I have several such devices left over (I was giving them as
Christmas/Chanukah gifts).  They're essentially LCD clocks that have a
timer that's triggered by the off-line condition.  FCC registration
number AAD4ED-16155-OT-N.  Ringer equivalent 0.0B.

I'd like to sell the excess, but I fear this violates a bylaw that
forbids even private advertising.  Is there any way to make these
available to the TELECOM readers?

Sincerely yours,

Jeffrey Jonas
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: We are supposed to be very careful about commercial
messages on the net. There is a place to put personal 'for sale'
notices; however the audience for the device you have is probably
here. Suppose we tell readers to write you direct who are interested,
and you can in turn send back a form letter which describes the device
and explains how to obtain one.

Or, you can send them *all* to me, and I will offer them as premiums
to TELECOM Digest readers in exchange for their paid subscriptions to
this little electronic journal ... just like those $5 telephones given
away by News Weak when they get your money, and not until they get
your money. Kay Graham is no fool; neither is your Moderator! :)  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #526
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15283;
          30 Jul 90 1:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31631;
          29 Jul 90 23:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07714;
          29 Jul 90 22:44 CDT
Date:     Sun, 29 Jul 90 22:35:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #527
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 29 Jul 90 22:34:58 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 527

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular [Rich Sims]
    Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular [Marty Brenneis]
    Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room [Alan Sanderson]
    Re: Cellular Technical Question [John Higdon]
    Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues [Gord Deinstadt]
    Programming the Radio Shack CT-102 [Dave Levenson]
    Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock [John Higdon]
    Beating Intrastate Long Distance Ripoffs [Steve Elias]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 06:23:47 EDT
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular


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

> Your cellular service provider may offer to include two telephone
> numbers on the same bill, if that's what you meant by 'account number'

No, I was referring to having two separate units using the same
number, in the same way an "extension phone" works in your home.

> These 'widgets' are identified by an electronic serial number
> (ESN), a home system identifier, and a mobile telephone number.  All
> but the ESN are field changeable -- on some models it requires burning
> a PROM, others allow keyboard-entry administration of the same data.

Several conversations with people at both BellSouth Mobility and
Cellular One have resulted in an interesting pattern.  Although I am
not getting any information from them, it's the *way* I'm not getting
it that is odd.  The stock answer to this question is "we do not offer
this service", but at no time has anyone said "it can't be done" or
"you can't do that".

Although I'm unfamiliar with the exact process that is used when a
cellular phone "connects", it seems to me that the only problem would
be calls coming _TO_ the cellular, since both might (would?) attempt
to receive the call.

Why is the ESN not "field changeable"?  Is it burned into a PROM, or
what?

Can anyone point me at a reference (or group of them) which would
provide a good starting place for me to get up to speed on cellular
technology and operation?  That would be more helpful than trying to
tap the vast levels of knowledge represented by the
readers/contributors of this group, when what I am looking for appears
to be very basic and trivial information.

BTW - in my previous message, I note I used the word "transportable" ...
sigh!  Proof that my fingers are not necessarily connected to my mind
at all times, since the particular phone in question is a "portable"
Motorola model.


[Moderator's Note: The ESN is really about the only protection the
cellular telcos have against fraud. Yes, people tamper with the ESN on
cellular phones for fraudulent reasons. Nothing is perfect, but the
ESN is deliberatly made difficult to change for that reason.  PT]

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

From: Marty Brenneis <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular
Date: 29 Jul 90 20:03:47 GMT


[e-mail] (Rich Sims) writes:

>What are the issues, both legal and technical, in operating two
>cellular phones on the same account number?  How are these widgets
>"identified" when a call is originated or received?  Is it "field
>changeable"??  If this is possible at all, can it be done with two
>different models of phone?

All cellular phones are identified with an Electronic Serial Number
(or ESN).  This number is burned into the phone in such a way that it
cannot be altered.  At Motorola they WILL NOT ship a replacement chip
with the ESN in it before you return the defective one. This spec was
designed to make stolen cellphones useless.

What are the stats on stolen cellphones??


droid

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

From: Alan_Sanderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular/Cordless Phones in Computer Room
Date: 23 Jul 90 15:38:53 GMT
Organization: HP Pacific Technology Park - Sunnyvale, Ca.


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

> 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.

We have computer systems installed in telco central offices along with
T1 carrier systems, D4 banks, DACS frames, and other network
equipment.  Some of our CEs are equipped with portable cellular
phones.  I have been called by the CEs from these locations, and
transmission quality has been quite good.  The computer equipment is
FCC Class B certified for RFI emissions (computer room environment -
not personal computer Class A).


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>

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Technical Question
Date: 28 Jul 90 22:21:59 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Is Metro One correct that the ID number is sent out, or did I get the
> right info from Cell One in Stockton?

Stockton wins. The ID code is sent by the system, not the mobile. If
the numbers don't match, the mobile knows that it is roaming. Not only
does this make the roam indicator come on, but possibly changes the
way the phone behaves. For instance, a company car unit may be
programmed to disallow user-dialed outgoing calls if in a roam state.

The system has no idea what you have set the ID field to. It isn't
transmitted by your mobile. It's the SYSTEM ID, not the MOBILE ID.


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

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

From: Gord Deinstadt <cognos!geovision![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 1990 15:50:48 -0400
Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario


contact![e-mail] (woody) writes:

>It should be noted that Canada does not have the same restrictions on
>actual reception of cellular telephone frequencies that exist with the
>ECPA in the US. Technically, it is legal in Canada to receive the
>cellular frequencies, but there is a "secrecy of communications" law
>which would prohibit divulging any information gained from receiving
>non-broadcast radio transmissions.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Some lawyers have argued that a cellular call *is* a broadcast
transmission if the participants know that someone *might* be
listening in.  The politician in question at one point said something
like "I don't want to talk about that over this phone"; it has been
argued that by doing so, he effectively waived any right to privacy.

Talk about catch-22!

(Please note this is all speculation because the law has not been
tested in court.)


[Moderator's Note: "Some lawyers" can argue whatever they like, but
the catch is, was the transmission INTENDED for broadcast? The fact
that I can tune something in does not mean the transmission is
intended for me. When I listen to KOA in Denver at night and hear a
commercial for new automobiles, that message is INTENDED for me to
hear; therefore it is a 'broadcast'. The intent has to be there to
qualify something as a broadcast. No intent? ... then no broadcast. No
broadcast, then no right to repeat, acknowledge, 're-broadcast',
profit from or print what was overheard.   PT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programming the Radio Shack CT-102
Date: 29 Jul 90 11:51:37 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Several readers have asked about programming this popular low-priced
cellular mobile telephone.  Having come upon this information, I
thought I'd share it.  Incidentally, the vendor offers a service
manual for this product, priced at $19.95, available by special order
from the same retail locations who offer the phone itself.

When your phone is delivered, it has a five-digit 'security code'
programmed into it.  The factory default for this value is shown in
your owners manual on page 12.  The installer is encouraged to change
this.  You need this code to reset your total air time accumulator, to
change your unlock code, or to enter programming mode.

To enter programming mode, dial * 3001 # <security code> [SEL] 9.  You
are now in the install menu.  Use the [END] key to scroll through the
menu (there are about 14 items on the menu).  At each step, the name
of the administerable item appears in the display, along with its
current value.  The on/off toggles are toggled by pressing the [SEL]
key.  The numeric entries are changed by entering the desired value on
the numeric keys.  If you step through the entire menu, your display
eventually shows: prog done.  At this point, press [SEL] [CLR] to exit
programming mode.

The programming menu includes the following items: (I'm not sure what
all of them mean; if you're not sure either, don't change them!)  Many
of these paramaters are set to values provided by your cellular
service provider.  The label field below is what is displayed, in
mixed case, when you scroll into the field: If anybody can supply
additional information on the fields I've indicated as ?? below, it
would be appreciated.


    LABEL        WHAT IT MEANS
    =====        =============


    identif        toggles between 'info pri' and 'info alt'
            This apparently selects whether the following
            steps are programming the primary or the
            alternate nam.

    ho id        5-digit numeric home system identifier

    access        1 digit ??

    locl opr    1 digit ??

    phon        your ten-digit phone number

    st class    2 digits ??

    paging ch    4-digit paging channel number

    o-load class    2 digits ??

    pref sys    A or B

    group id    2 digits ??

    security    5-digit security code

    1 date        MMDDYY possibly the date of manufacture?

    2 date        MMDDYY the date of installation

    prog done


Why are the date fields present?  Are they used as a memo for future
installers?

How did I obtain the information above?  I just bought one, and the
field labeled 'pref sys' was set to the wrong system when it was
delivered.  The phone worked fine, but displayed ROAM when connected
to its home system, and did not display ROAM when it happened to
connect with the other carrier here.  I called Radio Shack and
described this symptom, and offered to either bring the phone back to
them, or to let them walk me through re-programming it.  They chose
the latter!


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 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: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock
Date: 29 Jul 90 14:48:34 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Charles Buckley <[e-mail]> writes:

[a complete and informative description of the commonly used method
for billing in other countries]

There are two major problems with adopting this appoach without
modifications.

First is the pulses themselves. All that I have heard indicates that
they sometimes cause problems with modems. My system transfers much
data to Japan (who uses pulses) and there appears to be no problem,
but I have heard stories to the contrary.

Second is the lack of detailed billing. Given the potential for error
in ANY billing system, how can you justify receiving a bill for "X
units -- Total Y Dollars"? No detail; no way to track down errors. I
doubt that US residents would be willing to lose the detail that
appears on the bill.

It's bad enough that Pac*Bell bills local calls in this manner, but it
would be unthinkable to receive an invoice for, say $300.00 and no
detail on it whatsoever. (This IS what they do in Japan; in fact the
phone company just takes it out of your bank account!) How neat and
simple :-(.

> The former, most popular scheme makes it possible:

> 1. to have telephones which receive pulses and count how much the
>    call costs (so you can reimburse your host for it on the spot if
>    appropriate), which eliminates the need for itemized monthly billing,

See the above caveat about modem use.

> 3. to make a short, 10 second call for a low price, therefore, to a far
>    away place, just to say "Hi, this is <x>, please call me back on
>    pay station <y>", which eliminates the need for most collect calls,

You have answered your own question. The prime concern of American
business is not involved with saving you money. A tradition in this
country seems to be, "If you make the call from anywhere other than
your own, personal phone, it will cost you more money."

> 4. to largely dispense with huge, complex, error-prone, fraud-prone
>    billing networks which funnel call charges,

I fear that with non-detailed billing you might simply have the
illusion that you had dispensed with "huge, complex, error-prone,
fraud-prone billing networks" since you would have no way of knowing
if this was indeed the case. With no billing info, how would you know?

I agree that simplified (and cheaper) coin service would be a real
plus. The system of "debit cards" for payphones in other countries is
quite attractive.

> Now is an especially good time to do it, since one sees evidence that
> the nation's coin station stock will be largely changed out over the
> next few years.  The new models I've seen can read bank cards or phone
> company credit cards (as if anyone actually carried the latter
> around), but don't tell you how much the call in progress costs.  You
> still have to pay the huge surcharge.

Devil's advocate time. Phones that read credit cards, handle alternate
billing, etc., cost real money. The surcharge is what pays for this.
If you don't use that form of billing, why should you pay? If you do,
who should pick up the cost if it isn't you via the surcharge?
Alternate bill DOES cost more. The only alternative to collecting that
cost from the immediate user is to spread it over all users. Is that
fair?

> Can't we do better than this?  I wouldn't at all mind continuing to
> pay the surcharges, if I knew the proceeds were going to finance
> putting in place a more flexible system such as the one I've
> described, which would no longer make such surcharges necessary.

Agreed. But do you really want our "regulators" to come up with the
new plans? Can you name a situation when this hasn't resulted in some
sort of debacle? Our billing system could use many improvements, but
from past experience, I would suggest great caution. It really does
matter who makes the changes and how they are made. There is a bit of
a conflict here. Any system that dispenses with call detail is
unacceptable. Any system that retains detail and offers alternative
billing arrangements will cost more to record calls billed in that
manner. You can't get something for nothing.


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Beating Intrastate Long Distance Ripoffs
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 17:01:25 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


One method to avoid the bogus high prices of intrastate calls is to
use a long distance carrier to complete the call.  An 800 number to a
commonly called number (like your home), might be worthwhile.  Sprint
bills these calls in six second increments, so you only pay a few
cents for a short call.  Of course, there's a $10 or $5 monthly fee
for 800 numbers.

950 or 1-800 access to most carriers has a 75 cent or more access
charge, so you'll have to talk for more than a couple o minutes if
you want to recoup your losses by using your fabulous US Sprint
foncard, or your ATT card.

/eli


[Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA only charges $2.75 for their 800
numbers, which simply camp on whatever number you designate. And yes,
they *are still being marketed*, although they are rather low-key
about it. And when using a genuine Bell payphone, there is no access
charge to contend with either.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #527
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17243;
          30 Jul 90 3:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20690;
          30 Jul 90 1:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad19849;
          30 Jul 90 0:52 CDT
Date:     Mon, 30 Jul 90 0:48:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #528
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 30 Jul 90 00:48:11 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 528

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint's Billing Accuracy .... [John Higdon]
    An Embarrassing Retraction [John Higdon]
    PA Caller*ID Decision in Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
    900/976 Blocking in Canada [David Leibold]
    The Whole Story on America's Last Magneto Exchange [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [Christopher J. Pikus]
    Whither Len Rose? [Bob Izenberg]
    Re: Yet Another MCI Switchover [R. Michael Gutierrez]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Sprint's Billing Accuracy ....
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 28 Jul 90 20:58:53 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


This past month, I have conducted one of my infamous experiments. All
of my night UUCP traffic has used Sprint via 10333. The bill has
finally arrived and I have had a chance to compare it with the SMDR
data covering the period.

The bill, which includes several hundred calls, is precisely correct.
No unanswered calls were billed, no answered calls were omitted, and
each call was correctly timed. All calls within the billing period
were accounted for.

This would indicate that the infamous Sprint billing problems are a
thing of the past. Judging from the lack of mention of this problem
lately on the Digest this is not surprising.

One other thing: all of the calls were with Telebit Trailblazers.
There were no problems, either with handshake or throughput (about the
same as before with AT&T).

Now, if the rates are actually lower than AT&T, can someone think of a
reason not to use Sprint in this application?


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


[Moderator's Note: But before this item went into print, the one which
follows arrived from John .... I juxtapose them here for your
amusement, although John probably does not find it very funny.  PT]

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

Subject: An Embarrassing Retraction
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 29 Jul 90 12:38:27 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Boy do I have egg on my face. Less than twelve hours ago I submitted
the following:

> Now, if the rates are actually lower than AT&T, can someone think of a
> reason not to use Sprint in this application?

After a night of "login failed" from a site in San Diego, I called the
administrator and asked if he was still having problems. Not aware of
any. A test revealed the "Sprint/Telebit" incompatibility noted some
time back in the Digest. So I looked over the records for that site
for the past month. It seems that all night long conversations would
fail until after 8AM when the calls would then be routed over my AT&T
WATS.  This problem did not show up in my throughput reports since the
systems never even had attempted to transfer data over the failed
Sprint connections.

An attempt was made to report this to Sprint and I was connected to
their "computer and modem" person. I got the usual questions such as,
"are you sure your parity is correct?" and "what communications
package are you using"? (He had never heard of HoneyDanBer UUCP!)

The long and the short of it was that he wanted me to go through this
protracted session with a repair person "whenever I noticed the
problem". Sitting on the phone with Sprint in the middle of the night
is not my idea of fun. I have data that needs to be moved. I told him
that the easiest fix is to take '10333' out of my dialing script and
the problem will go away.

An aside: When I reported an identical problem to AT&T regarding
connections to Kansas, the person that took the report was familiar
with UUCP and Telebits. Technicians immediately went to work on the
problem and I got calls every few hours advising me of the progress.
In the meantime, they rerouted the calls to allow communications and
within 48 hours they announced that the problem was corrected. Other
than advising me of their progress, they did not require my services
as an unpaid consultant, as apparently Sprint was requesting.

I don't care how offensive AT&T's ads are as long as they keep
providing their exceptional service. When will I ever learn not to
fool with alternate carriers?

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

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

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 22:49:00 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: PA Caller*ID Decision in Archives


The legal ruling in Pennsylvania regarding Caller*ID has been made
available to us, and because of its size, it has been transferred
direct to the Telecom Archives. If you are interested in reading it,
you can pull it from the archives. Get file 'caller-id-legal-decision'.

This file was made available to us by Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>,
and I want to thank Mr. Riddle for passing it along.

Two ways to access Telecom Archives:

FTP:   'ftp lcs.mit.edu'
       login anonymous, and give [e-mail] as password
       'cd telecom-archives'

ARCHIVES MAIL SERVER:   '[e-mail]'
Your ftp commands would be in upper case down the left side, with the
appropriate arguments following each, using the proper case.

For more information on this method, write to the above address and
send a message with a single word, "HELP" as the first word on the
first line.

Using this method, you may wish to get the file 'index.to.archives',
which is a relatively up-to-date picture of the archives directory
itself.


Patrick Townson

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: 900/976 Blocking in Canada
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 20:54:54 EDT


Bell Canada has just introduced blocking of 976 or 900 calls to its
customers as of 1st July. The service costs $4/month (plus an initial
administrative charge, likely $14) so that attempts to dial 976 or 900
numbers will be met with an intercept.

This was brought about by parent's complaints that their children were
racking up heavy 976 charges on such things as childrens hotlines,
chat lines, unauthorised forays into the world of "adult
entertainment", etc.


[Moderator's Note: I'm surprised they were allowed to make a month
charge for this service. When 900/976 first got started in a big way
here in Chicago, Illinois Bell (admittedly, they never liked 900
service from the beginning) offered to block both types of numbers for
free, and with no charge for the paperwork involved. They were more
than happy to 'assist parents in keeping that stuff out of their home
and away from the children ...'.  Their decision not to charge for
blocking was met with approval by consumer groups, and make IBT come
out looking like the good guys.   PT]

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

Date: Sat, 28 Jul 90 01:34 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject:  The Whole Story on America's Last Magneto Exchange


   -The Saga Continues

In a story (Digest V10, Iss511), it seemed the tale of America's last
magneto telephone exchanges had reached a quiescent state.  However,
today's reading brought some more news, this time showing the rapid
pace of movement some areas can have in telecommunications technology.
Case in point: Bryant Pond, Maine, last heard of when in 1983 its
approximately 450 subscribers turned their magneto cranks for the last
time.  Now, {Communications News} for July, 1990 carries the following
story on Page 12:

    "TINY TELCO GOES FROM MAGNETO PHONE TO SONET IN SEVEN YEARS

       "Seven years after taking out the last magneto telephone in the
country," <Sorry, Patrick, that's how poor our trade press is.  They
don't even know what the competition has reported on Page One!>
"Oxford County Telephone in rural Maine is intalling a Synchronous
Optical Network (SONET).

       "Bryant Pond, Maine made news back in 1983 when it gave up its
magneto phone.  The SONET network, when finished next year, will move
traffic at the OC-3 rate of 155 megabits per second.

        "Oxford Telephone and Bryant Pond Telephone will use a
combination of (manufacturers' equipment list) to connect Bryant Pond
and five other towns northwest of Portland, Maine.

        "The huge capacity looks ahead to future telco networking
requirements as well as distance learning by video."

Well, I don't know the Maine market area, but expect the caribou have
a lot less need for phones there than perhaps public education does
for some 45 megabit video.  Otherwise, I sure can't see the Maine PUC
approving 155 megabits worth -- 3 DS-3s @ 672 trunks each working out
to more than 2,000 telephone trunks!

Perhaps Shoup, Idaho will get on the fiber bandwagon sooner than
we might think; likely driven by electronic education delivery, as
seems the case for Bryant Pond.

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

From: "Christopher J. Pikus" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work?
Date: 29 Jul 90 09:43:49 GMT
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, Ca.


    I've been considering getting a fax machine for home use but
am hesitant to connect it to my primary residence line. Mainly How do
I prevent the FAX machine from answering calls meant for myself while
receiving data calls.

    Since I am away alot, I would hope my answering machine will
continue to intercept all the calls from humans but that the fax
machine would get its due too.

    Now, I have seen these phone/fax switchboxes that allegedly do
this but I'm not sure how it is done. So my question is: how does such
a critter work? My only theory is that the originating fax machine
sends a pilot tone to signal the answering machine (or switchbox) that
a fax transmission is coming in.

    Does anyone know how (or if) these things work? Does anyone
use one? Will it solve my problem? If not what will? (besides getting
another line).


Regards,
Christopher J. Pikus,               Megatek Corp.
INTERNET:     [e-mail]      San Diego, CA
UUCP:         ...!uunet!megatek!cjp

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

From: Bob Izenberg <halley![e-mail]>
Subject: Whither Len Rose?
Date: 30 Jul 90 04:05:04 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Izenberg <halley![e-mail]>
Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX


Has anyone (in Maryland or elsewhere) heard anything about the trial
of Len Rose?


                       Bob Izenberg [ ] Tandem Computers, Inc.
           cs.utexas.edu!halley!bei [ ] 512 244 8837


[Moderator's Note: Regretfully, I have heard nothing more. I was
hoping to be able to update this soon. The last correspondence I saw
here on the net said he claimed to be nearly destitute as a result of
the loss of his computer equipment, so dependent on it for his work
was he. Unable to serve his clients, he could not earn money.
Apparently he is financially in very dire straits. Having the criminal
conviction from a few months prior (to his latest indictment) did
nothing to enhance his chances of winning this latest case, I'm sure.
Maybe he will get in touch with us and bring us up to date. Of course,
I'll provide all the space he needs here to tell his story.   PT]

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

From: "R. Michael Gutierrez" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yet Another MCI Switchover
Date: 29 Jul 90 23:52:21 GMT
Reply-To: "R. Michael Gutierrez" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center.


I use to work at MCI, so lets take this step-by-step...

[e-mail] writes:

|> About two months ago, I received a call from your typical friendly MCI
|> telemarketer, pitching their MCI Plus plan....

|> After I finished waking up, I called MCI Customer Service and spoke
|> with someone who assured me that she'd hold my number and try to kill
|> the service order every couple days,...

The reminder the CSR uses is a Post-It (R) Note on the IBM 3270
console in front of him/her.  They tend to get lost, fall off
(especially), or lost in a maze of other account reminders.  I seem to
remember having an average of 20 of them on my terminal.

|> .... and that all I had to do to
|> refuse the service was not sign or return any of the confirmatory
|> stuff they mailed...

As I have said in the past on TELECOM Digest, most LEC/BOC's will
accept the LD carriers order (which is sent on mag tape) _blindly_,
without any customer confirmation.  Sprint/MCI/ITT/etc does not and
literally cannot send all the customer confirmations to the local
carrier.  When the LEC does get the PIC changeover request from the
L.D. company, it is assumed by agreement that the L.D. company has the
signed agreement or a valid oral agreement.

|> .... - after calling New Jersey Bell to ask
|> them to flag my record to not change Dial-1 LD without my approval.

I have the same feeling NJB has the same Post-It (R) Note Reminder
System.  But, with MCI and all LEC's, 3 line "notes" can be entered on
you account, and any half-decent CSR should have noted your calls.

|> Well, this month, my phone bill shows billing to MCI for three weeks...

|> First call to NJB:
|>   Local Bell Customer Service:  "It looks like MCI shouldn't have switched
|>           you, I'll refund the switchover fee.  Call MCI and ask them to
|>           refund their fees."  [Didn't ask why it changed over when the
|>           record was allegedly flagged...]

Again, it really wasn't 'flagged', just noted.

|> Second call to MCI:
|>   Generic MCI Customer Service:  "She told you WHAT?"
|>     [insert 20 minutes explaining Sprint Plus, and why NO!, I really
|>       wouldn't rather have your wonderful MCI service...]

Usual sales...

|>     [insert 10 minutes assuring her that the previous MCI-critter
|>       assured me it wouldn't be a problem...]

You should not have to had to go though this song-and-dance, unless
the previous MCI-"critter" did not make the "notes" entry on your
account.

|>     "Well, I'll refund the charges for the month...  The bill total was
|>       $nnn, correct?"

|> I was quite amazed at this point that they'd write-down the entire
|> month.  I was expecting maybe their service fee, but definitely NOT
|> the whole thing.  Could they really be this paranoid about people
|> screaming "improper changeover", or are they simply messed up enough
|> that it's easier to write the calls off than figure out what happened?

Nope.  She just got tired of dealing with you and her telephone stats
were going through the roof with your long call.  Front-line CSR's
like the one you dealt with have instant, no questions asked, $10
dollar credit limits.  And you learn that even though it's only $10
per entry, you can make as many credit entries as you want.

|> By the way, the MCI Customer Service person apologized that she wasn't
|> able to credit my NJB account directly, but would have to go through
|> her supervisor to take care of it ... I'm half looking forward to,
|> half dreading my next phone bill to see if all this worked or not.

Ahh, yes. She hasn't discovered the multiple-entry method described
above, so she was going to write out a credit request to a "group
leader", and group leaders have $100 dollar limits.  Supervisors have
$500 limits.  Beyond that it is supposed to go to Security and
Investigations.

I did the same thing when I worked "Residental Sales & Service" (the
dept. your call went to).  Somebody would call me up, real mad,
expecting a fight saying "I never ordered MCI ... I want to cancel ...
I'm never gonna pay ... so _what_are_YOU_gonna_do_about_IT!!!"  Well,
with a lousy burrito and two Corona's swimming around in my stomach
from lunchtime, I'm gonna say "We're crediting your account and thank
you for calling MCI good bye." POOF!  and get some Alka Seltzer.


   Robert Michael Gutierrez
   Office of Space Science and Applications,
   NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center.
   Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #528
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11279;
          31 Jul 90 3:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07656;
          31 Jul 90 2:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25301;
          31 Jul 90 1:04 CDT
Date:     Tue, 31 Jul 90 0:13:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #529
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Jul 90 00:12:43 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 529

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [Mike Spann]
    Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [Jerry Durand]
    Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock [John R. Levine]
    Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock [Kolkka Markku Olavi]
    Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Beating Intrastate Long Distance Ripoffs [Bill Huttig]
    Telecom*USA Residential 800 Service [Curtis E. Reid]
    Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down [Darren Griffiths]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: mike spann <gammafax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work?
Date: 30 Jul 90 22:48:25 GMT
Reply-To: mike spann <gammafax![e-mail]>
Organization: gammafax


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

>    I've been considering getting a fax machine for home use but
>am hesitant to connect it to my primary residence line. Mainly How do
>I prevent the FAX machine from answering calls meant for myself while
>receiving data calls.

>    Now, I have seen these phone/fax switchboxes that allegedly do
>this but I'm not sure how it is done. So my question is: how does such
>a critter work? My only theory is that the originating fax machine
>sends a pilot tone to signal the answering machine (or switchbox) that
>a fax transmission is coming in.

I have seen two common types phone/fax switch boxes.

One uses a voice prompt and requires the caller to enter a touch tone
digit to get the answer machine/fax and will get the fax/answering
machine otherwise.  This works ok if all your friends have touch tone
and you have the default be to the fax machine.

The other box (and the one I would select) uses the little known fact
that audio energy is carried down the phone line when the phone is
ringing.  (This is commonly known to thiefs who sometimes talk to each
other without answering the phone).  An automatic fax machine sends a
calling tone every three seconds while waiting for the phone to be
answered.  The phone/fax switch box listens on the line for this
'calling tone' and routes the call to the fax machine if one is heard.
The box never answers the phone which I consider an advantage.  This
way you can have a real-live phone the voice connection and a fax
machine on the other.  People don't have to pay to call when you
aren't home.  (I personally hate answering machines..)

The disadvantage of this approach is that manually dialed faxes and
some older fax machines do not send the calling tone and will not be
properly routed to the fax machine.  Fortunately, in practice, very
few people 'manually' dial numbers.  They place the paper in the fax
machine, press the buttons and let the machine do the work.


Michael Spann
Voice:  [phone]            Fax:    [phone]
UUCP:   ...!uunet!gammafax!mikes       CIS:    73747,441

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switches -- Do They Work?
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 18:54:45 PDT


Christopher J. Pikus, Megatek Corp. writes:

>    Now, I have seen these phone/fax switchboxes that allegedly do
>this but I'm not sure how it is done. So my question is: how does such
>a critter work? My only theory is that the originating fax machine
>sends a pilot tone to signal the answering machine (or switchbox) that
>a fax transmission is coming in.

>    Does anyone know how (or if) these things work? Does anyone
>use one? Will it solve my problem? If not what will? (besides getting
>another line).

There are two types of these switches and I have used both of them.
The most common (and cheapest) switch is one which answers the phone
and waits a few seconds for the beeps put out by most FAX machines
(some machines (like mine) do not generate these beeps, and none
generate them if you dial with the handset off hook).  If the switch
hears these beeps, it rings the FAX machine and sends a constant busy
signal to your phone or PBX.  If the switch doesn't hear anything in a
few seconds, the call defaults to the phone or PBX.  I am currently
using this type of switch because my lines are used by a BBS at night
and I need the default to go to the PBX and not the FAX.  The first
day three people tried to send me FAXes but only one got through (the
other two were manually dialed).

The other type of FAX switch answers the phone with a voice recording
and requests the caller enter the digit 3 (tone or PULSE) for voice
calls and to just hang on for a FAX.  If no tone/pulse is heard within
the timeout, the switch defaults to the FAX.  I NEVER had a missed
FAX, but people using my BBS had trouble sending the "3" when their
call rolled over to that line.

If you don't have a BBS, I would use the voice announce version.


Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., [e-mail]

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work?
Date: 30 Jul 90 10:36:54 GMT
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


[e-mail] (Christopher J. Pikus) writes:


>    I've been considering getting a fax machine for home use but
>am hesitant to connect it to my primary residence line. Mainly How do
>I prevent the FAX machine from answering calls meant for myself while
>receiving data calls.

In Japan, where there are many fax machines, there is apparently a
nifty answering machine that also lets you connect a fax machine to
it.  What you end up with is something like this:

[The Phone Company]<-->[Your Phone]<-->[Answering machine]<-->[Your Fax]

When you answer the phone and hear the dulcet tones of a fax machine,
you just push the button on your fax machine and the fax's talk to
each other.  When the answering machine picks up the phone, it starts
with the outgoing message, and records an answer, but if it hears fax
tones it shuts down and sends them on to the fax machine.

To handle manual fax calls, you leave instructions ("Start your fax
machine now") in your outgoing message.

Note : I have never actually seen one of these, but have sent faxes to
numbers in Japan that have them (imagine my surprise the first time,
when a fax number starts talking to me in Japanese [my Japanese is
rudimentary, unfortunately]).  I'll be in Japan in September, and will
check them out then.


Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 19:47:01 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I just had to respond to this post, I'm sure there will be many
others.  While the poster makes some valid points, I think overall,
the US plan is much easier to understand *and verify.* (I've used both
the meter and the US (really North American) systems.)

It's much easier to understand that a call costs x cents a minute and
see it show up that way on your bill. I believe the vast majority of
long distance calls are billed to a credit card these days, or at
least a third number. Having a meter based system just for coin calls
when home and businesses receive time based calls would not make a lot
of sense either.


Ken Jongsma                 [e-mail]
Smiths Industries           [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan      ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Subject: Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 30 Jul 90 13:52:21 EDT (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>Practically every other country in the world I've been to bills long
>distance calls for a fixed unit price (about a nickel) for a variable
>unit of time (unlimited down to a second or so), instead of the US
>scheme whereby a fixed unit of time (a minute) is billed at a variable
>price (free up to several dollars).

>The former, most popular scheme makes it possible:
> [to do all sorts of swell stuff]

On the other hand, the US approach lets the telcos avoid having to
feed the entire tarriff structure into every end office, and to have
quantity discounts, extended area flat rate plans, and all sorts of
other stuff that would be impractical with an impulse-based scheme.
My long-distance carrier doesn't know the real cost for each call
until the end of the month when they compute the quantity discount
based on the total call volume from all seven of the lines (in four
separate locations in three states) on my home phone bill.

There's no doubt, sent-paid long distance calls from a pay phone are
sort of an orphan, and are, as far as I can tell, the last major area
of US telephony in which there is no competition at all -- intra-LATA
calls are handled by the local telco, inter-LATA calls by AT&T, and
that's that.  But I suspect that, given the relatively small fraction
of calls that are made from pay phones, the US scheme is not a bad
idea.

I also note that a major disadvantage of impulse systems is that until
recently, there has been no way whatsoever to get an itemized bill,
and if you believe that the impulse counter on your line is
overcharging you, no way to challenge the phone company's bill.

Does anyone have any actual data on the number of calls made from
payphones, and how many of them are local, how many sent-paid toll
calls, and how many charged elsewhere, e.g. calling card or collect?


Regards,

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

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

From: Kolkka Markku Olavi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock
Reply-To: Kolkka Markku Olavi <[e-mail]>
Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 11:54:44 GMT


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

|> There are two major problems with adopting this appoach without
|> modifications.

|> First is the pulses themselves. All that I have heard indicates that
|> they sometimes cause problems with modems.

The billing pulses aren't normally transmitted to your phone, they are
part of the CO signalling.  If you want the device that shows the
price of each call, the pulses are connected to your line, but this
obviously isn't a good idea with a line used for a modem.

|> Second is the lack of detailed billing. Given the potential for error
|> in ANY billing system, how can you justify receiving a bill for "X
|> units -- Total Y Dollars"? No detail; no way to track down errors.

This isn't a problem with modern equipment, if you want more detail,
just ask for it.  In the old electromechanical switches the pulses
were counted with a simple odometer-style counter, which didn't give
any details, but the current generation of digital switches accumulate
the billing information digitally and can gather as much details as
the customer wants.


    Markku Kolkka
    [e-mail]

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock
Date: 30 Jul 90 07:03:40 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Wollongong, Australia


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:    [the > indented bits]
>Charles Buckley <[e-mail]> writes:[the >> indented bits]

>First is the pulses themselves. All that I have heard indicates that
>they sometimes cause problems with modems. My system transfers much
>data to Japan (who uses pulses) and there appears to be no problem,
>but I have heard stories to the contrary.

Australia uses the pulse counting method as well - I haven't
experienced any problems with my modems. I understand that they are
only present on a regular phone line if you pay Telecom to install a
counter at your end of the line (which cannot be used to argue your
bill).

>Second is the lack of detailed billing. Given the potential for error
>in ANY billing system, how can you justify receiving a bill for "X
>units -- Total Y Dollars"? No detail; no way to track down errors. I
>doubt that US residents would be willing to lose the detail that
>appears on the bill.

We never had detailed billing (what you never had, you don't miss?).
We are now just starting to get it on international calls (free) and
trunk calls (if you pay extra - but when exchanges are upgraded it
will become free).

You do normally get the international calls totalled separately even
with older exchanges.

>> 3. to make a short, 10 second call for a low price, therefore, to a far
>>    away place, just to say "Hi, this is <x>, please call me back on
>>    pay station <y>", which eliminates the need for most collect calls,

We have this type of payphone - Sydney to Perth ( >745 km) at the most
expensive time of day will cost you 30c for each 22 seconds.


David Wilson    [e-mail]

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Beating Intrastate Long Distance Ripoffs
Date: 30 Jul 90 15:32:42 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <zach![e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


>[Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA only charges $2.75 for their 800
>numbers, which simply camp on whatever number you designate. And yes,
>they *are still being marketed*, although they are rather low-key

I have mine through ATC (use to be TelUs) .... its only $2.50 /mo
25.9 /min daytime 19 /min evenings/weekend/nights

I called Telecom*USA and they are not marketing it in their
SouthernNet area -- just the Teleconnect area. Different rate
structures, too.  The GA office said they are working on changes for
the 800 services and should be ready in a month or two.


Bill

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 10:15 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom*USA Residential 800 Service


Well, I took another crack at calling Telecom*USA.  They did indeed
tell me that the HomeLine 800 service (the one with the $2.75 monthly
fee that Pat has currently) is no longer offered and is grandfathered
to existing customers.  However, the representative suggested a new
residential 800 service (don't know what the name of the service is; I
forgot to write it down) they are offering in place of the HomeLine
800.  It has a $20 monthly fee.  I asked her to send me literature on
this service so I'll get back to the Digest if there's interest.


            Curtis E. Reid
            [e-mail]                 (Bitnet)
            [e-mail] (Internet)
            [e-mail]            (Internet)

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

From: Darren Griffiths <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pepsi-Cola Hits The Spot: Switchboard Shuts Down
Date: 30 Jul 90 22:27:15 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


I'm sure that many people are posting similar stories but I can't
resist adding my twenty cents worth (inflation due to the S&L
screw-up.)

Back in my days at UCSB I was responsible for taking care of some
VAXen that were shared between researchers and secretaries.  One day a
particularly crazed secretary called me up with the usual complaint
"My computer doesn't work."  For some reason these people, supposedly
trained extensively in word processing and technical writing, never
quite understood that they had a terminal and the computer was a long
ways from them and probably working fine.  Nevertheless, I went
through my standard list of things to try and avoid walking to the
secretary's office until I was finally convinced that the terminal was
in fact switched on, plugged in, online and the person in question
hadn't hit the scroll-lock key.  Somewhat dejectedly I went up to the
office to find it empty, I sat down at the terminal and spent ten
minutes playing with it until I was pretty sure that the keyboard had
died.  I unplugged it and was carrying it out of the office when in
walked the secretary holding a cloth dripping with water.  She looked
at the keyboard and said "Oh, you're not taking my keyboard are you?
I've just spent twenty minutes cleaning it."  I suppose some people
were just not meant to use computers.


darren

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #529
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11333;
          31 Jul 90 3:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07656;
          31 Jul 90 2:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25301;
          31 Jul 90 1:04 CDT
Date:     Tue, 31 Jul 90 0:43:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #530
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Jul 90 00:43:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 530

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telecom Peeves [Linc Madison]
    Re: Answer Supervision on International Calls [Linc Madison]
    Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? [Linc Madison]
    Re: In Defense of 911 Service [Gregory M. Paris]
    Re: John Galt, MCI and Wrong Numbers [Bob Sutterfield]
    Re: Touchtone History [Tad Cook]
    Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues [Ben Ellsworth]
    Re: Business Rates [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Precedents Could Be Set in Neidorf Trial [Peter da Silva]
    Neidorf Trial - Press Release on Dismissal [John Nagle]
    RS-232 Caller-Id Box Wanted [Dan Warburton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 00:14:10 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 502, Message 10 of 15

>One thing that drives me up the wall is when the person on the other
>end of the phone holds the handset so the microphone part is under
>their chin instead of in front of their mouth.

>I've seen many people doing this (when I've been in their office and
>they've taken a call). Don't they realise that they should speak
>directly into the mouthpiece for the best transmission?

No, in fact, the best (cleanest) transmission is achieved by placing
the mouthpiece directly in front of your CHIN, slightly *below* your
mouth.  The reason is that by doing so you eliminate the very annoying
excessive pickup of certain sounds like "s" and "p".  The effect is
even more pronounced with your average garden-variety microphone used,
for example, in a high school auditorium.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 03:11:28 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on International Calls
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 499, Message 7 of 14

>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?

>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.

When I was in Australia in 1987, I observed that international calls,
as I think with other calls (at least STD calls), from pay stations,
were charged the initial 30c rate if allowed to ring more than a
certain number (something on the order of one minute), whether or not
answered.  However, they seemed to grab the coins immediately on
connection if the call completed.

My guess: they get answer supervision just fine, but charge you anyway
if you wait too long for a connection.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 03:31:47 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does Changing of Prefix by Telco Improve Service? (U
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


I was recently back at my alma mater, Princeton University, and
discovered that they have done some strange things with the
University's phone system, along somewhat similar lines to the UCSB
changeover.

The complete details are below for trivia buffs, but to summarize, the
University in 1982 installed a cumbersome set of dialing procedures
(with some dangerous repercussions) in order to allow the office
phones to have a different set of capabilities (all sorts of call
forwarding, three-way, billing codes, and other stuff) that the dorms
didn't get.  Now, they've changed to a new prefix (presumably because
609-452 had other users in segments not used by the University and
they needed more capacity) and reintegrated the dorms into the system
(although presumably without the fancy capabilities).

Why did I say it was dangerous?  In order to reach the campus
emergency number, you had to dial 121-3333.  But they didn't get
enough trunks to connect the dorms to the bureaucrats, so "121"
frequently busied out.  Add to that the fact that they disabled
9-452-xxxx for University extensions, and you have a potential
problem.  In fact, the only time I called the emergency number, I got
a busy on 121.  Fortunately, because I and others had seen this
problem coming, they had re-enabled 9-452-xxxx.

What follows are the gruesome details.

Way back when (1981-82):

Area                  Phone number     dialing from      dialing sequence
----                  ------------     ------------      ----------------
Univ. offices         609-452-xxxx     Univ. offices     2-xxxx
                       dorms             2-xxxx

Student dorms         609-734-xxxx     Univ. offices     4-xxxx
                       dorms             4-xxxx

Plasma physics lab    609-683-xxxx     off's/dorms       125/xxxx  **

** the / indicates separate dial-tone

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Big change #1 (1982-85)

Univ. offices         609-452-xxxx     Univ. offices     xxxx
                       dorms             121/xxxx

Student dorms         609-734-xxxx     Univ. offices     8/4-xxxx
                       dorms             4-xxxx

PPL                   609-683-xxxx     off's/dorms       125/xxxx

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now (1990)

Univ. offices         609-258-xxxx     both              8-xxxx
                          ^^^
Student dorms         609-734-xxxx     both              4-xxxx

PPL                   609-683-xxxx     both              ??? (125/xxxx?)

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

The other interesting thing about PPL is that it is physically located
in territory that should be in a 908 exchange; it's FX'ed out of the
Princeton CO for political reasons.


Linc Madison   =  [e-mail]

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

From: "Gregory M. Paris" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: In Defense of 911 Service
Date: 30 Jul 90 15:35:09 GMT
Reply-To: Greg Paris <[e-mail]>
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division


Just to relate a single incident where E911 seemed to work nicely: My
wife (fiancee at the time) dialed 911 in Providence, RI.  I got the
impression that as soon as she said she wanted police, patrol cars
were dispatched -- before the specifics of the problem were determined
by the 911 operator.  In fact, my wife was getting anxious answering
the questions of the operator, yet four Providence Police cars
containing eight officers surrounded the house just ten seconds after
she hung up the phone.  Total response time was less than one minute.
I do not believe that the response could have been as quick if the
call had been made to the police number; the "extended" aspect of the
911 service seemed to save quite a bit of time.


Greg Paris <[e-mail]>
{uiucdcs,uunet}!rayssd!gmp

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

From: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: John Galt, MCI and Wrong Numbers
Reply-To: Bob Sutterfield <[e-mail]>
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 18:55:41 GMT


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

   (...discusses trying to reach the John Galt Computer
   Corporation at their WATS numbers...)

The NIC lists JOHNGALT.COM and the associated JOHNGALT-DOM as
registered to John Galt Enterprises.  The (non-WATS) number in the NIC
WHOIS listing happens to connect to the correct place.

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone History
Date: 30 Jul 90 19:28:03 GMT
Organization: very little


In article <[e-mail]>, drivax![e-mail]
(M.Marking) writes:

> ssc![e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> ) In article <[e-mail]>, drivax![e-mail]
> ) (M.Marking) writes:

> ) > *Dual* Tone Multi Frequency.) The frequencies are:
> ) >
> ) >             1209    1336    1477    1653 Hz
> )                                                 ^^^^WRONG!

> ) Actually, the fourth column tone is 1633 Hz.

> You seem to be right. It seems I reached for the wrong reference
> first. 1633 Hz is the choice of:

(lists three references)

These typos are common throughout the technical references.  Another
one that is frequently misstated is 1477 Hz, which is often misprinted
as 1447 Hz.  I think REFERENCE DATA FOR RADIO ENGINEERS had that one a
few years ago, and other folks spread it from there.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA   Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544      telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad     or, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 15:44:11 pdt
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues


> [Moderator's Note: "Some lawyers" can argue whatever they like, but
> the catch is, was the transmission INTENDED for broadcast?

Here you argue ethics rather than legality.  The "catch" is what the
law defines as lawful or unlawful.  Intent *unless specifically
mentioned* by the applicable legislation (or policy as for the FCC),
is ENTIRELY irrelevant.

> No broadcast, then no right to repeat, acknowledge, 're-broadcast',
> profit from or print what was overheard.

Legal rights are defined by the law.  The understood definition of the
law is under construction (remember we are talking about Canada here).
Hence the basis of valid legal argument.


Benjamin Ellsworth -- All relevant disclaimers apply.


[Moderator's Note: The FCC rules are in fact very well defined.
'Broadcast' has a definite meaning, and it is the only type of radio
transmission intended for dissemination by the listener.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Business Rates
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 17:53:36 GMT


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

> Not long ago this matter came up and it was necessary to obtain a copy
> of the tariff that applies to determining whether business or
> residence rates apply to an account. None of them involve:

> 1. Number of lines associated with the account.

> 2. How the telephone is answered.

Unless you answer the telephone with a modem carrier and have more
than three lines, in Houston. Southwestern Bell has, with the willing
connivance of the PUC and a local BBS sysops group, decided that BBS
systems with more than three lines are "businesses". Basically, SWBell
intimidated COSUARD into going along with this definition rather than
a more logical one (like, you charge for the service) by threatening
to treat uploads as payments.  For a while they were trying to treat
*all* BBSes as businesses.

I guess there are things that even Pac*Bell won't stoop to, John.
Aren't you amazed?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Precedents Could Be Set in Neidorf Trial
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 17:30:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] I said:

> Personally, I'm sure that Neidorf must have done something worth
> prosecuting him for ...

It occurs to me that this sounds awfully authoritarian. I don't mean
it that way. Other information that has been published about the
people involved in this has brought up indications that they've had
copies of AT&T source code, and things like that. That's certainly
illegal, but hardly unusual: the source to "cb" and other AT&T
proprietary code has even popped up on the net from time to time. I'm
not trying to imply that Craig is getting off on a technicality or any
such BS.

As I said:

> but if they can't find it out or prove it they
> should certainly not be hitting him with this bogus 911 file business.

That is, they "know" he's done something, but they don't have the
proof so they decided to create a crime.


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

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

From: John Nagle <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Neidorf Trial - Press Release on Dismissal
Date: 30 Jul 90 17:56:33 GMT


      I was one of the technical experts working with the defense
team, and have just returned from Chicago.  For now, I will just post
the press release issued by Neidorf's lawyers, but I will have more to
say at a future time.


        John Nagle

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEIDORF PRESS RELEASE

Chicago, Illinois -- July 27, 1990

     In an extrraordinary development, the U.S.  Attorney today
dismissed the indictment in the trial of Craig Neidorf, the editor and
publisher of "Phrack", a magazine of the computer underground.
Neidorf, a 20-year-old political science major at the University of
Missouri, had faced charges stemming from the publication of allegedly
proprietary information relating to the 911 emergency system.  The
government's decision to dismiss the indictment is highly unusual.
The dismissal came a week into the trial after Neidorf's attorney,
Sheldon Zenner, of Kattin Muchin & Zavis, established that Neidorf had
never facilitated intrusions into any computer system.  Also crucial
to the defense was Zenner's illustration of the fact that much of the
information contained in the allegedly proprietary document was
publicly available.

     Zenner said the government's decision came after he provided the
prosecutors copies of publicly available documents which demonstrated
that the document Neidorf published electronically contained no secret
information.  "The information in the document Craig electronically
published was easily available to anyone," Zenner stated.  "It was so
public that BellSouth knew five months before Craig ever obtained the
document that it was electronically accessable to anyone with a
computer." he continued.

     Zenner, a former Assistant U.S.  Attorney, stated that, "The
dismissal is in the finest tradition of the U.S.  Attorney's office.
They dismissed the case because it was the right thing to do.  Craig
did no more than publish an article, something the First Amendment
allows him to do." Court observers cannot recall the U.S.  Attorney
ever before dismissing a case once the trial commenced.

     Neidorf and his family expressed relief and pleasure with the
outcome.  Neidorf plans to finish his senior year at the University of
Missouri, and hopes to enter law school following graduation.

     Zenner is a partner in the law firm of Katten Muchin & Zavis, and
is the head of the firm's White Collar Crime practice group.  In
addition to its White Collar Crime practice, Katten Muchin practices
in the areas of litigation, corporate law, securities, banking, and
bankruptcy, labor, and estate planning.

     Inquiries should be directed to

          Sheldon Zenner
          Katten Muchin & Zavis
          525 W. Monroe Street
          Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL  60606-3693

          312-902-5200

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

From: Dan Warburton <faatcrl![e-mail]>
Subject: RS-232 Caller-Id Box Wanted
Date: 30 Jul 90 16:59:12 GMT
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ


I am looking for sources of Caller ID boxes with RS-232 connections.
I'd like to let my Amiga look up known callers and say "It's your
mother calling" or "Don't bother its just Gladis". BTW I also am
selling my current traditional Caller Id box. E-mail please I am sure
the rest of the net doesn't need to see this. Thanks in advance.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #530
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12104;
          31 Jul 90 4:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10150;
          31 Jul 90 3:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07656;
          31 Jul 90 2:16 CDT
Date:     Tue, 31 Jul 90 1:29:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #531
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Jul 90 01:29:22 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 531

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System [David Barts]
    White House, TT and the State of the Union [David Lesher]
    Cordless Phones and the IRS! [Roy M. Silvernail]
    The Vanishing Bell Payphone [John Higdon]
    Telemarketers' Lists [Nigel Allen]
    Sprint Billing / Embarassing Retraction [Steve Elias]
    Cellular Phone Security [Rob James]
    Need Info on Radio Shack Scanners [Chris Williams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 29 Jul 90 21:55:14 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System


> Mention of the photo of JFK's desk brings a piece of trivia to mind.
> FTS, the Federal Telephone System, the large disjoint system that {in
> theory!} provides intra-government telecommunications, came about
> because at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis, he could not, at a
> critical juncture, get a dial tone!

Actually, FTS stands for Federal Tieline System.  And what is a
tieline?  A tieline is a piece of substandard quality string that when
used to connect two soup can `telephones' has broken repeatedly and
has had to be tied together in numerous places :-).

Seriously, though I clearly remember the name from when I worked for a
government contractor and had the misfortune of having to use FTS when
I made long-distance calls in the course of my job.  I'm sure many
readers know what a tieline really is, so we'll find out.

An FTS phone will have both a normal area code and phone number (that
can be called like any other phone) and a seven-digit FTS number.  The
last four digits of the FTS and normal phone numbers have always been
the same on every phone I've seen (505-667-8463 or FTS 843-8463).  DOE
Richland uses 509-373 and 509-376, which correspond to FTS 440 and 444
(I think 373 is 440, but I don't remember for sure).  Dialing from one
government site to another requires only seven digits after accessing
the FTS dial tone.  FTS can also be used to call non-FTS phones if you
dial the area code and phone number, in which case I was told that FTS
would route the call as far as it could, then use a conventional
carrier for the remainder of the connection.

My first experience with FTS was when the contractor called me up to
do a phone interview before deciding to spend money on a plane ticket
to fly me out for a real interview.  The audio quality was atrocious
 -- definitely the worst-sounding long-distance call I had heard up to
that time.  There was lots of static on the line, the other party's
voice was so faint, I could barely hear what he was saying.  To make
matters worse, the circuit sounded like it had a VOX on it that was
set with the threshold too high, so I only heard about half of each
word "Ello, <hiss> s <crackle> thi <hiss> ster <hiss, click, clunk>
Arts?" instead of "Hello, is this Mister Barts?".

Naturally, it would be impossible to conduct a meaningful interview
with such a bad connection, so I told my prospective boss to call
back.  He said that FTS always sounded this way, so it probably
wouldn't make a difference but he'd hang up and try again just the
same.  He was right, no improvement.  The interview proceeded like
this: he asks me a question, I YELL "What?  Please repeat that!" into
the receiver.  After four or five iterations, I would have heard
enough pieces of the question to piece it together, then I'd YELL the
answer back to him.  Strangely, the abysmal audio quality only
extended one way; he could hear me fine.

After I got hired, the same thing would happen to me in reverse, I'd
be able to hear the called party okay (never clearly, but okay), but
I'd have to YELL to make myself heard on the other end to get the
called party to hear me.  Using FTS always made me feel like I was in
a 1930's black-and-white movie (the scene where the guy in a phone
booth is yelling the same thing over and over trying to get his
message across the country).  I ended up pasting a message on my phone
saying "Think FTS -- YELL it don't say it!" (thankfully, I didn't
place LD calls from work very often -- only a few times a week).

Back to the phone interview.  I'd have been a bit more understanding
of the poor quality of the FTS connection had it been between two
places that don't use much FTS, and so have limited FTS service, but
the contractor was at Richland, WA (a major DOE site), and at the time
I was living with my parents in Los Alamos, NM (another major DOE
site).  I also got bad connections after being hired when calling from
Richland to the Washington, DC area.

If JFK had FTS in his office, he'd probably decide to keep on pushing
buttons trying to place his call through a commercial LD carrier.
Sure, it may take an extra ten minutes to get a connection, but he'd
waste that much time repeating himself on FTS and risk being
misunderstood.  "You said `fire', Mister President?  Okay..."  "NO!!
HOLD YOUR FIRE!!"  "Right, `FIRE!'"  "NO!!  DON'T FIRE!!"  "Firing
now!"

> I seem to recall that FTS started out with four underutilized CO's
> serving as tandems. DC's is in the middle of Maryland somewhere.

And now it utilizes CO equipment retired from Liberia, Bangladesh, and
Cambodia after the equipment reached such an age as to no longer
provide the quality of service customers in those nations are
accustomed to.  :-)


David Barts            Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: White House, TT and the State of the Union
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 23:43:03 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


Several days ago, I mentioned one reason for that old Call Director on
George's desk in the Oval Office. There's another. Security.

The Telephone Security Group, an interagency group, sets the standards
that cover sets in "sensitive discussion areas" i. e. where classified
material is talked about. These reports are called {surprise;-]}
"TSG's". The TSG's come in about six volumes. I just happen to have my
latest one in front of me ;-}

The TSG's are ONLY concerned with the passing of ON-HOOK audio. If you
are stupid enough to willingly discuss classified material on the
{non-encrypted} telephone, Uncle Sam has new quarters awaiting you in
Kansas. But if the phone can/might/does pass audio when HUNG-UP, that
phone won't be TSG approved.

Now in the old '500' set days, this was no problem. After all, that
set has a mechanical hookswitch, that in non-keyset use, breaks both
sides of the line. But life is not that simple in the fantastic world
of wizz-bang software control phones. You say your attendent has call
paging, i.e. she pronounces "Gorby's on line 3", and it comes out the
speakerphone on your set? It just flunked, I suspect.

As you might imagine, life has gotten a lot more complex since
everyone from Aadvark to Xebiz started making phones.  Mostly because,
like anything else with a heavy software component, it's really easy
to see something work, and damm near impossible to PROVE it will
always work, or fail in a predictable manner.  Thus, it's taken many
years for the TSG's to approve computer controlled PBX's and smart
phones. Plus, of course, by the time they get a model approved, it's
obsolete and MD.

Note that does NOT mean that the White House can't have a new PBX that
handles everything. But the SETS in the "sensitive" areas will likely
be either time-proven (mechanical hookswitches and all) or less smart
than the Panasonic you just got at Macy's Medina Telephones, Inc.


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM   pob 570-335   33257-0335

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

Subject: Cordless phones and the IRS!
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 03:45:38 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


I just heard a news bit on the radio. It seems that the IRS has
decided to cash in (pun intentional) on the recent ruling that
cordless phones are not subject to protection under Federal privacy
laws. The news item didn't go into a great amount of detail, but it
said that the IRS has issued a guideline for using radio scanners to
eavesdrop on cordless phone conversations of suspected tax offenders!
Of course, since there's no protection, there's also no warrent or
other due process required (or so it appears from the news item).

I'm passing this along without comment, since I tend to rant once I
get started :-)


    Roy M. Silvernail
    now available at:
 cybrspc![e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Vanishing Bell Payphone
Date: 30 Jul 90 21:40:23 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Jul 29 at 22:35, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA only charges $2.75 for their 800
> numbers, which simply camp on whatever number you designate. And yes,
> they *are still being marketed*, although they are rather low-key
> about it. And when using a genuine Bell payphone, there is no access
> charge to contend with either.   PT]

But, sad to say, there may come a time when the "genuine Bell
payphone" may be but a memory. A major objection to COCOTs by those of
us who cared was that we forsaw a time when they would displace the
real thing. Instead of more public phones being made available with
the advent of COCOTs, there are fewer -- and a larger and larger
percentage of those that remain are one-armed bandits.

At least weekly it seems that some familiar old Pac*Bell payphone
bites the dust. Today it was the venerable phones outside of Orchard
Supply Hardware (a local chain of stores). Virtually all of the
supermarkets have fallen, as have gas stations, restaurants, shopping
centers, and most street locations. One of Diane Feinstein's last
official acts as Mayor of San Francisco was to sign a deal with
"PayTel" to provide "enhanced service" coin phones for the MUNI bus
stops throughout the city. Now, years later, most of those phones have
yet to be installed, the bus stop structures sporting empty holes
where the phones are supposed to go.

This MUNI deal was particularly scary since it was the first known (at
least by me) incursion of COCOTs into the world of public
transportation. In the paid areas of the MUNI Metro subway stations
and in the BART stations there are, to this day, Pac*Bell phones. This
is as it should be. How would you like to be a fare-paying rider,
trapped in the train station, and have the only telephone available a
rotten COCOT? At least at the bus stops, the customer isn't trapped
(if he doesn't mind missing the bus).

When the day comes that I am running to board the "L" Metro and my
gaze falls upon a "SlimeyTel" where a Pac*Bell phone used to be, I
will consider the battle to be over and lost. I'm afraid that someday
we WILL see the last of the utility payphone.


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

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketers' Lists
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 07:39:22 GMT


If you have ever received a telemarketing call at an unlisted number,
you may have wondered how the telemarketing company got the number.

In some cases, the telemarketing company may be calling numbers at
random within a given prefix or series of prefixes. ("Pseudo-random"
might be a better term here; the telemarketers are given a list of
numbers to phone.)

In other cases, the company may be using a city directory which lists
individuals and companies by their addresses and telephone numbers.
This information can either be taken from the local telephone company
database, in which case it will not have any unlisted numbers, or it
may be gathered separately. R.L. Polk & Co.'s Might Directories
division publishes a number of Canadian city directories, and gets the
information for them from a door-to-door canvas and asks employers to
provide information about their employees.  If you aren't in when the
R.L. Polk employee comes by, you'll find a form with the heading
"Important Notice" left for you on your return.  A "helpful" employer
may release name and address information (particularly if the employer
makes extensive use of the city directory itself). If the employer
also releases telephone information, you can expect to receive calls
from carpet cleaning companies on your unlisted phone line.

I remember seeing a message on a Toronto BBS from a new caller who
said he worked in telemarketing, and had reached a modem carrier when
he had called the number ... so he decided to call from his modem, just
to see what was on the other end.

I know one person who *never* answers her telephone until her
answering machine was seized an incoming call and played her message.
If the person on the other end of the line leaves a message that she's
interested in, she'll pick up the phone before the caller hangs up.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Billing / Embarassing Retraction
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 11:06:31 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


John, I don't see the point of your embarassment.  Your original
comment about Sprint's billing still stands.  It's been fixed for a
long time now.  As for the Telebit connection problem, that's another
story.  If billing is your criterion, Sprint and ATT seem to be on
equal footing.  If Telebit techno-questions with the LD carrier are
important to you, then it looks like ATT still wins.

BTW, John.  you have ten residence phone lines??  That is truly
outlandish!  And people call me a telecom geek just because I have an
800 number!

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

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 1990 11:37 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Phone Security


Non-Canadian readers may be interested to learn that the British
Columbia Attorney General resigned his post because he was recorded
uttering various naughties on his cellular phone.  The transmission
seem to have been picked up by a "free-lance" journalist.

I cannot comment on the Canadian legal matters, but my understanding
of the opinions I have heard is that it may not be an offence, as I
gather it is south of our border, to listen and record such calls.

Oops!


Rob James, Department of Community Health and Epidemiology,
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Need Info on Radio Shack Sscanners
Date: 30 Jul 90 13:43:41 GMT


Local Radio Shacks are having a sale on their top-of-the-line portable
scanner, (20-135, (I think), it covers many frequencies, "even the new
800 MHz range", (new? they just invented 800 MHz? :-) )). The normal
(albeit probably inflated) price is $329. The sale price is $229. I've
been thinking about getting a scanner for a while, and since this
_seems_ like a good price, I'm asking to the net for advice. What can
you tell me about the quality of Radio Shark's scanners? Maybe more
importantly, can I find an equivalent scanner for about the same
price? Also, since I was planning on putting it on the Radio Shark
credit card, has anyone had any bad experiences with billing, etc?


chris williams, `gilligan' | [e-mail]
programmer/operator        | UTSPAN::UTADNX::NTVAX::CGW
university of north texas  | CGW@UNTVAX{.bitnet}
denton, texas 76203        | at&t : [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I think you are referring to the PRO-34, an
excellent scanner. Unfortunatly, I purchased mine at the Radio Shack
in Evanston when the price was still $329. They sold me a set of
batteries to go with it, and less than a day later, one of the
batteries exploded inside the unit and messed it up. RS was very
gracious in exchanging it on the spot at store level for a new unit.

By the way, the mods are real easy in this unit. Transferring a diode
from one place on the board to another expands the coverage
considerably, albiet at the loss of 30-50 megs; but who is down there
these days anyway? With the mods in place, you do get 68-88 megs for
whatever they are worth, and the 'magic number' routine allows
listening to 46-49 megs in the 68-71 megs range instead. You also get
full 800 megs coverage. Put a message in the ham radio newsgroup
("Need Mods for PRO-34") if you want the complete details.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #531
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06251;
          1 Aug 90 3:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27693;
          1 Aug 90 1:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00993;
          1 Aug 90 0:30 CDT
Date:     Tue, 31 Jul 90 23:40:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #532
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 31 Jul 90 23:39:52 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 532

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System [Jeffrey M. Schweiger]
    Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System [Roger Fajman]
    Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [Robert Kelley]
    Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Multi-city Pagers [Ken Donaldson]
    Re: Telecom Peeves [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Sprint Billing / Embarassing Retraction [John Higdon]
    Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom? [Greg Monti]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System
Date: 31 Jul 90 16:13:09 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David Barts)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 531, Message 1 of 8

|If JFK had FTS in his office, he'd probably decide to keep on pushing
|buttons trying to place his call through a commercial LD carrier.
|Sure, it may take an extra ten minutes to get a connection, but he'd
|waste that much time repeating himself on FTS and risk being
|misunderstood.  "You said `fire', Mister President?  Okay..."  "NO!!
|HOLD YOUR FIRE!!"  "Right, `FIRE!'"  "NO!!  DON'T FIRE!!"  "Firing
|now!"

|> I seem to recall that FTS started out with four underutilized CO's
|> serving as tandems. DC's is in the middle of Maryland somewhere.

|And now it utilizes CO equipment retired from Liberia, Bangladesh, and
|Cambodia after the equipment reached such an age as to no longer
|provide the quality of service customers in those nations are
|accustomed to.  :-)

David Barts implies that the Federal Telecommunications System (FTS)
remains much the same today as it was when he was first introduced to
it.  While I never used the old FTS (being a separate system from
Autovon), with the implementation of FTS 2000, commercial LD carriers
(AT&T and Sprint, I believe) are handling the LD service.  Maybe one
of the other Telecom Digest readers can give us a description of FTS
2000 and how it works.


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

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System
Date: 31 Jul 90 17:27:23 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David Barts)
writes...

>Actually, FTS stands for Federal Tieline System.  And what is a
>tieline?  A tieline is a piece of substandard quality string that when
>used to connect two soup can `telephones' has broken repeatedly and
>has had to be tied together in numerous places :-).

The Federal Telephone System was established in the 1960's and was
based on two AT&T tariffs.  One, Telpak, was a bulk discount for
leased channels.  (It was abolished when the FCC ruled that private
lines could be shared.  The discount worked because you bought blocks
of 60 or 240 channels; most customers didn't use them all up.)  The
other, which provided the switching, was called CCSA (something
Switching Arrangement).  In its day, CCSA was the state of the art for
private voice networks.

CCSA originally used old CO switches, reprogrammed for the private
seven-digit numbering plan.  Later AT&T moved the FTS onto electronic
switches.  Note though that of the 52 or so FTS switches in the '70's,
only a handful were four-wire.  The rest were two-wire (mostly 1ESS)
which of course were prone to echo.  AUTOVON is all four-wire, of
course; its tariff is called SCAN (Switched Circuit Access Network).

Nowadays FTS is being replaced by FTS-2000.  In classic procurement
style, the GSA (under Congressional pressure) decided not to give the
FTS procurement to one vendor.  Instead it's a 60:40 split between
AT&T and Sprint.  So there are two FTS networks, with a few links
between them.  At least the circuits and switches are digital.  Kids,
don't try this at home!


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

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90  19:20:00 EDT
Subject: Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System


FTS is much improved now that the new FTS 2000 system is in full
operation, at least for voice.  FTS 2000 is an all-digital system.
Due to political considerations the contract was split into two parts
and 60% was awarded to AT&T and 40% to Sprint.  MCI lost out
completely and is still mad about it.

Anyway, now the voice quality (to my ear) is equal to commercial calls
(I have MCI on my home phone).  Also, I can make a long distance call
in the middle of the afternoon without getting several trunk busy
signals first.  I usually use it to call commercial numbers.  Rarely
do I call other seven-digit FTS numbers.  My agency, NIH (National
Institutes of Health), is in the Washington, DC, area and is on the
AT&T part of the system.

By the way, the NIH phone book calls it the Federal Telecommunications
System now.  It's entirely possible that the meaning of the T may have
changed over time.


Roger Fajman                                   Telephone:  [phone]
National Institutes of Health                  BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA                        Internet:   [e-mail]
Postmaster for NIHCU.BITNET and CU.NIH.GOV

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work?
Date: 31 Jul 90 16:26:03 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Then there is the option of getting the multi-pattern ringing service
from you phone co. (Some common names for it are RingMaster, Smart
Ring, RingMate....etc). There are several different companies that
offer a device that you plug into your phone line that splits the line
into multi-line two to four.  On each call the box detects which ring
pattern was used and send the calls to the proper line ... That way
you fax will have its own phone number. In Southern Bell (FL) it costs
3.95/month for one additional number and 5.95/month for two.


Bill

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work?
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 16:47:25 PDT


I recommend the use of a Ring Rite by CMP inc *IF* you can get a
distinctive ring on a second number from your telephone company.  I am
using this very successfuly in Hawaii with HawTel Smart Ring service.

You have three dip switches that you set to pass the desired ring to
the device (fax, modem, answering machine, telephone etc) and it
blocks all other rings.  You pay the phone company a small charge of
$5-$8 a month for the second number on the same line and you then can
route the calls based upon the dialed number.

CMP is in Broomfield CO or send me an E-Mail if you need further
information.


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: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work?
Date: 1 Aug 90 03:15:21 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, gammafax![e-mail] (mike
spann) writes:

> The other box (and the one I would select) uses the little known fact
> that audio energy is carried down the phone line when the phone is
> ringing.  (This is commonly known to thiefs who sometimes talk to each
> other without answering the phone).  An automatic fax machine sends a
> calling tone every three seconds while waiting for the phone to be
> answered.  The phone/fax switch box listens on the line for this

I thought the phone/fax switch box answers and then listens for audio
from a calling fax machine.  If it depends upon the audio sent between
rings before answering, then it will only work on the now mostly-
obsolete crossbar and step-by-step central offices.  The 1ESS, 1AESS,
and 5ESS local central office switches do not pass any audio before
they receive answer supervision.


Dave Levenson        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 07:30 EST
From: Ken Donaldson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi-city Pagers


Cliff Stoll points out that SKYPAGE might not work outside of the
metro paging areas.  The basic SKYPAGE service has a page recall
function that holds pages for up to 99 hours.  Missed pages or a
review of recent pages can be retrieved by the beeper owner by dialing
into the system (1-800-SKY-PAGE) and accessing the functions menu.
Additional features include time of day page, priority page, group
page, etc.

We have had 14 or so of their units for about a year now and have had
no complaints with the service.

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Peeves
Date: 31 Jul 90 15:16:30 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Linc
Madison) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 502, Message 10 of 15

> >One thing that drives me up the wall is when the person on the other
> >end of the phone holds the handset so the microphone part is under
> >their chin instead of in front of their mouth.

> >I've seen many people doing this (when I've been in their office and
> >they've taken a call). Don't they realise that they should speak
> >directly into the mouthpiece for the best transmission?

> No, in fact, the best (cleanest) transmission is achieved by placing
> the mouthpiece directly in front of your CHIN, slightly *below* your
> mouth.  The reason is that by doing so you eliminate the very annoying
> excessive pickup of certain sounds like "s" and "p".  The effect is
> even more pronounced with your average garden-variety microphone used,
> for example, in a high school auditorium.

    Well, believe it or not, the first poster is right about
telephones.  Yet, the second poster is right about using PA or
recording mics with dynamic, electret or condenser elements, talking
directly into the element will cause popping and essing.

    Telephone microphones of "transmitters" in telco-speak are
designed to be talked into. This is true with both U.S. (Bell) and
CCITT (E.U.)  standards. For best results, when on the phone talk into
the microphone.

    A telephone handset is tested on a device called an artificial
head.  The transducer in the artificial head is set up at a specified
distance from the mouthpiece and aimed directly at it. In fact the
dimensions of Bell and CCITT handsets are carefully spelt out, I can't
find all these docs right now, so most of this stuff is from memory.
Most of these test devices are built by Bruel & Kjaer a Danish
company.

    There are normally two types of transmitters used in handsets,
carbon and electret. One notable exception is the GNT F78 Danish phone
which has a dynamic element. The carbon element has a threshold effect
which means the sensitivity drops off rapidly as the sound source
moves away from it. This is useful for attenuating room noise, but as
the first poster notes, it also means that if you don't speak into the
transmitter the voice will be weak and indistinct. Electret
transmitters are more sensitive so are more likely to pickup snide
comments from bystanders in the background, so the "It's your boring
mother" type asides can be clearly heard. A well designed handset
using an electret will be well enough damped to avoid essing if spoken
into directly.

    So please speak into the mouthpiece, that's where the element
is.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Billing / Embarassing Retraction
Date: 31 Jul 90 10:54:03 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Elias <[e-mail]> writes:

> John, I don't see the point of your embarassment.  Your original
> comment about Sprint's billing still stands.

This is true, however my post tended to sound like a Sprint
commercial.  My embarrassment was that I had lightly skimmed over the
billing vs.  SMDR without noticing that while the calls were all
accounted for properly, Sprint was screwing me over big time in the
fact that it wasn't carrying my data. It was simply correctly billing
for the failed attempts.

> As for the Telebit connection problem, that's another
> story.  If billing is your criterion, Sprint and ATT seem to be on
> equal footing.  If Telebit techno-questions with the LD carrier are
> important to you, then it looks like ATT still wins.

Again, very true. In my conversation with Sprint's "computer and
modem" person, the data rate came up. "Oh, we don't guarantee 9600
baud transmissions and FAX. There are too many ways there can be
problems."  This is most interesting, since as I was speaking to him,
I was looking at my bill insert which glowingly hawked the advantages
of using Sprint for "sharp, clear, FAX transmissions."

When I suggested that a major use of long distance, at least by me,
was PEP transmissions, he said, "I hate to suggest that you use the
competition, but that might be necessary in this case." That's a
quote. Then he said that it might be possible to work with their
repair department in solving the problem, particularly if I told them
about my AT&T experience with calls to Kansas and told them what AT&T
had found. At this point I lost interest in performing as Sprint's
unpaid consultant, thanked the gentleman for his time, and removed
"10333" from entries in my Systems file.

> BTW, John.  you have ten residence phone lines??  That is truly
> outlandish!  And people call me a telecom geek just because I have an
> 800 number!

One can never have too many phone lines!

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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 18:24:54 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  31-Jul-1990 2125" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom?


 From:  Greg Monti

Rich Zellich <[e-mail]> writes:

> (2) [We] Selected measured service instead of flat rate (in Missouri, we
> have the luxury of flat rate still being the norm, and measured
> service only an experiment - the PUC is on *our* side in this state!)

No, the PUC is intelligent.  Options and choices are what the phone
system should offer consumers, not
mandatory-gold-plating-and-nothing-else.

>  - this was done based on the idea that "security" let-me-in calls
> would be relatively low in number, and normally of only a few seconds,
> rather than minutes, duration.  So far this has worked well, and we
> get monthly bills of around $2.50 for this line.

Oh, so you admit that there *is* a purpose to local measured service.
There really *are* people who will make less than the large number of
local calls needed to economically justify (to the intelligent
consumer) flat rate service.  But, no, once you pay $20 a month, your
local calls are "free" and it's important to get "free" things, right?

Here in Virginia: Flat Rate Service is $19.68 a month, including
Subscriber Line Charge and touch tone.  Economy is $9.20 including SLC
and TT with local calls $0.098 each.  For 25 outgoing local calls a
month (remember, busies, intercept recordings and no-answers are free
and not everybody has teenagers at home), the total using Economy is
$11.65 a month.  That's $8.03 a month cheaper than Flat Rate, a
savings of $96.36 a year.

Of *course* we should have optional measured service.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #532
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07561;
          1 Aug 90 4:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26226;
          1 Aug 90 2:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27693;
          1 Aug 90 1:35 CDT
Date:     Wed, 1 Aug 90 0:42:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #533
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Aug 90 00:42:27 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 533

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Answer Supervision on International Calls [Colin Plumb]
    Re: Terradine FORTEL System [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Answer Call Service [Greg Monti via John R. Covert]
    Re: PC Voicemail Sources [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular [Rich Sims]
    Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues [Joel B. Levin]
    Intrinsically Safe Telephones Needed [Barry Ornitz]
    Re: Cellular Phone Security [Roger Fajman]
    Call Forwarding/Busy/No-answer [Steve Elias]
    Octothorpe as the Name for # [Larry Jones]
    Re: Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom [Douglas Terrebonne]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on International Calls
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 1990 11:56:36 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Linc
Madison) writes:

> When I was in Australia in 1987, I observed that international calls,
> as I think with other calls (at least STD calls), from pay stations,
> were charged the initial 30c rate if allowed to ring more than a
> certain number (something on the order of one minute), whether or not
> answered.  However, they seemed to grab the coins immediately on
> connection if the call completed.

Perhaps they've found international answer supervision to be just a trifle
flaky, so they apply a generous timeout to catch those cases?


Colin

    ....
------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Terradine FORTEL System
Date: 31 Jul 90 18:02:00 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, ucla-cs!smcnet.smc.edu!
[e-mail] (Lawrence Roney) writes:

> GTE in our area now has the voice response FORTEL system.  It is a
> rather neat piece of equipment that seems to do much of the work that
> the testboard operators of the past used to do.  When installers or
> repair people come out, they often use the system.  I have seen it do
> the following:

Here is a response from my GTE mole re FORTEL:

Fred speaks out about FORTEL.....

      Actually FORTEL can do as much as the old manned test board
position but do it a lot faster and more accurately. Being a
computerized test facility it is available 24 hrs and can rapidly
switch from call to call. NO specialized test equipment is required,
any standard touch tone phone will do. The voice response is in simple
English and no interpretaion is necessary. Anyone could use and
understand the system (although it is restricted to use by GTE
employees only).

      There is much that FORTEL does, you mentioned a few examples:

>>    -- Tell distance in 1/10th of a mile to our demarcation point.
>>    -- Check for ringers on the line and read back the number found.
>>    -- Produce a tracer tone on the line.
>>    -- Ring the line.

But it does much more than that. It runs a full diagnostic on the line,
checking for:

        -- High resistance shorts on the loop,
        -- Foreign voltage present on the line,
        -- Unbalanced lines,
        -- Open tip or ring,
        -- Crossed tip or ring
        -- Proper capacitance,
        -- Proper siganlling states
           (i.e. on-hook, off-hook, maintainence busy, customer busy)
        -- and much, much, more

FYI, the FORTEL reporting system is not only used by GTE for new
installations but for all residential trouble reports as well. This
not only provides proof that the line has been repaired and is
funtioning properly but also provides an automatic time accounting for
the individual repairman in the field. Yes, FORTEL for the most part
has replaced the majority of manned test positions and is a shining
example of how a properly designed computer system can do a simple,
repetitive job faster and far better than a live person.


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

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 18:24:18 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  31-Jul-1990 2124" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Call Service


  From: Greg Monti
  Date: 31 July 1990
  Subject: Re: Answer Call Service

> [Moderator's Note: Perhaps, Mr. Monti, you will write again and
> explain your objections to voicemail over traditional answering
> machines. Is it just a matter of personal taste, or do you have
> serious objections to the service? I've had voicemail from Centel here
> in Chicago for quite awhile, and like it a lot.  PT]

Because it just doesn't pique my interest enough, yet.  $5 a month is
not particularly expensive, but my $89 Panasonic KXT-1415 answering
machine (bought 50 months ago) would be paid for in 18 of those $5
months.  The machine still works, clunky, mechanical beast that it is,
requiring a beeper for remote retrieval, etc., as it does.  I'm not
the type to call the machine from work every two hours to see what
important calls came in.  I'm also not the type to call the machine
much when out of town (maybe once or twice on a one-week trip).  Most
people I know are aware when I'm out of town and don't call at all,
much less leave a message.

I don't object to voicemail.  I use and enjoy the Rolm Phonemail
system installed late last year by my employer.  What I don't like is
organizations who install voicemail and, through ignorance or
incompetence, fail to force a path to an "always answered by a human"
extension, a key requirement of any corporate voicemail system.  Call
WNYC radio in New York (212 669-7800) sometime and listen to yourself
get lost in the ether.

Me as a telecom buff and me as a consumer are two different people.
Sure, I thought cellular phones were neat when they came out, but not
neat enough for me at the $1,600 price tags they had then.  Now that
department stores here in the Washington area are selling them for
$199 with three-month activation, my interest is up.  ($199 buys a
phone in a plastic "pack" with rubber-ducky antenna, car cigarette
lighter adapter and few in-phone features, no battery, no charger, no
mag- or glass-mount antenna, no car speakerphone features, etc.  But,
it's a working unit that allows you to get [removable] phone service
in the car - fast.)


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 23:06 EDT
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: PC Voicemail Sources


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Larry
Rachman) writes:

> What I'm trying to find is an IBM/clone-compatible PC card

> I'm currently sitting on a perfectly good WATSON board that comes with
> what must be the most bizzare developer's interface I've ever seen,
> involving a virtual deck of cards that one can 'jump' between or
> `search' for.

I have a WATSON.  It works but it is annoying to try to do some clever
stuff with it (like implement some very common features of voice mail
systems).

I saw an add for another card from The Online Store [phone].  I
believe the card is around $199 and their programming packages are
around $79.  A friend looked into a little more than I did (also a
WATSON owner) and thought the card looked reasonable.  He also called
the manufacturer (I forget who that is) and they seemed to imply that
the Online Store had a very good price on the board.  Never actually
seen one or dealt with the Online Store, tho.


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 06:57:51 EDT
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Info on Motorola Portable Cellular


In response to my question concerning changing the ESN of a callular
phone, the Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: The ESN is really about the only protection the
> cellular telcos have against fraud. Yes, people tamper with the ESN on
> cellular phones for fraudulent reasons. Nothing is perfect, but the
> ESN is deliberatly made difficult to change for that reason.  PT]

Unfortunately, what you say is quite true.  I was discussing the
subject with someone who is even less knowledgeable about this stuff
than I am, and his immediate response was to outline a scheme whereby
he would be able to defraud the cellular telco.  It took him all of
two seconds to figure out what would be needed to do that!  ....sigh!

My reason for wanting the information is not fraudulent, since I
already have the account (number) with the cellular telco, and would
be paying for all the air-time used, which is really the only thing
the cellular telco is providing.  I simply want to make it as
convenient as my wire connected service, and am less than enthused
over the prospect of paying $300 a year (or more) for what would
essentially be an "extension phone" used only for an occasional
outgoing call.

The response from the individual I was talking to reminds me of a time
when I logged onto a system via a long-distance call, and was asked by
another user if I was really calling from where I said.  When I
answered "yes", the next question was "Are you actually PAYING for the
call?", and my answer of "yes" to that question was received with
astonishment!


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, for about the first half dozen years
of BBS'ing -- 1979 through 1985 or so -- that medium had a
preponderance of phreaks, crackers, hackers, phrackers and other
sundry and assorted weird people on line to give it a bad name; a
reputation it has not entirely lived down to this day. Add the
computer illiteracy so prevalent in the general population and even
among many telco or government employees and you really can't blame
the telcos and the government from eyeing the whole thing with lots of
suspicion: Millions of dollars in fraud calls were terminated on BBS
lines over the years.  PT]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 18:11:33 EDT


>From: Gord Deinstadt <cognos!geovision![e-mail]>

>Some lawyers have argued that a cellular call *is* a broadcast
>transmission if the participants know that someone *might* be
>listening in. . . .

>[Moderator's Note: "Some lawyers" can argue whatever they like, but
>the catch is, was the transmission INTENDED for broadcast? . . .
>No intent? ... then no broadcast. No
>broadcast, then no right to repeat, acknowledge, 're-broadcast',
>profit from or print what was overheard.   PT]

This is essentially true and has always been, as far as I know.  The
controversial issues arise in the recent law (ECPA?) which seeks to
extend the idea of what is illegal; it is now apparently illegal
merely to _listen_ to such non-broadcast transmission, or to make or
sell equipment capable of doing so.  I don't think all of these new
restrictions will hold up for long.


/JBL

[e-mail]  or  [phone]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Barry Ornitz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intrinsically Safe Telephones Needed
Organization: Eastman Kodak Co.
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 23:12:33 GMT


We are in need of a number of intrinsically safe cellular telephones,
i.e.  those that can be used in locatations where flammable gases and
vapors may be present while not causing ignition of the gases or
vapors.  To be classed as intrinsically safe, the units must undergo
stringent testing by the Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FM).

I know that Motorola has manufactured models in the past that meet
these standards - I even have Motorola internal model numbers provided
by FM.  When I call Motorola, however, all I get is a runaround.  The
local cellular people have never heard of this safety rating.  The
Motorola communications people, who sell two-way radio systems such as
our new trunking system with STX radios, are quite familiar with
meeting the safety rating with their radios but they are not in the
cellular business.  I finally located a regional sales manager for
Motorola cellular equipment who told me that virtually all Motorola
cellular phones can meet the intrinsic safety rating with a special
battery pack - only $80 extra.  He has yet to be able to provide me
with any documentation backing up his claim, however.  We (Eastman
Chemicals) will not purchase this equipment, unfortunately, without
authenticated documentation in hand.

My request to comp.dcom.telecom is this:

Does anyone know of any competitor to Motorola with intrinsically safe
cellular telephones?  Or does anyone know who to contact in the
Motorola organization that can discuss this need with me that is
knowledgeable in this area?

We recently had a presentation by Motorola on radio frequency data
communication terminals.  These people were quite familiar with the
intrinsic safety requirements.  While their present terminals cannot
be used in many of our operating areas, this Motorola group is at
least working to provide future future devices that will be FM
approved for hazardous areas.

Thanks for any help on this.


Dr. Barry L. Ornitz   WA4VZQ   UUCP:  ....rutgers!rochester!kodak!ornitz
Eastman Kodak Company    Eastman Chemical Company Research Laboratories
P. O. Box 1972, Building 167B   Kingsport, TN  37662       615/229-4904
INTERNET:   [e-mail]

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90  19:25:35 EDT
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Security


Given that the laws regarding listening in on cellular phone
conversations seem to differ between the US and Canada, I wonder what
happens in the border areas where it may be possible to listen to a US
conversation from Canada, or vice versa.  Whose law applies?  I would
presume that of the country the listener is in, but I don't really
know.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Call Forwarding/Busy/No-answer
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 15:35:00 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


The "call forward on busy" and "call forward on no answer" features
are beginning to be offered in eastern Mass.  I just signed up for new
phone service and they mentioned this to me.  I'm going to try using
the above two features ($1.35/month each) instead of regular call
forwarding ($3/month).

/eli


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, it is a much better offering. I have it on
my cell phone. With regular call forwarding, it is easy to forget to
turn it on when you leave, or turn off when you return. If you use the
'forward on busy/no answer' feature instead, you can leave it turned
on all the time. You'll always get three or four rings before the call
is transferred back out to voicemail or wherever.   PT]

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

From: Larry Jones <sdrc!thor![e-mail]>
Subject: Octothorpe as the Name for #
Date: 30 Jul 90 21:05:29 GMT
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati


On a local radio station's call-in trivia show, a listener posed the
question "What is the correct name for the '#' character on a
telephone?", with the answer being, of course, "octothorpe".  Although
the hosts are trusting sorts who are inclined to believe anything
listeners tell them (within reason), they asked for some source
whereby they could verify the information.  Looking through my
(extremely limited) library of telecom stuff wasn't productive, so I
was wondering if anyone knew of a reference that could be found at a
reasonably large public or university library that would mention
octothorpe.

Larry Jones UUCP: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones SDRC
[e-mail] 2000 Eastman Dr.  BIX: ltl Milford, OH 45150-2789
AT&T: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: We seem to have come full circle here. Tell the
DJ's to check out the special issue of TELECOM Digest about a year and
a half ago, "All You Ever Wanted to Know About Octothorpes". Maybe I
will re-run that special issue sometime soon. It is in the Telecom
Archives.  PT]

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

From: Douglas Terrebonne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Die Hard 2 Dies on Telecom
Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 11:00:40 GMT


Same situation with DH II ... Except now they have upgraded the 440Mhz
HTs to Kenwood TH-45ATs!

   Doug - N6VMI

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #533
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25949;
          1 Aug 90 23:20 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16892;
          1 Aug 90 21:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12323;
          1 Aug 90 20:42 CDT
Date:     Wed, 1 Aug 90 20:21:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #534
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Aug 90 20:21:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 534

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    House Approves Restrictions on Fax, Phone Junk Mail [TELECOM Moderator]
    Building a Small Telephone Switch [Alain Fontaine]
    News from Nynex [U.K. Tony]
    Electronic Yellow Pages [U.K. Tony]
    Question on MCI Switcheroos [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Seeking Ringback for 415 [Douglas Terrebonne]
    Telephone/Fax Switch Boxes and Ringback Tone [Larry Lippman]
    Info Needed on Moxa-c296 Faxcard [Alvaro Hui Kau]
    Line Cost Request [[e-mail]]
    Looking for ISDN CPE: Voice/Data & Speed > 19.2 kbps [Jose Diaz-Gonzalez]
    More ANI Fun! [Peter Phillips]
    Re: Need Info on Radio Shack Scanners [Ernest H. Robl]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 1:01:22 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: House Approves Restrictions on Fax, Phone Junk Mail


The United States House of Representatives approved a bill Monday,
July 30 that would allow phone subscribers to keep incoming junk faxes
and automated phone sales calls off their lines.

The legislation, approved by a voice vote, would authorize the Federal
Communications Commission to set up a national registry of telephone
subscribers who object to unsolicited sales messages delivered orally
by a computer, or in printed form by a fax machine.

The FCC would also establish penalties for advertisers who call people
on the list.

Solicitations by charitable, political and religious organizations
would be exempt from the ban.

Telephone subscribers, either private individuals or businesses, could
specify they do not wish to receive advertising by facsimile machines
or automatically dialed, prerecorded telephone solicitations.

The legislation was crafted in cooperation with the Federal
Communications Commission, various telepone companies, and
representatives of the direct marketing industry, said Rep. Edward J.
Markey (D-Mass), one of the sponsors of the bill. The Senate must
still approve the bill, and the Senate version may make some changes.

The new law, if passed, will *NOT* prohibit live sales calls, but only
the automated kind, along with fax calls. The assumption is that the
called party can instruct an actual, live human-being sales person to
terminate the call and not call in the future.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 16:24:15 +0200
From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Building a Small Telephone Switch


A few (well, quite a few) months ago, the possibility to build a small
telephone switch was discussed in the TELECOM Digest, and a special
interest list was even formed to discuss the matter further. Nothing
ever happened, since everybody was interested in the result, but
nobody was able, or willing, or able to find the time to, actually
design the thing. 8-) or 8-(...

This is just to inform you that the Dutch magazine Elektuur (which
also has German, French and English editions) has announced such a DIY
project for its September issue.  The switch will support eight
extensions, and be controlled by a small SBC.  Sorry I don't have any
further information.


AF

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

Date: 08/01/90 15:12:44 (New York time)
From: "U.K. Tony" (U.K. Tony) <[e-mail]>
Subject: News from Nynex


News from NYNEX

New area code for the Bronx in 1992:   (917)

Mailing List Proposal Cancelled

NY Tel will not offer its directory lists to outside firms for direct
marketing due to a 'significant' response from subscribers who asked
to be excluded from the lists.

Blocking Service

NY Tel now will block at no charge:

        550 - Group Bridging/Chat Lines
        970 - Adult Services
        550,700,900,and970 combination

Service Discount Imposed by PSC

Starting in December, the cost of your basic local service could be
reduced by 20 percent if your central office experiences a certain
trouble rate. If you are serviced by a CO of more than 3,000 lines
that has 9.4 troubles per 100 access lines per month for a period of
three consecutive months, you may be entitled to a credit.

Or, if you're served by a CO of 3,000 or fewer lines, you may be
entitled to a credit if that office experiences a trouble rate of 9.4
troubles per 100 access lines per month for five consecutive months.
In either case, there would be no need to call your service
representative; your account would be credited automatically if you
qualify.

A New Exchange for Low Cost Information Services

New York Telephone has set up a new exchange, 394, for low-cost
information and entertainment services. These programs are produced by
individual vendors and not by New York Telephone. Each call costs 15
cents for the first minute and 5 cents for each additional minute when
dialed anywhere from the New York Metropolitan calling area.

        This exchange will be available for a variety of applications
including consumer product and service information, market research,
advisory hotlines, financial information, government agencies, and
charitable organizations.

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

Date: 08/01/90 15:14:47 (New York time)
From: "U.K. Tony" (U.K. Tony) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Electronic Yellow Pages


The nice people at British Telecom's ELECTRONIC YELLOW PAGES are
mailing out promotional stuff to their users at the moment.

The service is available in the UK on a Linkline number 0345 444 444.

It is also on PSS NUA 234273402002.

If calling from abroad the number is [phone].

The service is in VT100 an Viewdata.

Prestel users can reach ELP via page 3813#

There is no charge for using the service and it is online 24 hrs a day
365 days a year.

For more info, they have a help line on 0734 506506

* Electronic Yellow Pages is a Trademark of BT in the UK.

I have also been told the Full Directory Enquiries service is now on
Prestel. Something like page 192#


Tony

lamont!mneuxg!harding

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

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 90 17:13:45 -0400
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question on MCI Switcheroos


Inquiring reporter makes another request. There was a recent account
of somebody's problem getting switched out of MCI. Has anybody had any
experiences like the one below?

On July 15, one of our readers got a call from MCI, urging her to
switch her long-distance service because she would save loads of
money. But obviously she'd seen one AT&T commercial too many, because
she said ``how much? Prove it to me.''

``They said `OK' (and promised to send a pamphlet), meanwhile, we can
set you up with an account, and I said `absolutely not' and they said
`we'll sign you up.' ''

``I specifically said `do not switch me over' and I said it five times
because I had the feeling it was not getting through to her,'' she
said.

So of course when she checked her mail today (July 30), she found her
new MCI phone card. She called NE Telephone who said she had been
switched over just fine.

After some more calls to AT&T and NE Tel, she learned she had been
switched over on July 15, and that all the long-distance calls she has
made since then have been routed through MCI (and presumably billed to
her MCI account, the one she never authorized or asked for).

She is more than a little upset.

Thanks!

Adam Gaffin     Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass     [e-mail]
Voice: [phone]   Fred the Middlesex News Computer: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: An article by Robert Gutierrez in an issue of the
Digest two days ago said that MCI reps usually just close the account
and credit up to a certain dollar amount against charges on the
account without further questions.  PT]

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

From: Douglas Terrebonne <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeking Ringback for 415
Organization: SF Bay Public-Access Unix
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 90 11:20:54 GMT


This is something I've been searching for for a LONG time...  Does
anyone know how to do a ringback from the 415 area?  BTW, the ANI for
most of 415 seems to be 760-0126, although that doesn't seem to work
down here in Mtn View.

   Thanx,
         Doug

Disclaimers are for wimps!

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

Subject: Telephone/Fax Switch Boxes and Ringback Tone
Date: 1 Aug 90 00:50:33 EDT (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> gammafax![e-mail] (mike
spann) writes:

> I have seen two common types phone/fax switch boxes.

> The other box (and the one I would select) uses the little known fact
> that audio energy is carried down the phone line when the phone is
> ringing.  (This is commonly known to thiefs who sometimes talk to each
> other without answering the phone).  An automatic fax machine sends a
> calling tone every three seconds while waiting for the phone to be
> answered.  The phone/fax switch box listens on the line for this
> 'calling tone' and routes the call to the fax machine if one is heard.
> The box never answers the phone which I consider an advantage.  This
> way you can have a real-live phone the voice connection and a fax
> machine on the other.  People don't have to pay to call when you
> aren't home.

    With the exception of certain electromechanical CO's such as
SxS, XY and No. 1 XBAR (probably not No. 5 XBAR unless it is *really*
old), there is *no* audio path created between the calling and called
parties prior to answer and ring trip.  No commercial telephone/fax
switch box would rely upon a mode of operation which probably exists
in less than 5% of all CO's in North America.  Such an audio path only
existed when audible harmonics from ringing current were coupled back
to the calling party using a capacitor to provide ringback tone.  Such
ringback tone varied in intensity with the called party loop length
and number of connected ringers, creating a disadvantage.  The use of
the CCITT 440/480 Hz tones for ringback required a separate ringback
tone generator and a different circuit which no longer created the
above audio path.  Most No. 5 XBAR CO's were modified during the
1960's to provide the above precise ringback tone.

    What the above telephone/fax switch boxes do is answer the
line as soon as possible (i.e., on the first ring), and then supply
their *own* ringback tone.  Therefore, not only is an audio path
created by conventional answer, but the call is certainly not "free".


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: Alvaro Hui Kau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on Moxa-c296 Faxcard
Date: 1 Aug 90 05:07:06 GMT


Hi all experts out there:

I am asking this question for my friend:

She just brought the Moxa-c296 faxcard for IBM-pc from overseas and is
having trouble making it work.  She suspects that it has something to
do with the settings.

So, does anyone know whether the telephone system in Australia is of:

    Tone or pulse dialing type?

        10 or 20 pulse per second?

What is the:

        On/off ratio of the pulse dial(33/67??)?
    Delay time between numbers (600msec??)
    Pulse dialing method : i.e. when you press
       digit "n", n or n+1 pulse should be sent.

Thanks in advance!!

Alvaro Hui            |ACSnet        [e-mail]
                |Internet &    [e-mail]
4th Year B.E.\ B.Sc.        |Arpanet    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 10:06 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Line Cost Request


For a speech I'm giving in several days, I would like to present a
transparency showing line costs by bandwidth and distance. While I
have asked the major carriers for their figures, I do not hold out
hope for success in the near future.  I would, therefore, appreciate
assistance from any of you in filling in the blanks.  Thanks in
advance.

                  MONTHLY COST

                     1 mile    10 miles   100 miles   1000 miles

voice grade
9.6 DDS
T1
T3
T4 (274.176 mbps)

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

From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for ISDN CPE: Voice/Data & Speed > 19.2 kbps
Date: 1 Aug 90 18:21:19 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


Hi there,

I need to interface a Sun 3/160 to our ISDN simulator.  Given the lack
of TA boards for the VME bus, we have decided to get started by using
a simple data connection through one of the serial ports to an ISDN
set.  We would like to use a higher data rate than the 19.2 Kbps that
is common in most ISDN phone sets.  Obviously, we want to make full
use of one of the B channels at 64k, but we do not know how to do this
without a TA card.  Since the serial ports of the Sun have a maximum
rate of 32 Kbps, this would be the maximum rate we could go without
buying additional boards for the Sun.  Someone here has suggested
V.35.  I don't know much about V.35 or whether any vendor sells such a
thing.  Could anyone suggest an alternative to this?.

Also, since the equipment at the other end of the connection is a PC
with a TA card that allows us to run the connection at 64Kbps, I will
have to do rate adaption (v.110 or v.120) in software.  I assume the
ISDN set must perform rate adaption internally.  But, what is the
prefered or most common "standard"?.  Please respond by email.

Thanks,


+    Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez     +                                +
+    SrMTS                 +                    +
+    GTE Laboratories, Inc.       +       Tel:   [phone]    +
+    MS-46                          +       email: [e-mail]        +
+    40 Sylvan Rd.             +                    +
+    Waltham, MA 02254         +                    +
+                     +                    +

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

From: Peter Phillips <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: More ANI Fun!
Date: 1 Aug 90 07:59:25 GMT
Organization: The Foxtail Group, San Diego, CA


I found this number posted on a local BBS, and figured it had some
entertainment value.  This is a demo number for some company selling
something ANI related.  Anyway, here it is:  1-800-666-6258.


[Moderator's Note: I tried it from home, and sure enough, it read back
my number to me. I tried it using my cell phone, and it read back a
totally different number: 312-229-XXXX which is NOT my cell number; is
not in service for incoming calls, and is listed to 'IBT Company, 8888
West 87th Avenue, Hickory Hills, IL, which is not in the 312 area.
Weirdness ... Has it occurred to anyone else that this number is a
good one to use to answer the question, 'what number is the phone I am
calling from?' when the number is not readily available?  If any of
you try it, let's see if it can be tricked into giving the wrong
number, or not being able to give one at all. Try your tie lines,
special circuits, via 950, etc ... Fun time, everyone!  :)  PT]

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

From: "Ernest H. Robl" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Info on Radio Shack Sscanners
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 05:42:07 GMT


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

[Discussion of interest in Radio Shack scanner on sale deleted.]

Before purchasing, you may also want to check out the prices offered
by Scanner World, USA, a major mail order dealer that carries a wide
range of scanners and accessories, usually below prices available in
local stores.

Their address is 10 New Scotland Ave., Albany, NY 12208; (518)
436-9606.

I've purchased several items from them over the years -- I use
scanners to listen to railroad operations -- and have no other
connection with them.  Once you get on their mailing list, you'll get
a 60+ page catalog about every other month or so.


Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax)  Durham, NC, USA  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I can also vouch for this company. I receive their
catalogs and have purchased a couple things in the past. Their service
is pretty fast, and their prices are decent.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #534
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27779;
          2 Aug 90 1:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13486;
          1 Aug 90 23:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27772;
          1 Aug 90 22:47 CDT
Date:     Wed, 1 Aug 90 22:42:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #535
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 1 Aug 90 22:41:51 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 535

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Octothorpe as the Name for # [Floyd Vest]
    Re: Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone [Todd Inch]
    Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme [Todd Inch]
    Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [John Higdon]
    Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Sprint Billing / Embarassing Retraction [John L. Shelton]
    Re: Sprint Billing / Embarassing Retraction [John Higdon]
    Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as Intercom [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Answer Call Service from NJ Bell [Stacey Lebitz]
    Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System [Daniel M. Rosenberg]
    DTS Modem - Need Info [Bill Plunkett]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpe as the Name for #
Date: 1 Aug 90 05:34:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Auburn University


In article <[e-mail]>, sdrc!thor![e-mail]
(Larry Jones) writes...

>On a local radio station's call-in trivia show, a listener posed the
>question "What is the correct name for the '#' character on a
>telephone?", with the answer being, of course, "octothorpe".

>I was wondering if anyone knew of a reference that could be found at a
>reasonably large public or university library that would mention
>octothorpe.

Look to the oft mentioned "Understanding Telephone Electronics" by The
Texas Instruments Learning Labs published by Radio Shack.  I saw it
there first.


Floyd Vest    Auburn University   [e-mail]
{...!gatech!ducvax.auburn.edu!fvest}    [e-mail]

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For Entry "Intercom" Phone
Organization: Global Tech International Inc.
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 05:58:49 GMT


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

>The resident answers the phone in the usual way, and is connected to
>the front door speaker phone. The door can be opened by dialing '4',
>or admission can be denied by simply hanging up.

Thanks for the interesting article.

Do you know if the exterior keypad is disabled, or better yet, if the
frequencies for a DTMF '4' are blocked to prevent the visitor from
phreaking the thing open with a tone dialer?

The one time I visited an apartment with a similar (but non-phone)
system, the buttons were labelled with only apartment numbers.  I
couldn't remember my friend's apt # and had to find a pay phone to ask
him.

Disclaimer:  Even though I said "tone dialer", I'm not a drug dealer.

Todd Inch, System Manager, Global Technology, Mukilteo WA  [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi    ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I believe -- am not certain -- that the tone pad
goes dead once the required number of digits are entered by the guest
seeking admission. A tone dialer might defeat the system. The building
directory shows tenant name and code number -- not apartment number.
The tenant must tell the guest what apartment number is involved.
There are some definite tricks played with this service where the CO
version is concerned: IBT says if a tenant has an off-premise
extension on his line (a bridge to an answering service, for example),
the OPX will *not* get the doorbell signal, nor if they were to pick
up the phone during a front door intercom call would they be able to
dial 4 and open the door. Yet the former caretaker of one such
building here (with front door service via the CO rather than CPE) had
his own apartment a half-block away. The phone in the office of the
apartment building was OPX'ed to his apartment. He *was* able to
receive front door calls at that location. Why? Because the OPX in his
apartment was actually nothing more than multipled from the cable run
to the apartment building and not a separate cable from the CO.   PT]

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home-Grown Anti-Caller-ID Scheme
Organization: Global Tech International Inc.
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 06:05:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> CLITHEROW PETER <boulder!snoopy!
[e-mail]> writes:

>I use a slightly easier version to avoid telemarketers.

>so incoming calls to the data phone will either get busy, or never
>be answered.  (Sometimes, i pick up the phone and say "wrong number")
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^
I really liked this one.

How about "Thank you for calling the Anti-Telemarketing Hotline.  You
will be charged $20 for this first minute.  Please have your
VISA/MC/AmEx ready for billing subsequent minutes . . . "


Todd Inch,  System Manager,  Global Technology,  Mukilteo WA [phone]
UUCP: {smart-host}!gtisqr!toddi  ARPA: gtisqr![e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work?
Date: 1 Aug 90 01:45:22 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Bill Huttig <[e-mail]> writes:

> Then there is the option of getting the multi-pattern ringing service
> from you phone co. (Some common names for it are RingMaster, Smart
> Ring, RingMate....etc).

Anyone remember party lines? You know, one pair of wires serving
multiple subscribers with different phone numbers -- useful when pair
availability is limited. Bet you thought they were a thing of the
past.

Now the telcos have found a way to bring them back and sell both
halves (or all four quarters) to the same subscriber! Talk about your
simulated facilities! Well, it IS cheaper than having multiple lines,
but much less useful. But the telco sure cleans up.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: US Long Distance Billing Scheme is a Crock
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 06:46:10 GMT



Regular readers of comp.dcom.telecom may remember that Canadian Telex
service is billed by pulses, rather than by detailed billing. I
suspect the same is true for Western Union's domestic Telex service in
the U.S.

In the absence of detailed billing, the Telex operator at Dalhousie
University's Kellogg Health Sciences Library used a stop-watch to time
calls so that end-users could be charged for their outgoing Telex
messages. (This was thirteen years ago, when I was a student at
Dalhousie and worked on the student newspaper there, _The Dalhousie
Gazette_. We used Telex to send and receive news to and from Canadian
University Press, the national organization of Canadian
English-language student newspapers, which had its own Telex machine
in Ottawa. Of course, it helped that the library's Telex operator was
our editor's cousin.)

Most news moved by mail back then; Telex was only for particularly
urgent material.

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

From: [e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
Subject: Re: Sprint Billing / Embarassing Retraction
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA [phone]
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 14:22:04 GMT


Note that yesterday's (31-Jul) {Wall Street Journal} had an article on
Sprint's continuing financial woes.  One of the major points of the
article was that their billing problems seem to be returning.  Watch
out!


=John=

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Billing / Embarassing Retraction
Date: 1 Aug 90 13:22:46 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>



         AT&T NEWS BRIEFS
         [All items are today's date unless otherwise noted]

         Tuesday, July 31, 1990

         MARKETPLACE -- US Sprint's long-distance telephone service, the
         company advertises, uses a fiber-optic network so pure "you can
         hear a pin drop."  That phrase might also describe the stunned
         silence ... after [Sprint lost] $42 million in the second quarter.
         [...]  The problem, [says Sprint's chairman,
         William T. Esrey], has been a matter of resources.  "We have been
         outmanned - outpersoned - and outgunned, by AT&T in particular,"
         says the executive, who is lobbying hard against any FCC move to
         unshackle the industry leader. ... Wall Street Journal, A1.

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

I have an alternative explanation as to what the problem might be.
It's called "service to the customer". And it is not a matter of
resources; it is a matter of attitude.

On Sunday, I reported a problem with my Trailblazer speaking over a
Sprint circuit to San Diego. I corrected the problem temporarily by
using AT&T, but have called daily to see if Sprint was even working on
it. Finally today, Wednesday, I reached someone who had the tenacity
to get an answer from the technical department. The findings? The
problem is "in the customer's equipment". (Sounds like GTE, no?)

I explained to the person that there was no problem with the
equipment, in fact there was no problem with Sprint except to San
Diego. She asked, "Do you want me to reenter the trouble report?" "Do
you want my business?" "Of course we want your business!" "Then it
will have to work, won't it?" And then there was one more, "Maybe you
should call your vendor and have your equipment checked." "Not
necessary. Even as we speak the equipment is talking, successfully, to
two other sites."  "Ok. I'll make out another trouble ticket."

Now you have to understand that the only reason I'm wasting my time
with all this is that my curiousity is aroused concerning Sprint's
ability to handle customers. If I was not so interested, Sprint would
have lost my business flat, and I would have patronized a carrier that
could serve my needs, as will probably end up being the case.

As my friends say, quoting a line from Stan Freberg's "The United
States of America" -- "When are you going to stop fooling around with
these nuts?"


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

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Rate Applies for Phone Used as an Intercom?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 18:20:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Covert 31-Jul-1990 2125) writes:

> Of *course* we should have optional measured service.

Sure, and if we could depend on the LOC and the PUC not making it
mandatory it'd be great. The problem is that in practice optional
measured service is he thin end of the wedge, so that measured ends up
being the only type of service offered.


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

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

From: S Lebitz <nvuxh![e-mail]>
Date: 1 Aug 1990  9:41 EDT
Subject: Re: Answer Call Service from NJ Bell


I got a pamphlet in the mail about "Answer Call" Service from NJ Bell.
This is your basic residential voice messaging system.  What I was
wondering was what system they are using to provide the service
(Octel, Audix,???).  I called NJB but the people I talked with didn't
know.  Does anyone out there know?


Stacey Lebitz

[e-mail]
 ...!bellcore!nvuxh!stacey

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

From: "Daniel M. Rosenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System
Date: 1 Aug 90 17:18:50 GMT
Organization: World Otherness Ministries


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey M.
Schweiger) writes:

>David Barts implies that the Federal Telecommunications System (FTS)
>remains much the same today as it was when he was first introduced to
>it.  While I never used the old FTS (being a separate system from
>Autovon), with the implementation of FTS 2000, commercial LD carriers
>(AT&T and Sprint, I believe) are handling the LD service.  Maybe one
>of the other TELECOM Digest readers can give us a description of FTS
>2000 and how it works.

Here at the Palo Alto Veterans Administration Medical Center, we have
what we call FTS, and is probably FTS 2000. We access normal, local
outside dialing through 9+number, FTS through 8+number. 9+ number
won't take areacodes (even the nearby 408) but 8+ will only take area
codes (and, I believe, FTS tie lines).

One fine day I tried to raise an operator to make a credit card call.
8+0+10 digits raised someone who said "FTS Sprint." She said to make a
credit card call, dial 0+areacode+number, which I had just done.

Eventually someone here told me one simply didn't make credit card
calls over FTS. In addition, the line quality is audible, but not good
enough for using a 1200 baud or higher modem over long distances. Come
to think of it, it is pretty much hopeless using a modem even to
Stanford, a few hundred meters away. Our switch at the VA is a new
Northern DMS-100 (or SL-100, or whatever they call it), and they just
layed down new lines from the phones to the switch.

But out FTS is better than the shouting and squawking described
earlier.  With the mediocre line quality, undocumented and
ever-changing dialing instructions, and opaque operators, it's sort of
like a giant COCOT.


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

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

From: Bill Plunkett <[e-mail]>
Subject: DTS Modem - Need Info
Reply-To: Bill Plunkett <[e-mail]>
Organization: Clarkson University
Date: 1 Aug 90 12:00:39 GMT


  I was asked to help identify some equipment that was given to us
recently.  Among this stuff was what appears to be some sort of modem.
It is about the size and shape of two Hayes style modems, one on top
of the other.  In fact, inside the box is a board in one slot and an
empty slot apparently intended to accomodate a second identical board
(judging by the second set of identical blank holes and labels on the
front panel).  This suggests some sort of modular approach.  The box
also appears to be made to slide into a rack and plug in (there are
pins protruding from the rear).

The front panel says "NETWORK ACCESS COMPUTER" in big letters,
presumably the name of the device.  It also has a "DTS" logo, and the
rear panel indicates that it was manufactured by Dynamic Telecom
Systems, Inc, Columbus, OH.  Directory assistance for Columbus
couldn't find any such company listed.  The rear panel also said: NAC
Model 2-L.  On the front panel is what looks like a four pin RJ-11
phone jack, but is labelled "RJ-31X CONNECTION".  There are four LEDs:
"OFF HOOK", "DTMF", "L/S POWER", "SEIZE & DIAL" and "400 Hz".  There
are also two trim-pot adjustments: "DTMF" and "DIAL TONE".  There are
blank holes for the phone jack, LEDs, and trim pots of a second board
(not installed).

  The device appears to be new, in the box, but came with no
instructions.  There is a command summary sheet, but the commands look
strange to me (nothing like Hayes commands).  For example, on section
on the sheet says:

    10266 BASIC INSTALLATION COMMANDS
     1 Type of trunk/line        1 loop        2 ground
     2 Type of trunk/line        1 DTMF        2 rotary dial
     3 Account code options        1 opt.        2 forced
     4 Rotary digit reception    1 yes        2 no
     5 NAC provides d/t        1 yes        2 no
     6 Type of d/t provided        1 precise    2 400 Hz
     7 Type of CO d/t        1 precise    2 other
     8 Screening tables or speed     1 screening    2 speed numbers
       numbers              tables

There are many other options outlined, some like "store and fwd calls:
yes/no" and "answer on 15th ring: yes/no" and some more mysterious,
like "N-O-N = 2 pulses of 400 Hz: yes/no".

  I don't know if theses things (we actually have four) will prove to
be of any use, but I sure am curious to know what they are.  Anyone
have any idea?

Thanks,

Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #535
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20130;
          2 Aug 90 23:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22189;
          2 Aug 90 21:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21341;
          2 Aug 90 20:54 CDT
Date:     Thu, 2 Aug 90 20:33:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #536
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Aug 90 20:33:12 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 536

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More ANI Fun! [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Ravinder Bhumbla]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Bryan M. Richardson]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Arthur Axelrod]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Tom Perrine]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Bob Clements]
    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Alan I. M. Laird]
    Re: Seeking Ringback for 415 [Barrey Jewall]
    Re: 911 Overflow [Ken Thompson]
    Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Telephone/Fax Switch Boxes and Ringback Tone [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Local/State Taxes [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Info Needed on Moxa-c296 Faxcard [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Answer Call Service From NJ Bell [Brian Charles Kohn]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 22:03:11 CDT
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics


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

>[Moderator's Note: I tried it from home, and sure enough, it read back

>If any of you try it, let's see if it can be tricked into giving
>the wrong number, or not being able to give one at all.

I called from my office at the University of Houston.  We have some
sort of ancient internal network (most of the switching devices still
don't handle tones, the LD service didn't handle tones until a year or
so ago, etc etc.)  My office number is in my .sig.  The number it gave
me was 713.748.0596.  This number is the number that shows up on a
bill if you call someone collect from on campus, or use some LD
companies (it's been that number for the past five or six years).  If
you dial the number, you get a "not in service" recording from SWBT.

I didn't even have to try to fool it. :-(


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]
Bitnet: jet@UHOU
Skate UNIX(r)


[Moderator's Note: Almost the same thing happened when we tried it
today from an extension on a Rolm PBX which has a bunch of DID lines
coming into it. Dialing 9, then the number got us back a message
saying our number was entirely different, but on the same prefix. When
we dialed that number, surprise! The switchboard operator answered,
and said we came up on the number for incoming calls. But the number
read back was not the main number.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 09:52:12 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


I have not yet tried it from my work phone, which is on a private PBX,
and uses AT&T tie-lines, but from home (MCI is my 1+ carrier), it read
it off correctly.  The other thing of note was that in the speil, the
synthisized voice said something about it getting ANI from MCI lines.
Did that also mean that it knew that my LD carrier was MCI or was it
that it gets its info from the same source that MCI does for my LD
billing?
                         - tom


internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location     : Newark, DE, USA

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

From: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 2 Aug 90 05:51:51 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


In article <[e-mail]> foxtail![e-mail] (Peter
Phillips) writes:

>I found this number posted on a local BBS, and figured it had some
>entertainment value.  This is a demo number for some company selling
>something ANI related.  Anyway, here it is:  1-800-666-6258.

Here is yet another response.  I tried from my office in UC, San
Diego.  The number was [phone] and is part of the campus wide
telephone system (534 prefix).

Well the company's machine got my area code correct (619), but gave my
local number as 450-9532.  When I dialled 450-9532 I got a "boing"
with the recording that the number has been disconnected or is not in
service.


Ravinder Bhumbla    [e-mail]    Office Phone: [phone]

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

Date: Thu,  2 Aug 90 10:38:45 EDT
From: Bryan M Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Dialing from a 5ESS(R) based ISDN centrex location, I placed two calls
 -- one "normally" and one using the "private number" feature of the
ISDN BRI interface.  Both calls resulted in my station number (708)
979-6157 being read back to me instead of the 'general' number, (708)
979-2000.  Apparently the private number feature only works on
internal centrex calls.

Just one observation,

Bryan Richardson
AT&T Bell Laboratories

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

Date: 2 Aug 90 08:16:16 PDT (Thursday)
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
From: [e-mail]


Well, I just tried 1-800-666-6258 from my office phone, which is on a
non-Bell Centrex-like system.  (Don't recall what kind of switch the
TelCo uses.)  It got my area code right, but told me my phone number
was 555-5555.  Amusing.


   Art Axelrod
   Xerox Webster Research Center

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

From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 2 Aug 90 20:08:46 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


OK, I tried it out through our PBX, which uses (abuses) MCI, and I
noticed that the recorded voice mentioned that my carrier is MCI.


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]

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

Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 90 16:56:15 -0400
From: [e-mail]


I called it from work.  We (BBN) have a Rolm PBX with 7500 DID numbers
in the 617-873-xxxx exchange.  It gave me back 617-491-1850, which was
BBN's original number 25 years ago and which we still keep in case
someone has ancient stationary or some such.  I guess that's our
billing number.

[Does it work from Pennsylvania?  If so, somebody send in the SWAT
team!]


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: My gosh, yes! I wonder if anyone has notified the
authorities in PA of how their rights are being violated by this
service. I wonder what would happen if phone subscribers with 800
numbers insisted that their telco quit routing them *any* 800 calls
from Pennsylvania until such time as it becomes legal to know the
number of the telephone used in the call to them -- which, after all
they are paying for?   PT]

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

From: Alan I M Laird <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Date: 2 Aug 90 15:16:20 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.


>Uh, I think you have it backwards, John. Your transmitter turns on to
>answer the broadcast poll on the setup channel [sent to *all* cells,
>in order to find your phone], and you're switched to what will be the
>talk channel, *before* the local ringer on the addressed phone starts
>tweeting. It's the talk path (mic, earphone amplifier) that doesn't
>open 'til you hit SND.

This seems to be true from my experience as well. I often leave my
8500x sitting next to the television and shortly before it starts
ringing the television loses its picture and there is a loud hum
picked up directly on the speaker. Hi-fi speakers also pick up a hum.
Moving a few feet away restores the picture.

This allows me to display psychic abilities by starting to walk toward
the phone before it rings. Also if you happen to be looking at the
phone when this happens you will see it light up about half a second
before it rings.

Not long after I got the phone my mother had a lot of trouble getting
through to me. She would dial the number but then get cut off. What
happened at my end was that the phone lit up but didn't ring. When I
saw this happen I knew who was trying to call and could call her back.
I'm interested to hear if anyone else has had similar problems with
vodaphones in the UK. She still has occasional problems getting
through and one other person claims that it is almost impossible to
get me; everyone else has no problem. Could this be some sort of bug
in some BT exchanges ?


Alan I M Laird,               E-mail    : [e-mail]
Dept of Computer Science,     Wireline  : 041 552 4400 x3081
University of Strathclyde,    Cellular  : 0836 320786
Glasgow G1 1XH, UK.

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

From: Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka>
Subject: Re: Seeking Ringback for 415
Date: 2 Aug 90 20:26:32 GMT
Reply-To: Barrey Jewall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
Terrebonne) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 534, Message 6 of 12

>This is something I've been searching for for a LONG time...  Does
>anyone know how to do a ringback from the 415 area?  BTW, the ANI for
>most of 415 seems to be 760-0126, although that doesn't seem to work
>down here in Mtn View.

ANI for some other 415 areas (Foster City, San Mateo, and some of San
Francisco) is 760-0112.

I haven't heard any ringback numbers in quite a while ... Let me know
if you get one.


+ Barrey Jewall                 ++ "My opinions are my opinions" +
+ [e-mail]            ++ (rather self-evident, eh?)    +
+ Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++                 +

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 911 Overflow
Date: 1 Aug 90 19:39:48 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Thompson <entec![e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS


I called 911 on the 4th of July (I am told their #1 busiest night of
the year) and got a busy signal ... five times.


Ken Thompson     N0ITL      NCR Corp.      3718 N. Rock Road
Wichita,Ks. 67226       [phone]      [e-mail]

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch
Date: 2 Aug 90 02:05:31 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alain FONTAINE
(Postmaster - NAD)) writes:

>This is just to inform you that the Dutch magazine Elektuur (which
>also has German, French and English editions) has announced such a DIY

Is this system going to be compatible with the US phone system.  How
can I get the English eddition of the magazine?

Bill


[Moderator's Note: Do you think a well-stocked newstand, bookstore or
the library would be a good place to start looking?   PT]

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

From: David E A Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone/Fax Switch Boxes and Ringback Tone
Date: 2 Aug 90 07:20:28 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, University of Wollongong, Australia


kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman) writes:

>Such an audio path only
>existed when audible harmonics from ringing current were coupled back
>to the calling party using a capacitor to provide ringback tone.  Such
>ringback tone varied in intensity with the called party loop length
>and number of connected ringers, creating a disadvantage.  The use of
>the CCITT 440/480 Hz tones for ringback required a separate ringback
>tone generator and a different circuit which no longer created the
>above audio path.  Most No. 5 XBAR CO's were modified during the
>1960's to provide the above precise ringback tone.

Here in Australia, I have noticed that with my parents phone, the ring
sound that the caller gets depends on the phone plugged into the
socket (phones that chirp and phones that ring a bell sound different
to the caller).

Would this tend to indicate the vintage of their exchange?


David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local/State Taxes
Date: 2 Aug 90 11:06:22 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>Anyone have any idea why this is true, I would think that both would be
>subject to collecting the same taxes?

I don't know if it applies here, but one difference I have noticed
between carriers is that Sprint bills taxes based on the billing
address, while AT&T (or at least the local telco, which does our AT&T
billing) taxes based on service address.

In Los Angeles, which levys an outrageous 10% tax on telecommunications,
I know of Sprint customers who rent a P.O. Box outside the city limits
and have their bill sent there.

We took another approach.  We moved all our business to San Diego, as
we were paying thousands of dollars in L.A. tax each month and it was
on local telco services so a P.O. box wouldn't have helped.  I'm
surprised there hasn't been more opposition to taxes like this.

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info Needed on Moxa-c296 Faxcard
Date: 2 Aug 90 15:37:38 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Alvaro
Hui Kau) writes:

> So, does anyone know whether the telephone system in Australia is of:

>     Tone or pulse dialing type?

    All phone systems accept Pulse. Some of the more modern ones
accept Tone. As I recall some areas of Australia now have DTMF (Touch
Tone) available.

>         10 or 20 pulse per second?

    10 PPS is the std. Some Digital Switches will accept 20 PPS
without barfing.

> What is the:

> On/off ratio of the pulse dial(33/67??)?

    Make Break Ratio is 2:1 (33/67)

>     Delay time between numbers (600msec??)

    Interdigit time 800 ms

>     Pulse dialing method : i.e. when you press
>       digit "n", n or n+1 pulse should be sent.

Pulse to digit translation 1 to 1. i.e. number 1 = 1 pulse, number 9 =
9 pulses. number 0 = 10 pulses.

    Despite telco specs, most COs will respond to pulse rates
between 8 and 14 PPS, make break ratios of 1.44:1 to 2:1, and
interdigit spacing from 400 to 800 ms. Where you get into trouble with
this is when you have a flakey line into a flakey switch. Long loops
into a sloppy SXS will cause you more grief than a jealous wife.

Have fun.


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

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

Date: Thu,  2 Aug 90 12:31:45 EDT
From: Brian Charles Kohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Call Service From NJ Bell
Reply-To: "The Resource, Poet-Magician of Quality" <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Quality Technology Center


In comp.dcom.telecom, Nvuxh![e-mail] (S Lebitz)
wrote:

 => I got a pamphlet in the mail about "Answer Call" Service from NJ Bell.
 => This is your basic residential voice messaging system.  What I was
 => wondering was what system they are using to provide the service
 => (Octel, Audix,???).  I called NJB but the people I talked with didn't
 => know.  Does anyone out there know?

Uh, "know?"  Well we don't know but we have a good idea:

ISDN features Busy-Call-Forward, and No-Answer-Call-Forward are the
kernal of the system; They became available (though aren't advertised)
the same time as Answer-Call.


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]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #536
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21832;
          3 Aug 90 1:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21572;
          3 Aug 90 0:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22191;
          2 Aug 90 23:00 CDT
Date:     Thu, 2 Aug 90 22:04:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #537
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 2 Aug 90 22:04:13 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 537

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Motorola Wristwatch Pager [TELECOM Moderator]
    Bell Canada's Alex Service and the Visually Impaired [Nigel Allen]
    Question About 1+ Carrier and Noise [Thomas Lapp]
    Touchtone Detection Question [Glenn M. Cooley]
    Phone/Voice Mail System Advice? [Mark McWiggins]
    Cellular Rate Surprise Good [Peter M. Weiss]
    Sprint Billing Practice [Ken Jongsma]
    700 Blocking? [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Special Issue: Tridium [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Telemarketers' Lists [Daniel Alan Fleming]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Patrick L. Humphrey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 20:58:27 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Motorola Wristwatch Pager


It's hard to believe that after 40 or 50 years, Dick Tracy is still
ahead of the times with his Two-Way Wrist TV.

But arm's-length communications seems to be getting a little closer to
reality with Motorola's announcement that it had begun national
distribution of its combined wristwatch/pager this month.

This combination will be sold for about a year by pager dealers, and
probably by 1992 will be on sale in retail stores as well. This is a
joint venture with Timex, and the product looks much like a typical
black LCD watch, however it is bulkier because of the small battery
which operates the pager for 45 days, and the extra buttons required
to operate the pager.

When messages come in, the same screen used by the timepiece will
instead display the phone number of the caller on the liquid crystal
screen. The unit will beep as loud as normal pagers.

It operates on the Golay Sequential Coding and Post Office Standard
Advisory Group Code systems, the two primary paging systems used.

Motorola says they have targeted this new watch/pager combination at
people who have never used a pager before.

Motorola is actually second on the market with something like this:
earlier this year, a company on the west coast called AT&E started
marketing its own wrist pager, with similar features.

With the Motorola unit at least, after you buy it, you take it to the
radio paging company of your choice and they activate it, like they
would any other pager. In most cases, the dealer or store selling the
unit will already have an arrangement with some service provider, much
as cellular phones are marketed now. The price is going to be in the
$150 - $200 range, presumably if a deal is cut with the paging
company.

Now we can all be Dick Tracy! (Almost, anyway ... still no way to talk
back to it, or see pictures on it.  That'll be next, I guess.)


Patrick Townson

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

From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada's Alex Service and the Visually Impaired
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 18:57:40 EDT


(Source for this: {The Globe and Mail}, Toronto, July 31, 1990

Bell Canada has been accused of discriminating against the visually
disabled because its Alex videotex service does not have a format that
the blind can use. [Blind people can BBS using a speech synthesizer.]

Alex provides telephone listings, home shopping and banking services,
and news stories, but the system makes extensive use of graphics.
Computers for the blind can't filter out the graphics characters.

The general manager of Disc-Quebec Inc., a Montreal-based non-profit
organization for the disabled, says his organization is working on
software that would filter out the graphics characters so that blind
people could use Alex, but has been told by Bell Canada that it will
not provide money for the research.

He said France Telecom's Minitel has special terminals for blind
subscribers, but they cost more than $2000.

A Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission said the
CRTC considers Alex a discretionary service, not a basic service that
must be universally available. The CRTC has asked Bell Canada to
investigate the complaints of the groups serving the disabled
community.

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

Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 10:08:14 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Question About 1+ Carrier and Noise


Here is an interesting situation which I don't understand, but have a
theory about.  I'd like input from 'the experts' here on telecom who
know a little more about long distance and 800 number switching.

I use a computer service called NWI which has two sets of 800 telecom
lines for data access.  One set is leased from Sprint, and the other
set is leased from AT&T.  I have noticed when calling from my area
(302-731) that the Sprint line often will have noise on the line,
whereas I have had very little problem with the AT&T line.  My 1+
carrier is MCI and not one of the above two.

Does anyone know how my call is being routed between the various
carriers from my home to the NWI system (in Connecticut)?  When I dial
the 800 number, when does it connect to the AT&T or the Sprint system?
At my local CO?  At the nearest (Philadelphia) POP?

Here is my theory for why the lines are cleaner for AT&T for me: I
live in an area which has a lot of business communication lines:
banks, a credit card headquarters, two chemical company headquarters,
etc.  I know for a fact that one of them uses a LOT of AT&T lines and
has a close working relationship with both the local telco and AT&T to
help solve and keep their own data lines clean and working.  So my
theory is that since the lines are being so well maintained by the
local telco and AT&T for this area, naturally I, as a residential
subscriber in the same area, am benefitting from these large firms by
having better than average upkeep and maintenace on lines in my area.
Does this seem to make sense?

Perhaps a general discussion of how a LD call is routed over both an
800 line and a regular LD call with an alternate carrier could be
explained.  As I understand it, with a LD call on an alternate
carrier, my local telco takes the call to the CO.  From there it is
switched (per my connection request) to my alternate carrier, and
their lines take the call as far as the destination CO.  From there it
goes back to the destination local CO's lines and thence to the
destination phone.  I'm guessing that if the alternate carrier does
not have a direct tie in to the destination CO, that they rent? lines
from AT&T or someone else to tie them in?

I'm getting a little frustrated with the 'dirty' Sprint lines going to
this firm's computers.  Since it is an interactive session with
uploads and downloads in ASCII form only (they don't support
error-correcting protocols other than at the modem level (ie MNP)), I
can't tolorate noise on the line.  So, to their disappointment (they
want it to be a backup line only) I've been using their AT&T line
exclusively.


tom

internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,psuvax1,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location     : Newark, DE, USA

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

Date: Thu,  2 Aug 90 14:24:59 EDT
From: Glenn M Cooley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touchtone Detection Question
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Some/most systems I've come across which have you enter data through
TT are able to correctly decode my input, long pulses, short pulses,
quick pulses, Bell phones, non-Bell phones.  Other systems, such as
various answering machines are very fickle.  I have to master a
certain pressing technique and can only use certain phones (non-PBX
Bell phones are the best) and still need to use several tries.

Why/comments/etc?

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

From: Mark McWiggins <intek01![e-mail]>
Subject: Phone/Voice Mail System Advice?
Organization: Integration Technologies, Inc. (Intek)
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 23:03:20 GMT


We're shopping for a new phone system to replace our current cheesy
key system.  We're being bombarded by competing claims/counterclaims
from various vendors maligning each other's products.

Do you have any hero or horror stories?  We're shopping for a six-line
system, with the lines to be shared by ten voice users, one fax, and a
modem, along with automated attendant and voice mail.  We have
reasonable-looking proposals for NEC, Toshiba, and Panasonic switches
and AVT and Repartee voice mail.

Anything especially good or bad to say about any of these?  One of the
NEC reps ripped Panasonic up pretty good ("they don't really make
phone equipment, just *answering machines*; we can sell you one, but
we've had to rip out some of them after a year ..").  Sounded fishy to
me and of course she's a totally prejudiced source, but then what do I
know?

Also one particular question about voice mail: is two-port generally
enough for a system this size?  I hear it both ways.

Thanks in advance for any advice.


Mark McWiggins            Integration Technologies, Inc. (Intek)
[phone]            DISCLAIMER:  I could be wrong ...
1400 112th Ave SE #202        Bellevue WA  98004
uunet!intek01!mark

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 2 Aug 1990 07:48:46 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Rate Surprise Good


Having received my first billing from my B-wire carrier, I scrutinzed
my charges.  I was surprised to find that my first billing period was
not from the date of installation and that therefore I was over
allowance on my airtime (pro rata).  :-(

But then I was pleasantly surprised to find that my inter-state call
was charged at the night rate when the same call from my residence
would have been at the evening rate (1700-2259).  :-)


Peter M. Weiss                   | pmw1@psuvm or @vm.psu.edu
31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | not affiliated with PSUVM | VM.PSU.EDU
University Park, PA USA 16802    | Disclaimer -* +* applies herein

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

Subject: Sprint Billing Practice
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 17:45:29 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I should preface this by saying I am a happy Sprint customer and have
been one for 6+ years. With a residential bill that runs $100+ a
month, I'd change carriers if I had any problems.

Given that, I just found one Sprint billing practice that I do not
like.  Fortunately, it doesn't occur that often.

If you make a FONcard call on Sprint from a rotary phone (using the
800- 877-8000 number), you obviously cannot tone in the number you
want or your FONcard number. This is not a problem, because the Sprint
operator comes on line and places your call. The problem is that you
get billed the FONcard surcharge AND the Operator assist surcharge.
Sprint does not make allowances for rotary phones (confirmed by their
customer service rep -- answered before first ring!)

I called AT&T to refresh my memory. As long as you dial the number
(0 +), AT&T will not charge the Operator assist surcharge. Comparing
apples to apples, Sprint probably wouldn't either, given that I had
dialed 10333+0+, but I was in the backwaters of North Dakota and equal
access did not apply.


Ken Jongsma                                  [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                            [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan                       ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Subject: 700 Blocking?
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 90 11:22:23 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (U.K. Tony) writes:

> NY Tel now will block at no charge:

>         550 - Group Bridging/Chat Lines
>         970 - Adult Services
>         550,700,900,and970 combination
              ^^^
The only 700 numbers I've heard of are the recordings to identify your
long-distance carrier.  What's the logic behind blocking these?  Are
there other 700 services that charge?


    Roy M. Silvernail   | #include <stdio.h>                 | Does virtual
    now available at:   | main(){                            | reality need
 cybrspc![e-mail] |  float x=1;                        | swap space?
(cyberspace... be here!)|  printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} | -- me


[Moderator's Note: Yes, indeed! A couple of the OCC's use 700 in the
same way local telcos and AT&T use 900 service. There's a couple of
party-line conferences on there; AT&T has an automated conference call
system operating there (user personally can establish conference with
up to a couple-dozen [more?] people with no need for operator
intervention); one of the OCC's has some phone-sex on a 700 line.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 20:39:33 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: Tridium


A special issue of the Digest this weekend will be devoted to
Motorola's Tridium. This will be a rather detailed report issued by
Motorola which was sent to us by Andrew Reed. I thought you might
enjoy it.  Watch for it to be distributed probably Saturday afternoon
or evening.


Patrick Townson

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

From: [e-mail] (Daniel Alan Fleming)
Subject: Re: Telemarketers' Lists
Date: 2 Aug 90 17:18:56 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Daniel Alan Fleming)
Organization: Days Inns of America


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 531, Message 5 of 8

>If you have ever received a telemarketing call at an unlisted number,
>you may have wondered how the telemarketing company got the number.

I once worked for a telemarketing division of a company here in
Atlanta.  (I am sure my karma was destroyed because of this exposure
:-) We recieved 100,000 "leads" from a large telecommunications
company every 3 months which we would load into our mainframe and send
out via terminal to 150 or so telemarketers.  Apparently the Tele-Comm
company got their leads from the phone company and from their own
representatives.  (I imagine they went through an agency).

Recently, our place of work has been getting called daily by a
department store asking for our employees.  They are not allowed to
take phone calls while at work, so the calls are sent to our
department.  We have asked repeatedly for our phone number to be
removed from their database and were told this was not possible.
(Apparently their "database software" doesn't search fields??!?)  Are
there any ideas on how to counter this?  Due to our professional
position, sending concrete blocks COD is not acceptable.


Daniel Alan Fleming                     {uunet}!gatech.edu!daysinns!alanf
4203 Buford Hwy NE                      Days Inns of America
Apt B-7                                 2751 Buford Hwy N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30345:  (404)/634-8014      Atlanta, GA 30324: (404)/728-4498


[Moderator's Note: Impossible to remove your number? Like the time the
lady at McDonald's told me they were all out of french fries and it
was only coincidental that it was ten minutes before closing time, I
find that hard to believe, and I would be candid in telling them so.
Although tempted to say something rude ("suppose the next time you
call here, I come over to see whoever placed the call and chop off his
fingers, so he will never be in a position to dial a phone again,
period") I would probably call the Chairman's office at the department
store, explain the problem, and advise the Chairman that you do not
wish to be placed in a position where you must file suit or a formal
complaint with the regulators but that you will do so if necessary.
Explain that you are asking his office to intervene. I'll bet you
don't get any more calls, because he will be the one to go downstairs
with an axe.  PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 06:16:07 GMT


I just tried Access Logic Tech's ANI number, and after the obligatory
spiel it informs me that I'm calling from 713-527-8101.  That just
happens to be the number of the Rice campus switchboard, but I placed
the call from the computer room's outside line, which is the only one
that isn't part of the mangled Centrex-type system we have.  At least
it got the NPA and CO right, though.


Patrick L. Humphrey  ([e-mail])
Networking & Computing Systems
Rice University, Houston, Texas

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #537
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09105;
          4 Aug 90 3:19 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23359;
          4 Aug 90 1:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04946;
          4 Aug 90 0:34 CDT
Date:     Sat, 4 Aug 90 0:13:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #538
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Aug 90 00:13:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 538

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More ANI Fun! [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [John Higdon]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Dave Levenson]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [John A. Hammond]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Chris Williams]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [George A. Theall]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [David Barts]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Larry Jones]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Eric Smith]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Bill Huttig]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Bob Peterson]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Carl Moore]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Arnette Baker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 90 00:58:26 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:

> OK, I tried it out through our PBX, which uses (abuses) MCI, and I
> noticed that the recorded voice mentioned that my carrier is MCI.

I heard mention of MCI, as well, but my default carrier at home is
Telecom USA. In any case, I was given my correct number, so it's
getting ANI from more than just MCI.

As a sidereal note, the demo appears to be aimed at Cable TV companies
who collect Pay-Per-View orders with ANI. Paragon Cable, here in
Minneapolis, does that for the First Choice channels. When I first got
here, the ordering number was a local call... now, it's been changed
to an 800 number. Perhaps Paragon is already using this very same
system?


    Roy M. Silvernail
    now available at:
 cybrspc![e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 2 Aug 90 23:45:27 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]> writes:

> Did that also mean that it knew that my LD carrier was MCI or was it
> that it gets its info from the same source that MCI does for my LD
> billing?

When you call an 800 number, it matters not what your default LD
carrier is. The call is routed over the carrier that corresponds to
the 800 prefix that you dialed. A complete list of carriers vs
prefixes was published not long ago in the Digest.

For instance, if you try to dial a 10XXX code in front of an 800
number, you will probably get a recording that says that it is not
necessary to dial a long distance company code. The fact that you have
MCI as a carrier and that this particular number is an MCI InWATS is
purely coincidental. ANI is sent to the carrier on all calls from an
FGD compliant office. Even from PA.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 3 Aug 90 11:27:49 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


When you call an 800 number, it doesn't matter who your default LD
carrier is ... the called party selects the carrier for 800 calls.


Dave Levenson        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 3 Aug 90 10:31:35 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Thomas Lapp) writes:

> The other thing of note was that in the speil, the
> synthisized voice said something about it getting ANI from MCI lines.
> Did that also mean that it knew that my LD carrier was MCI or was it
> that it gets its info from the same source that MCI does for my LD
> billing?

They are getting their ANI FROM MCI.  800-666 is MCI's.  I don't
believe that your LD carrier enters into the picture when you dial
800.  True?

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

> [Does it work from Pennsylvania?  If so, somebody send in the SWAT
> team!]

Yes it does.  Calling out from our local trunks would return a number
that I recognized as being in our hunt.

> [Moderator's Note: My gosh, yes! I wonder if anyone has notified the
> authorities in PA of how their rights are being violated by this
> service.

 From the caller-id-legal-decsion on telecom-archives (without
overstepping my legal knowledge, I find it very difficult to
acknowledge the context from which I took this -- plz check the
document if you are interested):

     The Legislature has specifically excluded from the term 'pen
     register' devices used by the telephone company or by the customer to
     record outgoing numbers for billing or cost accounting purposes in the
     ordinary course of business.

However, one statement in the doc claims that this does not apply to a
'trap and trace device.'  I haven't spent enough time with the doc to
determine if this is significant, however, I begin to wonder if 800
ANI (not CALLER*ID) is excluded from 'pen register.'


Craig R. Watkins        Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]            UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 8:51:26 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I gave it a try this morning from work. We have a Dimension system
with DID.  The first few times I tried it, the number was busy. For a
few moments, I thought the operator was getting tired of the sudden
interest in his/her number!

Anyway, they replied with our billing number, not my desk number.

BTW: The reference to MCI refers to the 800 number you dialed (1-800-666
belongs to MCI), it does not mean you have MCI dial 1 service.


Ken Jongsma                                  [e-mail]
Smiths Industries                            [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan                       ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

From: "John A. Hammond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 3 Aug 90 16:03:03 GMT
Reply-To: "John A. Hammond" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


Tried this from my office, an AT&T System something-or-other and was
told that I was using MCI (correct I think) and area code 619.  The
rest of the number was bogus and "not in service" when I called it.
Called from home and the number was right but they still said MCI when
I have Sprint as my LD.  BTW PacBell is the local "fun" company.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 3 Aug 90 09:53:39 GMT


I tried it from home and work. From home it worked just fine, and,
contrary to most of the others' results, it was right from work too.
It could be that the reason is that UNT just got a new GTE Centranet
PBX(is that what that is?).  (Even thought it _is_ GTE, I like it. You
can forward calls off campus, there are 4 types of rings, busy number
callback, forward on no answer, forward on busy, forward all ... I have
heard little/no complaints from people on campus.)

Ps: thanks to Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax) for the Scanner World info.


chris williams, `gilligan' | [e-mail]         CGW@UNTVAX{.bitnet}
programmer/operator        | UTSPAN::UTADNX::NTVAX::CGW
university of north texas  |
denton, texas 76203        | at&t : [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 07:47:06 EDT
From: "George A. Theall" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


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

>[Does it work from Pennsylvania?  If so, somebody send in the SWAT
>team!]

    Yes, indeed it does work from Pennsylvania. I called from school
(according to its telephone directory, served by a Centex direct
inward-dial system) and heard my number correctly read back to me.

    I wonder whether Gov. Casey would be pleased? :-)


George A. Theall, Dept of Economics, Univ. of Pennsylvania
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 11:24:11 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


>Anyway, here it is:  1-800-666-6258.

I have just tried dialing this three times, and have gotten busies all
three tries.  Make that FOUR times.  I think SOMEbody's going to have
an unexpectedly high phone bill next month.  I can see the headlines
now: "Hacker/Phreak bulletin board publicizes unlisted number: Costs
XYZ Company thousands." :-)

Or maybe they'll just use the ANI to generate a telemarketing list,
and recoup expenses that way.  (Maybe that's the purpose of the
number :-) ).

Just dialed a fifth time ... still busy.


David Barts            Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

From: Larry Jones <sdrc!thor![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 3 Aug 90 20:53:33 GMT
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati


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

> Dialing 9, then the number got us back a message
> saying our number was entirely different, but on the same prefix. When
> we dialed that number, surprise! The switchboard operator answered,
> and said we came up on the number for incoming calls. But the number
> read back was not the main number.  PT]

That's almost exactly what happened when I tried it with our Dimension
(85?) PBX.  We have 600 - 700 direct dial numbers of the form
513-576-2xxx.  It got the correct area code, but the number wasn't
even the same prefix (575 instead of 576).  Calling that number,
however, got the switchboard operator!


Larry Jones     UUCP: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones  SDRC [e-mail]
2000 Eastman Dr.           BIX: ltl
Milford, OH 45150-2789
AT&T: [phone]

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

From: Eric Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 3 Aug 90 21:05:57 GMT
Organization: Frobozz Magic Widget Company


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick L
Humphrey) writes:

>I just tried Access Logic Tech's ANI number, and after the obligatory
>spiel it informs me that I'm calling from 713-527-8101.  That just
>happens to be the number of the Rice campus switchboard, but I placed
>the call from the computer room's outside line, which is the only one
>that isn't part of the mangled Centrex-type system we have.  At least
>it got the NPA and CO right, though.

That is what you would reasonably expect to happen.  800 ANI doesn't
return the calling number; it returns the BILLING number.  Many
businesses, Universities, etc. have one billing number for all of
their lines, which is often (but not always) the same as their main
number for incoming calls.


Eric L. Smith
[e-mail]

Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of my employer,
friends, family, computer, or even me!  :-)

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 3 Aug 90 21:56:34 GMT


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

>OK, I tried it out through our PBX, which uses (abuses) MCI, and I
>noticed that the recorded voice mentioned that my carrier is MCI.

It is not telling you that your carrier is MCI it is saying that their
carrier for the 800 number is MCI and that MCI offers an ANI product
and they have equipment that uses this service from MCI.

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Peterson)
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 11:35:39 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: I tried it from home, and sure enough, it read back
>my number to me. I tried it using my cell phone, and it read back a
>totally different number: 312-229-XXXX which is NOT my cell number; is
>not in service for incoming calls,

  The telephone system here has recently been switched from Centrex to
a PBX.  Calling the above 800 number from my office (214/995-6080)
results in a read back of the correct area code, but, like the
Moderator's experience, the number read back is a totally unrelated
number: 231-XXXX, where XXXX is not 6080.  Dialing that number results
in an intercept _from the PBX_: "The number cannot be completed as
dialed.  Please check the number and dial again.  TI 10."

  I gather from the 800 number announcement that this is being
marketed to cable television companies?


Bob Peterson                Compuserve: 70235,326
Texas Instruments           Internet: [e-mail]
P.O. Box 655474, MS238      Landline: [phone]
Dallas, Texas, USA 75265

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

Date: Thu, 2 Aug 90 15:35:36 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!

   Re: Use of 800-666-6258 for ANI test:

I tried it from my office phone, and it apparently yields the phone
number that would show up on my phone bill if I placed a credit card
call.  I.e., instead of getting "abcd", the extension I am using, I
get "0efg".  I tried calling the latter number as a seven-digit local
call, and got "not in service for incoming calls".  (This is at
Aberdeen, Maryland.)

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

From: Arnette P Baker [phone] <ihlpf![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 14:13:00 GMT


As previously reported by many telecom readers, I too called from our
PBX.  As expected, I was given the "billing number" for our location
[phone].  My DID number is [phone].  In many cases a
PBX's billing number will also be that of the switch board (as is the
case here), but may also be a non-existent number (i.e. it can't be
dialed, it is for billing only).  In this case it sounds like the
system gets very confused.

A couple of other observations.  I listened carefully to the
recording.  Several people have said the system noted that they were
calling over MCI.  Are you sure?  What I heard was a pitch selling MCI
based 800 ANI services.  Sounds like this outfit is a re-seller
(aggregator) of MCI services.  I was definitely NOT calling over MCI,
since I work for AT&T and called from my desk. |^)

Also, I was slightly amused to see someone from Bell Labs mention that
they were surprised that there ISDN private call feature only worked
INTRA-group.  There were two reasons that this failed.  1) ISDN based
caller-id, and the associated call blocking (privacy) feature, are
only tariffed for INTRA-Group use here in Illinois.  Caller-ID is
currently being debated in the state legislator - and it does not look
good for proponents of the feature.  This INTRA-Group restriction on
ISDN services applies in most places, unless that area is tariffed for
Caller-ID.  Note, this is a legal restriction not a technical one.  2)
The 800 service that delivers ANI does not work on the same
protocol/mechanism that Caller-ID does.  Caller-ID is a SS7 (CCS7)
based service that delivers calling party identification via out of
band signalling.  ANI delivers the billing number (not always that of
the calling party) through a different protocol.  I am not sure of the
mechanism of ANI delivery, but it is not SS7 based.  Because of this
difference, call block (either per call or permanent blocking) will
not work to block ANI delivery - the call block feature is for SS7
services.

I should point out that Caller-ID may also deliver the wrong number
for PBX, Multi-party, or Multi-line group calls.  Since, most PBXs are
connected to the CO by a trunk (as opposed to a line), the number
transmitted by Caller-ID tends to be the "main" (pilot) number for
these types of lines, because that is all the CO knows about.  This
problem may depend on the type of CO switch, but to my knowledge there
is no protocol yet defined to pass SS7 type information from a PBX to
a CO.


Arnette Baker  AT&T Network Systems  Lisle, Il. 60532  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #538
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10144;
          4 Aug 90 4:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16429;
          4 Aug 90 2:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23359;
          4 Aug 90 1:41 CDT
Date:     Sat, 4 Aug 90 1:14:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #539
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Aug 90 01:14:33 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 539

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More ANI Fun! [Peter da Silva]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Dave Levenson]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Irving Wolfe]
    Re: Telemarketers' Lists [John Higdon]
    Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System [Roger Fajman]
    Re: Seeking Ringback for 415 [John Higdon]
    Re: 700 Blocking? [John Higdon]
    Re: Motorola Wristwatch Pager (Looking for Golay Spec) [Craig Watkins]
    Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Neidorf Trial - Press Release on Dismissal [Michael P. Deignan]
    Is 510 Area Code Active? [David Leibold]
    To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast? (Was: BC Politician) [Jeff Carroll]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 14:48:04 GMT


Interesting, when I called it told me my area code was "713" and my
number was "555-5555". When I called "555-5555" it told me that it was
not a local call, and I had to dial "1" before calling it.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 3 Aug 90 11:42:24 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


I tried their ANI demo number from several places in NJ.  It appears
that they always get the calling number, and not the billing number,
in cases where they're different.  From a centrex station, they got
the station number, not the company listed number.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 23:52:10 CDT
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


Just thought I'd try it from home (Houston, Tx) -- it got the right
number, but no mention of my LD carrier.

I can see a use for this at my house.  I used to have an 3b1 with the
VoicePower board (8bit ISDNish chip and software) which I used as an
answering machine at my house.  With a toy from the company who has
the 800 number, I could have different messages depending on who's
calling.

Too bad I don't like ANI.  I'll go back to the 3b1 with my message of
"If you're in Eric's secret club, enter the password from your
touchtone phone.  Otherwise, leave a message at the beep."  It allowed
my friends to call me from payphones and bypass the answering machine
all together.


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics
[phone]   Internet: [e-mail]  Bitnet: jet@UHOU  Skate UNIX(r)

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

From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 4 Aug 90 03:52:14 GMT
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Seattle


I got 206/555-5555 from here.  Since 555 is not a local prefix, I'm
not going to try it out -- but it obviously has nothing to do with me.

I wonder if these people knew their service didn't work very well when
they decided to spend the money to let us all know how chancy it was!


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


[Moderator's Note: What's with this '555-5555' business? You are the
second person today to mention getting this response. Is this
perchance some default answer it gives when it can't find anything
more accurate?  From here, 555-5555 got me 'Information, Mr. Brown.
May I help you?'   PT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketers' Lists
Date: 3 Aug 90 01:41:57 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Daniel Alan Fleming) writes:

> We have asked repeatedly for our phone number to be
> removed from their database and were told this was not possible.

> [Moderator's Note: Impossible to remove your number? Like the time the
> [...]
> I would probably call the Chairman's office at the department
> store, explain the problem, and advise the Chairman that you do not
> wish to be placed in a position where you must file suit or a formal
> complaint with the regulators but that you will do so if necessary.
> Explain that you are asking his office to intervene. I'll bet you
> don't get any more calls, because he will be the one to go downstairs
> with an axe.  PT]

Our gentle Moderator is precisely correct. This is exactly how I
handled the {San Jose Mercury} and their telemarketing-run-amuck. So
far it seems to have worked. It went like this: [Oh god, Martha,
another story...]

For the past year or more, the Merc would occasionally wreck my
morning. Suddenly, about 9:15 AM (a golden hour of sleep for some of
us), my phone lines would go berzerk. Modems would answer, my
answering machine would become active and my private lines would ring.
When answered, a voice at the other end would ask, "This is Suzie from
the San Jose Mercury News. Are you receiving our paper ok each day?"
"Yes."  "And the Sunday paper, too?" "Yes." "Thanks. Have a nice day."

This went from about once a month, to twice a month, then once a week.
When it started happening every other day, I decided it was time to
call a halt. I called the circulation department of the Merc and asked
to have my numbers removed from their list. They took each number
(even the POTS number for my 800 service) and assured me that I would
no longer be bothered. They were right -- for about a month.

When it started again an irate call to the same place resulted in a
"we have new equipment and can't remove numbers from the list." When I
explained that my next call was going to be to Pac*Bell to complain
about telephone harassment, I was connected to the president of the
telemarketing firm that handles their account. He told me that my
numbers could be removed but that it was a difficult process. Not my
problem.

Two days later, it all happened again. This time I told the gentleman
that this was my last call to him. One more set of calls would result
in my bringing every resource to bear to have his lines disconnected
and even possibly contacting my attorney about a possible suit. That
did it. I have had no more calls from the Merc.

It's amazing how many things that "can't be done" actually can, given
sufficient motivation!


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

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 90  23:45:43 EDT
Subject: Re: FTS = Fouled-up Telephone System


FTS is only for long distance calls, so poor connections between the
Palo Alto VA Medical Center and Stanford can't be blamed on it.  Poorly
documented dialing instructions are not the fault of FTS either, since
it's up to the agency to distribute dialing instructions.  They may
vary from agency to agency, depending on the phone system installed.
As for constantly changing dialing procedures, the dialing instructions
for FTS here at NIH have been the same since I first started work here
in 1969.

We did have to change the way we dialed internal extensions when NIH
went to Centrex back in the 70s.  But that was not caused by and did
not affect FTS.  We may have to change the way we dial if the
procurement for a digital PBX for NIH ever gets done.  Anyway, the one
problem mentioned that can be blamed on FTS is the operator's giving
incorrect instructions for how to make a credit card call.  The Palo
Alto VA Medical Center may well have a phone system that works like a
COCOT, but it's not the fault of FTS.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Seeking Ringback for 415
Date: 2 Aug 90 23:51:27 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka> writes:

> I haven't heard any ringback numbers in quite a while ... Let me know
> if you get one.

 From my telephone, 350-XXXX works for ringback, with XXXX=last four
digits of the telephone number. While this is from the ANdrews (gag)
CO, the same code works in the ALpine CO where a lot of my friends
live.

        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: 700 Blocking?
Date: 3 Aug 90 00:22:17 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]> writes:

> The only 700 numbers I've heard of are the recordings to identify your
> long-distance carrier.  What's the logic behind blocking these?  Are
> there other 700 services that charge?

700 numbers are the antithesis of 800 numbers. While an 800 number
call is always routed over a particular carrier depending on the
prefix dialed, a 700 call can go to different places for the same
number depending on the LD carrier SELECTED. The "check your default
carrier" is a perfect example. The number "700 555-4141" goes to a
different place depending on what carrier is selected by the caller.
If you don't select a carrier, then it goes default -- and the
recording provided by the particular carrier will tell you where you
ended up.  If you prefix that number with a 10XXX code, you will get
the recording for the carrier you selected.

Calls to 700 numbers can be free, or charged at a rate determined by
the carrier. If you don't have an account with a particular carrier,
then you will be "casual billed" in the same manner as if you had
dialed any call preceded by 10XXX.


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

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola Wristwatch Pager (Looking for Golay Spec)
Date: 3 Aug 90 11:33:19 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> It operates on the Golay Sequential Coding and Post Office Standard
> Advisory Group Code systems, the two primary paging systems used.

I've been looking for spec of GSC (Golay Sequential Code).  Anyone
have any pointers?


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch
Date: 3 Aug 90 22:02:26 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, CS Dept., Melbourne, FL


>[Moderator's Note: Do you think a well-stocked newstand, bookstore or
>the library would be a good place to start looking?   PT]

Not here in Melbourne...

Bill Huttig
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But if the local library at least has a copy of the
guide to magazines (I forget the exact name of that directory) then
you would be able to find the publisher's address and write direct.  PT]

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neidorf Trial - Press Release on Dismissal
Date: 2 Aug 90 22:44:43 GMT
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI  02917


In article <[e-mail]> apple!well.sf.ca.us!well!
[e-mail] (John Nagle) writes:

>Zenner said the government's decision came after he provided the
>prosecutors copies of publicly available documents which demonstrated
>that the document Neidorf published electronically contained no secret
>information.

Should this information not have been made available during
"discovery" of the judicial process?

If it were made available during the discovery process, then why did
this trial ever get off the ground? Or, did the prosecution merely
ignore the fact that this evidence existed in the pursuit of a
witch-hunt?


Michael P. Deignan #  [e-mail]  # ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd
Author, SCO Ported Software Compendium, and Maintainer of Online Archives
Telebit: [phone]  Login: xxcp  Password: xenix  (local rmail ok)
Files: /usr/spool/uucppublic/SOFTLIST   /usr/spool/uucppublic/ARCHELP

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Is 510 Area Code Active?
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 90 23:24:34 EDT


A check from Toronto seems to show that the area code 510 (California
split, San Francisco, to be completed late '91) is now active, and
accepting dialing for 1 510 555.1212. Does anyone else have 510 active
out there?


[Moderator's Note: David Leibold (woody) is the official keeper of the
TELECOM Digest area code/prefix name-place tables. He has an up-to-date
file for each USA and Canadian area code, listing prefixes in each and
cities served. The Canadian and 809 lists are also in the Telecom
Archives. Write him direct at the address at the top of this message
for details on your area code. He might even be nice and send you a
couple other area codes of your choice, as long as you don't get
ridiculous and ask for the entire 150+ files set.  :)    PT]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast? (Was: BC Politician)
Date: 3 Aug 90 19:23:55 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel B. Levin)
writes:

>>Some lawyers have argued that a cellular call *is* a broadcast
>>transmission if the participants know that someone *might* be
>>listening in. . . .

>>[Moderator's Note: "Some lawyers" can argue whatever they like, but
>>the catch is, was the transmission INTENDED for broadcast? . . .
>>No intent? ... then no broadcast. No
>>broadcast, then no right to repeat, acknowledge, 're-broadcast',
>>profit from or print what was overheard.   PT]

>This is essentially true and has always been, as far as I know.  The
>controversial issues arise in the recent law (ECPA?) which seeks to
>extend the idea of what is illegal; it is now apparently illegal
>merely to _listen_ to such non-broadcast transmission, or to make or
>sell equipment capable of doing so.  I don't think all of these new
>restrictions will hold up for long.

    I dream of the day when "some lawyer" with a decent
understanding of technology will assert the right of property owners
to capture and exploit any and all electromagnetic radiation entering
their property, in any way they see fit.

    Note that this does not imply a right to jam, to reradiate, or
to do anything which would result in unauthorized export of radiation
to others' property. (That is, of course, without a license.)

    It's time for Americans to become conscious that anyone with a
broadcasting license (including cellular owners, ham operators, CBers,
and electric utilities) has effectively been given an easement for the
propagation of his radiation across his neighbors' property. Such an
easement is a limitation of his neighbors' rights not to have their
property, bodies, and families irradiated.

    It is simply ludicrous for the law to define unencrypted
broadcast in an arbitrarily selected band of the terrestrial spectrum
as a secure channel. Such legislation is in effect a hindrance to the
development and marketing of *real* secure communications technology
(the existence of which I assert without proof, Martin Hellman and his
colleagues notwithstanding).

    Then, after this guy gets ECPA overruled or repealed, he can
bring a class action on behalf of everyone whose bodies and/or
property are being irradiated by satellite broadcasts without their
consent :^)


    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #539
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15223;
          4 Aug 90 11:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16896;
          4 Aug 90 3:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16429;
          4 Aug 90 2:47 CDT
Date:     Sat, 4 Aug 90 2:14:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #540
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Aug 90 02:12:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 540

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Another Sprint? [Julian Macassey]
    Sprint Billing and Customer Service [Robert Dinse]
    Re: Sprint Billing Practice [John Higdon]
    An Experience With 911 Responsiveness [Steve Forrette]
    Where Can I Purchase ISDN Phones? [Henry Black]
    Very Noisy Residential Phone Lines [Mitch Wright]
    Information Wanted on 802.9, IVDLAN [Joseph E. Baker]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [David Singer]
    Here We Go Again [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Phone Mail Order Houses [Jeff E. Nelson]
    Cellular Phone Tech Reference Wanted [Peter B. Hayward]
    Payphone Psychology [Stephen J. Friedl]
    Special Issue: Motorola's Iridium [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Sprint?
Date: 3 Aug 90 22:36:42 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


I haven't seen a mention about this anywhere else so here goes:

A small item from the July 25th {Economist} (P 52).

    "British Rail announced plans to invest 400m Pounds ($730m) in
its communications network. The corporation hopes to be allowed to
compete with Britain's telephone duopolists, British Telecom and
Mercury."

    As far as I recall, Mercury uses British Rail rights of way to
run its cables from city to city. Those with long memories will recall
that SPrint used to be a service of Southern Pacific railroad.
Southern Pacific, like most large utilities had their own communications
network. They were smart enough to peddle off the excess capacity. So
will British Rail become the UKs third long distance carrier? Will
your calls always be late if routed via BR? (-:


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


[Moderator's Note: Not too many folks remember how SPRINT got named:
<S>outhern <P>acific <R>ailroad <IN>ternal <T>elecommunications.
Sprint's origin is precisely as you describe it. Beginning in the late
sixties, the railroad did a major renovation of its telecom
facilities, and wound up with far more than they needed. They
administered the sale of the excess for a few years until it got way
beyond their ability to administer and maintain. The rest is history.  PT]

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

From: Robert Dinse <sumax!ole!rwing![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Billing and Customer Service
Date: 3 Aug 90 19:21:34 GMT


     I had Sprint a couple of years ago. When I initially subscribed
they had four-digit travel codes. Someone figured out mine and
apparently gave it to their buddies all over the country. I got a call
in January of '87 from Sprint security asking me if I had just made a
call from New York to Saudi Arabia (I was in Seattle at the time), I
told them sure, I just took the SST from New York, and then after that
bit of sarcasm told them that I have never used my travel code.

     They told me that they would take care of it.

     To make a long story short, it took over a year, more than 30
hours on the phone, and more than ten letters to get the issue
resolved. It took them more than six months to shut-off my travel
code. Then they changed their codes to the long ones and I thought my
troubles would be over.

     But, I noticed that calls that had never been answered were
appearing on my bill. I started calling them monthly and they agreed
to remove them, but the credits never appeared on my bill. I refused
to pay for those calls, they turned me over to not one but two
collection agencies. This too took over a year to resolve and required
the involvement of the Washington state utilities commission. At the
time they turned me over to the first collection agency I changed my
carrier back to AT&T.

     I will never do business with Sprint again, my opinion of that
company is that they are not to be trusted.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Practice
Date: 3 Aug 90 00:08:29 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]> writes:

> I called AT&T to refresh my memory. As long as you dial the number
> (0 +), AT&T will not charge the Operator assist surcharge. Comparing
> apples to apples, Sprint probably wouldn't either, given that I had
> dialed 10333+0+, but I was in the backwaters of North Dakota and equal
> access did not apply.

Still not apples to apples. If you dial 10333+0+, you will have to
enter in or give the operator an AT&T card number -- your FO(O)N Card
won't work. Unless you dial 800 877-8000, Sprint won't accept its OWN
CARD NUMBER! At least AT&T accepts one number for alternative billing
no matter how you make your call.


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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 02:41:59 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Experience With 911 Responsiveness


Because of recent talk of 911 response, I thought I'd relate an
experience that I just had a few minutes ago.  I was up late working,
and heard a woman screaming in the street right in front of where I
live.  Since I live in the "south campus" area near UC Berkeley,
people screaming in the middle of the night (because they're drunk,
etc.) is not all that unusual, but this sounded like more than that.
Then "(Scream) Somebody help me!"

911:  "Berkeley Emergency"

Me:   "There's a woman screaming for help in the street"

911:  "Is she in front of your house?"

Me:   "I'm not sure, but within a couple of houses to either side."

911:  "Okay, we're on our way.  Can you see what she looks like?"

Me:   "No, the trees are blocking my view."

911:  "Would you like to leave your name?"

Me:   "I think you know who I am."

911:  "(small chuckle)  Yes, we're on our way.  *click*"

By the time I got downstairs, a patrol car had arrived.  Now this
seems to be the correct implementation of the system, eh?  I was never
asked for my address, and they sent a unit while they were getting
additional information.  If only everything worked this well...

It turns out that some random person was hassling this woman, and had
hit her a couple of times.  I hope they caught the guy.

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 13:08:53 pdt
From: Henry Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where Can I Purchase ISDN Phones?


Anyone know whether and where (stateside) one can buy ISDN telephones
inexpensively?  (I mean the base unit and handset, i.e. the
subscriber's instrument in UK parlance).

I'd like to do some experimentation in digital microwave ham radio,
and it seems ISDN "audio" gear should be cheap, if not now then in a
few years.

Thanks for your interest.


Henry Black [e-mail] [phone] KK6JR @ WW6L.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 15:18:28 -0400
From: Mitch Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Very Noisy Residential Phone Lines


My home phone line has been giving me a tremendous problems.  I have
connected several computers (C-64 thru Sun386i), and a variety of
modems to boot.  All of them pick up on the static in the line.  I
have called the phone company and they have sent out technicians
several times.  A filter has been installed on the line, and now the
*voice* quality is just fine, but my modem[s] still find the line to
be much too noisy.  My throughput is 400bps at 2400bps.  As you can
guess, this is VERY frusterating.  I can remove the noise characters
by switching to MNP, but the throughput is still 400bps, which is
basically useless.  Funny thing is, I call number 111-1111, and I get
a noisy connection, I call up the local TAC 222-2222 and the line is
just fine.  At least 100 people dial the 111-1111 number and have NO
problems, except one other poor soul within the same exchange as me
(765).

After going through the run-around of being told I can upgrade my
service to a data-line by one office, and the next office says that I
can't do that, but I can have a dedicated circuit (Yeah right $!$!$).

I *WAS* thinking about subscribing to UUNET, but if my line is this
noisy and the phone company is obviously (and admittedly) not willing
to fix the problem, it would be a waste.  Now for my questions:

o  Has anyone else had this type of problem?  How did it get resolved?
o  The phone company says that they can only guarantee the voice quality
   on residential lines without having a dedicated circuit -- Is this
   true, or have I run into yet another phone co. employee with the
   wrong facts?
o  Will an RJ45S really help?
o  Any suggestions on how to get the phone company track down the bad
   circuit and I fix it, assuming that's the problem.  It is obviously
   not a problem with my home connection -- or with the destination, it
   is likely a switch in between.

Any Help / Suggestions with be GREATLY appreciated.


mitch
[e-mail] (Mitch Wright) | The Pentagon, 1B1046 | [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 16:04:17 PDT
From: "Joseph E. Baker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on 802.9, IVDLAN


I am trying to collect information on the 802.9 committee's work on a
standard for an Integrated Voice/Data LAN (IVDLAN.)  A literature
search only turned up one reference: an IEE conference paper from '89
which I haven't tracked down yet.  I would greatly appreciate any
information, or pointers to talking papers, working drafts, committee
members, etc.

Thanks in advance,

Joe Baker
[e-mail]

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

From: David Singer <ibmarc!ks!singer.almaden.ibm.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 4 Aug 90 00:18:07 GMT
Reply-To: David Singer <ibmarc!ks!ibm.com![e-mail]>
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center


I tried it from my office phone [[phone]], which is on a ROLM
switch.  The voice at the other end read back [phone].  I
called *that* number, and nearly had my ears blown off by a loud tone.

I was a bit puzzled by the reference to "MCI", since the default
carrier at this location is AT&T.  Is the carrier for calls to (800)
numbers controlled by the recipient?


David Singer -- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Previous messages over the past two days have noted
that 800 calls are handled by whatever carrier is assigned to the
number. Your own carrier is not involved. The recipient controls it. PT]

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

Subject: Here We Go Again
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 3 Aug 90 19:53:01 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Pac*Bell bill insert:

After August 5, 1990, all pay telephones will be required to provide:

* Basic local calls costing 20 cents

* Free access to:
    - 9-1-1 emergency service
    - 411 information service
    - "0" operator service
    - "00" long-distance operator service
    - 800 services
    - 950 dialing (long-distance company code dialing)
    - repair service

* Clear, easy-to-read signs that explain:
    - dialing instructions
    - cost and any time limits that apply
    - company indentification

Local phone companies and independent private providers of pay phones
may charge 25 cents extra for completing calls that do not require
coins, such as Calling Card and collect calls.

The agreement sets limits on pricing and establishes guidelines for
enforcing those limits. It is designed to benefit both the consumer
and those in the pay telephone industry.

***End of quote from Bill Insert***

Well, what do we have here? August 6 is on Monday -- this should be
interesting.

"...local calls...20 cents"

There are MANY COCOTs still out there charging 25 cents. Do you
suppose they will all be changed in four days?

"..."0" operator service"

That's a good one. The call comes up on Pac*Bell's TOPS board as a
COCOT. The operator can do NOTHING for you.

"...'00' long-distance operator service"

Oooh, that's wonderful. ITI or NTS will be most happy to complete your
call (and drain your wallet).

"...800 services"

But you had better hope that you don't reach any interactive device --
remember the TT pad goes dead.

"...950 dialing..."

Now that's a real hoot. All 950 LD calling requires the use of a TT
pad. I guess everyone will have to own and carry with him a pocket
dialer.

"This agreement ... establishes quidelines for enforcing..."

HaHaHaHa ... etc. I'll tell you what enforcement would be. Announce
via the media that on Monday, Aug. 6, any member of the public who
finds a COCOT that is not in compliance with these rules may deface,
smash, or otherwise destroy the offending instrument without fear of
civil or criminal penalties. That's enforcement!

Anyone want to join me for a "phone inspection cruise" on Monday?


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

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 90 06:10:26 PDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Mail Order Houses


In TELECOM Digest Volume 10, Issue 497, I wrote:

>I'm in the market for a cellular phone (a transportable) and am
>interested in purchasing one via mail order. [...]
>Please send recommendations for mail order companies
>to me and I will summarize to the Digest.

My summary, as promised, is as follows: I received no recommendations.
I didn't even get a "me too" message.  I must therefore presume that
either:

1.  There are no mail order companies known to the TELECOM Digest readers
    that sell cellular phones.

2.  There are mail order companies known to the TELECOM Digest readers, but
    the readers aren't talking.

I shall continue my search, but at this point I suspect that it will
be to my advantage to try and purchase a cellular phone through a
local business.  If and when more information develops, I'll report
back.


Jeff E. Nelson           | Digital Equipment Corporation
[e-mail] | Affiliation given for identification purposes only

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

Date: Fri, 3 Aug 1990 15:12:10 CDT
From: "Peter B. Hayward" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Tech Reference Wanted


Patrick,

Sorry to bother you, but do you have online anywhere or can you refer
me to any publication which explains the ins and out of how cellular
phones work?

Thanks.

[Moderator's Note: It is no bother. What would you readers suggest?
Are there any good, definitive works he should read?  PT]

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

From: "Stephen J. Friedl" <mtndew![e-mail]>
Subject: Payphone Psychology
Date: 3 Aug 90 22:38:00 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Center


This interesting tidbit from _Privileged Information_, 1 Sept 1990

          Common sense says that when someone is waiting to use a
          pay phone, the person using it will hurry up.  Reality:
          While the average pay phone call without a waiting line
          lasted only a minute and a half, when someone waited
          behind the person using the pay phone... the caller's
          conversation lasted *four* minutes.  Why?  People using
          pay phones become territorial when someone else wants
          to move in...  study by Dr. Barry Ruback of Georgia State
          University.


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

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

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 90 2:06:20 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Special Issue: Motorola's Iridium


A special issue of the Digest this weekend will be devoted to
Motorola's new product "Iridium". Included will be some detailed
commentary from the folks at Motorola, passed along to the Digest by
Andrew Peed.

Thursday was *not* my day ... I mistakenly typed 'Tridium' and I
mis-identified our correspondent as 'Reed'.

Watch for it in your mail Saturday afternoon or evening.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #540
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21367;
          4 Aug 90 19:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26287;
          4 Aug 90 18:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13682;
          4 Aug 90 16:57 CDT
Date:     Sat, 4 Aug 90 16:15:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #541
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Aug 90 16:14:53 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 541

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Len Rose Update [Computer Underground Digest via Jim Thomas]
    A Happy Sprint Customer [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: Sprint Billing Practice [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Neidorf Trial - Press Release on Dismissal [Mike Godwin]
    Re: Motorola Wristwatch Pager (Looking for Golay Spec) [Rob Warnock]
    Re: To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast? (Was: BC Politician) [Roy Smith]
    Re: 700 Blocking? [Bryan M. Richardson]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [John Higdon]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Steve Rhoades]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Nigel Allen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Aug 90 15:19 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Len Rose Update


As of Friday, Aug. 3, Len Rose's case awaits trial in federal court in
Baltimore. According to one source, Len was offered an arrangement in
which he could plead guilty to one count of computer fraud and receive
at least some prison time, but would have his computer equipment
returned, or take the case to trial and take his chances.

Len is currenty represented by a public defender because of lack of
resources to retain a specialist in computer crime cases.  He remains
unemployed, and has moved into a motel with his family.  He told us
that, because his equipment and crucial files were seized, his
business was essentially shut down and he was deprived of his
livelihood. This means that he not only cannot support his family, but
cannot retain legal counsel of his choice.  He said he was feeling
isolated and "abandoned" and wasn't sure what his legal options were.

We will present a detailed update of Len's situation in CuD 1.27.
Len's public defender can be contacted at (301)-381-4646.


[Moderator's Note: I received a call from Len Rose Thursday, but we
missed each other on a couple callbacks. Jim Thomas was able to reach
him, and we decided to share whatever reports we were able to receive.
If you wish to offer any assistance or counsel, contact his attorney
at the number given above.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 90 13:12:25 CDT
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Happy Sprint Customer


Maybe I'm the only one.

My LD phone bill is ranges from $5-$40 a month.  It was $10-50 under
AT&T.  I call my family once a week, and make the occasional 3-5
minute call to London to order records from Tower London.

I've never had a call I didn't make show up on my bill, and I've never
had line quality problems -- I've uucp'd finland quite easily, and
calling London gives me a better quality line than calling my mom in
Louisiana.  When I was laid off with an hour's notice (ah, the joys of
contracting :-), the Sprint accounting/billing people were
understanding and didn't disconnect me even though I couldn't make my
payments for a few months.

(Just thought I'd try to balance the numerous I-hate-Sprint messages. :-)


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]  Bitnet: jet@UHOU   Skate UNIX(r)


[Moderator's Note: Actually, there are lots of satisfied Sprint
customers, but like in so many transactions, the satisfied customers
are never heard from.  PT]

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

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 90 15:41:36 EDT
From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Practice
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

>Still not apples to apples. If you dial 10333+0+, you will have to
>enter in or give the operator an AT&T card number -- your FO(O)N Card

You are not using your AT&T calling card number; you are giving your
local phone company card number ... AT&T numbers are assigned by a local
telco.


Bill Huttig

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

From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neidorf Trial - Press Release on Dismissal
Date: 4 Aug 90 17:42:25 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael P.
Deignan) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> apple!well.sf.ca.us!well!
>[e-mail] (John Nagle) writes:

>>Zenner said the government's decision came after he provided the
>>prosecutors copies of publicly available documents which demonstrated
>>that the document Neidorf published electronically contained no secret
>>information.

>Should this information not have been made available during
>"discovery" of the judicial process?

>If it were made available during the discovery process, then why did
>this trial ever get off the ground? Or, did the prosecution merely
>ignore the fact that this evidence existed in the pursuit of a
>witch-hunt?

Discovery is a process in which each side in litigation can compel the
production of information of various sorts from the other side.
Discovery, which plays a major role in civil proceedings, is very
limited in criminal cases, for a couple of reasons.

First, the right of prosecution to discover information from a
defendant is vastly limited by the defendant's Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination and against forced testimony.
Even if the defendant has exculpatory information in her possession,
it sometimes is strategically unwise to show all your cards to the
other side, which may use that information to identify and fix weak
spots in its own case.

Second, prosecutors typically rely on police investigation and
grand-jury proceedings, not discovery, to gather evidence prior to a
criminal trial. Because their cases are made up almost entirely of
evidence gathered through these two processes, oversights on the
prosecutors' part may go undetected for a long period of time.

Incidentally, Sheldon Zenner, the lawyer who defended Neidorf, has
publicly thanked the Electronic Frontier Foundation for its efforts in
raising consciousness and providing resources for Neidorf's defense.
One of the things that was no doubt very helpful to Zenner was the
discussion here and in other newsgroups concerning the inflated
valuation of the Bell text files that Riggs copied and sent to
Neidorf.

One of the sad aspects of the dismissal of the case against Neidorf is
that other defendants in these prosecutions pled guilty before the
weakness of the prosecution's case concerning the E911 file became
apparent. Robert Riggs, who was named with Neidorf in a joint
indictment, is a felon now, even though the whole issue of federal
jurisdiction in this case has been called into question by the
revelation that the E911 files were publicly available, and that even
had they not been, the valuation given them by Bell South was
questionable at best. (The desire to give federal prosecutors
jurisdiction was almost certainly the reason for the inflated price
tag put on the E911 documents by Bell South and/or AT&T.)

I remind those who've followed this story that certain people in this
newsgroup, including Gene Spafford, assured us that we'd change out
tune once the facts came out. Well, the facts are out now.


Mike Godwin, UT Law School
[e-mail]
[phone]

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

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 90 11:37:29 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola Wristwatch Pager (Looking for Golay Spec)
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig R. Watkins)
writes:

| I've been looking for spec of GSC (Golay Sequential Code).  Anyone
| have any pointers?

I suspect that what I am about to say will be of no use as far as
pointing you at a spec for the GSC as used by pagers, but for those
interested in error-correcting codes in general...

 From Lin & Costello, "Error Control Coding", (P-H 1983) p.134ff:

    "THE GOLAY CODE

    "The (23,12) Golay code is the only known multiple-error-correcting
    binary perfect code which is capable of correcting any combination
    of three or fewer random errors in a block of 23 digits. This code
    has abundant and beautiful algebraic structure. Since its discovery
    by Golay in 1949, it has become a subject of study by many coding
    theorists and mathematicians....

    "The (23,12) Golay code is either generated by

        g1(X) = 1 + X^2 + X^4 + X^5 + X^6 + X^10 + X^11
    or by
        g1(X) = 1 + X + X^5 + X^6 + X^7 + X^9 + X^11

    "Both g1(X) and G2(X) are factors of X^23 + 1 = (1 + X)g1(X)g2(X).
    The encoding can be accomplished by an 11-stage shift register with
    feedback connections according to either g1(X) or g2(X).

    "...There are several practical ways to decode the (23,12) Golay code
    up to its error-correcting capacity t=3. two of the best are discussed
    in this section. Both are refined error-trapping schemes."

They go on to describe a version of the Kasami decoder and the
systematic search decoder, with plusses and minuses for each.

Elsewhere in the book they note that the (23,12) Golay code and the
(2^N - 1, 2^N - N - 1) Hamming single-error correcting codes are the
only known perfect binary error-correcting codes.

The only known perfect non-binary error correcting codes are the
general- ized Hamming codes and the double-error-correcting (11,6)
code over GF(3), also discovered by Golay. [Peterson & Weldon,
"Error-Correcting Codes", (MIT 1972), p.143] "There are a number of
results indicating that perfect codes are scarce, and it even seems
quite likely that there are no others."  [Ibid., p.121]

For those who wonder how this connects with pagers, note that by
doubling (well, 23/12'ths) the number of bits sent and using the above
Golay code, you can get nearly error-free reception with bit error
rates approaching 10%.  (Occasionally more than three errors will
occur in a block of 23 bits, then the whole 12-bit data byte is
garbled.)  Not bad, not bad...


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

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

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 90 08:37:11 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast? (Was: BC Politician)
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


> Some lawyers have argued that a cellular call *is* a broadcast transmission
> if the participants know that someone *might* be listening in. . . .

    I heard a snippet on TV yesterday evening which, if I heard
and understood it right, said that the IRS is now listening in on
cellular calls, to gain evidence in tax evasion cases.  Anybody know
anything about this?


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

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

Date: Fri,  3 Aug 90 14:46:13 EDT
From: Bryan M Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 700 Blocking?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>[Moderator's Note: Yes, indeed! A couple of the OCC's use 700 in the
>same way local telcos and AT&T use 900 service. There's a couple of
>party-line conferences on there; AT&T has an automated conference call
>system operating there (user personally can establish conference with
>up to a couple-dozen [more?] people with no need for operator
>intervention);... ...  PT]

Alliance Teleconferencing can accomodate up to 60 legs for a single
conference.  This is reached via 0+700, either through TSPS or OSPS,
so is somewhat different that 1+800 or 1+900.  Blocking still might be
important, as the costs per port on the teleconferencing bridge are
non-zero ($0.25/min/port + usual LD charges for each leg seems to ring
a bell, but I can't be sure).


Bryan Richardson
AT&T Bell Laboratories

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 4 Aug 90 01:43:06 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Arnette P Baker [phone] <ihlpf![e-mail]> writes:

> A couple of other observations.  I listened carefully to the
> recording.  Several people have said the system noted that they were
> calling over MCI.  Are you sure?  What I heard was a pitch selling MCI
> based 800 ANI services.  Sounds like this outfit is a re-seller
> (aggregator) of MCI services.  I was definitely NOT calling over MCI,
> since I work for AT&T and called from my desk. |^)

Shame on you -- you should know better! It doesn't matter if you were
calling from the home where Alexander Graham Bell was born, you WERE
using MCI. When you dial an 800 call, it is routed to the nearest CCIS
tandem by the local telco (no AT&T). The number is transmitted to St.
Louis where it is looked up in AT&T's database. St. Louis returns the
POTS number, carrier, and if the number is accessable from the callers
phone. Assuming the call is allowed, then a standard LD call is placed
from the local CCIS tandem OVER THE ASSIGNED CARRIER to the POTS
number revealed by the database.

Remember -- when you call an 800 number, the call is carried by the
IXC assigned to the 800 prefix, NOT the default carrier that may be
assigned to your phone.

Eric Smith <[e-mail]> writes:

> That is what you would reasonably expect to happen.  800 ANI doesn't
> return the calling number; it returns the BILLING number.

Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI
sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number. The reason this does
not always appear to be the case is because of the way telcos
sometimes treat medium and large PBXs. If a PBX goes in with a pool
of, say, fifty trunks for general incoming/local outgoing (including
800), there is no reason for the individual lines to have separate
numbers. So they simply assign each and every trunk the same number.
If you dial the number readback on any one of the lines, you will get
the same number.  This has nothing to do with billing arrangements;
the numbers actually have the same number. They are differentiated by
"terminal" numbers (1-50 in our example). Incoming calls either hit
random pairs or start at terminal 1 and proceed toward terminal 50.

The other thing to remember is that in large PBXs, outgoing calls are
often routed on completely different lines than incoming calls. And if
you dial a toll call, it may go out on WATS. But ANI is NEVER based on
billing arrangements, but rather on the particular alias set up in the
CO -- almost always the directory number of the line involved.

My lines are all billed under one of two numbers (measured and
unmeasured cannot be billed together.) Our ANI fun number returns the
number of the actual line that I call it on, not the number that it is
billed to. Exactly as I would expect.


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

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

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 90 12:06:17 PDT
From: Steve Rhoades <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


> ..800-666-6258

 From several people I've talked to who are using MCI's in-bound 800
service with real-time ANI, I am told that MCI sends them
(Area-code)555-5555 if there's no ANI available.

I posted this observation several weeks ago and it still seems to hold
true: When calling the demo number direct, it gives me my number as it
should. But, when calling thru the Pac*Bell TOPS Operator, it gives
[phone].  It would appear that ANI is easily defeated just by
going thru the Operator.


Steve

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

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 1990 00:36:25 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


I called the AccessLogic Technologies ANI number from a University of
Toronto number (416-978-7xxx), and was told that I was calling from
716-852-4200, which is a Buffalo, N.Y., number.  I assume the
University of Toronto centrex routed the call through a tieline to
Buffalo.

The message on the other end was talking about using ANI for cable
systems, so I assume that the target market for this is cable
television systems thinking about pay-per-view services.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #541
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22378;
          4 Aug 90 20:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16556;
          4 Aug 90 19:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26287;
          4 Aug 90 18:02 CDT
Date:     Sat, 4 Aug 90 17:02:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Iridium Cellular Service
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 4 Aug 90 17:00:00 CDT    Special: Iridium Cellular

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    IRIDIUM - Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [Andrew Peed]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andrew Peed <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System
Date: 2 Aug 90 19:57:40 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


The contact person for the Iridium project is:

    Lawrence Moore
    Motorola, Inc.
    Government Electronics Group
    8201 E. McDowell Rd.
    Scottsdale, AZ 85252
    [phone]


IRIDIUM BACKGROUNDER

System Description:
    Iridium is a worldwide digital, satellite-based, cellular
personal communications system primarily intended to provide
commercial, rural, mobile service via either handheld mobile or
transportable user units, employing low-profile antennas, to millions
of individual users throughout the world. The system includes a
constellation of 77 small, smart satellites in low-earth orbit which
are networked together as a switched digital communications system
utilizing the principles of cellular diversity to provide continuous
line-of-sight coverage from and to any point on the earth's surface,
as well as all points within an altitude of about 100 miles. The
system also includes space-to-earth gateways which interface into the
public switched telephone network (PSTN). Service will be available on
a country-by-country switched basis as negotiated with the individual
governments and/or the individual telephone companies. Unlike the
terrestrial cellular telephone system, Iridium is best suited for
areas where the traffic density is low -- sparsely populated areas,
the oceans, and areas where personal communications is just emerging.
In these emerging markets, Iridium can be used as a primer for the
eventual terrestrial system.

Voice:
    The system is designed as an entirely digital communications
system with 8KHz bandwidth available for each voice channel. Vocoders
operating at 4.8 kilobits per second are employed in the user units to
recreate the audio signals and in the gateways to couple to the analog
PSTNs.

Data:
    The system is designed to allow a user to substitute a data
link in lieu of a voice link which would operate at a rate of 2400
baud.

Modulation:
    The user links use PSK modulation with a multiplexing scheme
that will be compatible with digital terrestrial cellular systems.

Spectrum:
    The system is designed to operate in the 1 to 2 GHz region
with a capability of up to 29 MHz for the uplink and 29 MHz for the
downlink with the expectation that spectrum allocation may grow as the
system demand grows. Gateways and crosslinks will operate at
approximately 20 GHz.

Subscriber Unit:
    The system is designed to operate with a subscriber unit
similar to the Motorola Dyna-Tac.

Constellation:
    The constellation of 77 satellites at a height of 413 nautical
miles was chosen to assure that every point on the earth's surface is
continuously in line of sight of one or more of the satellites. The
constellation includes 7 planes of 11 satellites each in circular
polar orbits. The satellites all "travel in the same direction,"
meaning that the seven planes of satellites co-rotate towards the
north pole on one side of the earth and "cross over" the pole,
traveling down to the south pole on the other side of the earth. The
11 satellites in each plane are equally spaced around their planar
orbit, with the satellites in planes 1, 3, 5 and 7 in phase with one
another, and those in planes 2, 4, and 6 in phase with each other and
halfway out of phase with 1, 3, 5 and 7. (In order to prevent the
satellites from colliding at the poles, a tolerance on the term "in
phase," as used above, is employed and a minimum miss distance is
maintained.) Each of the seven co-rotating planes are separated by
slightly more than 27 degrees, and the "seam" between planes 1 and 7,
which represents plane 1 satellites going up on one side of the earth
and plane 7 satellites coming down in the adjacent plane, is separated
by slightly more than 17 degrees.

Cells:
    Each Iridium satellite has the capacity to operate 37 cells
which are projected onto the earth's surface. These separate cells
allow for higher gain antenna beams and for spectral efficiency in the
system since different cells are able to reuse frequencies and service
different customers with the same channel. These cells are spatially
separated by the main mission antenna on board each satellite.

    The 37 cells are created in a contiguous hexagonal pattern
with one center cell surrounded by three rings of smaller cells. The
three rings consist of 6, 12, and 18 cells respectively, and each of
the 37 cells are created such that each is of approximately the same
shape and size. The cells are approximately 360 nautical miles in
diameter, and the ensemble of cells covers the earth's surface. In
operation, cells will be turned on and off to singly cover all points
within which operation is desired, as well as all necessary gateways,
and to conserve energy on board the satellites.

    The constellation of satellites and its projection of cells is
somewhat analogous to a cellular telephone system. In the case of
cellular telephones, a static set of cells serves a large number of
mobile users; in the case of Iridium, the users move at a relatively
slow pace relative to the spacecraft, which move at about 7,400 meters
per second, so the users appear static and the cells move. The
advantage for Iridium, given this situation, is that the handoffs
required as a call migrates from cell to cell are more deterministic
in that, with the spacecraft's high velocity, handoffs are largely in
one direction and the potential handoff is not to one of six adjacent
cells but more commonly to one of two.

Crosslinks:
    Each satellite operates crosslinks as a medium used to support
internetting. These operate at approximately 20 GHz and include both
forward and backward looking links to the two adjacent satellites in
the same orbital plane. These are nominally at a fixed distance and
angle 2,173 nautical miles away. Up to 6 interplane crosslinks are
also maintained and these links vary in angle and distance from the
satellite with a maximum distance of 2,500 nautical miles.

Gateways:
    Each satellite has the capacity to interlink (via the
crosslink network) to earth-based gateways that employ high-gain
antennas. The initial system will use 20 gateways. Gateways employ
standard cellular switches and interface both to the various local
PSTNs and to the local billing offices.

Delay:
    Unlike geostationary satellite communications systems,
interconnect distances in the Iridium system are on the order of the
wireless telephone and echo effects are minimized.

Spacecraft Life:
    The Iridium spacecraft are designed for a 5 year mean mission
duration (MMD) with expandables sized for 8 years. A small expandable
launch vehicle, such as Pegasus, will service the Iridium
constellation, which, in its steady-state mode (after initial
deployment), will replace satellites on a routine basis and emergency
replacements within 36 hours.

Growth:
    With such a dynamic constellation, constantly being
refurbished, the system design takes on a unique freshness in its
baseline. High reliability is designed into the system to assure the 5
year MMD, but redundancy, per se, is avoided wherever possible. The
initial system is sized to handle the system capacity expected, with
some margin, for the first 8 years -- the system design, however,
incorporates all the necessary "hooks" to allow for capacity growth in
subsequent "blocks" of satellites. Technological improvements in power
available on board spacecraft, launch, weights, antenna technology,
electronic technology and other areas will allow for system growth
within the overall system design. This will provide for a natural
evolution as Iridium matures.

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

MOTOROLA UNVEILS NEW CONCEPT FOR GLOBAL PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS; BASE
IS CONSTELLATION OF LOW-ORBIT SATELLITES

    In a move that heralds a new era in personal communications,
Motorola, Inc., Schaumburg, Ill., announced a global communications
system that will allow people to communicate by telephone anywhere on
earth -- whether on land, at sea or in the air -- via portable
radiotelephones operating as part of a satellite-based system.

    Callers using the new system will not need to know the
location of the person being called; they will simply dial that
person's number to be connected instantly.

    Motorola calls the new system Iridium and has established a
satellite communications business unit to develop it. The heart of
Iridium is a "constellation" of 77 satellites in low-earth orbit,
working together as a digital switched communications network in
space. The system will be able to handle both voice and data.

    "Iridium brings personal communications to the world -- it
represents the potential for any person on the planet to communicate
with any other," said John F. Mitchell, vice chairman of Motorola Inc.
"For this reason, Iridium marks the next major milestone in global
communications."

    "It is an ambitious concept, which will bring us significantly
closer to 'the global village' As such, Iridium boldly extends the
Motorola tradition of innovation in personal communications recognized
through our leadership in cellular telecommunications, private two-way
radio and radio paging."

IRIDIUM ADVANTAGES:
    Motorola's Iridium system provides several key improvements
over the geosynchronous satellites currently used for international
communications. The low altitude of Iridium satellites allows easy
radio links with portable radiotelephones on earth, using small
antennas rather than satellite dishes. It also supports reuse of radio
frequencies, in a similar fashion to land-based cellular systems.

    In addition, the system solves the problem of low-orbit
satellites "disappearing over the horizon" by combining a large number
of satellites in a space-based, inter-satellite switching system.

    Although Iridium uses cellular communications principles, it
is designed to complement, not compete with, land-based cellular
systems. Land-based cellular will remain the most efficient way to
serve high-density areas, whereas Iridium will bring communications to
remote or sparsely populated areas that lack communications. Iridium
and terrestrial cellular will work together to eventually provide a
seamless communications service for the entire world.

SMALL SATELLITES:

    The satellites are small (approximately one meter in diameter
and two meters tall) and lightweight (approximately 315 kilograms, or
700 pounds). They are considered "smart" because they can switch and
route calls in space.

    Each satellite antenna pattern will project 37 cells onto the
earth's surface. Each cell will provide communications coverage for an
area of the earth's surface roughly 350 nautical miles in diameter;
people will communicate with the satellites using equipment operating
at frequencies of 1.5/1.6 Gigahertz. In addition to voice, the digital
system can transmit data at a rate of 2400 baud.

    The Iridium satellites can be placed into orbit by a variety
of launch vehicles. The U.S. Delta and Atlas rockets, and the European
Ariane, could launch multiple satellites. The new Pegasus air-launched
vehicle could launch individual satellites. Each satellite is expected
to have a lifespan of five to six years.

    Another key component of the system will be a network of
"gateway" surface facilities in various countries that will link
Iridium with the public switched telephone network. These gateways
will store customer billing information and will constantly keep track
of each user's location. An Iridium system control facility will
maintain the satellite network and the overall operation of the
system.

LIGHTWEIGHT, PORTABLE SUBSCRIBER UNITS:
    Subscriber units for Iridium are similar to Motorola's
original cellular radiotelephones and will offer additional features
such as latitude, longitude, altitude, and Greenwich Mean Time.

    In addition to the lightweight portables, Iridium subscriber
units will be available as mobiles or small fixed units.

ANTICIPATED USERS:
    The Iridium system will support millions of users worldwide,
with a total capacity more than 10 times greater than current
geosynchronous satellite systems.

    For low-density areas not economically feasible for cellular
phone networks, Iridium will be an ideal alternative for mobile
telephone service. In sparsely populated or underdeveloped areas
lacking basic telephone service, Iridium can be a foundation for an
eventual ground telephone system.

    For ships and aircraft, Iridium will provide voice or data
links and positioning information without the sophisticated on-board
telecommunications hardware now required. Since Iridium is not
dependent on land-based communications links, it also would play a
crucial role in disaster-recovery efforts following earthquakes,
hurricanes, or other natural calamities.

OPERATING PLAN:
    Motorola envisions that the Iridium system will be operated by
one or more international consortia whose members have the necessary
licenses to operate in each country.

    Motorola will serve as the supplier of the system itself. This
will include the satellites, the communications links and all
necessary support. Motorola's plan for an open architecture is
expected to provide the opportunity for significant international
participation in the development and manufacture of Iridium.

    Plans call for two demonstration satellites to be placed into
orbit in 1992. Implementation of the entire system is planned to begin
in 1994, and full service will begin as early as 1996.

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

MOTOROLA SIGNS AGREEMENTS TO EXPLORE NEW SATELLITE-BASED PERSONAL
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM

    Motorola, Inc. has signed memoranda of understanding with
three organizations -- the London-based International Maritime
Satellite Organization (Inmarsat), the American Mobile Satellite
Corporation (AMSC), based in Washington, D.C., and Telesat Mobile Inc.
(TMI) of Canada -- to jointly explore the potential of Motorola's
Iridium satellite communications system.

    Iridium is a network of 77 small satellites in low-earth orbit
that will allow people with portable radiotelephones to communicate
anywhere on earth, whether on land, at sea, or in the air.

    In each memorandum of understanding, the parties agree to
cooperate in studying the potential of the Iridium satellite network,
including an analysis of the technical and business issues involved.

    "This system ushers in a new era of global personal
communications," said John F. Mitchell, vice chairman of Motorola,
Inc. "We're delighted that these organizations recognize the
importance of Iridium to the future of worldwide telecommunications."

    Inmarsat, organized in 1979 as an international consortium to
provide satellite communications for ships at sea, now includes
representatives of 59 nations and has expanded its services in
several countries to include aviation and land-mobile communications.

    AMSC is licensed to provide mobile communications via
satellite for the United States, and TMI is licensed to provide a
similar service for Canada.

    Motorola is continuing discussions with other potential
partners, including British Telecom in London and organizations in
Australia, Hong Kong and Japan.

        Motorola Inc. is one of the world's leading providers of
electronic equipment, systems, components and services for worldwide
markets. Products include two-way radios, pagers, cellular telephones
and systems, semiconductors, defense and aerospace electronics,
automotive and industrial electronics, computers, data communications
and information processing and handling equipment. Motorola was a
winner of the first annual Malcom Baldrige National Quality Award, in
recognition of its superior company wide management of quality
processes.

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

Andrew B. Peed          Motorola, Inc.
...!uunet!motcid!peed     Cellular Infrastructure Division
[phone]          1501 W.Shure Dr., Arlington Heights, IL, 60074

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Motorola's Iridium
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06193;
          5 Aug 90 11:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23649;
          5 Aug 90 10:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21417;
          5 Aug 90 9:09 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 Aug 90 8:35:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #542
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Aug 90 08:35:13 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 542

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telemarketing Droids [Roy M. Silvernail]
    800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [David Schanen]
    What Should I Ask For? [Jerry Leichter]
    Archives Donation: ECPA Legal Update [Michael H. Riddle]
    Re: Seeking Ringback for 415 [Tim Pozar]
    Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy [John Debert]
    Re: A Happy Sprint Customer [John Higdon]
    Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Is 510 Area Code Active? [Steve Watt]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Steve Watt]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Telemarketing Droids
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 90 23:02:55 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> Our gentle Moderator is precisely correct. This is exactly how I
> handled the {San Jose Mercury} and their telemarketing-run-amuck. So
> far it seems to have worked. It went like this: [Oh god, Martha,
> another story...]

Do newspapers have some kind of secret agreement to use sleazy
tactics?

Last year, I got a call ... the fellow says "Hi, this is George, with
the {Anchorage Times}. I spoke with someone there last week, and they
said I should call back today about starting your subscription."

Innocuous enough, I suppose ... but not good enough. I replied,
"George, let me fill you in here: I live alone, just me and my
answering machine.  If you had talked to _anyone_ last week, t'would
have been me. So you're lying to me right out of the box. I don't like
your paper, I don't like telemarketers, and I'd appreciate never
hearing from you again. Have you got all that?"

George mumbled something, and I hung up. Must have worked, though ...
I never got another call from the Times.


    Roy M. Silvernail
    now available at:
 cybrspc![e-mail]

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?
Date: 5 Aug 90 10:01:45 GMT
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


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

   Stuff deleted...

>Remember -- when you call an 800 number, the call is carried by the
>IXC assigned to the 800 prefix, NOT the default carrier that may be
>assigned to your phone.

   More Stuff deleted...

>Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI
>sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number.    ........

   More stuff deleted...

   Thanks for confirming that for us John!

   What I don't understand is why the telcos are allowed to have the
*complete* number of the calling party.  They should only be allowed
the local prefix, for billing purposes (IMHO.)

   Is this an invasion of our privacy?

   Anyone have any opinions, ideas?

Dave

Internet: [e-mail]  *  UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv


[Moderator's Note: It is not an invasion of your privacy when you ask
me to pay for your telephone call and I ask for the number of the
telephone. By your thinking, the information provided to the person
paying the bill for a collect call would also be an 'invasion of
privacy' since that person gets your number. As long as I am paying, I
want the details of what I am paying for. The way you avoid this
'invasion of privacy' is by sending the call at your expense instead
of mine; i.e. dial my regular long distance number instead of my 800
number. PT]

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

Date: Sat,  4 Aug 90 08:48:55 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Should I Ask For?


My UUCP links require an in-state long-distance call (to a site about
15 miles from here).  As in many places, such calls are quite
expensive - not nearly as bad as what I see others are paying, but it
does add up, even at the late-night rate at which I make most calls.

It adds up to enough that I'm thinking about other options.  One that
might make sense is an FX line to the exchange to which I dial.  What
words should I use in talking to SNET to ask about such a beast?

Another alternative I've considered is getting an 800 number and
having the site I talk to poll me.  (They aren't able to pick up the
costs of a direct call.)  The residential 800 services seem to be
pretty cheap, but I'm not sure if they will work in-state, and if so
how they would be billed.  Anyone know?

Any other suggestions for a way to cut these costs from the collected wisdom
of the Telecom community?


Jerry

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

Date: Sat, 4 Aug 90 17:01:16 cdt
From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Donation to Archives: ECPA Legal Updates


Patrick:

I've noted in recent discussions some references to the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) that lead me to believe that
not all persons who ought to have read the Act.

I note that the archives have a copy of an early version, but not
necessarily the final, and that since the Act involved changes and
additions to various parts of the U.S. Code, that the form in the
archives is not as useful as it might be.

I'm taking the liberty of enclosing what I believe to be the relevant
portions of the U.S. Code; to be safe, one should read these in
conjunction with the archives' file ecpa.1986 to insure they have
everything, but this is reasonably complete.

As before, I expect this will need to go straight to the archives
since it's rather lengthy.


Mike

[Moderator's Note: 96K bytes lengthy! I posted it in the Telecom
Archives this morning right next to the ecpa.1986 file where it is
available for anyone interested. And I do recommend a look at it.
Telecom Archives can be accessed via anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu.
After logging in, 'cd telecom-archives'.  Mike, I thank you on behalf
of all readers for taking the trouble to enter this file.  PT]

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

From: Tim Pozar <hoptoad!kumr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Seeking Ringback for 415
Date: 4 Aug 90 05:56:58 GMT
Reply-To: Tim Pozar <hoptoad!kumr![e-mail]>
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
Terrebonne) writes:

>BTW, the ANI for most of 415 seems to be 760-0126, although that
>doesn't seem to work down here in Mtn View.

   In the 415-695 and 415-788 sections, I have found that just '760'
will work.


Tim Pozar    Try also...
uunet!hoptoad!kumr!pozar      Fido: 1:125/555      PaBell: [phone]
      USNail:  KKSF-FM / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108

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

From: John Debert <claris![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy
Date: 5 Aug 90 04:58:32 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


 From article <[e-mail]>, by apple!well.sf.ca.us!
well![e-mail] (Marty Brenneis):

> claris!netcom![e-mail] (John Debert) writes:

> 911 Operators are provided by the local 911 agency. In some counties
> this is a common answer point for all emergency services in the
> county. In other counties it is the various cities that answer.

Perhaps this explains why 911 operators can get away with being rude,
abusive and even openly hostile to callers.


jd
[e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Happy Sprint Customer
Date: 4 Aug 90 17:52:09 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I've never had a call I didn't make show up on my bill, and I've never
> had line quality problems -- I've uucp'd Finland quite easily, and
> calling London gives me a better quality line than calling my mom in
> Louisiana.  When I was laid off with an hour's notice (ah, the joys of
> contracting :-), the Sprint accounting/billing people were
> understanding and didn't disconnect me even though I couldn't make my
> payments for a few months.

> (Just thought I'd try to balance the numerous I-hate-Sprint messages. :-)

It's not really so much a matter of Sprint bashing. If that were the
case, I would never even bothered to give them a try. I am the first
to support a deserving underdog and really resent our largest
corporations strong-arming and bullying their way through the
marketplace. If there would be any way around AT&T, I would be the
first through the door.

But not only did my little trial end in failure, it appears that the
company has no desire to meet me half way to correct the situation.
Everyone has problems from time to time; even AT&T. But when I had
similar problems on AT&T, the response was phenomenal and the people
that I dealt with truly acted as though my account was the most
important one they had at the moment. Technicians actually called my
modem line (I saw it go off hook) and called the other end as well.
They reported back that the levels were OK so they were going to look
into the matter further. The problem was corrected within 48 hours.

Sprint on the other hand virtually ignored me for three days and it
was only when I became a pest that they even bothered to wave me off
with, "we have determined the problem to be in your equipment." Every
converstion with a Sprint person ended with, "we certainly appreciate
your business". Actions, however, speak louder than words. What I
heard was, "use our lines the way they are and don't make trouble."

Most assuredly, there are satisfied Sprint customers. If that wasn't
true, they would be out of business right now, not just losing money.
I am also convinced that there are areas in the country that get
superior service from Sprint. This, however, is not one of them. IMHO
this a major mistake on their part since the Silicon Valley probably
is responsible for a disproportionate share of data communications.
Being unusable for data somewhat limits Sprint's merchantability.

But the thrust here is not that Sprint has problems. Everyone has
problems. It's what are they willing to do, down to the individual
level, to solve them?

> [Moderator's Note: Actually, there are lots of satisfied Sprint
> customers, but like in so many transactions, the satisfied customers
> are never heard from.  PT]

And unfortunately in business, it isn't the satisfied customers but
the unsatisfied ones that you need to worry about the most.


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

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work?
Date: 4 Aug 90 17:44:10 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> mike spann <gammafax!mikes@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

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

>The other box (and the one I would select) uses the little known fact
>that audio energy is carried down the phone line when the phone is
>ringing.  (This is commonly known to thiefs who sometimes talk to each
>other without answering the phone).  An automatic fax machine sends a
>calling tone every three seconds while waiting for the phone to be
>answered.  The phone/fax switch box listens on the line for this
>'calling tone' and routes the call to the fax machine if one is heard.
>The box never answers the phone which I consider an advantage.  This

Another urban myth bites the dust.  This is a "little known fact"
because it is NOT a fact, ie. not true.  Maybe that needs a little
qualification.  If you live in the rain forrest in Africa and are
still using something like tin cans and string and calling it a phone,
then maybe you have a case to make.  It's also possible that some PBX
systems might exhibit this strange behavior (don't know, I never
worked on them animals).  If, on the other hand, you are talking about
REAL phone systems like the ones used by modern telcos to call across
town or across the country, what you said above just plain and simply
is not the case.  There is no physical or electrical path between the
calling and called party until the phone is answered, none, zip,
zilch.  This path did exist in some of the older vintage Step-by-Step
switches but not in anything newer than that.  Wake up and join the
20th Century.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Watt)
Subject: Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?
Date: 4 Aug 90 20:32:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Watt)
Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant


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

>A check from Toronto seems to show that the area code 510 (California
>split, San Francisco, to be completed late '91) is now active, and
>accepting dialing for 1 510 555.1212. Does anyone else have 510 active
>out there?

Intriguing.  Here in San Jose (20 miles southwest of where 510 will
start) You get an intercept as soon as you finish the '0' in 510...
Intrestingly, the intercept takes longer if you dial '1' first (not
required in 408).

Canadian telcos are starting early!


Steve Watt
 ...!claris!wattres!steve    wattres![e-mail] also works

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Watt)
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 4 Aug 90 20:12:27 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steve Watt)
Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant


In article <[e-mail]> David Singer <ibmarc!ks!ibm.
com![e-mail]> writes:

>I tried it from my office phone [[phone]], which is on a ROLM

Ah!  An IBM'er...

>switch.  The voice at the other end read back [phone].  I
>called *that* number, and nearly had my ears blown off by a loud tone.

That loud tone has me wondering ... There's another number (408)
446-0044 that generates almose exactly (off by ~4Hz) the same loud
tone.  It sounds like it's around 500Hz, and close to the maximum
amplitude for the line.  Does anybody know what it's good for?


Steve Watt

 ...!claris!wattres!steve    wattres![e-mail] also works

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

From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 4 Aug 90 00:00:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>I was definitely NOT calling over MCI,
>since I work for AT&T and called from my desk. |^)

But you WERE!  As others have pointed out, 800-666 is owned by MCI.
Whenever any call is placed to 800-666, your CO directs the call to
MCI's POP and they handle the call from there.  Your default equal
access carrier doesn't even come into play.

>This problem may depend on the type of CO switch, but to my
>knowledge there is no protocol yet defined to pass SS7 type
>information from a PBX to a CO.

One of my friend's dad works for US West, and we were talking about
SS7 one day.  He mentioned that Hewlett Packard in Corvallis, OR is
currently testing SS7 services delivered to the customer.  Apparently,
there is some sort of protocol defined.  He indicated that in the near
future, high-end PBX's will be able to have a 56kbps SS7 connection to
the CO, in addition of course to the analog trunks, or that one of the
channels in a T1 could be devoted to this purpose.  This would allow
the PBX to directly access and control the SS7 features for the
customer's lines.  Presumably, all call setup could be done over the
SS7, instead of the in-band DTMF or MF or whatever the analog trunks
are using now.  Interesting.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #542
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14217;
          5 Aug 90 21:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22770;
          5 Aug 90 19:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23024;
          5 Aug 90 18:15 CDT
Date:     Sun, 5 Aug 90 17:54:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #543
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 5 Aug 90 17:54:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 543

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Here We Go Again [David Pletcher]
    Re: Programming the Radio Shack CT-102 [John Debert]
    Re: Cellular Phone Tech Reference Wanted []
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Touchtone Detection Question [Mark Kallas]
    Re: Terradine FORTEL System [Bob Breum]
    Seeking Information on FULL DISCLOSURE Newspaper [Daniel M. Greenberg]
    Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Pletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Here We Go Again
Date: 5 Aug 90 00:09:02 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711


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

>Pac*Bell bill insert:

>After August 5, 1990, all pay telephones will be required to provide:
>* Free access to:

>    - 800 services
>    - 950 dialing (long-distance company code dialing)

>***End of quote from Bill Insert***

Has anyone else noticed that 10XXX LD carrier selection is
conspicuously absent from this list of goodies, so that there is no
way to reach any worthwhile long-distance carrier (i.e. AT&T)?  I just
spent about a half hour on the phone today talking to several levels
of AT&T supervisors in various places, asking them why they did not
have any 950 access code or an 800 number to get to AT&T long
distance.  I tried to explain the new California PUC ruling, and the
fact that many potential AT&T customers would still be unable to reach
AT&T from the omnipresent COCOTs in California.  The people I talked
to seemed somewhat surprised by this, and said they would mention it
to their bosses.

None of the people I spoke to had ever heard anyone mention this
problem before, so is it possible that AT&T is just totally unaware
that their customers can't reach them from 75% of the payphones in
California?  If you are worried about this like I am, I urge you all
to call AT&T and let them know that you want them to do something
about this problem, like providing 950 or 800 access numbers or
leaning on the PUC to allow 10XXX access from COCOTs.

>"This agreement ... establishes quidelines for enforcing..."

>HaHaHaHa ... etc. I'll tell you what enforcement would be. Announce
>via the media that on Monday, Aug. 6, any member of the public who
>finds a COCOT that is not in compliance with these rules may deface,
>smash, or otherwise destroy the offending instrument without fear of
>civil or criminal penalties. That's enforcement!

>Anyone want to join me for a "phone inspection cruise" on Monday?

Well, I've rounded up about five of my friends and we are going to
start searching out the offending COCOTs in Sacramento on Monday
morning.  We haven't decided exactly what to do yet, but our tentative
plan is to call the phone's repair service, post a notice explaining
that the phone is out of order and should be used for emergency calls
only, and then compile a list and send it to the PUC.  Happy hunting!


David Pletcher
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: When the phone is marked Out of Order, put a gummy
label sticker over the coin slot to reinforce your message.  PT]

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

From: John DeBert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Programming the Radio Shack CT-102
Date: 5 Aug 90 05:16:06 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Dave Levenson):

> Incidentally, the vendor offers a service
> manual for this product, priced at $19.95, available by special order
                                      ^^^^^
Someone is pocketing the money. I got mine for $12.00.

> When your phone is delivered, it has a five-digit 'security code'
> programmed into it.  The factory default for this value is shown in
> your owners manual on page 12.  The installer is encouraged to change
> this.  You need this code to reset your total air time accumulator, to
> change your unlock code, or to enter programming mode.

 If you don't get the cellular service from the RS dealer the people
who you try to get service from may refuse to program your phone,
saying that a special handset is needed, and try to sell you one of
theirs. Programming the phone needs no special tools; the service
handset is for testing only and you can't run tests w/o it.

 If you can, program the phone yourself and save $15-25.  Write down
everything incase the battery goes out in the phone so you don't have
to make a trip to your carrier's sales office. The battery is soldered
in and "not user replaceable".

Also, despite what the carriers say, an "unactivated" phone may be
usable for 911 calls if the carrier allows them. Prior to getting
service I could make 911 calls via one carrier (but neither wireline
carrier, PacTel or GTE MobileNet permit 911 calls here in the Central
Coast area of California).  And that was without doing anything but
installing the phone and turning it on.


jd
[e-mail]

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

From:  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Tech Reference Wanted
Date: 5 Aug 90 13:18:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter B.
Hayward) writes:

>Sorry to bother you, but do you have online anywhere or can you refer
>me to any publication which explains the ins and out of how cellular
>phones work?

There is a superior reference available on cellular telecom, one which
I am almost finished reading from cover-to-cover.  It is:

    "Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems" by
    William C. Y. Lee, Ph. D.  [Sorry, don't have ISBN handy, just
    the title info]

The book was published in 1989 and gives an excellent engineering
overview of analog cellular, with a chapter dedicated toward what we
can expect from digital cellular.


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

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 5 Aug 90 10:35:03 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

>I have just tried dialing this three times, and have gotten busies all
>three tries.  Make that FOUR times.

I've gotten quite a few busies, too.  However, whenever I get thru, I
seem to be able to get thru again and again.  Maybe just a
coincidence.

>I think SOMEbody's going to have an unexpectedly high phone bill
>next month.

I thought of the same and quickly wondered if MCI was in on this
promotion.  For some reason, I never think of an LD carrier as having
a "phone bill" to deal with!


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

From: Gordon Burditt <sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 5 Aug 90 19:09:14 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: My gosh, yes! I wonder if anyone has notified the
>authorities in PA of how their rights are being violated by this
>service. I wonder what would happen if phone subscribers with 800
>numbers insisted that their telco quit routing them *any* 800 calls
>from Pennsylvania until such time as it becomes legal to know the
>number of the telephone used in the call to them -- which, after all
>they are paying for?   PT]

Is that the legal situation when the caller is in Pennsylvania and the
callee is outside?

I tried the Access Logic Technologies number from 817-249.  It worked.
Since the non-800 number they give for more information is also in
817, I assume the 800 number also is based in Fort Worth.  I believe
the mention of MCI is that they are getting the info from MCI, NOT
that they know who your carrier is.  My default LD carrier is
/dev/null.  If I try 10288-1-800-666, I don't get to finish the
number, and I get a recording telling me not to use a long-distance
company access code.  Interestingly, I do NOT get such a recording
when I dial 10288-249-xxxx to get my other line at home (yes, routing
an intra-CO call through AT&T.  It doesn't show up on the bill,
either).

I called a friend, who called the number from 717 (just outside
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania).  It worked.  The recording also referred to
MCI.  My friend has AT&T as primary carrier.

Is there any significance to the fact that "666" is also known as "the
number of the beast"?

                Gordon L. Burditt
                sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: 10666 went unassigned as a carrier access code for
quite a long time for the same superstitious reason: Whichever telco
used it would have rumors spread about them similar to the ones which
have plagued Proctor and Gamble for over a decade.   PT]

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

From: mark kallas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Detection Question
Date: 5 Aug 90 14:36:15 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.


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

>Some/most systems I've come across which have you enter data through
>TT are able to correctly decode my input, long pulses, short pulses,
>quick pulses, Bell phones, non-Bell phones.  Other systems, such as
>various answering machines are very fickle.  I have to master a
>certain pressing technique and can only use certain phones (non-PBX
>Bell phones are the best) and still need to use several tries.

>Why/comments/etc?

Most of the time answering machines and some voice mail systems
require a two or three second holding time before they will decode an
incoming digit. If I remember right minimum duration for DFMT (TT) is
100 msec, I would guess the average persons button pushing is 200-500
msec. This means the dialer has to hold the button down "a long time".

A second reason PBX may not work is if they are digital instruments.
Digital phones do not have a DTMF send in them, so when a buttom is
pressed the PBX "sees" the botton and then send a digit to whoever
your conected to. These tones are saved in digital form and used to
send digits to the cental office. Most of the time these digits are
only sent for 100 msec.

A third reason some regular (cheap) phones will not sometimes is due
to reverse current. When a phone being dialed, it gets it power, -48
volts from the central office.  Many central offices will reverse
polarity, making + 48 volts, after your call is answered. This is most
often used to tell when billing sould start. On the other hand, if the
phone you using to dial out on will only let you send digits when it
has -48 volts, it won't after the call is answered.


UUCP    : texbell!digi!mkallas
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Breum <cmpfen![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Terradine FORTEL System
Date: 4 Aug 90 19:52:44 GMT


That should be spelled, "Teradyne 4-Tel."


Bob Breum
1701 Missouri Avenue
Sanford, FL 32771-9722 USA
[phone]

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

Date: Sun, 5 Aug 90 14:01 EST
From: "Daniel M. Greenberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seeking Information on FULL DISCLOSURE Newspaper


I am hoping that someone reading comp.dcom.telecom might be able to
tell me what ever happened to FULL DISCLOSURE newspaper.  Full
Disclosure was "published irregularly" by Glen L. Roberts in Ann
Arbor, Michigan and was billed as "a journal on in-depth investigative
reporting that keeps you up to date on * Your legal rights *
Electronic surveillance * Police encounters * Technology and privacy *
and other matters overlooked by the press."

The journal often had articles on phone taps and technology and
related issues.  I had found out about it through Compuserve and
received 3 issues for free.  Then I decided to subscribe.  I realized
last week that I hadn't received an issue in almost a year so I
decided to give the phone numbers listed a call ... all disconnected.
While I didn't invest a significant amount of money, I'd still like to
find out.

What happened to Full Disclosure?  If anyone has any info, please send
it to me via E-mail as I don't check this group as regularly as I
ought to.

Thanks in advance,

Daniel M. Greenberg ... existing at ...  Rochester Institute of Technology

BITNET    : DMG4449@RITVAX                INTERNET: [e-mail]
COMMERICAL: America Online: DanielG10     Prodigy: MDKP57A
US MAIL   : CPU 1026 25 Andrews Mmrl. Dr.  Rochester, NY  14623

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

Date: Sun, 5 Aug 90 11:12 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


        It's often touted that modern telecommunications is a
springboard to global democracy.  We all know how the broadcast media
frustrated mainland China's totalitarian government with suitcase-
transportable satellite uplinks and how students sneaked mountains of
faxes through the PSTN during the Tienamen Square riots.

        Now, an American small businessman, Steve McGrover, is raising
his own fax campaign to show corporate television sponsors that a
large proportion of the public is offended by TV personality Roseanne
Barr, particularly over her public performance of the National Anthem
at a San Diego Padres baseball game recently.

        Mc Grover has offered free use of his fax machine at (800)
468-0344 (overseas callers can dial [phone]) to receive and
collect fax messages that he will forward to the sponsors of Barr's TV
program to show how much public indignation Barr has caused.

        Hundreds of fax messages indicating personal boycotts of
Barr's TV sponsors' products as well as personal offense have already
been received at McGrover's home office, and it appears there may well
be thousands more, as publicity spreads.

        I spoke with McGrover today, and he indicates he fully expects
and understands he's liable to run up a huge AT&T Readyline WATS bill
in addition to rolls and rolls of fax paper.  But, in our conversation,
he indicated he's willing to have anyone EXCEPT televison network
interviewers publicize his effort.

        I showed him how computer operators may well originate faxes
from keyboards, and he seems to be willing to accept those as well,
with the one qualifier that messages with real names and addresses are
most valid for his campaign.

        So, please feel free to spread the word, not only to friends
associates, but any media people you feel worthy.  Tell them the very
best way to contact him is by a fax message to his number above,
telling him how to reach them by both phone and fax.  His personal
schedule is already getting busy with talk radio interviews as this is
being written.

        McGrover asked on limitation on cost: No international or
reversed telephone charges to his fax number, please.

        While I would like to know how much circulation this message
gets, let's not clog up this line with it. Rather, make some mention
(clippable off the bottom) of how you heard of this "electronic
movement by the people" on the bottom of your faxes to McGrover. Or,
if you choose to message me on MCIMail 413-3373 of any particular
local group actions, I will be pleased to summarize in a week or so to
the forum.

        One last aside for students of telecommunications sociology:
McGrover's voice phone number is non-list, but not non-pub.  He so far
has received about three times as many phone calls from people who do
not have fax machines but would pay for Directory Assistance to get
his voice number in order to telephone their opinion.  He regrets not
being able to maintain a log of those calls. And, his 800 number rings
with many people who try to talk to the fax machine.  That's some
indication of where the general population is with regard to Group III
fax.  And, to try providing these people a voice, McGrover suggests
that "spreading the word" to local businesses that will let the
"un-faxed masses" send their messages is also welcomed.

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

[Moderator's Note: I called Mr. McGrover Sunday afternoon and
confirmed his desire to receive Fax messages on this subject. By using
the 813-733-0344 routing, you pay for the Fax instead if you prefer.
This message is presented for its news value, with no opinion by
myself pro or con. Direct follow-ups to Mr. Kimberlin.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #543
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12691;
          7 Aug 90 2:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08354;
          7 Aug 90 0:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07672;
          6 Aug 90 23:26 CDT
Date:     Mon, 6 Aug 90 23:12:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #544
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 6 Aug 90 23:12:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 544

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Bunk! [Steve Elias]
    Re: "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Bunk???! [John Higdon]
    Re: "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Yes!!! Bunk!! [Steve Elias]
    Plagued by Wrong Number Calls [Dave Levenson]
    Ringback Tone Variations [Larry Lippman]
    One More ANI Demo Number Observation [Larry Lippman]
    Re: House Approves Restrictions on Fax, Phone Junk Mail [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Nicad "Memory" [Ge Weijers]
    Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch [Alain Fontaine]
    Re: Payphone Psychology [Bernie Cosell]
    Re: Payphone Psychology [Chris Jones]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Bunk!
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 90 17:26:11 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: In the next three postings, Mssrs. Higdon and Elias
share with Digest readers a recent dialogue between them.   PT]

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

In an earlier posting, John Higdon makes a reference to Sprint's lines
being "unusable for datacomm in Silicon Valley".

John, your statement is not true.  Be accurate if you feel like
pointing out inadequacies of any particular LD service.

Telebit is not the only modem in the world, you know!  There are
plenty of people in the Bay Area who use *other modems*, and they work
fine over Sprint connections.


eli

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Bunk??
Date: 5 Aug 90 16:23:12 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Aug 5 at 17:26, Steve Elias writes:

> In an earlier posting, John Higdon makes a reference to Sprint's
> lines being "unusable for datacomm in Silicon Valley".

> John, your statement is not true.  Be accurate if you feel
> like pointing out inadequacies of any particular LD service.

> Telebit is not the only modem in the world, you know!
> There are plenty of people in the Bay Area who use *other modems*,
> and they work fine over Sprint connections.

Then let the users of those other modems use Sprint if they so desire.
You apparently missed my whole point. The problem that I am having
with Sprint and Telebit modems is simply an example that points up
Sprint's inability to deal with difficulty on an individual customer
level, a deficiency that does not apparently exist with AT&T.

However, I will say this: Heaven help the users of Sprint who someday
find that they have a problem with this modem or that. The repair
people at that organization will have no interest in even learning the
nature of the problem.

Incidently, would you like some examples of people who have simply
given up on Sprint with other types of modems here in the Bay Area?
When you live here and can honestly say that Sprint works wonderfully
and is most responsive to difficulty, then you will have the right to
accuse me of inaccuracy. And please, anyone else who may read this,
spare me the stories of how great YOUR Sprint service is. I am simply
saying that mine stinks, and Sprint is unwilling to do anything about
it. Is it so unreasonable to expect them to simply make an attempt?


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Yes!!! Bunk!!
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 90 07:42:03 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


John Higdon wrote:

> Then let the users of those other modems use Sprint if they so desire.

Of course.  Let's hear it for the free market.

> You apparently missed my whole point.

Not at all, John.  Your point was that you got no help from Sprint
with regard to your Telebit's inability to talk over Sprint lines.  it
wasn't such a complicated point, you know!  It doesn't surprise me.

> Incidently, would you like some examples of people who have simply
> given up on Sprint with other types of modems here in the Bay Area?

Sure.  Why not?  Maybe I'll relay the info to my contact at Sprint.
I've long since stopped relaying your particular complaints about
Sprint service, however.

> When you live here and can honestly say that Sprint works
> wonderfully and is most responsive to difficulty, then you will
> have the right to accuse me of inaccuracy.

Oh, so I'm dishonest now, John?  Eat bits, pal.  I've used modems on
Sprint from the Bay area and have friends who do so.  I've also dialed
in to modems in the bay area using US Sprint.  So, tell me, do I have
the "right" to say so, yet?  Gack.

>  And please, anyone else who may read this, spare me
> the stories of how great YOUR Sprint service is.

You might consider sparing us your trials and tribulations, too, John.
They're old news and are well-designed to irritate.  It's no wonder
why the Sprint service reps have trouble dealing with you.  Is your
phone persona any more polite than your typist-persona, John?  Mine is!

> I am simply saying that mine stinks, and Sprint is unwilling to
> do anything about it. Is it so unreasonable to expect them to
> simply make an attempt?

No, it's not that unreasonable.  Have a nice and error free day.


eli

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls
Date: 6 Aug 90 03:18:57 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


The U. S. Department of State has established a hotline for people
seeking information about their friends/relatives in Kuwait.  The
number, as published in the New York Times and shown on television, is
[phone].

Here at Westmark, Inc., in New Jersey, we have since 1983 used the
number [phone].  (We still receive calls dialed to that number,
though NJ Bell now calls this area code 908.)  Since last Thursday, we
have received approximately a dozen calls per day from people asking
for information about a flight from Baghdad, or whether communication
has been established with one or another town in Kuwait, or some
American company there, or whatever.  Some of the callers think they
have reached someone in Kuwait.  The calls continue into the night,
according to the answering service.

More than half of the calls, according to our Caller*ID display,
originate here in NJ. These may be being dialed as only seven digits.
(In most of NJ, you can dial the home area code if you want to, and
the call is still processed as a local call.)

We have tried to explain, very carefully for the benefit of these
callers, many of whom barely speak English, or have no idea what 'area
code' means, that they have reached New Jersey, not Kuwait.  We have
patiently explained how to call the State Department.  A few have
called us back a minute later, and we've had the same conversation
again.

Several people insisted that they had dialed area code 202.  None of
these, however, reached us again if they re-dialed after speaking with
us.  They insist that the number is right because it was on
television.  One man yelled at me that he got the number from AT&T and
I must be mistaken.  They don't believe that they could have
mis-dialed, but none have claimed that they meant to dial our number.

I suppose that if hundreds or thousands of people are trying to call
the number in Washington, it is not unusual that a few dozen of them
will mis-dial only the area code, and reach us.  The network is
probably doing the best it can with what they dial.  Still I wonder if
perhaps a few of these calls were correctly dialed, and are being
mis-routed by some minor piece of the PSDN?


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

Subject: Ringback Tone Variations
Date: 5 Aug 90 23:54:55 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David E A
Wilson) writes:

> Here in Australia, I have noticed that with my parents phone, the ring
> sound that the caller gets depends on the phone plugged into the
> socket (phones that chirp and phones that ring a bell sound different
> to the caller).

> Would this tend to indicate the vintage of their exchange?

    Yup.  It is old *and* electromechanical.  In BOC areas, there
is still No. 1 XBAR and SxS in service which have unmodified
intraoffice trunks which obtain ringback tone from the superimposed
ringing supply.  Listening to a call placed to a party with some
electronic ringers will result in a distinctive sound from spurious
oscillations created by the ringer 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

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

Subject:  One More ANI Demo Number Observation
Date: 5 Aug 90 23:54:55 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> [Moderator's Note: What's with this '555-5555' business? You are the
> second person today to mention getting this response. Is this
> perchance some default answer it gives when it can't find anything
> more accurate?  From here, 555-5555 got me 'Information, Mr. Brown.
> May I help you?'   PT]

    In my area, a call placed from the 688 exchange (a 30,000+
line CO using 5ESS) returns the correct number.  A call placed from
the adjacent 741 exchange (a 3,000 line former CDO with ten-year old
3ESS) results in the 555-5555 number, with the correct area code,
however.  Obviously, the 3ESS is not transmitting the ANI data.


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: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: House Approves Restrictions on Fax, Phone Junk Mail
Date: 5 Aug 90 23:35:47 GMT
Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg <biosys!![e-mail]>


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

>The United States House of Representatives approved a bill...
>[which] would authorize the Federal
>Communications Commission to set up a national registry of telephone
>subscribers who object to unsolicited sales messages delivered orally
>by a computer, or in printed form by a fax machine.
>Solicitations by charitable, political and religious organizations
>would be exempt from the ban.  [...]

To be an effective deterrent, this list of phone numbers would have to
be public.  I can just see it providing a national hit list for
telemarketers working for "charitable, political and religious
organizations."  Who is going to want to give out their unlisted phone
numbers for this, if it ends up *inviting* solicitations from every
non-profit fundraiser in the country?  I remember my training as a
door-to-door political fundraiser (canvasser) that I was instructed to
ignore "no solicitations" signs, because a) I wasn't selling anything,
and b) those signs were put up by people with low sales resistance,
and thus would be a better-than-average source of donations.
Regardless of the accuracy of those justifications, I can tell you
that they are widely held beliefs among sales pros.  Isn't this list a
formula for this kind of abuse?


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Where you are missing the point is that the
charitable, political and religious ones can call *anyway*. And the
law is directed at automated dialing, a technique which does not rely
on a printed list of numbers, but simply dials from 0001 to 9999 on
each exchange. Everyone *except* the exempted categories would have to
program their autodialers to skip the requested numbers.  PT]

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

From: Ge Weijers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nicad "Memory"
Date: 6 Aug 90 14:47:32 GMT


[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 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?

This has nothing to do with the 'memory' effect. The NiCd battery has
been 'shorted' too long, i.e. drained to much. Replacing it is your
only option.  (A better-designed phone would stop drawing current when
the voltage drops below a certain limit. It should NOT light a
battery-low LED until no charge remains. Never discharge below the
1V/cell level, 3V in your case.)  The memory effect comes into play if
you never fully discharge a battery.


Ge' Weijers                                    Internet/UUCP: [e-mail]
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science,   (uunet.uu.net!cs.kun.nl!ge)
University of Nijmegen, Toernooiveld 1         tel. [phone] (UTC+1,
6525 ED Nijmegen, the Netherlands               UTC+2 march/september

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

Date: Mon, 06 Aug 90 11:48:59 +0200
From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch


On 2 Aug 90 02:05:31 GMT Bill said:

>Is this system going to be compatible with the US phone system.  How
>can I get the English edition of the magazine?

>[Moderator's Note: Do you think a well-stocked newstand, bookstore or
>the library would be a good place to start looking?   PT]

Sure. I would mention that the English edition is called 'Elektor'. Be
warned that there is some editorial freedom in each edition, and that,
while all articles usually do eventually appear in all editions, they
are not always in sync.

PS: I have just discovered that there are also Spanish, Portuguese and
Greek editions. I suppose Danish will follow for full EC coverage.

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

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphone Psychology
Date: 6 Aug 90 16:21:23 GMT


mtndew![e-mail] (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:

}This interesting tidbit from _Privileged Information_, 1 Sept 1990

}Common sense says that when someone is waiting to use a
}pay phone, the person using it will hurry up.  Reality:
}While the average pay phone call without a waiting line
}lasted only a minute and a half, when someone waited
}behind the person using the pay phone... the caller's
}conversation lasted *four* minutes.  Why? ...

I cannot assert that his data is really 'cooked', but there is a
statistical oversight in his reasoning that can best be explained by
looking at lines-of-cars trapped in no passing zones.  If you look at
the longest lines, you find the slowest drivers at the head of them
 -- should you then conclude that having drivers piling up behind one
tends to make drivers slow down?  or is the more reasonable
observation that the slower you drive the more *opportunity* you have
to get folks to pile up behind yuou.

Similarly, if one looks at some of the underlying queueing theory one
will see that if the server availability [i.e., the number of phones]
pretty closes matches the client demand [i.e., the number of people
that want to make calls], VERY small changes in the duration of a call
will make a BIG difference in the length of the resulting queue.


  /Bernie\

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

From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphone Psychology
Date: 6 Aug 90 11:26:57 EDT
Reply-To: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp


Alternative explanation: the reason there are lines behind the people
using the payphone for longer calls is that the people in front are
using the phones longer.  I have a gift, on the order of being able to
turn gold into lead, of being able to study a set of lines in, e.g., a
grocery store, and, with ridiculously high probability, pick out the
one wihich will cause me to wait the longest.


Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #544
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14068;
          7 Aug 90 3:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25571;
          7 Aug 90 1:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08354;
          7 Aug 90 0:31 CDT
Date:     Tue, 7 Aug 90 0:23:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #545
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Aug 90 00:23:11 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 545

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Is 510 Area Code Active? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work? [Tad Cook]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Henry Troup]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Harry Skelton]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Jeff A. Duffel]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Bill McGown]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Dave Levenson]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Dean Riddlebarger]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Steve Forrette]
    Programmable 800 Number From C&W [Steve Forrette]
    AT&T 800 Directory [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [John R. Levine]
    Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Ken Abrams]
    Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill) [Blake Farenthold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?
Date: 7 Aug 90 01:07:12 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Woody (contact!djcl) writes that area code 510 is apparently
accessable from Toronto.  Steve Watt ([e-mail]) writes that
it doesn't work from San Jose.

Just tried it from NJ, using AT&T, MCI, and US Sprint.  All three
reject my attempt (the local CO accepts all eleven digits (1 510 555
1212)) with a SIT followed by "your call cannot be completed as
dialed" and no code indicating where the rejection occurs.  This
probably means that my carrier-select code is being ingored, and that
the call is being rejected by the local NJ Bell CO (1A-ESS).


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switchbox -- Do They Work?
Date: 6 Aug 90 18:04:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, gammafax![e-mail] (mike
spann) writes:

> One uses a voice prompt and requires the caller to enter a touch tone
> digit to get the answer machine/fax and will get the fax/answering
> machine otherwise.  This works ok if all your friends have touch tone

> The other box (and the one I would select) uses the little known fact
> that audio energy is carried down the phone line when the phone is
> ringing.  (This is commonly known to thiefs who sometimes talk to each
> other without answering the phone).

I don't think so!  This used to be the case with SxS and maybe XBar
switches, but I don't think modern ESS type switches do this.

> An automatic fax machine sends a
> calling tone every three seconds while waiting for the phone to be
> answered.  The phone/fax switch box listens on the line for this
> 'calling tone' and routes the call to the fax machine if one is heard.

Unless I am mistaken, the box answers the phone, listening for a tone.
This sounds clumsy to the calling party.

The best solution is to use one of the boxes that switch based on
ringing cadence.  This works with telco provided distinctive ringing,
where a second phone number is assigned to one line.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA  Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544       Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]

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

From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 5 Aug 90 23:59:49 GMT
Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg <biosys!![e-mail]>


Well, I tried it from work (we have some sort of ROLM system
supporting around 1000 phones), and it correctly read back our main
incoming number.  We do not have DID, so it couldn't have given the
number of my extention, but I did expect to get back the number of our
outbound trunk.  I'm impressed.


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 6 Aug 90 18:11:20 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


I just tried Access Logic Tech's ANI number, and it told me I was
calling from a 919 (North Carolina) number.  Reasonable, as I was
actually using the ESN (electronic switched network) lines, which are
CCS7 linked from my 'real' location in Ottawa to our RTP lab.


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

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

From: Harry Skelton <jando!tons61![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 6 Aug 90 10:35:47 GMT
Reply-To: Harry Skelton <tons61![e-mail]>
Organization: U.S. Dept. of Transportation


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

>>Anyway, here it is:  1-800-666-6258.

I tried this from an FTS line and it reported a totally different
number than the one I was at. To see if the "other" number reported
would get to my phone I called it! Guess what ... got "This number is
not in service" (DOT message).

Great! Now the sales hounds can't locate me via 800# call back! 8-)

I wonder if this holds true for all other FTS accesses? Perhaps
someone could try it with caller ID!

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

From: "Jeff A. Duffel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 6 Aug 90 10:28:54 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeff A. Duffel" <[e-mail]>
Organization: SAC-UNIX, Sacramento, Ca.


Dialing the number through TSPS results in having my number read back.
I understand that my TSPS operators have a console button to push to
route thru the ANI and apparently the ones I have reached follow their
instructions.  There is however a POTS number for TSPS here that some
'phreakers' found that will route the call without ANI, however,
attempting toll calls thru this number is impossible since the
operator will always ask you for the number you are calling from due
to ANI failure.


Jeff

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

Date: Sun, 05 Aug 90 20:08 CST
From: Bill McGown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


  I got the same "555-5555" response that some of your other readers
did. I suspect that it might be a function of being serviced by an
Independent (Ill. Consolidated Telephone Co.) company. Is this a
common thread running among those of us who have gotten the "555-5555"
response?


Bill (W. P.) McGown       BITNET: CFWPM@ECNCDC
Psychology Dept.
Eastern Ill. Univ.        'My views do not represent
Charleston, IL             those of my employer. If they
61920                      appear to do so, please inform
                           either me or my employer so that
                           one of us can change positions.'


[Moderator's Note: Per previous reports, the 555-5555 is a default
answer given when the ANI is not available.  PT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 6 Aug 90 20:25:14 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M.
Silvernail) writes:

> I heard mention of MCI, as well, but my default carrier at home is
> Telecom USA. In any case, I was given my correct number, so it's
> getting ANI from more than just MCI.

No, they only get it from MCI.  When you call an 800 number, your
default LD carrier doesn't matter.  It's the called party's carrier
who handles your call.  (Remember, they pay for the call; they
choose the carrier!)

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

> That is what you would reasonably expect to happen.  800 ANI doesn't
> return the calling number; it returns the BILLING number.  Many
> businesses, Universities, etc. have one billing number for all of
> their lines, which is often (but not always) the same as their main
> number for incoming calls.

This may sometimes be true.  Calling from NJ, however, I got the
_calling_ number every time, even when I definitely called from lines
billed to another number to check this out.  The number it read back
is the same number that gets displayed on the Caller*ID display when
receiving a local call from the same place.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

From: Dean Riddlebarger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 6 Aug 90 14:24:00 GMT
Reply-To: Dean Riddlebarger <epicb![e-mail]>
Organization: Truevision Inc., Indianapolis, IN


I tried the number through two routes at the office.  Normal 9+
dialing from my System 25, where our ARS is set to throw 800 calls out
to the CO trunks, yielded our main BTN.  No surprise there.  On the
off chance that IBT was allowing unique CO line identifiers to get out
via the ANI interface, I also tried a bypass technique on the 25 to
grab a CO trunk directly.  No dice -- the local IBT switch apparently
passes the main BTN for any call from our CO trunks.

I wonder if this company is working a comarketing deal with MCI?
Their equipment is obviously getting ANI input from a variety of
carriers, but their recorded pitch specifically refers to MCI.


Dean Riddlebarger
MIS Manager - Truevision, Inc.
[317] 841-0332
uucp: uunet!epicb!dean   [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 03:14:46 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


I wondered what would happen if I called the ANI 800 number in
conjunction with call forwarding.  I turned on call forwarding on my
main number to the 800 number, then called my main number from another
number.  The number read back was my main number (the one I had
called, *not* the one I was calling from).

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 03:14:46 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programmable 800 Number From C&W


Also, I tried to change my programmable 800 service to dial out to the
800 number directly, to see what that showed up as, but it won't
accept 800 destinations. The 800 service I have is from Cable &
Wireless.  It costs $20/month plus usage, no sign-up fee, and it comes
with a 'programmable' feature.  I can call a programming 800 number,
enter my password, then tell it where I want my calls routed.  Then,
anyone that calls *my* 800 number gets sent directly to the number I
specify.  It works great when I'm travelling, as unlike call
forwarding my main POTS number, I can change it remotely.

There's no charge for each 'change' transaction, and the change seems
to take place within one minute.  Usage fees are around $.19/minute
during the day, so it's quite competitive.  Also, their customer
service is *excellent*.  Once I had a problem and asked to speak to
someone that handles the technical side of the 800 numbers, and I was
connected without question to a very technical person that could
handle my problem.  In fact, this is the *only* carrier that I have
ever been able to talk to someone that really knew how things worked
by going through normal channels.)


[Moderator's Note: This sounds like an excellent 800 service! Would
you please post the customer service and/or new order service number
for others who are interested?  Do you get all your long distance
service from C&W? Thanks.  PT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 10:45 EDT
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T 800 Directory
Organization: HRB Systems


I seem to receive the {AT&T Toll-Free 800 Directory, Consumer Edition}
year after year for free for just returning a post-paid card that AT&T
sends to me.  From what I can tell, AT&T really does SELL these
things, but mine comes with "A special gift for a special customer"
printed on the cover.  No friends that I've asked receive them.

For quite sometime I thought how clever AT&T was to track my 800
dialing habbits to know that I could use a directory!  Then it hit me
 -- I don't have phone service in my name!  (It's in my wife's and she
has a different last name.)  I do have a calling card in my name on
her service and I also have a directory listing tho I still wonder why
I get the book and she doesn't.

Anyone else get this book for free?  Have any idea why they send it to
you?  Just curious after all these years ...


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 6 Aug 90 14:16:34 EDT (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>   What I don't understand is why the telcos are allowed to have the
>*complete* number of the calling party.  They should only be allowed
>the local prefix, for billing purposes (IMHO.)

Funny you should mention that.  In France, itemized phone bills have
only become available in the past few years.  Before that, it was just
impulse counts like most other places outside North America.

French phone bills leave out the last few digits of each number,
explicitly for privacy purposes.  I don't know if there's any way to
get the omitted digits if you want them, or if they are even stored
anywhere.


Regards,

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

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?
Date: 6 Aug 90 21:36:52 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

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

>>Ok, folks, time to set this straight. There is confusion here. 800 ANI
>>sends the CALLING number NOT the billing number.    ........

>   Thanks for confirming that for us John!

Now for an un-confirmation........

Sorry I missed the original post but it appears that there is still
some confusion.  The reason being, undoubtedly, that it works slightly
differently depending on where the call originates and MAY even work
differently from different lines in the same C.O.

In addition to the "real" number, a billing number can be programmed
into the serving switch (telco, that is, not PBX).  If this is done,
then the billing number is all that is ever sent out as ANI and the
800 provider can provide only that since it is all he knows.

It is not common practice to do that so in most cases John is correct
(but there are exceptions).


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

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 14:51:09 CDT
From: Blake Farenthold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill)


I received my Southwestern Bell Long distance bill today :-( and
discovered that the Vice President in charge of page three is not speaking
to the Vice President in charge of page four!  At the bottom of page
three the following message appeared:

     STARTING SEPT. 9, 1990 YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO DIAL "512"
     WHEN CALLING LONG DISTANCE WITHIN THE 512 AREA CODE.  THIS
     CHANGE IS NEEDED BECAUSE THE COMBINATION OF AVAILABLE
     TELEPHONE NUMBERS IN THE 512 AREA CODE IS RUNNING OUT.
     YOU MAY BEGAN DIALING THE AREA CODE ON ALL LONG DISTANCE
     CALLS TODAY.

At the top of page four the following message appeared:

     DO YOURSELF AND YOUR FAMILY A FAVOR. GET AN ADDITIONAL
     PHONE LINE WITH A SEPARATE PHONE NUMBER. GET PEACE OF MIND
     FOR LESS THAN YOU THINK. CALL YOUR CUSTOMER SERVICE
     REPRESENTATIVE TODAY.

 ... well I thought it was kinda funny..

My two other phone bill observations.. Why all caps? and Why can't
AT&T/SWBell bill tell me how much EACH Reach Out America costs instead
of giving me the FULL AT&T rate with asterisks, percent signs, and
octothorpes to indicate it is a ROA call.


    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 #545
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14982;
          7 Aug 90 4:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17982;
          7 Aug 90 2:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25571;
          7 Aug 90 1:37 CDT
Date:     Tue, 7 Aug 90 1:26:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #546
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 7 Aug 90 01:25:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 546

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Security [Charles Hawkins Mingo]
    Re: Cellular Phone Tech Reference Wanted [Ravinder Dhiman]
    Re: Programming the Radio Shack CT-102 [Edward Greenberg]
    Re: E9111 -- All Operators Are Busy [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Unlisted Numbers and E911 [Sam Ho]
    Re: Neidorf Trial [The Ohm Boy]
    Craig Neidorf Defense Contributions [Jim Thomas]
    Re: Censure Roseanne Bar by FAX [Peter da Silva]
    1A2 Providers and Telco Equipment [Robert Von Borstel]
    Sprint Comes Through [John Higdon]
    1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [David E. Bernholdt]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Security
Date: 6 Aug 90 00:53:14 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger Fajman)
writes:

>Given that the laws regarding listening in on cellular phone
>conversations seem to differ between the US and Canada, I wonder what
>happens in the border areas where it may be possible to listen to a US
>conversation from Canada, or vice versa.  Whose law applies?  I would
>presume that of the country the listener is in, but I don't really
>know.

Under general choice of law principles, a country regulates conduct
which takes place within its borders.  Thus, if the listener was
located in Canada, but the antenna was in the US, the listener could
be charged in the US.  (Conversely, if it were legal in the US and
illegal in Canada, a Canadian listener could still be charged in
Canada for listening to US signals.)

This issue came up in a related context: Canadian cable companies
would obtain a TV signal in the US, and substitute Canadian
commercials for the American ones when rebroadcasting the signal on
cable systems.

The Canadian CRTC rebuffed attempts by the American FCC to restrict
this, and the US Congress responded by punitively modifying US tax law
to remove business deductions for meetings held in Canada.

This can be something of a difficult issue, at times.


Charlie Mingo            Internet: [e-mail] 2209
Washington Circle #2          CI$: 71340,2152 Washington, DC
Washington, DC 20037        AT&T: 202/785-2089

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

From: Ravinder Dhiman <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Tech Reference Wanted
Date: 6 Aug 90 17:42:33 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] writes:

>    "Mobile Cellular Telecommunications Systems" by
>    William C. Y. Lee, Ph. D.  [Sorry, don't have ISBN handy, just
>    the title info]

The ISBN number is: 0-07-037030-3


Ravi Dhiman   Motorola, Inc.
Cellular Infrastructure Div.
Arlington Heights, IL

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 14:23 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Programming the Radio Shack CT-102


John DeBert <[e-mail]> Writes:

> If you don't get the cellular service from the RS dealer the people
>who you try to get service from may refuse to program your phone,
>saying that a special handset is needed, and try to sell you one of
>theirs. Programming the phone needs no special tools; the service
>handset is for testing only and you can't run tests w/o it.

If you walk into a cellular phone store (with your phone in hand) and
ask them to establish service, THEY SHOULD PAY YOU! Being more
realistic, they should treat you like a king, since you're free money.
The cellular reseller makes about $300 per new activation, and
receives a residual on your usage for seven years.  This is why phone
prices are in the basement (everywhere but California) with a "minimum
service commitment."  The salesman is in on the commission on the
activation too, so he has a vested interest in your satisfaction.

Some side comments on phones, dealers and service:

The cellular reseller is, as discussed above, heavily involved in your
choice of carrier and in your continuing satisfaction with that
carrier.  Having had a look at this business from the inside, I think
I wouldn't buy a R/S phone, nor would I buy a phone from a stereo
shop, home electronics store, Sears, etc.

I'd buy my phone from a reputable reseller whose primary business is
cellular phones.  I'd pick that dealer by referral from satisfied
customers.  A good dealer will visit you when you can't get into the
shop and have a problem.  He will have loaner phones available if
yours needs service.  He'll do minor adjustments on your completed
installation for nothing.  He'll go to bat with the cellular company
if you have service or billing problems.  He'll understand that you're
a techie and will probably provide the programming instructions as a
condition of sale.  If you want to know why you get dropped in a
certain place, he'll use inside contacts to contact an engineer.

A dealer like this is hard to find for all the sleeze that surrounds
him, but they do exist.  Sometimes it's just one guy in the store
who'se worthwhile.  Chances are he's the guy with the best sales
numbers -- why? Because he gives personal service and gets
recommendations.


edg

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 -- All Operators Are Busy
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 22:12:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> claris!onymouse%.UUCP@
ames.arc.nasa.gov (John Debert) writes:

> From article <[e-mail]>, by apple!well.sf.ca.us!
>well![e-mail] (Marty Brenneis):

-> 911 Operators are provided by the local 911 agency. In some counties
-> this is a common answer point for all emergency services in the
-> county. In other counties it is the various cities that answer.

>Perhaps this explains why 911 operators can get away with being rude,
>abusive and even openly hostile to callers.

The 911 operator has a specific mission: To get the information needed
to properly dispatch aid, as quickly as possible.  This means the
operator MUST be in control of the conversation.  A recent TV newscast
propogated a complaint from a citizen that she was mistreated and
insulted by the 911 operator.  But they played the tape, and it seemed
to me that the 911 operator was just being insistant, trying to get
the information from a hysterical woman.  (she had been shot by her
brother, and 911 wanted to know whether the brother was black, white
or mexican.  Civil rights groups were offended, but if you were a cop,
wouldn't you want to know who to look for)?


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 20:30:57 PDT
From: Sam Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unlisted Numbers and E911


Here's a story that combines most of TELECOM Digest's favorite topics:
a GTE company, unlisted numbers, and the 911 system.  The material is
paraphrased from stories in the [Seattle Times] on July 25 and August 1.

As most of you know, when an enhanced 911 call is placed, the caller's
name, telephone and address are displayed at the PSAP answering the
call.  Some phone companies print warnings that this happens in the
phone book, but the general presumption is that since the caller is in
an emergency situation (that's why he called 911) there is no
particular expectation of privacy.

In mid-July, GTE of Washington, which serves several communities in
the area north and east of Seattle, decided to make a change.  Citing
concerns with the ECPA of 1986, GTE stopped sending the names of
unlisted subscribers who dialed 911, although telephone numbers and
addresses continued.  To top it off, GTE did not bother to discuss the
matter with regulators (WUTC) or public safety officials first.

When news of the change bubbled through to the authorities, the
general opinion was that first off, there was no problem with the
ECPA, and secondly, there was a (small) potential for delaying
emergency response.  Meanwhile, US West, which serves most of the
area, had never considered release of unlisted numbers to E911 a
problem, though they did balk at after-the-fact release of such
information.

The matter ended when GTE announced on August 1 that the previous
state of affairs would be restored: 911 operators would once again get
the names of all callers, even one with unlisted numbers.

It all looks like a case of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it."


Sam Ho
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 06 Aug 90 12:30:45 CDT
From: The Ohm Boy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neidorf Trial


On 2 Aug 90, [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

- If it were made available during the discovery process, then why did
- this trial ever get off the ground? Or, did the prosecution merely
- ignore the fact that this evidence existed in the pursuit of a
- witch-hunt?

     I am wondering if any of the statements made by BellSouth and/or
their legal mouthpiece(s) were said under oath. I would assume,
naively, that a sworn oath of affirmation would have to be made before
Neidorf could be arrested for the supposed crime. If so, wouldn't that
imply that BellSouth perjured themselves? IF BellSouth and/or the
representatives thereof have indeed perjured themselves, why has
nobody been arrested ?  I seem to recall that perjury was a felony,
although I guess you can get away with anything if you have 6.02 x
10^23 lawyers on retainer.

In the {Washington Post} article of 2 August 1990, by  Willie Schatz
( Washington Post Staff Writer ) was the following:

- "We weren't aware that this information was publicily available," said
- a government source who requested anonymity. "We're pretty
- disappointed about this. We'll have to review our relationship with
- these people if this continues."

     Now can somebody explain why the feds would re-evaluate a
relationship IF and only IF 'this continues'. I would think that the
ethical thing to do would be for the feds to TERMINATE their
relationship(s) with BellSouth immediately, rather than waiting for
them to possibly perjure themselves in the future.

Disclaimer: This is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to any
organizations or persons, living, dead or brain-dead, is purely
coincidental. However, flames via e-mail are always appreciated.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Aug 90 23:40 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Craig Neidorf Defense Contributions


Craig Neidorf asked me to pass on the follow information for those
interested in making contributions to defray his legal expenses.  He
is grateful for the support he has received from so many people.  He
will be resuming school as planned in the fall and WILL NOT be
resuming publication of PHRACK (or anything else).

Checks should be made out to the law firm of KATTEN, MUCHIN AND ZAVIS,
and sent directly to his defense attorney:

       Sheldon Zenner
       c/o Katten, Muchin and Zavis
       525 W. Monroe, Suite 1600
       Chicago, IL  60606

A note should be included indicating it is "for Craig Neidorf," and if
the check has a line for memos, there should be an additional notation
indicating "for Craig Neidorf."


Jim Thomas

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 16:09:44 GMT


So who do you call to express support for Roseanne Barr?

If she can't sing, she shouldn't have tried... but that's a minor
error of judgement. I've caught bits of her show from time to time,
and it's one of the few that actually shows signs of real humor and
creativity in a wasteland of lookalikes.

(I note that this article was posted by an MCI Mail employee... MCI is
likely to be one of the companies benefiting from this campaign, both
from MCI Mail FAX and MCI long distance service)


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

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 14:52:53 -0600
From: Robert Von Borstel <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1A2 Providers and Telco Equipment
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Robert Von Borstel)
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology


I've looked at the "Hello Direct" catalog and it seems more
consumer-oriented, rather than technician-oriented.  We would like to
get a good set of rj11 crimpers and related supplies.  Is there a
telco supplier that someone can recommend that carries stuff like
this.

Also having a 1A2 multi-key phone set on my desk, I would really like
to add a speakerphone.  A new one costs an exorbinent $$$$ amount of
money from Ill. Bell, so are there any used telco vendors that supply
said equipment that I can contact?  We are a Centrex site served by
Ill. Bell, all of this equipment is analog.

And am I correct that even if I find said speakerphone, it's really
not a full duplex type? ie there's a split second where it switches
from send/receive.  I know this is old stuff, maybe the new stuff
(merlin/digital) doesn't do it.


Robert Von Borstel / Illinois Institute of Technology - ACC
10 West 31st Street,  Chicago, Il   60616  [phone]
INTERNET:  [e-mail]   BITNET:  sysbvb@iitvax

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

Subject: Sprint Comes Through
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 6 Aug 90 11:34:35 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


This morning at 8:45 (a golden hour of sleep), a gentleman from Sprint
called to discuss my problem with data communications. He told me that
he had called the numbers at each end and discovered Telebit modems.
Quite right.

He then proceded to explain, in great detail, the problem with CCITT-
compliant echo suppression and the Telebit's inability to reliably
disable them. He talked frequencies, timings, and asked further
questions about the difficulty. We talked for about ten minutes, and
after our conversation I was convinced that the problem lies within
the firmware in my modems.

Of course, the immediate fix is to use another carrier (such as AT&T)
where this problem doesn't occur. The long range fix is for Telebit to
modify firmware so that their modems can successfully disable echo
cancellation on CCITT-compliant systems. Since Telebit is in the local
area, I will now direct my complaints in their direction.

Sprint has finally done what I would minimally expect from a company
that has aspirations to greatness: looked at a problem and discussed
its solution with a customer. I am satisfied that although I may not
be able, for the present, to utilize Sprint's services, the company is
providing product in good faith. My only beef with Sprint at this
point is that it took them a week to come through with an explanation.

Maybe that will improve with time.


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

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance?
Date: 6 Aug 90 20:20:41 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


I was recently in Cincinatti, Ohio & needed a number from directory
assistance.  I dialed 411 and the got a recording saying (I think)
"your call cannot be completed..."  I called the operator & discovered
that local directory assistance was 1-555-1212.  I had never heard of
this before & wonder how common it is?  Is 411 being phased out, or is
this just a local thing?


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





[Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago, 555-anything gets Directory
Assistance, however you do need all seven digits before it will begin
to process the call. Neither this or 555-1212 is advertised for
Chicago area information calls, with 411 the preferred way of dialing
the call.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #546
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10581;
          8 Aug 90 4:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21309;
          8 Aug 90 2:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15035;
          8 Aug 90 1:50 CDT
Date:     Wed, 8 Aug 90 0:50:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #547
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Aug 90 00:50:10 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 547

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Coastal Telegraph Stations [Nigel Allen]
    Solar Powered Cellular PBX [Jerry Durand]
    Eight Digit Phone Numbers? [Tom Ohmer]
    Two-line Systems [[e-mail]]
    Need Info on "GTE Solitare VI" Telephone [Rob Warnock]
    SONET Implementations [Janice Wolf]
    Apology to Mr. Higdon [Steve Elias]
    "Follow Me" Roaming Question [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone [John Nagle]
    Cordless Phones and the IRS [USA Today via Patricia O'connor]
    Surprising COCOT [John Higdon]
    Remember Demon Diallers? [Scott D. Green]
    Yellow Pages in Argentina [Manuel J. Moguilevsky]
    Exchange/Place Names Lists Update [David Leibold]
    ATTMAIL Billing Scheme is a Crock [John Gilmore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 00:39 GMT
From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Coastal Telegraph Stations
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


Before INMARSAT began to provide satellite radio service to ships at
sea, the only way to send a message to a ship was through a coastal
radio station, either by voice or by telegraph. (I think that teletype
service was available through Rogaland Radio in Norway, but not in
North America.) INMARSAT is quite expensive ($12 per minute from
Canada), but even so coastal radio stations are closing down in the
U.S.

{Popular Communications} Magazine reports that Western Union has filed
with the FCC to shut down its coastal telegraph station KFS (location
unspecified), and that some other coastal telegraph stations, WPA,
WOE, WMH, WSL and KOK (locations and owners unspecified) have already
been closed down. No doubt some traffic that formerly moved through
these stations now uses cellular phones.

I have seen references to coastal telegraph stations operated by RCA
and TRT, but this was ten or twelve years ago. Does anyone know
whether there were competitive coastal telegraph stations in a given
market, or whether such stations had a local monopoly?

Coastal radio stations in Canada are operated by the Canadian Coast
Guard.


Nigel Allen            telephone [phone]
52 Manchester Ave.       fax [phone]
Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3
Canada

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Solar Powered Cellular PBX
Date: Mon,  6 Aug 90 00:02:39 PDT


I am trying to size a solar power system to run the telephone system
at our reseach facility and need some help.  Before anyone suggests
power and phone lines, it would cost us $25,000 just for the
right-of-way to run them plus parts! 8-( We do have two 15 KW
generators, but try run them only when we need real power.  All other
power is hand, battery, solar, or small portable generators.  I am
considering using a Panasonic KX-T61610 switch fed from a Radio Shack
cellular phone mounted on a building (I checked, we do have cell
coverage and only need one CO line, the rest are intercom/PA).  The
questions are:

   1.  How much power does the Panasonic unit draw from the battery
   input and at what voltage(s)?  Pinout of battery connector?

   2.  How much power does the cellular phone draw with the modem
   adapter and horn alert (to drive ringer to Panasonic)?

   3.  Is this legal in California?

   4.  Any better ideas?


Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 09:02:45 -0400
From: Tom Ohmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Eight Digit Phone Numbers?


Patrick,

I occasionally see ads on TV giving a number to call such as:

1-800-CALL-FRED.  <- Made up
      2255 3733

In the above, is the `D' actually required to make the call, or is it
ignored?


[Moderator's Note: The eighth and subsequent letters in phone numbers
like this are absorbed and ignored. They are provided only to remind
the members of the public what to dial, as a way of making a complete
word or phrase. They are meaningless to the phone switch.   PT]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 21:14 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Two-line Systems


I want to work from my home office as much as possible.  We'll have
two regular phone lines.  One will be primarily used as a typical
residential line (say, 555-1111; the other will receive calls
forwarded from my office on campus, and will be used to log-on our
computer system with a modem (say 555-2222).

I'd like to have a two-line phone in my home office.  In particular,
I'd like one that would switch calls from line to line if one is busy.
Eg, If someone tries to reach me at 555-2222 while I am logged-on,
555-1111 will ring.  As far as I can tell, the only way to do this is
via the phone company.  Problem is that this means commercial instead
of residential rates.  Is there any way to get the same effect with a
"feature" phone?

[Just in case: the relevant phone company is Bell Canada]

Thanks,

Stephane

[Moderator's Note: Not all telcos charge for hunt, let alone charge
business rates for the lines involved. Check the rates to be certain.
Also, many telcos offer only regular hunt, which means upward in
number sequence. They do not offer circular hunt, which would seem to
be what you require if you want the hunt to go both ways. 'Feature'
phones would be of no help.  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 06:11:43 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Info on "GTE Solitare VI" Telephone
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


A friend has come to me as a source of last recourse, and I, stumped,
have turned to the readers of Telecom. If anyone has any user
information about an everything-in-the-handset telephone labeled "GTE
Solitare VI" [yes, it really is "Solitare", not "Solitaire"],
specifically, how to program its dialer memory, please reply via
e-mail. [Please *don't* post replies.]

Thanks,


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

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

Date: 7 Aug 90 11:05:00 CDT
From: Janice Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: SONET Implementations


I am interesting in finding out if anyone is implementing SONET for
internal communications.  I would like to find out about any
difficulties you are encountering and the applications it is
supporting.


Janice Wolf

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Apology to Mr. Higdon
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 90 08:17:24 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


I'd like to formally apologize for telling Mr. Higdon to "eat bits" in
an earlier posting.  Lest other readers think that we are always
slinging mean spirited bits at each other, we have corresponded
extensively and politely in email for quite some time.  And I too find
myself at wits end occasionally when hardware doesn't work as
advertised!


eli

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

Date: 7-AUG-1990 04:00:20.35
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Follow Me" Roaming Question


Hi,

Had a question about "Follow Me" Roaming (*18/*19) on the "B" cellular
carriers:

I have service through GTE Mobilnet in San Francisco. When I go back
East, and try to activate Follow Me Roaming, it works until about
12AM, Eastern. If I activate Follow Me before 12AM, everything is
fine, and Follow Me Roaming will continue to work until 3 hours later,
ie, 12AM Pacific time.

However, let's say I get into my car at 1AM, Eastern, and try to
activate Follow Me Roaming - that usually won't work, or if it does,
it takes about 1/2 an hour to register with GTE in San Francisco.

If I try after 3AM Eastern, that usually works fine.

Why does there seem to be this "dead time" between 12 and 3 AM
Eastern? I have lots of ideas as to why this may happen, but don't
really know enough about Follow Me Roaming to test them out. Anyone
have any suggestions?

Also, why doesn't New York City, probably one of the largest Cellular
markets in the nation, have Follow Me Roaming?? What are you supposed
to do if you live in Connecticut and work in NYC?? I guess this gives
a LOT of business to the "A" carrier, which is DMXed from Rhode
Island, Connecticut, NYC, and Northern New Jersey! (Err...that is,
WHEN the DMX is working...! :-( )

Thanks in advance,

Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: "Follow Me", a/k/a/ "Fast Track" by Ameritech and
others, has four ways by which it is cancelled, once it has been
turned on via *18:  (1) Within the same service area where it was turned
on, *19 will cancel it. (2) When you move to another service area, *18
will turn it off in the area you vacated and install it in the new
area. (3) If you return to your home area having forgotten to turn it
off when exiting the area where you were roaming, then *73 will cancel
it also. (4) Finally, at midnight each night *in the place where you
are registered for home service* there is a general cancellation of
all "Follow Me" setups from the day ending. If your home area is in
the Pacific time zone, then the general cancellation will occur at 3
AM Eastern time. It is the home area that cancels all outstanding
"Follow Me" requests, not the area you are roaming in. This general
cancellation is intended to protect the roamer against unwanted guest
charges of more than one day. You need to re-establish "Follow Me" on
a day-to-day basis. In reverse, someone homing from New York City
traveling on the west coast would be cancelled out at 9 PM Pacific. PT]

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

From: John Nagle <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone
Date: 7 Aug 90 06:08:16 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


     Now here's a thought.  We all know the announcments which begin
with a special three-tone sequence followed by "The number you have
reached...".  How about a voice recognition unit to recognize the new
number and update your autodialer?  The spoken digits are well
separated, the background noise is low, and the digits are clearly
enunciated, so a relatively simple system should suffice.  This would
be a neat addition to one of those "turn your computer into an
answering machine" programs.

     It would be really easy if the spoken digits were standardized
nationally, but they are not.  Even the rate varies with location.


John Nagle

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

From: Patricia O'connor <Patricia.O'[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Phones and the IRS
Date: 4 Aug 90 06:34:06 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA


Short from {USA Today}:

        "If you are thinking about declaring a few imaginary
dependents this year, don't mention it on your cordless phone.  The
IRS may be listening.  Under new guidelines for its criminal
investigators, the IRS can use radio scanners to eavesdrop on
suspected tax dodgers while they chat on their cordless phones.  No
warrant is necessary."


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

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

Subject: Surprising COCOT
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 6 Aug 90 20:44:01 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Pressures of business precluded my COCOT witch hunt today, but at
least, I thought, the PayTel monstrosity at the supermarket could be
nailed. Here's what I found:

Twenty cents for a local call.

A sign with complete instructions including refund and repair numbers.

A notation that interLATA calls could be made on other carriers.

Pad remained active after dialing 950 and 800 numbers.

"10288+0+NPA+XXX-XXXX" got KaBong--"AT&T".

"10333+0+NPA+XXX-XXXX" got the Sprint operator.

"10222+0+NPA+XXX-XXXX" got KaBong [PB card entered] "Thank you for
using MCI".

"0" got the Pac*Bell operator.

"00" got the ComSystems operator (gag).

"611" got Pac*Bell repair.

"411" got DA.

I didn't try "911".


It is unbelievable. I still think COCOTs are miserable, but it is
interesting to note that the operators of those beasts can, if forced,
bit the tongue and actually comply with regulations. Next week when I
do go on my witch hunt, I will remember this phone.


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

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 09:44 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Remember Demon Diallers?


AKA Radio Shack DuoFone 93T?  Well, I've got one that had been
re-jumpered to work with a key system.  I want to un-modify it now to
operate on a single line.  Of course I didn't document the original
modification!  Does anyone know what the jumpers inside should look
like?  There are two sets of pins: one set has three pins and one
jumper; the other has six pins and two jumpers.

Thanks for any help.

scott

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 08:37:48 MST
From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky <manuel%psi#[e-mail]>
Subject: Yellow Pages in Argentina


Telephone directories in Argentina and Network Information (free service).

07222211103127


[Moderator's Note: The above is the way I received this message. He
did not say if the number given is a phone number, data network
address, or what. And it may be free within Argentina, but I'll betcha
it'll show up as an international call on your phone bill from
anywhere else!! By the way, how do you like *his* address? Isn't that
a hoot! :)  PT]

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Exchange/Place Names Lists Update
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 10:18:02 EDT


Well, the requests for place name lists have come in fast and
furious ... all requests should have received some sort of response at
this time, except for Robert Oliver at rabbit1 whose system cannot be
reached from my mail path for some reason.

Anyway, some have suggested that the uunet or funic systems might be a
good place to send the entire set to; however, if someone will explain
if any of these systems will accept the 1.3 or so meg of information
for one thing, and who would be the contact at the site to send it to,
that would be appreciated. An .lzh compression could be made available
if stuff like uuencode/decode is designed for that purpose (i'm not
that familiar with Unix utilities to transfer binaries, compress
files, etc).

Anyway, until the entire set can be stored safe and sound for ftp/mail
access, requests will still be taken at [e-mail] for small
requests (a few area codes at a time).

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 02:53:24 PDT
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATTMAIL Billing Scheme is a Crock


John Higdon <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Given the potential for error
> in ANY billing system, how can you justify receiving a bill for "X
> units -- Total Y Dollars"? No detail; no way to track down errors.

Gee, just like the attmail (TM) service!

I got a bill for about $50 of attmail service last week, when all my
previous bills were under $10.  I have already called them up to
change the bills (they used to send about four pages of subtotals that
all said the same thing), but at that time they said there was no way
to ask for call detail billing, like, the time, the sending address,
the receiving address(es), and the charges!  And this is AT&T!

So I'll have to call them up manually and ask for call details for the
month.  I hope it costs them more to produce and mail than it would've
cost to program it into the automated billing software.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #547
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10640;
          8 Aug 90 4:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21309;
          8 Aug 90 2:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15035;
          8 Aug 90 1:50 CDT
Date:     Wed, 8 Aug 90 1:35:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #548
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Aug 90 01:35:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 548

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: 1-555-1212 for local Directory Assistance? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [John Cowan]
    Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [Matt Carpenter]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Will Martin]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [John Cowan]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [[e-mail]]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Rod Troch]
    Re: Neidorf Trial [Mike Godwin]
    Re: A Happy Sprint Customer [Jim Gottlieb]
    510 Dialing Update [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance?
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 17:45:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, bernhold@qtp (David E. Bernholdt)
writes:

| I was recently in Cincinatti, Ohio & needed a number from directory
| assistance.  I dialed 411 and the got a recording saying (I think)
| "your call cannot be completed..."  I called the operator & discovered
| that local directory assistance was 1-555-1212.  I had never heard of
| this before & wonder how common it is?  Is 411 being phased out, or is
| this just a local thing?

I think I said this about six months ago, but here in the Pacific
Northwest, in both GTE and US West (nee Pacific Northwest Bell), we've
*never* had 411.  It's always been 1-555-1212 for as long as I've been
able to operate the phone.  OK, in the early days, "113" would get us
to directory assistance in PNB-land, but they phased that out a few
years ago even.

It took travelling out of the area for me to know what everybody had
meant by calling "411".  This is *far* from being a universal number.

Just another phone user,

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

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

Date: 7-AUG-1990 03:47:05.42
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance?


Hmmm ... In Connecticut you MUST dial 1+411 or 1+555-1212 for DA. SNET
(Southern New England Telephone) tells its customers to use 1-411 for
state-wide DA, but both 1-411 and 1-555-1212 work.

I think they make you dial 1+ so that PBX's (and the like) can block
out such calls. What's odd is that SNET required 1+411 dialing long
before they started charging for DA (I guess that was about 2 years
ago), so I wonder why they forced customers to dial 1+411 even before
anyone would want to block calls there.?

BTW, in New York City, the payphones and phone books suggest the
following DA dialing procedure:

411- local calls within the area code (212, 718, or soon 917)
555-1212 - calls within the area code but not local (but almost ALL calls
           in each of the area codes are local, except to/from Staten Island
           or the Bronx in some limited cases...)
1+Area Code+555-1212 - calls to another area code.

In actuality, you can use any of them, and DA will usually give you
the number, as I have never been told "hang up and dial the CORRECT
number, please", when using 411 instead of Area Code+555-1212, etc.

My favorite place for directory assistance: Greenwich, CT, which is
served by New York Tel. You can get FREE CT DA as well as FREE NY DA
from payphones there...

My worst place(s): Louisiana and Oregon, which have the NERVE to
charge 50 cents for ANY DA call ... and they never have an up-to-date
phone book around!  (BTW, I've dialed 0+411 from New Orleans and got
the Southern Bell Calling Card system ... I entered my calling card #,
but was never billed ... Hmmmmm.)


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance?
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 15:05:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, David E. Bernholdt
<[e-mail]> writes:

[1-555-1212 required for DA in Cincinnati]

The Esteemed Moderator writes:

[555-xxxx permitted, but not documented, for DA in Chicago]

I write:

Prior to the 212/718 split here in New York City, the standard method
for getting DA in Manhattan & Bronx was to dial 411; for DA in
Brooklyn, Queens & Staten Island (later to become the 718 NPA),
555-1212 was standard.  I don't know if this was mandatory or just the
recommended procedure.

Now the recommended procedure is to dial 411 for DA in one's own NPA,
and NPA-555-1212 for the other one, but this is not mandatory, and DA
operators will field calls for both NPAs.  555-1212 also works.


[e-mail]    (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

Date: Tue,  7 Aug 90 12:22:03 EDT
From: Matt=[e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance?


In TELECOM Digest #546 David Bernholdt mentioned his expereince when
trying to dial directory assistance (411) within Cincinnati.

As he found out, in Cincinnati, DA is 1-555-1212 *not* 411.  I grew up
in Cincinnati and it has always been 1-555-1212.

The explanation for this non-standard number may lie in the fact that
Cincinnati is serviced by Cincinnati Bell, Inc. and not any of the
RBOC's (Ameritech).  Cincinnati Bell was not owned in the majority by
AT&T during the breakup, so they were largely unaffected.  Cincinnati
Bell has probably done things their own way since the beginning and is
keeping it that way.

Which brings me to this - what about standards?  We seem to have
standards to specify what equipment I can hook up to the PSTN, but
there seems to be little on standards that the phone company should
live up to.  While reading this Digest, I can see all the differences
in dialing instructions and I'm afraid that when I move or travel, I
won't know how to use the phone!


Matt Carpenter
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 9:24:26 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


My experience was similar to that of Ravinder Bhumbla.  I called from
work where my number is [phone], on the NEC phone system GSA
stuck us with when we moved into this newly-refurbished building.  The
ANI spiel gave me back my correct 314 area code, but the number that
followed was a completely off-the-wall "421-2227".  Some federal
offices here are on "425" exchanges, but Defense Telephone Service is
on "263", and a quick scan of the phone directory "blue pages" of
federal office listings showed no "421"s.  A call to "421-2227" got an
intercept with a message about the number being "discontinued or no
longer in service".  I just wonder if their ANI got just the area code
and no number, and the software didn't clear out the buffer where the
"local number" was stored, and so then read out my area code followed
by the local number of whoever called previous to me?

Anybody out there call this ANI line about 0905 CDT or so on 6 Aug and
have "421-2227" as their phone number? The ANI 800 number was busy for
quite a while before I got through, so somebody was on it just before
me. Would be ironic if it was a fellow Telecom reader...


Regards,

Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Reply-To: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Organization: ESCC,  New York City
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 15:22:52 GMT


Well, I tried the 800-666-6258 ANI demonstration number in several
different ways.

1) When I dialed it from home, 212-777-XXXX, it read back my own number.

2) I then tried it several different ways from work, a major New York
bank.  I don't know the type of phone system here, except that it is a
large PBX system.  My direct line is 212-493-XXXX.  When I dialed the
call direct, with 9-1-800, it read back 212-968-XXXX.  Dialing this
number produced endless ringing; it is not recognizable to me as a
company exchange.

3) I then dialed 9-0 for the New York Telephone operator, who put the
call through.  The report was 212-555-5555, so apparently the ANI was
defeated in that case.

4) I then dialed 9-0 again and asked for the AT&T operator, who told
me that she couldn't put through a call to a non-AT&T 800 number.  (As
others have stated, the 800-666 prefix is owned by MCI.)

5) Finally, I dialed 9-00 here, which got me an MCI operator.  MCI is
the bank's long distance company.  The MCI operator stated she could
not dial an 800 number call, even to an MCI 800 number!  I had the
call transferred to a supervisor, and finally to MCI customer service.
Customer Service's first attempt to get the call through failed due to
a busy signal.

6) I repeatedly dialed MCI Customer Service at 800-444-3333.  I want
to note here the contributions of Susan Cozza, who did most of the
work with me.  (I told her and other MCI customer service personnel
that my PBX was unable to dial 800-666 numbers due to a software
fault.)  Each time they attempted to place the call for me, the line
was busy.  Susan checked and stated that there were an insufficient
number of trunks on that line to handle the call, since the recorded
message was unusually long, and that I should keep trying.

7) Finally, Susan got through.  I expected another 212-555-1212 ANI
failure.  What I got, though, was 914-939-XXXX!  A check with 914 DA
informs me that this is a number in Portchester, NY, a suburb north of
NYC.  I called back to 914 DA and asked for MCI in Portchester: I
received a 914-937-XXXX number in Ryebrook, the next town over.
(Probably they share a CO.)

All in all, an interesting experiment (hack?).


[e-mail]    (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 15:25 EDT
From: Alec <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


I called 800-666-6258 from a Drew University digital PBX line, and the
ANI returned several different numbers, which were identified by
someone else here as a few of the outgoing trunk lines.  Calling any
of these numbers returns a "this number is not in service"
announcement.

        -*- Alec -*-
        [e-mail]
        [e-mail]
        ...!rutgers!njin!drew!drunivac!PCHROMCZ

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

From: Rod Troch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 7 Aug 90 14:04:24 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


I too called the number.  I was given the extension of the phone I was
calling from, not the incoming or main switchboard line (Kean College).

What is kind of interesting is that they still give the area code as
201 not the 908 code that we are switching too.  I have seen other
services that have already converted the 201 to 908.  Interesting...


If you yell: Rod Troch; Forget it though, I will never hear you!!
 But try one of these:
internet   : [e-mail]
           : ** under development ** [e-mail]
compuserve : [e-mail]

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

From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Neidorf Trial
Date: 7 Aug 90 10:54:10 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (The Ohm
Boy) writes:

>     I am wondering if any of the statements made by BellSouth and/or
>their legal mouthpiece(s) were said under oath. I would assume,
>naively, that a sworn oath of affirmation would have to be made before
>Neidorf could be arrested for the supposed crime. If so, wouldn't that
>imply that BellSouth perjured themselves?

It is not necessary that the information used by prosecutors be sworn
statements. The Supreme Court has held that sometimes an anonymous tip
can be sufficient to establish probable cause for issuance of a search
or arrest warrant.

But even if the prosecutors relied on sworn grand-jury testimony, it
is possible that their Bell South sources did not commit perjury,
since their valuation of the E911 document may in some sense be
"accurate" -- that is, based on actual data concerning the costs of
development.

If someone asked me what my Macintosh costs, and I interpreted the
question to mean costs of development, I might come up with a figure --
based on research, development, and marketing costs of the Lisa and
the Macintosh -- that exceeded the actual sticker price of my Mac by
orders of magnitude.

Do BellSouth's statements about the value of the E911 document amount
to perjury? Probably not. But does that mean that BellSouth was fully
forthcoming about the value of the E911 document?  Hardly. BellSouth
knew what the federal prosecutors needed to hear in order to establish
federal jurisdiction over the Legion of Doom cases.


Mike Godwin, UT Law School
[e-mail]
[phone]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Happy Sprint Customer
Date: 7 Aug 90 10:10:57 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>But the thrust here is not that Sprint has problems. Everyone has
>problems. It's what are they willing to do, down to the individual
>level, to solve them?

An oft-stated line in my company is: "AT&T is still the only REAL long
distance company."

We have circuits (both T1 and analog) from AT&T, Sprint, and
Telesphere.  As John mentioned above, the AT&T's superiority really
shines when it comes to needed repairs.

The people at AT&T's service department are technically-qualified
people who act professionally and work quickly to get the problem at
hand repaired.  They issue a ticket number, and at any time we can
call back and get a status update.  This is often not necessary
however, as AT&T's people call us and keep us informed.  The problem
is usually repaired rather quickly.

Other carriers' service is a joke.  Telesphere's switch personnel go
home at 5 p.m., and any after-hours repair requires that the local
switchperson be paged and drive in to the office.  Sprint is little
better.  The people you talk to in the service department are no more
knowledgable than the customer service reps (they may be the same).
They will often tell us, "I'm sorry.  That switch is unattended until
Monday morning.  We won't be able to fix [your T-1] until then."

We don't accept answers like that in a 24-hour business like ours, but
the fact that they try to get away with it tells a lot.  In fact, ever
getting to speak with a technically-minded person is near impossible.

If your business relies on communications circuits that work, it is
worth whatever extra that AT&T charges.  I have many complaints about
AT&T too, but in this area, they have no equals or even close
competitors.

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: 510 Dialing Update
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 10:20:04 EDT


It seems that 510 is not switched on everywhere as of yet, but in one
exchange where it is active, dialing 1 510 555.1212 will get a
response of 55 or 110 baud warbles (ie. TWX!).

Dialing something like 1 510 637 xxxx from a payphone gets an operator
who wonders what is going on.

Anyone know what the 555 prefix would do in TWX? Is it an invalid
exchange?  Is it their own version of directory assist?


[Moderator's Note: Years ago, (TWX) 555-1212 got directory from the
TWX operator serving that particular area code. The TWX areas are 410,
510, 710 and 910 for the USA; 610 for Canada and 810 for Mexico.
610-555-1212 still gets Canadian TWX Directory Assistance. Now I think
Western Union has all directory for the USA in 410-555-1212. Bell CO's
*still* handle a lot of the switching for TWX; i.e. Chicago-Wabash has
lots of 910-xxx-xxxx circuits for TWX machines here. Voice phones were
always blocked from dialing X10 numbers: someone is removing the block
without re-routing the calls it would seem!  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #548
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11501;
          8 Aug 90 5:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06104;
          8 Aug 90 4:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac21309;
          8 Aug 90 2:59 CDT
Date:     Wed, 8 Aug 90 2:09:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #549
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Aug 90 02:08:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 549

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls [Erik Naggum]
    Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls [Dave Johnston]
    Re: What Should I Ask For? [James M. Turner]
    Re: Ringback Tone Variations [John Higdon]
    Re: 1A2 Providers and Telco Equipment [John Higdon]
    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [John Gilmore]
    Re: Phone/Voice Mail System Advice? [Stephen Fleming]
    Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Ken Greer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 1990 18:48:45 +0200
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls


Dave Levenson relates a story [TELECOM Digest Vol 10, #545] on similar
telephone numbers causing many wrong number calls.  I experience the
same problem.

My public number is very close to that of some organization similar in
style to the Red Cross, but Norwegian, only.  "Very close", that is,
to people who want to dial these folks.  I can't understand how they
can miss.

Their number is 02 33 15 90.  Mine is 02 15 33 90.  I get approximate-
ly three calls per day for these folks, and for some reason, the
telephone network is magic to the people who call.  Of course, they
dialled what they thought was the number of this org, and explaining
to them that they got where the number leads them, but that the number
they have got is wrong.  They haven't misdialled, which some of them
point of to me several times, and some of them insist that they have
the right number, even when it fails to hit the target.

The PSDN is clearly not at fault in this case, but the ability of
people to grasp the relationship of phone numbers to people is nil in
certain parts of the population.

My sleep-wake cycle is somewhat chaotic, so it gets very annoying at
times.  I have ordered another phone line, unlisted ("secret" to the
Norwegian telco).  That is a story in itself:

I call the telco, order an unlisted line, explain that I want a
particular number which is not in use, tell her the switch-district
code for my building, which is supposed to be a secret, and give her
the number of the pairs we have for the other line.  She gets all
flustered up and asks me how I knew all of that.  I said I got them
from the last person I talked to at her department, which is not
entirely false, and she calmed down.  No charge for unlisted, no
charge for "vanity" numbers.  Due to lack of available pairs in the
building, it will take all of 10 days to have the line installed.  The
central office is an STK System 12, with full DSS1 & SS#7 capabilities
to those who can persuade the telco to give you access to the ISDN
channels in the switch.  I haven't tried that, yet.

Another thing, I was told when I called them to order this line, that
I am the largest single-user customer in the entire Oslo telephone
district: I have two lines to my office, one a DDI on an ISDN switch,
the other a normal line, two lines to my computer, same arrangement,
two different pager numbers, one listed, the other with a password,
two lines at home, and one leased line.  Yearly telecom budget around
$13,000.  I politely asked if they would consider discounts on inter-
national calls to such a "large" customer, but they balked at that!
Geez.  But their service is good, and line quality is supreme.


Erik Naggum


[Moderator's Note: In 1974, a major CO here was cut to ESS. My number
was WEbster 9-4600. Sears, Roebuck Central Credit had WAbash 2-4600. I
had two lines; they had a five-position cord board which literally
rocked around the clock; a very heavy traffic location with about 100
incoming trunks. When the ESS went in, some fool of a central office
worker got 922 mixed up with 939, and for *two days* I got flooded
with calls from people complaining about their credit cards, etc ...
All the calls originated from Chicago-Superior, as I recall. Sears
never even missed the calls they were not getting. I went through hell
from it until I got someone in the CO who would listen to me.  PT]

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

Date: 7 Aug 90 12:19 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls


On 6 Aug 90, Dave Levenson <[e-mail]> wrote:

>The U. S. Department of State has established a hotline for people
>seeking information about their friends/relatives in Kuwait.  The
>number, as published in the New York Times and shown on television, is
>[phone].

>Here at Westmark, Inc., in New Jersey, we have since 1983 used the
>number [phone].  (We still receive calls dialed to that number,
>though NJ Bell now calls this area code 908.)  Since last Thursday, we
>have received approximately a dozen calls per day from people asking

I experienced a similar event some months back when US Forces went to
Panama.  The US Military, (Army I think) had a casualty information
line at [phone].  This number was available in the media.  My
employer, Cellisys, Inc. had an 800 number of [phone].

We were deluged with calls for several days during the height of the
event.  We were a small company (under 60 employees) and our
receptionist was having a hard time handling our calls, plus
explaining to the callers that they had reached the wrong number.  Our
answering service also reported calls into the night from people
trying to find out about their loved-ones.

At first, we thought that either people were misdialing or somewhere
in the media, the wrong number was being given out.  Upon contacting
AT&T they stated that there were "network overloads" causing the calls
to be routed incorrectly.  They said there was _nothing_ they could do
about it.  Sort of boosts your confidence in AT&T, doesn't it?

The only good news I can offer Dave is that eventually it will all
blow over and things will return to semi-normal.  I just wanted him to
know that he wasn't the only one who had ever had the problem.


Dave Johnston                           [e-mail]
Santa Rosa Junior College               [phone]
1501 Mendocino Ave.                     Opinions? My wife has all
Santa Rosa, CA  95401                   my opinions for me.

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

From: "James M. Turner" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Should I Ask For?
Date: 7 Aug 90 11:57:52 EDT


[e-mail] ([e-mail]) writes:

>My UUCP links require an in-state long-distance call (to a site about
>15 miles from here).  As in many places, such calls are quite
>expensive - not nearly as bad as what I see others are paying, but it
>does add up, even at the late-night rate at which I make most calls.

Here at KSR, we've cut our phone bill from around $430 a month down to
$108 by getting a leased line to our news feed.  The cost breakdown is
as follows:

Leased line installation:    $ 430
Two V.32 Modems w/4 wire mode    $1600
Monthly Charge            $ 108

Note that we got V.32s because they'll make nice modems if we ever
decide to get rid of the leased line, you could use most plain-jane
2400 baud modems as long as they support leased line operations, and
since you don't pay extra for the continuous operation, the low baud
rate won't hurt.  Of course, you can run SLIP very well at 9.6Kb...
(which we don't.)

We're polling Software Tool and Die (world), which is around 15 miles
from our location, but intra-LATA.


Name:    James M. Turner
Company: Kendall Square Research
Email:   [e-mail], ksr!turner
Phone:   [phone]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ringback Tone Variations
Date: 7 Aug 90 01:22:38 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


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

>     Yup.  It is old *and* electromechanical.  In BOC areas, there
> is still No. 1 XBAR and SxS in service which have unmodified
> intraoffice trunks which obtain ringback tone from the superimposed
> ringing supply.  Listening to a call placed to a party with some
> electronic ringers will result in a distinctive sound from spurious
> oscillations created by the ringer circuit.

Boy, does this bring back childhood memories. Much to the
consternation of my parents I had a habit of building gobs of gadgetry
to hook up to the phone line in the house. It got so bad that at the
tender age of fourteen, I was ordered to get my own line in my own
name so that when the "phone police" came out, the family phone could
remain on the wall.

Anyway, it always seemed that my "ring detectors" put trash back into
the line such that when my number was called, the tone sounded
"gurgly". The exchange was a #5 crossbar.

The most ambitious of my projects was the building from scratch of a
KSU for some key phones that had been rescued from an old building. To
get the common audible to ring and the lights to flash required some
way of detecting incoming ring. The circuit consisted of a series
capacitor, full-wave bridge rectifier, and a sensitive relay. There
was a large cap across the relay coil that would charge during the
ring cycle and hold the relay closed between rings -- keeping the
lights flashing and the bell ringing.

Apparently, the non-linearity of the rectifiers reflected back into
the phone line, and it sounded much like there was answering service
equipment on the line to the caller. I hated this because I was sure
that this would be instantly apparent to the phone company and that
someone would investigate. Never happened. But then, whenever there
was line trouble, all of this stuff was removed before that call to
611 was ever made. Ah, the good old days.


        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: 1A2 Providers and Telco Equipment
Date: 7 Aug 90 02:26:29 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Von Borstel <[e-mail]> writes:

> And am I correct that even if I find said speakerphone, it's really
> not a full duplex type? ie there's a split second where it switches
> from send/receive.  I know this is old stuff, maybe the new stuff
> (merlin/digital) doesn't do it.

While there exist full duplex speakerphones (I have one at the
office), they are very uncommon and really don't work as well as the
standard switched gain variety. The reason for this is a law of
physics. Even if the unit has remarkably good trans-hybrid loss, there
exists a feedback path from the speaker to the microphone. What
happens on my unit is if there is any abrupt change on the line, such
as a call-wait or the caller hanging up, there is an ear-shattering
howl.

The switched gain speakerphones do not have this problem at all and
are totally non-critical concerning speaker placement. The better
systems of this type switch directions almost instantaneously and are
easy to talk over (my Panasonic phones seem fine). The worst ones chop
off words, or become confused and prevent one party from hearing the
other at all.

Buying a speakerphone is a lot like buying a car. You really should
test drive it before you buy it.


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

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 03:57:46 PDT
From: John Gilmore <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones


[e-mail] (Rob Warnock) wrote:

> I have no idea whether there is any magic a cellular CO can do to
> create an "infinity tap" without causing ringing.

The US cellular telephone standard defines a way to "ping" a cellular
phone without making it ring.  The ping is transmitted like an
incoming call; the phone wakes up, transmits by radio to its local
cell, saying "I'm here", but does not ring.  In other words, your
phone responds to the cellular base station, without giving any
external indication (to you) that it is doing so.  I don't think the
standard specifies an audio path to the microphone/speaker during this
operation, but individual models might 'extend' the standard that way.

With this feature, the movements or current whereabouts of your phone
can be tracked at will by the cellular company.  Anytime the phone
will accept an incoming call, it will answer these pings.  And if The
Phone Company is any guide, the cellular companies will have chummy
relationships with cops of all stripes, finking on their paying
customers (without requiring warrants), to curry favor with
governments.  Not to mention helping out the occasional private
investigator who knows a friendly technician who...

Cellular base stations typically have a lot of directional antennas
fanning out in a circle, e.g. twelve antennas, each covering 30
degrees of arc from the base.  When your cellular phone transmits to
the base, it compares the reception on the various antennas to know
where you are in the cell (e.g. who to hand you off to as you get
fainter).  By comparing the reception in several base stations (an
operation they already do all the time, for handoffs), they can
probably pin your location down to within a few blocks.  Suppose three
cells can hear your phone (one strongly, two faintly).  This gives
them three pie-shaped areas, all spreading from base stations to you.
The intersection of these areas is likely to contain you.  This works
even with two bases, and can be made a lot more accurate using the
signal strength as well as the direction.  Even if only one cell can
hear you, the direction and strength give a pretty good guide to where
in the cell you are -- and they *know* your phone is in that cell as
opposed to being in Peoria.

If I ever get a cellular phone, this 'ping' will be one of the first
things I reprogram...

[I used to have a copy of the cellular standard document, "EIA IS-3",
but it's been a few years since I dug it out.  I got it for $32 plus
from Global Engineering Documents at [phone].  It may have
been revised since then ('87); they will check if you ask them.  I
recommend that anyone with a technical interest in cellular get it;
it's the real live protocol that runs over the radio.]

[What I have been calling a "ping" they have another name for, which I
forget.  Something like a "service check" or "maintenance request"...]

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone/Voice Mail System Advice?
Date: Tue,  7 Aug 90 10:27:21 PDT


Not sure if this meets your needs ... but _Telephony_ is advertising a
"Voice Mail Reference Manual and Buyer's Guide" for $50, including a
floppy-disk sample RFP (Mac or PC).  Their stuff usually tends to be
pretty good, but I haven't seen this one myself.

Phone is [phone]; Visa/MC/Amex.  No recommendation implied.


Stephen Fleming
[e-mail]
CI$:   76354,3176
BIX:   srfleming        My employers may disagree vehemently.

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

From: Ken Greer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?
Date: 7 Aug 90 10:39:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ken Greer)
Organization: MCNC; RTP, NC


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

>French phone bills leave out the last few digits of each number,
>explicitly for privacy purposes.  I don't know if there's any way to
>get the omitted digits if you want them, or if they are even stored
>anywhere.

  Privacy ??  I'm confused.  You mean that in France I can
"non-invade" someone's privacy by calling him, but "invade" his
privacy by knowing his phone # (which I would know, since I had called
him) ?

  What a philosophy.  Is this from the Jerry Lewis School of Higher
Thinking?

  Seriously, how would anyone contest a wrongly charged call ?
Perhaps a better question would be: Are you even allowed to contest a
charge ?


Kim L. Greer                   try: [e-mail]
Duke University Medical Center            [e-mail]
Div. Nuclear Medicine  POB 3949             [e-mail]
Durham, NC 27710  919-660-2711x5223       fax: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #549
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11521;
          8 Aug 90 5:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06104;
          8 Aug 90 4:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad21309;
          8 Aug 90 2:59 CDT
Date:     Wed, 8 Aug 90 2:42:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #550
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Aug 90 02:42:01 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 550

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service [Steve Forrette]
    Oklahoma City School Board Phones Tapped [Billy Bradford]
    MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific [Bill Huttig]
    Hot Response to da Silva About Roseanne Fax Story [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    New California PUC 900/976 Ruling [Steve Friedl]
    Re: More ANI Fun! (Not Fun From a/c 913) [Steve Huff]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7-AUG-1990 04:30:14.68
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable & Wireless 800 Service


Does Cable & Wireless 800 Service provide an itemized detail of the
numbers that called you, as do Sprint and AT&T? If so, I'll sign up
right now!

Also, how's the quality of the service? Does it sound clear? How about
connect time, ie, the interval after I dial the last digit until I
hear ringing?

Even if it's not up to AT&T standards, having a system to remotely
change call forwarding bundled together with an 800 number is still
very attractive!

Please do post or mail their number and any other info...

Thanks!

Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 03:58:47 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  Cable & Wireless 800 Service


Per the Moderator's request, here's the information about my 800
carrier:

Cable & Wireless - 800/486-8686 (24 hour customer service - they can refer you
                                 to the sales office for your area)

Signup fee:  $0

Monthly fee: $10-15/month (accessible from the 48 contiguous states)
(Everyone at the carrier tells me it's $15, but I have yet to receive
a bill where it wasn't $10)

Canada:      $20/month extra (allows your number to be dialable from Canada)
Hawaii:      $20/month extra (allows your number to be dialable from Hawaii)
Alaska:      $20/month extra (allows your number to be dialable from Alaska)
DirAsst:     $12/month extra, I think (causes you to be listed at
                                       800/555-1212)

Programmable 800:  $10/month extra

For the basic fee, you tell them what POTS number you want your calls
forwarded to.  If you pay for the "programmable 800", you can call an
800 programming number, enter your 800 number, password, and a new
POTS number, and the routing will be changed.  There's no charge for a
"change POTS number" transaction.

Usage is around $.19/minute daytime, $.13/minute evening, $.11/minute
night/ weekend, or somewhere around there.  The cost is the same no
matter how close or far the caller is (however, there is an extra
charge for Canada, Hawaii, and Alaska originations).  Even intra-state
and/or intra-LATA works just fine.  (In fact, I can call my 800 number
from my main line, and get the call-waiting tone!)

I have had the service since the first of the year, and am very
pleased with it.  The reason I ended up with C&W is that they had the
prefix that the number "I just had to have" maps to.  They had no
problem with assigning me the number of my choice, since it was
unassigned.

Their customer service is *excellent*.  I've called in the middle of
the night, and the person that answers the phone can handle my
problem.  I've even gotten responses such as "just a minute - let me
pop into the other room and check the network programming."  The
front-line customer service reps have both customer service and
network computers at their disposal.  They just started the
programmable 800 service last month.

I had a problem the first time, and the first person who answered the
phone was able to tell me what POTS number my 800 was currently set
for, through a real-time lookup right from their desk.  Impressive.
(A little different from Sprint, eh John?)  I guess when you call in
the middle of the night (as I always seem to need to), you talk
directly with the technical department.  Calls during the day get more
traditional "customer service" types, but I've had no problems getting
transferred when I needed to.

The only weirdness with the 800 service is that they return answer
supervision to the originating CO as soon as they finish outdialing
your POTS number.  Apparently, they handle regular long distance calls
(if you had them as your primary carrier) correctly, but 800 calls are
a bit strange.  I asked for and spoke with someone in the "800 network
center", who confirmed this.  Apparently, they thought that this would
not cause problems, as the caller is never paying for the call to the
800 number anyway.  Of course, this is not true if you are calling
from cellular, as you have airtime to pay.  Cellular One of Sacramento
apparently pays attention to actual supervision when determining
airtime charges, and not a timeout.  I had called home several times
when I was out of town to check my answering machine (which has
"toll-saver"), and found this out the hard way.  But, not a big deal,
considering everthing else.  It certainly is handy as an anti-COCOT
weapon, to be able to get my messages with an 800 call.

I do not have them as my regular long distance carrier, and they don't
accept "casual calling" through 10XXX unless you have an account set
up in advance.  (Apparently, their switch determines which calls to
let though based on the ANI) The main reason I don't is I didn't know
much about them when I signed up for the 800 service, but may switch
over considering the service I've gotten)

In short, highly recommended!  (You may be surprised, but I've no
affiliation with them, other than as a satisfied customer.  As I said
in a previous posting, this is the only carrier I've dealt with that
has allowed me to *ever* speak with someone that knew how the
telephone network worked, let alone having the people who answer the
main number know!)  If you call the S.F. Bay Area office, ask for Mike
McKenney - he's always handled my account promptly and returned my
calls, even though I don't spend very much per month.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 10:30:29 EDT
From: Billy Bradford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Oklahoma City School Board Phones Tapped


[Moderator's Note: This was forwarded to me from Telenet's Net
Exchange BBS, a service for subscribers to PC Pursuit.  PT]

  No. 297  08/06/90   23:47:30
  From: Billy Bradford              To: Patrick Townson
  Subject: Oklahoma City Phone Tap
  Message class: Private             Message base: general

This was on the ten o'clock news, channel 9 in OKC.  I was furiously
writing notes, it may not have all the facts...

Last week sometime, phone tapping devices were found that had been
installed in the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Public Schools Administration
Building.  The devices allowed silent monitoring/ recording of phone
calls without the people that were talking being aware.  Many people
have come forward about the devices, including a SWBT employee (not
named).  At the school board meeting today (Monday, August 6th),
concerned parents asked the school board if they (the school board)
had authorization to use the devices; the school's attorney was not
available and the stand-in could not get that information.  At the
meeting, a parent demonstrated how a tape recorder or headphones could
be plugged into the devices, and phone calls could be listened to.

To me, the thing just looked like a standard baseboard-mounted jack,
but all I saw on the news was the cover of the thing.

I'll post a summary when all the facts are out in the clear.  I think
this is going to be a BIG one....


Billy Bradford   P. O. Box 1374   Anadarko, OK  73005   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Billy Bradford is a high school student, and in
charge of the computer resources for the Anadarko Public Library.  PT]

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific
Date: 7 Aug 90 18:55:52 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I received my VISAPhone account from MCI yesterday.  It came with
several flyers.  The card is a thin hard paper/plastic with a hologram
on the front (very neat design ... A world with a phone receiver cord
going counterclock wise around it and athe reciver in front... the
bottom 1/5 of the card has the VISAPhone on the left and MCI logo on
the right) on the back are the dialing procedures.. VISAPhone has
different Access number (1-800-444-9595 they should have used
something ending in VISA)you dial the number and 0 +A/c number at tone
you dial you visa card + 4 digit pin aand press #.  Customer service
is at 1-800-866-0099. Calls within the US are charged at $.70 +
.18/min day or .70 + .13/min evenings.  or .70 + .10/min
nights/weekends.

There was a flyer about there internation calling plans... which
stated that they would wave the first 3 moths of service charge
($3/mo).. I called up regular MCI customer service to see if I could
have it added to my regular MCI account with the fee waived the rep.
said that it was for new customers but if I asked she could give me
the $9 credit.

I have accounts with several long distence companies which can prove
handy at times ... A while back Southern Bell had a cable cut and they
only carrier that worked was ATC(MicroTel at the time) and MCI 800
calls since MCI rents fiber from ATC in Florida. I could not even
reach a operator of any kind.

Bill

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 14:38 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax
Responding to: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Org: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL0


        My original post had said I would summarize results of this
message in about a week.  However, it seems there are participants of
this forum whose is more inflammatory rhetoric than study of
telecommunications and its impact on society.

        The result so far has been (thankfully) only a few direct
messages and the post referred to here that are way off the beam of
what the message was about.

        That beam was to see if in fact Americans would rise to an
issue for democratic debate by electronic means, no matter whether
or not you agree with the debate or issue.

        Regrettably, the replies have instead been from people who
indicate by their very comment that they would NOT aid the spread of
debate.  In doing so, these individuals indicate themselves to be
guilty of their own form of the same narrowmindedness they so loudly
protest in this forum, some of them daily.

        To straighten out some of the trivialities that have now
been published and correct some of the outright errors:

1.) Mr. da Silva asks:
>So who do you call to express support for Roseanne Barr?

Response: I don't know who takes telephone calls, but you are free to
fax Mr. McGrover your opinion, pro or con.  He thinks the majority is
con, but does accept opposing viewpoints ... even at his own expense.
Are you that open-minded?

2.) Mr.da Silva states:
>I note that this article was posted by an MCI Mail employee

Response:  I suggest you take a course in Critical Reading.  The post
clearly states:
>Org: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL

 ..For the record, TNA has NO affiliation with MCI.  In fact, TNA is
so independent of MCI it scares MCI people sometimes.  If, however,
Mr. da Silva has some information that MCI will buy me out for the
right price, I would be pleased to entertain an offer.

3.) Mr. da Silva states:
>... MCI is likely to be one of the companies benefiting from this
>campaign, both from MCI Mail FAX and MCI long distance service)

Response:  Absolutely wrong and utterly misleading!  The original
message clearly states:
>...he fully expects and understands he's liable to run up a huge
AT&T Readyline WATS bill...

        I want to make it crystal clear that MCI in no way has any
interest nor even the means to make a penny from what is being done.

        And to those on this forum who HAVE responded and reacted in
the sense of opening electronic democracy ... McGrover has told me that
some of you did, with both West Coast talk radio shows and a reader
from a Massachusetts newspaper, plus others, congratulations on
reading the post properly and not making themselves judges of
limitations on the First Amendment rights of people they don't agree
with.

        [For latecomers, the campaign is to FAX (no voice accepted)
messages about Roseanne Barr's performance of the national anthem to
800-468-0344.]

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

From: Steve Friedl <[e-mail]>
Subject: New California PUC 900/976 Ruling
Date: 7 Aug 90 20:56:51 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


We just received a letter from Pacific*Bell's Information Services
Group about 900 and 976 numbers, so I'm sending it in for comment.
Note that GTE has a hard time handling 976 numbers out here (I think
Orange County is the only place in the state without 976 service,
reportedly because GTE can't do it).

  -------------------------- cut here ------------------------

Dear Service Bureau/Equipment Vendor,

We want to let you know about a tariff change affecting our California
900 and 976 services.  The new tariff provision applies only to
information providers with programs on the 900- 303 "harmful matter"
prefix who receive calls from General Telephone company territory.
This letter is being sent to you two days before distribution to our
information providers.

On May 4, 1990, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
authorized Pacific Bell to disconnect an information provider's
California 900 and 976 service IF:

    * The information provider fails to pay another local exchange
      telephone company for transporting calls to the information
      provider's California 900/976 number

                AND

    * The other local exchange telephone company does not provide
      billing and collection services for those calls.

Since General Telephone currently transports 900-303 calls but does
not provide billing and collection service to them, Pacific Bell can
now disconnect a 900-303 prefix since this is the only prefix for
which the local exchange companies do not provide billing and
collection service.

This change limits the risk to other telephone companies from
information providers who have arranged for call transport only, but
are delinquent in paying transport charges.  Without this change, the
other telephone companies would have no recourse with a delinquent
information provider, since they cannot withhold that provider's
program revenue or block calls to the program.

Enclosed is a copy of the CPUC resolution [T-14069] on this issue.  If
you have any questions, please call your service representative...

   ---------------------------- end -----------------------------


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

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

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!  (Not Fun From a/c 913)
Date: 7 Aug 90 21:59:35 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


Tonight I finally got a chance to play with the ANI number.  And guess
what - it didn't work!  I dialed 1 800 666 6258 several times, and
received the same response: no ring but a connection is made, sounds
far away (or could be MCI to next door - identical sound quality).

Did the number die?  Or could it be that it doesn't like a/c 913?


Steve Huff, MBA student, University of Kansas
(currently interning at Hill's Pet Products, Topeka, KS) WorkNet: 913 231 5760
My electronic dicta may or may not represent views of either organization.
Internet:  [e-mail]      Bitnet:    [e-mail]
Snail:     P.O. Box 1225, Lawrence, KS  66044-8225    HomeNet: 913 749 4720

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #550
******************************