Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss551-600

Text File | 1990-08-28 | 865.3 KB | 21,957 lines

Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04236;
          9 Aug 90 2:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19678;
          9 Aug 90 1:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17247;
          9 Aug 90 0:03 CDT
Date:     Wed, 8 Aug 90 23:45:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #551
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 8 Aug 90 23:45:28 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 551

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [Chad Fogg]
    Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch [Ge Weijers]
    Re: House Approves Restrictions on Fax, Phone Junk Mail [Alec]
    Re: Phone/Fax Switches - Where to Get One? [Jesse W. Asher]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Eight Digit Phone Numbers? [Mike Olson]
    Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [Bill Huttig]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Tad Cook]
    Re: Touchtone Detection Question [Tad Cook]
    Re: TWX Area Codes (was: 510 Dialing Update) [A. Alan Toscano]
    Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax [John Higdon]
    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Cliff Yamamoto]
    Cellular Standards [Ed Greenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 21:39:32 -0700
From: Chad Fogg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


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

>Voice:
>    The system is designed as an entirely digital communications
>system with 8KHz bandwidth available for each voice channel. Vocoders

Is this 8KHz sample rate or 8KHz frequency bandwidth?  The former
would imply a data rate equal to ISDN's B channel (8bits*8KHz= 64000
bits/sec).  If I understand audio sampling correctly, the frequecy
range is roughly equal to half the sample rate.

>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.

2400 bps is kind of a dissapointment when the voice channel is
operating at 64,000 bps.


Chad
[e-mail]

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

From: Ge Weijers <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Building a Small Telephone Switch
Date: 8 Aug 90 11:43:30 GMT


[e-mail] (Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)) writes:

>PS: I have just discovered that there are also Spanish, Portuguese and
>Greek editions. I suppose Danish will follow for full EC coverage.

And in Dutch, of course (main office in the Netherlands).  I believe
there's also an Indian edition. And there's a German one.


Ge' Weijers (subscriber for 16 years, but it's my last)
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: Wed, 8 Aug 90 00:25 EDT
From: Alec <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: House Approves Restrictions on Fax, Phone Junk Mail


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

>bill... [which] would authorize the FCC to set up a national registry
>of telephone subscribers who object to unsolicited sales messages...

>Solicitations by charitable, political and religious organizations
>would be exempt from the ban.

Well that's really USELESS: the people who I especially *DON'T* want
to hear from are charitable, political, and religious organizations.

        -*- Alec -*-
        [e-mail]
        [e-mail]
        ...!rutgers!njin!drew!drunivac!PCHROMCZ

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

From: "Jesse W. Asher" <dynasys![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone/Fax Switches - where to get one?
Date: 3 Aug 90 13:19:44 GMT
Reply-To:  <dynasys![e-mail]>
Organization: Dynasys:  Consulting for the Future.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] wrote the
following:

>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.

Does anyone have any recommendations on some place to get this type of
router?  I too would like to get one - the pick and choose type - to
route calls to my computer or to be answered by me.  Know where I can
get one of these?  Thanx much.

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 8 Aug 90 15:44:57 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons


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

>Well, I tried the 800-666-6258 ANI demonstration number in several
>different ways.

[first two ways deleted]

>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.)

Two noteworthy items from when I tried to call the number on Sunday,
Aug.  5:

1)  The local Southern Bell operator said she cannot (will not?) dial
    to 800 numbers.  I assume they are just allowed to complete inter-
    LATA calls.  The SoBell operator said that I should dial 10288+00
    to get the AT&T operator to assist.

2)  Same outcome here as John, AT&T operator tried the number and we
    got an intercept that said that "Your number cannot be completed
    as dialed."  AT&T operator said that they are unable to complete
    calls to non-AT&T 800 providers.

Seems that ANI-defeat schemes which involve going through either the
BOC or AT&T operator won't work in this neck of the woods.  Anyone got
a POTS number for SoBell operator in Atlanta?


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

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

From: Mike Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Eight Digit Phone Numbers?
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 90 11:11:29 PDT


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Ohmer)
writes:

> 1-800-CALL-FRED.  <- Made up

> In the above, is the `D' actually required to make the call, or is it
> ignored?

This reminds me of my favorite eight-digit telephone number.  A car dealer
that advertises on television here in the SF Bay Area advises you to
waste no time in dialing

    1-800-DEALS-NOW

Of course,

    1-800-DEALS-NO

reaches him just fine.
                Mike Olson ([e-mail])

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance?
Date: 8 Aug 90 18:30:54 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


 Since most phone companies centralized DA you can call 411 for
non-local DA and avoid the charge for 1-555-1212 (Mainly works for
BOC's ), since 1-555-1212 call usually goes to the BOC for the A/C and
they transfer you to other DA operator for non Bell areas.  United
Telephone has one DA for all of Florida (I think) so I when I was
living in a United area I could call 411 and get DA for other area
codes of United.

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Date: 8 Aug 90 19:20:38 GMT
Organization: very little


In article <[e-mail]>, foxtail![e-mail] (Peter
Phillips) writes:

> 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. Try your tie lines, special circuits, via 950, etc ...

I tried it several times from the 206-881 exchange (GTE) in Redmond,
WA and got absolutely nothing ... no ringback tone, no busy, no
re-order, no nothing!


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]


[Moderator's Note: Did you ask the operator to assist in dialing?  PT]

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

From: Tad Cook <ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touchtone Detection Question
Date: 8 Aug 90 19:38:34 GMT
Organization: very little


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?

One of the problems with designing a good quality DTMF receiver is
insuring talk-off (falsing) immunity.  Talk-off is when the receiver
falsely detects a digit due to non-DTMF audio ... such as when you are
dialing the payphone in the bar next to the jukebox.  If music is
playing (or you are talking) and it produces a momentary condition
where two frequencies exist within the bandpass for the tones, a tone
receiver could detect the false digit.

One way to make this less likely is the make the tone acceptance
bandwidth for each tone tighter.  Another way is to make the "twist"
acceptance (the difference in level between the high and low tone)
more restrictive.

If you do this, you can have another problem ... some phones may not
be able to signal your receiver.  This makes DTMF receiver design
tricky.

If you are building an answering machine with a really cheap DTMF
receiver (maybe just some filters to detect a couple of digits) one
way to prevent false digit detection would be to lengthen the time
required for detection.  Good DTMF receivers detect tones down to 40
ms, with 40 ms interdigit time.  If you lengthen this to 500 ms, you
will "never" get falsing, as the chances of the two tones being
present in speech or on the jukebox for a half second is remote.


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: Wed, 8 Aug 90 20:43 EST
From: "A. Alan Toscano" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TWX Area Codes (was: 510 Dialing Update)


In TELECOM Digest V10 #548, in an annotation to an article by Woody
about Area Code 510, our Moderator says:

>The TWX areas are 410, 510, 710 and 910 for the USA; 610 for Canada and 810
>for Mexico ... Now I think Western Union has all directory for the
>USA in 410-555-1212.

I don't believe there is a TWX network (Telex II in Western Union
parlance) in Mexico.

US TWX Directory Assistance, from "four-row" machines, was
910-555-1212 until Western Union replaced it with a computer on
910-221-5151.

The US TWX Area Codes (for "four-row" machines) were:
     510 (entire US?),
     710 (NE US only?),
     810 (SE US only?), and
     910 (Western US only?).

As I recall, "three-row" machines used normal Area Codes such as 312
for Chicago.  I think "three-row" machines reached Directory
Assistance by dialing simply 555-1212, but my memory of Bell System
TWX has become rather rusty.  Wasn't an operator reached by dialing
954-1212?

I've understood that Canadian TWX remains well integrated into the
PSTN.  The observations of our Canadian friend, Woody, about TWX
warbles on 510-555-1212 might suggest that, for Canadian wire centers,
separate routing tables will be needed for TWX class-of-service lines
vs. voice lines with regard to calls to 510 numbers.  I wonder: How
this will be handled in the toll network?


A. Alan Toscano                Voice:  512 696 0307      MCI Mail:  ATOSCANO
P. O. Box 290008               Telex:  6975956AAT UW     CIS:       73300,217
San Antonio, TX  78280-1408    [e-mail]    Prodigy:   BHWR97A

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax
Date: 8 Aug 90 15:38:21 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]> writes:

>         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:

As one of those who did respond "off the air" and as one to whom you
are undoubtedly referring, let me reiterate my position. The key word
is "trivial". Who on earth really cares if Roseanne Barr exhibited bad
taste at a Padres game? What difference does it make in any of our
daily lives? Who of us will suffer or profit as a result?

Such an incident can hardly be compared to the Craig Neidorf case, or
the Chinese massacre, or even the arrest of musicians performing
allegedly obscene material. If you're going to test the waters of
Americans rising to anything, at least pick something substantial for
a seed.

Hopefully Americans aren't so stupid that they will, in mass numbers,
clog communications networks over something as supremely silly as the
Roseanne Barr non-event. If I'm missing the grand significance to
mankind here, I invite your persuasions via e-mail. (Somehow, I put
whether my cat pees in the flower bed a couple of notches above this
"issue".)


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


[Moderator's Note: However, John, 'trivial' is a relative term, and
depends on who is using it. To *us*, Craig N's case was important; yet
how much or little of it have you seen mentioned in the papers?
Roseanne Barr is a household name to millions of people. Very few
folks outside our circle have ever heard of Craig.    PT]

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

From: Cliff Yamamoto <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Date: 8 Aug 90 20:21:03 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


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

>[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.  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.

As the originator of this thread, I guess the answer boils down to
"it depends on the model".

>[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.]

My thanks to John for passing on this info.  In my original posting, I
also wondered if there were some sort of defacto standard (i.e. EIA,
ANSI, IEEE).  Many have mentioned the Motorola book from William C. Y.
Lee, but not anything official.  Anyway, I just called and ordered my
copy from the above source.

   Doc #        cost    hndlng   UPS    CA tax   total
EIA/TIA-553    $52.75 + $5.00 + $5.00 + $3.93 = $66.68
Revised 9/89

Seems recent enough for me.  BTW, Global Engineering Documents is
located in Irvine, California so I'm sure anybody out east can call
till 4 P.M. PST/PDT.

Thanks to all who responded to my post.

Regards,

Cliff Yamamoto

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

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 13:23 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Standards


Are available from Global Engineering Documents under the number
ETA/TIA- 553 for $52.75 plus tax and shipping.  Call 800-624-3974.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #551
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07701;
          9 Aug 90 4:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24375;
          9 Aug 90 3:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22362;
          9 Aug 90 2:09 CDT
Date:     Thu, 9 Aug 90 1:07:50 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #552
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Aug 90 01:07:42 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 552

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    ICCC-90 [Piyush Kulshrestha]
    999 Emergency Service in the UK [Nigel Whitfield]
    Reach Out America Bills (was RE: SW Bell) [Steve Kass]
    Mexican Telephone [Carl Moore]
    Texas N0X/N1X and Splitting [Carl Moore]
    YOU Put it in Writing! [John Higdon]
    Hotel Phone Charges [Larry Geary]
    C & W 800 Service vs. Sprint 800 Service [Steve Elias]
    Telebit Service [John Higdon]
    666 and Ignorant People [Moderator Responds to Jerry Altzman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Piyush Kulshrestha <[e-mail]>
Subject: ICCC-90
Date: 8 Aug 90 21:42:33 GMT
Reply-To: Piyush Kulshrestha <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


For inquiries about ICCC-90 Please contact [e-mail] directly.


                               ICCC-90

                   Tenth International Conference on
                        Computer Communication

                 November 4-8, 1990, New Delhi, INDIA

      ICCC-90 is the tenth conference of the International Council  for
      Computer  Communication (ICCC). ICCC-90 will provide an important
      and prestigious forum for presentation,  discussion  and  debate.
      Topics discussed will include all aspects of  computer communica-
      tion, including technical,  scientific,  social,  policy  making,
      business and legal aspects.

      The Advisory Committee

       Clayton Andrews, USA                Ashley Goldsworthy, USA
       Carl Hammer, USA                    Mohan Kaul, UK
       Yasuo Makino, Japan                 Michael R. Miller, UK
       R. Narasimhan, India                E. A. Owolabi, France
       Dorothy Philips, Canada             Pramode Verma, USA

      The Programme Committee

       M. N. Faruqui, India                Anil Garg, India
       B. N. Jain, India                   Farouk Kamoun, Tunisia
       Peter Kirstein, UK                  Peter Kuehn, FRG
       S. L. Mehndiratta, India            Louis Pouzin, France
       S. V. Raghavan, India               S. Ramakrishnan, India
       S. Ramani, India  (Chairman)        S.I. Samoylenko, USSR
       K. R. Srivatsan, India              Ronald Uhlig, USA
       T. Viswanathan, India               S. G. Wagle, India

      Topics for approximately 90 papers to be presented include:

       * Communication aspects of: Distributed Operating Systems, Expert
       Systems,  Office and Factory Information Systems, Robotics, Secu-
       rity and Privacy, Standards, Videotext, Work Stations

       * Electronic Funds Transfer, Human Factors, Legal Aspects,  Regu-
       latory Issues

       * Data Communication  in  ISDN,  Optical  Data  Transmission  and
       Switching, Packet Radio, Protocol Specification and Verification,
       Protocol Conversion, Satellite Data Communication

       * Academic Networks, Corporate  Networks,  Local  Area  Networks,
       Networks Management and Operation, Packet Switching, Open Systems
       Interconnection (OSI)

       For further information, registration etc., please contact

        S. Ramani
        Chairman, Programme Committee, ICCC-90
        National Centre for Software Technology
        Gulmohar Cross Road No. 9
        Bombay 400 049, INDIA

        Phone: [phone]
        Telex: [phone] NCST IN
        E_mail: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: Nigel Whitfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: 999 Emergency Service in the UK
Date: 8 Aug 90 16:07:57 BST (Wed)
From: Nigel Whitfield <[e-mail]>


I thought I'd write a few words on this, since it relates in some ways
to the discussions that have been going on about 911 service.

I have only had occassion to dial 999 once in an emergency, though I
have done so accidentally a couple of times. Each time, the phone is
always answered promptly. When we really needed assistance, because
there was a person trying to break into the house, the police arrived
within a few minutes, having driven through the town the wrong way and
straight across the front lawn to stop the man escaping.

Other people I know who have used the service seem to find that it's
generally very quick to respond, though there have been notable
problems, such as the Hillborough incident. I think, though, that that
was more a failing of the emergency services themselves than the 999
service.

As far as I can tell from using the phone system, 999 is answered at
the local telephone exchange, or in the city exchange for a rural
area. It is not uncommon for a conversation with the operator to be
interrupted with "Sorry - 999 call. Goodbye"

A couple of asides come to mind here...

1) In a lot of towns, you can actually reach the emergency services by
dialling 99. This is because the rural exchanges will dial 9 to access
the town, a allowing 99 to trigger the service means that rural
subscribers can also dial 99, without having to have an operator at
the local exchange. It also means that problems are caused.

The village where I was at school had three figure telephone numbers
on an exchange called Long Sutton. (Though the call box was known as
Long Sutton 250X). To dial home to my mother in Winchester, I had to
dial to the nearest town (Basingstoke) and then on to Winchester. The
code was 992.

In their wisdom and desire to remove quaint telephone exchange names,
BT decided to move all the phones in the village to Basingstoke
numbers, prefixed with 862. (Why 862 when the old Basingstoke -> Long
Sutton code was 81, is anybody's guess!) For a while there were
actually Basingstoke and Long Sutton numbers in the same village, and
of course dialling from the Basingstoke numbers you had to omit the
initial 9.

Needless to say, many people didn't, and there were an awful lot of
calls to the 999 service.

2) I posted something in another group about the choice of 999 and it
was suggested I post that here as well. There may well be other
versions of this story, but it seems logical enough, and I think I saw
it documented somewhere...

It was decided to introduce a special number for emergencies after a
fire (at a doctor's surgery, I believe). Obviously, such a number had
to be capable of being dialled without money from a public phone. The
service was first introduced in London, which used directorised
strowger exchanges, and so a three figure code was necessary. At the
time, it was possible to call the operator from a callbox by dialling
0, and a simple mechanical modification to the phones allowed the
dialling of 9 without insertion of money as well, hence the number
999.


Nigel Whitfield
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

PLEASE NOTE MY PREFERRED MAIL ADDRESS IS [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 09:56 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reach Out America Bills (was RE: SW Bell)


In TELECOM Digest Volume 10, Issue 545, Blake Farenthold writes:

> 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.

I wish they did a better job, too, but I think I know one reason why
they don't provide _both_ the full rate and the rate you pay.  Some
calls cost more with Reach Out.  Calls to places within 100 miles or
so (but out of state) are often less expensive during evening hours
than at night, since the 25% evening discount is better than the 11.5
cent/min. flat night rate.  Call your friends in nearby locations
before 10pm or else use 10333+.

By the way, I recently heard of a plan being offered in SW Bell
territory called "Selective Calling," or some such thing.  It is like
Reach Out for a single area code.  Does anyone have details on
availability and prices?  Maybe my friends out west could be calling
me more cheaply than I call them.


Steve Kass, Math/Comp Sci Dept, Drew U, Madison NJ 07940, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 18:47:10 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mexican Telephone


Several times recently, I have heard Mexican Telephone mentioned in
over-the-counter trading in KYW news-radio's business summary.  I
don't know anything about such company.  (KYW is at 1060 on the AM
dial in Philadelphia, Pa.; on that station, you get business summary
at 25 after and 55 after the hour.)


[Moderator's Note: Do you mean 'Mexico Telephone Company'?  PT]

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 18:50:51 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Texas N0X/N1X and Splitting


All of this has happened within Texas (from 1983 onward):

713/409 split occurring without N0X/N1X prefixes.
214 getting N0X/N1X prefixes (214/903 split coming up later).
512 soon to be getting N0X/N1X prefixes (new requirement of 1+512+7D
  for toll calls within it).
214 and 512 are apparently able to get N0X/N1X prefixes, but 713 was
  not?

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

Subject: YOU Put it in Writing!
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 7 Aug 90 20:50:11 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


In June of 1988, I put a client on Sprint dedicated ProWATS. These
lines double as intraLATA WATS, with Sprint billing for the interLATA
and Pac*Bell billing for the near-in stuff. These lines are reliably
selected by the PBX which has ARS. I left AT&T as the default on the
local trunks, primarily for ease in routing "0+" calls over AT&T.

Today, August of 1990, a salesperson from AT&T called the client. This
is the first contact from anyone at that carrier since more than two
years ago. My client turned the gentleman over to me. His message was
that a "Reach Out America" plan on the local trunks had gone for some
time without any use. Somehow he had learned that my client had "gone
with Sprint" and he used the opportunity to tell me that Sprint had
obviously been negligent for not cancelling the ROA plan.

I asked him why that was Sprint's responsibility, indicating that it
was more of an oversight on the part of myself, or, since I don't
review those phone bills, my client. He said, "Your carrier should
really sort of take care of you and point those things out." Then I
dropped the bomb on him. "Actually, AT&T is our carrier as far as
those lines are concerned. I never changed the default for those
trunks.  Using your logic, AT&T was negligent in not notifying the
customer in over TWO YEARS on an apparently abandoned ROA plan."

He quickly recovered, and offered me "a helluva deal". If we would
"switch" to AT&T, he would pick up all the costs PLUS refund all of
the unused ROA monthly charges going back two years.

I told him to discontinue ROA starting herewith and then told him to
consider taking better care of his customers in the future. Then I
told him to put his offer in writing and send it to my attention.


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

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

Date: Wed,  8 Aug 90 10:58:52 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hotel Phone Charges
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Like many of you I have had unfortunate experiences with phone calls
from hotels and motels. Last week, however, I had a pleasant
experience at a "Susse Chalet" motel in White River Junction, Vermont.
Local phone calls were free. Long distance calls were claimed to be
"reasonable".  (I don't know the LD carrier, but I don't think it was
AT&T.)

A six minute call to central NJ placed after 5pm was $2.81, which I
thought was OK. Reach Out America it isn't, but how does this charge
compare with the best and the worst out there?


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

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

Subject: C & W 800 Service vs. Sprint 800 Service
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 90 14:52:55 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


 From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>

> Cable & Wireless - 800/486-8686
> Signup fee:  $0

Sprint:  800 877 4646
Signup fee: Was $0 for a while.  I think you can talk them into
waiving the 'official' signup fee if you try.  Say some nasty stuff
about ATT and maybe they'll give you a break! :)

> Monthly fee: $10-15/month (accessible from the 48 contiguous states)

Sprint monthly fee: $10 /month Sprint bills in six second increments.
What about C&W?  It's nice to be able to check voice mail from
anywhere in the US for one cent!  (Of course, it's more if there are
messages for me.)

> Programmable 800:  $10/month extra

This is a neat feature.  Sprint doesn't have anything similar, as far
as I know.

> 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?)

It's not that impressive.  The Sprint service reps can do the same
thing, but I'm not sure how quick they are about changing the POTS
number that the 800 number rings in to.  I have call forwarding on my
POTs number and use that to control where the 800 number rings.

(I don't know if phones in Alaska and Hawaii can connect to my 800 #.)


eli

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

Subject: Telebit Service
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 8 Aug 90 15:49:32 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Then, on the other hand, there is Telebit service. Within the last
twenty-four hours, I have received e-mail and telephone calls from
technical people at Telebit. Yes, you read that right -- they saw my
postings in the Digest and CALLED ME!

The long and the short of it is that I am being sent new firmware for
my Trailblazer+ modems that will put extra tones on the line for the
purpose of disabling the Sprint echo cancellers. No fuss, no muss,
just a solution to a problem.

What do you want to bet that when AT&T switches over to their
CCITT-compliant equipment, they notify customers of possible
difficulties instead just letting their customers run up big bucks in
useless calls?

In any event, I'll let you know how the fix works!


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

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 17:02:48 EDT
From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 666 and Ignorant People


>[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]

Could you enlighten one of the unenlightened what this means?


Jerry B. Altzman  [e-mail]
jauus@CUVMB     NEVIS::JBALTZ (HEPnet)
[phone]


[Moderator's Note: Certain people -- a hybrid type of Fundamentalist
Christian actually -- of which there seem be to several million in the
United States alone, have long believed that '666' was an evil number,
based on their reading of selected scripture. These people get NASTY
when they think they have found an agent of Satan somewhere, based on
the use by that person of some number involving '666'. It could be
part of a street address or telephone number. In the P&G case, for the
past decade, P&G has received several hundred cards and letters DAILY
from people who express concern that (in the words of the rumor) 'the
chairman of P&G has a pact with the Devil, and shows his love for
Satan by the arrangement of the stars and ram's head in the corporate
logo of P&G'. Arranging the stars in the logo in a certain way, you
see, forms the evil 666. P&G has squelched the rumor several times,
only to have it start up again. They finally had to drop the corporate
logo they used for a hundred years, it got so hard to deal with.

Where telcos are concerned, subscribers whose phone numbers end in
X666 have complained bitterly about receiving huge numbers of obscene
and/or hate calls, accusing them of being Satan worshippers, etc.
The people spreading the rumor are vicious.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #552
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05638;
          10 Aug 90 3:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27689;
          10 Aug 90 1:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23487;
          10 Aug 90 0:24 CDT
Date:     Thu, 9 Aug 90 23:32:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #553
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 9 Aug 90 23:32:13 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 553

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T 800 Directory [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Benjamin Ellsworth]
    1-800 Numbers From Europe [Ge Weijers]
    Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Sergio Gelato]
    800 Service May Not Be Best Deal [Paul Wilczynski]
    Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill) [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Sprint Comes Through [Peter da Silva]
    Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [Kolkka Markku Olavi]
    Isn't That a Hoot! [Steve Grandi]
    Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Carl Moore & Manuel J. Moguilevsky]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 800 Directory
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 17:51:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig R. Watkins)
writes:

>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.

>Anyone else get this book for free?  Have any idea why they send it to
>you?  Just curious after all these years ...

I get it for free, too, and always promptly throw it out. When they
first sent me this piece of junk, I tried to look up 5 or 6 companies
that I might want to call, and they weren't in there. This is NOT a
complete directory of 800 numbers, nor even of ATT's 800 numbers. This
is a directory of "selected, consumer-oriented ATT-based 800 numbers"
that were willing to pay to get included. What a waste of trees.


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

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

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 13:52:52 pdt
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?


> [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.  ... PT]

Hmmm... it seems to me that ANY time someone calls me that person is
making use of a service that I pay for.  I pay for the ability to
receive calls at my home.  If you call me, you are partially using my
money.  Why can't I get "the details of what I am paying for?"

Trying to draw a distinction between facilities charges and connect-
time charges seems spurious.  It seems very clear to me that if CID
is illegal in PA that calling number provision for collect calls, and
800 service providers should also be ruled illegal.

I also think that we need to be careful in our use of the term
"invasion of privacy."  It appears to be valid to say that any time
you willingly surrender information there has been no "invasion."
Hence, one might conclude that our moderator's assertion is correct.
However, by so doing we must agree that general CID also not an
invasion of privacy -- if you choose to take advantage of the site
facility that I pay for and maintain you must surrender your identity.
"I want the details of what I am paying for."

Would our Moderator or others agree?

Benjamin Ellsworth                                  [e-mail]
                 All possibly relevant disclaimers apply.


[Moderator's Note: Well, I have always felt if someone wanted to call
me they had to surrender some of their privacy in the process.  PT]

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

From: Ge Weijers <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1-800 Numbers From Europe
Date: 8 Aug 90 12:10:38 GMT


A short question someone might be able to answer. I've found it
impossible to phone a vendor in the U.S. through a 1-800 number. As no
other number was published I've given up for now and have written a
letter.

Is there any way around this problem (I don't expect the number to be
free, but it would be nice if they were accesible from abroad).


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


[Moderator's Note: About all you can do at this point is call the
appropriate Directory Assistance Bureau and get the 'regular' number,
then place an toll call. Some companies will, under the circumstances
reimburse you for that call if you make a purchase from them.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 13:12 EST
From: Sergio Gelato <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?


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

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) ?

It isn't a matter of your knowing the phone number you called, but of
too much data being stored on computer media about your life and
activities.  The law that prohibits the disclosure of the full numbers
is the one known as "informatique et liberte"; it is intended mainly
to prevent the kind of thing some people have complained about in this
forum, that anyone who looks at your credit record will get a very
good idea of your personal tastes and lifestyle.

In the case of phone numbers, Mr. X probably wouldn't want anyone to
tell his wife that all these calls to 4787-XXXX are not to his old
aunt.  His privacy should be respected, and the information not be
disclosed to anyone.  Hence, it should never appear in print anywhere
(not even on a phone bill), and in fact should not even be stored on
France Telecom's computers (in case one of their employees should try
blackmail, for example; or in case someone breaks into those
computers).

>Seriously, how would anyone contest a wrongly charged call ?
>Perhaps a better question would be: Are you even allowed to contest a
>charge ?

Contesting charges is probably more common in the USA than in France
(disclaimer: I don't have any hard statistics -- this is just a
guess).  However, you should still be able to say "I never called
anyone in exchange YYYY on that day", in the same way as you can tell
a US telephone company "I never called (XXX)XXX-XXXX".

Anyway, any form of detailed billing is an improvement on the
previous state of affairs (when you only got a lump charge for the
month's calls).  And privacy is worth more than a few extra francs on
a bill (at least to me).


Sergio Gelato <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 16:53 EST
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Service May Not Be Best Deal


Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]> writes ...

>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?

I don't know if the per-minute rates for residential 800 service are
different from those for business 800 service, but my AT&T service
costs $.25/minute for in-Massachusetts (less for other states).  At
that rate, it may not be your best deal.


Paul Wilczynski

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Couple Tech Questions About Cellular Phones
Date: 9 Aug 90 04:21:56 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> The US cellular telephone standard defines a way to "ping" a cellular
> phone without making it ring.  The ping is transmitted like an

> With this feature, the movements or current whereabouts of your phone
> can be tracked at will by the cellular company.  Anytime the phone

> If I ever get a cellular phone, this 'ping' will be one of the first
> things I reprogram...

If you re-program this feature, you will probably be unable to receive
incoming calls when you're roaming.  (You already can't, in many
areas, but the feature is designed to allow it, and some day, it will
probably allow fully-automated transparent nationwide roaming, if
subscribers don't go and disable it!)


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:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill)
Date: 7 Aug 90 18:30:11 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

 ...stuff about Ringmaster deleted.

I wonder how many Ringmaster numbers exist now?  I think that the
LEC's are pushing it as their cables are approaching full usage.
otherwise they would be pushing a second line.  (New NPA's will be
come more frequent because of RingMaster type numbers..)

>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.

I think the LEC's should include two prices for each call the cost under
the plan and the regular cost.  Then they could say at the bottom that
you saved $xx.xx this month.  They could do this for each customer if
they were on a plan or not.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell (when billing for AT&T Reach Out)
shows the regular cost of the call with the # symbol and the number of
minutes. At the bottom of the bill, they tally the total minutes,
charge the hourly rate for ROA and add the note "Total Was: xxxx" You
Pay: zzzz". Obviously if there is more than about $7 difference, then
you have paid the monthly Reach Out fee and started to save money. The
catch is, here in the midwest, very few late night calls cost more
than about 12 cents a minute anyway ... and some cost less!  My use of
ROA about breaks even. It becomes cost effective on calls from the
east to west coast, or anywhere more than about 2000 miles away. I do
not call the west coast all that often.  PT]

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Comes Through
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 17:17:30 GMT


UUNET 800 service is provided by SPRINT.

UUNET uses Telebits. For quite a while UUNET was having problems with
SPRINT's echo cancellation. These problems seem to have stopped. I
don't know know if it was UUNET's or SPRINT's action that fixed it,
but we made no change to *our* Telebit.

I would suggest mail to [e-mail].


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

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

From: Kolkka Markku Olavi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System
Reply-To: Kolkka Markku Olavi <[e-mail]>
Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 10:33:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chad
Fogg) writes:

|> >    The system is designed as an entirely digital communications
|> >system with 8KHz bandwidth available for each voice channel. Vocoders

|> Is this 8KHz sample rate or 8KHz frequency bandwidth?

It looks like it is 8kHz bandwith (>16kHz sampling), with quite a lot
of data compression to reduce the data rate.

|> >operating at 4.8 kilobits per second are employed in the user units to
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >    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.

|> 2400 bps is kind of a dissapointment when the voice channel is
|> operating at 64,000 bps.

But the document tells us the voice channel is 4800bps.  Data
transmission needs additional error correction and detection which
reduces the speed.

Does anybody know what kind of compression they plan to use to squash
8kHz bandwith sound through a 4800bps channel?


Markku Kolkka
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 07:12:22 MST
From: Steve Grandi CCS <[e-mail]>
Subject: Isn't That a Hoot!


manuel%psi#[e-mail] may be a hoot; but it can
be a real pain in the rear for those of us in the line of fire!

Here is how it goes ... We at NOAO-Tucson are on the Internet and SPAN
(NASA's Space Physics and Analysis Network, a DECnet).  We pass mail
to SSL on SPAN (Space Sciences Lab at Marshall Space Flight Center in
Huntsville Alabama).  They pass it through commercial X.25 circuits to
certain "astronomically interesting" locations around the world
(including Argentina) through the DECnet PSI service.  And vice-versa.
We got into this game so we could communicate with the Cerro Tololo
Interamerican Observatory in Chile (which is a part of NOAO);
fortunately, NASA has now installed a real satellite link and CTIO is
directly on the Internet.  But we still pass traffic for some other
sites.

I don't think NASA knows that they are paying the X.25 charges for
sending Telecom to Argentina.


Steve Grandi, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, Arizona USA
Internet: [e-mail] SPAN/HEPNET: NOAO::GRANDI (NOAO=5355) [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Well, I won't tell them if you promise not to.
Isn't it amazing how our little journal reaches into all corners of
the world ... to close this issue, Carl Moore shares some recent
correspondence with our new South American reader....  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 18:24:43 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina


I have exchanged a few messages with Manuel.  That one line message
you put in earlier from him is explained further here; the NUA (exact
meaning I am not sure of) is the number you published.  I have not
decided how this will be cleared up in telecom (I do have a list of
numbers mailed to me by Manuel).  I am making no comments about
grammar, as Manuel's everyday language is probably not English.

   To: Manuel J. Moguilevsky <manuel%psi#[e-mail]>
   Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina

I tried 011-54-7222211103127 and it did not work.  (011 is
international access, and 54 is the Argentina country code, and I left
off the 0 in front of the rest of the number shown here.)

   Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 15:11:30 MST
   From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky <manuel%psi#[e-mail]>

I don't know the exact translation for NUA to English.  I want to mean
the access number through the networks, not a telephone number.


[Moderator's Note: Then I guess 07222211103127 is the NUA? I tried to
connect via my local Telenet node, but it would not take collect
connections, so I tried no further.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #553
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05648;
          10 Aug 90 3:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27689;
          10 Aug 90 1:32 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23487;
          10 Aug 90 0:25 CDT
Date:     Fri, 10 Aug 90 0:08:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #554
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Aug 90 00:07:52 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 554

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Northern Telecom Introduces Frame Relay Capabilities [Stephen Fleming]
    Privacy and Itemized Billing (was: Re: 800 ANI) [Kolkka Markku Olavi]
    Virtual Terminal Info Needed [Liane Tarouco]
    Home Intercom Custom Calling Service [Dan Birchall]
    Wanted: 1A2 Equipment [Ralph Sims]
    AT&T TDD Operator Non-Service [Ken Harrenstien]
    Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones [Al Donaldson]
    Trouble Getting New Service - Results [Volkhart Baumgaertner]
    Re: Hotel Phone Charges [John Covert]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Northern Telecom Introduces Frame Relay Capabilities
Date: Wed,  8 Aug 90 05:55:51 PDT
X-Possible-Reply-Path: [e-mail]


NORTHERN TELECOM INTRODUCES FRAME RELAY CAPABILITIES FOR LOCAL
EXCHANGE AND INTEREXCHANGE CARRIERS

Nashville, Tenn., Aug. 7 -- Northern Telecom today announced DataSPAN,
a new wideband data communications capability that allows local
exchange and interexchange carriers a less expensive way to offer
their customers a faster, more reliable alternative to private data
lines.

DataSPAN, which consists of both hardware and software, provides a
frame relay interface to Northern Telecom's DMS-100 SuperNode and
DMS-250 SuperNode digital switching systems.  Frame relay is a new
packet switching technology that enables high speed data networking
over the public switched telephone network.  DataSPAN's wideband
connectivity through the public network is one step toward Northern
Telecom's FiberWorld vision of the broadband public network of the
future.

"With DataSPAN, businesses can cost effectively tie together branch
offices, regional offices and headquarters facilities under a common
wideband service offering," said Gerry Butters, executive vice
president, Marketing, Northern Telecom Inc.  "The widespread
deployment of DMS SuperNode switches in the local and long distance
networks and the availability of frame relay capabilities will provide
corporate data managers with a powerful nationwide networking option
that facilitates the implementation of both metropolitan and wide area
networks."

DataSPAN allows data users to replace dedicated leased lines with a
virtual private data network that is offered through their local or
long distance telephone company.  A virtual private data network
provides bandwidth-on-demand, multiple data sessions on a single line,
and simplified network management over the public switched network
without requiring physical dedicated lines between sites.

DataSPAN gives users the bandwidth they need -- when they need it --
through dynamically allocated bandwidth-on-demand up to 1.544 megabits
per second (mbps).  It also allows up to 1000 data sessions to be
conducted at the same time across a twisted pair connection to
Northern Telecom's SuperNode using a multiplexing capability that is
integrated into the switch.  Finally, DataSPAN simplifies network
management and reduces operational costs because additional
connections can be easily made to the existing network through simple
software changes.

DataSPAN is more reliable than leased lines because of the redundancy
built into the public network.  If a trunk is lost, the network will
automatically reroute the DataSPAN traffic.

Local and long distance carriers will carry their users' data traffic
on trunks with up to 45 mbps capacity.  This high bandwidth between
central offices assures customers of high reliability and high
performance for their data traffic.  DataSPAN complements emerging
broadband data services; its architecture allows for migration to
broadband access rates of 45 mbps and above.

Initial applications for DataSPAN will be in the growing market for
connecting local area networks (LANs).  DataSPAN allows the bridging
of both similar and dissimilar LANs over a wide geographic area,
providing networking, for example, for branches of banks, campuses of
a university, and individual offices of a business franchise.

DataSPAN is a direct result of the ongoing LAN-interconnection market
trial between Northern Telecom, NYNEX and Digital Equipment
Corporation, announced in the spring of 1989.  DataSPAN supports Open
Systems Interconnect (OSI) Routers, as well as such LAN topologies as
Ethernet, Token Ring, and DECnet.  DataSPAN also supports the
Transmission Control Protocol/Internetwork Protocol (TCP/IP) and System
Network Architecture/Synchronous Data Link Control (SNA/SDLC) data
communication protocols.

Northern Telecom's DataSPAN service is based on International
Consultative Committee for Telephone and Telegraph (CCITT) I.122
recommendations on additional packet mode data services and American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) T1S1 recommendations on frame
relay transport.

DataSPAN is supported on the DMS SuperNode Link Peripheral Processor
(LPP), an integrated peripheral that can support a variety of
services, including those provided through Common Channel Signaling 7
(CCS7).  Interface cards and software are the only requirements to
implement DataSPAN service.  DataSPAN will be available for testing by
carriers in the first quarter of 1991.


| Stephen Fleming            | Internet: [e-mail] |
| Director, Technology Mktg. | CI$: 76354,3176    AOL: SFleming |
| Northern Telecom           | BIX: srfleming     X.500:  ???   |


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

From: Kolkka Markku Olavi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Privacy and Itemized Billing (was: Re: 800 ANI)
Reply-To: Kolkka Markku Olavi <[e-mail]>
Organization: Finnish University and Research Network FUNET
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 11:20:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ken Greer) writes:

|>  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) ?

The basic idea is to protect _your_ privacy by not showing to someone
else where you have called.  If the nubers are shown on the bill, that
means that they are stored somewhere, and someone can go through them
to see if you have made any 'suspicious' calls.  Don't you consider
this an invasion of your privacy?

|>   Seriously, how would anyone contest a wrongly charged call ?

The area code and time of call are sufficient for this purpose.
Additionally a few digits of the number are shown to remind _you_ of
the final destination of the call.


    Markku Kolkka
    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 10:54 C
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Virtual Terminal Info Needed


Does any one know about a list discussing on virtual terminal, kinds
os terminals etc, and about the status of virtual terminal
standardization?

Thanks in advance,

Liane Tarouco
Instituto de Informatica
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
Porto Alegre - Rs - Brazil

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Home Intercom Custom Calling Service
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 18:03:07 EDT


Just saw on the news here (Philadelphia) where Bell of PA. is now
going to offer a new custom calling service, Home Intercom...  Service
is aimed toward elderly, handicapped, and people with several phones
on the same line.  From a phone with the service, you can dial your
own number, and other phones on the line will give a distinctive ring.
Price is the usual two bucks and change per month.

Hoping that NJ Bell will also implement such a thing, since we have two
multi-phone lines here at home.

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

Subject: Wanted: 1A2 Equipment
From: Ralph Sims <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 90 06:56:42 PDT
Organization: The 23:00 News


We are looking for a free/used/cheap frame and punch-block assembly to
hold 400D/G cards.  This thing runs off a 79B5 power supply.  We have
an 8-card assembly now, and need to add some more lines.  This setup
is located ahead of our MERLIN II system.  Is there some sort of
expansion 'chassis' available?  Getting one through AT&T/U.S. West
would be too expensive (although perhaps necessary if we are going to
expand our system).  Also, is the current power supply going to be
able to provide the juice for the expansion box, or will we need to
get another one?

Also needed: information on real-time SMDR for the Feature Module II
configuration of the MERLIN II (unfortunately, the local AT&T folks
haven't been able to come up with anything).  Are we locked in to
AT&T's equipment or is there some third-party stuff?

Reply via e-mail and I'll summarize.

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

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 05:56:27 PDT
From: Ken Harrenstien <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T TDD Operator Non-Service


Recently I had to make an international TDD call to England, and was
having problems -- instead of a ring or busy signal, I was getting
voice frequencies, which usually means an (unintelligible) recorded
message.  Okay, I thought, this is a job for the TDD operator number
(800/855-1155).

Well, I was calling about 12 midnight PDT and expected no trouble.
Imagine my consternation when that number just rang... and rang... and
rang.  I tried again just to make sure I hadn't misdialed, and this
time let it keep ringing.  I can assure you it is exceedingly boring
work to watch a flashing LED for 5 (yes five) minutes so as not to
miss the fleeting moment when someone answers.

When the operator finally announced her/him/itself, my first question
was why it took so long to get a response.  The answer was "Because of
people like you asking questions like that".  I didn't get the
impression that this was supposed to be funny.  It turns out that
there is only ONE TDD operator on duty, at least at that time, to
serve the entire United States.

The operator did try to place my call, but only said that it "didn't
go through".  No information as to why -- whether it was busy, whether
the trunks were full, whether the number was wrong, nothing. (Yes, I
asked.  I found out afterwards that the number had the wrong country
code!)

Before hanging up, I asked one more question: whether there was
someone I could contact to talk about providing additional staffing.
The curt answer was "No one".

Is it just me, or would this kind of 24-hour "service" boil anyone
else's blood?  If so, who SHOULD be contacted?  It's not as if we TDD
users could vote with our feet and go elsewhere, you know.

Thanks to anyone who can provide some leads...

By unfortunate coincidence, the next day I received yet another
AT&T "Reach Out" promotion.  Since it comes with a business-reply-mail
envelope, I took the liberty of correcting some untruths on the blurb
and sending it back.  Not satisfying enough, however.


Ken

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

From: Al Donaldson <vrdxhq!escom.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones
Date: 8 Aug 90 17:45:04 GMT
Organization: ESCOM Corp., Oakton, VA


Last month I lost dial-tone on my personal phone (PacTel two-line), so
I take it outside and plug it into the service jack and it still
doesn't work, so I figure the line is bad and call C&P.  Heaven knows
I've had several problems over the last three months with the two
business lines that come into my house, and all of them were due to
C&P line problems instead of my equipment.

The maintenance guy shows up, plugs his headset into the jack, finds
dial tone, tells me that my phone is fried ("those two-line phones do
that all the time..."), and charges me $46.

So I call C&P today and ask them to reverse the charge because of past
experience with my business lines (I know, it's kind of weak...)  The
lady checked with her supervisor, and after about five minutes and
confirmation of my two business numbers she came back and told me that
they were going to remove the charge.

Lessons:

#1--When your phone dies, take a DIFFERENT phone outside to check
    your service jack.
#2--Be persistent. :-)

Questions:

#1--I've had two of these damn PacTel FE 5300 phones go bad, one
    was bad when I bought it and this one went bad after a year.
    Is it even worth trying to get this one repaired?
#2--If so, does anyone have a phone number?
#3--If not, should I avoid 2-line phones in general when I buy
    a replacement?

Al

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

Date: Thu, 09 Aug 90 13:20:19 EDT
From: Volkhart Baumgaertner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trouble Getting New Service - Results


In TELECOM DIGEST #492 I described the problems I had getting
telephone service. I wrote:

> I am just about to move, and my new roommate (who is also my
>landlord) had another roommate some time ago who had a phone in his
>own name and apparently still owes the phone company about 140
>Dollars. When I called Southern Bells customer service here in
>Columbia (SC) to order my line, my order was taken, but I was told
>that I could only get my installation if my roommate's former
>roommate paid his debts.

I was asked to post the results of my attempts to get service, and
here is what has happened in the meantime:

First, I tried to find my roommates ex-roommate, which turned out to
be impossible (as i have learned, there is even a warrant out for him
- for what I don't know - , so he disappeared). This did not make a
difference to Southern Bell (I talked to an assistant manager of their
SC state headquarters) who claim that anybody who lived in the place
while the phone was there and had access to it is also responsible for
the bills, whether the phone was in his name and he had signed for it
or not (which was both not the case with my roommate), and accordingly
they said they would not install a phone in ANY name at that address
as long as the bill wasn't paid and my roommate were still living
there.

The PUC confirmed that this practice conforms to their regulations,
and when I called a friend who is a lawyer he said that, legally,
there really is no way to force them to install my phone line; one
could only try to convince them.  I finally had my supervisor at work
call them (I have a summer job at the President's Office at the
University of South Carolina, as network manager of their Novell net,
and I am a graduate assistant during the semesters).  He got them to
install me a line without the ridiculously high deposit of $ 240.-
that they originally wanted, in fact without any deposit.  However,
they said that my roommate would have to make an arrangement with them
within 30 days to pay the open bill, or it would be cut off again.

So, after all, my roommate will actually have to pay his ex-roommate's
bill (after already having given him his share !!), although he did
not sign for the account.  This may be legal - at least in South
Carolina -, and I understand that Southern Bell want to be paid for
the service they provided, but I still don't think this way of forcing
another person than the account holder to pay for it is a fair
business practice; in fact, where I come from (Germany) we call it
blackmail.  But I guess that's just the way it is over here.


Volkhart Baumgaertner    BITNET:    T720019@univscvm
                         INTERNET:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 05:29:37 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  09-Aug-1990 0825" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotel Phone Charges


>A six minute call to central NJ placed after 5pm was $2.81

Well, let's see.  AT&T operator assisted is $1.75 + .1457/minute =
$2.62 for calls in that mileage band, so it's not so bad if you don't
have a calling card.  At least not for six minutes.

But if you had used a calling card the call would have cost $1.67.


john

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #554
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06763;
          10 Aug 90 4:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24335;
          10 Aug 90 2:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27689;
          10 Aug 90 1:33 CDT
Date:     Fri, 10 Aug 90 1:15:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #555
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Aug 90 01:15:34 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 555

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Chris Jones]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Dave Levenson]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Patrick L. Humphrey]
    Re: Roseanne Barr [Paul Wilczynski]
    Re: MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific [Peter da Silva]
    Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [Andrew Peed]
    Re: Motorola Wristwatch Pager [Arnold Robbins]
    Pennies to Heaven [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Date: 9 Aug 90 14:41:15 EDT
Reply-To: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp


In article <[e-mail]>, jbaltz@cunixf (Jerry B. Altzman)
writes:

>[Moderator's Note: Certain people -- a hybrid type of Fundamentalist
>Christian actually -- of which there seem be to several million in the
>United States alone, have long believed that '666' was an evil number,
>based on their reading of selected scripture.

The reference is from Revelations 13:18: "Here is wisdom. Let him that
hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number
of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

Many numerologists have come up with inventive ways to prove that their
particular bete noir has a name which adds up to 666.


Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj


[Moderator's Note: They even picked on poor President Reagan, whose
first, middle and last names all have six letters.  PT]

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Date: 9 Aug 90 19:20:14 GMT
Reply-To: claris!netcom![e-mail]
Organization: UESPA


> In the P&G case, for the
>past decade, P&G has received several hundred cards and letters DAILY
>from people who express concern that (in the words of the rumor) 'the
>chairman of P&G has a pact with the Devil, and shows his love for
>Satan by the arrangement of the stars and ram's head in the corporate
>logo of P&G'. Arranging the stars in the logo in a certain way, you
>see, forms the evil 666. P&G has squelched the rumor several times,
>only to have it start up again. They finally had to drop the corporate
>logo they used for a hundred years, it got so hard to deal with.

One of these fundamentalists once posted his version of the rumor on
our company bulletin board (the old-fashioned kind, not a BBS).  This
version had the P&G Chairman announcing his Satanic affiliation on one
of those late-night talk shows!  I seem to have missed that show.
Anyone see it?

A few years ago, P&G sued the editor of a trailer-park newsletter to
get him to stop reprinting these stories.  The guy wasn't even a
fundamentalist -- he just thought the stories were funny.

Some time back, an underground paper in Santa Cruz printed an article
claiming that the badges worn by local cops were actually hex signs.
I've often wondered if there wasn't something to this.  I mean, where
did the custom of police wearing badges begin, anyway?  One
possibility is that cops wore them to ward off the curses of perps,
back when "Damn you to hell!" had a very literal meaning!

>Where telcos are concerned, subscribers whose phone numbers end in
>X666 have complained bitterly about receiving huge numbers of obscene
>and/or hate calls, accusing them of being Satan worshippers, etc.
>The people spreading the rumor are vicious.  PT]

Or perhaps dumb, like the folks who held Anita Bryant, then well known
for her anti-gay cruasade, responsible for Hurricane Anita.  Or the
folks who miss an eclipse because of the weather and call the
observatories to find out when it's been rescheduled.

I'd think, though, that you'd get a lot more flack for having a 13 in
your number!


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


[Moderator's Note: About a month ago, P&G sued two more people: a man
and his wife in Parsons, KS who were peddling the rumor. P&G has
tracked down the story several times to people who happen to be Amway
distributors ... however Amway corporate flatly denies telling their
distributors to pass along such garbage, and in fact a couple years
ago told their sales force specifically to NOT make such claims. Maybe
its just the nature of people who would peddle Amway door-to-door.
Part of the rumor says the Chairman of P&G appeared on the Phil
Donahue show (that figures! .. in some versions it was O. Winfrey) and
publicly professed his worship of Satan. No one ever actually saw the
show, it was a friend of a relative's friend who saw it.   PT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Date: 10 Aug 90 02:46:31 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Our Moderator writes:

> Where telcos are concerned, subscribers whose phone numbers end in
> X666 have complained bitterly about receiving huge numbers of obscene
> and/or hate calls, accusing them of being Satan worshippers, etc.
> The people spreading the rumor are vicious.  PT]

I met a man on the platform at a commuter rail station here in NJ last
year.  He began looking through the trash in a container near the
canteen.  He found an empty candy-bar box and asked me if I knew what
the UPC bar-code symbol was for.

Trying to be helpful, I told him that it identified the manufacturer
and the product for the automated cash-registers with price-lookup
features.  He launched into a tirade against the manufacturer of the
candy, the manufacturers of cash-registers, and _me_.  He was
convinced that there was a secret way of encoding 666 in binary, and
that Satan was hiding among the bars in the UPC symbol.

Then I told him that there are no 6's in binary; only 0 and 1.  He
told me that he knew better; that his brother knew about these things,
and that there were _hexes_ in binary.  I showed him the decimal
interpretation of the bar-code, printed just below the symbol, as
usual.  As it happened, it contained no 6's.  He calmed down, a bit.

About then, the train arrived!  The number on the side of the first
car was 7666!  He refused to board the train; deciding to wait for the
next one (about 30 minutes, I think).

I changed my mind about 800 service from MCI.  Our best-selling
software product is the MoneyRoom(tm).  They were offering us the
number 1-800-MONEYRM, but unfortunately, that's 800-666-3976, and you
never know what sort of nut will run up our 800 bill over that prefix!


Dave Levenson        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.        UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave


[Moderator's Note: But we know that money is the root of all evil, and
that is why the telephone dial has MNO on the '6' key; so that if you
try to spell out 'money' your real satanic motives will be obvious to
everyone.  :)  I don't know about 800-666, but 312-666 has had its
share of nuts. Checker Taxicab Radio Dispatching had the same
telephone number for over sixty years: From MONroe 3700 to MO-6-3700
and for the last decade, they promoted it as 666-3700. In addition to
a few thousand legitimate calls each day they always got a few dozen
crackpots accusing them of being one of Satan's subsidiaries. A few
years ago they gave it up and now use 312-TAXICAB.   PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 08:07:35 GMT


With the "666" discussion, I thought I'd throw this into the pot: in
the 817 NPA, where did Bell put the 666 prefix?  Waco -- home to
Baylor University -- of course.  Poetic justice, if you ask me...


Patrick L. Humphrey  ([e-mail])
Networking & Computing Systems
Rice University, Houston, Texas


[Moderator's Note: Listen, we went through this about a year ago here,
and people found all these bizarre examples of 666, such as one state,
where it was truly assigned to the Great Satan: the IRS! It was the
federal government centrex in another place, etc.  Here in Chicago,
the '666 North Lake Shore Drive Building' changed its address to 668
with permission of the Postal Disservice due to some important and
large commercial tenant moving in who had nightmares about what might
happen to business when the customers found out.  PT]

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

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 04:15 EST
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roseanne Barr


Peter da Silva <[e-mail]> writes, asking for who to
contact regarding support for Roseanne Barr ...

>(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)

Are you sure the poster was an MCI Mail employee on not an employee of
MCI Telephone?  I don't remember the MCI Mail.

Turns out that MCI Mail wouldn't benefit because of a quirk in the MCI
Mail Fax Dispatch service - you can't send faxes to 800 numbers.  I
doubt that MCIT would see a blip in their earnings as a result of
faxes sent by MCIT indicating a lack of support for Barr.

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 90 21:41:04 GMT


I apologise for confusing Donald E. Kimberlin with an MCI Mail
employee.

I do think that a "democratic" debate that involves one-way messages
via an expensive piece of equipment (a FAX) fails a little in the
"democracy" department. Since it's one-way, it fails in the "debate"
department as well. As a Usenet user, I'm part of a far more
democratic (much smaller capital investment required), far more
widespread (what, a million users?), and for more responsive forum
(two-way beats one-way any day) than any FAX poll.

> 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.

Not without paying MCI for the privilege. I don't own a FAX... in fact
I don't even like the *idea* of FAX. It's an expensive, inefficient,
and clumsy *technological* solution to the *political* problems of
electronic mail.

> He thinks the majority is
> con, but does accept opposing viewpoints ... even at his own expense.

Your message gave no indication that Mr. McGrover was at all
interested in anything but flames.

> Are you that open-minded?

Having had opposing viewpoints shoved down my throat by the media for
the past umpteen days, if I was any more open minded I'd be mainlining
Cloraseptic by now.

>         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.

You know any other Email-FAX gateways I might use? They get enough of
my money on letters to Australia.

>         And to those on this forum who HAVE responded and reacted in
> the sense of opening electronic democracy...

*Opening* electronic democracy? Maybe to the folks with expensive toys
or the ability to mooch off the office FAX machine. 900-number polls
seem more democratic to me.


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

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

From: Andrew Peed <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System
Date: 9 Aug 90 14:02:54 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Chad Fogg) writes:

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

>>Voice:
>>    The system is designed as an entirely digital communications
>>system with 8KHz bandwidth available for each voice channel. Vocoders

>Is this 8KHz sample rate or 8KHz frequency bandwidth?  The former
>would imply a data rate equal to ISDN's B channel (8bits*8KHz= 64000
>bits/sec).  If I understand audio sampling correctly, the frequecy
>range is roughly equal to half the sample rate.

    I assume this is an 8KHz frequency bandwith. Unfortunately, I
can't do more than assume; the one thing I forgot to do when I sent
this press release to Patrick was include a disclaimer. I'm an
employee of the Cellular Infrastructure Division of Motorola, but I
understand that the Iridium project is being handled jointly by the
Government Electronics Group and a new Satellite Communications
business unit. Personally, I know just about as much about Iridium as
you do, based on information in the press release.

>>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.

>2400 bps is kind of a dissapointment when the voice channel is
>operating at 64,000 bps.

    Agreed. Although, I feel inclined to point out that this IS
cellular; to my knowledge, cellular is being primarily used for voice,
since cellular transmission quality is not usually (in my experience,
anyway) clean enough for practical data transmission. Besides, the
LAST thing we need is some goombah trying to fax a document to Glocka
Morra with one hand while steering his car with the other, with a
newspaper propped up on his steering wheel, coffee on the dashboard,
and Walkman in his ears...


Andrew B. Peed         Motorola, Inc.
 ...!uunet!motcid!peed     Cellular Infrastructure Division
[phone]         1501 W.Shure Dr., Arlington Heights, IL, 60074

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Motorola Wristwatch Pager
Date: 9 Aug 90 17:12:34 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta


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

>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.

>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.)

Not that the following has much to do with Telecom, but I seem to
remember some years ago seeing a wrist-watch television by, I think,
Seiko.  It had an LCD screen on a wristband, and a separate small box
for the actual TV tuner electronics.  I think it had an earphone jack,
too.

It didn't seem all that practical, and had a hefty (~ $400) price tag,
but it certainly was an existence proof for TV-on-the-wrist.


Arnold Robbins    AudioFAX, Inc.
2000 Powers Ferry Road, #220 / Marietta, GA. 30067
INTERNET: [e-mail]    Phone: [phone]
UUCP:     emory!audfax!arnold    Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 21:19 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pennies to Heaven
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


        Here's news on the latest offering via 900 service, from the
August 6, 1990 edition of <CommunicationsWEEK>:

                     Just Dial 1-900-230-POPE

        "Delivering messages from the Pope may not have been the most
obvious use for "900" services, that that is exactly what Global
Telecom Ltd. is delivering over the Sprint Communications Co.
network.  Global Telecom, London, is using Sprint Gateways' Voice 900
Service Bureau to deliver messages from Pope Johm internationally.  A
call costs $2 for the first minute and 95 cents for each additional
minute."

Plus, I presume, Caesar's portion added to these prices, which of
course Sprint will bill and deliver unto Caesar directly for you!


[Moderator's Note: If he wanted to get 800 service, I guess MCI would
be out of the question. After all, 800-666-POPE would be a dead
giveaway! :)  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #555
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07658;
          10 Aug 90 5:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01272;
          10 Aug 90 3:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24335;
          10 Aug 90 2:36 CDT
Date:     Fri, 10 Aug 90 1:55:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #556
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 10 Aug 90 01:55:37 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 556

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone/FAX Switches - Where To Get One? [Jerry Durand]
    Re: Eight Digit Phone Numbers? [Jerry Durand]
    Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls [J. Deters]
    Re: Touchtone Detection Question [Jerry Durand]
    Payphones and Drug Dealers [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Telephone Diverters [Mark Foster via David Leibold]
    West/East Germany Reunification [David Leibold]
    Telebit ROM Version [John Higdon]
    TELECOM Readership Report - Other Administrivia [TELECOM Modertator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone/FAX Switches - Where To Get One?
Date: Thu,  9 Aug 90 10:27:58 PDT


In article <[e-mail]>, dynasys![e-mail] (Jesse
W. Asher) asks:

>Does anyone have any recommendations on some place to get this type of
>router?  I too would like to get one - the pick and choose type - to
>route calls to my computer or to be answered by me.  Know where I can
>get one of these?  Thanx much.

The one I used is made by:

        Rainier Technologies Corp.
        (sorry, I don't have a street)
        Redmond, WA  98052

        Model TB-201, Voice/Data Switch

I know of several of these in use and the only problem is if they are
on a bad power line.  The solution is to plug them in to the good EMI
filter you have for your PBX.

If you have any trouble finding the company, please EMAIL me.


Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Eight Digit Phone Numbers?
Date: Thu,  9 Aug 90 10:54:42 PDT


In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom Ohmer)
writes:

> 1-800-CALL-FRED.  <- Made up

> In the above, is the `D' actually required to make the call, or is it
> ignored?

Not only is it not needed, but if you are using a pushbutton phone (or
my PBX) in the pulse-dial mode and you dial an extra digit, you will
disconnect the call!  (This does not apply to all central offices,
only the newer ones.)


Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 21:36:28 GMT
From: "J. Deters" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls
Reply-To: "J. Deters" <dayton![e-mail]>
Organization: Terrapin Transit Authority


For over a year now, I've been getting wrong numbers and messages left
on my AUDIX from people wishing to purchase Minnesota Twins tickets.
My number is [phone], and theirs is [phone].  (Notice
how I don't care if I tell you all what my number is?)  They have some
goofball advertising agency that keeps using my number instead of
theirs.  It's interesting to see a television commercial with your own
number on the screen.  I just asked a guy last week where he saw the
number.  He told me "on the billboard by the Metrodome."  You'd think
someone might evenutally notice this.

I get all kinds of messages left on my box.  Most are short pauses
with hangups.  Some are friendly, some are background conversations
like " ... not sure if it's the right number.  Check it again <click>".
Some are downright abusive, complete with drunken voices swearing at
*me* for not being the Twins.

I called the number, and the Twins general offices trying to rectify
the situation.  They've been zero help.  Since I'm rarely at my desk
and all I have to do is skip by the messages on my machine, I'm not
pursuing the matter any farther.  Instead, I periodically change my
AUDIX greeting to: "Hi.  This is John Deters.  At the tone, please
leave two reasons why the Oakland A's are better than the Minnesota
Twins."  (The usual response?  "Jose" "Canseco".)

Fortunately for me, the Twins are terrible this year, so I am not
receiving just a flood.

Well, I still have some tickets left behind home plate...


J. Deters
INTERNET:  [e-mail]
UUCP:  ...!bungia!dayton!jad

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Touchtone Detection Question
Date: Thu,  9 Aug 90 10:46:27 PDT


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?

The two problems with detecting tones are that you are not allowed to
detect a digit when none is present _AND_ you may not miss or mis-read
a digit that is present no matter what the customer puts on the line
(a lot of my voice-mail boards have been used in 976-xxxx applications
with all sorts of music playing over voice!).  This is NOT easy.  The
boards I am currently working on use a DSP (Digital Signal Processor
[special fast computer]) to first equalize the line, apply auto gain
control, and remove any correlation in the incoming audio to the
outgoing program.  After you do all this, then you use very good
filters and a voting scheme between different methods of detecting the
tone.  This generally works fairly well.

In low cost equipment (less than the cost of the DSP alone), a
hardware chip that was designed for central office use is used.  In a
typical call into a central office, there is never any outgoing
program, the only sounds on the line are static and the tones (your
phone is supposed to turn off the mic when you press a button).  If
these chips hear anything other than the pure tone and dialtone, they
assume you are talking and not pressing a button and disable
detection.

I hope this helps.


Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 21:19 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Payphones and Drug Dealers


        For those who have contributed and been interested in the
issues surrounding payphones and ghettodrug dealing, here's a recap
just published in <Communications News> for August, 1990:

          "Payphones are Newest Battleground in Drug War"

        "Removing or altering pay telephones is becoming a weapon
against drug dealers in California and elsewhere.

        "Dealers in many neighborhoods have turned the phones into
on-street offices, taking orders around the clock.  They prefer
payphones to cellular or home phones because of the anonymity and
difficulty in tracking calls.

        "The Los Angeles Times reports that fed-uip residents are
pressuring telephone companies into doing something.

        "Residents' first choice is the have telephones removed, but
telcos, hardly eager to lose revenue, resist removal.

        "They prefer to alter them so they will not take incoming
calls, or to substitute rotary dials for touchtone.

        "In California, Pacific Bell blocked incoming calls to 1,000
payphones. It operates 120,000 of the total 200,000 in California.
Ten percent of Seattle's payphones are limited to outgoing calls.
Other cities are seeing similar efforts.

        "No one argues that targeting the payphones makes a difference
in the total number of drug sales.  But police say they can see a
change in a neighborhood as soon as drug dealers lose their important
tools.

        "In one area of Los Angeles, police say, drug sales plummeted
80% to 90% after a dozen payphones were removed.

        "In Washington, D.C., Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone removed
37 payphones in various neighborhoods, phones whose yearly revenue
averaged well over $3,500 each.  But the company lost no money by
blocking incoming calls at 113 other phones.

        "Thomas Keane, president of the California Payphone
Association, says there may be an answer in improved technology.

        "Payphones that can be programmed to track calls and give
detailed records could aid police, says Keane.  That would discourage
dealers' heavyuse of the phones."

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

So there you have one summary.  Interesting to note that at some
places, it seems residents have stated they wouldn't miss the payphone
if it means getting rid of dealers, while we've so often assumed that
lower-income areas needed the payphone for a lifeline.  And, of
course, establishing the "technology" to trap and trace calls from
payphones is not a major project to realize, either.

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Diverters
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 23:44:13 EDT


[The following was taken from IMEX's TELECOM echo area, which I
started up for discussing Telephone/Telecommunications in the
Toronto area - inquiries about IMEX or the TELECOM echo may be
made to [e-mail]]

  From: Mark Foster
  Subj: Telephone diverters

I recently purchased a ASAP TF 505 telephone diverter for under
$200.00 this device allows for up t5 different devices to be hooked up
to one incoming line.  As an example you can hook up a FAX, Modem,
answering machine, and two telephones to the diverter.  When you call
into the diverter it answers and gives the caller a false ringing,
while its looks for a FAX CNG signal or a reverse modem detection (I
have not tried these yet).  If it detects these it then diverts the
call to the modem or the fax.

While it is giving the false ring, the caller (or computer) can enter
up to a four digit access code and connect to one of two telephone
output ports (the diverter actually regenerates a ring signal which
will ring a standard 2500 tel set!!).  Finally the fifth output port
can have an answering machine which can give the caller instructions
as to what is happening and how to enter access codes to get different
connew3ctions to the five ports.  In the final scenario the caller
gets the beep from the t(answering machine and can leave a message.

I have connected several phone to the ports and found the device to be
quite acceptable.  Note, if you pick up any device on any of the five
ports, the rest of the ports are disabled.  If anyone has one of these
devices I would be interested in thier applications.

Also I believe this device is available form Hello Direct under the trad
name Autoswitcher.


 * Origin: The Super Continental (Opus 89:480/126)

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: West/East Germany Reunification
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 90 23:48:46 EDT

With the impending fusion of the two Germanys, it will be interesting to
see how the telephone systems will work out. Would the single Germany
be the only country with two country codes? Or are there plans in the
works to run a single country code?

If a single country code is used, it will be interesting to see how
the city routing codes work out. For instance, there is a conflict in
that Dresden (East Germany) has the routing +37 51, while Hannover (West)
uses +49 511 (according to Toronto phone book info). The 51 and 511
city codes would conflict under a single country code. How does this
get sorted out? Also, there's the matter of a single Berlin, now served
by +37 2 and +49 30.

Anyone have any info on the phone progress in West/East Germany?

--

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

Subject: Telebit ROM Version
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 9 Aug 90 22:46:44 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


This Telebit Trailblazer+ ROM thing appears to be of interest to a lot
of people. There has been a lot of mail from people who are curious
concerning the version of firmware that will "fix" the Sprint problem.

I have just installed the firmware in the Trailblazers that talk long
distance. An "ATN?" reveals:

Version BC5.10A

Normally I leave the speakers off to keep from going cu-coo, but a test
listen reveals a tone for a couple of seconds before the traditional
"bleep-blop". When the modem calls out, it inserts a few extra tones
during the handshake sequence.

Normally, things are rockin' here twenty-four hours a day, but
naturally tonight it is completely dead. The ten or so calls that have
happened in the past hour seem to have had no difficulty. I have
re-enabled Sprint and will see if all this improves that situation. So
far, so good, but I would have preferred to have my normal traffic beat
the hell out of the modems so that I could quickly see if I should hang
on to the old EPROMs.

I'll report any significant developments.


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

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 00:03:22 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM Readership Report - Other Administrivia


I thought some of you would find the following information quite
interesting. In recent months, comp.dcom.telecom moved up in the
monthly ratings from 142nd place to 101st place (out of over 600
newsgroups listed).

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

        +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
        |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
        |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
        |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
        |     |     |      |     +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
        |     |     |      |     |      +-- Crossposting percentage
        |     |     |      |     |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/reader
        |     |     |      |     |      |    |      +-- Share: % of newsreaders
        |     |     |      |     |      |    |      |   who read this group.
        V     V     V      V     V      V    V      V
101  32000   784   91%   766 1564.1     0%  0.07   3.3%  comp.dcom.telecom
   ......
   ......
610    900    22    8%     5    4.7     0%  0.00   0.0%  alt.fan.dice-man
611    770    19   16%     8   10.3     0%  0.00   0.0%  rec.sport.snowboarding

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

Undoubtedly, this increase to 32,000 readers of each issue is due in
large part to the quality of messages you all send me for publicaiton
each day, and for that, I say thanks. Of course, the figures above are
only for Usenet, and do not include the several hundred names on the
mailing list; the several independent BBS' which post TELECOM Digest
for their readers; the FIDO or Bitnet readers, or the subscribers via
MCI Mail, ATT Mail, Net Exchange and Compuserve (where the Digest goes
only to email boxes and not the general Compuserve community.)

For next:  IBM employees can now receive TELECOM Digest via an
exploder address set up to receive/redistribute the Digest at ibm.com
locations. For information, or to be added to the list, contact David
Singer <[e-mail]>. (This is NOT the exploder address!)

Another redistribution point has been started in Korea. For
information on this contact Taeha Park <[e-mail]>

Two special issues this weekend:  Len Rose has kindly supplied us with
a copy of his formal indictment. It is large, with many counts and
allegations by the government, and will require an entire issue of the
Digest. If Jim Thomas supplies any commentary (hint! hint!) it will be
included.  Don Kimberlin has sent a lengthy essay on ship-to-shore
type radio services, and it will also require an entire issue. Both of
these will be transmitted Saturday afternoon or evening.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #556
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19747;
          11 Aug 90 3:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12844;
          11 Aug 90 1:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08485;
          11 Aug 90 0:46 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 Aug 90 0:39:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #557
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Aug 90 00:39:21 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 557

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Thesis on Caller ID [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Gosh, There's a Lot of Acronyms Here! [Josh Muskovitz]
    AT&T Reach Out America Plan [Wayne Scott]
    AT&T Reach Out America -- The Fine Print [Steve Friedl
    Mass. to MCI: Knock it Off [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Pinging Cellular Phones [John R. Covert]
    Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [David Leibold]
    Basic Questions [Dennis G. Rears]
    200/201 Exchange in BC Area Code 604 [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Aug 90 21:19 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Thesis on Caller ID
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


        Amidst all the <sturm und drang> over Caller ID, a voice that
finally made the kind of sense I needed to hear occurred on a talk
program here a few days ago.

        As soon as I heard it expressed that way, I had to tumble in
favor of Caller ID.  Now, several days later, it still makes the kind
of sense that tells me some of you will appreciate it, too.

        I have lost the source, but it was a professor of Ethics and
Logic from a Pennsylvania college who made it so clear.

        What he said was that the argument in favor of Caller ID is
the long-established principle that a visitor to your home loses all
HIS rights to privacy when he comes to your premises.

        That is to say, you sure have a beef if somebody walks in the
door of your private quarters without first Knocking (or ringing your
bell!).  And you have every right to demand, "Who's there?"

        At that point, you still have every right to decide whether or
not to let them into your private space.

        From this it follows that unidentified telephone callers
should have no more right of free access to your private premises or
to the private space between your ears than does the caller at your
door.

        As certain elements of our society have grown increasingly
abusive in failing to police themselves, our legislators have tried to
offer legal surcease, but the real lack of positive identification of
the abusers hinders any enforcement.  Example: Florida law has for
some time required telemarketers to identify themselves, their
organization, and their purpose within 30 seconds of opening
conversation with you, and then at that point ask you if you wish to
proceed.

Well, I can honestly say that only a minority of the telemarketing
calls I get have any identity that would let me tell the Consumer
Complaints Division who the heck it was, anyway.  Obviously, the
illegal ones are totally unidentifiable, and with today's low loss,
noise free trunks, they could be calling from Timbuctou, for all I
know.

        And, of course, the really abusive, harassing callers are
always completely unidentified.

        So, taken on balance, I have to agree with the professor's
logic and say I will agree to give up my anonymity to sales offices
when I call, just so I might get a shot at the real abusers. What I
might suffer in return from sales people is trivial in my estimation
to what has gone beyond a joke in telephone barbarism here in Florida.

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

From: Josh Muskovitz <cditi![e-mail]>
Subject: Gosh, There's a Lot of Acronyms Here!
Date: 9 Aug 90 21:02:52 GMT
Organization: CDI Technologies Inc., Grand Rapids, MI


I've only been following comp.dcom.telecom for a short while now, and
I think I've done pretty well understanding at least some of what is
being discussed, but all of these acronyms (POTS, CO, COCOT, etc.)
confuse me.  Is there a central glossary repository somewhere?  Could
someone send me something to help me understand more of this?  [insert
any other related questions here]?

And, of course ... Thanks in advance.


Josh Muskovitz
Computer Design, Inc.

josh@uunet!cditi

Disclaimer:  My employer doesn't even appro-  >ack<  [message terminated]

[Moderator's Note: I would refer you to three files in the Telecom
Archives which will assist you: glossary.acronyms, glossary.txt, and
glossary.phrack.acronyms. You can get there using anonymous ftp
commands: ftp lcs.mit.edu, then cd telecom-archives.    PT]

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

From: Wayne Scott <rruxc![e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Reach Out America Plan
Date: 10 Aug 90 05:35:04 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research


I've been subscribing to the AT&T ROA Plan for several months now and
I'm not sure that I'm saving any money.  I figure that if AT&T
*REALLY* wants to provide good rates, they would just do it.  Why
should I have to subscribe to a special plan to save money?  AT&T
tries to sell the plan so hard that it MUST be benefiting them more
than the consumer.  What's the general opionion out there?  Is it
worth it or not?

Thank you,

Wayne Scott

[e-mail]

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

From: Steve Friedl <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Reach Out America -- The Fine Print
Date: 10 Aug 90 06:33:10 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


I just got my AT&T Reach Out America "Subscriber Update", and it has
the traditional hype trying to sell me what I am already getting.  In
the details of the plan, however, I noticed some interesting fine
print:

         --------------------------------------------------------
        The Basic Plan

        A full hour of weekend and night calls (all day Saturday,
        Sunday until 5PM, and Sunday through Friday from 10PM to
        8AM) -- all for just $7.15 a month.  Call all across
        America -- including Alaska, Hawaii***, Puerto Rico, even
        the U.S. Virgin Islands for the same low price.
        Additional hours cost just $6.60 each [+].

        *** For Hawaii residents: Reach Out America Plan calls to
        Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are available
        only to those subscribers who live in areas where the
        local telephone company has asked customers to select a
        long distance company.

    [+] Pending FCC approval
     --------------------------------------------------------

This looks to me like Hawaii residents only get the good deal on calls
to P.R. if they use AT&T because they want to, not if they have to.
What percentage of Hawaii has equal access?


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

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 13:14:49 -0400
From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mass. to MCI: Knock it off


{Middlesex News}, Framingham, Mass., 8/10/90

By Adam Gaffin
NEWS STAFF WRITER

     State officials want MCI Telecommunications Corp. to explain why
a growing number of residents have apparently had their long-distance
service switched to MCI without their permission.

     The state Department of Public Utilities now gets an average of
one complaint a day, and most of them are about MCI, department
Commissioner Bernice McIntyre said Thursday. She said some people were
apparently signed up for MCI after ``confusing statements'' from MCI
solicitors that made it sound as if they were answering a
questionnaire, not ordering a new type of phone service.

     ``It's definitely an MCI-related problem,'' McIntyre said, adding
complaints started in early 1989, when the company began an aggressive
marketing effort.

     MCI officials could not be reached for comment yesterday, but
said recently that if unauthorized switching is happening, it is by
mistake and represents only isolated cases. Colleen Broderick, a
manager at MCI corporate headquarters in Washington, D.C., said
recently that the company would not want the ill will and bad
publicity caused by deliberately switching people against their
wishes.

     McIntyre and other state utilities regulators will meet with MCI
officials on Tuesday to discuss unauthorized switching, known in the
industry as ``slamming.'' McIntyre will also ask the company to
continue its current practice of not charging residents for any
long-distance calls they made while unknowingly tied to MCI.

     Kathie Kneff, chief of the Federal Communications Commission's
informal-complaints division, said most of the unauthorized-switching
complaints she has seen in recent months from across the country are
about MCI.

     New England Telephone, which actually makes the change in a
customer's long-distance service, requires companies to obtain written
authorization, but never asks to see it unless a customer complains,
spokeswoman Roberta Clement has said.

     Rod Oehley of Hopkinton said he was called by MCI saleswomen
three times in June and that each time he told them he did not want to
switch.  When he got a letter from MCI a month later, he said, he
assumed it was just another plea and threw it out. But he learned it
was actually a bill when he got a demand notice a week after that
threatening to have his bill turned over to a collection agency if he
did not pay up for some long-distance calls.

      Oehley said he called MCI, where he got a supervisor who agreed
to switch his service back to AT&T but still demanded his money -
until he threatened to call the Attorney General's office. ``I haven't
heard from them since,'' he said.

      ``If I get a bill I intend to do the same thing,'' Gene Buchman
of Framingham said. Buchman said he was called by an MCI solicitor
twice.  ``I basically told them to get lost,'' he recalled. Then, he
got a letter from New England Telephone telling him his switch from
AT&T to MCI had been successfully completed.

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 08:09:57 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  10-Aug-1990 1055" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pinging Cellular Phones


John Gilmore writes:

> The US cellular telephone standard defines a way to "ping" a cellular
> phone without making it ring.
> If I ever get a cellular phone, this 'ping' will be one of the first
> things I reprogram...

No you won't.  It's not a programmable feature on most phones.  You see,
the way incoming calls work is as follows:

    1. All cell sites send "NPA NXX-XXXX, please report".  This is
        what you called a 'ping'.
    2. Your phone responds.  It does not ring.
    3. The cell site which hears your response sets up the call.

If the call can't be set up (for any number of reasons, the most
obvious being that the cell site which heard your response is out of
channels), your phone never rings.  Obviously, if "they" want to track
your whereabouts, they just do step one, wait for your phone to
respond, and do nothing else.  You could only disable this feature by
disabling all incoming calls.

Dave Levenson writes:

>If you re-program this feature, you will probably be unable to receive
>incoming calls when you're roaming.

Dave, you're talking about a different feature: autologin.  This is
the feature that causes your phone to identify itself when it travels
into a new service area (new system ID).  It, too, is done on request,
but the request is constantly being sent along with the system id
information, not as a specific request to a specific phone.

If "they" are out to get you, "they" would certainly not rely on this
feature to track you, since you only log in each time you cross a
system ID boundary.  "They" would arrange for your phone to receive
incoming 'pings' but never go to the final step of starting ringing.

If you don't want your location tracked, don't turn on your phone.


john

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 0:15:30 EDT


Here's a challenge for the TELECOM Digest readers ... what is the
fastest pulse-dialable number in working order?

In North America, the first choice would be [phone] (there
seems to be a 211 prefix in 212 according to one source). Failing
that,

2. [phone]    and 3. [phone]
(but neither 213 nor 312 seem to have a 211 prefix)

Then, there are: 212 311 1111, 212 221 1111, 212 212 1111 (there does
seem to be a 212-212 nxx!), 212 211 2111, 212 211 1211, 212 211 1121,
and 212 211 1112.

If none of those work, then there are 81 possible more combinations
after that...

Don't cheat by suggesting 411!! :-)


[Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Tribune} classified ad-takers receive
calls on 312-222-2222, which is certainly not the 'fastest' but is
very quick and easy to remember.   PT]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 14:20:54 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Basic Questions About Telephones


   I just had a second line installed in my house.  I had to do some
of the wiring which is now finished.  I do have some basic questions
that came out of it though:

   It seems as if each telephone cable contains four wires (red,
green, black, and yellow).  For one line only the red and green wires
are used.  The black and yellow wires are only used for the second
line.  If only one line is installed in a jack why do the yellow and
black wires have to be attached?  I suspect it doesn't.

   The modular jack that goes into the phone has four wires in it. Why
is that, if only the red and green are required for service?  Just in
case you have a two line phone?

  Why is the jack that goes from the telephone headset to the
telephone a different size than the jack that goes from the phone to
the wall jack?  Is it to idiotproof the process? Also why four wires
into the headset?  Does the phone itself do anything to the signals
before it sends it to the headset?  If the proper size jack was put on
the headset could you plug that into the wall jack and recieve calls?

  What do the two wires (red and green or yellow and black) carry?  Is
one postive and negative like electrical wires?

  In the case of my second line I bought a double wall phone outlet.  I
installed the first line (R&G) to the top outline and installed the
second (B&Y) line to the bottom outlet.  The first line worked the
second did not. The second line was live as I have a jack wired right
into at the NIU. I then disconnected the wires from the NIU for the first
line and reconnected them to the NIU for the second.  That got the second
line working.  That says to me that there must be something physically
wrong with the Yellow or Black wires.   That seems strange to me as all
four wires are in the same cable and if there was a physical break in the
cable it would affect all the wires, not just one or two.  Any thoughts
of this?

  Thanks for any help.


Dennis

P.S.  Does anybody know the number for ringback for 609-871-XXXX?

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: 200/201 Exchange in BC Area Code 604
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 0:11:56 EDT


Looks like BC Tel has interchangeable prefixes, at least unofficially
  ... this was part of a message from Dan Fandrich recently...

  Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 90 23:25:00 EDT
  To:     woody <[e-mail]>
  Message-ID: <1552*[e-mail]>
  Subject: Re: Area Code 604 chart - please update archives version

I was curious about your mention of the 200 and 201 exchanges, so I tried
them out.  Although my email address is in Manitoba, I live in B.C.
(604-850 to be more precise, served by a GTD-5).  Dialing 1-604-200/1-xxxx
gives me a "Your call cannot be completed as dialed" message, which happens
with every other number I try dialing with 1-604-nnx-xxxx.  1-200-0000
gives me "The number  you have reached is not in service.  This is a
recording from the 2 2 exchange."  1-201-0000 gives me "The number you
have reached is not in service.  This is a recording from Mutual DS-4."
However, 1-201-9999 rings and rings and rings with no intercept.  Also,
suffixing a # after these numbers only results in quicker ringing or
intercept on the 201 numbers -- the 200 numbers are short to begin with.

(end of message)
                        ------------------

I also checked this out a bit (without actually connecting to anything
other than the mentioned not-in-service recordings) and it seems that
604-200 is based in what has been referred to as the CAstle exchange
(for "22"). That is the one that serves the University of British
Columbia part of Vancouver. Meanwhile, 604-201 is in the big downtown
exchange, the MUtual DS-4 where the 68x exchanges (among others) are
found.

Still, it is a bit uncertain as to what BC Tel might be up to with all
this.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #557
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20811;
          11 Aug 90 4:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19563;
          11 Aug 90 2:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12844;
          11 Aug 90 1:51 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 Aug 90 1:33:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #558
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Aug 90 01:32:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 558

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T 800 Directory [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: AT&T 800 Directory [Will Martin]
    Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe [William Randolph Franklin]
    Dial 1-800 ... For Bellsouth `Secrets' [Computerworld via Colin Plumb]
    Air Force Phreak Pleads Guilty [Computerworld via Colin Plumb]
    Home Direct 800 Numbers From Canada [Marcel Mongeon]
    800 Service Instate -- Good Deal or Not? [Steve Elias]
    Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [John Decatur]
    Re: More ANI Fun! (Not Fun From a/c 913) [Michael P. Deignan]
    Re: Sprint Billing Practice [Joel B. Levin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 11:03 EDT
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 800 Directory


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lars
Poulsen) writes:

> This is NOT a
> complete directory of 800 numbers, nor even of ATT's 800 numbers. This
> is a directory of "selected, consumer-oriented ATT-based 800 numbers"
> that were willing to pay to get included. What a waste of trees.

In a "Dear Customer" letter on page (A), "Because some toll-free
numbers are for non-public purposes, not every AT&T number could be
listed in this edition.  Only businesses authorizing publication of
its AT&T number could be included in this national directory."

I've actually used it on occasion, nonetheless.  I live in a fairly
small town and by using the "yellow pages" section I'm able to do some
comparison shopping fairly easily.  I've actually bought from it.

I also use it for looking up "tourist bureaus."  I've found some of
them hard to find thru 555-1212 because I don't know exactly what to
ask for; with the directory I can skim the listings.

I've even used the white pages for looking up numbers of companies
that you just know will be in there (based on Lars' above criteria).


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 12:44:55 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 800 Directory


 From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>

>I get it [the AT&T 800 Directory] for free, too, and always promptly throw
>it out. ... it is a directory of "selected, consumer-oriented ATT-based 800
>numbers" that were willing to pay to get included. What a waste of trees.

In these days of all the brouhaha about recycling, I'm surprised you
admit to throwing the directory away. After all, if it is a waste to
you, it may be of worth to someone else. Drop it off at your local
public library. If that is not feasible or too out-of-the-way, at
least leave it at work, at a laundromat, or by a public phone
somewhere so that somebody has a chance to find it and take it. It is
doubly a "waste of trees" to get something you don't need and just
pitch it instead of making some effort to pass it on to somewhere
where it might be used.


Will Martin

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?
Date: 10 Aug 90 17:40:54 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sergio
Gelato) writes:

> guess).  However, you should still be able to say "I never called
> anyone in exchange YYYY on that day", in the same way as you can tell
> a US telephone company "I never called (XXX)XXX-XXXX".

In the U.S. you can claim: "I never called anybody at [phone].
They can look up the records for calls originated by the subscriber
whose number is [phone] and see if they've ever called you.
That's known as "checking returns" and is routinely done in an attempt
to see if your claim is reasonable.  If they called you, it's less
likely that you never called them.  I guess in France, they would have
to check returns on several hundred numbers, depending upon how many
of the digits are omitted from the billing "detail" records.


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: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 10 Aug 90 18:49:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ge Weijers)
asks about calling an 800 number from Europe.

>[Moderator's Note: About all you can do at this point is call the
>appropriate Directory Assistance Bureau and get the 'regular' number,
>then place an toll call.

Not any more.  AT&T's Dial Direct (or whatever) will call at least
some 800 numbers from Europe.  I think they charge the regular amount:
$4 plus $1/minute, regardless of the time of day.  I haven't tried
MCI's Call America, which is about the same price; they might do 800
numbers also.

Contrary to the ads not all the operators for this service speak
fluent English, but they are understandable.

These numbers are not listed in foreign phonebooks in any place I've
looked, so be sure to take them with you, or failing that look in a
copy of the IHT.


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

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial 1-800 ... For Bellsouth `Secrets'
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 1990 21:41:07 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


{Computerworld}, August 6, 1990, Vol. XXIV, No. 32, Page 8.

Dial 1-800...for Bellsouth `Secrets'

  BY MICHAEL ALEXANDER
       CW STAFF

CHICAGO --- The attorney for Craig Neidorf, a 20-year-old electronic
newsletter editor, said last week that he plans to file a civil
lawsuit against Bellsouth Corp. as a result of the firm's
``irresponsible'' handling of a case involving the theft of a computer
text file from the firm.

Federal prosecutors dismissed charges against Neidorf four days into
the trial, after the prosecution witnesses conceded in
cross-examination that much of the information in the text was widely
available.

Neidorf, the co-editor of ``Phrack,'' a newsletter for computer
hackers, was accused by federal authorities of conspiring to steal and
publish a text file that detailed the inner workings of Bellsouth's
enhanced 911 emergency telephone system across none states in the
southeast [CW, July 30].

``What happened in this case is that the government accepted lock,
stock, and barrel everything that Bellsouth told them without an
independent assessment.'' said Sheldon Zenner, Neidorf's attorney.

One witness, a Bellsouth service manager, acknowledged that detailed
information about the inner workings of the 911 system could be
purchased from Bellsouth for a nominal fee using a toll-free telephone
number.

A Bellcore security expert who was hired by Bellsouth to investigate
intrusions into its computer systems testified that the theft of the
file went unreported for nearly a year.

Last week, a Bellsouth spokesman said the firm's security experts
delayed reporting the theft because they were more intent on
monitoring and preventing intrusions into the company's computer
systems.  ``There are only so much resources in the data security
arena, and we felt that it was more urgent to investigate,'' he said.

He also disputed assertions that the document was of little value.
``It is extremely proprietary and contained routing information on 911
calls through our none-state territory as well as entry points into
the system,'' he said.

A quick ending:

The case unraveled after Robert Riggs, a prosecution witness who had
already pleaded guilty for his role in the theft of the document,
testified that he had acted alone and Neidorf had merely agreed to
publish the text file in ``Phrack.''

Neidorf and his attorney agreed to a pretrial diversion, a program
under which the government voluntarily dismisses the indictment but
could reinstate it if Neidorf commits a similar crime withing a year.

The case has stirred up national debate on the rights of computer
users in the age of electronic information.  The Electronic Frontier
Foundation, a civil liberties group set up by Mitch Kapor, founder of
Lotus Development Corp., may participate in the filing of a lawsuit
against Bellsouth, and Terry Gross, an attorney at the New York law
firm of Rabinowitz Boudin Standard Krinsky & Lieberman.

``The Electronic Frontier Foundation is concerned by the
irresponsibility of Bellsouth of claiming from the outset that this
was confidential information when it should have known that it was
not,'' Gross said.

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Air Force Phreak Pleads Guilty
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 1990 21:41:07 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


[Moderator's Note: Also passed along from a recent issue of
{Computerworld} by Colin Plumb.   PT]

Too much access:

PENSACOLA, Fla. --- A former U.S. Air Force airman, alleged to be a
member of the Legion of Doom, pleaded guilty last week in U.S.
District Court to posession of at least 15 access codes with intent to
defraud.

Peter J. Salzman, 19, an airman at Elgin Air Force Base, used an Apple
Computer, Inc. IIE to enter telephone systems operated by Bellsouth
Corp., Bell Atlantic Corp. and other carriers, said Stephen Preisser,
assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Florida.

A device that logs outgoing calls indicated that Salzman bas ``burning
the wires'' without paying for the telephone calls, Preisser said.

The airman is alleged to be a member of the Legion of Doom, a group of
hackers under investigation by federal and state authorities.
Authorities searching Salzman's home uncovered correspondence that
indicated Salzman was a mamber of the group, Preisser said.

Salzman will be sentenced on Oct. 5 and could receive a maximum of 10
years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine.


            MICHAEL ALEXANDER

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Home Direct 800 Numbers From Canada
Date: 10 Aug 90 16:26:10 GMT
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


Some time ago, I wrote that I was looking for a list of 800 numbers
for the inward direct service for as many countries as possible.
Believe it or not, I was actually able to get this information from
Telecom Canada.  I present the list below.

You may note that there are presently no numbers for the United
States.  I would appreciate anyone in the States who can give me the
direct numbers for the different carriers (ATT MCI etc.) to do so.
Remember the number has to be the one for Canada.

Austria        1-800-463-6352       Belgium        1-800-363-4032
Denmark        1-800-363-4045       Finland        1-800-363-4035
France        1-800-363-4033         Italy        1-800-363-4039
Netherlands    1-800-363-4031       Norway        1-800-363-4047
Sweden        1-800-463-8129       U.K.        1-800-363-4144

Brazil        1-800-463-6656       Chile        1-800-463-2492
Colombia    1-800-463-9587       Guatemala        1-800-463-3180

Bermuda        1-800-363-4099

Australia    1-800-663-0683       Hong Kong        1-800-663-0685
Japan        1-800-663-0681       S. Korea        1-800-663-0682
Macao        1-800-463-0809       New Zealand    1-800-663-0684

Philippines    1-800-665-6737       Singapore        1-800-665-6002


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: 800 Service Instate -- Good Deal or Not?
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 09:38:56 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


 From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>

>I don't know if the per-minute rates for residential 800 service are
>different from those for business 800 service, but my AT&T service
>costs $.25/minute for in-Massachusetts (less for other states).  At
>that rate, it may not be your best deal.

Well, my Sprint account is "all business", even though the 800 number
rings into a residence phone.  All Sprint rates are the same for both
residence and business service, although the volume discounts migh be
a bit better for businesses.

They charge me 11 cents to about 19 cents per minute, depending on the
time of day, whether the call is from Massachusetts or California.
With the six second incremental billing, many calls are one cent, and
many more are four cents!  That's surely a good deal -- the only
problem is the $10 monthly fee.


eli

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

From: John Decatur KA2QHD <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?
Date: 9 Aug 90 02:50:56 GMT
Organization: KA2QHD - OCEAN NJ


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.    ........

Ack.  No it doesn't.  Sorry John.  The IXC receives only the billing
number via carrier interconnection signaling.  The IXC never receives
the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC
to deliver to the called party the billing number.

All the stories about the ANI identifier number being posted should
confirm this -- all those weird numbers (the BBN number from 25 years
ago, an undialable IBT number, switchboards, and various undialable
numbers) are all billing numbers for various centrex groups, PBXes,
etc.


David G Lewis        Teleport Communications -- New York
+1.718.983.2079        Engineer -- New Technologies
!att!tsdiag!ka2qhd!deej

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!  (Not Fun From a/c 913)
Date: 11 Aug 90 00:28:44 GMT
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI  02917


In article <[e-mail]>  [e-mail]
(Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence) writes:

>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?

I've experienced something similar.

My carrier is US Sprint. When I dial the number, I get some "clicks"
(which I presume is my call being switched onto a LD Trunk of some
sort...) and then ... nothing ... Dead air. I've even waited up to 60
seconds to see if it would take that long to finish the connection.


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: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Billing Practice
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:10:29 EDT


 From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

>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.

Not necessarily.  I still don't understand what happened exactly, but:
I was visiting my parents in Tucson and I called home.  Forgetting
that they default to Sprint, I placed the call using my AT&T Universal
number.  After entering it, a Sprint operator came on and requested
the number.  I gave it again and he told me it was a number private to
AT&T and he couldn't use it.  I tried my New England Telco number
(which has worked at payphones with all three main carriers and a
number of smaller ones), but the one that worked was my FON card
number!

If I had entered my NET number at the bong in the first place, all this
might never have happened.


JBL

[e-mail]     ...!bbn!levin    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #558
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21551;
          11 Aug 90 5:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29990;
          11 Aug 90 3:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19563;
          11 Aug 90 2:55 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 Aug 90 2:27:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #559
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Aug 90 02:26:26 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 559

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [John Limpert]
    Re: Telephone Diverters [Dave Levenson]
    Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues [Mary Corey]
    Re: Roseanne Barr [John R. Covert]
    Re: Maintainence Calls, Two-line Phones [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: West/East Germany Reunification [Carl Moore]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Ian G. Batten]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Carl Moore]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone [Jeffrey Jonas]
    Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [Bob Yasi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance?
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:20:57 EDT


 From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>

>I was recently in Cincinatti, Ohio & needed a number from directory
>assistance. 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? . . .

>[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]

As has been pointed out, this works in a lot of places.  Around here,
at least in southern New Hampshire, it's mandatory.  Directory
assistance for anywhere in the state is 1-555-1212.  And the -1212 is
mandatory, too.  Repair service for NET lines is listed as 1-555-1611
for residence and coin phones, 1-555-1515 for business phones
(separate numbers are given for the towns with independent telcos, of
course).

Incidentally, three normal looking 1+ numbers are given for reaching
the business office, with the notation that there is no charge for the
call.  This must be done with special software to remove charges to
those particular numbers, since there is nothing special about them
(e.g.  1-622-6233).  In fact, when I call from work I call collect; if
the line is answered by machine it begins with an instruction to long
distance operators that all collect calls are accepted.


JBL

[e-mail]    ...!bbn!levin    [phone]

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

From: John Limpert <gronk![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System
Date: 10 Aug 90 19:45:47 GMT
Organization: BFEC/GSFC Greenbelt, Maryland


[e-mail] (Kolkka Markku Olavi) writes:

>Does anybody know what kind of compression they plan to use to squash
>8kHz bandwith sound through a 4800bps channel?

The original article said that the system used vocoders, not telco
style A/D converters.  A vocoder (voice encoder/decoder) can operate
at very low data rates.  The Texas Instruments Speak and Spell toy
used vocoder technology (linear predictive coding) to fit digitized
voice into the toy's ROM chip.  A vocoder uses a model of the human
vocal tract to transmit speech.  It continually adjusts the model to
approximate the speech input and periodically transmits the parameters
to the decoder on the other end.

The receiving vocoder uses the parameters to synthesize speech.
Vocoders do not transmit a waveform, they transmit a description of
their vocal input.  This can include energy in various frequency
bands, whether the speech is voiced (ah sound) or unvoiced (sh sound),
dominant pitch etc.  Although vocoders can be efficient, they are not
without problems.  At low data rates the output can sound like Donald
Duck and you can confuse the vocoder by talking too fast.  You may not
be able to verify the identity of the caller by the sound of their
voice.


John Limpert        [e-mail]    uunet!n3dmc!gronk!johnl

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Diverters
Date: 10 Aug 90 23:23:05 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, contact![e-mail] (woody)
writes:

> I recently purchased a ASAP TF 505 telephone diverter for under
> $200.00 this device allows for up t5 different devices to be hooked up
> to one incoming line.  As an example you can hook up a FAX, Modem,
> answering machine, and two telephones to the diverter.  When you call
> into the diverter it answers and gives the caller a false ringing,
> while its looks for a FAX CNG signal or a reverse modem detection (I
> have not tried these yet).  If it detects these it then diverts the
> call to the modem or the fax.

What in the world is "reverse modem detection"?  The originating modem
remains silent, expecting answer-tone from the answering modem?  Does
this box route silent callers to its modem port?  Or does it only work
with some non-standard modems that make noise while awaiting answer?

As far as I know, some fax machines, in some originating modes,
generate the CNG tone when they're awaiting answer.  I know of no
non-fax modems that would work with the device described above.  Could
somebody enlighten me?


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: Ms Mary Corey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues
Date: 10 Aug 90 22:45:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ms Mary Corey)
Organization: Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto


In article <[e-mail]> contact![e-mail] (woody)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 509, Message 4 of 10

>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.

I've read several articles about this case, but none of them have
stated information about the quality and duration of these recordings.
However they do say that a scanner was used.  My impression is that it
is not possible or very difficult to identify and deliberately record
a particular cellular subscribers phone conversations, nor is it
easy/possible to follow that conversation from cell to cell.  Can this
be explained, is it legal, or is the cellular stuff just a smokescreen
to hide an (illegal) wiretap?

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 11:36:14 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  10-Aug-1990 1435" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Roseanne Barr


Have you ever thought that this guy taking FAX messages on his 800
number might be compiling a list of FAX machines he could sell to
telemarketers?

As to Roseanne Barr's performance -- gripe at the promoter of
the event; not at Roseanne.  If you hire a comedienne of the grotesque
to sing the National Anthem, you get what you paid for.


john

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

Subject: Re: Maintainence Calls, Two-line Phones
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 03:44:35 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


vrdxhq!escom.com![e-mail] (Al Donaldson) writes:

[Re: his PacTel 2-line phone has died]

> Questions:
>
> #3--If not, should I avoid 2-line phones in general when I buy
>     a replacement?

I wouldn't think so. Just get a more reliable two-line phone. My
Panasonic KX-T3145 has been giving me very good service for the last
year. The only problem I've had was dead batteries, but that was
really my fault.  I packed the phone, with batteries still installed,
and shipped it across the country. Even so, the dialer didn't lose
memory, although speakerphone operation became somewhat erratic.

The 3145 has more dialer memory than I have been able to fill,
speakerphone, hold and conferencing. The audio quality is very good.
(Much better, in fact, than my previous Uniden one-line feature phone)

OB Disclaimer: I am only a satisfied customer... no connection to
Panasonic. (but I'd buy another of their phones without compunction)


    Roy M. Silvernail
    now available at:
 cybrspc![e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:15:48 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: West/East Germany Reunification


(In this message, country code is understood to be 49, for West
Germany.)  Woody <contact![e-mail]> wrote of city code 511
for Hannover, but note that three other city codes of form N11 were
changed to two-digit codes:

311, now 30, for (W.) Berlin
611, now 69, for Frankfurt
811, now 89, for Munich

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

From: Ian G Batten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Organization: BT Fulcrum, Birmingham
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 14:16:11 GMT


On several PABXen I've used in the UK, ``999'' --- the normal
emergency number --- is replaced with ``666''.  The claim is that
otherwise ``999'' would be ``9999'' (9 for an outside line) so (1)
you'd have to compete with the rest for a line when it's busy and (2)
call-barring gets confused.  But I know better :-)


ian

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 10:24:54 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People


I also recall 666 being discussed a while back in Telecom, and I have
a printout (not right in front of me) which has lists of some prefixes
666.  I have no plans to bother you or the Digest with that stuff
again.  I do know of 666 in Cockeysville, Maryland (near Baltimore;
area 301) and 215-666 in Valley Forge, PA (near Phila.) and I do not
know of "devil" etc. stuff going on with either of those.

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Date: 10 Aug 90 17:08:18 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jerry B. Altzman) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Certain people -- a hybrid type of Fundamentalist
> Christian actually -- of which there seem be to several million in the
> United States alone, have long believed that '666' was an evil number,
> based on their reading of selected scripture. These people get NASTY
> when they think they have found an agent of Satan somewhere, based on
> the use by that person of some number involving '666'. It could be
> part of a street address or telephone number.

A little more detail on this, so that you'll have a better understanding
and can point out the ignorance that these sorts are operating under,
the next time your 666 phone number attracts unwanted attention.

Revelation 13:18, in describing the Antichrist (in terms that sound
much like a modern totalitarian state) says:

    Here is wisdom.  Let him who has understanding calculate the
    number of the beat, for the number is that ofa  man; and his
    number is six hundred and sixty-six.

In the first century A.D., there was a type of numerology called
*geametria* (a corruption of the Greek word for geometry), in which
the letters of the alphabet were assigned different numeric values,
and the name of a person was calculated to a particular number.  (You
may recognize a similar superstitious practice alive today).
Depending on the value of the different letters, there are a number of
names that comfortably totaled "666", including the Emperor Nero's
full name.  (Nero was the inventor of urban renewal, though his
techniques for clearing cities have been improved upon since then).

(There is considerable debate among Christian theologians today
whether Revelation was intended to refer to Nero's persecution of
Christianity, or had a longer term significance -- certainly, putting
Nero's name in the text would have caused even more difficulties for
the early church than they already had).

But note that the number itself wouldn't be blatant!  The person who
sees "666" as evidence of the Antichrist doesn't even under- stand
what Rev. 13:18 refers to!


Clayton E. Cramer
{pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 04:53:01 -0400
From: synsys![e-mail]
Subject: Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone


In Volume 10, Issue 547, Message 9 of 15, Message-ID: <10550@accuvax.
nwu.edu>, John Nagle posted:

>     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.

I'll go you one better: right after the tritone (that's called a SIT,
right?), transmit the data DIGITALLY with a modem, the same FSK as
used in Caller-ID.

This is kind to machines:
The tritone is the header followed immediately by the data.

This is kind to humans:
The tritone is loud and annoying already so a little more screaming
won't hurt.

FAX/modem/autodialer manufacturers should love this:
If the machine recognizes the tritone and can act accordingly, you'll
prevent repeated failed calls.  You could automatically update the
phone list when a new number is given.  The retry mechanism could
adapt if the line is temporarily out of service or give up if it's
permanently out of service.

I'd expect a CCITT definition of the command to be something like a 16
bit command followed by a variable length field.  The commands would
be specified like:

command: 0000h  Number out of service
following data: none

command: 0001h  all lines temporarily busy
following data: none

command: 0010h  number changed
following data: phone number (in the same format as ANI)
[I'm not sure what will be sent for an unlisted number]

Jeffrey Jonas
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 23:36:53 UCT
From: Bob Yasi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep


My home phone in San Diego, 619/581-xxxx, is on a Northern Telecom DMS
II switch; I'm unsure of the software revision.  Until just about a
week ago, a caller could tell whether he was causing a call waiting
beep or not by the sound of the ring.  (BTW, please feel free to
correct my terminology.)  A normal "ring cycle" begins with two
seconds of ring tone followed by three seconds of silence (and
repeats).  If you are the cause of a call waiting beep you came in
half way thru the ring so the first ring you hear seems to cut off
early.  I have two lines in my home and tested this extensively and
have just noticed that this behavior has stopped -- now there is no
difference.

I've noticed the same thing at my sister's house in Mass.,
617/289-xxxx, (which I suspect is a DMS II prefix also since a call
waiting beep doesn't "ker-chunk" at you like ESS does) but I didn't
test it enough to be confident of the behavior.

Does anyone have any more information about the disappearance of this
undocumented feature?  (One humorously paranoid friend ventured that
it meant my phone is being tapped but that seems pretty silly to me.)

Surely there will be some opinions about this feature too; I like it
and miss it myself.

Since I'm new to the net, I wonder if the archives have any
discussions of DMS II CO equipment versus ESS and other stuff.


[Moderator's Note: I do not think there are any specific items in the
Telecom Archives on this specific topic.   PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #559
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03040;
          11 Aug 90 18:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22715;
          11 Aug 90 17:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04964;
          11 Aug 90 16:01 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 Aug 90 15:40:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #560
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Aug 90 15:40:36 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 560

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Breakup of UK Duopoly [Christopher J.Gosnell]
    Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [John Higdon]
    Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Breakup of UK Duopoly
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:42:13 BST


Telecom news from Britain centers on the impending break-up of the
cosy telecommunications duopoly that stifles our country and the
possible introduction of local loop competition via the cable
companies.

(Copied from the {Independent} 7 August 1990)

Telecom and Mercury to lose duopoly. - by Colin Brown

   Senior ministers are planning to inject more competition into the
provision of telephone services in Britain by breaking the duopoly
over the systems being operated bewteen British Telecom and Mercury.

   Cable television companies could be allowed to compete with Telecom
and Mercury to provide local telephone services, but some of Margaret
Thatcher's strongest supporters in the Government want to go further
by opening the market to widen the national telephone network.

  The ministers believe the battle over the network - to be fired by
an autumn government consultation paper - should be only the first
step in a campaign for greater competition in public utilities, where
privatisation has failed to deliver improvements.

[stuff deleted about privatisation and competition]

   This has reinforced the view of some ministers that the telephone
services should be deregulated too, allowing a free-market approach to
the provision of national networks for business and domestic users.
"There are a range of options for breaking the telephone duopoly, but
sticking to the status quo is not an option", a government spokesman
said.

   A ministerial battle is likely to take place over the extent to
which the Telecom and Mercury duopoly is ended. Allowing cable TV
companies to compete for local business would be seen as a minimal
step, leading to more radical competition for national networks.

   BR [British Rail] and the electricity supply industries could be
among those interested in competing to provide national networks of
lines for the highly profitable commercial sector.

   The Government had hoped that breaking Telecom's monopoly would be
sufficient. However, Mercury has been criticised for its slow progress
and Oftel, the telephone consumer watchdog, is believed to be
sympathetic to improving local services for domestic users.

   Ministers are reluctant to destroy the competitor they have helped
to create with Mercury. No decisions have been reached, and giving
more freedom to cable companies is seen as the most likely compromise.
American telephone companies have invested in British cable TV
companies in anticipation of being allowed to compete for local
business.

   The demand for greater competition will be taken up next month with
the publication of proposals for inclusion in the Conservative general
election manifesto by the right wing No Turning Back group of Tory
MPs, who include influential ministers.

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

And on the inside pages:
Companies lobby to cash in on telephone services boom - by Mary Fagan


   The prospect of the duopoly review has sparked a fierce round of
lobbying on the part of the many players who want to cash in on the
telecommunications boom.

   Representations are already being made to both the Department of
Trade and Industry and the regulator, Oftel.

   Among the loudest voices are the cable television industry, the
operators of current and future mobile telephone services, and British
Rail, which for its own purposes already owns and operates one of the
biggest telephone networks in the country.

   It is widely expected that the review will be most radical where
local telephone services are concerned, as this is the sector where
BT's rival, Mercury Communications, has made little impact. According
to the Cable Television Association, almost all its members are
interested in offering local telephone services, but they need radical
changes in the regulatory system to do so.

   Cable television companies can offer telephone services within
their franchise areas, but only as an agent of BT or Mercury. Less
than half a dozen do so - all through Mercury - mainly because the
revenue-sharing deals imposed by Mercury mean that it is not worth
their while.

   The cable television companies want to become fully fledged local
Public Telecommunications Operators, free to act in their own right
and also with the right to link their networks to the longer distance
and international networks of BT or Mercury and mobile telephone
companies, or the likes of Britsh Rail. In addition, the want the
right to link their adjacent local networks to form regional and even
national groupings.

   According to Richard Woollam, the director of the Cable Television
Association, the cable companies could be generating almost half of
their revenues from telephone services by their tenth year in
operation.

   Mercury has already acknowledged that margins for the cable
television companies need to be better. It is believed to be allowing
its cable partners to keep up to 30 per cent of revenues generated
from the calls, instead of only 10 of 15 per cent in the past.

   British Telecom is deeply concerned that much of the renewed
investment in the UK cable television industry comes from the American
regional telephone companies. It is believed they are keen to cash in
on the liberalised UK market, while US regulation prevents BT from
taking up reciprocal opportunities on the other side of the Atlantic.

   Another BT concern is that it cannot provide telephone [I assume
this is a misprint for television] and entertainment over its main
network while the cable television industry can offer telephone
services, albeit as agents. BT says that to finance the fibre-optic
cabling of every home and business - which would cost up to #20
billion - it needs the revenue from television and other services such
as home banking and shopping.

   The cable television industry argues that allowing BT such freedom
could kill its fledgling industry before it gets off the ground. In
any case, Mr. Woollam says BT can offer television in areas where it
has a cable TV franchise, yet is selling many of its cable television
investments.

   While most people expected the mobile cellular radio companies,
such as Cellnet and Vodafone, to want a greater role and more freedom
after the duopoly review, many are more surprised at the interest
shown by British Rail.

   Last month BR launched a wholly-owned subsidiary with the right to
exploit BR's nation-wide private network, which runs into every city
and town in the country. The BR network is independent of BT and
Mercury, whereas many private networks rely on lines leased from these
two PTOs. It includes 17,000km of cable and 1,000km of microwave
links, but reselling any capacity on these lines is prohibited.

   Peter Borer, managing director of British Rail Telecommunications,
wants to expand the network, financing it through links with private
sector partners. Operating at an arm's length from BR, he wants to be
allowed to offer private telephone and computer networks for large
companies, and to resell capacity to third parties which could also
offer private networks. BR's network could also be used as a backbone
to link local mobile telephone and cable television networks.

   Whatever the outcome, British Telecom will argue that future
competitors must share its obligation to provide universal service,
however remote or unprofitable the customer might be.

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

And now, some questions.

- what is the status of local loop competition in the US ie. can a
  residential customer ever choose his local telco? (without moving
  house :-) If not, is this prohibited by law or just by Baby Bell
  muscle? Is ANYONE allowed to provide voice and TV services on the
  same line?

- is there local loop competition anywhere in the world at present
  (assuming land-lines for the moment)

- in the event of local loop competition, what should be done about
  universal service? Is this still a real issue in developed countries
  (where most everywhere is wired up already) or just a telco
  bellyache? Should this be a problem of private companies or should
  the Government be paying up for this "social service"


All opinions my own, of course.

Regards,

Chris Gosnell      ( [e-mail])

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones
Date: 11 Aug 90 02:11:42 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> If only one line is installed in a jack why do the yellow and
> black wires have to be attached?  I suspect it doesn't.

Generally that's true. In the olden days, the black/yellow sometimes
served as the means to power the lamp in an old princess or trimline
phone. In the REAL olden days, there was no black wire and the yellow
wire was the ground, useful for party line service.

>    The modular jack that goes into the phone has four wires in it. Why
> is that, if only the red and green are required for service?  Just in
> case you have a two line phone?

This is one reason. Another would be for the A/A1 control for a key
telephone system. If one adds a single line phone to a standard 1A2
key system, it must have a separate off-hook indication.

>   Why is the jack that goes from the telephone headset to the
> telephone a different size than the jack that goes from the phone to
> the wall jack?  Is it to idiotproof the process? Also why four wires
> into the headset?  Does the phone itself do anything to the signals
> before it sends it to the headset?  If the proper size jack was put on
> the headset could you plug that into the wall jack and recieve calls?

Absolutely not. Believe it or not, all that stuff in the phone base
actually serves a purpose. Besides the obvious, such as ringing and
dialing, the base contains a "hybrid" circuit which takes the two wire
phone line and converts it to a "four wire" circuit for the earpiece
and for the tranmitter (microphone). It also provides a small DC
polarizing voltage for the transmitter that is derived from the power
in the phone line itself.

Oh, and yes, the jacks are a different size for the purpose of
idiotproofing.

>   What do the two wires (red and green or yellow and black) carry?  Is
> one postive and negative like electrical wires?

Not LIKE electrical wires, they ARE electrical wires. Remember,
electricity, not sound, travels through wires. Your voice is
transformed into an electrical representation which is actually
carried through the wires.

> That says to me that there must be something physically
> wrong with the Yellow or Black wires.   That seems strange to me as all
> four wires are in the same cable and if there was a physical break in the
> cable it would affect all the wires, not just one or two.  Any thoughts
> of this?

Long distance speculation of your problem would be difficult, but even
if you get the line to work, you might want to replace the wiring with
"twisted pair". The wire you describe, commonly called "D station
wire" does not have the working pairs twisted. This almost invariably
creates crosstalk between lines. Time and time again, there are people
in this forum complaining about their modem line being heard in their
voice line, etc., etc. The cause is usually traced to the fact that
they are running two phone lines through D cable. What you want is "E
wire", where the pairs are individually twisted. This often comes in
three-pair and can be spotted by the colors: white/blue; white/orange;
and white/green.

I have E wire running all over the house, with modems, voice
telephones, stations, and trunks all intermixed therein. There is no
crosstalk whatsoever -- not a trace. Consider yourself lucky that
there is something wrong with the D wire. Take the opportunity to pull
it out and replace it with the right stuff: E wire.

BTW, E wire comes "jacketed" and "unjacketed". Mine is all jacketed,
but you can save a little money with unjacketed if it will run in a
concealed place such as through the wall, in an attic, or under the
house.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones
Date: 11 Aug 90 12:50:15 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dennis G.
Rears (FSAC)) writes:

>    It seems as if each telephone cable contains four wires (red,
> green, black, and yellow).  For one line only the red and green wires
> are used.  The black and yellow wires are only used for the second
> line.  If only one line is installed in a jack why do the yellow and
> black wires have to be attached?  I suspect it doesn't.

The extra wires are installed for ancillary services.  This may
include a second line, a lighted dial, a ground lead (used for
selective ringing and party identification on multi-party lines).  On
new service, these days, they install four-pair (eight wire) cable --
it's cheaper to put in extra wires at the time of the initial
installation than to put them in later, when the customer needs them.

>    The modular jack that goes into the phone has four wires in it. Why
> is that, if only the red and green are required for service?  Just in
> case you have a two line phone?

See above.

>   Why is the jack that goes from the telephone headset to the
> telephone a different size than the jack that goes from the phone to
> the wall jack?  Is it to idiotproof the process? Also why four wires
> into the headset?  Does the phone itself do anything to the signals
> before it sends it to the headset?  If the proper size jack was put on
> the headset could you plug that into the wall jack and recieve calls?

The handset has four wires -- a two-wire circuit for the microphone,
and another two-wire circuit for the receiver.  Your line from the
central office, as you have already noticed, has two wires.  The
bidirectional audio signals on these two wires are separated by a
circuit called a hybrid, located in the telephone instrument.  It
separates the transmit and receive audio information and provides the
derived four-wire path to the handset.

>   What do the two wires (red and green or yellow and black) carry?  Is
> one postive and negative like electrical wires?

The two wires deliver DC power to operate your telephone set.  They
also carry AC voice signals.  The red wire should be at ground
potential, and the green wire should be at -48 volts.

>   In the case of my second line I bought a double wall phone outlet.  I
> installed the first line (R&G) to the top outline and installed the
> second (B&Y) line to the bottom outlet.  The first line worked the
> second did not.

> wrong with the Yellow or Black wires.   That seems strange to me as all
> four wires are in the same cable and if there was a physical break in the
> cable it would affect all the wires, not just one or two.  Any thoughts
> of this?

If you wired the B-Y pair to the red and green terminals on the second
jack, then you probably have an open black or yellow wire in your
cable.  If the B-Y pair is connected to the black and yellow terminals
on the second jack, connect it to the the red and green terminals on
the second jack, and it will work better.

It's not unusual for one wire to become defective in a multi-wire
cable; that's another reason why they install extra conductors.

> P.S.  Does anybody know the number for ringback for 609-871-XXXX?

I suggest that you try 550-XXXX, 551-XXXX, 552-XXXX etc.  XXXX would
be the last four digits of your telephone number.  If you get a busy
signal, try the next one in the sequence.  If you get a dialtone after
dialing, flash your switchhook.  If you then get a high tone, hang up
and your phone should start to ring.  To stop the ringback, just
answer and then hang up for at least ten seconds.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail:!westmark!dave

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #560
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04080;
          11 Aug 90 19:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15213;
          11 Aug 90 18:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22715;
          11 Aug 90 17:06 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 Aug 90 16:45:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #561
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Aug 90 16:45:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 561

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Manuel J. Moguilevsky via Carl Moore]
    Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Robert Ullmann]
    Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [John Higdon]
    Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary? [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Mark E. Anderson]
    Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [Bill Huttig]
    Being Called From Inside or Outside Centrex [Carl Moore]
    Reverse Modem Detection [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Special Issues This Weekend [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 10:07:27 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina


Here is the entire message, phone numbers and all, from Manuel.  Yes,
you have mention of NUA further down (if you have an editor which you
can use to search for "NUA" string).

   Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 12:48:05 MST
   From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky <manuel%psi#[e-mail]>
   Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina
   To: [e-mail]

>Did you send your note to telecom?  I don't see it in the headers.

I only sent one line telling about it, probably it is of interest of
somebody.

>>If you want, I can send you the telephone numbers access for Arpac.

>OK, although I don't think I'll be doing anything on that computer.
>On the number I tried, I apparently was indeed supposed to delete
>that leading zero; however, I did not know to insert the 1 (city
>code for Buenos Aires).

These are the telephone Arpac numbers in Buenos Aires: (you have to dial
from USA as:  011-54-1-xxx-xxxx


                  **** SISTEMA DE INFORMACION ARPAC ****

                       ACCESOS TELEFONICOS DIRECTOS

LOCALIDAD                     NUMEROS               VELOCIDAD (BPS)
^^^^^^^^^                     ^^^^^^^               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BUENOS AIRES
  -CENTRAL CUYO
    (953)

                              953-7533             300/300  1200/1200
                              953-7603             300/300  1200/1200
                              953-3390             300/300  1200/1200
                              953-3490             300/300  1200/1200
                              953-3705             300/300  1200/1200
                              953-3805             300/300  1200/1200
                              953-3905             300/300  1200/1200

                              953-7313              75/1200
                              953-7793              75/1200

  --CENTRAL REPUBLICA         394-5349             300/300
     (394)/(325)              325-6817             300/300
                              325-6818             300/300
                              325-6820             300/300
                              325-6821             300/300
                              325-6822             300/300
                              325-6824             300/300
                              394-5052             300/300  1200/1200
                              394-5258             300/300  1200/1200
                              394-5384             300/300  1200/1200
                              394-5430             300/300  1200/1200
                              394-5548             300/300  1200/1200
                              394-5647             300/300  1200/1200
                              394-5725             300/300  1200/1200
                              394-5765             300/300  1200/1200
                              394-5834             300/300  1200/1200

  --CENTRAL PIEDRAS
    (362)
                              362-4609             300/300
                              362-4796             300/300
                              362-4043             300/300  1200/1200
                              362-4103             300/300  1200/1200
                              362-4723             300/300  1200/1200


The NUA of the yellow pages: 0 7222 211103127
The zero in the front of the number is optional (I don't know if you
have to use it from USA). 7222 means Argentina. ENTEL means Empresa
Nacional de Telecomunicaciones.

This is a log of this service:

* ENTEL - SISTEMA DE CONSULTA *
CUALQUIER SUGERENCIA EFECTUARLA
AL NRO. TX 29000

USTED POSEE UN MONITOR DE :
            OCHENTA  COLUMNAS (8)
            CUARENTA COLUMNAS (4)
            FINALIZAR         (F)
            AYUDA             (?)

INGRESE UNA OPCION : 8

DESEA :
      CONSULTAR GUIA TELEX         (G)
      GUIA TELEFONICA   110        (T)
      INFORMACION SOBRE RED ARPAC  (A)
      FINALIZAR                    (F)
      AYUDA                        (?)

INGRESE UNA OPCION : ?


TIPEANDO :
       G : INGRESARA AL MENU INICIAL DE CONSULTA DE GUIA TELEX
       A : INGRESARA AL MENU INICIAL DE INFORMACION DE ARPAC
       F : FINALIZA LA CONSULTA
       ? : ESTA PANTALLA

INGRESE UNA OPCION : f

GRACIAS POR USAR NUESTROS SERVICIOS

NAT9995       - NATURAL SESSION TERMINATED
               --------------------------------------------

Manuel J. Moguilevsky
Buenos Aires - ARGENTINA

MANUEL%PSI#[e-mail]
SSL$SPAN::PSI%TELENET.ASTARG::MANUEL
PSI MAIL address: 07222211100717
                  072222111030218
MCI: 4204071 WUI UW
FAX: [phone]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 17:04:40 EDT


 From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>

>I tried 011-54-7222211103127 and it did not work.  . . .

>[Moderator's Note: Then I guess 07222211103127 is the NUA? . . . ]

I don't know "NUA" either, but a quick check of CCITT Recommendation
X.121 shows that the country code assigned to Argentina is 722, so the
"7222" part is the DNIC (Data Network Identification Code) of an X.25
network in Argentina, and the "211103127" part is the address of a
host on that network.

Or this could apply to some communications network who has adopted the
X.121 addressing conventions (much as Telenet adopted the telco
numbering plan for its internal addressing).


/JBL

[e-mail]   ...!bbn!levin   [phone]

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

From: Robert Ullmann <[e-mail]>
Date: 10 Aug 90 18:26:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina


About that number in Argentina: The leading "0" is some net's idea of
an access code, like the "1" for long distance in the U.S.

So the DNIC is 7222, number 211103127.

I tried it, not collect (nc). Connected okay, but a bit slowly.  It
_disabled_ pad break-out! I had to eventually wait for a timeout. I
didn't find anything it understood, except that when I guessed from
the error message syntax that it was an IBM, and typed LOGOFF, it
stopped answering, except for repeating the prompt over and over.


Robert Ullmann
Prime Computer, Inc.

          ---------- session script: ----------

ok, netlink
[NETLINK Rev. 22.1.0 Copyright (c) 1989, Prime Computer, Inc.]

@ nc :7222211103127

7222211103127 Connected

PAAMNZAD"UN"9::

N

NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY.
N

NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY.
N

NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY.
N

N

NA000GAMMANDMMANDSMUSSAHAHAA.
N

N

NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY.
N

NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY.
N

NA00NVADMMANDPGAMDSNSNBAY.
N

N

N
@

N
N
S.USUAAAPANSNUNA
NAVANNN5MNUS

7222211103127 Disconnected

@ q
ok, como -e


[Moderator's Note: If you call via your local Telenet node as I did,
then the leading zero is required to indicate 'international call',
and collect charges are not accepted.  PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?
Date: 11 Aug 90 02:38:10 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John Decatur KA2QHD <[e-mail]> writes:

> Ack.  No it doesn't.  Sorry John.  The IXC receives only the billing
> number via carrier interconnection signaling.  The IXC never receives
> the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC
> to deliver to the called party the billing number.

Oops! My original statement was based on observation of Pac*Bell, and
as usual the practices are out of step with the real world. In the
lion's share of cases, Pac*Bell makes the billing number the same as
the directory number, even in cases where there are actually alternate
billing arrangements. In the case of my accounts (and all those of my
clients), our "Fun with ANI" number returns the directory number of
the calling line even though that number is billed to a completely
different (or even ficticious) number.

> All the stories about the ANI identifier number being posted should
> confirm this -- all those weird numbers (the BBN number from 25 years
> ago, an undialable IBT number, switchboards, and various undialable
> numbers) are all billing numbers for various centrex groups, PBXes,
> etc.

Now here's a question: what does the number readback return? Before
you answer -- a short story. I happened to be going through some RJ21X
positions in a client's phone room and found some lines that read back
a number that was not known. I went through all of the customer's
records and couldn't find the number anywhere. Four of the trunks read
back this strange number and all of them were working and connected to
the switch. It turns out that these lines were part of the main local
group. The readback was just WRONG. Calls made on them were properly
billed, and they responded properly to incoming calls. Pac*Bell
corrected the readback. So what is the readback linked to?


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

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 ANI - Is the Whole Number Neccessary?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 18:26:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Decatur
KA2QHD) 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.    ........

>Ack.  No it doesn't.  Sorry John.  The IXC receives only the billing
>number via carrier interconnection signaling.  The IXC never receives
>the calling party number; therefore, it is only possible for the IXC
>to deliver to the called party the billing number.

I expect the truth lies somewhere between these two.  On my
residential two-line hunt group each line is identified by its CALLING
number when I called the ANI test.  Both lines are billed to the same
number.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: My two lines are both BILLED on the first line. I
get one bill each month, with long distance charges from the second
line appended on a separate page. When I tried the ANI number just now
from the second line, it read me the second, or calling number. Maybe
'billing number' is a local matter, depending on how your local telco
chooses to handle it. Maybe in my case I have two 'billing numbers'
with both bills shown on one monthly statement. I think there are some
semantics used here to define 'billing' and 'calling' numbers.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 15:57:10 EDT
From: Mark E Anderson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


>[Moderator's Note: ...  Here in Chicago,
>the '666 North Lake Shore Drive Building' changed its address to 668
>with permission of the Postal Disservice due to some important and
>large commercial tenant moving in who had nightmares about what might
>happen to business when the customers found out.  PT]

Nancy Reagan made the same change before they moved into their Malibu
home.  That has to be expected from her though.  I don't consider
myself ignorant but I would never accept a number with a 666 exchange
or any 3 sixes in a row.  If I were to get one, I'd simply ask for
another number.  I didn't even like it when my current number had 2 6s
in a row.

I don't consider myself that superstitious but a phone number is sort
of like a personal identification of existence.  It doesn't hurt to
play it safe just in case.


Mark
[e-mail]

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?
Date: 11 Aug 90 17:37:08 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <zach![e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> contact![e-mail] (woody)
writes:

>Here's a challenge for the TELECOM Digest readers ... what is the
>fastest pulse-dialable number in working order?

(stuff about fast dialable numbers deleted) ...

And what is the slowest pulse-dialable number? It is a real number;
the Covenant House Nine Line: (1-800-999-9999) for runaways.


[Moderator's Note: I think, but am not willing to dial and find out,
that a 'slower' number would be 900-999-9999. I believe the 900-999
exchange is used by some telcos, including IBT, to house some really
raunchy information providers; i.e. *very* kinky phone sex, etc. Some
charge a couple dollars per minute with a *twenty minute minimum*,
while others have no minimum, but charge four or five dollars per
minute. 900-999-7000 is being advertised heavily here right now; a
party line operated by Chaos Communications.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 11:57:59 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Being Called From Inside or Outside Centrex


If you are on a "Centrex" type phone setup (i.e., dial less than seven
digits for calls within it, and 9 at the start of a call to outside),
you might have a different ringing pattern for calls from within as
opposed to calls from outside.  In my office, it's like this: calls
from within -- regular ringing pattern calls; from outside -- two
quick rings, silence (pattern keeps repeating).


[Moderator's Note: We also have this same thing on Starline, a/k/a
Intellidial Service. The ringing cadence identifies the source of the
call. Front door intercom service uses this as well.  PT]

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

Subject: Reverse Modem Detection
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 13:54:07 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

> What in the world is "reverse modem detection"?  The originating modem
> remains silent, expecting answer-tone from the answering modem?  Does
> this box route silent callers to its modem port?  Or does it only work
> with some non-standard modems that make noise while awaiting answer?

A standard modem remains silent and waits for the answering modem to
send a carrier. However, most Hayes-compatible modems can be handed a
command such as 'ATDT5551234R', and they will dial, then go into
answer mode and _send_ a carrier. The box to which you refer
apparantly routes incoming carrier tone to the modem. This would work
fine for private use, but wouldn't be satisfactory for a BBS. (Too
hard to get users to use non-standard techniques.)

    Roy M. Silvernail
    now available at:
 cybrspc![e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 15:51:05 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issues This Weekend


Following this issue of the Digest, two special issues will be sent,
along with a third special mailing piece.

Don K's article on Ship-to-Shore radio will be sent, and a copy of Len
Rose's federal indictment, supplied by Mr. Rose.

PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #561
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05908;
          11 Aug 90 21:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18557;
          11 Aug 90 20:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20568;
          11 Aug 90 19:10 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:05:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Len Rose Indictment
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:05:00 CDT    Special: Len Rose Indictment

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Len Rose Indictment [Len Rose]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Len Rose <[e-mail]>
Subject: Federal Indictment
Date: 10 Aug 90 00:00:42 GMT
Organization: Netsys Inc., Philadelphia


            INDICTMENT

            COUNT ONE

The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland charges:

              FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. At all times relevant to this Indictment,American Telephone &
Telegraph Company ("AT&T"), through it's subsidiary, Bell Laboratories
("Bell Labs"), manufactured and sold UNIX (a trademark of AT&T Bell
Laboratories) computer systems to customers throughout the United
States of America.

2. At all times relevant to this Indictment, AT&T sold computer
programs ("software") designed to run on the UNIX system to those
customers. This software is designed and manufactured by AT&T; some
software was available to the public for purchase, other software was
internal AT&T software (such as accounting and password control
programs) designed to operate with the AT&T UNIX system.

3. At all times relevant to this indictment,computer hackers were
individuals involved with gaining unauthorized access to computer
systems by various means. These means included password scanning (use
of a program that employed a large dictionary of words, which the
program used in an attempt to decode the passwords of authorized
computer system users), masquerading as authorized users, and use of
trojan horse programs.

4. At all times relevant to this Indictment, the Legion of Doom
("LOD") was a loosely-associated group of computer hackers. Among
other activities, LOD members were involved in:

    a. Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for purposes of
       stealing computer software programs from the companies that
       owned the programs;

    b. Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for purpose of
       using computer time at no charge to themselves, thereby fraudu-
       lently obtaining money and property from the companies that
       owned the computer systems;

    c. Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for the purpose of
       stealing proprietary source code and information from the companies
       that owned the source code and information;

    d. Disseminating information about their methods of gaining unauthor-
       ized access to computer systems to other hackers;

    e. Gaining unauthorized access to computer systems for the purpose of
       making telephone calls at no charge to themselves,obtaining and using
       credit history and data for individuals other than themselves, and
       the like.

5. At all times relevant to this Indictment, LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a
"Terminus", was associated with the LOD and operated his own computer
system, identified as Netsys. His electronic mailing address was
netsys!len

            COMPUTER TERMINOLOGY

6. For the purpose of this Indictment, an "assembler" is a computer
program that translates computer program instructions written in
assembly language (source code) into machine language executable by a
computer.

7. For the purpose of this Indictment, a "compiler" is a computer
program used to translate as computer program expressed in a problem
oriented language (source code) into machine language executable by a
computer.

8. For the purpose of this Indictment, a "computer" is an internally
programmed, automatic device that performs data processing.

9. For the purpose of this Indictment, a "computer network" is a set
of related,remotely connected terminals and communications facilities,
including more than one computer system, with the capability of
transmitting data among them through communicatiions facilities, such
as telephones.

10. For the purposes of this Indictment, a "computer program" is a set
of data representing coded instructions that, when executed by a
computer causes the computer to process data.

11. For the purposes of this Indictment, a "computer system" is a set
of related, connected, or unconnected computer equipment, devices, or
software.

12. For the purposes of this Indictment,electronic mail ("e-mail") is
a computerized method for sending communications and files between
computers on computer networks. Persons who send and recieve e-mail
are identified by a unique "mailing" address, similar to a postal
address.

13. For the purposes of this Indictment a "file" is a collection of
related data records treated as a unit by a computer.

14. For the purposes of thie Indictment, "hardware" is the computer
and all related or attached machinery, including terminals, keyboard,
disk drives, tape drives, cartridges, and other mechanical, magnetic,
electrical, and electronic devices used in data processing.

15. For the purposes of this Indictment,a "modem" is a device that
modulates and demodulates signals transmitted over data telecommuni-
cations facilities.

16. For the purposes of this Indictment, "software" is a set of
computer programs, procedures, and associated documentation.

17. For the purposes of this Indictment,"source code" is instructions
written by a computer programmer in a computer language that are used
as input for a compiler, interpreter, or assembler. Access to source
code permits a computer user to change the way in which a given
computer system executes a program, without the knowledge of the
computer system administrator.

18. For the purposes of this Indictment, "superuser privileges"
(sometimes referred to as "root") are privileges on a computer system
that grant the "superuser" unlimited access to the system, including
the ability to change the system's programs, insert new programs, and
the like.

19. For the purposes of this Indictment, a "trojan horse" is a set of
computer instructions secretly inserted into a computer program so
that when the program is executed, acts occur that were not intended
to be performed by the program before modification.

20. For the purposes of this Indictment,"UNIX" (a trademark of AT&T
Bell Laboratories) is a computer operating system designed by AT&T
Bell Laboratories for use with minicomputers and small business
computers, which has been widely adopted by businesses and government
agencies throughout the United States.

                 COMPUTER OPERATIONS

21. For the purposes of this Indictment, typical computer operations
are as described in the following paragraphs. A computer user
initiates communications with a computer system through his terminal
and modem. The modem dials the access number for the computer system
the user wishes to access and, after the user is connected to the
system, the modem transmits and receives data to and from the
computer.

22. Once the connection is established, the computer requests the
user's login identification and password. If the user fails to provide
valid login and password information, he cannot access the computer.

23. Once the user has gained access to the computer, he is capable of
instructing the computer to execute existing programs. These programs
are composed of a collection of computer files stored in the
computer's memory. The commands that make up each file and, in turn,
each program, are source code. Users who have source code are able to
see all of the commands that make up a particular program. They can
change these commands, causing the computer to perform tasks that the
author of the program did not intend.

24. The user may also copy certain files or programs from the computer
he has accessed; if the user is unauthorized, this procedure allows
the user to obtain information that is not otherwise available to him.

25. In addition, once a user has accessed a computer, he may use it's
network connections to gain access to other computers. Gaining access
from one computer to another permits a user to conceal his location
because login information on the second computer will reflect only
that the first computer accessed the second computer.

26. If a user has superuser privileges, he may add, replace, or modify
existing programs in the computer system. The user performs these
tasks by "going root"; that is, by entering a superuser password and
instructing the computer to make systemic changes.

27. On or about January 13, 1989, in the State and District of
Maryland, and elsewhere,

           LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a Terminus

did knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and with intent to defraud,
traffic in (that is, transfer, and otherwise dispose of to another,
and obtain control of with intent to transfer and dispose of)
information through which a computer may be accessed without
authorization, to wit: a trojan horse program designed to collect
superuser passwords, and by such conduct affected interstate commerce.


                   COUNT TWO

And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference,
as if fully set forth.

2. On or about January 9,1990, in the State and District of Maryland,
and elsewhere,

           LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus

did knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and with intent to defraud,
traffic in (that is, transfer, and otherwise dispose of to another,
and obtain control of with intent to transfer and dispose of)
information through which a computer may be accessed without
authorization, to wit: a trojan horse login program, and by such
conduct affected interstate commerce.

                       COUNT THREE

And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference,
as if fully set forth.

2. That on or about May 13, 1988 in the State and District of
Maryland, and elsewhere,

           LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus

did cause to be transported, transmitted, and transformed in
interstate commerce goods, wares, and merchandise of the value of
$5000 or more, to wit: computer source code that was confidential,
proprietary information of AT&T, knowing the same to have been stolen,
converted, and taken by fraud.


                       COUNT FOUR

And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference,
as if fully set forth.

2. That on or about January 15, 1989 in the State and District of
Maryland, and elsewhere,

           LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus

did cause to be transported, transmitted, and transformed in
interstate commerce goods, wares,and merchandise of the value of $5000
or more, to wit: computer source code that was confidential,
proprietary information of AT&T, knowing the same to have been stolen,
converted, and taken by fraud.


                       COUNT FIVE

And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference,
as if fully set forth.

2. That on or about January 8, 1990 in the State and District of
Maryland, and elsewhere,

           LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus

did cause to be transported, transmitted, and transformed in
interstate commerce goods, wares, and merchandise of the value of
$5000 or more, to wit: computer source code that was confidential,
proprietary information of AT&T, knowing the same to have been stolen,
converted, and taken by fraud.

            ____________________

Breckinridge L. Wilcox



[Moderator's Note: Mr. Wilcox is probably the foreperson of the Grand
Jury. The five counts above, according to Mr. Rose, represent the
various occassions on which he is alleged to have transferred a
'password-trapping' program to other individuals, including Craig
Neidorf. If my understanding of the allegations is correct,
modifications to the source code causing passwords entered by users
using the 'su' command to be retained in a separate file for review by
unauthorized persons was transmitted. I believe Mr. Neidorf then
printed this information in his publication {Phrack}. It is not known
to what extent this modification was installed or implemented. Mr.
Rose said to me he does not know of anyone 'who actually used or
installed' this modification. He said he wrote it legitimatly for
testing and diagnostic purposes for his own use at his site and for
legitimate clients. He said he can't help it if it fell into the hands
of persons who would abuse or misuse his work.

Mr. Rose said to me he is destitute at this time due to the financial
burden of obtaining legal counsel and being without the tools (his
computing machinery and related stuff) he needs to be employed. His
trial has been adjourned until sometime early in 1991 at the court's
motion, and this additional delay will cause him more financial
hardship. He believes this delay was given by the court in retaliation
for motions entered by his attorney asking the judge to recuse
himself.

He said he had been offered 'deals' by the government, including
pleading guilty to one count, receiving as punishment several months
in the custody of the Attorney General, followed by perhaps a year of
federal probation. His equipment would be returned as part of the
deal. If this were his choice -- that the matter be adjudicated in
conference between the government, his attorney and the court --
resolution could come in a short time. If he prefers, the matter can
go to trial, and he can take his chances on complete acquittal, or
being found guilty on one or more of the charges against him, followed
by imposition of punishment as detirmined by the court at that time.

Mr. Rose has received advice from several quarters on this important
issue, both for and against cutting deals. He said 'people at the
Electronic Frontier Foundation refuse to return his phone calls', but
that others, including a prominent person at the Free Software
Foundation have encouraged him to hold out for trial and acquittal.

In either scenario, Mr. Rose's prior state conviction several months
ago involving computer equipment stolen from the warehouse found in
his possession does not enhance his ability to cut deals to his
liking.

It should be remembered that under the Constitution of the United
States, Len Rose must be considered innocent of the latest charges
against him until his guilt is proven in court, or based on his plea
of guilty the court finds him guilty.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Len Rose Indictment
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06833;
          11 Aug 90 22:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18947;
          11 Aug 90 21:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac18557;
          11 Aug 90 20:14 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 Aug 90 20:07:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Pledge For Science in Argentina
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


Attached is an item I received a few days ago with a request that I
distribute it in comp.dcom.telecom and the Digest. It is not really
telecom related, so I am sending it as a special mailing to the list
at this time. If you wish to respond, do so to the address in the
message. It does seem worthy of our attention.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator

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

  From: [e-mail]
  Subject: PLEDGE FOR SCIENCE IN ARGENTINA
  Date: 7 Aug 90 15:07:50 EST
  Organization: Yale Computer Center (YCC)


  TO ALL SCIENTISTS CONCERNED WITH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN ARGENTINA


                                              Buenos Aires, June 4, 1990

Dear Colleague:


     I would like to draw your attention to the plight of science in
Argentina and to ask for your urgent cooperation to save it from
destruction.

     As you may know Argentina is in the midst of a profound economic
crisis.  As a consequence of this there has been a severe reduction in
the governmental budget. Unless special attention is paid to science
we believe that meager salaries combined with lack of funding will
lead to the shut down of our laboratories before there is any
improvement in the economic situation.

     The following example provides a glimpse of our economic
situation: a scientist holding the highest available position receives
a monthly salary of US$ 300 (United States dollars three hundred). On
the other end of the scale a junior scientist starting his/her career
is paid a salary of about US$ 100.  These sums are far lower than
those required for subsistence-level feeding and education for an
average family.

     If you are willing to help us, please write a letter in your own
words or use the attached letter as a model and send it via air mail
to:

                  Sr. Presidente de la Republica Argentina
                  Dr. Carlos Saul Menem
                  Casa de Gobierno, Balcarce 50,
                  1064 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA

     To expand the chain please send ten copies of this letter to your
friends.


                                 MODEL LETTER


Sr. Presidente de la Republica Argentina
Dr. Carlos Saul Menem
Casa de Gobierno, Balcarce 50
1064 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA


Dear Mr. President,

    I am writing you to call your attention to the present situation
of scientific and technological research in Argentina.

    Argentine scientists will not be able to endure for a long time
the present situation in which the lack of funds to support research
is combined with the incredibly low salaries paid to them.

    Such situation will soon lead to a sharp increase in the exodus,
which has already started, of qualified people and hence to the
irreversible damage to your national scientific and technological
research system whose quality is recognized and respected by the
international scientific community. This would be a tragedy for
Argentina's cultural and technological development which would require
years to repair.

    With all due respect, Mr. President, I urge you to take actions to
reverse this sad situation. This may help to change the negative image
that the international community has about this aspect of your
administration.


                                               Sincerely yours


                                    (Signature, name and academic position)


Other addresses to which correspondence may be forwarded:

Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET)
Avenida Rivadavia 1917,
1033 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA

Secretaria de Ciencia y Tecnica (SECyT)
Avenida Cordoba 831,
1054 Buenos Aires, ARGENTINA


                                           New Haven, 6 de Agosto de 1990

Estimados todos:

    Esta es la primera vez que me dirijo a todos ustedes por medio de
la red.  Creo que la situacion descripta mas arriba, conocida por
todos nosotros, lo justifica.

    Hoy por la tarde recibi copia de estos textos del laboratorio en
Argentina del cual provengo y hacia el cual aun planeo regresar, este
es el Instituto de Quimica y Fisicoquimica Biologicas (IQUIFIB),
Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquimica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, cuyo
director es el Dr. Alejandro C. Paladini.

    Tengo entendido que los esfuerzos tendientes a revertir este
estado de cosas, en el medio local, son frustrantemente inoperantes.
De este modo, se trata de que la presion externa pueda ser mas
efectiva.

    Les agradezco a todos desde ya toda la difusion que pudieran darle
a esta iniciativa.


                                           Jose Maria Delfino


Dr.Jose Maria Delfino
Department of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry (210 KBT),
Yale University,
260 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, CT 06511, USA.
Tel. # [phone]
Fax  # [phone]
Electronic Mail: Bitnet: "DELFINO%HHVMS8@YALEVMS"












Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06851;
          11 Aug 90 22:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18947;
          11 Aug 90 21:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18557;
          11 Aug 90 20:14 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:53:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Coastal Telegraph Stations
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:51:00 CDT    Special: Coastal Telegraph

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Coastal Telegraph Stations [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 90 09:16 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Coastal Telegraph Stations
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


In article <Digest v10, iss547>, Nigel Allen writes:

>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.

He further says:

>... Western Union has filed with the FCC to shut down its coastal
telegraph station KFS ... and that ... WPA, WOE, WMH, WSL and KOK
>have already been closed down. No doubt some traffic that formerly
>moved through these stations now uses cellular phones.

And he asks:

>Does anyone know whether there were competitive coastal telegraph
>stations in a given market, or whether such stations had a local
>monopoly?

Well, I have to say "thank you" to Nigel for raising a question near
and dear to my heart that caused an excursion back to a comfortable
past career.  I was prompted to answer the question in part from my
personal library and experience, but also to get on the phone to have
a very pleasant chat with my old Almer Mater of international
shortwave radio, WOM at Ft. Lauderdale, FL.  Here's an attempt at
summarizing a lot of detail:

While yes, it is true that shore telegraph stations are retiring from
the airwaves, and significant shifts are occurring. Maritime Mobile
Radio using Medium Frequency and High Frequency radio is, believe it
or not, still growing, and MARISAT/INMARSAT are far from supplanting
it.  And this in spite of some incursions by cellular radio as well.

First, we must make it clear.  Until or unless there comes to pass a
global form of radiotelephony like Motorola's IRIDIUM proposal, there
are vast stretches of ocean reached only by HF radio or INMARSAT.  My
phone inquiry to WOM found them very aware of these developments,
revealing they found that while some ships, mostly supertankers,
bought into INMARSAT, the $10 (U.S.) per minute rate compares poorly
with the $4.90 per minute of HF radiotelephone, especially because
INMARSAT bills from the moment of connection while High Seas (HF)
radio makes all calls person-to-person and bills only when the
conversation starts. Apparently shipping companies come to this
conclusion when they get their bills, and find that a call to the
ship's steward for a one-minute talk results in a $100 charge while
they wait on hold for him to be paged to the satellite phone!

What the WOM folk knew was that satellite-equipped ships use
INMARSAT for hard-copy communications, running not only Telex but even
PC's at 64 kilobits off the ship.  That's what's killing the shore
telegraph stations.

They're not all dead however, just shrinking back to meet reduced
demand.  For that structural background Nigel asked about, shore
radiotelegraph stations in the U.S. grew before there could be any
structure to their sub-industry, mostly as "company" stations.  For
example, the origin of TRT Telecommunications, today in Washington,
DC, was as a 1912 ship and shore radiotelegraph operation of the
United Fruit Company in Boston, using 1912's "highest tech" to direct
shiploads of bananas to the best markets while enroute.

That expanded to using radiotelegraph to the plantations in Central
America, and that expanded to TRT becoming the international telegraph
(and sometimes international telephone) company of much of Central
America; the entity on the other end of AT&T's point-to-point HF
radiotelephone from the U.S.  RCA, of course, made shipboard radios
for many American-flag ships (remember that David Sarnoff, builder of
the RCA empire, was first a Marconi Corp. ship's radio telegrapher.);
the result was RCA building a string of shore telegraph stations for
its customers.  And, the RCA shore stations operated radioteletype as
a service to promote sales of shipboard RTTY gear.  ITT got into the
act by owning Mackay Marine, which competed with RCA for maritime
radio equipment and services, and so had a string of stations, too.

There was no territorial or service monopoly.  In fact, just the
opposite seems to have happened, and caused some significant words in
the (U.S.) Communications Act of 1934, to the effect that (sic) radio
stations for public correspondence must accept communications and
traffic from any mobile station, because the "company" stations had,
in fact, refused to answer calls from (even distressed) ships of other
companies.  What developed from that point was an interesting form of
competition of many years' duration.  The shore stations did compete
with attempts at camraderie and service in ways only telegraphers
could understand.  Imagine if you can, an unseen, unheard person on
shore exuding warmth and personality via a telegraph key ... and they
did.

Despite the shrinkage of the number of radiotelegraph shore stations,
the remaining ones seem to be enjoying growth by picking up the slack.
For example, WPD at Tampa, FL seems to still be going strong,
independently owned as it has always been, handing its traffic off as
domestic telegram and Telex messages (that have now largely become
E-Mail with PCs). One of the other "company stations" that never
operated maritime traffic, the Trans-Liberia Radiotelegraph Company
(built by Firestone solely to communicate with its plantations in
Liberia) seems also to still be in business from Akron, Ohio ... but
has been off HF radio for many years, and is now largely a message
center with a couple of PCs ... but you could, if you wanted to, send
a telegram to Liberia via Trans-Liberia!

As to the telephone business, INMARSAT, as noted, may have made some
market, but it seems to be rather insignificant to WOM and it
companions.  Their market still grows. AT&T has operations at WOO near
New York, WOM near Miami and KMI near San Francisco.  The single most
significant part of the traffic is cruise ships, that enjoy handsome
profit margins on phone calls to shore for passengers.  It's known
that one cruise line tells passengers they are on satellite, and
charges $30 per minute, while putting the calls on HF radio (yes, HF
can sound mighty good, running SSB radio with Lincompex) where the
shore station charges $4.90 less a $1 "commission" to the ship!

The surge of technology has helped, with $800 SSB transceivers, so
that small ships and private yachts get on HF radiotelephone, too ...
not wanting to pay the price of a satellite shipboard station and then
the per-minute rates.  They have fueled the surge in minutes, along
with ... of all things ... aircraft!  The WOM folks handle a fair
amount of calls for private aircraft, notably some Venezuelan oil
company planes that travel from South America across the Atlantic and
Africa to Saudi Arabia.  Some few "hep" international airline captains
have even found their HF transceiver can get them a phone call to home
while crossing the Pacific at 35,000 feet!

The result is that WOM alone of the three AT&T stations is handling
about 700 revenue-producing calls a day.  And, the traffic of the one
privately-owned U.S. station for international telephone traffic, WLO
at Mobile, Alabama seems to also be healthy.

The standards bodies seem to sense this growth, for in 1991, the
channel assignments for HF maritime radiotelephone use will be
restructured again, with narrower channel widths (2.8 kHz) to create
more channels.

As mentioned earlier, the sub-industry is restructuring, in some cases
with technology old-timers could never comprehend. A major change has
been and continues toward automating and reducing overheads by
consolidation.  As I write this, work is underway to consolidate the
control point for NY's WOO in the WOM control room at Fort Lauderdale.
Similarly, the local telcos who always ran the medium-frequency (2
mHz) Coastal Harbor operations abandoned them with demonopolization,
and WOM took over Miami, Jacksonville and Charleston, SC, running the
whole works with the WOM callsign and 10KW transmitters, while the
receivers along the shoreline are wired to Fort Lauderdale.

The communications technology behind it is in some ways awesome, in
others what we should simply expect.  The WOM location in Ft.
Lauderdale is 50 miles from its transmitters in Pennsuco, west of
Miami, while the actual landline telephone operators all the ships
speak to are in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania!  Not such a feat when you
find out that the building is also AT&T's fiber POP for Ft. Lauderdale
and WOM enjoys its own whole fiber route direct to Pittsburgh!
Meantime, control of the transmitters is by PC messages shot around
AT&T's packet data net to turn a transmitter on or off or change its
antenna ... no clunky old "control circuits" at all; instead messages
from a 3B1 UNIX machine (yes, they are planning to get 3B2s) that go
on a packet network to be read by similar machines with control
interfaces at Pennsuco (and soon, Manahawkin, NJ for WOO ... with KMI's
Dixon, CA transmitters a likely addition someday).

And, HF radiotelephone even has its disaster function. During
Hurricane Hugo's trip through the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico last
year, the first restoration of telephone connections to the U.S. was
from ship radiotelephones there to WOM for several days.  Of course,
the world gets little news from the networks about such undergirdings
of telecommunications.  If people had wanted, they could have as well
made phone calls into the U.S. telephone network (and thus the world)
via WOM in the Mexico City earthquakes.  FCC rules do permit doing
ANYTHING with a radio transmitter if it is for the safety of life and
property ... but that doesn't mean calling to see if Uncle Fred's
attic window got broken, it means serious PUBLIC safety.

Oh, the cellular incursion.  Yes, it's there, but again not that
significant to a growing market.  First, cellular of course, reaches
only incidentally a few miles offshore.  There are automated VHF
marine-band dialable shore stations that do reach seaward, but perhaps
only 50 miles offshore.  Run by a private company in Hollywood, FL,
these similarly are remote controlled from that city, even though they
range along the whole coast.  And, in the Bahamas Islands group there
are reported to be two cellular companies among the islands,
Cruise-Phone and Boat-Phone.  They serve an obvious purpose for
boaters sailing among the thousands of Bahamas Islands, but only
there.

Growth seems apparent in other areas, too.  St.Thomas in the Virgin
Islands has HF voice station WAH that is growing, as do several of the
other nations' Caribbean islands ... French, Dutch, English and so on.
And, of course, around the world, there are the established stations
of many nations.  The "territorial monopoly" is rather interesting
when the Laws of Physics interfere.  It's very difficult for nations
to legislate what shore station a vessel calls ... even though some do
force it economically, witness the Cuban shore stations with their own
and Russian ships, plying the same waters, but never getting on the
channels of the American stations, even though they easily can.

So, I hope this is the kind of response Nigel wanted. It's a peek into
another galaxy of telecomm that most people don't even know exists or
thinks is dead is the kind of response you wanted.  From the figures I
got today, it's another telecom business that grosses at least $15
million a year, and perhaps several times that.

And, since this peek got so long, here's a vignette learned yesterday
from the WOM Technical Operator I chatted with.  We were comparing
stories about handling REAL emergency traffic, as anyone who has done
that job has done, as he gave me a real side-splitter.

Seems he worked the third shift for a couple of years, and in the
darkest hours of night, traffic tends to be nearly zero.  However, one
night at 3 AM, he heard a whispering voice on the speaker of his
calling receiver saying, "Hello? Is anybody on here?"  He lit up a
transmitter and answered, whereupon the caller identifed himself as a
ship and said, "We are under attack by the Indians!"

What?  A ship at sea under Indian attack?  What it turned out to be
was s small freighter that had run aground on remote shoreline of
Nicaragua, and the natives were boarding the ship and stealing
everything in sight!  Not daunted by this at all, the WOM T.O. called
the U.S. Coast Guard District Office to find out what support was
available, and within a short time the Nicaraguan National Guard was
dispatched to quell the Indian uprising.

If you think, "Having that job must be a ball," you're absolutely
right.  Many is the time I've thought I should have stayed there.
Pity it's only one that employs a handful of people.  Oh, it's not a
"secret" place although not in tour books.  Located at the corner of
State Road 7 and Sunrise Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, just look up
AT&T Company and give 'em a ring if you want to visit!


[Moderator's Note: *Thank you* for a very interesting and informative
article. I'm sure you are correct that this is a form of
telecommunications very few people know anything about. I hope your
article has educated a few of our readers today.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Coastal Telegraph Stations
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10690;
          12 Aug 90 1:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31142;
          12 Aug 90 0:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16687;
          11 Aug 90 23:23 CDT
Date:     Sat, 11 Aug 90 22:40:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #562
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 11 Aug 90 22:40:23 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 562

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Federal Indictment of Len Rose [Mike Godwin]
    Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Jerry Leichter]
    Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues [Jonathan Story]
    Re: Pinging Cellular Phones [John Nagle]
    Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax [James Deibele]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Macy Hallock, Jr.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Federal Indictment of Len Rose
Date: 12 Aug 90 01:21:26 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas


One of the things that troubles me about the Len Rose indictment is
that it appears to have been edited. Normally, a federal indictment
will state under each or charge the specific statute under which the
particular offense has been committed.

Lest someone read into this an accusation that Len Rose edited his
indictment for some particular purpose, let me add that it is often
easy to overlook the statutory references, which typically appear at
the bottom of each page, and which often look like pro-forma
additions.

But without the statutory references, it is unclear which statutes
Rose is alleged to have violated. It seems certain that 18 USC 1343
(wire fraud) and 18 USC 2314 (interstate transportation of stolen
property) are two of the statutes; it is unclear, however, whether the
government is also prosecuting Rose under 18 USC 1030 (use of
computers to defraud) or 18 USC 371 (conspiracy).

The particular statutes under which Rose is being prosecuted will
dictate many of the issues that will be litigated if he goes to trial.

My personal favorite of the counts is Count Two:

>And the Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges:

>1. Paragraphs 1 through 26 of Count One are incorporated by reference,
>as if fully set forth.

>2. On or about January 9,1990, in the State and District of Maryland,
>and elsewhere,

>           LEONARD ROSE JR. a/k/a/ Terminus

>did knowingly, willfully, intentionally, and with intent to defraud,
>traffic in (that is, transfer, and otherwise dispose of to another,
>and obtain control of with intent to transfer and dispose of)
>information through which a computer may be accessed without
>authorization, to wit: a trojan horse login program, and by such
>conduct affected interstate commerce.

I know of no federal statute that outlaws "trafficking in" information
"through which a computer may be accessed without authorization,"
absent some allegation that the information was proprietary and
stolen. One wonders whether this count is meant to refer to Rose's
authoring a password-recording modification to AT&T system software.

Our Moderator offers what seems to me to be a correct interpretation
of at least one of the counts:

>If my understanding of the allegations is correct,
>modifications to the source code causing passwords entered by users
>using the 'su' command to be retained in a separate file for review by
>unauthorized persons was transmitted. I believe Mr. Neidorf then
>printed this information in his publication {Phrack}.

Assuming this interpretation is correct, it is unclear whether Rose
broke the law in this action, unless the federal government has proof
that Rose's actions were part of a conspiracy to defraud AT&T or one
of the Bells. (That's why it's important to determine whether a
conspiracy is being charged here.) In conspiracy prosecutions, an
otherwise-legal act may make a defendant liable under the conspiracy
statute if that legal act was in furtherance of the conspiracy.


Mike Godwin, UT Law School
[e-mail]
[phone]


[Moderator's Note: Well, you got it the way *I* got it, save
tightening up the lines a little, correcting a couple of typos. Was it
specifically edited by someone? Well, in the part at the top, the
reference was to the 'United States of Amerika' ... I swapped out the
/k/ for a /c/ ... it looks like someone was tampering with it. Also,
according to Len Rose (on the phone with me), he 'gave it to someone
to be typed' for the net. I don't know if *he* personally sent it
here; after all his complaints about having no equipment at his
disposal, how could he? Someone may have sent it, and used his name.
There were no statuatory references in the copy I received.

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

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 09:51:09 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID


Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you
want if you just can choose the question.  His argument falls apart on
close exami- nation.

a) He pulls at the emotional heartstrings of "privacy in your own
home" to try to argue for Caller-ID.  However, virtually all the
complaints about invasions of privacy have had to do with potential
abuses by BUSINESSES.

Clear black-and-white dicotomies - public vs. private places - are
nice for arguments, but have little to do with reality.  When I go
into a store, I give up very few of my privacy rights.  A store is not
someone's home: It's a place of business, and falls somewhere between
public and private.  For example, you can if you wish choose to refuse
to allow black people into your home.  You cannot choose to bar them
from your store.  By offering services to the public, you have given
up certain privacy rights.  Conversely, I as a member of the public
retain many more of my privacy rights in your store than I do in your
home.  In particular, you can certainly demand to know who I am before
allowing me into your home.  You cannot demand identification as a
pre-condition for allowing me into your store.

All you can get from this argument is that NON-BUSINESS lines have a
right to receive Caller-ID.  For all their talk about protecting
people's privacy, the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you
got it, businesses.  That's where the money is.

b) Even if we restrict ourselves to private homes and non-business
lines, his argument is weak.  I have the right to knock on your front
door.  You don't have to let me in unless I identify myself, but you
can't stop me from knock- ing.  I don't believe a "no solicitors" sign
has any legal weight.  (A "no trespassing" sign MIGHT - although I
can't enforce it selectively, letting some people in without
invitation and choosing to go after others.)

I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone
are equal invasions of privacy.  In each case, you have the right to
ask for identifica- tion.  In each case, I can refuse to provide it -
in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone.  That's as
far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself.

In telephony terms, this means that I should have the right to send my
ID or not; and you have the right to receive it, and refuse to answer
if I didn't send it.  (A better analogy - and a better Caller-ID
system, though perhaps technically impractical - would be a button or
setting on your phone that explicity asked for Caller-ID.  I would
receive a notification of the request and could choose to allow my
identification to be sent, or not.  This would be the electronic
analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be unable to
lie about it.)

BTW, the analogy of the "no solicitors" sign is your ability to say
that you don't want any telemarketing calls.  In the past, you've had
no way to enforce this.  The bill just passed by Congress, requiring
that telemarketers respect a list of "no calls" numbers, provides
exactly this ability.


Jerry

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

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 16:20:27 PDT
From: Jonathan Story <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BC Politician's Cellular Calls Taped; Big Mess Ensues


    Concerning the affairs of former British Columbia Attorney General
Bud Smith and the recordings of his phone calls:

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ms Mary Corey)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 559, Message 4 of 12

>I've read several articles about this case, but none of them have
>stated information about the quality and duration of these recordings.

    The excerpts that went out over radio and TV were of poor quality,
and other parts were apparently indecipherable.

>However they do say that a scanner was used.  My impression is that it
>is not possible or very difficult to identify and deliberately record
>a particular cellular subscribers phone conversations, nor is it
>easy/possible to follow that conversation from cell to cell.  Can this
>be explained, is it legal, or is the cellular stuff just a smokescreen
>to hide an (illegal) wiretap?

    This information might be wrong, but I seem to recall reading that
the tapes were not recorded from cellular calls but rather
conversations that the minister made through a mobile telephone that
works something like marine radio ("AutoTel", I think).  There are a
small number of channels (six?) that are accessible throughout the
province and I suppose Smith wanted to be able to stay in touch even
when he was visiting some backwater whistlestop.

    As far as I know, the individual who admitted to making the tapes
was nothing more than a news-gathering type creature who had a grudge,
a scanner, and a recorder.  The sins, if any, that the A-G committed
are, in my opinion, exaggerated (although government drones have yet
to speak.)  To me, his most criminal act as a politician was using
what amounted to a CB radio and thinking no one else would listen in.

    Incidentally, as part of the fallout, last I heard is that Smith
is being sued by some lawyer who was maligned in a taped "private"
conversation between the A-G and his deputy.  My guess is that the
suit will get laughed out of court; or have defamation cases been won
elsewhere under such odd circumstances?


[e-mail]

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

From: John Nagle <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pinging Cellular Phones
Date: 11 Aug 90 19:37:47 GMT


>followed by call setups, you could determine if any user location
>activity is taking place.

      It's not clear if you're entitled to monitor the cellular control
cqhannel under the ECPA.  Monitoring the voice channels is prohibited, but
the control channel may be OK.  An opinion here would be useful.

      Actually, it would be useful if someone monitored the control
channel in major cities and produced independent statistics on usage.
This would help in valuing cellular telephone properties and in
evaluating the validity of cellular operators requests for more
bandwidth.


John Nagle

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

From: James Deibele <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 00:39:50 GMT


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

>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.

And next month, when his phone bill arrives, Mc Grover will turn
around and sell all those phone numbers to someone compiling a
directory of fax numbers.  Or he'll publish it himself.  He'll have
your fax number, your name, and probably other information too (the
handiest pieces of paper probably being company stationery).


[e-mail]  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}!techbook!jamesd
Public Access UNIX at [phone] (1200/2400) Voice: [phone]
Technical books mailing list --- mail "techbook!tbj-request"


[Moderator's Note: You are being cynical. He would not have to wait
until next month 'when the phone bill comes'. Most incoming fax
messages contain (a) a cover sheet saying who is writing, with their
voice and/or fax numbers, and (b) the name and fax number of the
sender printed on the top or bottom line of each page of paper, sent
automatically by the sending machine. And if a fax directory which
gives all the above information can be purchased for $19.95 from one
of several directory publishers, why should he tie up his fax machine
and waste all his paper to get the same information? Try not to have
ugly thoughts about motives every time someone starts a grass roots
campaign of some sort, regardless of how ill-advised you may consider
the movement.  The same motives you attribute to McGrover could be
applied to (for example) any organized effort to send telegrams,
mailgrams or fax messages to members of Congress, etc.  PAT]

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

From: Macy M. Hallock, Jr. <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 00:00:00 GMT


OK since we are on the 666 subject again, here's a bit of info and a
comment I never got around to last time:

216-666 is the Montrose, Ohio exchange.

There are several reasons to believe there may be some hellish
connotation here:

- It is a GTE Ohio exchange (That ought to prove it as far as John Higdon
  is concerned)
- It is a GTE Automatic Electric No. 2 EAX office.  (OK, maybe its just
  telepone purgatory, then)
- Montrose is a suburb of Akron, Ohio  (almost hell to New York types)
- My in-laws live in this exchange (and have for 30 years....I will risk
  no other personal comment)

Another item:

- The Montrose CO was knocked out of service for half a day by a direct
  lightning strike on the power pole beside the building.  The generator
  in the CO could not help because the breakers for the battery chargers
  were all tripped.  When the CO batteries discharged, things just ground
  to a halt.  The CO was unmanned for the weekend, and GTE did not dispatch
  because the alarms showed a power failure with the generator running OK.

  Help was send only when the office went "no tone"...with three different
  municipalities police dispatch centers in it.  Repair was slowed by the
  need to replace the damamged breakers, and no supply houses were open on
  Sunday.  Needless to say, GTE was called on the carpet for this one...
  (The PUCO never was told the whole story, BTW)

A few other comments:

Montrose 1000 cycle test tone is 216-666-1212 ... and many people often
dial it by mistake for 216-555-1212 ... I remember some AT&T toll
reports we got when I worked for GTE back in '70 that noted this..and
suggested GTE change the number (which they would never do).

My in-laws number is one digit different from the 1000 cycle number,
and they have gotten a few odd phone calls due to this.  My father in
law is a retired police chief, and when I worked for GTE he was
active.

I traced a few of these bad calls for him and traced some to an Ohio
Bell test desk in Akron Blackstone exchange.  An automatic trunk
routiner had been programmed with the 666-1212 number, but a bad
thumbwheel had caused one digit to work erratically ... thus causing
the problem.

My father-in-law suggested he could personally impound the test board
supervisor's car if the problem was not promptly repaired ... an
interesting solution to telephone equipment repair delays, IMHO. It
never came to that.

Ohio Bell repaired their unit promptly once the problem was explained
to them (and they decided they could believe a lowly GTE person ... I
had to tell them I was ex-Bell to get them to listen).

Anyhow, we have our share of fundmentalist churches and preachers
here, perhaps they should all move to the 216-666 exchange to try and
help solve these problems ... The PUCO can't make GTE work right,
maybe divine intervention would help ;-)


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]         uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy
F M Systems, Inc.  {uunet|backbone|usenet.ins.cwru.edu}ncoast!fmsystm!macy
150 Highland Drive    Voice: [phone] Ext 251  Fax: [phone]
Medina, Ohio 44256 USA Cleveland:273-3000 Akron:239-4994 (Dial 251 @ tone)


[Moderator's Note: Based on all the complaints we get here about GTE,
I'm beginning to think divine intervention is the only thing which
might help improve their service.  PT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #562
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27067;
          12 Aug 90 18:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19476;
          12 Aug 90 16:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27875;
          12 Aug 90 15:30 CDT
Date:     Sun, 12 Aug 90 15:03:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #563
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Aug 90 15:03:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 563

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [John Debert]
    Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [Roy Smith]
    Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [John Higdon]
    Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls [Kenneth R. Crudup]
    Re: Coastal Telegraph Stations [Roy Smith]
    Re: Telephone Diverters [Gary Segal]
    Re: Unlisted Numbers and E911 [John Debert]
    1-555-1212 for DA in Cincinnati; 411 for Toronto [David Leibold]
    Re: "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Yes!!! Bunk!! [John Debert]
    Sprint Problem Fixed [John Higdon]
    Re: Len Rose Indictment [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Debert <amdcad!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep
Date: 11 Aug 90 20:37:31 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


I would like to see the telco's start using the same kind of
"ringback" that is used in ESS-type PBX's (i.e. 5ESS) which put a
short beep right on the end of the "ringback". This tells the caller
that the line is in use and suggests that he might want to try again
later. It's better than listening to it ring without being answered
and not knowing if someone is at the other end or not.


jd
[e-mail]

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 05:17:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, yazz@devnet (Bob Yasi) writes:

[about the difference in ring to the calling party if calling party
is call-waiting a conversation in progress]

I notice that calls to local GTE and US West (Bell-like) numbers in
this area will ring a "long" ring for the first ring if I'm
interrupting someone else's call in progress.  It spooks them when I
ask "who were you talking to?" after they pick me up (either by
putting the other call on hold or losing them).  I thought that was
pretty much inherent in the "standard" call-waiting package, but maybe
that's a localism?

Other datapoints?


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


[Moderator's Note: Although the very experienced ear can tell the
difference when calling someone here (slight differences in the
clicks, etc), IBT says they don't intend to change the rings or
otherwise make an obvious response to the caller about the status of
the other person's phone. Why? They say it is none of your business if
the person you are calling is already on the phone.  Obviously, a busy
signal tells you, but that's a completely different matter. If someone
has call-waiting, it is up to them to let you know if they are on
another call.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 10:31:31 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


John Higdon writes (Vol 10, Issue 560, Message 2 of 3)

> The wire you describe, commonly called "D station wire" does not have the
> working pairs twisted [...] What you want is "E wire", where the pairs
> are individually twisted.

    The untwisted wire described is what I have always called
"quad station wire", I have no idea what the real name is, but I don't
think "D station wire" is right.  My AT&T catalog lists what they call
DIW, "D Inside Wire" which is indeed twisted pairs.  You can get it in
various pair counts from as few as 2 or 3 up to, I think, about 6 or
8.  The most common variety I've seen is 4 pair.  Unlike common 25
pair cables, the pairs are packed loosly in the PVC sheath, making it
very flexible.  It sounds exactly like what John is describing as "E
wire".

    I am willing to defer to hard evidence to the contrary, but I
have trouble believing you could get any appreciable amount of
crosstalk between two properly balanced circuits (even if not using
twisted pairs) over the, say, 100 feet of wire you might find in a
common residential installation.  My trailblazer coexists just fine
with my voice line over plain old quad wire, running what I would
guess is about 60 feet in the same quad.  In theory, I would agree,
you want to run twisted pairs if you have the choice, but if quad is
already in, I wouldn't bother replacing it for plain voice or
voice-grade modems.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones
Date: 12 Aug 90 11:41:32 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Aug 12 at 10:31, Roy Smith writes:

> I am willing to defer to hard evidence to the contrary, but I have
> trouble believing you could get any appreciable amount of crosstalk between
> two properly balanced circuits (even if not using twisted pairs) over the,
> say, 100 feet of wire you might find in a common residential installation.

I have seen it happen over lengths of as little as 25 feet. Remember
that crosstalk rejection between circuits depends on the electrostatic
and electromagnetic cancellation caused by the two conductors of the
circuit. If you have conductors randomly interspersed within a cable
and if an individual leg of one circuit travel for some appreciable
distance with the leg of another, then your "properly balanced
circuits" might just as well be unbalanced.

> My trailblazer coexists just fine with my voice line over plain old quad
> wire, running what I would guess is about 60 feet in the same quad.  In
> theory, I would agree, you want to run twisted pairs if you have the
> choice, but if quad is already in, I wouldn't bother replacing it for plain
> voice or voice-grade modems.

That's very nice. Random chance works in mysterious ways. The original
poster indicated that there was some hard problem with his quad.
Rather than nurse it back to health or replace it with more quad, my
suggestion was to replace it with the "right stuff". I have a number
of "cheap and dirty" tricks that I use and get away with, but don't
don't usually advocate them in a public forum. The "I know it's wrong
in theory, but it works fine for me" principle can cause people grief.
Once again, I don't recommend using quad (or any non-twisted pair)
cable for multiple lines. I have seen the results and they are bad.


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

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

From: Kenneth R Crudup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 10:06:21 GMT


When Lotus Development Corp. in Cambridge, MA took over the 617-693-
exchange that used to be Martha's Vineyard before MV was part of the
move to area code 508, it turned out that my (old) office number (now
617-693-4111) used to be the information number for Martha's Vineyard,
so all these people from out of state with outdated directories were
now starting to get my desk. I told something like 50 people in 3
weeks that the number had changed to a/c 508 (and the rate decreased
some after the voicemail reflected the fact that they were calling a
software company.)

The funny part was that after my contract expired, I changed the OGM
on the voicemail saying that I was no longer with Lotus and left my
home telephone number on it, presumably for agencies and emergencies,
hoping that most people would realize by then that this wasn't MV
info, and noone was going to give out their home number if it was
anyway.

Ha. So far I've had four calls.

This morning (Sat.) I got awakened at eightsomething AM from some
woman who was sure that the sleepy, incoherent voice on the other end
of the phone actually gave a damn and was going to take her
reseveration.

I had never heard of Martha's Vineyard before I moved to New England.
Must be a hell of a place. I guess I'll have to check it out someday.


Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant    nubian![e-mail]
14 John Eliot Sq. #2B, Roxbury, MA 02119-1569    [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 11:24:40 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coastal Telegraph Stations
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


> St.Thomas in the Virgin Islands has HF voice station WAH that is
> growing, as do several of the other nations' Caribbean islands

    If you've ever cruised the Virgin Islands, you know that WAH
(more popularly known as VI Radio) is more than just a way to phone
home.  The nearest National Weather Service transmitter is on Puerto
Rico, and doesn't quite reach St. Thomas, let alone the other islands.
So, on a regular schedule, VI Radio (who, with the tallest mast on St
Thomas, apparantly can hear NWS Puerto Rico) rebroadcasts the NWS
weather reports.  They can be heard all over the USVI and the BVI on
VHF 16, and even further on HF.  Everybody tunes in at 1000 to hear
the list of waiting traffic and get the weather.  They also don't seem
to mind being the universal ping object, answering requests for radio
checks from anybody within range.

    There seem to be more VHF radios in the Virgins than
telephones.  Every business that has anything to do with boats (i.e.
most of them) stand by on 16 (or some other channel which they
advertise next to their phone number) waiting to take dinner
reservations, schedule diving trips, or anything you might normally
pick up a phone to do.

We once had to call our charter company to arrange for some spare
parts.  We couldn't get them on VHF (probably their little antenna was
below our horizon) so we called VI Radio and had them place a phone
call.  When they still didn't answer, we kept VI Radio on the line for
what seemed like for ever, trying different numbers (in conditions
under which we could barely hear each other) until they finally got
through to somebody.  Never once did they suggest that the amount of
their time we were taking up (for a non-emergency), compared to what
they must have been able to charge for the phone call, certainly
worked out to a substantial loss for them.


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

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Diverters
Date: 12 Aug 90 18:37:03 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

>What in the world is "reverse modem detection"?  The originating modem
>remains silent, expecting answer-tone from the answering modem?

Here is a guess ... The device is looking for V.25 calling tone.  V.25
is the CCITT's version of a modem command set (like the "AT" set we
all know and love), but it also includes a provision for calling tone
similar to what Fax machines use.  It is supposed to be used on all
automaticly dialed calls by modems (i.e. whenever the equivalent of
"ATD..."  is sent).

For those who want more details, V.25 describes the tone as a "1300 Hz
or any tone corresponding to binary 1 of the DCE in use."  It is on
for 0.5 to 0.7 seconds, and then off for 1.5 to 2 seconds.  Fax
calling tone, on the other hand, is an 1100 Hz tone, on for 0.5
seconds and off for 3 seconds.

>As far as I know, some fax machines, in some originating modes,
>generate the CNG tone when they're awaiting answer.  I know of no
>non-fax modems that would work with the device described above.

All fax machines are supposed to generate calling tone when the
machine dials.  If an autodialing fax machine doesn't generate calling
tone (CNG), it is in violation of the T.30 recommendation for fax
machines.

Since there are some data modems that are V.25bis or V.25 compliant,
there is a small chance that the "telephone diverter" in question is
designed to use both Fax CNG and modem CNG as a means to route calls.
However, the device in question would probably not work to well if it
is looking for modem calling tone, as very few modems in the U.S.
have the ability to generate it.


Gary Segal    ...!uunet!motcid!segal        [phone]
Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004
The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue
the opinions of Motorola INC.

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

From: John Debert <amdcad!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and E911
Date: 11 Aug 90 19:51:51 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail].
edu (Sam Ho):

> 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.

How could they possibly know the name of the person calling without
asking?  Billing name does not necessarily equal the name of the
caller. So, why waste space displaying the name?

GTE would have done better leaving names off the display. Could be
misleading and result in errors on the part of E.R. personnel.


jd
[e-mail]

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: 1-555-1212 for DA in Cincinnati; 411 for Toronto
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 23:45:23 EDT


I believe it was David Bernholdt who mentioned that 1-555.1212 was
needed for all Directory Assistance in the Cincinnati area, even
local.

In Toronto, 411 is used for all DA in 416 NPA, even if the place is
long distance within 416. No 1 555.1212 is available (or nowadays 1
416 555.1212)

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

From: John Debert <amdcad!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Sprint Unusable for Data?" Yes!!! Bunk!!
Date: 11 Aug 90 19:19:35 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


> I've used modems on
> Sprint from the Bay area and have friends who do so.  I've also dialed
                  ^^^^^^^^
Excuse me? Silicon Valley != "Bay area" - either Bay area.

jd
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Sprint Problem Fixed
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 11 Aug 90 17:25:33 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


With two nights and a day of traffic on Sprint with the new Telebit
firmware, it can now be said that the problem has been solved. No
fifteen minute struggles to transmit 2k of data, no constant retrains,
in fact no problems.

For the difference it makes, this is certainly one of the better kept
secrets!

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 14:44:49 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Len Rose Indictment


Another copy of the Len Rose indictment has been forwarded to us, and
this copy includes the legal references missing from the first
version. Mr. Rose said the person employed to transcribe the first
version for us was unaware that all the legal notations were
important.

Rather than enter the whole thing again here, I have forwarded the
more detailed version direct to the Telecom Archives, to the section
entitled 'telecom.security.issues', where it is filed with other
related cases and commentaries.

For your reference, here are the specific cites:

The five counts are almost identical in wording, and each refers to:

18 USC S 1030 (a) (6) - Computer Fraud.
18 USC S 2314  - Transportation of Stolen Property
18 USC S 2  - Aiding and Abetting.

In this latest version, the name 'America' was correctly spelled,
without the /k/ replacing the /c/ as in the original version.

Please append this note to the special issue of the Digest you have
already received.

By the way, I've seen an advance copy of the next issue of Computer
Underground Digest, and it contains a lengthy interview with Len Rose.
You will want to read it.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #563
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03715;
          12 Aug 90 21:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08967;
          12 Aug 90 19:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07411;
          12 Aug 90 18:35 CDT
Date:     Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:50:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #564
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:50:14 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 564

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Len Roses's 1989 Legal Problem is Irrelevant [Jim Thomas]
    Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [David Lesher]
    Re: Len Rose Indictment [David Schanen]
    USA Direct Foreign Numbers [Jiro Nakamura]
    North American and World Areacode/Place Matcher [Daniel Jacobson]
    Caller-ID Again [S. Keith Graham]
    555's 666's [David Tamkin]
    666 And All That [Steve Hamley]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Kenneth R. Crudup]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Jonathan Story]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Roy Smith]
    666 and People Who Prefer to be Ignorant [John Debert]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 16:02 CDT
From: jt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Len Roses's 1989 Legal Problem is Irrelevant


The issue of Len Rose's 1989 brush with the law continues to be
mentioned in various notes in a way that seems to divert attention
away from his current problem. In 1989, Len was indicted for stealing
computer equipment under circumstances that, while in no way
acceptable, where not simply rip-off. Len has not yet been convicted
for that offense. He has been offered a plea arrangement which he
plans to accept later this month. In my (and others') communications
with him, he has never denied that act, he has never condoned it, he
has never in anyway tried to justify it.  His attitude has been one of
accepting responsibility for it and facing the consequences. He has
repeatedly expressed shame and remorse for it, but recognizes that it
has been done. He cannot undo his action, he can only live with it.

The 1989 incident is totally unrelated to the current one in which he
is charged with computer fraud and transportation of stolen
"property."  Continually alluding to the past incident diverts
attention from two issues raised in the current case.

First, as a "Len Rose" issue, the charges seem to exceed what he is
alleged to have done.  Information beginning to seep in from related
details in the Neidorf trial, from documents known to be evidence in
Len's case, and from individuals involved in the case, produces a
gnawing feeling of deja vous all over again.  Those who read the
recent version of the indictment in TELECOM Digest noticed that the
violated statutes were omitted. A source who possessed the original
copy read the statues in a telephone conversation:

Counts 1 and 2: Title 18 Sect. 1030(a)(6) and 18 Sect. 2.
Counts 3, 4, and 5: Title 18 Sect. 2314 and Title 18 Sect 2.

We will confirm this when we obtain a copy of the original later in
the week.

The second issue is *NOT* a Len Rose issue and could affect many of us
who use a modem. Len is not being charged with theft, but with fraud
(for writing a trojan horse program -- he is accused only of writing
it, not of using it illegally), for writing a program to capture
passwords, and for sending these to another state.  Modifications in
the trojan horse program are alleged to be on proprietary source code,
which was one fraction of a larger program. It should be remembered
that in the Neidorf trial, the concept of "proprietary information"
was grossly abused by BellSouth. Whether that is the case here remains
to be seen, but the apparent similarities between the two cases should
cause concern to all of us. Anybody who hangs out on Bulletin Boards
or who is familiar with archives on other nets is aware that there are
may similar programs in the public domain. If Len is found guilty,
what is the status of anybody who possesses or sends a program that
crypts/encrypts passwords, or who writes such programs in, for
example, California, as a consequence of some legitimate need, then
sends them to Michigan?

This second issue brings us back to the issue of law-enforcement
creativity in distorting law for questionable prosecution.  We have
seen in the Neidorf case that prosecutors, despite overwhelming
evidence, can pursue prosecutions that do not belong in the courts.
Subsequent evidence could prove us wrong, but to date, we have neither
seen nor heard even the suggestion of any evidence that indicates that
U.S. v. Leonard Rose is any different than U.S. v. Craig Neidorf.

To raise the issue of the 1989 offense distorts these issues.  The
outcome of the current case should be on the current issues.  If Len
is being unjustly prosecuted, it is wrong to raise his 1989 behavior
as a way of mitigating this injustice. Let's focus on the current
issues avoid red herrings.


[Moderator's Note: You got the same copy of the indictment I received.
And your note to me indicated you also had to edit the word 'Amerika'.
The legal cites were included in a Digest Sunday afternoon.  On the
subject of Red Herrings, you seem to know quite a bit about how they
work. While his previous difficulty will not be considered as evidence
in the current matter, it will be considered in any pre-sentence
social investigation the court relies upon when imposing punishment.
It is not totally irrelevant to the present case.  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:59:29 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


[about the difference in ring to the calling party if calling party is
call-waiting a conversation in progress]

>[Moderator's Note: {edited}IBT says they don't intend to change the
>rings or otherwise make an obvious response to the caller about the
>status of the other person's phone. Why? They say it is none of your
>business if the person you are calling is already on the phone.]

You seem to be missing the crucial point. IBT or Pac*Bell wants the
Call Interruptus to be used every time to avoid setting up non-revenue
calls. They want you to stay on the line, at least until the
supervision latches, and the billing counter goes 'DING'. If you knew
you were interupting someone - you might feel guilty, hang up and call
again later.


[e-mail]
(305) 255-RTFM
pob 570-335
33257-0335


[Moderator's Note: That may be what they want, but a by-product is the
privacy retained by the person being called.  PAT]

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Len Rose Indictment
Date: 12 Aug 90 22:18:48 GMT
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


   I noticed that the indictment of Len Rose includes mention of a
Trojan that collects root passwords.  It seems to me that you have to
have root to install such a trojan.  Am I missing something here?


Dave

Internet: [e-mail]  *  UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv


[Moderator's Note: You do have to be root, but some sysadmins would
probably install the mods inadvertently, and there are some other
folks with the root password who would install the code secretly
merely to gather additional passwords for use as needed.  PAT]

------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 06:51:52 EDT
From: Jiro Nakamura NeXT Developer <[e-mail]>
Subject: USA Direct Foreign Numbers
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies, WR, Ithaca, NY


 I use USA Direct all the time to phone up companies in the U.S.
collect. I've still to use it on my Card. :-) The operators speak
excellent English, I always assumed that they were in the States.

   Here are access numbers from my USA direct card (11/89), as
reproduced from AT&T literature. Copyright AT&T. To get more info,
dial 1 800 874 4000 ext 359:

Australia      0014-881-011        Guatemala (t)      190
Austria (t)      022-903-011        Hong Kong (t)      008-1111
Bahamas (2)      1-800 872-2881    Hungary     (t)      00*36-0111
Bahrain          800-001        Italy (t)      172-1011
Belgium (t)      11-0010        Jamaica    (2)      0 800 872 2881
Brazil          000-8010        Japan(t2)      0039-111
Br. Virgin Is.      1-800 872 2881    Korea          009-11
Cayman Is.      1872            Liberia          797-797
Chile          00*-0312        Netherlands (t)      06*-022-9111
Colombia (2)      980-11-0010        New Zealand       000-911
Costa rica (t)      114            Norway(t)      050-12-011
Denmark     (t)      0430-0010        Philippines (t2)  105-11
Dominica      1 800 872 2881    Singapore (t)      800-0011
Dom. Rep.      1 800 872-2881    St. Kitts      1 800 872-2881
Finland     (t)      9800-100-10        St. Maarten (2)      800-10011
France    (t)      19*-0011        Sweden (t)      020-795-611
Gambia (t)      001-199-220-0010    Switzerland (t)      046-05-0011
Germany/Frg (1t)  0130-0010        U.K.          0800-89-0011
Greece (t)        00-800-1311        Uruguay    (t)       00-1161
Grenada (2)      872

  * = await second tone       t = Public phones require coin or card
  1 = trial  basis only    2 = limited availability

I hope AT&T doesn't tell the SS that this is a internal secret
document that costs millions ... I got mine for free from the 800
number above.

Disclaimer: I don't work for AT&T, though that isn't too bad an idea.
            To Cornell, I'm just a number and a source of money.
        All typos are most probably mine. Use with care.

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 03:58:00 CDT
From: Daniel Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: North American and World Areacode/Place Matcher
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA


I put this in alt.sources:
Archive-Name: areacode.danj1/part01 [of 1].  You get:
length  mode       name
  1453 -rw-r--r-- areacode.1
 16315 -rwxr-xr-x areacode

(I had to get this out to the masses before it got too stale.) Yes,
this is Alex Dupuy's ([e-mail]) program with my one-time
enhancements.  I don't intend to stay in the "areacode biz," so in the
future look to the Telecom Archives and Alex for updates to his
version.  Folks who can't access the alt.sources newsgroup: I can
e-mail you a copy.  It's a UNIX shell script.

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

From: "S. Keith Graham" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller-ID Again
Date: 12 Aug 90 07:35:50 GMT
Organization: Office of Computing Services, Georgia Institute of Technology


I realize that this subject has been discusses extensively, but a
simple suggestion that I have't heard:

Why not give the purchaser of a new line the choice (at no charge)
whether to send caller-id or not by default?  Then add (also at no
charge) the ability to turn on (or off) caller ID for a single call,
much as someone uses "*70" to turn off Call Waiting.

I would, normally, leave caller-id off, but if a friend was paranoid
about getting calls from strangers, I could turn it back on.

Also, does anyone out there object to the phone company charging for
the "service" that allows you to report that the last call received as
a crank call?  Its several dollars a month here (BellSouth), for the
"right"... Plus installation.


KEITH GRAHAM
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!vapspcx
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: 555's 666's
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 13:39:47 CDT


We return you to the daze of volume 10, issue 555, where Dave Levenson
typed:

| I changed my mind about 800 service from MCI.  Our best-selling
| software product is the MoneyRoom(tm).  They were offering us the
| number 1-800-MONEYRM, but unfortunately, that's 800-666-3976, and you
| never know what sort of nut will run up our 800 bill over that prefix!

You had no worries there.  Just advertise the number as 1-800-MONEYRM
and the fundie fanatics won't ever realize that it translates to
something beginning with three sixes.  After all, you think more than
a couple of the extreme nutcases who would call you satanic for having
that number actually would order computer software?

Later in that issue, il Moderatore commented to Donald Kimberlin thus:

| [Moderator's Note: If he wanted to get 800 service, I guess MCI would
| be out of the question. After all, 800-666-POPE would be a dead
| giveaway! :)  PT]

One could always ask MCI for a number on a different prefix.

When I first heard about "beasting" people (using the lengths of the
words in Reagan's name was really a cheap substitute, as was the
forcible introduction of a factor of six when it was done to Henry
Kissinger and Ken Johnson), it took me a few minutes to get 666 from
Jesus's name.  So I guess that at the tender age of nineteen I managed
to disprove Christianity and expose it as Satanism, right?

For the record, I was naked at the time I did it, because I was taking
a shower.  Yup, didn't even need pencil or paper.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  *0018-7002  708 518 *7*9  312 *93 0591
MCI Mail: 42*-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]
 [Zip code 60018 is adjacently northeast of zip code 60666.  Anyone jealous?]

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

From: Steve Hamley <tharr![e-mail]>
Subject: 666 And All That
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 14:26:18 BST


>                      Just Dial 1-900-230-POPE

> [Moderator's Note: If he wanted to get 800 service, I guess MCI would
> be out of the question. After all, 800-666-POPE would be a dead
> giveaway! :)  PT]

Funny you should say that.

In the UK, Redemptorist Publications, who publish a Catholic
newsletter, runs its own premium-charged helplines. They give out such
information as what the church thinks about divorce, what to do when
your kids stop going to mass, etc.

These are on the numbers 0898 666 XXX.

Their service provider also seems to have a slight clash of interests.
At the same time as the Redemptorists were running a line on 'should
you read horoscopes' they announced new improved, interactive
horoscopes run in conjunction with a daily paper.

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

From: Kenneth R Crudup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 19:33:12 GMT


The "location" (I can't call it a "city") of Somerville, MA, has the
666 exchange.


Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant    nubian![e-mail]
14 John Eliot Sq. #2B, Roxbury, MA 02119-1569    [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 19:59:12 PDT
From: Jonathan Story <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People


    In Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (area code 604) the 666
exchange is used by ... the Canadian Government.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:26:35 GMT

optilink![e-mail] (Clayton Cramer) writes:

> In the first century A.D., there was a type of numerology called
> *geametria* (a corruption of the Greek word for geometry), in which the
> letters of the alphabet were assigned different numeric values, and the
> name of a person was calculated to a particular number.

    I don't know what this has to do with telecom anymore, but 19
centuries later, gemetria (the way I've always seen it spelled, but
who knows?) is still practiced.  Each letter in the Hebrew alphabet is
a number and number games are still played by Jews.  For example, when
I got married, various people sent me checks for $72 (I'm sure I'll
get corrected if I got the numbers wrong!).  The Hebrew word for life
adds up to 36, so 72 is two lives together.

    BTW, I grew up in 201-666.  To the best of my knowledge, I
have no tendencies towards being an ax murderer.


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

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

From: John Debert <amdcad!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and People Who Prefer to be Ignorant
Date: 11 Aug 90 20:22:50 GMT
Organization: NetCom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


Hoo hoo haw ho ho ho hee! Please! No more! I can't stand it! Stop! hee
hee!  All seriousness aside, folks, I haven't had such a laugh over
anything on the net in some time.

I'm kind of tempted to change my data line to end with the Number of
the Beast and reset the hello message and all that ... It'd be a real
hoot to see what kind of stuff gets left in the mailbox.


jd
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #564
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11078;
          13 Aug 90 4:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26463;
          13 Aug 90 2:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27295;
          13 Aug 90 1:39 CDT
Date:     Mon, 13 Aug 90 0:45:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #565
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:45:32 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 565

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Gilbert Amine]
    Re: 666 And All That [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific [Jim Budler]
    Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe [Jim Budler]
    Re: Len Rose Indictment [Carl M. Kadie]
    Re: Unlisted Numbers and E911 [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Telephone Diverters [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Caller-ID Again [Dave Levenson]
    Re: "Follow Me" Roaming Question [Robert Gutierrez]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 17:29 EST
From: Rochelle Communications <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID


In the August 11 issue of TELECOM Digest (Volume 10, Issue 562)
Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]> argues that the "peephole" analogy
often stated by Caller ID proponents is not valid. He writes:

>Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you
>want if you just can choose the question.  His argument falls apart on
>close examination.... However, virtually all the complaints about
>invasions of privacy have had to do with potential abuses by BUSINESSES.

This is simply not the case. Most complaints about Caller ID stem from
the right of callers to make anonymous phone calls, not the right of
being spared from telephone solicitations from overzealous
salespeople. Several cases have been effectively raised by Caller ID
opponents to stress the need for anonymity: a) A psychologist calling
patients from her home, b) A woman calling her husband from a special
shelter for battered housewives, c) Individuals who may be "scared
away" from calling certain hotlines (AIDS, drug abuse, crime tips,
etc.).

Many have argued that Caller ID would inevitably result in an increase
in telephone solicitations as businesses compile more "telephone
lists" of potential customers, and share such lists with other
businesses. There is some validity to this argument, but one should
consider that telemarketers have access to such lists today, and that
Caller ID by itself, wouldn't add much information (I have an unlisted
number and I do get several solicitations daily). It is important to
recognize that this is essentially a telemarketing problem and not a
Caller ID problem. Proper regulation of telemarketing practices is the
best way to limit the excesses of telemarketing. As Jerry noted,
Congress has just passed a law that would prohibit telemarketers from
making computer-generated calls to individuals who have listed their
telephone numbers in a special database.

Jerry goes on to say:

>the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you got it, businesses.
>That's where the money is.

I don't know on what basis this assertion is made. Caller ID is viewed
today by telephone companies as a residential service and has been
aggressively marketed it as such. Bell Atlantic indicate that 94% of
their Caller ID subscribers are residential customers. This is not to
say to Caller ID does not appeal to businesses. There are many great
applications of this technology in the business community including
computer security, caller-specific voice messaging, pizza delivery,
and customer service. But telephone companies seem to be focusing on
the residential market since it will give them the critical mass to
make the service economical to them.

Finally, Jerry expresses an interest in ...

> A better Caller-ID system, though perhaps technically impractical -
>would be a button or setting on your phone that explicitly asked for
>Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and could choose
>to allow my identification to be sent, or not.  This would be the
>electronic analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be
>unable to lie about it...

A system such as this is not far-fetched and may provide the ultimate
answer to the Caller ID debate by balancing the caller's "right" to
anonymity and the called person's right of privacy. I understand that
AT&T and NTI are developing a similar feature at the switch level.
Individuals who do not wish to receive anonymous telephone calls would
be able to request that when such calls are attempted, that a
recording be produced essentially stating that "the party you are
calling does not accept anonymous calls. Please dial 1 to have your
number transmitted or hang up..."


Gilbert Amine
Rochelle Communications
Austin, Texas
voice: [phone]

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <amdcad!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 And All That
Date: 13 Aug 90 00:15:41 GMT
Reply-To: amdcad!netcom![e-mail]
Organization: UESPA


In <[e-mail]> tharr![e-mail] (Steve Hamley) writes:

>In the UK, Redemptorist Publications, who publish a Catholic
>newsletter, runs its own premium-charged helplines. They give out such
>information as what the church thinks about divorce, what to do when
>your kids stop going to mass, etc.

>These are on the numbers 0898 666 XXX.

>Their service provider also seems to have a slight clash of interests.
>At the same time as the Redemptorists were running a line on 'should
>you read horoscopes' they announced new improved, interactive
>horoscopes run in conjunction with a daily paper.

I seem to recall reading that, on paper at least, the Roman Catholic
Church is still banned in the UK.

All of this reminds me of a cartoon I saw once in *Punch*.  Two
Africans are walking down an English street, passing a newstand that
apparently caters to the credulous: giant headlines about UFOs and
Satanism, books on Astrology and the Occult, and so on.  One of the
Africans is saying to the other, "The locals are actually quite nice,
once you get used to their quaint superstitions!"


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

Disclaimer:  I am what I am, and that's all what I am!

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI, VISAPhone, and Call Canada/Europe/Pacific
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:57:09 GMT


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

>I don't even like the *idea* of FAX. It's an expensive, inefficient,
>and clumsy *technological* solution to the *political* problems of
>electronic mail.

Someday, I hope as you, that email will be universal. But if you'd
been in Taiwan at the end of the day, faced with your choice of
staying up 'till midnight to make a phone call, and sending a FAX
home, you'd realize the value of FAX in today's world.

In fact, even if it had been midnight and I knew people were in the
plant, I would have sent the FAX, given they would have put me on
hold, created a conference call and gathered everyone concerned (can
you say 10 minutes or more while my ear burns and my sleep is
delayed?).

Email isn't there yet.

>You know any other Email-FAX gateways I might use? They get enough of
>my money on letters to Australia.

Uhh, yes. ATTmail, Compuserve, maybe GEnie and Delphi. Please note
that I have not the slightest idea if any of these are cheaper, just
answering your question.

Fax modems are dropping to lower prices than I paid for my first 1200
baud modem, maybe it's time to do a study of how much you pay
regularly for that email to FAX translation service and buy your own
Faxmodem and do it yourself?

>>         And to those on this forum who HAVE responded and reacted in
>> the sense of opening electronic democracy...

>*Opening* electronic democracy? Maybe to the folks with expensive toys
>or the ability to mooch off the office FAX machine. 900-number polls
>seem more democratic to me.

Democratic??? I don't think this survey is democratic, I think it's
*demographic*. It is going to be presented as upper-middle-class and
above results based upon the fact that it contains only respondents
with access to a FAX machine.

In addition, I doubt that it qualifies as any sort of scientific
survey, as it will be biased towards those with enough energy to make
a statement, which in this case is those upset by her performance.
It's unlikely there will be a groundswell of people *actively*
supporting her.

Much as I disliked her performance, and think it was in terrible
taste, I think the issue is trivial, and of no major importance.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6061
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 01:25:14 GMT


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

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ge Weijers)
>asks about calling an 800 number from Europe.

>Not any more.  AT&T's Dial Direct (or whatever) will call at least
>some 800 numbers from Europe.  I think they charge the regular amount:
>$4 plus $1/minute, regardless of the time of day.  I haven't tried
>MCI's Call America, which is about the same price; they might do 800
>numbers also.

But don't both of these assume you have an account with ATT or MCI?

Didn't a recent Digest article explain that it is difficult or
impossible for a European resident to get an ATT Calling Card?

Even assuming I'm wrong, ATT direct can only connect to ATT 800
numbers, and MCI Call America can only connect to MCI 800 numbers and
unless the caller can decypher which is which he's outa luck.  And
there are other 800 numbers not provided by either ATT and MCI.

Still no joy in reaching 800 numbers from Europe or anywhere outside
the US.

Conclusions:

Responsible advertisers should always include both their 800 number
and their real number.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6061
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 20:55:16 -0500
From: "Carl M. Kadie" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Len Rose Indictment


How come in Craig Neidorf's indictment the "Legion of Doom" is defined
as a "closely knit group of computer hackers", but in Len Rose's
indictment it is a "loosely-associated group of computer hackers."?


[Moderator's Note: I suspect its part of the government plot to
persecute Mr. Rose.  PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and E911
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 02:03:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> amdcad!netcom!onymouse
(John Debert) writes:

>How could they possibly know the name of the person calling without
>asking?  Billing name does not necessarily equal the name of the
>caller. So, why waste space displaying the name?

>GTE would have done better leaving names off the display. Could be
>misleading and result in errors on the part of E.R. personnel.

What is wanted is not the name of the caller, but the information that
this is the "Frobaz" residence.  It often proves useful -- e.g:
officers on the beat tend to know that "Joe Frobaz" always beats his
wife, or when they talk to someone at the door, if they ask for
identification, and the name isn't Frobaz, they get suspicious.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Diverters
Date: 13 Aug 90 02:51:16 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail] (Gary
Segal) writes:

> I wrote (in an earlier posting):
> >What in the world is "reverse modem detection"?  The originating modem
> >remains silent, expecting answer-tone from the answering modem?

and Gary responds, in part:

> Here is a guess ... The device is looking for V.25 calling tone.  V.25

and to my statement:

> >As far as I know, some fax machines, in some originating modes,
> >generate the CNG tone when they're awaiting answer.  I know of no
> >non-fax modems that would work with the device described above.

Gary responds:

> All fax machines are supposed to generate calling tone when the
> machine dials.  If an autodialing fax machine doesn't generate calling
> tone (CNG), it is in violation of the T.30 recommendation for fax
> machines.

Our FAX machine (Brother 200) only generates CNG tones when it is in
autodial mode.  The trouble is, in autodial mode, if it gets a busy
signal or a ring-no-answer, it just reports ERROR and drops the call.
Therefore, I generally use it in manual-dial mode, where I can hear
the call-progress tones from its speaker.  I wait until I hear
answer-tone from the far-end FAX machine, and then I press the START
button.  At that point, the speaker is cut off, and the machine sends
CNG tones, followed by the actual data carrier.  If I got a silent
answer, I guess I'd have to assume its a diverter, and press the START
button and hope...

Doesn't sound very practical, does it?


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: Caller-ID Again
Date: 13 Aug 90 03:03:31 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (S. Keith
Graham) writes:

> Also, does anyone out there object to the phone company charging for
> the "service" that allows you to report that the last call received as
> a crank call?  Its several dollars a month here (BellSouth), for the
> "right"... Plus installation.

I doubt that I'd object; I just wouldn't buy it, if it were charged by
the month as Keith describes.  Here in NJ, it's the only one of the
"Class" services for which there is no monthly charge.  There is a
per-use charge, which I _think_ is $1.00.  I usually don't know, at
the beginning of the month, whether or not I'll be receiving
intra-lata crank calls!

With the introduction of Caller*ID service, however, crank calls have
all but disappeared in this area.


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: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:10:13 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: "Follow Me" Roaming Question


[e-mail]) (DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes:

|> 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.

I recently experienced the joys of "Follow-Me-Ripoff"... err ...
"Roaming" while I was in San Diego, California about 2 weeks ago.

One of the problems I came across was that San Diego (Pac-Tel Celluar)
seemed not to have been able to handshake with my cell phone too well.
Calls through the local dial-in worked fine, but calls forwarded from
GTE Mobilnet/San Francisco seemed to die at San Diego.  I would hear
my phone being polled, but it gave up and then I got Pac-Tel's
unavailable recording.  I tried this about 3 times.  I then tried *18
to (re)activate it, and it did work this time, but I sometimes wonder
if it really worked after that.

Another thing was that my phone was being polled about every 1/2 hour
while I was in San Diego.  I thought this very strange, as why would
Pac-Tel Celluar care if I was still around or not, and what if I was
in and area where it wasn't working (like inside the Performing Arts
Center, where I was attending a convention).  This is annoying because
(a) I would assume it's putting a drain on my batteries and (b) it has
a Rat Shack 3db antenna on it, and it screwed up our VCR's while I was
making some copies, even though it was ten feet away!

Hmmm.


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 #565
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01910;
          14 Aug 90 2:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31696;
          14 Aug 90 0:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15316;
          13 Aug 90 23:51 CDT
Date:     Mon, 13 Aug 90 23:38:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #566
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 13 Aug 90 23:38:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 566

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Ken Abrams]
    Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Bernie Cosell]
    Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Mike Godwin]
    Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Ronald L. Fletcher]
    Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [[e-mail]]
    Re: Privacy and Itemized Billing (was: Re: 800 ANI) [Ken Greer]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Robert Gutierrez]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Robert Savery]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID
Date: 12 Aug 90 15:39:52 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

>Your ethicist is demonstrating how easy it is to get the answer you
>want if you just can choose the question.  His argument falls apart on
>close exami- nation.

I don't usually respond to articles of an argumentative nature but I
just can't let this one pass.  Your entire prose demonstrates how
logic can be reverse engineered just like software.  Choose the
outcome you wish to substanitate and then work backwards so that the
initial circumstances and events appear to lead logically to the
desired conclusion.  I contend that your argument falls apart even
WITHOUT close examination.  To wit:

>a) He pulls at the emotional heartstrings of "privacy in your own
>home" to try to argue for Caller-ID.  However, virtually all the
>complaints about invasions of privacy have had to do with potential
>abuses by BUSINESSES.

And I suppose that you would have us believe that the opponents of
caller ID are not making an emotional pitch for our sympathy rather
than a factual pitch for our support based on FACTS?  Bunk, quite the
opposite.  Note "potential abuses by BUSINESSES" above.  The key word
is "potential".  Aren't we on a witch hunt here and crying wolf to
boot?  Businesses already have access to a wealth of information about
almost all of us, including our phone number if they want that.  Every
time you pay by check or credit card you have given up your privacy.

And just how, pry tell, do you intend to do business with a company by
phone without identifying yourself in some manner which reveals a lot
more than your phone number?  It's going to be pretty tough.  It seems
to me that what you really want is not to retain your right to pivacy
but to create a NEW right to be anonymous.  I think there is a BIG
difference and the latter just simply doesn't exist in most legal
definitions.

>All you can get from this argument is that NON-BUSINESS lines have a
>right to receive Caller-ID.  For all their talk about protecting
>people's privacy, the telco's REALLY want to sell Caller-ID to, you
>got it, businesses.  That's where the money is.

There you go assuming things again.  I find this hard to believe since
the residence lines in most wire centers outnumber the business lines
at least two to one.  In some cases it is much higher.  In order to
completely debunk this argument, I need figures on national totals of
residence vs. business lines and I don't have that so I am not on firm
ground either on this point.  Maybe someone else can provide more
solid facts.  I contend that the residence market for this feature is
MUCH larger than the business market.

>I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone
>are equal invasions of privacy.  In each case, you have the right to
>ask for identifica- tion.  In each case, I can refuse to provide it -
>in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone.  That's as
>far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself.

You had a good start here but got side-tracked again with warping the
logic to suit your desired result.  The phone ringing is analgous to a
knock on the door.  Answering the phone is like OPENING the door.  I
contend that I have a right to know who is outside (either physically
or electronically) BEFORE I open the portal, not after.

>BTW, the analogy of the "no solicitors" sign is your ability to say
>that you don't want any telemarketing calls.  In the past, you've had
>no way to enforce this.  The bill just passed by Congress, requiring
>that telemarketers respect a list of "no calls" numbers, provides
>exactly this ability.

As an individual, just exactly how do you think you can see to it that
this is enforced if there is no fool proof way to identify the caller?
Just another well meaning statute that is effectively useless because
the worst offenders just won't identify themselves.

As you probably already can tell, I support the Caller ID feature (and
this is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with my employer).
As a matter of fact, as an individual, I really don't care if blocking
is offered or not.  When fully implemented, I simply will NOT answer
any calls where the calling number is not present.  Very simple and
very effective.  I simply will not deal with anyone who wishes to
remain anonymous.


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

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

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID
Date: 13 Aug 90 12:04:56 GMT


[e-mail] (Rochelle Communications) writes:

}In the August 11 issue of TELECOM Digest (Volume 10, Issue 562)
}Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]> argues that the "peephole" analogy
}often stated by Caller ID proponents is not valid....

}Finally, Jerry expresses an interest in ...

}> A better Caller-ID system, though perhaps technically impractical -
}>would be a button or setting on your phone that explicitly asked for
}>Caller-ID. I would receive a notification of the request and could choose
}>to allow my identification to be sent, or not.  This would be the
}>electronic analogue of your asking for my name - except that I would be
}>unable to lie about it...

}A system such as this is not far-fetched and may provide the ultimate
}answer to the Caller ID debate by balancing the caller's "right" to
}anonymity and the called person's right of privacy.

You can have such a system *today*, and have no need to affect the
privacy of anyone else in having it.  Someone markets a 'call
screener' [does anyone know who does, or if it is really still
available ... I confess to not having seen any ads for it in a couple
of years]: it will pick up the phone and nominally route *every*
caller to an answering machine ... but ... you can program 'security
codes' into it, and you can simply tell your friends whatever security
code(s) you choose.  The box will recognize the code, and your actual
phone will ring ONLY after a person enters an acceptable code.

For example, you could have a single 'password', and just tell
everyone.  OR ... you could have a group-password: give everyone at
work one password, give the folks on your Ultimate Frisbee team a
different number, etc.  OR..  you can simply 'special' people to use
*their*phone*number* as their 'password': that has the interesting
side effect of your knowing that it is your brother calling no matter
WHERE he is calling from.

There are two interesting properties of this kind of approach, versus the
'big brother should do it all' approach:

  (a) no ones privacy is coercively invaded, and
  (b) only the people who want this kind of incoming-call-filtration need
      pay for it, and only their correspondents will have to deal with it.


 /Bernie\

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

From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID
Date: 13 Aug 90 11:34:13 GMT
Reply-To: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gilbert
Amine) writes:

>This is simply not the case. Most complaints about Caller ID stem from
>the right of callers to make anonymous phone calls, not the right of
>being spared from telephone solicitations from overzealous
>salespeople.

I realize this may be a naive comment, but won't "the right to make
anonymous phone calls" be preserved so long as we still have pay
phones in this country?

Wouldn't pay phones allow for effective caller anonymity even if
phones had optional settings that demanded caller phone numbers before
putting calls through?


Mike Godwin, UT Law School
[e-mail]
[phone]


[Moderator's Note: You are correct about payphones, but what phreak do
you know who is going to go stand on a dark street corner on a cold
January night with a modem and terminal hunting for lines that answer
with carrier?  Some payphone abuse will continue, granted.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 15:21:11 EDT
From: Ronald L Fletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Leichter) writes:

> I'll argue that the knock on the door and the ring of the telephone
> are equal invasions of privacy.  In each case, you have the right to
> ask for identification.  In each case, I can refuse to provide it -
> in which case you can close the door or hang up the phone.  That's as
> far as your rights go if I refuse to identify myself.

> In telephony terms, this means that I should have the right to send my
> ID or not; and you have the right to receive it, and refuse to answer
> if I didn't send it.

This analogy is not quite complete. The last time I used the "knock on
the door" analogy against Caller ID, a co-worker pointed out that it
is actually an argument for Caller ID. People forget that doors have
windows and peepholes.  If someone knocks on my door, I can see the
person knocking and given that information, I decide whether or not to
even answer the door.  If I recognize the person, I have their
identification without asking them for it.

The same is true for Caller ID. Upon seeing the calling number, I can
decide whether or not to answer the call. The ring equals the knock,
and the Caller ID equals the window/peephole.

I dont really understand why so many people have this "telemarketing
list" fear of Caller ID. The way I see it, when Caller ID is fully
implemented and ALL numbers are transmitted we will then have a
powerful tool to filter out the meaningful calls from the chaff.

This same co-worker has an idea that I like. He says that in addition
to the number, CID should carry a code describing whether the call
originates from a residence or business, then someone can market a
high-tech phone that can be programmed to send all calls marked
"business" to /dev/answering-machine.



        Ron Fletcher
        att!mtgzy!rlf

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

From: siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID
Date: 13 Aug 90 21:51:14 GMT
Organization: Stanford University


Jerry Leichter writes:

>In telephony terms, this means that I should have the right to send
>my ID or not; and you have the right to receive it, and refuse to
>answer if I didn't send it.

>A better Caller-ID system - though perhaps technically impractical
>- would be a button or setting on your phone that explicity asked
>for Caller-ID.  I would receive a notification of the request and
>could choose to allow my identification to be sent, or not.  This
>would be the electronic analogue of your asking for my name -
>except that I would be unable to lie about it.

You've got it!  Exactly right!  The telco won't like it, the
prospective business users of Caller-ID will absolutely hate it, BUT I
WANT THAT BUTTON!  (NOT some special code I have to send each time,
NOT a special service I have to pay for, but _that button_, right
there on the phone for each and every call).  (And it's not
technically impractical at all either, is it?)

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

From: Ken Greer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Privacy and Itemized Billing (was: Re: 800 ANI)
Date: 13 Aug 90 11:14:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ken Greer)
Organization: MCNC; RTP, NC


In article <[e-mail]> Kolkka Markku Olavi <mk59200@metso.
tut.fi> writes:

>|> 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) ?

>The basic idea is to protect _your_ privacy by not showing to someone
>else where you have called.  If the nubers are shown on the bill, that
>means that they are stored somewhere, and someone can go through them
>to see if you have made any 'suspicious' calls.  Don't you consider
>this an invasion of your privacy?

Excuse me, but I thought the discussion was about the printing of the
numbers that I call, printed on _my_ phone bill ... which means that
they would come to _me_ and then I could choose who or who not to show
them to.  So why store any part of the number ??  A lot of good it is
to me to tell me I called someone (out of > five million in NC, say).

>Don't you consider this an invasion of your privacy?

Not unless the phone company decided to market this info, which so
far, I have not heard any concrete evidence of.

While we're on the subject, companies have known for a long time that
even the exchange you live in tells a lot (well, a least some) about
the person.  Affluent neighborhoods will be targeted much more for
some marketing ploys than will be a ghetto neighborhood.


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]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:44:50 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!


[e-mail] (John Cowan) writes:

|> Well, I tried the 800-666-6258 ANI demonstration number in several
|> different ways.

["Different ways" deleted except #7]

|> 7) Finally, Susan got through [from MCI].  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.)

MCI's North East customer service center is in Ryebrook, NY.  The MCI
rep was just dialling from her ACD console, and confrencing you in.
The "outside" lines on the ACD's are just good ol' POTS lines with MCI
as it's default carrier.  I did this all the time also from San
Francisco's customer service center (called the Pacific Division).
Before MCI got it's first TOPS operator center in Omaha, Nebraska, we
"completed" calls by geting one of these POTS lines on the ACD,
calling 950-1022, dialling the number(s) ourselves, bridging the
customer on, then releasing the call.  The connection was poor, but
the customer usually was concerned about getting through, and not too
much concerned about line quality.

If you call that MCI Ryebrook number back, you should get Customer
Service, at least that's how it was set up on the old Infotron
ACD's ... but now, they bought new Aspect ACD's, and the Aspect's may
require dedicated outgoing trunks, as opposed to Infotron's ability to
share incoming/outgoing lines.  If you do get through, you may get a
surprized rep, since the display on her console shows which trunk
group the call is from ("Calling Card", "Trouble Reporting", "Customer
Service", etc...)  In San Francisco, it showed up as "POTS Trunk", and
the reps had no idea what POTS meant :-)


   Robert Michael Gutierrez
   Office of Space Science and Applications,
   NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center.
   Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:04:42 EDT
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


I sure would hate to be anywhere near that office when they get this
months phone bill!!

I hope the bean counters have their nitro pills handy!!


See Ya'll Later,

Bob

[1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne.

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #566
******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03042;
          14 Aug 90 3:44 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03947;
          14 Aug 90 1:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31696;
          14 Aug 90 0:55 CDT
Date:     Tue, 14 Aug 90 0:15:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #567
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Aug 90 00:14:27 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 567

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [John Cowan]
    Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [Jerry B. Altzman]
    Re: Telephone Diverters [Alan Millar]
    Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: More ANI Fun! [Robert Savery]
    Re: Pennies to Heaven [Sergio Gelato]
    Re: Slowest Dialable Number [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: AT&T 800 Directory [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax [Robert Savery]
    Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [Ian G. Batten]
    Re: 666 and Ignorant People [Henry Troup]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 14:33:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> contact![e-mail] (woody)
writes:

>Here's a challenge for the TELECOM Digest readers ... what is the
>fastest pulse-dialable number in working order?

>In North America, the first choice would be [phone] (there
>seems to be a 211 prefix in 212 according to one source). Failing
>that,

That does fail.  Here in 212-land, 211 is the code for the automated
credit system, which deals with "I lost money in this &*@(# payphone!"
calls.

[phone] gives some kind of modem warble, perhaps a TDD; I'm
not sure exactly what a TDD sounds like, but it certainly isn't Bell
103 or 212, or Racal-Vadic, nor yet V.24 bis or Telebit.  Perhaps
someone with a TDD would like to try calling?


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)
            e'osai ko sarji la lojban

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

From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?
Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 14:13:31 GMT


>In North America, the first choice would be [phone] (there
>seems to be a 211 prefix in 212 according to one source).

211 is NYTEL's "automatic crediting system" It doesn't count.

Cheating just like 411...sorry! :-(


jerry b. altzman         212 854 8058
[e-mail]      jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)   ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telephone Diverters
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 14:51:44 PDT


[e-mail] <[e-mail]>, Dave Levenson
writes:

>What in the world is "reverse modem detection"?

In normal modem operation, the originating modem dials the phone and
is silent until it sees a carrier presented by the answering modem.
The answering modem detects a ring, goes off-hook, and sends a carrier
to the originating modem.  Then they go through their "connection"
business to figure out if the other end is Bell 103 or 212A or
whatever.

An alternative mode of operation is available in my Micom-brand US$99
Hayes-clone modems.  As part of the dialing command, there is a
specifier to make the _originating_ modem produce a carrier after it
dials, as if it were answering a call.  The modem that is being called
must pick up the phone as if it were making a call, and it will hear
the carrier given by the calling modem.

Reverse connections are no big deal in a manually-dialed call, because
manual modems just have an originate/answer switch, and you flip it on
both ends.  In an automated Hayes-command environment, you have to
change the way your software interacts with your modem.  On my Micoms,
the calling modem requires pause commas after the phone number in the
"ATD" dialing command to wait for the call to go through.  A letter
"R" as the last part of the dialing string tells the modem to produce
carrier instead of looking for it.

On the answering end, I have not figured out any way to do
auto-answering in originate mode with these modems.  So, the software
waits for the "RING" message from the modem, and then does a dial
(ATD) command with no phone number.  The answering modem thinks it is
dialing a call, picks up the ringing phone line, and then detects the
carrier produced by the calling modem.  They do their "connect" thing
and everybody is happy.  There may be other modems that will
auto-answer in originate mode, and mine may even do it (I just haven't
bothered to pursue it).

So ... Why would anybody want to do this?  The first situation is the
fax/modem switch-box, where the switch-box looks for modem carrier
produced by the calling modem and transfers it to the answering modem.
I use it for a modem on my company's PBX with Octel Aspen "automated
attendant" call direction.

There are no DID lines to people's desks at work.  To reach an
extension without going through a human operator, you call a main
number that is answered by Aspen.  You give it a touch-tone extension
number, and it transfers you to that extension.  The problem is that
when the person picks up their phone, they get a message from Aspen
saying "Transfer... Transfer..." and it takes fifteen seconds or so
for you to get put through.  It's no big deal on the voice side, but
when you are a modem calling, and the answering modem picks up the
line, it presents its carrier to the "Transfer..."  message and by the
time you get through, it's too late.  With the reverse-originate
setup, I can put in a delay which waits long enough for the real
end-to-end connection before doing carrier.  (You may ask why I didn't
go for a direct-line to the outside.  This way, the modem can be
called from any internal extension and take advantage of tie-lines
between sites.  Besides, it's one less trunk to pay for... :-)

The whole thing sounds like a pain, I know, but it takes longer to
explain it than to set it up (as long as you can customize your
software on each end).  It works here!


- Alan Millar    [e-mail]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe
Date: 13 Aug 90 17:45:43 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> Even assuming I'm wrong, ATT direct can only connect to ATT 800
> numbers, and MCI Call America can only connect to MCI 800 numbers and
> unless the caller can decypher which is which he's outa luck.  And
> there are other 800 numbers not provided by either ATT and MCI.

Last time I tried, ATT Direct couldn't / wouldn't connect me to an ATT
800 line -- this was about a year ago.  The operator also didn't have
a suggestion on how I could complete my 800 call.  Neither of which
surprised me.

On the topic of (not) calling 800 numbers from overseas, it always
amuses my simple mind that I actually have to pick a city to call when
I need to place a call back to a US airline (of which, I would know
the 800 number from dialing it enough in the States).  I just usually
pick one of the airline's hub cities when asking information for the
number.


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:02:27 EDT
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More ANI Fun!
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


 >> 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.

Not that it matters in the context of this discussion, but in case you
missed the news, Telecom USA was bought out by MCI.

I too had Telecom as my carrier until this sad day. I refuse to have
anything to do with MCI. Their business practices are just a little
too close to sleasy for my tastes. Not including taxes, their having
switched me to their service without my approval has cost me approx.
$40.00.

Headaches like that I just don't need. While I havn't actually done it
yet, looks like I'm gonna be one of the people switching back to AT&T.

See Ya!!

Bob

[1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne.

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

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:07 EST
From: Sergio Gelato <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pennies to Heaven


 From: [e-mail] (Donald E. Kimberlin), Message-ID:
<[e-mail]>

>        Here's news on the latest offering via 900 service, from the
>August 6, 1990 edition of <CommunicationsWEEK>:

>                     Just Dial 1-900-230-POPE

If you prefer to hear him in Spanish, the number is [phone].
Might be cheaper too, at the current rate for calls to Italy.
(Disclaimer: I haven't called myself, but the number is advertised on
Vatican Radio.)

It isn't clear whether the Italian telephone company donates anything
to the Vatican out of gratitude for the increased revenue from Latin
America; but there are other such intercontinental "hotlines".
'****Sport', a British weekly (full name withheld since they don't pay
me to do their advertising), has a very popular (or so they say)
"0898" number (actually, they just switched to Mercury, so it's 0839
123123 in case anyone wants to waste 25p).

Since they have many readers outside the UK, a few months ago they
offered a way of reaching their service from abroad: "just dial +611
411 421, normal inter- national rates apply". (Kindly enough, they
added "N.B. From Australia dial 00551 4009". And before you try
calling: they haven't been advertising this number for the past two
months, so the service may have been discontinued.)

My question is: what's in it for them? Does Telecom Australia give
them a share of the revenue from the calls they get?


Sergio Gelato <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 11:20:22 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Slowest Dialable Number


> And what is the slowest pulse-dialable number? It is a real number;
> the Covenant House Nine Line: (1-800-999-9999) for runaways.

> [Moderator's Note: I think, but am not willing to dial and find out,
> that a 'slower' number would be 900-999-9999. I believe the 900-999

Would dialing 1-900-555-1212 get you the info on what that number was
or would one be billed for the information call as well (at $3 for the
first minute and $2 for additional minutes...? :-)


tom

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


[Moderator's Note: I assume (don't know for sure) that 900-555-1212 is
a free call, however the last time I tried it, about a year ago, it
was merely a recorded announcement listing 'a selection' (i.e. the
clean ones) of services available, and the price, which seems to be
based on the first three digits. It did not cross reference existing
numbers to names. Does anyone know if there is a printed 900 directory
available yet, with prices, etc?)

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T 800 Directory
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 04:31:11 GMT


 From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>

>>I get it [the AT&T 800 Directory] for free, too, and always promptly throw
>>it out. ... it is a directory of "selected, consumer-oriented ATT-based 800
>>numbers" that were willing to pay to get included. What a waste of trees.

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

>In these days of all the brouhaha about recycling, I'm surprised you
>admit to throwing the directory away. After all, if it is a waste to
>you, it may be of worth to someone else. Drop it off at your local
>public library. If that is not feasible or too out-of-the-way, at
>least leave it at work, at a laundromat, or by a public phone
>somewhere so that somebody has a chance to find it and take it. It is
>doubly a "waste of trees" to get something you don't need and just
>pitch it instead of making some effort to pass it on to somewhere
>where it might be used.

I did indeed try to pass it on: I dumped it in the newspaper bin for
our curbside recycling pickup. They returned it. They apparently only
accept phone books one week of the year: When GTE passes out new
directories.

I did try to look up some customer service numbers of companies I
might do business with: Sears, MCI :-), Fisher-Price toys,
Scandinavian Airlines, and when none of these were in the directory, I
declared it a loser ... it just did not have critical mass.


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

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:06:23 EDT
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Censure Roseanne Barr by Fax
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <08 Aug 90 22:38:20>, John Higdon (1:30102/2) writes:

JH>Hopefully Americans aren't so stupid that they will, in mass numbers,
JH>clog communications networks over something as supremely silly as the
JH>Roseanne Barr non-event.

Ah, but they are!! Look at all the money the 900/976 rip-off artists
are raking in!!

JH>(Somehow, I put whether my cat pees in the flower bed a couple of notches
JH>above this "issue".)

I was thinking about printing all this out and lining my bird cage
with it. I'm still trying to figure out just what all this has to do
with telecom stuff!

See Ya!!

Bob

[1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne.

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


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the telecom connection is growing rather
thin on the topic, which should be closed at this time, so far as
TELECOM Digest is concerned. Thanks.  PAT]

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

From: Ian G Batten <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep
Organization: BT Fulcrum, Birmingham
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 09:04:05 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Yasi) writes:

> II switch; I'm unsure of the software revision.  Until just about a
> week ago, a caller could tell whether he was causing a call waiting

The BT System X exchanges are far more sensible; they give the caller
a spoken message saying ``The phone you are dialing is in use; we are
attempting to connect you.''


ian

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 666 and Ignorant People
Date: 13 Aug 90 14:24:18 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark E Anderson)
writes:

>myself ignorant but I would never accept a number with a 666 exchange
>or any 3 sixes in a row.  If I were to get one, I'd simply ask for
>another number.  I didn't even like it when my current number had 2 6s
>in a row.

>I don't consider myself that superstitious but a phone number is sort
>of like a personal identification of existence.  It doesn't hurt to
>play it safe just in case.

Well, my home number is 613-59 666 43 (unusual spacing to show the 666
in it.  No one has ever mentioned it to me, and I've had it for eight
years.  But then, I don't think of the number as part of me, but part
of Bell. (Canada)

Shouldn't we really take this to alt.folklore.urban?

Sort of folklore: in Toronto, there is a store called 'The Occult Shop', which
deals in new age and neopagan stuff.  They were for a while located at
664 Queen St.  They wanted to get 666, but the shoe store wouldn't move.
Really!  I know the owners, somewhat.

Disclaimer: Good Christians don't believe in Satan, numerology, or the IRS :^)

Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada...
uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 [e-mail] 613-765-2337    |


[Moderator's Note: This is another topic being closed at this time. We
all had several laughs from it, but the telecom connection is gone.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #567
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03572;
          14 Aug 90 4:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12965;
          14 Aug 90 3:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03947;
          14 Aug 90 1:59 CDT
Date:     Tue, 14 Aug 90 1:02:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #568
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Aug 90 01:02:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 568

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Jay Maynard]
    Re: Len Rose Indictment [Keith Henson]
    Re: Is Area Code 510 Actice? [Dave Berman]
    Re: Two-line Systems [David O'Heare]
    Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina [Manuel J. Moguilevsky]
    President Bush Uses Cellular? [Thomas Lapp]
    411 in New Jersey [John R. Levine]
    ANI and COCOT's [Jack Winslade]
    Crosstalk on Quad-Wire [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Strange Payphone [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID
Reply-To: Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard <[e-mail]>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 14:41:38 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jerry Leichter)
writes:

>b) Even if we restrict ourselves to private homes and non-business
>lines, his argument is weak.  I have the right to knock on your front
>door.  You don't have to let me in unless I identify myself, but you
>can't stop me from knock- ing.  I don't believe a "no solicitors" sign
>has any legal weight.  (A "no trespassing" sign MIGHT - although I
>can't enforce it selectively, letting some people in without
>invitation and choosing to go after others.)

My city does give "no solicitors" signs legal weight. Solicitors must
be licensed, and they must respect such signs, or else they get fined
and lose their license.

Your statement above makes the case FOR Caller-ID. Yes, someone can
ring my phone - but I don't have to answer it, just as I don't have to
open my front door, unless they tell me who they are. If I ever have
Caller-ID available, I will follow exactly such a policy - and never
answer any calls from a blocked number.


Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is time once again to close the Caller ID
discussion to further Digest input. This is not because your arguments
are not interesting, but because we continue to run tight on space and
a day behind on postings.  We will start this topic again in a couple
months.  Thanks.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Len Rose Indictment
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:00:04 PDT


One aspect of the Len Rose case which has been discussed on the Well
is the concept of "fair use" of copyrighted material.  I know that ATT
has put "This is copyrighted, but we don't intend to ever publish it"
notices on Unix source code (and a lot of other chunks of binary unix
copies too.)  However, with thousands of copies of it sold, and at
least that many in the hands of CS majors, a jury might well rule that
ATT had effectively published the code.

If so, then what Len had on his machine is very likely to fall under
the "fair use" provisions of the copyright law.  As is clear from the
affidavit supporting the warrant under which Len's computers and
reference materials were taken, ATT is the motivating force in the Len
Rose case, just as Bell South was in the Neidorf case.  It seems
possible that this case might blow up in their faces even worse than
the Neidorf case did, making Unix source code freely available as
reference material (which might not be that bad for ATT).  Another
thing, I have been a faithful ATT LD customer since the breakup, but
their role in this case is making me reconsider.


Keith Henson
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (dave berman)
Subject: Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?
Organization: Comspec Communications Inc., Toronto Ontario Canada
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 06:03:23 GMT


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?

Dear Woody (and others who read this):

I live in Toronto, in area code 416, using exchange 766, and cannot
(*NOT*) reach area 510 yet. I will keep trying, and will inform the
net when it works for me.

It seems to me that the whole worldwide voice net will go down the
tubes real soon now, with features like IdentaCall and stuff all
working to help use up all those numbers so fast. Are the telephone
switching systems installed now able to handle a reprogramming, such
as adding an extra digit in front of the usual exchange? Or adding a
fourth character to the area code?

In Toronto we have various test numbers, and I can only guess what
they do. We have 2 secret numbers into repair services, 611 (the real
one) 711 the secret one (I) and 511 the secret one (II).

Well, I've rambled off topic long enough. Best wishes to all readers.


Dave Berman
436 Perth Av #U-907   [e-mail]   Computer at work
Toronto Ontario       uunet!mnetor!becker!comspec!daveb
Canada M6P 3Y7        416-785-3668         Fax at work

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

From: David O'Heare <dciem!gandalf![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two-line Systems
Date: 13 Aug 90 13:49:00 GMT
Organization: Goodgulf Greyteeth


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

> [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.

In the Ottawa area (served by Bell Canada), there is *only* circular
hunt available. One must accept calls to any number in the sequence on
any line in the hunt group, although *usually* the sequence is upward
by calling number.

Bell Canada does also charge for this service; $4 per month *per line*
(which means that for a two-line hunt group as described, the charge
would be $8 above the regular phone charge; for three lines the
monthly charge would be $12, etc.).

The customer is not required to pay business rates for their phone
lines. They might have a bit of a time convincing the business office
that they aren't a business, however.

DISCLAIMER: I am in no way affiliated with Bell Canada, other than as
a usually satisfied customer. The above information came from the
local Bell business office. Your mileage may vary.


David O'Heare      [e-mail]   [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 06:52:10 MST
From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky <manuel%psi#[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Yellow Pages in Argentina


Digest readers have written:

>>The NUA of the yellow pages: 0 7222 211103127

>which seems to indicate that NUA is an abbreviation of some sort.
>(with N standing for Numero?)

About the NUA, it means IDN in English:

IDN = Identification Data Network (121 CCITT RECOMENDATION)

DNIC = Data Network Identification Code
NTN = Network Terminal Number

IDN = DNIC + NTN


Manuel

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:15:31 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: President Bush Ues Cellular?


In a photograph which ran in my local newspaper (source: AP
wirephoto), it showed President Bush talking to a military leader from
his golf cart.  The phone appeared to be a plain old cellular
telephone, although there was a smaller box attached to the main
transceiver unit.

 From the photo, I couldn't tell if the box was an outboard battery
pack, or something else.  I'm wondering if the administration could be
niave enough to think that they could talk about national security
issues over a cellular phone and not expect to have their signals
received somewhere nearby.  Can I rest knowing that his cellular phone
call was scrambled?  Or should I continue to fear that this is a
security breach?  After all, although the ECPA says I can't legally
listen to it, and I certainly can't repeat it, if I am with an
intellegence agency, I'm guessing that isn't really going to stop me
from trying.

Comments?


tom

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

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

Subject: 411 in New Jersey
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:21:29 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Here in the Garden State, 411 gets you directory assistance for your
NPA.  The 609 NPA is divided up into two little bitty LATAs, but 411
will give you numbers in either LATA for free. (Well, free for the
first 10 calls per month, but that's pretty close.)  The local phone
book, which lists both 908 and 609 numbers doesn't say whether 411
from a 908 phone will provide 201 numbers.  I'm sure it does now, but
I wonder whether they plan to split the current 201 DA bureau into two
parts, and if so, whether they want to charge for calls from
201-555-1212 from 908 and vice versa.  Calls from 609 to 201-555-1212
are inter-LATA calls and cost whatever your carrier charges.  My
carrier, Sprint, charges 50 cents with no free monthly allowance, even
though they still give you a free interstate DA call per month.

Meanwhile in Massachusetts, 411 gives you local DA, and 1-555-1212
gives you long distance DA within your NPA.  At least before the
617/508 split, I would occasionally dial 411, and when I named the
city the operator would tell me to call 555-1212 instead.  Since the
split, nearly every point in 617 is a local call from nearly every
other point and I don't know whether they still bother to make the
distinction.  The last time I checked, 617 and 508 had the same DA
bureau, you could call 508-555-1212 and get a 617 number.  From
residence phones all intra-state DA calls in Massachusetts are free.
My Sprint bill occasionally has a call to 413-555-1212 with a listed
 .00 charge.  New England Tel uses the 555 prefix for a variety of
special services, most notably 555-1616 is residence or coin phone
repair.

Regards,

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

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 22:07:58 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI and COCOT's
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


(For those of you who aren't tired of this ...)

That's a handy number to have.  Since they disabled (or changed ??)
the 958 and/or 311 numbers here, there's been no easy way to identify
which line you're calling from.

Anyway, here's a summary with some expected -- and unexpected results:

1. Home.  Worked fine and gave the complete, correct number, even
   though the Pollen Alert prompted me to enter a number.
   I used one of the modem lines, so if some sleazoid telemarketer
   calls, he'll just get the tone.  (Serves him right ;-)

2. Office.  (System 85 w/DID)  Gave the number for one of the trunks
   used for outgoing only, not the calling extension.  Accounting
   and billing is done internally with a call detail recorder, so
   I can see how it's not important.

3. Cellular.  Gave a number on one of the prefixes with the switch
   in the same building as the Ma Bell cellular switch.  Nothing
   even close to the actual calling phone number.

4. Here's the interesting one.  COCOT's.

   The first one I tried was at the University.  It's a Genuine
   Bell <tm> COCOT, complete with logo.  (I would have thought that
   Genuine Bell would have put in something better than that funky
   phony dial tone.  Sounds like a 555 chip.  Also I would have
   thought Genuine Bell would have silenced the real dial tone and
   the outpulsing of the stored DTMF.)  Surprisingly, the ANI
   registered the EXACT number posted on the phone.  When I tried
   it from another phone ... 'The nummmberrr you have reaaaached
   ... is not in {scratch!} serrrrrvice {click} for incoming ...'.

   At a local shopping mall, there's a whole row of counterfeit
   Bell COCOTs (sans logo, of course) all with the same number.
   ANI gave NOT the posted number, but a similar number on the
   same prefix.  Out of curiosity, I called it.  It rang, but
   the COCOT did not ring.  When I picked it up, it was obvious
   that it was the correct number, but talking path (both ways)
   was blocked.  When I punched the keypad of the called COCOT,
   it did transmit to the calling phone.

The bottom line is -- were I a telemarketer <gag!!> and I were
compiling a list of numbers to harass, er.. I mean contact, would I
find this service of use ??  Out of four examples, only two gave an
accurate report of the calling number.  Out of those two, one of them
is a COCOT which cannot receive incoming calls.  That drops it down to
25%, if you consider the modem line to be a valid 'hit'.  If you
consider only the cases where a telemarketer could call the number and
get someone with a pulse, it scores a big zero.

In any case, it's a good demonstration of what the system can and
cannot do.  I think that's what they had in mind.


Good Day!      JSW

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

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

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

Subject: Crosstalk on Quad-Wire
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 00:42:54 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Roy Smith) writes:

>     I am willing to defer to hard evidence to the contrary, but I
> have trouble believing you could get any appreciable amount of
> crosstalk between two properly balanced circuits (even if not using
> twisted pairs) over the, say, 100 feet of wire you might find in a
> common residential installation.

In my Anchorage apartment, I ran ~75 feet of quad. One line was my
voice line and the other was for my BBS. While I never experienced any
interference with modem connections, I could _always_ hear a distant
squall in the background when I was on the voice line and the BBS was
in use. The other party rarely could hear it, however.


Roy M. Silvernail | [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 23:42:55 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Payphone


I saw the strangest "payphone" in Pacifica, CA today.  I guess it
could be considered a COCOT, although it looks like it's been there
since long before such things were legal in California.  It certainly
isn't registered with Pacific Bell.  It's just some cheesy thing the
merchant has installed...

It is styled much like an old-fashioned 2500 set, but is beige and
push- button (I didn't place a call, so don't know if it's DTMF or
what).  However, it is taller, as it has a coin box built into the
bottom.  It has a slot in the top designed to take quarters, and a
sign "LOCAL CALLS ONLY - 25 cents for 3 minutes."  The instructions
were "Deposit 25 cents, dial the number.  When the party answers,
press the 'push to talk' button.  At the end of 3 minutes, you will
hear a beep - deposit another 25 cents for three more minutes."  I'll
bet it's hooked up to a POTS line.  Since it was at the cashier's desk
at a restaurant, I wouldn't be surprised if it's on the "main" number
for the business.  There was a "coin return" chute, apparently for
calls where you hung up before pressing the "push to talk" button.

The label on the back said that the beast was called a "Europhone Coin
Telephone".  The manufacturer is American Communication Technology, at
[phone].  The set was padlocked to the counter.

It was at the "Park Pacifica Cafe" - 650 Cape Breton Drive, Pacifica,
CA.  (*really* obscure place - at a horse stable accessible through a
residential area.  Great food, great prices, though!)

I was with some friends, so I didn't have time to play with it.  It
would be interesting to see just how it works, how it enforces the
"local calls only" restriction, as I believe Pacifica still doesn't
require a "1" for long distance intra-LATA calls.  From the looks of
it, I doubt very much that it could have any intellegence inside of
it.


[Moderator's Note: The tone pad is special, and is programmed to
restrict more than seven digits, or numbers beginning with 1. It
partly depends on the honor system, which is why this model usually
sits near the watchful eye of the cashier or owner of the
establishment. We have one here next to the cashier in a liquor store
on Howard Street.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #568
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03629;
          14 Aug 90 4:35 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12965;
          14 Aug 90 3:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03947;
          14 Aug 90 1:59 CDT
Date:     Tue, 14 Aug 90 1:55:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #569
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 14 Aug 90 01:54:44 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 569

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint FON-Card and Answer Supervision [Steve Forrette]
    DA Puts the Call Through [Scott D. Green]
    Norristown PA Announces a New Weapon Against the Drug Trade [Scott Green]
    Billing of Multi-Lines [Bill Huttig]
    Western Union City Mnemonics [Peter J. Dotzauer]
    More on Cable & Wireless 800 Service [Steve Forrette]
    The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices [A J Annala]
    Los Angeles Service Numbers [A J Annala]
    A Satisfied Customer of GTE [Brian D. McMahon]
    Globe & Mail Faxed News Service [David Leibold]
    Re: Caller ID Again [Sedat Yilmazer]
    Re: To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast? [Monty Solomon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 23:43:04 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint FON-Card and Answer Supervision


You may remember a few weeks ago when I described how I could
determine when answer supervision occurred on my 1AESS (415-841)
through the use of three-way calling.  Basically, flashing the line is
ignored before the call supervises, and produces the secondary
dialtone after supervision.

Well, I was fooling around tonight, and discovered that the Sprint
FON-card system doesn't return supervision until the eventual
destination answeres.  So, during the time when I'm entering the
destination number and my FON-card number, the call hasn't yet
supervised.  I find this quite interesting, and it has a number of
side effects.

Those of you having cellular phones and a carrier who pays attention
to actual supervision in determining when to charge for calls, take
note.  This means that you can use your FON-card from your cellular,
and not pay any airtime for non-answered or busy calls.

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 10:08 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DA Puts the Call Through


High on the list of "Why can't (fill in your favorite TelCo) do (fill
in your favorite dream feature)?" is "Why don't they connect you to
the number you've just requested from DA?"  Well, in Philadelphia
(215) they can.

Once the DA operator turns you over to The System, you are first asked
to press 1 if you wish to be connected directly.  For $.30.  In
addition to the regular DA charge.  Only after It explains that option
will It recite the number you've requested.  You may still press 1 at
that point to call.

It appears to work only from within the city so far.  The other change
is that you must dial 1-555-1212 to reach DA now.  Formerly, (and in
the exchanges where this is not implemented) one could dial
1-555-xxxx.  The advantage there is that if you didn't use -1212 you
wouldn't be billed with the DA call.

Just wondering - wouldn't this be a neat way of reaching people with
unlisted numbers?  They now have two categories of "unlisted:" not
published in the directory but available from DA; and totally
unlisted.  How about a third category: not published, not available
from DA, but connectable through DA?


scott

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 10:18 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Norristown PA Announces a New Weapon Against the Drug Trade


Yesterday's {Philadelphia Inquirer} reported that Bell of PA, at the
request of Norristown (a western suburb of Phila.), will be removing
touch-tone public phones from drug areas and replacing them with
rotaries!  They got the idea from that other backwater town (I forget
where) that we discussed a while back.

Norristown believes that if they can't call the beepers, they can't
score, the dealers will go out of business, and the drug problem will
be solved.  (Quick, somebody call George Bush).

Some official (their tech consultant, no doubt) did mention that the
tone generators were readily available elsewhere, but (get this) the
possession of such an instrument could be construed as probable cause!

Bell said that they are happy to help, but they will be watching the
maintenance/vandalism rate, since rotaries are more easily vandalized.
(Especially by druggies who can't score because the Radio Shack is
closed).  Bell said that if costs increased too much, they would have
to go back to touch-tones.


scott


[Moderator's Note: The fools!! Haven't they visited Radio Shack lately
and seen how the 'probable cause' abounds? Haven't they heard of
voice pagers with direct dialed seven digit numbers upon which coded
announcements can be recited, or tone only beepers with dual
addresses, each of which has its own seven digit (easily rotary)
dialed number making two pre-planned instructions possible? And
cellular phones can't be dialed from rotary? All they are doing is
making use of the phone more difficult for *everyone*. It stinks.  PAT]

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billing of Multi-Lines
Date: 13 Aug 90 14:42:06 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


>[Moderator's Note: My two lines are both BILLED on the first line. I
>get one bill each month, with long distance charges from the second
>line appended on a separate page. When I tried the ANI number just now
>from the second line, it read me the second, or calling number. Maybe
>'billing number' is a local matter, depending on how your local telco
>chooses to handle it. Maybe in my case I have two 'billing numbers'
>with both bills shown on one monthly statement. I think there are some
>semantics used here to define 'billing' and 'calling' numbers.  PAT]

Here is Southern Bell Land ... There are two ways to have lines billed
together.. The first way is that they set up two separate accounts and
put a 'pointer' on the second line that says to print billing info
with the first.  This cause AT&T reachout billing to show up on only
one line.

The second is when you have one account with two numbers. This is how
your account should be set up for calling plans to show up on both
lines. It took Southern Bell and AT&T four months to figure this out.

I assume this affect the ANI information ... not sure.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: I get the 'benefits' of Reach Out America on both
lines for a single fee. All LD charges go through ROA even though they
are shown on my bill as 'calls from xxx-xxxx' (meaning my second
line).  PAT]

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

From: "Peter J. Dotzauer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Western Union City Mnemonics?
Date: 13 Aug 90 21:04:23 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC)


Does anyone know the exact title of the publication that lists the
Western Union city mnemonics (probably three-letter abbreviations of
cities in the United States)?

Strangely, some employees at Western Union customer services do not
know about the city mnemonics that are the 'industry standard' for
abbreviating city names.


Peter Dotzauer, Analyt.Cart.& GIS, Dept.of Geogr., OSU, Columbus, OH 43210-1361
    TEL [phone]  FAX [phone]  FIDO 1:226/330  CCnet mapvxa::pjd
    INTERNET [e-mail]  BITNET pjd@ohstvmb
    UUCP ...!osu-cis!hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu!pjd

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 17:51:17 PDT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on Cable & Wireless 800 Service


I've gotten several questions about my previous posting, and summarize
here:

Signal quality is good, at least to my ear (I don't have a Trailblazer
to give quantitative results, though).  Cable & Wireless claims to
have a 100% digital network.  Most of my experience has been in
intra-state calls, so cross-country calls may or may not be a
different story.

Call completion time is slower than AT&T direct dial, but is
reasonable.

Detailed billing (with caller's ANI) is not available.  You get a
daily summary, as well as subtotals for hour of the day and day of the
week.

Customer service cannot be reached from Canada.  There is no POTS
number to call.  Also, programmable 800 cannot terminate in Canada,
although a US user can receive calls from there if you pay for the
option.  They claim to be working on Canadian customer service for
availablility by year's end, but don't know more than that.

They have about six prefixes from which to choose.

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

From: A J Annala <[e-mail]>
Subject: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices
Date: 14 Aug 90 03:32:41 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


I do some data communications technician type contracting work from
time to time (e.g. installing modems, analog line testing, protocol
analysis, etc).  There have been notes on the network about police
confiscating equipment of the type I often use in my work.  These
devices include ATT Craft Test Set, Progressive Electronics 200B
Inductive Amplifier, Dracon D814 Impact Tool, and a Progressive 77M
Tone Generator.  The police claim is that such devices are telephone
access devices which should not be in the hands of the public.  I am
curious about whether any other technical people have been challenged
by the police and what answer has satisfied them to go away without
hassle.

All of these devices can be purchased over the counter or by mail at
very reasonable prices from Graybar Electric Company, 210 S. Anderson
Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033 [phone].  In this context it
appears to be to be completely ludicrous to claim these tools must not
be found in the possession of members of the public.  They are
ordinary tools.


AJ

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

From: A J Annala <[e-mail]>
Subject: Los Angeles Service Numbers
Date: 14 Aug 90 04:04:34 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


The number 1223 answers with a digital voice giving a single digit
(always 0 when I call -- presumably related to the line type) and the
number of the switched voice pair originating the call in the Los
Angeles Airport area.  However this number does not work on my campus
CENTREX system or in the downtown Los Angeles area.

I would like to assemble a list of similar numbers to call to get a
positive identification on a switched voice grade line when I punch
down cross connect wires from the telco demark to modems in my
computer room and customer sites around town.

As a matter of curiosity, I would be interested in learning about how
sucxh numbers are allocated throughout the country, what the typical
numbers are in local regions, and whether there are any other commonly
supported numbers (e.g. ringback) for installation assistance?

Thanks,

AJ

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 10:25:25 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Satisfied Customer of GTE


In TELECOM Digest V10 #562, our Moderator writes:

>[Moderator's Note: Based on all the complaints we get here about GTE,
>I'm beginning to think divine intervention is the only thing which
>might help improve their service.  PT]

Jeez, am I the only one who doesn't think GTE is, if not the Beast in
person, at least a direct representative of all that is evil?  :-)
We're right smack dab in the middle of GTE-land, and I don't really
see them as being all THAT much worse than anything else I've used.
For my purposes (POTS, dial-in to the college, calls to Telenet in Des
Moines [at the 55-mile distance rate!  Ack!]), they seem to do the
job.

Then again, they've been taking it in the shorts over their proposed
rate hike here.  (Did I say "hike"?  "Forced march" is more like it.)
But being taken to the cleaners by the phone company is hardly a novel
idea, and that's what we have PUCs for.  But the phones do work.
Heck, even the critter the college has installed (Omni S/III or
something similar) seems to work all right, at least as far as I can
tell from my desk.

Maybe having GTE operations in town makes a difference.  Grinnell
until recently was the HQ for their Midwest operations, but I've lost
track of what the heck they are these days.  My monthly check now goes
to GTE *North* (used to be GTE Midwest right here in town) in
Indianapolis (which is to the *East* :->).  That might matter -- if I
can't get the attention of their repair service, I can always ram one
of their vans... :-) :-)

I hate disclaimers, but since this affects town-gown relations . . .

The above is my personal opinion.  It has nothing to do with Grinnell
College, GCCS, the Board of Trustees, or the price of tea in China.


Brian McMahon  <[e-mail]>
Grinnell College Computer Services
Grinnell, Iowa 50112
[phone]

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Globe & Mail Faxed News Service
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 23:14:09 EDT


The {Globe & Mail} newspaper has set up a service called FaxSummary
which is a four page condensed version of the day's {Globe and Mail}
along with its Report on Business information.

It works by calling 1 800 23 GLOBE and using a credit card and the
number of the fax where you are at. Before long, the G&M sends down
its stuff to the fax machine you specified. This is handy for
travellers, say, who want to pick up the latest news and stuff.

One interesting thing is that the {Globe and Mail}, being a Canadian
paper, is using an MCI 800 number (according to the 800/OCN table in
the TD archives, for 234 prefix) which would be accessible througout
North America.

However, the {Globe and Mail} ad says that this number should be accessible
throughout the world (though outside North America at a toll charge).
Can 800 numbers be accessed from outside North America via overseas
dialing (other than a rigged-up  in Japan)?


[Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Tribune} also offers a similar service
by pre-subscription. Every day at 4:30 PM they fax you the main
stories in the paper for the next day. I liked it better (and it was a
lot cheaper) when we were able to get the next day's actual paper
anytime after 4 PM weekdays. We can still get the Sunday {Tribune}
anytime after about 10 AM Saturday morning.  The weekday Fax edition
is very expensive. $$$$$  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sedat Yilmazer)
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Again
Date: 14 Aug 90 05:58:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Sedat Yilmazer)
Organization: Alcatel Austria, Vienna


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

>With the introduction of Caller*ID service, however, crank calls have
>all but disappeared in this area.

At the cost of the callers privacy!  Here in Vienna I got, up to
now, no crank calls. So if you implement this feature in here, at least
for me, it would mean the violation of the callers privacy.

So if you are receiving crank calls , let there be a feature to trace
back that call.


Sedat Yilmazer   | Tel:  [phone]
Alcatel Austria  | telex 277222146
Scheydg 41 A-1211| Home  2679825


[Moderator's Note: Yes! I said in the last issue that the Caller ID
discussion was concluded in the Digest for the time being. This
message arrived as the last issue was going out. Our correspondent
from Austria could not have known, so his item is appearing. But this
is it for now!  Please no more Caller ID for a couple months.   PAT]

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

From: Monty Solomon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: To Broadcast or Not to Broadcast?
Date: 14 Aug 90 05:59:41 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roy
Smith) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 541, Message 6 of 10

>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?

Cordless, not cellular.


Monty Solomon / <[e-mail]>
PO Box 45249 / Winter Hill, MA  02145-0003

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #569
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22695;
          15 Aug 90 4:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02890;
          15 Aug 90 2:16 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29823;
          15 Aug 90 1:11 CDT
Date:     Wed, 15 Aug 90 0:58:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #570
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Aug 90 00:58:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 570

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [David Svoboda]
    Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Slowest Dialable Number [Barrey Jewall]
    Re: Slowest Dialable Number [Bill Huttig]
    Re: President Bush Uses Cellular? [Michael H. Riddle]
    Re: President Bush Uses Cellular? [[e-mail]]
    Re: AT&T Reach Out America Plan [K. L. Stiles]
    Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices [Terry Kennedy]
    Gummint Paranoia [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Svoboda <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?
Date: 14 Aug 90 15:06:11 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John
Cowan):

> [phone] gives some kind of modem warble, perhaps a TDD; I'm
> not sure exactly what a TDD sounds like, but it certainly isn't Bell
> 103 or 212, or Racal-Vadic, nor yet V.24 bis or Telebit.  Perhaps
> someone with a TDD would like to try calling?

Please be aware that some if not most of TDD units are acoustically
coupled.  Meaning that every time you call one of these, someone has
to walk over and put the phone in the cradle.

My cousin is deaf and just received a free TDD unit from the
government.  Sure enough, acoustically coupled. :-(


           Dave Svoboda, Motorola CID, RTSG, Arlington Heights, IL
              uucp => {uunet|mcdchg|gatech|att}!motcid!svoboda
              internet => motcid![e-mail]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 13:17:22 EDT


 From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>

>And what is the slowest pulse-dialable number? It is a real number;
>the Covenant House Nine Line: (1-800-999-9999) for runaways.

>[Moderator's Note: I think, but am not willing to dial and find out,
>that a 'slower' number would be 900-999-9999. . . . ]

The slowest number I can think of, if 900 has NXX exchanges, would be
900-900-0000, otherwise 900-990-0000.

Aside: I think I actually saw an ad giving the 900-999-9999 number,
and Our Moderator is correct, it was one of the "adult" services.

Further aside:  in a later digest Our Moderator notes:

>[Moderator's Note: I assume (don't know for sure) that 900-555-1212 is a
>free call, however the last time I tried it, about a year ago, it was
>merely a recorded announcement listing 'a selection' (i.e. the clean
>ones) of services available, and the price, which seems to be based on
>the first three digits. . . .]

When I listened to the recording through to the end, it explicitly
stated that there was no charge for the call.  I also have not tried
it recently.

The charges do indeed seem to be determined by the "exchange" digits,
both from what is said on that recording, and from some of the rate
schedule information that has been presented here in past months for
900 services from various companies.


JBL

[e-mail]
 ...!bbn!levin
[phone]

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 23:28:06 GMT


Wouldn't something with more zeros be longer? ie 900-999-0000 or if
they exist 900-990-0000 or 900-909-0000 or even 900-900-0000.


[Moderator's Note: If in fact such numbers are actually in service,
then yes, they would be slower. But we were trying to deal only with
actual, in-service numbers.   PAT]

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

From: Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka>
Subject: Re: Slowest Dialable Number
Date: 14 Aug 90 16:03:57 GMT
Reply-To: Barrey Jewall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


Our Esteemed Moderator Writes:

> [Moderator's Note: I think, but am not willing to dial and find out,
> that a 'slower' number would be 900-999-9999. I believe the 900-999....

Even slower than that one is the following, [phone].  This is
Jeanne Dixon's Hot Stars line.... (no, I didn't call it, see below)

>[Moderator's Note: I assume (don't know for sure) that 900-555-1212 is
>a free call,

According to the LD operator from here, (good old AT&T), 900-555-1212
is still a free call, despite it being a 900 number.

When I called 900-555-1212, I got to listen to a LONG (about 3 minute)
recording of services available via 900 number. The recording was (of
course) scratchy, and barely audible during some portions. The numbers
listed seemed to be in no particular order, just sort of jumbled in.

The recording announced that calls to the 407 prefix were .45 per
CALL, calls to the 350 prefix were .55 for the 1st Min/.35 each
additional Min , and all other calls were charged at premium rates
(NO, REALLY?!?)...

I doubt many people use the 900-555-1212 number to find their 900
numbers.


+ Barrey Jewall                 ++ "My opinions are my opinions" +
+ [e-mail]            ++ (rather self-evident, eh?)    +
+ Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++                 +

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Slowest Dialable Number
Date: 14 Aug 90 15:27:59 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


>Would dialing 1-900-555-1212 get you the info on what that number was
>or would one be billed for the information call as well (at $3 for the
>first minute and $2 for additional minutes...? :-)

There is a charge of .50 per call if I remember correctly.  They give
you very very little info ... This was 6 years ago though ... Maybe they
got rid of the charge.


Bill Huttig
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But Mr. Jewall, in the message before yours, says
he was told there is no charge. Maybe what his operator meant was no
'premium' charge, and just the usual DA charges made by AT&T.   PT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle)
Subject: Re: President Bush Uses Cellular?
Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 21:52:19 GMT


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

>In a photograph which ran in my local newspaper (source: AP
>wirephoto), it showed President Bush talking to a military leader from
>his golf cart.  The phone appeared to be a plain old cellular
>telephone, although there was a smaller box attached to the main
>transceiver unit.

>Can I rest knowing that his cellular phone call was scrambled?

I didn't see the picture, but from somewhat dated personal knowledge
of how the White House Communications Agency does business, I'd think
that the unexplained smaller box was /exactly/ an encryption unit.
The other option is that they merely agreed on when to talk on a
/really/ secure line.

It's always possible that they discussed real business on an open
line, but the folks in that line of work didn't get there by being
dumb!


[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Sysop on 1:285/27 @ Fidonet

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: President Bush Uses Cellular?
Date: 14 Aug 90 18:07:58 GMT
Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas
Lapp) writes:

>In a photograph which ran in my local newspaper (source: AP
>wirephoto), it showed President Bush talking to a military leader from
>his golf cart.  The phone appeared to be a plain old cellular
>telephone, although there was a smaller box attached to the main
>transceiver unit.

[some concerns about the security of a cellular conversation deleted]

Although I didn't see this particular photo, the Federal govt.  does
have 'secure' cellular and wireline telecommunications (voice and
data) via a system called STU-III.

I'm sure the President's conversation was duly encrypted prior to
going to the local cell.  I wouldn't be surprised if the cell or cells
in that area turned out to actually belong to Uncle Sam too, although
I don't know for sure either way.

I think if I ever win the Presidency I'll have to turn it down.  They
never can truly "get away" for a real vacation. :-)

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

From: "K. L. Stiles" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Reach Out America Plan
Date: 14 Aug 90 16:13:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO


In article <[e-mail]>, rruxc![e-mail]
(Wayne Scott) says:

> I've been subscribing to the AT&T ROA Plan for several months now and
> I'm not sure that I'm saving any money.

> What's the general opionion out there?  Is it worth it or not?

Let me first say that I am an AT&T employee, but the information here
is from my personal phone bill and unbiased.

I have the 24 hour ROA plan: for $8.70/mo., I get one hour night/wkend
calls, 25% discount on evening calls, and 10% discount on daytime
calls.  The stats for my July bill (taxes not included in figures):

                   3.15 hours night/weekend
                  - 1 hour allotment            $ 8.70
                  - 2.15 hours at 6.60/hour    $14.19
                             $30.01 evening at 25% discount     $22.51
                 $15.02 daytime at 10% discount     $13.52
                                   -------
                                ROA    Total    $58.92
            Non-ROA Total (price for each call is listed)   $73.83
                                   -------
                               ROA Savings    $14.91

If I had only the basic plan which I believe is $7.15/mo., my ROA
total would have been $66.37, a $7.46 savings.  The bottom line is
that it really depends on your calling habits.  Analyze your own bill
as I have done, and see for yourself.  Every time I've checked mine (3
or 4 times a year), ROA has always saved me $$.  Hope this helps.


Kevin Stiles   AT&T Bell Labs, Denver, CO


[Moderator's Note: I wanted the 24 hour plan, and it is advertised as
being available here in IBT territory. However, when I ordered it I
was told I could not have it because the computer would not accept
both the daytime five percent discount AND the intrastate
'transparency' which I have at night. Apparently intrastate calls do
not get the daytime five percent discount, and IBT has not been able
to figure out how to give both that and the intra/inter on one account
at the same time without getting daytime intrastate calls involved.  PAT]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices
Date: 14 Aug 90 22:53:19 EDT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (A J
Annala) writes:

> The police claim is that such devices are telephone
> access devices which should not be in the hands of the public.  I am
> curious about whether any other technical people have been challenged
> by the police and what answer has satisfied them to go away without
> hassle.

  Well, it *should* depend on where you are/what you're doing with
them.  If you're up on a pole in a parking lot in the middle of the
night, they should be more suspicious than if you're working in an
office in the middle of the night.

  It is always helpful to have the name and number of the person who
authorized your doing the work handy. I was installing for a customer
who had the misfortune to move his office during the great NJ phone
strike. Since he couldn't get any service orders through, and I
informed him of the probable backlog once the strike was over, we
decided to run our own poles and cable since it was all on his
property.

  I had a few inquisitive looks from the local police when I was up on
the poles, since there was a *lot* of vandalism in the area (things
like a pedastal terminal being pulled out of the ground by a pickup
truck). In fact, one of the customer's building feeds (500 pr) was
cut, and a *very* over-worked manager showed up to splice it. I wound
up splicing it while the manager got a well-deserved rest, since I was
about 4x faster.

  So, it depends on the situation. Even a simple screwdriver could be
considered burglar's tools in the right situation - but if you indeed
have business in the area, it shouldn't be a problem.


        Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
                                (& part-time freelance installer)
        [e-mail]     St. Peter's College, US
        [e-mail]    [phone]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gummit Paranoia
Date: 14 Aug 90 11:16:22 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Some official (their tech consultant, no doubt) did mention that the
> tone generators were readily available elsewhere, but (get this) the
> possession of such an instrument could be construed as probable cause!

A J Annala <[e-mail]> writes:

> devices include ATT Craft Test Set, Progressive Electronics 200B
> Inductive Amplifier, Dracon D814 Impact Tool, and a Progressive 77M
> Tone Generator.  The police claim is that such devices are telephone
> access devices which should not be in the hands of the public.

We have a problem here. Taken ad absurdam, having a computer with a
modem attached could be contrued as a telephone access device. After
all, look how much crime is perpetrated these days with such
equipment.  The other question concerns the definition of "public".
Does one have to be an employee on definite assignment by a bona fide
telephone utility to legally carry and use telephone test equipment?

I, and a number of my friends, do a heavy amount of telecom
consulting.  We routinely use line analyzers, punchdown tools, and
butt sets. None of us "work" for anyone but ourselves. Is it time to
register our dangerous "weapons" with the police?

> I am curious about whether any other technical people have
> been challenged by the police and what answer has satisfied them
> to go away without hassle.

Some years ago, I needed to perform some audio measurements on a small
FM station in Los Gatos. The Los Gatos cops are jokingly referred to
by the locals as the "Los Gatos Metropolitan" police. I have
personally seen repeated instances where the LG Fuzz act as if they
are NY wanabees, having about as much small town finesse as a
bulldozer and a wrecking ball.

Anyway, shortly after midnight I was carrying equipment (distortion
test set, monitor receiver, etc.) from my truck into the studio.
Suddenly, an officer pulled up and demanded to know what I was doing
and wanted to see "ID". I produced my license and explained that I was
making tests on the radio station. This wasn't good enough. While he
was eyeing over the equipment, he asked things like, "How often do you
do this?" "Who 'authorized' this?" "How much is this equipment worth?"
"Where are your receipts for it?"

Finally, with the evening moving on apace and a lot of other things to
do that evening, I told the officer that I had identified myself and
explained my purpose in being at that location. All of his other
questions were irrelavent and none of his business, that I had work to
do, and invited him to either arrest me or leave the premesis. He
considered that for a moment and decided that he would leave, but not
without giving me some friendly warnings about doing "suspicious"
stuff in his jurisdiction.

The next day I called the Los Gatos Town Hall and informally
complained about the incident. I got the expected "we're only doing
our job" and then was told that the officers would be advised that
midnight to six work would sometimes take place at the radio station.

From the way things are going these days, my challenge to the officer
would now result in my arrest.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #570
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23265;
          15 Aug 90 4:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02056;
          15 Aug 90 3:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02890;
          15 Aug 90 2:17 CDT
Date:     Wed, 15 Aug 90 1:38:27 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #571
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Aug 90 01:38:10 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 571

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep [Clive Carmock]
    Info Needed on Telecommunication Modelling [Elizabeth Krawczyk]
    Info Needed on Telecom Seminars [Dan Rich]
    Info Needed on COLAN [Andrew Lih]
    Continue Caller ID on Misc.Legal [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Re: A Thesis on Caller ID [Jeff E. Nelson]
    Phone Service in Ireland [John O'Brien]
    Voice Recognition (Was: A New Feature) [Charles Buckley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones
Date: 12 Aug 90 16:59:42 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dennis G.
Rears (FSAC)) writes:

    It's Deja-vu telecom time again.

> It seems as if each telephone cable contains four wires (red,
> green, black, and yellow).  For one line only the red and green wires
> are used.  The black and yellow wires are only used for the second
> line.  If only one line is installed in a jack why do the yellow and
> black wires have to be attached?  I suspect it doesn't.

    You are right, a telephone line requires two wires or "one
pair" in telco speak. The first pair are the Red and Green and the
second pair are the Yellow and Black. For a one line installation, you
only need to connect the first pair (Red and Green). The second pair
is often not connected through anymore - standards have gone to hell
since divesture. The telco used to connect the second pair (Yellow and
Black) when installing so that if they popped in a second line they
wouldn't have to hunt round the premises to splice all the second
pairs.

> The modular jack that goes into the phone has four wires in it. Why
> is that, if only the red and green are required for service?  Just in
> case you have a two line phone?

    There are several reasons for this besides a second line. At
the end of this posting I am including something I posted in November
1988 in response to an inquiry just like yours.

> Why is the jack that goes from the telephone headset to the
> telephone a different size than the jack that goes from the phone to
> the wall jack?  Is it to idiotproof the process? Also why four wires
> into the headset?  Does the phone itself do anything to the signals
> before it sends it to the headset?  If the proper size jack was put on
> the headset could you plug that into the wall jack and receive calls?

    Because it serves a completely different purpose. It idiot
proofs it to some extent. But I have had customers plug the handset
into the line jack and then call and complain that the line cord wont
plug into the handset jack - this really has happened. Notice that a
handset jack has and uses two pairs (four wires). It uses two wires to
talk (Transmitter) and two wires to listen (Receiver). Ok, so the line
jack is two wires (talk and listen on the same pair) and the handset
has split talk and listen into separate pairs. Inside the phone
instrument there is a device called a network that magically sends the
voice signals to the right place. Yes, you could Micky Mouse a handset
to work directly on the line, but the line voltage would soon kill the
receiver magnet and the sound of your own voice would blow the wax out
of your ears etc. So that is what the instrument stuff is for, if it
wasn't needed, someone would have been selling handset to line cord
adapters years ago. The Linesmans "Butt-set" has the network built
into the handset as does the AT&T Trimline phone.

>   What do the two wires (red and green or yellow and black) carry?  Is
> one positive and negative like electrical wires?

    Yes, as a phone line is about 48V DC when "on hook" (hung up)
and between 3 and 9V DC when "off hook", there is a DC voltage there.
The normal voltage polarity is Green = + and Red = -. Some phone
systems will reverse the polarity when a call goes through (rare these
days).  If the polarity is wrong, no biggy, some old 2500 sets may no
longer dial, so flip the Red and Green and everything will work again.

    They phone wires also carry audio signals, Voice and Touch
Tone. They also carry the ringing signal 40-150V AC.

> In the case of my second line I bought a double wall phone outlet.  I
> installed the first line (R&G) to the top outline and installed the
> second (B&Y) line to the bottom outlet.  The first line worked the
> second did not. The second line was live as I have a jack wired right
> into at the NIU. I then disconnected the wires from the NIU for the first
> line and reconnected them to the NIU for the second.  That got the second
> line working.  That says to me that there must be something physically
> wrong with the Yellow or Black wires.   That seems strange to me as all
> four wires are in the same cable and if there was a physical break in the
> cable it would affect all the wires, not just one or two.  Any thoughts
> of this?

    Yes, you could have a break in just one wire in a cable. This
is not uncommon. I have had this happen with long runs of cable, this
is a good reason to install more pairs than you need. If you have a
"bad pair", just mark it as such and progress. But as you are a
domestic installation I would physically check the wire from the NIU
(Protector) to the jack. There may be a connecting block or jack along
the way that has not spliced the Black and Yellow pairs. One word of
warning. Some lazy installers will often place the Black and Yellow
under a screw in a a junction box/jack but will not strip the wires.
It will look like two wires are connected under a screw head, but as
they still have insulation, they are not.

    And now if you are still fascinated by all this stuff, here's
more of the same. This is a posting from a couple of years ago that
kinda covers the same ground.

  Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
  Subject: The other pair of wires.
  Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
  Date: 9 Nov 88 10:11:08 GMT
  Sender: [e-mail]
  Lines: 54

     There has been a fair amount of discussion about what you will
find on the second pair of phone wires in a residence. Here is a list
of what you might/could find:

The first pair will always carry a regular phone line. These wires are
usually Red and Green, they can be White with a Blue Stripe and Blue
with a White stripe. They are referred to as Tip and Ring. The Green
or White/Blue wire is Tip and the Red or Blue/White is Ring. Tip is
Positive and Ring is negative. ( Yes I know the voltage thingy is more
complex than that, this is not for experts. For folks with Rat Shack
meters, what I have said is true)

Ok, now the first pair is out of the way, let's look at the second
pair. They are usually Black and Yellow or White/Orange and
Orange/White. These wires can have several things happening to them,
but not all at once.

First of all, there can be nothing on the wires, and they may not be
connected anywhere.

Next, the Yellow wire can be grounded. This is rare these days, but
you will find it on old installations.

Another old thing you will find is AC voltage for lighting the dials
of old Princess phones. If you look around, you will find a wall
transformer wired into the Yellow and Black wires. If the transformer
says, "Bell System Property" etc. That's it. If you no longer have a
rotary dial Princess with a lighted dial, pull it.

Talking of old, old style multiline "business" phones. Yes, the ones
with the buttons that light up and flash, they needed a hard wire
signal to know that a line was off hook. This was known in "Telco
speak" as "A-Lead control". If a single line phone was used as an
extension on one of these systems also known in "Telco speak" as
"1A2", the second pair (Yellow and Black) were shorted together when
the phone went "off hook" to let the system know that a line was in
use so all the right blinky lights came on. If you used a phone
without A-Lead control, it went into hold when you hung up - most
inconvenient.

These days, if the telco uses the second pair, it is usually for a
second line. Looking back to the first paragraph, the Black wire is
Tip and the Yellow wire is Ring, usually known as Tip 2 and Ring 2.
Yup, that makes the first pair (Red&Green) Tip 1 and Ring 1.

Now, when discussing PBXs and modern "Key Systems", the second pair
can often carry "data", stuff controlling the phones.

    More details available upon request. Available for Bar
Mitzvoth weddings and barbeques.


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

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

From: Clive Carmock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Knowing You're a Call Waiting Beep
Date: 14 Aug 90 20:32:25 GMT
Reply-To: Clive Carmock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK


It was interesting to read that the US phone system doesn't
distinguish calls waiting calls from any other sort.

Here in the UK if you call a line that has call waiting activated and
the phone is in use you get DEe Daa Daa The number called is busy,
we're trying to connect your call please hold the line.  This is
repeated over and over until the called party answers or after thirty
seconds when the exhange will time out and say 'Sorry your call could
not be connected, please try later'.


Clive Carmock

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

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 12:17:53 NZS
From: Elizabeth Krawczyk on cabernet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on Telecommunication Modelling


Hi everybody,

Does anyone have some experience with modelling telecommunication
problems like:

- cost effectivness of alternative technologies (eg.  ATM vs STM)

- cost effectivness of alternative policies (eg.impact of shortened
technology lifetime on company financial performance)

- change of the market environment (eg. appearance of competition)

- introduction of new technologies and their impact on existing
markets.

If "YES":

- what software have you used?

- what are the strenghts and weaknesses of the software?

Has anyone used the software package (from UK based company ANALYSYS)
called STEM? If so I would appreciate some comments about it.


Elizabeth Krawczyk    Corporate Strategy Division  Telecom Corporate Office
Box 570 Wellington    NEW ZEALAND   Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: Dan Rich <dialogic![e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on Telecom Seminars
Date: 14 Aug 90 15:54:48 GMT
Reply-To: Dan Rich <dialogic![e-mail]>
Organization: Dialogic Corp., Parsippany, NJ


I am looking for seminars on FAX, CEPT, and ISDN.  These need to be
aimed at developers, and should cover the topics in depth at a
protocol level.  Does anyone know of any seminars in these areas?

Please e-mail any responses.  Our fileserver is low on disk space, and
I may need to cut off our news feed until our new disks come in.


Dan Rich                    | [e-mail]  || ...!uunet!dialogic!drich
UNIX Systems Administrator  | Dialogic Corporation||  [phone] x213

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 11:45 EDT
Subject: Info Needed on COLAN


Can anyone give a description or refer me to some documentation on
COLAN (Central Office Local Area Network)?

Thanks.

Andrew Lih
[e-mail]

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Continue Caller ID on Misc.Legal
Date: 14 Aug 90 15:42:51 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


> [Moderator's Note: Yes! I said in the last issue that the Caller ID
> discussion was concluded in the Digest for the time being. This
> message arrived as the last issue was going out. Our correspondent
> from Austria could not have known, so his item is appearing. But this
> is it for now!  Please no more Caller ID for a couple months.   PAT]

I am again disappointed in this decision.  Would those interested in
Caller ID please continue the discussion in misc.legal?  It has been a
topic of interest there from time to time and that newsgroup is not
moderated.  This topic merits further discussion, and I'd be very
surprised if there weren't more developments within the next couple of
months.

Thanks,

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


[Moderator's Note: Better still, Bruce, why don't you begin a *mailing
list* for interested parties to discuss this topic? You may recall
that Computer Undergroun Digest got started as an offshoot of this
Digest due to the overflow of messages pertaining to crackercrime, etc
 ... the Caller ID debate would prosper under your guidance.  See the
next message in this issue: You have a subscriber waiting for your
list already!  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 11:13:08 PDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thesis on Caller ID


I propose that we call this the "Subject that Wouldn't Die."  I am
past the point of being tired with the topic.  I suggest that someone
volunteer to set up a mailing list and/or newsgroup devoted to caller
id.  It is apparently hot enough to generate opinions for months -- if
not years -- to come.  This, of course, is just my opinion.


Jeff E. Nelson, Digital Equipment Corporation, [e-mail]
Affiliation given for identification purposes only


[Moderator's Note: See Bruce K. in the message before this one. I
quite agree a mailing list to handle the overflow I am getting on this
topic would be a good idea. I had to reject *nineteen* messages today
on Caller ID and return them to the sender unused.  Talk to Bruce.  PAT]

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

From: John O'Brien <nixbur![e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Service in Ireland
Date: 14 Aug 90 14:45:58 GMT
Organization: Nixdorf Computer Engineering Corporation, Burlington, MA


I am going to Ireland in a couple of weeks and I am wondering what the
phone service is like there.  Specifically:

1.)  Can I use my Sprint FON card to call the US?
2.)  Can I use my Sprint card for local Irish calls?
3.)  I have an AT&T Universal card.  Can I use it to
     make calls within Ireland or to the US?

Thanx in advance,

John
------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Aug 90 22:34:41 PDT
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Recognition (was: A New Feature)

 From: apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail] (John Nagle)

>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?

I remember in 1977 calling the NJ Bell operator from a payphone in
south Jersey (in order to find out how many quarters, dimes, and
nickels I'd have to go schnorr from the cashier at the diner in which
the instrument was located to pay for a three minute call down south),
and I asked for the rate to <area code> <office prefix>.

Lo and behold, as I listened in, the operator enunciated some command
phrase, and the six digits I had given her.  A digitized human voice
responded with a string of digits which represented the rate (no
punctuation, just digits).  I asked the operator if the computer was
controlled by her voice and she said "yes, it responds to my voice".

Given that commercially available voice recognition was first trendy
(and of miserable reliability) about 1980, that was truly neat stuff
for the epoch.

I'm looking for details: Who did it?  Why was it dropped?  Was it
speaker-independent?  How reliable?  etc.  Does anyone who was
connected with the project or knows of it read this list?  At any
rate, the answer would have bearing on Mr. Nagle's question.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #571
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09309;
          16 Aug 90 0:18 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10282;
          15 Aug 90 22:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08532;
          15 Aug 90 21:34 CDT
Date:     Wed, 15 Aug 90 20:41:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #572
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Aug 90 20:40:39 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 572

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Taste of Their Own Medicine [Chip Rosenthal]
    800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    More Follow Me Roaming [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?) [Henry Troup]
    Crank Calls [Henry Troup]
    1 800 LADYLIB [Jerry Leichter]
    Another One Bites the Dust [Rich Zellich]
    Sprint & WD40 [David Lesher]
    Getting Stoned by Telephone [Dolf Grunbauer]
    Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Daniel Birchall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Taste of Their Own Medicine
Date: 14 Aug 90 20:05:21 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


When I opened up shop here, I got both AT&T Pro Wats and Pro
Wats/Texas on my lines.  Unfortunately, the service rep's description
errantly led me to believe that Pro Wats/Texas was billed at six
second increments as is (interstate) Pro Wats.  Unfortunately, it
turned out to be 1 minute increments.  The discount rate for Pro
Wats/Texas was crummy, and without the benefit of a six second
increment, the plan became nearly useless for me.  Thus Pro Wats/Texas
was cancelled.

(BTW...if you do any polling with Telebits, do check out Pro Wats.
The discount is nice, but the six second increment is where I save the
most money.)

A month or so back, Pro Wats/Texas was overhauled to 30% discount,
$5/month, and no setup fee.  Even with the crummy one minute billing
increment it now becomes worthwhile.  So I called to sign up.

But, just to avoid a repeat of the earlier fiasco, I asked for a
printed description of the service.  That way, I'd understand exactly
what it was, and there would be no room for confusion as there was
last time around.

"I'm sorry, sir," the rep answered, "we don't have any literature
available."

I pressed for any information which described what the plan is.  She
appologized, but said all their stuff was for the old version of Pro
Wats/Texas, and nothing was available yet on the new plan.

So I inquired, "are you telling me that you can't put it in writing?"

There was a very long pause on the other end.  Eventually, the rep
recovered, and in a very animated voice offered to draft a letter
describing the service and include all the details I wanted.

I think I found the right button.


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

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

Date: 14-AUG-1990 03:38:20.76
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements


Hi!

Quick question:

Why do you get the recording: "Your call can not be completed as
dialed..."  when you call a working/valid Canadian 800 number that
doesn't serve the US, while if you call a working/valid US number from
the US, but which doesn't serve your band/area code/whatever, you will
get the message: "You have dialed an 800 number which can not be
reached from your calling area."

Wouldn't it make more sense for AT&T to extend that "out of area"
message to Canadian 800 numbers as well, so that US callers will
realize that they must dial direct to Canada, rather than fall under
the impression that the firm in Canada which they are trying to
contact no longer exists?

Just wondering...


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think you will find the recordings vary from one
office to another as to their precise wording. Someone who set up the
recordings on your end simply was not consistent with the verbiage
used in other areas. I don't think there is any special intent behind
the version you hear versus what Canadians hear in reverse.  PT]

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

Date: 14-AUG-1990 03:43:27.99
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Follow Me Roaming in Boston


I checked out Follow Me Roaming from Boston over the weekend, and the
same thing happened:

At 8PM, I activated it, and in three minutes it was working fine.

At 12:30AM, it was still working fine.

At 1:10AM, it was no longer working, ie, it defaulted back to my home
system, and never made it Boston. I tried reactivating it, but that
didn't work till 2AM, Eastern.

When I talked to GTE about Follow Me a while back, they mentioned that
the service is run through a central computer in Houston. (At least
for GTE Mobile Net customers it is ... or so they say). Could the
early termination of Follow Me Roaming have anything to do with the
fact that at 1AM Eastern it is 12AM Central/Houston time? Perhaps that
is why I am losing all my calls at 1AM, two hours before GTE in San
Francisco SHOULD un-forward Follow Me. Any ideas on this?

Incidentally, I can't recall who (Robert?) wrote that he experienced
problems with Follow Me while in San Diego. I had a similar problem in
Sacramento, and when I called GTE they told me that the reason the
Follow Me is slow and/or that when I roam into another CA service area
it doesn't work is becuase they are doing away with Follow Me in CA.
Or, more aptly put, it will work automatically in all CA service
areas, like Cell One already does.

(In CA, if you have service with Cell One, you can be reached anywhere
in CA or Reno, NV with one phone number. I'm not sure if this uses a
DMX or it polls you as you enter a new area and lets your home system
know where you are...)

GTE apparently decided it was about time they did this to, so what
happens is that when you roam into a service area in CA, your home
switch is told where you are. However, since the system is new, and
the trunk lines aren't avialble to call the ROAM system you are in,
callers calling your mobile number will either get a re-order or dead
silence, since no lines are available to call to the Roam system yet.
GTE said that by the end of August this will be fixed, and that in the
meantime to use Follow Me, even if you have to re-enter *18 a few
times. I'm not sure if this answers your problem, but it sounded a bit
similar to what I had experienced.

Additionally, does entering *18 (repeatedly) force you to the back of
the queue, thus slowing down the implementation of your request? IE,
if I press *18, see nothing happens, and then try it again, does that
cancel out the original *18 request, and make me wait for however long
Follow Me takes to implement a new system? GTE told me not to enter
*18 a lot of times, since it would just increase the time that it
would take for Follow Me to activate at my home switch ... is this
true?


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Through some agreement between (I think) all
cellular carriers, there is a general cancellation of all 'follow me'
requests activated during the day at midnight *using the time where
the computer is located which is holding your request*. If California
is holding your request, cancellation will occur at 3 AM Eastern. If
New York is holding the request, then cancellation will be at 9 PM on
the west coast. If GTE Mobilnet works from Houston, then Central time
would prevail.  PAT]

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?)
Date: 14 Aug 90 13:56:15 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (dave berman)
writes:

>It seems to me that the whole worldwide voice net will go down the
>tubes real soon now, with features like IdentaCall and stuff all
>working to help use up all those numbers so fast. Are the telephone
>switching systems installed now able to handle a reprogramming, such
>as adding an extra digit in front of the usual exchange? Or adding a
>fourth character to the area code?

There's going to be a new North American Numbering Plan.  The existing
plan has approximately 160 NPAs (area codes/Numbering Plan Areas) with
about 640 office prefixes and 10000 lines per office.  That totals to
just about one billion (1,024,000,000) lines. The reason we're running
out, perversely enough, is not the dense area codes, but the sparse
ones.  Montana, for example, with a whole NPA to itself.

The new NPA will impose everywhere what is already a fact of life in
dense area - no 1 + seven digit toll calls.  Then the area codes can
be used as office prefixes, and (the real change) all office prefixes
 - now 800 - can be used as area codes.  So the total capacity goes to
800 x 800 x 10000 or 6.4 billion.

Disclaimer: I'm sure the numbers aren't right, it's five years since I
looked at this stuff.


Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | 21 years in Canada...
uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 [e-mail] 613-765-2337    |


[Moderator's Note: Another good example is little Rhode Island. All of
an area code for what? ... a couple hundred thousand phones at most?  PAT]

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

From: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Subject: Crank Calls
Date: 14 Aug 90 14:16:53 GMT
Reply-To: Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sedat
Yilmazer) writes:

>At the cost of the callers privacy!  Here in Vienna I got, up to
>now, no crank calls. ...

Note: NOT about Caller-ID.

I wonder if Sedat's blissful crank call-less world is due to the fact
that most of Europe -- and I therefore presume Austria -- charges for
local calls, making crank calling a much less attractive 'hobby' of
the eight-to-ten year olds and drunks that I seem to get?

Anyone have any facts or opinions on the relative rates of crank
calls.

On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to answer
the phone with the number.  I presume this dates from a time when the
switching system was even less reliable than it is today. But in North
America one thing you never do is tell a caller what number s/he has
reached.  How does the rest of the world answer the phone?


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

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 11:02:40 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1 800 LADYLIB


    The Lady With the Torch Wants Your 2 Cents Worth (and $15)

Got $15 spare and an opinion on the meaning of liberty?  Now, you can
record it in a data bank in the Statue of Liberty.  The money will go
toward improving the historical museum in the statue's pedestal.  A
key supporter of the museum, George M. White, Architect of the U.S.
Capitol, set up the fund-raising effort with help from American
Telephone and Telegraph Co.  Contributors can dial 1 800 LADYLIB, and
an operator will take their donations via credit card and type their
statements into a computer.

The messages will be stored on an AT&T machine in the museum and
visitors will be able to read them one by one or find messages by
entering the donors' names and hometowns.  The first contributor, AT&T
Chairman Robert E. Allen, wrote "Liberty is coming of age in the Age
of Information."

[From Business Week, August 6, 1990.  Page 70A.  That page is Business
Week's "Information Processing" column; they also have a "Developments
to Watch" column.  Both columns often contain articles of interest of
TELECOM readers.  For example, the August 6th "IP" column has articles
about Chevron's replace- ment of ship-to-shore telex to its oil
tankers with a PC-based Email system, and about a $60 device to
connect your phone to your PC and use Caller-ID to look up the name of
your caller; while the "DTW" column has articles on a "RobotOperator"
which provides access to a database keyed off of Caller-ID, and about
a new chipset for "smart TV's" that contains enough power to do all
sorts of fancy processing - so you'll be able to by ROM chips with
programming for new options.  A bigger haul than most weeks, but a
quick survey shows that there is usually at least one telecom-related
article per issue.]


Jerry

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 12:24:50 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another One Bites the Dust


Releigh Residence Inc., a senior citizens residence, pulled the plug
Monday on its hand-operated switch, which AT&T believes is the last
"cord board" in St. Louis.  It was replaced by a Rolm electronic
switch.  [from the August 14th edition of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch;

Accompanying photo, showing the new switch on top of the old
switchboard, credited to Rolm Co.]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint and WD40
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 17:41:48 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


I got a letter from Sprint today.

As *I* read it; it says:

    We won't credit invoice #1, but will credit #3.
    If you got charged $10.00 for the card, call for a refund.
    It ain't WD40's fault, it is Sprint's.

Me thinks WD40 heard from folks and let Sprint have it in return.


[e-mail]
(305) 255-RTFM
pob 570-335
33257-0335

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

Organization: Philips Information Systems
Subject: Getting Stoned by Telephone
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 22:30:16 MET
From: Dolf Grunbauer <[e-mail]>


Patrick,

A couple of weeks ago the following article was published in one of
our newspapers: "De Volkskrant", in the column "Dag In, Dag Uit".
Here is my translation of the article:

Telefonica, the Spanish telephone company, was astonished. "Stoned by
sniffing our telephones? Is that possible? Please don't spread it
around! Otherwise no telephone booth will survive", a spokesman begged
in vain. Spain's Conservative Party will make some questions about
this telephone sniffing in the Parliament.

The rumour started in Granada. A local newspaper stated that drug
adicts were responsible for the sharp increase of vandalism of public
telephone booths. A telephone technician said "They break the hearing
part out of the telephone and burn the parts because the smoke has a
narcotic influance with which they get stoned."  His bosses immediately
denied it and did counter research. This revealed that no "strange
parts" were used in the telephone making.

Still the rumour was all around Spain. The PTT acknowledges the
increase of repairs of telephone booths. The police thinks that the
rumour has started due to the fact that in Granada an old fashioned
glue was used to glue the telephone horns together. So it is a variant
on the old glue sniffing.  No one has been able to prove that Spanish
youngsters did get stoned due to the Spanish PTT, like the Spanish
opposition keeps on claiming.  The Spanish people will desperatly have
to search for an undamaged telephone booth as long as the rage of the
telephone sniffers lasts.


Dolf Grunbauer      Tel: [phone] Internet [e-mail]
Philips Information Systems            UUCP     ...!mcsun!philapd!dolf

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 17:59:11 EDT
From: Daniel Birchall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures


My father and I recently acquired (read: took from a pile of trash
marked "free") a teletype machine.  I don't know much about such
machines, and as far as I am concerned, there is nothing special about
this one. Personally, I didn't want to get it.  :)  However, on the
stand (under the keyboard part) someone labeled it (with a black
marker, evidently) CRYPTO.  Does that mean that this machine will put
out encrypted transmissions?  Or was it used by some department that
had 'crypto' level clearances?  Any guesses?

Well, my father looked through the stuff we trashpicked, and we have a
few questions [I am presuming that telecommunications includes radio
frequency] one of the widgets is a CV-89A/URA-8A "Frequency Shift
Converter" ... what the heck is that? :) Also, there was an RCA AR-88
Receiver, 540 KC to 32 MC ... Final question, who is or was W2VZM?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #572
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17206;
          16 Aug 90 10:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06611;
          15 Aug 90 23:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10282;
          15 Aug 90 22:39 CDT
Date:     Wed, 15 Aug 90 21:39:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #573
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 15 Aug 90 21:39:03 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 573

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [John R. Covert]
    Trunks and Countries [Alex Pournelle]
    Industry Update [Patricia O'connor]
    Using Residence Lines for Business [John Higdon]
    Can I Get to Texas From Here? [Dave Witherspoon]
    Wierd E-Mail Address [David E. Martin]
    Looking For On-Line V.35 Specs [Pushpendra Mohta]
    What is a "Cable Address"? [Davie Brightbill]
    Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance? [Greg Monti via J. Covert]
    Re: Info Needed on COLAN [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe [Herman Silbiger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 19:05:55 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  14-Aug-1990 2201" <[e-mail]>
Subject: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California


The California Senate has passed and sent to the governor a bill
(AB3457) which gives conversations over cordless telephones the same
legal protections from eavesdroppers as wire phone conversations.

It makes it a misdemeanor, and in some cases a felony, to intercept
cordless telephone call without the consent of the parties.

The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device
enabling the user to intercept such communications.  It provides for
penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison
with fines of up to $2,500.

Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless
phone call is another cordless phone?


john

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

From: Alex Pournelle <elroy!grian![e-mail]>
Subject: Trunks and Countries
Organization: Workman & Associates
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 01:43:02 GMT


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

>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.

W&A sells SwitchView, a switch management product for SL-1s that runs
on XENIX. When we were training in Waterloo, it was mentioned at
length (in the LCR and trunk section of our classes) that many
Canadian companies lease a lot of lines into Buffalo, because even for
intra-province calls, it's cheaper to dial inbound from NY than north
of the border!

Aren't tariffs a wonderful thing?

I'm sworn to secrecy to NOT tell about the volume of 100 milliWatt
laser connections between Windsor and Detroit used to bypass the large
cross-border tariffs, too.


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

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

From: Patricia O'connor <lever!f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Patricia.O'connor>
Subject: Industry Update
Date: 14 Aug 90 23:46:08 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/555 - MacCircles, Pleasanton CA


Several major news items appeared recently:

Westamerica Bank is the first bank in the U.S. to offer banking by
fax.  [Bus. Wire, 8/7]

California's trend-setting PUC is embarking on its most far-reaching
deregulation of telephone service yet.  Its proposal would let the
likes of AT&T and MCI compete for regional toll service with local
carriers.  Regional toll calls are currently priced higher than some
long-distance calls.  PacTel and GTE say they welcome the change,
since the proposal would allow them to offer discounts to large-volume
customers.  The California agency's proposal could be a model for
other states.  [Bus. Week, 8/13/90]

Bonnie Guiton, director of the US Office of Consumer Affairs, said the
Bush Administration believes that Caller ID regulation should be left
to state PUCs and the FCC.  [Comm. Daily, 8/6/90]

NYNEX is seeking an experimental license from the FCC to test digital
radio technologies as a possible replacement for physical wires in the
local loop.  NYNEX would become the first telco to try to use digital
radio transmission to deliver conventional telephone service in
metropolitan areas.  [WSJ, 8/3/90] --- TBBS v2.1/NM


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using Residence Lines for Business
Date: 14 Aug 90 23:51:41 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


 From time to time, someone posts how the local telco seems to have
the hots to upgrade someone's residence service to business. In
Pac*Bell land no one seems overly eager to do this. It took five
minutes to convince a Pac*Bell rep that a friend's voice BBS was
strictly a non-business enterprize. In fact, I once had the goods on a
telemarketer who was using residence lines and got nowhere.

In non-rural California, measured service is mandatory for business
lines while residences can opt for flat-rate local calling.  Some of
the telemarketing slimeballs will go to some lengths to stash a couple
of harassment machines in someone's house connected to residence
circuits.

One of these machines called me one evening without the mandatory live
person introducing it. For the express purpose of nailing these guys,
I answered the machine's questions and indicated that I wanted to have
a callback. Then I listened to the machine drop off. To my ear, it was
unmistakenly a call from another line in my crossbar's marker group.
For those unfamiliar with this sound, it is essentially no sound --
the call just goes away. It can only do this with a call originating
from the same switch.

When the live person called I made up some excuse to have to call her
back. She was very hesitant to give me a call-back number, but when I
indicated that it seemed strange doing business with someone who
refused to give out a number she gave it to me. It was 265-something.
Sure enough, my switch.

I reported this to the Pac*Bell business office, telling them that
this particular machine had given me the spiel without a live person
introducing it. I was later told that I must have some wrong
information because the number I provided was residence service so it
couldn't possibly be used in telemarketing -- "that would be against
tariff!"

"Besides," she told me, "the woman who answered the [residence] phone
assured me that all the solicitation calls [pertaining to the business
she apparently wasn't doing??!!] were made from Wisconsin."

Yeah, and I'm Ronald Reagan.


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

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

From: Dave Witherspoon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can I Get to Texas From Here?
Date: 15 Aug 90 13:08:42 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering & Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA


I have a question concerning communications with a VAX from afar.  A
friend of mine is moving from Texas A&M to South Carolina (North
Augusta) to begin his career.  However, he has a little work left to
complete on his thesis.  The information (much of which is graphics)
resides on one of several VAXes at TA&M.  What steps should he take to
find out if there is some locally accessible networking facility that
will allow him communications with the VAX?  Dialing into the VAX is
an option, but a bit expensive.  Please email or post any suggestions.
And by the way, I never frequent this newsgroup as I know zero, zilch,
na-da about such things.  Thanks in advance.


[e-mail]
NCR E&M Atlanta: [phone]
MY OPINIONS...ALL MINE!!!


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps if you would frequent this newsgroup for
awhile you might rise above your ignorance on telecom-related matters.
Then again, maybe not! :)  We'll see if anyone can answer you.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 12:34:38 EDT
From: David E Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wierd E-Mail Address
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL


My uncle at Skjonberg Controls, Inc., has given me this bizarre email
address:

E-Mail IMC 3366 KNUT-US

He's in Ventura, CA.  Anybody have an idea how to get to this address?


David E. Martin                 Phone: [phone]   FAX: [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories          Internet: [e-mail]   ATTMAIL: !dem
Naperville, IL 60566            UUCP: ...!att!iexist!dem   TELEX: 157212499

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

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 17:44:04 PDT
From: Pushpendra Mohta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For On-Line V.35 Specs


I wonder if any one has on-line V.35 specs?


Thanks,

pushpendra

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 1990 23:17:39 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What is a "Cable Address"?


Thanks for the interesting articles on TELEX/TWX in the past few
weeks.  Can anyone explain what a "cable address" is?  For example,
the cable address for the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corp. is
"Broadcasts."  If I wanted to send a cable to them, how would I do it,
how would it get there, what would they receive it on, what role does
the address play, who keeps track of the address, etc.


Davie Brightbill


[Moderator's Note: Cable addresses are nothing more than shorthand for
the entire telex address. They were devised many years ago by Western
Union as a sort of precurser to what we call 'speed dial' today, or
'abbreviated dialing'. Except, you really did not dial anything. You
merely passed the cable address to the Western Union agent/operator,
who had a lookup table of addresses versus telex numbers. They were
used as advertising gimmicks, and ways to easily remember long
numbers. Although 'cablegrams' were sent out of the United States and
'telegrams' were sent domestically, they were the same difference, and
anyone could have a 'cable address' if they paid Western Union to list
it in their tables of same. 'Cable addresses' tended toward to be
easy to remember words and phrases. A few I remember still were
'University' (for the U of Chicago); 'Beacon Hill' (I forget who owned
it); 'TribTower' (Chicago Tribune); and 'Symphony' (The Chicago Symphony
Orchestra). This was all 1950/60-ish stuff. I did not know they were
still making them available. I guess any telex carrier can do it.  In
your example, you would call Western Union and tell the operator to
send a message to the cable address "Broadcasts". That is, *IF* s/he
even knows what you are talking about! :)  PAT]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones
Date: 15 Aug 90 09:16:09 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> You are right, a telephone line requires two wires or "one
> pair" in telco speak. The first pair are the Red and Green and the
> second pair are the Yellow and Black. For a one line installation, you
> only need to connect the first pair (Red and Green).

During the 70's (days of four-prong phone jacks), Rochester Telephone
seemed to wire most (single-line) phones with the Yellow/Black
positions on the jacks.  We all assumed that this was simply to
discourage would-be amateur telephone installers.  I've never seen the
non-standard wiring on RJ-11s unless there were two lines involved.


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc    Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 07:20:19 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  15-Aug-1990 1021" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance?


  From:  Greg Monti
  Date:  15 August 1990
  Subject: Re: 1-555-1212 for Local Directory Assistance?

"DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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...)

Nope.  Everything within New York City is local, whether within an NPA
or between them, whether crossing a body of water or not.

John Cowan <[e-mail]> writes:

> 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.

I believe the recommended procedure in the New York area is implied
rather than spelled out in the directory:

For numbers that would appear in the printed directory serving the
area where the phone you are calling from is located, i.e., the
directory for your home county or borough: 411.

For numbers within your area code but outside the area where your home
printed directory is distributed: 555-1212.  ("1" never used for
seven-digit calls.)

For anything else:  ("1," if rqd locally) + NPA + 555-1212.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia;  work [phone]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info Needed on COLAN
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 15:50:49 GMT


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

>Can anyone give a description or refer me to some documentation on
>COLAN (Central Office Local Area Network)?

DAVID systems has a PBX cum Ethernet which has been sold to Ameritech
as a CO LAN.  There are Ethernet jacks on the back of the phone sets,
and any Ethernet capable equipment can be plugged in.  Once the data
gets to the PBX switch, it is turned into real Ethernet.  "Real"
Ethernet devices on coax can also be used with the system.  Switches
can be connected via coax, Ethernet, or (multiple) T-1 spans.
Ethernet packets can be gatewayed between switches on any of these
links.

The CO LAN concept has all voice traffic directed to Centrex (thus
removing the voice features of the PBX), while letting the PBX connect
Ethernet packets within itself, and, via links to the CO, to other
DAVID switches (hence: CO LAN).


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 17:29:24 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 1-800 Numbers From Europe
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> Not any more.  AT&T's USADirect

> These numbers are not listed in foreign phonebooks in any place I've
> looked, so be sure to take them with you, or failing that look in a
> copy of the IHT.

I have been in some countries where the USADirect, (and FranceDirect
etc.)  numbers are indeed listed in the telephone directory.  This was
true in Australia, but I think I also saw it some other places.

I always read the telephone directory wherever I go.  In many
countries they provide pages in other languages for visitors.  The
Japanese directory is totally useless unless you know Kanji.

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

> Some time ago, I wrote that I was looking for a list of 800 numbers
> for the inward direct service for as many countries as possible.

I have found in some hotels in the US (Hyatt, Westin) a booklet with
extensive information about calling home.  It provides information on
acceptance of credit cards, collect calls, etc. from and to other
countries, Home Direct and USA Direct numbers, country codes, time
zones, and a wealth of other information.  The booklet is published by
AT&T, but has a cover provided by the hotel.

It may be possible to obtain a copy of this book from AT&T.  You could
try AT&T International Service information (1 800 874-4000).


Herman Silbiger

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #573
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17532;
          16 Aug 90 10:34 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31428; 16 Aug 90 9:05 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12273;
          16 Aug 90 2:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06619;
          16 Aug 90 0:44 CDT
Date:     Thu, 16 Aug 90 0:21:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #574
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Aug 90 00:21:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 574

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [TELECOM Moderator]
    Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Slowest Dialable Number [Chris Williams]
    Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone [Danny]
    Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices [Jim Budler]
    Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls [Bob Hale]
    AT&T Catalog of Products [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 22:14:38 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements


This summer marks the 35th anniversary of the first recorded
announcements given over the telephone for other than telephone
company purposes. Likewise, the 'time of day' message is from an
earlier era.

Beginning in 1927, telephone companies began getting tired of people
ringing up the operator to ask 'what time is it?', so they established
special numbers for that purpose. In the beginning, a live person sat
there and announced the time upon request, and there were very few ten
second intervals that *someone* did not dial in asking for it.

The original number for the time of day in New York City was NERVOUS.
A jewelry store in Manhattan sponsored it for many years.  Recorded
messages giving out the weather forecast started in 1950 in
Philadelphia and Cleveland on an experimental basis. It seems a lot of
people had been calling the operator to ask what the temperature was
that day, and the telcos got tired of that also! :)

But for other purposes, recorded announcements began in August, 1955
in Scarsdale, NY when Hitchcock Memorial Church began broadcasting
recorded prayers continuously over a special telephone line installed
for that purpose. By a year later, churches all over the United States
were experimenting with this new technology, offering 'Dial-A-Prayer'
telephone lines. New York's Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church averages
800 calls per hour around the clock on their present system.

About 1958, theatres began using recorded announcements advertising
the pictures and the times they played, however the recorded telephone
message concept was mainly used by churches until the middle sixties.

In 1968, Chicagoan Sherman Skolnik started a recorded message
commentary on the news which ran five minutes in length, was changed
daily, and has continued to this day, 22 years later. In the early
1970's, several non-religious recordings were available, including a
convention and tourist message in Chicago; a 'gay news and events'
recorded message here, and others.

Of course today, there are literally thousands of free recorded
annoucements to hear, to say nothing of the many operating on premium
charge lines (900/976 numbers).

Except for telco weather and time messages, public programming / general
interest recorded announcements began 35 years ago this week. And, it
was just ten years ago that 900 service was started by AT&T, to handle
the calls received in the Carter/Reagan debate in 1980.

Should we celebrate the anniversary?  More than a few people have
gotten rich from telephone recorded announcements, that's for sure!


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 22:51:44 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills


An article of interest in the {Chicago Sun Times}, Monday, August 13
discussed phone phreaks who gain access to companies' outgoing phone
lines via incoming 800 numbers tied into the PBX. Writer Lisa Holton
discussed 'sophisticated thieves who take advantage of lax firms,
casuing (the firm) to pay the piper.'

In one notorious example from the not-to-distant past in Chicago, a
company had been getting monthly bills for their long distance service
of $2500 to $4000 per month. Then one month, the bill came and the
total was $105,000.  It was not a misprint.

It seems in this case, on a Saturday between 8 AM and 8 PM, when no
one was working, there had been several *thousand* internatinal calls
placed through the company PBX. Someone had gotten a list of the valid
PIN codes, then sold them to dozens of buyers, usually in immigrant
neighborhoods, for $20-$30 each. Sometimes more than one person bought
the same code number.

According to Loren Proctor, Chicago area regional security manager for
US Sprint, incidents like this are quite common, although not
necessarily as outrageous. He said Sprint can often times detect a
fraudulent pattern going on, but the company disclaims responsibility
for fraud calls made through a company's own switch.

Ms. Holton discussed three common techniques used by phreaks to obtain
access codes:

1) Playing the numbers game:  This is simply the brute force
technique. Have your computer just keep trying number combinations
until one or more work. Because many PINS are only four digits, it is
just a matter of time -- a short time, really -- until valid codes are
found.

2) Buttering up the company operator: The phreak calls up a company,
and asks to be transferred to the sales department, or somewhere. He
gets the department receptionist and says he made a mistake, could he
please be transferred back to the operator. Now his call is on an
inside line, so who else could the operator be talking to besides an
employee?  If the operator is busy, or not paying attention to who she
is talking to, the phreak can talk her into giving him an outside
line. Bingo, a three hour call to his mother somewhere.

3) Looking for codes in all the right places: In this example, thieves
were hanging out at Port Authority Bus Terminal and at LaGuardia
International Airport. They were using binoculars and telephoto lenses
on cameras to watch people making 800 calls into their company PBX.

These guys were writing down the 800 numbers and PIN codes, then
giving them to partners up on 171st Street who would sell them for $20
each. They also watched for people to enter 950 numbers followed by
codes and Sprint's 800 number, followed by codes. This went on for
about 24 hours before Sprint caught on to what was happening.

So, according to Ms. Holton's article, the experts give these tips to
help prevent piracy of your long distance lines:

1) Change PINS as often as possible. If PINS change quite frequently,
it will be more difficult to find one that's valid.

2) Give the PIN as many digits as possible. According to Mr. Proctor
of Sprint, fourteen digit codes are now common with long distance
carriers. The longer the PIN, the more difficult it is to learn by the
brute force method.

3) Limit access to the PBX: Take an analysis of everyone who is using
the phone system and WATS lines. Does the shipping clerk need the same
access as the Chairman of the Board?  Toll-restrict 900 numbers, as
well as off-site 800 number access by time of day or day of week.
Limit the number of calls a user can make in a single day. Some
companies go so far as to pull the plug on the PBX after 6 PM, so that
*no one* -- phreaks included -- can use the phone.

4) A device is available from Information Innovators in Virginia
Beach, VA which is attached to the PBX via a PC. It will shut down an
800 line for a short period or indefinitly if it senses someone is
making repeated efforts to break in or locate a valid PIN.

None of this, of course, comes as anything new to TELECOM Digest
readers, but I thought you would enjoy excerpts from the 'tutorial'
given in the {Sun Times} for businesses plagued with phone abuse
problems.

Another reference is the August issue of {Teleconnect}, which has a
lengthy story on this same topic.


Patrick Townson


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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Slowest Dialable Number
Date: 15 Aug 90 13:14:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) writes:

> When I called 900-555-1212, I got to listen to a LONG (about 3 minute)
> recording of services available via 900 number. The recording was (of
> course) scratchy, and barely audible during some portions. The numbers
> listed seemed to be in no particular order, just sort of jumbled in.

That's odd, when I called, the recording was very clear and
understandable, although the woman speaking sounded like she was out
of breath more than once or twice. :-)

I didn't notice any sort of order either.

> I doubt many people use the 900-555-1212 number to find their 900
> numbers.

I also doubt that. I've seen more ads for 900 services in the backs of
assorted magazines than were listed on the recording.


chris williams, `gilligan' | [e-mail]
programmer/operator        | UTSPAN::UTADNX::NTVAX::CGW
university of north texas  | CGW@UNTVAX {.bitnet}
denton, texas 76203        | at&t : [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone
Date: 16 Aug 90 10:20:18 (UTC+10:00)
Organization: The University of Melbourne


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

> In Volume 10, Issue 547, Message 9 of 15, Message-ID: <10550@accuvax.
> nwu.edu>, John Nagle posted:

>>     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

> I'll go you one better: right after the tritone (that's called a SIT,
> right?), transmit the data DIGITALLY with a modem, the same FSK as
> used in Caller-ID.

Rather than using a modem, DTMF signalling could be used.  It is not
as fast, but what's an extra couple of seconds, when you don't have to
wait for the modems to CONNECT?

> This is kind to machines:
> The tritone is the header followed immediately by the data.

Why not have the dialling machine respond with a DTMF (Touch tone)
code which says, "Please inform of new number."  This would
necessitate putting a tone interpreter into the ANI (or whatever)
system, but that can't be the hardest part of the exercise.

Modems already have tone senders in them.  A tone interpreter should
not be too difficult, and the modem could inform the controlling
software with messages like 'TONE 1<CR>' or 'TONE *<CR>' etc.

> This is kind to humans:
> The tritone is loud and annoying already so a little more screaming
> won't hurt.

> FAX/modem/autodialer manufacturers should love this:
> If the machine recognizes the tritone and can act accordingly, you'll
> prevent repeated failed calls.  You could automatically update the
> phone list when a new number is given.  The retry mechanism could
> adapt if the line is temporarily out of service or give up if it's
> permanently out of service.

> I'd expect a CCITT definition of the command to be something like a 16
> bit command followed by a variable length field.  The commands would
> be specified like:

> command: 0000h  Number out of service
> following data: none

CCITT could also define something like:

Tritone - If you are a machine, press '* 0 #' to request status report.

After the modem has dialled its '* 0 #' the CO can send:

1  - All lines busy
2  - Number out of service
3  - Number changed
     Modem responds with '*'
     New number is sent.

etc.


A really clever modem could conduct the conversation by itself, a more
basic unit could simply report the tones received and allow software
control.

Of course, if there is no machine response after the initial tritone,
a voice can inform the human of the number.


Danny

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 06:48:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A J
Annala) writes:

>I do some data communications technician type contracting work from
>time to time (e.g. installing modems, analog line testing, protocol
>analysis, etc).  There have been notes on the network about police
>confiscating equipment of the type I often use in my work.  These

[list of telecom devices deleted]

>Tone Generator.  The police claim is that such devices are telephone
>access devices which should not be in the hands of the public.  I am
>curious about whether any other technical people have been challenged
>by the police and what answer has satisfied them to go away without
>hassle.

>All of these devices can be purchased over the counter or by mail at

[locations deleted for brevity]

>appears to be to be completely ludicrous to claim these tools must not
>be found in the possession of members of the public.  They are
>ordinary tools.

Go down to your local hardware store. Buy a product called "Wonder
Bar", or for that matter any of the similar high tensile steel *flat*
crowbars.

They are *very* useful tools around the home.

*Don't* be caught carrying one of them at night behind someone else's
home.  The police call it a jemmy, and it is probable cause for arrest
on suspicion of burglary.

You can buy hollow point ammunition in any sporting goods store, but
the practical difference between a hollow point cartridge and a
"dum-dum" cartridge is none. And a "dum-dum" is illegal.

The police *understand* how to determine realistically whether you are
a burglar or a homeowner. They haven't a clue how to determine the
same with the type of instruments you described. So they turned to the
"experts", such as ATT and BellSouth.

I think it was prudent on their part to go to experts. What is
unfortunate is that they appear to have picked "experts" who have
vested interests, and are willing to exercise them. The "police" have
gotten burnt by BellSouth, and may be in the process of getting burnt
by ATT. One hopes they learn from it.

One point of view about this. If you were a policeman, and wanted to
contact someone in a phone company, who would you call? Right, the
*security guy*. Back in the old Marx Brothers movies, they were called
"House Dicks".

So now we have the police calling up their *security guy* at the phone
company and saying "How can I identify a burgler?"

Do you think they would get the same answer as they would get from Pat
Townson, Gene Spafford, or even Robert Morris (take your pick of jr.
or sr.)? I don't.

Oops, sorry. Too long. But I own a "Wonder Bar", a couple handguns,
and I recently bought over the counter some hollow point cartridges,
and now wonder if these are "dum-dums" in police terms. I have to
assume that since the "Wonder Bar" never leaves home, the pistols are
at home or at the range, or in between, that I only have to worry
during the "in between".

Sigh.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6061
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

From: Bob Hale <btree![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Plagued by Wrong Number Calls
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Hale)
Organization: Brooktree Corporation, San Diego
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 19:42:16 GMT


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

[wrong number discussion omitted]

>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).

I have a friend who used to have a major problem with wrong numbers.
His number was different by 1 in one digit from that of the Camp
Pendleton Marine Base brig near San Diego, California.

He was awakened about 3AM one day by someone who wanted to know "Do
you have Private Jones in the brig?"  He quickly improvised the answer
"No, we took him out in back and shot him."

My friend eventually moved and abandoned the problem.  I wonder if the
new holder of that phone number is as inventive.


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

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

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 22:14:38 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Catalog Of Products


The AT&T Catalog is now available to the public. Phones, computers,
FAX machines, headsets and more. Almost everything they sell is
listed. To get your copy, call 1-800-635-8866.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #574
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07968;
          17 Aug 90 10:52 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11369; 17 Aug 90 9:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01012;
          16 Aug 90 22:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00467;
          16 Aug 90 21:20 CDT
Date:     Thu, 16 Aug 90 20:30:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #575
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Aug 90 20:30:11 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 575

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Michael Riddle]
    Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [David Ritchie]
    Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Basic Questions About Telephones [David Brightbill]
    Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [John Higdon]
    Re: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills [John Higdon]
    Re: Looking For On-Line V.35 Specs [Chip Rosenthal]
    Re: Info Needed on COLAN [Robert Halloran]
    Re: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?) [Ron Newman]
    Re: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?) [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle)
Subject: Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures
Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 19:39:21 GMT


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

>My father and I recently acquired (read: took from a pile of trash
>marked "free") a teletype machine.

>[marked] CRYPTO.  Does that mean that this machine will put
>out encrypted transmissions?  Or was it used by some department that
>had 'crypto' level clearances?  Any guesses?

>one of the widgets is a CV-89A/URA-8A "Frequency Shift
>Converter" ... what the heck is that? :) Also, there was an RCA AR-88
>Receiver, 540 KC to 32 MC ... Final question, who is or was W2VZM?

Ah, old memories!  Sounds to me like you picked up the NON-crypto part
of an old radio-teletype set.  The CV-89 converted the frequency-shift
keying into marks and spaces for the teletype machine.  From the
"Crypto" part, at least the table, if not the whole set, at one time
was hooked through a cryptographic device.  (I guess another
explanation would be an offline crypto unit.  I certainly spent many
an hour repairing them).

Your final question, W2VZM is an amateur call sign.  I'll leave it for
the hams in the group to explain if there was anything special about
it.


[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Sysop on 1:285/27 @ Fidonet

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

From: David Ritchie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures
Date: 16 Aug 90 17:23:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID


  Sounds like a pile of surplus government equipment from one of the
services. The CV-89A is a device for converting levels (in this case,
the current loop from the teletype) into a pair of tones for
transmission.  It most likely does the inverse function also. In
short, it is a modem.

  The AR-88 is a general coverage shortwave receiver.

  W2VZM is an amateur radio call. There is a server that is
telnet'able that could provide you with the 'who' behind the call.


Dave Ritchie N4DJS

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is a "Cable Address"?
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 16:54:36 GMT


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

>   ...  Can anyone explain what a "cable address" is?  ...

>[Moderator's Note: Cable addresses are nothing more than shorthand for
>the entire telex address. They were devised many years ago by Western
>Union as a sort of precurser to what we call 'speed dial' today, or
>'abbreviated dialing'. Except, you really did not dial anything. You
>merely passed the cable address to the Western Union agent/operator,
>who had a lookup table of addresses versus telex numbers. ...]

Before FAX, there was TELEX (TWX), and before TELEX there was
TELEGRAPH.  In the original incarnation, telegraph was an "express
mail service", where you took your (short) letter down to the railway
station[*]; the telegraph operator sent the message in morse code down
the line, until it wound up in the destination city, where it would
get transcribed on paper and be delivered by messenger.

In order to deliver the message, it needed to contain the destination
street address. Since the messages were charged by the word, this
could be quite a significant fraction of the cost, as well as being
cumbersome and error prone. Thus began the practice of registering
one-word "cable addresses", such as "Tribune, Chicago". I.e. the
address would be just one word besides the destination city name.
Since this produced less revenue for the cable carrier, they charged
for registering the address.

When TELEX was introduced, it was first used as an update to the
implementation of the telegraph system. TTYs operated on
point-to-point lines, and operators carried punched tapes across the
room for the next hop of the journey of the message. This was faster
than morse code, and required less operator training. Later, automated
circuit switches (imported from the telephone world) allowed
end-to-end connections, for the duration of the message, and allowed
the wire carriers to lease terminals to subscribers for installation
on their premises, similar to telephones. This must have happened in
the 1940's or thereabouts.  While the storefront small-user service
remained unchanged, it was at that point merely an emulation of the
old user interface; the whole system ran internally on dial-up TELEX
service.

When I lived in Denmark until ten years ago, the post office still
offered telegram service, complete with messenger delivery. You could
also phone in telegraph messages, and they would be charged on your
phone bill, in the same manner as operator-assisted long-distance
telephone calls. There was a SEPARATE service offered by the phone
company, called "phono-telex" which was cheaper, for submitting
messages to telex subscribers; i.e. there was no messenger involved.

By the 1970's, old fashioned telegrams were only used for formal
greetings to formal parties, such as weddings, confirmations,
anniversaries, cityhood anniversaries, ship launchings, party
congresses etc. For such occasions, the Postal Service offered formal
"celebration forms" with art prints in various styles. I recently
heard that the old fashioned telegraph service has now been completely
abandoned, but at the same time souvenir covers are now offered as a
delivery option for special delivery fax messages.

The more things change, the more we get to appreciate the funny ways
in which history survives.

[*] The railways needed telegraphs for co-ordinating operations; it was
natural that they should try to make a business out of excess capacity.
But as the telegraph business grew, it apparently was spun off. I often
wonder if the "Western Union" company is not really a railway company
that has stopped running trains. Pat, do you have a piece on the history
of WU ?


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


[Moderator's Note: There were numerous small telegraph companies all
over the United States in the 1860-80 period. A group of investors
began buying them up, using a lot of the same tricks -- uh, excuse me,
I mean 'business techniques' -- Ted Vail would use a half century
later to grab up hundreds of tiny telcos everywhere for his 'one way
of doing things' Bell Telephone System. It was this merger, or 'union'
of many telegraph companies, all of whom would be sharing their lines
and facilities which led to the organization we call Western Union
Telegraph Co. The fact that there were few competitors left in the
United States attested to their success in monopolizing the market.
Just as Ted Vail and his pals began an agressive effort to grab as
much as possible once the patents on the telephone expired -- which
forced them to deal with competitors -- so Samuel Morse and his
partners wasted no time once Mr. Morse's patent was due to expire.
By the time the telephone was invented, Western Union was already a
huge organization.  Unlike Alex Bell's first message on the telephone,
("Watson! Come here, I want you."), the first telegraph message from
Samuel Morse to an associate was "What Hath God Wrought?"  Indeed.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 12:19:15 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Are "Cable Addresses"?


Does anyone remember the "Paladin" TV western series?

His business card read "Wire PALADIN, San Francisco" - it was a few
years after the series ended that I found out what that really meant.

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 08:37:27 -0400
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Basic Questions About Telephones


My first experience with troubleshooting telco lines happened in a
hotel during a tradeshow around 1975 or so.  I was selling PLATO
connect time and had brought a terminal to show off the system.  The
local telco supplied a phone instrument and jack (old four prong) which
worked fine.  When I plugged in my DAA (had one mounted in a briefcase
with a trimline phone and transfer switch), I had a dead line.  Of
course, Southern Bell had supplied a line with the black/yellow pair
live and had switched the lines on their instrument so that it would
work.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California
Date: 16 Aug 90 10:43:23 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John R. Covert <[e-mail]> writes:

> The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device
> enabling the user to intercept such communications.  It provides for
> penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison
> with fines of up to $2,500.

Wouldn't this be a little tough to enforce at a state level? You don't
suppose they never heard of "mail order"? Besides, I thought all of
this was under the auspices of the FCC, and that states and
municipalities had no jurisdiction over the airwaves. And, once again,
what about continuously tuned radios?

By the time everyone gets their "protected" status, the only kind of
receiver the public will be able to buy will be for broadcast
transmissions. Judging from the state of broadcasting these days, it
won't be long before interest wanes in these as well.

> Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless
> phone call is another cordless phone?

True, but with the newer multi-channel, auto-select models, it is
somewhat difficult. I have a Panasonic KX-T3900 and an AT&T 5500 that
are frequently used simultaneously (the bases sit next to each other)
and they never, ever experience mutual interference. It is most tricky
to get one to "eavedrop" on the other.


        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: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills
Date: 16 Aug 90 11:05:47 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]> writes:

> Ms. Holton discussed three common techniques used by phreaks to obtain
> access codes:

> 2) Buttering up the company operator: The phreak calls up a company,
> and asks to be transferred to the sales department, or somewhere. He
> gets the department receptionist and says he made a mistake, could he
> please be transferred back to the operator. Now his call is on an
> inside line, so who else could the operator be talking to besides an
> employee?  If the operator is busy, or not paying attention to who she
> is talking to, the phreak can talk her into giving him an outside
> line. Bingo, a three hour call to his mother somewhere.

I would really be interested in knowing what kind of brain-dead PBX
could be used to serve a large enough operation where one could hope
to get away with this. Every system I have ever dealt with (AT&T,
Rolm, ITT, Mitel, Siemens, Toshiba) clearly identifies to the
attendant that an outside call being transferred back from a station
is just that-- a returning outside call. It does not appear as an
"inside" call. Giving that caller an outside line would become a
"trunk to trunk" transfer, an option that can be denied in
programming.

Also, virtually all PBXes, even down to the lowly Panasonics, identify
to a station whether the call is from the inside or outside via
distinctive ringing. While transferring a call, the destination will
have a double ring and when the person doing the transfer hangs up the
ring will change to single.

In short, it is just about impossible to masquerade as an inside call
from the outside. There is one possible exception -- DISA access. This
allows a person to dial a special line and then dial within the PBX.
DISAs are protected by authorization codes, however, and on most
switches still appear as outside calls to inside users, including the
operator.


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

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For On-Line V.35 Specs
Date: 16 Aug 90 17:10:21 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pushpendra Mohta)
writes:

>I wonder if any one has on-line V.35 specs?

If they do, the CCITT would probably like to know about it.  These are
copywritten materials.  You can probably find the CCITT blue books at
any reasonable engineering library.


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

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

From: Robert Halloran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info Needed on COLAN
Date: 16 Aug 90 19:37:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


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

>Can anyone give a description or refer me to some documentation on
>COLAN (Central Office Local Area Network)?

CO-LAN (at least the version I know about) is a data-over-voice
network offered by some of the RBOC's.  The user takes a VDM
(voice-data mux), plugs it into the phone line, then connects the
terminal/PC/whatever and the phone set into the VDM.  The unit
modulates the data stream above the voice band and carries it to the
CO, where it is broken back out by another VDM there and typically fed
into a Datakit VCS data switch for access to host services.  The VDM
can handle input to 19.2K baud.

The user must be within three "wire-miles" of the CO for the VDM to be
able to successfully drive the line.  Our group (w/ NJ Bell) manages a
CO-LAN for AT&T employees in four CO's of Monmouth county where the
density makes it sensible (there must be a threshold number of
potential users to justify parking the data switch at the CO).  I know
of at least one other CO-LAN for AT&T employees in northern NJ (the
Murray Hill area).

                Bob Halloran

Internet: [e-mail]    UUCP: att!mtune!rkh
Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed.

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

From: Ron Newman  <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?)
Organization: Lotus Development Corp.
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 20:56:29 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: Another good example is little Rhode Island. All of
> an area code for what? ... a couple hundred thousand phones at most?  PAT]

You'd be surprised, but the 1980 census shows 947,154 people living in
Rhode Island.  That's more than the District of Columbia and at least
ten states, including Alaska, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Delaware.

Ron Newman

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 10:06:40 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Numbering Plan Changes (was Re: Is 510 Area Code Active?)


Isn't Delaware even smaller, telephone-wise, than Rhode Island?
(Rhode Island does have the smaller land area.)


[Moderator's Note: Probably. Then there is Our Nation's (Drug and
Murder) Capitol, which gets a whole code for itself, and as the earlier
message points out, Alaska, Nevada and other states with an entire,
mostly unused area code.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #575
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13561;
          17 Aug 90 16:30 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad01646; 17 Aug 90 14:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12840;
          17 Aug 90 0:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01012;
          16 Aug 90 22:55 CDT
Date:     Thu, 16 Aug 90 21:50:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #576
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 16 Aug 90 21:50:21 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 576

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Solar Powered Cellular PBX [Alex Pournelle]
    Re: Phone Service in Ireland [B.J. Haughey]
    Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Kevin Mitchell]
    Re: Crank Calls [Carl Moore]
    Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [Carl Moore]
    Re: Gummit Paranoia [Colin Plumb]
    Using an ISDN D Channel to Set Up Analog Trunks [Eric Hildum]
    US Sprint WD-40 Promotion Revisited [David M. Kurtiak]
    Help Needed Building Home Intercom [Martin Grossman]
    Phonemate ADAM: All Digital Answering Machine [Michael Graff]
    Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee [Peter B. Hayward]
    Easy Roaming Service [David J. Farber]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Alex Pournelle <elroy!grian![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Solar Powered Cellular PBX
Organization: Workman & Associates
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 09:56:35 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

>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
>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?

Call Panasonic or Rat Shack and ask.  Better yet, find one (your local
supplier will have one around, or won't get your order) in a working
state and bring your ammmmmmeter along.  Don't forget to plug in a
device to all the ports and take them off-hook -- they're
line-powered!

Now, if you could just use 48 Volts, you could snarf power from TPC
directly and not have any power costs :-)!


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

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 14:20 GMT
From: bjh <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in Ireland


 From: nixbur![e-mail] (John O'Brien):

>I am going to Ireland in a couple of weeks and I am wondering what the
>phone service is like there.  Specifically:

>1.)  Can I use my Sprint FON card to call the US?
>2.)  Can I use my Sprint card for local Irish calls?
>3.)  I have an AT&T Universal card.  Can I use it to
>     make calls within Ireland or to the US?

Hi.

It is possible to use the AT&T card to call the States - this would be
done by calling the Operator responsible for international calls (114)
and giving them the number, I suppose.

You can't use the Sprint card. As for local calls, I'd just pay the
30c fee !

Regards,

bjh
University College Dublin

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Mitchell)
Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California
Date: 16 Aug 90 15:11:20 GMT
Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago


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

> Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless
> phone call is another cordless phone?

Or, you can use any good scanner. My Radio Shack PRO-34 sometimes
stops on cordless phone frequencies -- they're crammed in between
frequencies for other VHF services.

Also, since a radio receiver can sometimes receive images offset by
twice the Intermediate Frequency (10.7 MHz on the PRO-34, for an image
offset of 21.4 MHz), I find it hard to search the 800 MHz public
service bands for all the images of cellular calls that crop up there.
(You get the image only if there isn't a stronger signal on the
desired frequency).

The PRO-34's come with the cellular range locked out. Changing the
programming to avoid the few cordless frequencies hiding among other
stuff would be prohibitive.

My opinion on the matter are that other's phone calls are pretty
boring and mundane anyway. Most of the cellular trash images that show
up are either (1) Ringing tones, (2) somebody's answering machine
message, or (3) "Honey I'll be a few minutes late." Federal law
prohibits divulging the content in any case, or using the information
received to commit a crime (spelled out in big bold letters on the
first page of the {Police Call} frequency directory).


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


[Moderator's Note: Actually, people who have done modifications to the
PRO-34 to expand the coverage in the 800 megs range have discovered
that in the process of moving a diode on the board, they lose all of
the 30-50 meg (low VHF) range as a result. Highly illegal to make the
mods in the first place, of course.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 13:08:16 EDT
From:  Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crank Calls


Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]> writes that in
UK he was taught to answer the phone with the number, but that in
North America this is not done.

If there is a problem with a wrong number, you might ask the caller
what number he/she is trying to reach.  Also, I have had at least one
or two cases where I reached an answering machine which announced the
number I had reached (in lieu of giving out a person's name?).

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 13:25:40 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements


Ten years ago that 900 service was started?  (Stated reason was to
handle calls received in Carter/Reagan debate, 1980.)  It was also
written in the Digest that Carter had a toll-free 900 number in 1977
for a special call-in.


[Moderator's Note: I realy don't remember if he did or not. I think
the first general use of 900 -- where it was offered for sale to
companies promoting things -- was following the Reagan/Carter debates.
Prior use, including the debate call-in was mostly experimental.  PAT]

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gummit Paranoia
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 1990 17:55:54 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


Or you can consider the time I was wandering around downtown Toronto
at 4:00 on a monday morning festooned with needle-nose pliers, a
crescent wrench, vice-grips, wire cutters, a pin punch (very useful
for breaking locks open, BTW), screwdrivers, and various other
evidence that I would win an encounter with anything mechanical.  On
my back was a knapsack filled with 50m of climbing rope, a harness,
webbing, a descender, carabiners ... just what all those urban
commandos in movies need.

Nobody even looked at me oddly, but it would have really troubled
any paranoid authorities.

(To forestall all the mail, it was a late-night fantasy gaming session
which was "come as you are"; we'd try to tranlate the person that
walked in the door into GURPS terms and dump them in a situation.  I
adopted the Boy Scout's motto and came prepared.)


Colin

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

From: Eric Hildum <ntmtv![e-mail]>
Subject: Using an ISDN D Channel to Set Up Analog Trunks
Date: 16 Aug 90 16:41:47 GMT
Reply-To: ntmtv![e-mail] (Eric Hildum)
Organization: Northern Telecom (Mountain View, CA)


Regarding SS#7 from PBX'es to CO's, you can even go one step further.
It is possible to use an ISDN D channel to do call setup for your
analog trunks and DS1 trunks as well as the B channels.

See the ISDN product description in the Meridian I documentation (NTP
553-2901-100), ISDN Signalling Link.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: US Sprint WD-40 Promotion Revisited
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 90 19:31:45 PDT


Just today I received a bulk-mailed letter from US Sprint.  Instead of
just normally tossing it into the circular file, I opened it and
discovered an apology for the "recent" WD-40 promotion.  I'll save my
comments for later ... body of letter follows:


8140 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114-8417

[US Sprint logo]

August 1, 1990

Dear US Sprint Customer,

     Thank you for recently choosing US Sprint long distance service
through the WD-40 promotion.

     Unfortunately, we have encountered problems in processing and
applying your 60 minute credit to your first invoice.  We have
resolved this difficulty and your credit will appear on your third
invoice.

     You may have also received a $10.00 FONCARD (sm) installation fee
on the first invoice you received.  You are not responsible for this
fee and we will be happy to waive it if you will contact our Customer
Service Center at 1-800-877-4646.

     We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
These systems problems were the result of unavoidable circumstances at
US Sprint and were not connected in any way to WD-40's participation
in this program.

     US Sprint appreciates your business and if you have any questions
or concerns, please contact one of our Customer Service Representatives.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Chris Stanford
US Sprint Customer Service

<** End of letter **>

My comments: Gee, I guess that March of this year is recent enough to
be called "recent" ... and seeing that I've never used the card, I
guess it is appropriate to say "We're sorry" before you have to call
and wait and wait and.

I'd just *love* to hear of the "unavoidable" system problem that
caused the "difficulty".  Perhaps the old, formerly retired Z80 based
TRS-80 Model I used for billing in the last decade has been reinstated
in their marketing department ... any ideas??  :-) WD-40's
participation is disclaimed enough, maybe they put 'em to it.  Just a
thought.


  David M. Kurtiak                Internet: [e-mail]
  K1X Computer Solutions          ATT Mail: !dkurtiak
  P.O. Box # 74                   Phone-net: [phone]
  Hampton, NJ 08827-0074

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

Subject: Help Needed Building Home Intercom
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 07:46:43 -0400
From: Martin Grossman <[e-mail]>


I would like to setup a mini phone service at my home connecting just
two  or three phones.  What do I need to buy (Radio Shack) to do this?


            --------                        --------
            |phone |------------------------|phone |
            |      |------------------------|      |
            --------                        --------
            |ringer|                        |ringer|
            --------                        --------

MISC INFO:

  1) There will be no connections to any regular telco phone lines.
  2) The little box's above marked ringer should be small and right next
     to the phone(s).  They should just have 1 button each and ring the
     other phone(s) when depressed.
  3) The box's marked phone should be any phone that can be hooked upto
     the standard (US) phone system.
  4) I understand just a little about how phones work...
     a) I think its 50-60VAC at 20-30HZ to ring a phone
     b) phone looks like inf resistance/reactance when on hook
     c) phone looks like approx 680 ohms when off hook
     d) there's a small DC voltage when off hook

  5) The dial (or push buttons) won't be used (ie just the ringer box)
  6) This will be used instead of multiple walky-talkies.

USE:

  1) One phone will be in the basment and the other 1 or two will be
     upstairs.  I want to be able to signal (via the ringer) and talk
     without running upstairs or shouting. Besides...its a great project.

QUESTIONS:

  1) how do I connect tip and ring from each phone
  2) what do I need between the phones to act as the phone co.
  3) what do I use for the ringer box
  4) what do I need to add if I want to hookup a third phone or fourth.
     PS in no way am I trying to compete against MA-BELL.

Please send answers via email to: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 14 Aug 90 16:32:04 PDT
From: Michael Graff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phonemate ADAM: All Digital Answering Machine
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Last Sunday's Macy's insert in the {San Jose Mercury News} has an
interesting item on page 59.  It's a new Phonemate answering machine
that records incoming and outgoing messages digitally, without
cassette tapes.  I've seen machines that used a digital recording for
the outgoing message, but this is the first one I've seen that records
the incoming messages digitally.  Some of the highlights:

   "Listen to messages at a faster speed without that distorted
   'chipmunk' effect."

   "You no longer have to wait for rewind or reset."

   "Save, skip, or repeat individual messages with voice
   confirmation."

The ADAM has a built-in phone and is "sale" priced at $200.

Speaking of answering machines, I know the Caller ID discussion in
TELECOM is closed for the time being, but here's a twist I don't
recall seeing discussed.  Since many new answering machines tell you
the date and time when a call was received, it seems like it would not
be much more trouble for an answering machine to have Caller ID built
in and tell you the phone number of the caller.


Michael


[Moderator's Note: Nothing is technically wrong with your idea, except
of course that unlike the date and time, derived from the answering
machine's own resources, the caller identication would have to be sent
from the telco. I'm sure the information sent by telco could be stored
on a chip somewhere and read back to you with the time and date.  PAT]

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

From: "Peter B. Hayward" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee
Organization: The University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 14:46:00 GMT


Does anyone know if it is possible to make arrangements for a roaming
daily activation fee other than the (seeming widespread) $3/day?

I will be in two separate service areas in Maine for several weeks
each next month, and the idea of $3/day seems excesssive.


Peter B. Hayward                                              N9IZT
University of Chicago Computing Organizations
[e-mail]        .........rutgers!oddjob!midway!pbhx


[Moderator's Note: If I were going to be in the distant service area
at least a month, I'd opt to have service turned on locally by the
carrier in that area. But the start up fee and service for one month
would probably not save enough over the daily roaming fee to make it
very worthwhile. If you do have service turned on there, then simply
do your own call forwarding from Chicago before you leave.  But if you
are only going to be there a month in total, then two local services
for a month each, plus start-up fees might even wind up costing more
than the estimated $90 ($3 times 30 days) the roaming would cost. I
think you might be outta luck. Any ideas from readers?   PAT]

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

From: "David J. Farber" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Easy Roaming Service
Date: 16 Aug 90 17:34:32 GMT
Reply-To: "David J. Farber" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I have tried to get Easy Roaming service in the Philadelphia area with
no success. Any idea why it is not available?


David Farber; Prof. of CIS and EE, U of Penn, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6389
Tele(215): 898-9508(off); 274-8292 (home); FAX: [phone];  Cellular: 870-0175
X400 address is: pn=david.farber/ou=cis/o=upenn/prmd=xnren/c=us


[Moderator's Note: I am not sure what you mean by 'Easy Roaming'
service. Are you referring to the ability to leave the Philadelphia
area and have your cell calls follow you through instructions you send
back from some distant point, or are you referring to the ability to
be in Philadelphia and receive calls forwarded there from elsewhere?
Have you asked the respective carriers in Philadelphia if they offer
the service?  Some companies, like Ameritech, require an advance
subscription to the service, which here they call 'Fast Track Follow
Me'. Also, if you have inquired/subscribed, and still cannot activate
it, then it may be your serial number is on the denied list, meaning
at some point in time some cellular carrier got paranoid about you.
You would need to specifically ask customer service to remove this
condition.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #576
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13969;
          17 Aug 90 16:50 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ah01646; 17 Aug 90 14:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09913;
          17 Aug 90 3:09 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04559;
          17 Aug 90 1:32 CDT
Date:     Fri, 17 Aug 90 1:30:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #577
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Aug 90 01:30:20 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 577

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Country Direct from Australia [[e-mail]]
    0055 Numbers in Oz [[e-mail]]
    Bit by the COCOT Collect Call [Will Martin]
    T1 Mux Info Needed [Timothy G. Smith]
    Thanks For Calling [Ken Thompson]
    Modem For a Cellphone (was: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?) [Ted Ede]
    Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [John T. Grieggs]
    Time Motion Tools 1990 Catalog Available [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Country Direct from Australia
Date: 16 Aug 90 17:11:00 (UTC+10:00)
Organization: The University of Melbourne


Here are the OTC Country Direct numbers FROM Australia:

USA Direct (ATT)        0014 881 011
Call USA (MCI)          0014 881 100
U.K. (BTI)              0014 881 440
Japan                   0014 881 810
Canada                  0014 881 150
France                  0014 881 330
Italy                   0014 881 390
Hong Kong               0014 881 852
Singapore               0014 881 650
New Zealand             0014 881 640

Note that except for USA and Canada the numbers are of the form 0014
881+ country code ( + 0 for two digit country codes.)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 0055 Numbers in Oz
Date: 16 Aug 90 17:04:03 (UTC+10:00)
Organization: The University of Melbourne


> Since they have many readers outside the UK, a few months ago they
> offered a way of reaching their service from abroad: "just dial +611
> 411 421, normal inter- national rates apply". (Kindly enough, they
> added "N.B. From Australia dial 00551 4009". And before you try
> calling: they haven't been advertising this number for the past two
> months, so the service may have been discontinued.)

> My question is: what's in it for them? Does Telecom Australia give
> them a share of the revenue from the calls they get?

Since 0055- is the 'premium service' prefix in Australia, equivalent
to 1-900, 0898, 0839, etc, it appears that they have set up a service
in Australia to avoid international call rates.  My guess is that most
of their OS readership is in Oz.

Charges for 0055 numbers are determined by the 6th digit:

Sixth Digit        7,9        5,6        0-4

8am-6pm M-Sat       33         39         57

6pm-10pm M-F        22         26         38

10pm-6am
6pm Sat-8am Mon     13         15         23

Charges are given in cents/minute, but are charged in multiples of 22c.

$A1.00 = $US0.80 = GBP0.43

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 10:23:49 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bit by the COCOT Collect Call


Just to add to the database of COCOT bad news. Back in June, I had a
one-time, first-ever call from one of those COCOTs that does
automated-voice collect calls. What I heard when I picked up the phone
was a synthesized voice saying "You have a collect call from
<unintelligible noise>" and then, as it began to tell me to answer
"yes" or press a number or whatever, I hung up the phone. The call had
awakened me anyway, and the unidentifiability of the caller added to
my annoyance, so I figured that if it was a for-real call, and not a
wrong number, I'd get another call. Never did, so I figured it was a
wrong number or random dialling by some idiot, and forgot about it.

Well, on the phone bill from SW Bell that arrived yesterday was a
tacked-on-the-back page from a company called "Integretel, Inc." for a
one-minute collect call from [phone] at a rate of $2.25, plus 7
cents federal and 13 cents state/local tax, for a total of $2.45. The
really insane thing was that it is listed as being from "Ladue, MO".
I'm in St. Louis City, and Ladue is a suburb well within the local
calling area. A 25-cent call. (It also has a reputation of being a
hoity-toity area of rich people, and I don't know anybody who lives
there, being a real person myself... :-)

Anyway, I called the SW Bell billing office this morning, and the
helpful lady there had no hesitation about removing the improper
charge from my bill. She, too, seemed surprised by the "Ladue"
originating location. I wouldn't be surprised if bad billings from
this "Integretel" company were common -- having a name somewhat like
"integrity" is a real misnomer, I think; wonder if it would count as
false advertising? :-) (She did try to sell me a second line as we
concluded the business; I guess that's their current promotion. I
didn't need one, and she wasn't pushy, so no problem there.)

I think I'll include a letter to SW Bell with my bill, mentioning that
she was helpful, and suggesting that it is not in SW Bell's best
interest to act as the billing agent for sleazebags like this COCOT
firm -- it reflects badly upon their own reputation and image to be
associated in any way with AOS and COCOT firms who engage in this sort
of underhanded business practice, and whatever small amount they make
by doing this is far outweighed by the bad PR effect of SW Bell being
identified with these actually-independent ripoff firms.

I just called the [phone] number, and it rang for about six or
eight times, and then answered, and a synthesized voice said "Thank
you" (at least I *assume* it said "thank" :-) followed by some rapid
tones -- I think DTMF. Then nothing until it disconnected. Anybody out
there who feels like calling this and reprogramming that COCOT to
burst into flames or allow free calls to anywhere, please feel free to
do so... :-)

Anyway, I'm posting this as a caution -- even if you hang up
immediately on these collect-calling COCOTs, it looks like they will
try to stick you with the bill. Maybe the best solution is to find
such phones and use them to make collect calls to other such COCOTs,
so that the companies bill themselves, and each other, for those
calls. A few million such uncollectible billings will do wonders to
their viability.


Regards, Will Martin


[Moderator's Note: And you know what else is frightening? There are
live operators from outfits like International Telesphere who perform
AOS duties for some of the sleazebags. They will call and advise you
they have a collect call from whoever -- and it may be someone you
know and what to speak with -- but the operator will NOT tell you it
is from a COCOT via an AOS. She will merely say "this is the operator,
I have a collect call from Joe Doe, will you accept the charges?
Caught off guard, of course you say yes. Then the next month you get
*that* on your phone bill; and it may be $10-20, depending. Whenever
you receive a call 'from the operator' ALWAYS ask "operator, who are
you?" An AT&T or legitimate local telco operator will always identify
themselves and the place where they are located. If the operator
either refuses to give a straight answer or admits to COCOT/AOS
affiliation, then quickly say, "Joe find an AT&T phone to call me,"
and hang up. Obviously, deny any charges which may show up.  We
telecom enthusiasts know about this sort of thing; can you imagine how
badly the general public is getting ripped off by divestiture?   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 14:45:44 EDT
From: "Timothy G. Smith - Technical Consultant" <[e-mail]>
Subject: T1 Mux Info Needed


I need to interface a T1 circuit directly into a VME based machine.
The idea is to take the T1 circuit and feed it into the computer and
twiddle the bits.  In other words the computer will perform the
functions of a DSU and T1 mux.

I am trying to find a VME board that understands T1 signaling and
framing.  Does anyone know where I might find such a critter?

While I am on the subject of T1 and serial IO I have a couple of other
questions that the TELECOM Digest readers may be able to answer.

1) Can someone provide me with the names of the standards that define
DS0, DS1, etc.  I believe that in the old days DS0, DS1, etc were
defined by AT&T's documents but I seem to recall that there is now an
ANSI spec.

2) Does anyone know of a VME serial board that can handle a ~600kbps
unformatted data stream?  By unformatted I mean that there is no
framing at all.  The data consists of a raw bits and a clodk.


Thanks,

        Tim Smith - Technical Consultant

US mail:Sun Microsystems        E-mail:
        6716 Alexander Bell Drive       internet:[e-mail]
        Suite 200                       uucp    :sundc!tgsmith
        Columbia, MD 21046
MaBell :[phone]

PS:  Please respond via direct mail and I will summarize to the
Digest.  Thanks again.

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thanks For Calling
Date: 16 Aug 90 15:52:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS


DA within the area code is 1411 here.  After talking to the human we
hear the computer say:

"Thank you for calling $outhwestern Bell.  The number [you requested]
is 666-1234 repeat 666-1234."

So are they just thanking me for my money?  Who the heck else am I
going to call for DA?


Ken Thompson     N0ITL
NCR Corp.  3718 N. Rock Road
Wichita,Ks. 67226  [phone]
[e-mail]


They are thanking you in the same way the operators years ago used to
ask Number Please, and Thank You. Not that there was any real
competition, but simply as a way of courteously responding.  PAT]

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

Subject: Modem For a Cellphone (was: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 16:05:14 EDT
From: Ted Ede <[e-mail]>


>[Moderator's Note: If in fact such numbers are actually in service,
>then yes, they would be slower. But we were trying to deal only with
>actual, in-service numbers.   PAT]

How about "0", it's always in service, and fast to dial.  411 works in
many areas, it may be faster than 0, depending on your fingers.  (Mine
left pinky really hurts when I have to crank that darned dial all the
way around to 0, so I need to pause a couple of seconds before I can
regain the strength to release the dial.)  Can we drop this topic now?

Does anyone know of any gadgets for a Novatel phone that would allow
me to plug a standard jack into it and use a portable terminal?

For those of you that have a Novatel phone, it's pretty easy to
program.  Just lock the phone with the fcn-lock command, and unlock it
with #259.  Hitting the volume button steps through the options, the
SND (spend) key toggles any binary (SET/CLR) options and the END key
saves options and reboots the phone.


Ted Ede -- [e-mail] -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road
linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B090 -- [phone]

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

From: "John T. Grieggs" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone
Date: 16 Aug 90 22:20:46 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (John T. Grieggs)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA


I recently acquired an AT&T portable phone.  I do not recall the
specific model number, it is the one with two switchable channels.
The problem is that the signal quality degrades rapidly, even within
the house.  Two rooms away, people who talk to me complain about the
signal quality.  I get crackles and pops, and sometimes some crosstalk
(although never clearly), as well as a pretty high level of hiss.
This is maybe twenty feet or so from the base station. Also, when I go
anywhere near the computer room, it gets much worse still, to the
point of being un-usable.

How can I boost the power of the phone?

Is there some modification I could make to the phone or the base
station to increase the signal strength?

Would a longer/better antenna on either the base station or the phone
itself help? If so, where would I get such a beast?

What about the interference?  Would more signal strength help punch
through this?  Or, should I be looking at a line filter of some sort
for the computer itself?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


John T. Grieggs (Telos @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory)
4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, Ca. 91109 M/S 301-320T    [phone]
Uucp: {cit-vax,elroy,chas2}!jpl-devvax!grieggs
Arpa: ...jpl-devvax![e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 0:10:34 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Time Motion Tools 1990 Catalog Available


A new catalog which arrived in the mail a few days ago is worth a
mention here in the Digest: Time Motion Tools, of El Segundo, CA has a
new 100 page catalog of tools and accessories for telecommunications
and electronics professionals.

Categories included are:

  o Voice and data communication measuring devices of all sorts

  o Telecommunication equipment

  o Quality tool kits

  o Static control products

  o Maintainence and repair tools

  o LAN equipment

  o Work stations

  o Test equipment

  o Shipping containers


Several pages are devoted to computer and telecom equipment used for
testing and repair work.

They have an export department specifically to handle inquiries and
orders from countries other than the United States. Export shipments
can be made to all countries in the world except those prohibited by
US law. Certain products may also be prohibited from export by US law
or prohibited from import by other countries.

All prices in the catalog are net industrial. A casual review
indicates their pricing is quite competitive. They will accept most
credit cards as payment, and will ship open account upon credit
approval.

The catalog was professionally done and will serve as a useful
reference in your files.

To obtain your copy of the 1990 Time Motion Tools Catalog:

Phone: [phone]     FAX: [phone]

Write: Time Motion Tools, Inc.
       410 South Douglas Street
       El Segundo, CA  90245-9917  USA


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #577
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21510;
          18 Aug 90 1:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07803;
          18 Aug 90 0:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03909;
          17 Aug 90 23:15 CDT
Date:     Fri, 17 Aug 90 22:46:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #578
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Aug 90 22:45:30 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 578

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    I Need Your Help [Len Rose]
    Re: Federal Indictment of Len Rose [Gord Deinstadt]
    Looking for V.35 Board With Unix Driver For Sun 3/160 [Jose Diaz-Gonzalez]
    There *is* a Difference [Michael C. Berch]
    Butt-sets ... How to Choose? [Dave Platt]
    Future Mexican "Area Codes" [Carl Moore]
    Sprint Free 800 Installation [Steve Elias]
    CT-2 and CT-3 Standards [Bill Pritchard]
    Using a Fax Machine on a Boat [Manuel J. Moguilevsky]
    Cellular Marketing [Ken Jongsma]
    Kremlin Desks [Mark Brader]
    Answering Phrase (was: Crank Calls) [Nigel Allen]
    Static Causes Hassle on YaleNet [microsoft![e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 10:33 EDT
From: len rose <lsicom2![e-mail]>
Subject: I Need Your Help


Hi Patrick..

Due to the recent publicity in comp.docm.telecom it seems I have been
kicked off my last internet account (ames.arc.nasa.gov) ... Is there any
way you could post something like "Len Rose needs an Internet account"
message ? Something on the east coast would be nice, but I will take
whatever I can get. The reason I need one is that alot of my potential
expert witnesses often ftp me things to forward to my attorney and this site
is unstable with mail being erratic at best.


Len


[Moderator's Note: Here is your request, and I wish you good luck in
finding a connection with Internet access and reliable mail, etc.
Readers with suggestions or accounts to offer will no doubt write to
you direct.  PAT]

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

From: Gord Deinstadt <cognos!geovision![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Federal Indictment of Len Rose
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 1990 15:07:23 -0400
Organization: GeoVision Corp., Ottawa, Ontario


>Access to source code permits a computer user to change the way
>in which a given computer system executes a program, without the
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
knowledge of the computer system administrator.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>each program, are source code. Users who have source code are able to
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>see all of the commands that make up a particular program. They can
                                                                 ^^^
>change these commands, causing the computer to perform tasks that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>author of the program did not intend.

The authors of the indictment seem to think that merely posessing
source code somehow gives one the ability to modify executable files
on any system to which one has access.  Since the indictment
specifically talks about Unix systems, this is simply false; without
the sysadmin's (root's) permission you can't modify executables in the
public directories.  In the case of "su", the executable file *must*
be owned by root, so the sysadmin would have to be grossly negligent
or act willfully to let an ordinary user alter it.

This may or may not make a difference to the case against Leonard
Rose, but it reflects a view of the world that ascribes great powers
to those with technical knowledge, powers they (we) simply don't have.
It's that view of the world that threatens us with the labels "hacker"
and "phreak" simply because we program computers or read the TELECOM
Digest.

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

From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For V.35 Board With Unix Driver For Sun 3/160
Date: 17 Aug 90 18:11:34 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


Hello there,

The subject line says it almost all.  I am trying to figure out how to
make and ISDN data connection from our Sun 3/160.  Due to the lack of
BRI boards for this type of equipment, I'm thinking of using a Fujitsu
SRS-410 TA which has a V.35 port that can be driven at up to 64 kbps.
So, all I need now (at least that's what I think!), is a board that
speaks V.35 at 64 kbps.  Any suggestions?  I am trying to avoid rate
adaption protocols.  Please respond by email, since I don't subscribe
to all the groups where this msg will be posted.

Thanks,

Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez
SrMTS
GTE Laboratories, Inc.              Tel:   [phone]
MS-46                                 email: [e-mail]
40 Sylvan Rd.
Waltham, MA 02254

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 11:27:43 -0800
From: "Michael C. Berch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: There *is* a Difference


I have been following the Sprint (etc.) bashing here in TELECOM and
elsewhere (misc.consumers) for quite a while with a bemused smile,
since I have never had reason to deal with US Sprint with regard to LD
service (data communication has become another matter, alas, since US
Sprint took over Telenet, but that's another story for another time).

Over the next week or so I expect to be making a number of calls to
Paris, France.  I am a satisfied customer of AT&T LD, but brand
loyalty goes only so far and if Sprint's or MCI's international
service was much cheaper than AT&T's I'd certainly give them a shot,
so I thought I'd start by making rate inquiries.  The following
transpired:


  AT&T
  ----
Me: [Dials '00']

AT&T Oper:  AT&T, may I help you?

Me: I'd like the direct-dial rate from California to France, please.

AT&T Oper: Yes sir.  There are three rate periods.  The current rate
is [rate info followed...]


  MCI
  ---
Me:  [Dials '10 222 0']

MCI Oper: MCI...

Me: I'd like the direct-dial rate from California to France, please.

MCI Oper: Oh, I'm sorry, you'll have to talk to Customer Service.  I'm
just an operator.  Would you like me to connect you?

Me: Please.

MCI Oper: [Puts call through.]

MCI CS:  Thank you for calling MCI customer service...

Me: (Asks for rate info, gets straightforward answer.)


  US Sprint
  ---------
Me: [Dials '10 333 0']

Sprint Oper: US Sprint, may I help you?

Me: I'd like the direct-dial rate from California to France, please.

Sprint Oper: Oh, we don't have rate information.  You'll have to call
Customer Service.  Would you like the number?

Me: Please.

Sprint oper:  (gives me the 800 number)

Me: [Dials '1 800 877-4646']

Recorded voice: Thank you for calling US Sprint, [blah blah, lengthy
spiel with voice menu], "press 2 for a customer service representative,"

Me: [Dials '2']

[FIVE RINGS]

Recorded voice: All US Sprint customer service representatives are
presently assisting other customers.  Please remain on the line...

*** [8.5 MINUTES OF MUSIC-ON-HOLD] ***

Sprint CS: US Sprint, may I help you?

Me: I'd like the direct-dial rate from California to France, please.

Sprint CS: May I have the number you're calling from?

Me: It would be Mountain View, California.

Sprint CS: I need the number.

Me: (gives him a random number from our Telebit modem bank)

Sprint CS: Yes, and your name please?

Me: Look, I don't have an account with Sprint.  I just need the rate
information.

Sprint CS:  Well, I need a name for the billing inquiry.

Me: It's not a billing inquiry.  I just want to know how much it costs
to call France.

Sprint CS: Uh, OK, I guess I could do that.  The rates are as
follows... (gives rate info).

            ***

The point of all of this is that even a trivially simple customer
service question can be responded to with a rather broad spectrum
ranging from the efficient and professional to the totally ludicrous.
It also convinced me that I have absolutely no desire to do business
with US Sprint, since it appears that if I ever have any problems
requiring customer service intervention, not only will I have to wait
a long time on hold at an off-peak hour, but I will then have the joy
of speaking to someone completely unhelpful.

By the way, the rates differed very little among the three companies;
in the lowest rate period AT&T was $0.65/minute, and MCI and Sprint
were both $0.64/minute.


Michael C. Berch
[e-mail] / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb

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

From: Dave Platt <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 12:44:06 PDT
Subject: Butt-sets ... How to Choose?


I'm interested in buying a decent butt-test set and some other
phone-setup tools ... the job of maintaining our company's phone system
and data-comm wiring has ended up on my list-of-things-to-do (not that
I'm sorry about it at all, though!)

I've got catalogs here from Techni-Tool, Time Motion Tools, and
Specialized Products Company.  There appear to be quite a number of
butt-test sets which would meet my simple needs ... ranging in price
from $150 up to $300 or so.

The most widely-offered seem to be the Harris (or Dracon) TS-21 line
 ...  the TS21-X89 (water-resistant) is priced about the same as the
older, non-water-resistant models (sometimes less!) and seems to have
some other advantages as well.  It appears that the whole TS-21 line
comes _without_ ringers, though ... is this true?

Does anybody have any suggestions about specific models which work
particularly well, or particularly badly, or are good bargains?  I
don't wish to spend more $$ than necessary ... but I don't insist on a
bargain-basement model either (I've learned the hard way that "buying
cheap" is often expensive in the long run).

Any recommendations?


Dave Platt     VOICE: [phone]
  UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt   DOMAIN: [e-mail]
  INTERNET: coherent![e-mail],  [e-mail]
  USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc.  3350 West Bayshore #205  Palo Alto CA 94303

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 17:09:37 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Future Mexican "Area Codes"


There was a note in this Digest about future Mexican "area codes" of
the form 52x after U.S./Canada etc. (country code 1) has prepared for
the coming of NNX area codes (in addition to the existing N0X/N1X area
codes).  Since the x in 52x is not necessarily 0, wouldn't this nix
the continued use of 1+7D in some sparsely-populated NPAs?  It had
been suggested that, since there are a slew of NN0 codes at the head
of the list of NPAs of NNX form, some sparsely-populated NPAs could
disallow NN0 prefixes and thus continue to use 1+7D in lieu of having
to go to 7D or 1+NPA+7D for intra-NPA toll calls.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Free 800 Installation
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 18:09:19 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


On my current FONline 800 Sprint bill, there's a note saying that they
are waiving the signup fee for all new accounts until 9/30.


eli

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

From: Bill Pritchard <[e-mail]>
Subject: CT-2 and CT-3 Standards
Date: 17 Aug 90 20:22:49 GMT
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA


Would anyone know where to locate standards for CT-2 and CT-3?
Cordless Telephone - 2 is in use in the UK and is getting field trials
in New York State.  CT-3 is associated with Ericsson.  Is there a
standards agency overseeing this?  I'm particularly interested in
modulation formats, frequencies, etc.  Thanks much for any information
you might have.


Bill Pritchard                       Internet: [e-mail]
Hewlett Packard Company                             Phone: [phone]
Lake Stevens Instrument Division                      FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 05:37:10 MST
From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky <manuel%psi#[e-mail]>
Subject: Using a Fax Machine on a Boat


Is it possible to use a fax machine (a regular one, not a computer)
from a boat? I mean, using a radio equipment, HF or VHF ?


manuel%psi#[e-mail]
manuel%psi#[e-mail]
manuel%psi#[e-mail]
manuel%psi#[e-mail]
ssl::psi%astarg::manuel
ssl::psi%delphi::eze8a::manuel
PSI MAIL address: PSI%07222211100717::MANUEL  or   PSI%072222111030218::MANUEL
MCI: 4204071 WUI UW   FAX: [phone]

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

Subject: Cellular Marketing
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 9:33:09 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I'm beginning to suspect that cellular phones have no basis in
reality, as we know it. If this country gets any closer to recession,
a lot of people trying to get rich off of cellualar are going to be in
for a rude shock.

Consider the following print ad I saw recently: A person sitting in an
airport terminal, talking to someone on a cellular phone. The blurb
below: "Think of how much more productive you could be with a cellular
phone."

Uh, what's wrong with this picture? Let's see. I could spend .60+/min
to use my cellular phone (plus roaming rates, etc), or I could pick up
the pay phone right behind me and spend .25/min or less.

Top two uses of a cellular phone based on my accidental tuning of
cellular frequencies:

     1) Person A claiming that Person B doesn't understand him/her and
        wondering when the next time he/she could get together with
        Person C.

     2) Cellular salescritters talking about the latest rate increase
        and the kickbacks their getting from the carriers.

Just seems like the whole industry is built on a shakey foundation.


Ken Jongsma                   [e-mail]
Smiths Industries             [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan        ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kremlin Desks
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 1990 12:48:12 -0400


This was in the July 23 issue of {Newsweek}:

  It's well known that multiple telephones are a status symbol in Moscow.
  But the perks are not without their pitfalls, even at the pinnacle of
  Soviet power.  While meeting in Moscow with top Kremlin official
  Georgi Shakhnazarov, Iowa Rep. David Nagle noticed his host had
  12 telephones on his desk.  Nagle also noticed there were no lights
  on the phones.  "When one rings," he thought, "how does the guy know
  which one to pick up?"  He doesn't.  Each time a phone rang during the
  meeting, Shakhnazarov picked up one receiver after another until he
  found the right one.


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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 03:54 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Phrase (was: Crank Calls)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


Henry Troup writes in <Volume 10, Issue 572, Message 5 of 10):

 > On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to
 > answer the phone with the number.  ....
 > How does the rest of the world answer the phone?

I answer my phone with my name.

When I shared a house with three other people, I would answer the
phone "Sixteen Major", since the house was 16 Major Street, Toronto.
My housemates would just say "hello".

Canadian government offices will often answer the phone bilingually:
"CRTC [in English], bonjour". (Actually, the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission = Conseil de la radiodiffusion et
des telecommunications canadiennes has the same acronym in English and
French.)

I think Alexander Graham Bell once proposed "hoy-hoy" as the
appropriate way to answer the phone.

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

From: microsoft![e-mail]
Subject: Static Causes Hassle on YaleNet
Date: Fri Aug 17 11:08:45 1990


I run a terminal from my dorm room at Yale at 2400 baud over the
regular YaleNet voice lines, usually with middling success.  The
age-old problem: bursts of static which destroy my connections and
cause much misery.  My equipment is not at fault; it has all been
checked out and reconfigured, and the static problem seems to affect
many farflung people on YaleNet.

I have brought this problem to YaleNet front-office people (probably a
mistake in and of itself), with little reaction.  The static is
hardly noticable during conversations ("I don't hear any static, sir")
but reduces me to 1200 baud or less with some regularity.

Many many phone calls and one "service visit" later resulted in my
being told "We just rent you the line and give you a dial tone ... we
make no guarantee of quality."  Since the YaleNet fees are fairly
stiff, this is not what I expect to hear.

My plea: If anyone with experience twisting arms of University telecom
types would drop a line suggesting a course of action, I would really
appreciate it.  (After 8/20 my email address changes back to
[e-mail] ).

Thanks in advance!

jim

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #578
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22346;
          18 Aug 90 2:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23373;
          18 Aug 90 1:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07803;
          18 Aug 90 0:19 CDT
Date:     Fri, 17 Aug 90 23:21:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #579
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 17 Aug 90 23:21:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 579

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phones [Hector Myerston]
    Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [John Higdon]
    Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Lou Judice]
    Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Steve Lemke]
    Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Doug Faunt]
    Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Rich Sims]
    Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Gabe Wiener]
    Re: Crank Calls (Why There are Fewer in Europe) [Wolf Paul]
    Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone [Eric Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: 17 Aug 90  14:23 PST
Subject: Re:  Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phones
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


This old dog again.....

FACTS:   1.  In the US cordless telephone are assigned (by the FCC) a
             portion of the RF spectrum on a shared, non-interference
             basis only.

         2.  Power output is likewise severely restricted.

         3.  Given the above, performance is typically poor
             particularly in a high-RF environment such as a modern
             office.

OPINION: 1.  The "range" listed (typically 700 or 1000 feet) is
             very optimistic.  In the presence of flourescent light
             PCs etc it is more like 100 feet.

         2.  The only legal way of improving range is higher gain
             antennas.  Valor makes a large whip plus ground plane
             arrangement with an alligator clip at the end of the
             coax to connect to base antenna.  We installed one
             in a hallway and outside the building.  Performance
             improvement was nil.

         3.  None of this is likely to improve until new
             technologies such as Spread Spectrum and the like
             are implemented as in CT2 and PCN trials

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone
Date: 17 Aug 90 15:13:55 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"John T. Grieggs" <[e-mail]> writes:

> I recently acquired an AT&T portable phone.

> [Complaints about noise and signal quality.]

> How can I boost the power of the phone?

> Is there some modification I could make to the phone or the base
> station to increase the signal strength?

> Would a longer/better antenna on either the base station or the phone
> itself help? If so, where would I get such a beast?

It seems that about twice a year these questions come up. First, your
cordless phone is not a cellular phone; it has some distinct and
serious limitations. It is amazing how many people expect cordless
phones to be perfect.

Cordless phones fall under two sets of rules: Part 15, which covers
the RF part of the phone; and Part 68, which addresses all the normal
phone/network stuff. Any tampering with the transmitter in either the
hand unit or the base will render the Part 15 certification null and
void. This also applies to the antenna, however since the antennas are
already optimized, tampering with them generally simply results in
degraded performance.

> What about the interference?  Would more signal strength help punch
> through this?  Or, should I be looking at a line filter of some sort
> for the computer itself?

This isn't the answer you want, but sometimes an environment isn't
suited for a cordless phone. While the Ministry of Information won't
cut a hole in your roof and haul you away in a straight jacket for
modifying your scanner (receiver), the FCC can sometimes get nasty
about unauthorized modifications to devices that EMIT RF in normal
operation. Cordless phones run at the limits prescribed; increasing
anything on them is an FCC rule violation.

BTW, 25-30 feet is about all you can expect from a cordless phone in
an electrically hostile environment, such as the one I have here.


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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 08:09:03 PDT
From: "Lou Judice, 908-562-4103  17-Aug-1990 1103" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California


John Higdon asked if this sort of regulation isn't the province of the
FCC and not the states...

Well, in the wonderful Garden State (New Jersey), scanners, SW
receivers and many kinds of ham radio gear are illegal when used in or
near autos.  I know of several hams who have been arrested or
harrassed under this law (Public Law 1977). Currently a measure has
been passed in the State Senate to repeal the law, but it still needs
to pass the Assembly and be signed by the Governor. Some police groups
oppose it, though some police I know really don't care - since as you
say these laws (like ECPA) are impossible to enforce.

I suggest that before you folks in CA. end up like New Jerseyans with
a silly law on the books that you write, write, write. Trust me,
writing to legislators works!


ljj

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

From: Steve Lemke <radius![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California
Date: 17 Aug 90 18:28:04 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>John R. Covert <[e-mail]> writes:

>> The bill also bans manufacture, sale, and possession of any device
>> enabling the user to intercept such communications.  It provides for
>> penalties from one year in county jail to three years in state prison
>> with fines of up to $2,500.

>...what about continuously tuned radios?

>> Don't these people realize that all you need to intercept a cordless
>> phone call is another cordless phone?

Don't these people realize that there are many, many people who
already own scanners which can pick up most cordless phone frequencies
(usually around 49 MHz)?  Will that make the sale and possession of
scanners illegal as well?


Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose
Reply to: [e-mail]     (Note: NEW domain-style address!!)

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 13:26:51 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California


>By the time everyone gets their "protected" status, the only kind of
>receiver the public will be able to buy will be for broadcast
>transmissions. Judging from the state of broadcasting these days, it
>won't be long before interest wanes in these as well.

In Germany, the ICOM R1, which is a receiver with a range of 100kHz to
1300MHZ (in most places), is sold with a VERY restricted range, 13.95
to 14.5MHz, 28-29MHz, 144-146MHz, 430-440MHz, and 1240-1300MHz.  These
are basically some ham bands.  It's pretty clear that the Germans
don't want their citizens listening to anything but hams and
broadcasts.

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 01:13:54 EDT
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines


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

>> [Moderator's Note: My two lines are both BILLED on the first line. I
>> get one bill each month, with long distance charges from the second
>> line appended on a separate page.

> Here is Southern Bell Land ... There are two ways to have lines billed
> together.. The first way is that they set up two separate accounts and
> put a 'pointer' on the second line that says to print billing info
> with the first.  This cause AT&T reachout billing to show up on only
> one line.

> The second is when you have one account with two numbers.

> [Moderator's Note: I get the 'benefits' of Reach Out America on both
> lines for a single fee. All LD charges go through ROA ....

I'm about as deep into "Southern Bell Land" as you can get (South
Florida), and my billing operates precisely as described in the
Moderator's Notes.

I have two lines that are separate accounts, but BILLED to one line
for convenience.  When I started up ROA, I gave AT&T the second number
(the non-billing one) but have the ROA rates on both lines.  Each bill
shows a full breakdown of all ROA-eligible calls, grouped by number,
and a "total" ROA charge which includes all eligible calls made on
either line.

According to the folks at AT&T, the criteria is purely the "billing"
arrangement.  From discussions with them, it seems that I could apply
the ROA rates to any number of lines for a single fee, as long as they
are all BILLED to a single number.  That obviously works out in my
favor, but is a bit surprising, since the billing arrangements are not
made with AT&T, but with the local telco.

I did notice several occasions where calls made on the first line were
charged at the standard rate, but I *always* received a "credit" on
the next month's bill for the difference between the actual charge and
the charge that should have been applied using ROA rates.  At least, I
assume it was the correct difference, I never bothered to figure it
out.  The impressive thing (to me) was that I got the correction and
credit from AT&T automatically, I have NEVER had to call and question
the bill!

This hasn't happened for quite a long time now, though, so perhaps
they have a different system for figuring it all out these days.

My other lines are also billed to a single number, not the same as the
first two I mentioned, and are not included in the ROA plan.  In the
summer months, this results in a monthly "reminder" from AT&T that I
could be saving money by using ROA on those lines.  I have never felt
the need to do this, but I'm curious as to what happens if I simply
call Southern Bell and arrange to have ALL the lines billed to the
same number as the first two.  I am fairly certain that's not EXACTLY
what AT&T has in mind with those reminders, though!  :-)

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

From: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 02:56:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael H.
Riddle) writes:

>Your final question, W2VZM is an amateur call sign.  I'll leave it for
>the hams in the group to explain if there was anything special about
>it.

I checked the North American directory and there is no W2VZM currently
issued.  The license may have lapsed.  I suppose that you could dig
back to older Callbooks if you wanted to find out whose set it was.


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
[e-mail]             to be seriously considered as a means of
[e-mail]       communication. The device is inherently of
[e-mail]         no value to us."  -Western Union memo, 1877


A note from a reader sent to someone else (with a copy to me) noted
that it was now a Silent Key.  PAT]

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crank Calls (Why There are Fewer in Europe)
Date: 17 Aug 90 07:28:05 GMT
Reply-To: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe


In article <[e-mail]> Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.
bnr.ca![e-mail]> writes:

>I wonder if Sedat's blissful crank call-less world is due to the fact
>that most of Europe -- and I therefore presume Austria -- charges for
>local calls, making crank calling a much less attractive 'hobby' of
>the eight-to-ten year olds and drunks that I seem to get?

Yes, Austria does charge for local calls. As far as I know, on
subscriber lines, local charges start the moment you go off-hook and
continue till you hang up again; on older-style payphones you provide
your own answer supervision by pushing a button when the called party
answers; newer payphones also seem to charge for the entire time
you're off-hook.

This does seem to be one of the reasons crank calls are less frequent;
it does not eliminate them altogether, though.

However, I also think that a low occurrence of crank calls is related
to the overall social climate; Vienna also has a relatively low crime
rate. I am sure that if you find a city with a higher crime rate, say
London, Paris, Frankfurt or Hamburg, you will also find a higher
incidence of crank calls, despite the fact that in all these cities,
local calls are charged.

>Anyone have any facts or opinions on the relative rates of crank
>calls.

See above. I don't have any facts, just guesses.

>On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to answer
>the phone with the number.  I presume this dates from a time when the
>switching system was even less reliable than it is today. But in North
>America one thing you never do is tell a caller what number s/he has
>reached.  How does the rest of the world answer the phone?

Actually, I think the British custom of answering the phone with the
number stems from privacy concerns: presumably the caller KNOWS what
number s/he has called; but if s/he has dialled a random number, why
tell him/her whom s/he has reached?

In Austria, and I believe in the rest of German-speaking Europe,
residential phones are usually answered with the subscriber's last
name; if a visitor answeres the phone, he may just answer with the
subscriber's name, or else would say, for example, "bei Meier", "at
the Meier's".

Since not only are local calls charged for, but until recently, none
of the fancy gadgets like auto-diallers were available here or
licensed for connection to the phone system, phone solicitation is
virtually unknown here, and most people here in Austria are not
terribly concerned with privacy as it relates to telephones. This may
change once Austria joins the EEC (5-6 years from now at the most) and
the entire telecom area will be largely deregulated.


Wolf N. Paul, Int. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schloss Laxenburg, Schlossplatz 1, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: [phone]     FAX: [phone]      UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: [e-mail]   BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]

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

From: Eric Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A New Feature One Might Build Into a Phone
Date: 17 Aug 90 20:41:17 GMT
Organization: Frobozz Magic Widget Company


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

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

>   > I'll go you one better: right after the tritone (that's called a SIT,
>   > right?), transmit the data DIGITALLY with a modem, the same FSK as
>   > used in Caller-ID.

>   Rather than using a modem, DTMF signalling could be used.  It is not
>   as fast, but what's an extra couple of seconds, when you don't have to
>   wait for the modems to CONNECT?

Using a FSK modulation doesn't imply a need for modems to handshake a
connection, as is done with 212 and V.22bis modems.  There is not
really any advantage to using DTMF, and it is MUCH slower, and would
delay the voice recording enough to be annoying.

>   Modems already have tone senders in them.  A tone interpreter should
>   not be too difficult, and the modem could inform the controlling
>   software with messages like 'TONE 1<CR>' or 'TONE *<CR>' etc.

Putting a DTMF tone decoder into a typical modem would requre the
addition of an IC (such as an SSI 204), while many modems already have
FSK demodulator chips that are capable of handling the required
freqencies, even though the modem may not utilize the particular
frequencies in its normal operation.  This is common because there are
general purpose modem chips which handle many standards.


Eric L. Smith      Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those
[e-mail]   of my employer, friends, family, computer, or even me!  :-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #579
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04172;
          18 Aug 90 16:58 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28060;
          18 Aug 90 15:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26853;
          18 Aug 90 14:25 CDT
Date:     Sat, 18 Aug 90 13:48:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #580
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 18 Aug 90 13:48:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 580

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee [Jeff Wasilko]
    Re: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee [Rob Warnock]
    Re: President Bush Uses Cellular? [Michael J. Crockett]
    Re: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills [William R. Pearson]
    Re: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [David Ofsevit]
    Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [Frank J. Wancho]
    Re: Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill) [Ron Heiby]
    Re: Butt-sets ... How to Choose? [Terry Kennedy]
    Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [Nigel Allen]
    Source Needed For 900 Pricing [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Caller ID Mailing List Being Started [Dennis G. Rears]
    Telecom*USA Voicemail via 800 Number [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 17:21:42 EDT
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee


Peter B. Hayward asked about avoiding the $3/day roaming charge...

One possible solution is a feature called MSNR (Mobile Subscriber Non
Resident), that is generally available on Ericsson switches.

This feature maps your home city number to a local number. So, when
you are in the other city, you can receive calls to your 'other city'
number normally. Placing calls generally involves a slightly different
dialing pattern (ten digits for local calls and eleven digits for LD).
Since you are essentially a customer of the 'other city', you'd need
to make arrangements for billing. This way, you avoid the roaming
charge and high per minute rates.

While most Ericsson switches provdies this feature, I haven't found
many companies that offer it. It never hurts to ask...


Jeff

Disclaimer: I used to be a CS rep for a cellular company.

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.|

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

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 04:17:27 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cell Phone Roaming/Daily Activation Fee
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


In article <[e-mail]> by [e-mail],
the Moderator adds:

| [Moderator's Note: If I were going to be in the distant service area
| at least a month, I'd opt to have service turned on locally by the
| carrier in that area. But the start up fee and service for one month
| would probably not save enough over the daily roaming fee to make it
| very worthwhile...

But we should not forget that the per-minute airtime change will also
be (typically) a factor of two higher than service in one's home area,
so if you talk for several minutes a day while roaming, it just might
be cheaper to turn on local service.


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: "Michael J. Crockett" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: President Bush Uses Cellular?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Michael J. Crockett)
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 00:15:41 GMT


>>In a photograph which ran in my local newspaper (source: AP
>>wirephoto), it showed President Bush talking to a military leader from
>>his golf cart.  The phone appeared to be a plain old cellular
>>telephone, although there was a smaller box attached to the main
>>transceiver unit.

>I'm sure the President's conversation was duly encrypted prior to
>going to the local cell.  I wouldn't be surprised if the cell or cells
>in that area turned out to actually belong to Uncle Sam too, although
>I don't know for sure either way.

If the cellular system in that part of Maine is anything like the
Wireline System in the Washington/Baltimore area, then facilties for
encrypted service are installed as part of the system and are
available to anyone that wants to pay for the service AND pay for the
box that must be used at the cellular telephone.

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

From: [e-mail] (William R. Pearson)
Subject: Re: Long Distance Piracy Jolts Phone Bills
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 18:33:14 GMT


] I would really be interested in knowing what kind of brain-dead PBX
] could be used to serve a large enough operation where one could hope
] to get away with this. ...

] Also, virtually all PBXes, even down to the lowly Panasonics, identify
] to a station whether the call is from the inside or outside via
] distinctive ringing. ...

] In short, it is just about impossible to masquerade as an inside call

    Here at the U. Virginia we have a ROLM system.  My phone has a
distinctive ring from the outside.  But if I fail to pick up the
phone, the call is transfered to my secretary.  She then calls me back
and transfers the call, and I have no idea where it came from.
Perhaps if she had simply caused my phone to ring again with the
outside call, its ringing would be distinctive, but since she calls
me, announces the call, and then connects it, I do not know whether
the caller is inside or outside.


Bill Pearson

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements
Date: 17 Aug 90 16:53:04 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail])
(DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN) writes:

>Why do you get the recording: "Your call can not be completed as
>dialed..."  when you call a working/valid Canadian 800 number that
>doesn't serve the US, while if you call a working/valid US number from
>the US, but which doesn't serve your band/area code/whatever, you will
>get the message: "You have dialed an 800 number which can not be
>reached from your calling area."

>Wouldn't it make more sense for AT&T to extend that "out of area"

>[Moderator's Note: I think you will find the recordings vary from one
>office to another as to their precise wording. Someone who set up the
>recordings on your end simply was not consistent with the verbiage
>used in other areas. I don't think there is any special intent behind
>the version you hear versus what Canadians hear in reverse.  PT]

What Pat says is true but that doesn't really explain the difference
that the poster refers to.  First this is not an AT&T issue.  The
screening of 800 happens in the end offices (operating companies) and
not in AT&Ts LD network (or any other carrier's network, for that
matter).

The difference has to do with the traditional "banding" of wats calls
and the fact that Canada does not have a "band" in that scheme.
BELLCORE keeps us updated on new 800 codes and advises us which band
they belong in IF THE CODES ARE ASSIGNED TO AT&T FOR U.S. USE.  There
is no such mechanism to keep us updated on Canadian codes that are
used only within Canada so as far as we are concerned (in the U.S.)
those codes are simply unassigned as opposed to being "out-of-band".
I agree with you that the out-of-band announcement would probably be
better but there doesn't seem to be any practical way to administer
it, partly because of the communication problem between countries and
partly because there really isn't a band for Canada.  Not a defense of
the situation, just an explanation.


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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 11:25:58 PDT
From: David Ofsevit <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements


> The original number for the time of day in New York City was NERVOUS.

That works in the Boston area; the 637 exchange is the time
announcement.  637 is OFS as well as NER, giving new meaning to "For a
good time, dial OFSEVIT."  At least dialing my last name is mostly
harmless!

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 1990  16:14 MDT
From: "Frank J. Wancho" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is a "Cable Address"?


Hmm.  I was under the now probably mistaken impression that cablegrams
had a slightly different connotation from telegrams.  Cablegrams were
a special category of telegrams that sent to overseas destinations via
undersea cable, rather than simply by wire (or wireless).  Thus, a
large corporation, such as a shipping firm, might have had two
addresses, one for telegrams, and one for cablegrams, i.e., a cable
address.

Frank


[Moderator's Note: The main difference, I think, was that 'cablegrams'
were telegrams going to overseas destinations on the cable. But a
network address via the cable was not a cable address. As per messages
in recent issues, a cable address was simply an abbreviated form of
the address for any subscriber who wanted to pay extra for the ease in
addressing and/or advertising value of the phrase.  PAT]

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

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell Humor (My Phone Bill)
Date: 17 Aug 90 23:23:27 GMT
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL


I looked very carefully at my bills before signing up for ROA and
figured out that I would probably end up paying something like two to
four dollars per month more for the Night/Weekend calls than I
otherwise would, but since the vast majority of my calling was during
Evening hours (despite urgent pleas to my wife), I would save far more
from the evening rate discount that I get with the plan.  I signed up
for whatever ROA plan gave me the biggest evening discount.


Ron Heiby,
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Heiby is the Moderator of Usenet's comp.newprod
newsgroup.  Welcome to telecom! PAT]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Butt-sets ... How to Choose?
Organization: St. Peter's College, US
Date: 18 Aug 90 14:03:53 EDT


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

> The most widely-offered seem to be the Harris (or Dracon) TS-21 line
>  ...  the TS21-X89 (water-resistant) is priced about the same as the
> older, non-water-resistant models (sometimes less!) and seems to have
> some other advantages as well.  It appears that the whole TS-21 line
> comes _without_ ringers, though ... is this true?

  I have two of the older TS21's, back when mute was an extra-cost
option.  They're pretty reliable (one's been perfect, one has an
intermittent line switch). They don't have ringers, but you can hear
the 20Hz hum in monitor mode if you're listening for it.

  The NJ Bell folks I've seen lately use TS21's, so they are either
pretty reliable or they get a good discount 8-).


        Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
        [e-mail]     St. Peter's College, US
        [e-mail]    [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 03:27 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


 From {Motor Truck} Magazine, Toronto, August 1990

    For truckers, reporting an emergency on the famous
Pennsylvania Turnpike is now as easy as punching three buttons on the
cellular telephone.

    It's as easy as dialling three digits, *11, to report
accidents, incidents or calls for assistance. The call goes directly
to dispatchers and state police on 24 hour duty.

    Seven cellular carriers in Pennsylvania are cooperating with
the turnpike authority to provide the toll-free service, the first
highway in the U.S. to provide cellular direct-dial emergency service.

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

[Notes from NDA: This is from a trucking magazine that isn't terribly
telecommunications-literate, and sounds like a rewritten press
release. I do not know whether the claim of being first is correct.]

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>
Subject: Source Needed For 900 Pricing
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 90 12:42:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Joel B. Levin)
writes:

>The charges do indeed seem to be determined by the "exchange" digits,
>both from what is said on that recording, and from some of the rate
>schedule information that has been presented here in past months for
>900 services from various companies.

At one time this seemed to be so, maybe when it was all AT&T, but now
any 900 number seems to be able to be priced as the end user wants,
within (very few) limits imposed by laws, tariffs, and/or carrier
policies.

We need to price these calls for cost allocation to departments, and
for customer (student) billing.  At first, the software assumed .50
for the first minute, .35 for each additional minute (weren't those
the good old days?).  When 5.00 per call, 2.00 per min., etc. calls
started appearing, we noticed that pricing was consistant by exchange,
and could bill fairly accurately that way.  Soon, we noticed that
consistency by exchange was no longer....

Does anyone know of a source of 900 pricing that could be used to
price these calls in a timely manner?  We now wait for billing tapes,
which themselves have up to two-month old calls, putting us up to
three months behind on billing for these calls.  (No, we don't wish to
block these or any types of calls....)


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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 12:17:17 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Mailing List Being Started


Pat:

   If no one else wants to I will set up a mailling list for
caller-id.  Just send names of people who want to be on it to
[e-mail].  I can set up in a day.


            Dennis G. Rears
ARPA: [e-mail]   UUCP:  ...!uunet!fsac1.pica.army.mil!drears
AT&T: 201-724-6639         USPS:    Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Work: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806


[Moderator's Note: You're on!  There is a definite need for the list,
and yours will be the second mailing list spawned as a result of the
overflow of messages here in TELECOM Digest. Like Computer Underground
Digest, you are welcome to pick up any relevant thread which begins
here and continue it on your list. Let me know the address when you
are established, and I will announce it here. I'd bet you'll have many
subscribers on the list before the weekend is over! Best wishes.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 13:38:57 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject:  TELECOM*USA Voicemail via 800 Number


I recently decided to sign up for voice mail service from Telecom*USA.
I get my own 800 number (not to be confused with the 800 number I have
from them camped onto my residential line -- this is a different
number) which terminates on voice mail.

To enter maintainence mode, I use the 800 number assigned for
accessing the Telecom*USA network, and after entering my PIN, I press
a couple buttons to access voice mail.

The cost is very reasonable: Like the personal hotline 800 numbers,
the fee is $2.75 per month for maintaining the number, and 29 cents
per minute at any hour for accessing voice mail, either to leave a
message or pick up your messages, change your greeting, etc. The 29
cents per minute includes the cost of the called placed to you or your
call in to the system, etc.

As part of the Telecom*USA Calling Card package, they give you a free
speed dial directory of nine numbers for your frequently dialed calls.

Telecom*USA customer service is 1-800-728-7000.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #580
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16152;
          19 Aug 90 5:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28259;
          19 Aug 90 3:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17538;
          19 Aug 90 2:31 CDT
Date:     Sun, 19 Aug 90 1:59:34 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #581
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 19 Aug 90 01:58:42 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 581

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phreak Pleads Guilty, Gets Two Years in Prison [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Gummit Paranoia [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Thanks For Calling [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: TELECOM*USA Voicemail via 800 Number [Bill Cerny]
    Re: Crank Calls [Thomas Farmer]
    Re: Phonemate ADAM: All Digital Answering Machine [Dave Levenson]
    Follow Me Roaming in Houston (was Re: Boston) [Jay Maynard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 19:32:08 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phreak Pleads Guilty, Gets Two Years in Prison


An interesting case in federal court here in Chicago Friday involved
the sentencing of a woman who Judge Milton Shadur referred to as 'the
mastermind behind 152 hackers and phreaks nationally ...'  Judge
Shadur sentenced her on Friday to two years in the custody of the
Attorney General, based on her plea of guilty to one count of a
seventeen count indictment.

Leslie Lynn Douchette, 36, and mother of two small children was
referred to by Secret Service investigators as 'the head of the
largest ring of hackers and phreaks ever uncovered in the United
States'.

In TELECOM Digest, notice was made of Ms. Douchette at the time of her
indictment and arrest, but unlike other high-profile cases, little
more was noted about her in the media over the past few months.

Ms. Douchette, of 6748 North Ashland Avenue in Chicago, along with her
ring of phreaks and crackers (the term I prefer) allegedly cost
various telephone companies in excess of one million dollars. In
addition, Ms. Douchette and associates are alleged to have obtained
over $600,000 from illicitly obtained Western Union money orders and
merchandise acquired with fraudulent credit cards using the computer.

Many members of her ring were juveniles, and many were associated with
or considered themselves active in the Legion of Doom, although there
is no evidence Ms. Douchette was a member of, or associated with the
Legion. Six juveniles in four other states have been convicted as part
of the ring operated by Ms. Douchette, and investigations of other
ring members is continuing. Some of the pending investigations center
around phreaks and crackers already under investigation for Legion of
Doom activities, according to US Attorney William J. Cook, who
prosecuted the case with attorney Colleen Coughlin. As part of her
plea-bargained sentence, Ms. Douchette is cooperating fully with the
government on pending investigations. She has given *additional names*
and details to Secret Service investigators.

Although Ms. Douchette said she once worked as a day care employee in
Canada, Mr. Cook said she had been unemployed for some time, and
appeared to be 'completely unskilled, unable to obtain any gainful and
legitimate employment.'  He continued, "her only skill seems to be her
ability to use the telephone to manipulate people and computers."

The sentence (actually two years and three months) is believed to be
the stiffest ever given out to a phreak, and Mr. Cook noted this was
given to her *despite* her plea of guilty. At the time of her
sentencing, Judge Shadur remarked that he thought Ms. Douchette also
needed psychiatric help, and his order calls for her to receive
therapy while in prison.

Ms. Douchette was represented by attorney Robert Seeder of the Federal
Defender's Office here. At the time of sentencing, Mr. Seeder noted
that Ms. Douchette's activities have now cost her the custody of her
two children (both were taken from her and are now cared for
elsewhere), and that by her plea, she had recognized and acknowledged
responsibility for her actions. He asked Judge Shadur to show mercy
upon the defendant and impose probation, with therapy as a condition.
Judge Shadur refused, calling her 'the control center for phreaks and
hackers everywhere.' Her motive, according to Mr. Cook, was the 'ego
boost' she received as leader of the ring.

Judge Shadur said 'phreaks and hackers need an example of what to
expect when they are caught', and that Ms. Douchette's punishment and
loss of custody of her children would serve that purpose.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gummit Paranoia
Date: 18 Aug 90 19:57:43 GMT
Reply-To: claris!netcom![e-mail]
Organization: UESPA


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Colin Plumb) writes:

>Or you can consider the time I was wandering around downtown Toronto
>at 4:00 on a monday morning festooned with needle-nose pliers....
>webbing, a descender, carabiners ... just what all those urban
>commandos in movies need.

>.. but it would have really troubled any paranoid authorities.

Any Donald Westlake fan would tell you how to avoid suspicion in such
circumstances: carry a clipboard.


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

Disclaimer:  I am what I am, and that's all what I am!

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines
Date: 18 Aug 90 19:27:12 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Stuff from me and Moderator deleted.

The Moderator must have both the numbers as part of the same ACCOUNT.

 >I have two lines that are separate accounts, but BILLED to one line
 >for convenience.  When I started up ROA, I gave AT&T the second number
 >(the non-billing one) but have the ROA rates on both lines.  Each bill
 >shows a full breakdown of all ROA-eligible calls, grouped by number,
 >and a "total" ROA charge which includes all eligible calls made on
 >either line.

Are you sure they are separate accounts?

>According to the folks at AT&T, the criteria is purely the "billing"
>arrangement.  From discussions with them, it seems that I could apply
>the ROA rates to any number of lines for a single fee, as long as they
>are all BILLED to a single number.  That obviously works out in my
>favor, but is a bit surprising, since the billing arrangements are not
>made with AT&T, but with the local telco.

Well as in all companies sometimes AT&T (The Atlanta GA offfice for
sure) doesnt know what the H*LL they are talking about half of the
time. THey usually give different answers to the same questions.  Only
if they are the SAME account!! As I stated in a previous posting.

>I did notice several occasions where calls made on the first line were
>charged at the standard rate, but I *always* received a "credit" on
>the next month's bill for the difference between the actual charge and
>the charge that should have been applied using ROA rates.  At least, I
>assume it was the correct difference, I never bothered to figure it
>out.  The impressive thing (to me) was that I got the correction and
>credit from AT&T automatically, I have NEVER had to call and question
>the bill!

The reason you always received credit automatically is because a AT&T
representative checked your charges monthly and submitted the credit
manually.

You state that calls on the first line use to be charged at regular
rate and then credit the next moth.  Well that was because the phone
numbers where set up with separate accounts. For example my account
number is 407 676 xxxx 321 while the first number is 407 676 xxxx and
the second is 407 952 xxxx ..  When they were separte accounts the 407
952 xxxx line was account # 407 952 xxxx 453.

>This hasn't happened for quite a long time now, though, so perhaps
>they have a different system for figuring it all out these days.

Yeah because Southern Bell as transfered both numbers to ONE account.

(In the month that things became okay did you have a lot of credits
and charges on the Sothern Bell part? Things like credit for service
removed month xx to month uu?)

>the need to do this, but I'm curious as to what happens if I simply
>call Southern Bell and arrange to have ALL the lines billed to the
>same number as the first two.  I am fairly certain that's not EXACTLY
>what AT&T has in mind with those reminders, though!  :-)

Those calls will still be billed at regular rates and all your charges
will be printed on the same bill.

I will be happy to discuss this in email with anyone who would like.


Bill Huttig
[e-mail]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thanks For Calling
Date: 18 Aug 90 15:40:07 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, Ken Thompson <kthompso@entec.
wichita.ncr.com> writes:

> DA within the area code is 1411 here.  After talking to the human we
> hear the computer say:

> "Thank you for calling $outhwestern Bell.  The number [you requested]
> is 666-1234 repeat 666-1234."

Here in Bell of PA area, it's 1-555-1212 and after you dial that, you
get "Thank you for calling directory assistance" BEFORE you get the
human.

> So are they just thanking me for my money?  Who the heck else am I
> going to call for DA?

Well, sometimes in my case, they're thanking the COCOT owner since DA
is free to me if the COCOT is operating within state regulations.

> They are thanking you in the same way the operators years ago used to
> ask Number Please, and Thank You. Not that there was any real
> competition, but simply as a way of courteously responding.  PAT]

At the point in time in which they do it here, it simply annoys me as
all it does is delay the access to the information which is being
purchased.


Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

Date: Sun, 19 Aug 90 00:13:21 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures


> I checked the North American directory and there is no W2VZM currently
> issued.  The license may have lapsed.  I suppose that you could dig
> back to older Callbooks if you wanted to find out whose set it was.

> A note from a reader sent to someone else (with a copy to me) noted
> that it was now a Silent Key.  PAT]

I've heard the term, but do most readers know that a Silent Key is an
amateur operator who has died?


tom

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

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

Subject: Re: TELECOM*USA Voicemail via 800 Number
Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA
Date: 18 Aug 90 20:38:01 PDT (Sat)
From: Bill Cerny <[e-mail]>


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

>I recently decided to sign up for voice mail service from Telecom*USA.
>I get my own 800 number (not to be confused with the 800 number I have
>from them camped onto my residential line
           ^^^^^^
Forgive me, but I must take exception to your use of "camp on."
Really now, Patrick, you embarrass me; "camp on" is PBX terminology
for queueing to a busy station.  I believe you should state that "the
800 number is routed to my residential line."  Indeed, until CCS7
connectivity is a coast-to-coast reality, no IXC can "camp on" your
residence line. ;-)


Bill Cerny [e-mail] | attmail:
!denwa!bill


[Moderator's Note: You are correct in the strictest use of the term
'camp on'. However, it is also used commonly to refer to the process
by which auxilliary phone numbers with no actual wire pair assigned to
them are associated with 'real' numbers. The term is also commonly
used to describe the condition when a call-waiting is placed on your
line in the background -- at the CO -- until you choose to bring it up
by flashing. Your phrase 'routed to' is the most accurate way to
describe it.  PAT]

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

From: Thomas Farmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crank Calls
Organization: Actrix Public Access UNIX, Wellington, New Zealand
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 90 03:04:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr
.ca![e-mail]> writes:


>I wonder if Sedat's blissful crank call-less world is due to the fact
>that most of Europe -- and I therefore presume Austria -- charges for
>local calls, making crank calling a much less attractive 'hobby' of
>the eight-to-ten year olds and drunks that I seem to get?

>On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to answer
>the phone with the number.  I presume this dates from a time when the
>switching system was even less reliable than it is today. But in North
>America one thing you never do is tell a caller what number s/he has
>reached.  How does the rest of the world answer the phone?

   Well, firstly, I live in an area with free local calling (Praise
the Lord! :-) and I have never had a crank call yet ... A few wrong
numbers, but no crank calls. And that's on both lines!

   Secondly, what you say about answering the hone with the number is
interesting. I suddenly understand where my friend with British
parents gets the habit from!

   But it appears that the standard here is to answer the phone with a
"Hello?" if it's a private line. Of course businesses answer with
their name.


mail:  [e-mail]   (I think)

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phonemate ADAM: All Digital Answering Machine
Date: 18 Aug 90 18:28:20 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael Graff) writes:

> Speaking of answering machines, I know the Caller ID discussion in
> TELECOM is closed for the time being, but here's a twist I don't
> recall seeing discussed.  Since many new answering machines tell you
> the date and time when a call was received, it seems like it would not
> be much more trouble for an answering machine to have Caller ID built
> in and tell you the phone number of the caller.

 ... and Pat adds:

> [Moderator's Note: Nothing is technically wrong with your idea, except
> of course that unlike the date and time, derived from the answering
> machine's own resources, the caller identication would have to be sent
> from the telco. I'm sure the information sent by telco could be stored
> on a chip somewhere and read back to you with the time and date.  PAT]

If you have Caller*ID, you receive the date and time on every call,
and the calling number on some calls.  The time and date, therefore,
would not have to be generated internally by the answering machine.

The commercially-available display units have memory, allowing you to
scroll back through the last several calls received (30, in the case
of the one I use) and display the date, time, and calling number of
each.  It has been very useful, at times, to be able to correlate the
memory of the unit with the tape on the answering machine, when the
call-back number in the recorded message was garbled or incorrect.
Combining the display unit into the answering machine is probably a
very sensible product design ... though of limited marketability until
Caller*ID service is more widely available.


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: Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Follow Me Roaming in Houston (was Re: Boston)
Reply-To: Jay Maynard <[e-mail]>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 13:14:05 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: Through some agreement between (I think) all
>cellular carriers, there is a general cancellation of all 'follow me'
>requests activated during the day at midnight *using the time where
>the computer is located which is holding your request*.
   ...

> If GTE Mobilnet works from Houston, then Central time would prevail.

This is consistent with my experience; GTE Mobilnet in Houston says
that Follow Me Roaming ends at midnight Central time. I didn't know
that GTE Mobilnet's computer was in Houston, though. I'll post the
description from the brochure when I get home this evening.


Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #581
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26618;
          21 Aug 90 3:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25836;
          21 Aug 90 1:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22825;
          21 Aug 90 0:30 CDT
Date:     Mon, 20 Aug 90 23:57:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #582
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 20 Aug 90 23:57:26 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 582

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Caller-ID List is Now Established [Dennis G. Rears]
    Phone Rates USA To/From Japan [Norman R. Tiedemann]
    Area Code Data Requested [Ken Basye]
    Free Terminals from USW [Mnematics Videotex via [e-mail]]
    Key System Light Timing [Alan Nishioka]
    Lineman's Handset Help Needed [[e-mail]]
    Voice Recognition (was: A New Feature) [Charles Bryant]
    Laser Bypass; Hot-Wiring Out-of-Area 800 Numbers, etc [David Leibold]
    500/2500 Handsets [Roy Smith]
    Why, Where, How: Voice Terminal [Peter M. Weiss]
    I Need Help With Internet Access [Len Rose]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 16:22:55 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID List is Now Established


   Hello everyone.  I have set up the list.  The list name is
<[e-mail]> and the request name is
<[e-mail]>.  The list will not be able to
recieve any mail until 0330 on 21 August.  In the meantime you can
send submissions to me <[e-mail]>.

   I have added about twenty names to the list.  Our machines were
down over the weekend so mail is still coming to me in bunches (I just
received the TELECOM Digest that had my message in it).

   The list will be unmoderated for now and probably never will unless
there is a need for it.  Currently right now let's stick to the caller
ID subject.  I figure this could be a temporary list or if I have
Pat's blessing a permament list that concerns non-technical issues of
telephone privacy.

   I will hold off on acknowledging additions to the list until
tomorrow.


            Dennis G. Rears
Internet: [e-mail]   UUCP:  ...!uunet!fsac1.pica.army.mil!drears
AT&T: 201-724-2474         USPS:    Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Work: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806


[Moderator's Note: My congratulations and best wishes for the success
of your mailing list. If it grows substantially, you will want to talk
to Chip Rosenthal about possibly distributing it via an alt newsgroup
as well.  And certainly, you are free to debate telephone privacy all
you like! :)  By the time this message circulates, your list address
should be up and running. You are the second spin-off from TELECOM
Digest. For the several inquiries I've had recently, the first of
these sub-groups was Computer Underground Digest. The CUD is devoted
mainly to the legal and social issues involved with phreaking and
computer hacking. Despite the nice things they said about me in
today's issue, I shall provide their address once again for those who
have not yet subscribed:  [e-mail]        PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 16:44:33 EDT
From: Norman R Tiedemann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


A short time back, there was a discussion about telephone rates
between USA and Japan and which way was cheaper. A few people quoted
some rates, but I never saw a good collection. Since I was in Japan
last week, I checked over there with the three Japanese long distance
companies and I checked over here with three carriers: AT&T, MCI, and
US-Sprint. Here is the summary list of comparison. The Yen/Dollar rate
used is 150. That is midway between the buy and sell rates quoted last
week. (And it makes the division easier). (-:

            AT&T        MCI        US-Sprint Japan Time
2PM-8PM    (1st minute)    3.05        2.89        2.87      (4AM-10AM)
    (2-n minute)    1.24        1.17        1.18

8PM-3AM    (1st minute)    2.55        2.52        2.54      (10AM-5PM)
    (2-n minute)     .99         .98         .98

3AM-2PM    (1st minute)    2.16        2.15        2.15      (5PM-4AM)
    (2-n minute)     .81         .80         .80

The basic calling rates for all three Japanese phone companies are the
same, but the features are different. KDD is the only one that offers
operator assisted calls, and appears to bill in six second increments.
ITJ has a different rate if you are calling from a pay phone (which is
cheaper for short calls only). IDC offers all sorts of automated time
and charges callback, and alternate billing features.  (The alternate
companies are reached just like here, with an access code. IDC's
features are accessed using different access codes.)

                 1st    2-n        ITJ Pay Phone
BASIC RATE FOR ALL 3 COMPANIES    Minute    Minute        (All Minutes)

M-F 8AM-7PM            2.27    1.13        1.45
M-F 7PM-11PM, WkEnd 8AM-11PM    1.80     .93        1.18
11PM-8AM            1.33     .73         .90


KDD is the "standard" (until two years ago, national phone company).
    Access 001...
ITJ is the International Telecom Japan (its slogan is "Digital
    Optical Fiber"). Access 0041...
IDC is the Intrntl. Digital Communications Inc. (It's slogan is "The
    Intelligent Choice"). Access 0061... (0062-0065 for feature calls)

These are all calculations on the rates quoted, the ITJ pay phone rate
quotes is #seconds/100 Yen rate, the basic rate for KDD is calculated
from a Yen/6 seconds rate (both the first and addition minutes).

NOTES AND EXCEPTIONS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

MCI has a bulk rate plan to four Asian Countries including Japan which
costs $3.00/month and allows you to call between 10PM and 2PM (almost
the full two cheaper periods) for only $.79 per minute (including the
first minute).

Using AT&T's USA DIRECT from Japan to the US is the same as the
premium rate plus a service charge. (Access 0039-111) Those rates, all
times all days, are:

Service charge    2.50
1st Minute    3.05
2-n Minute    1.24

KDD Operator Assisted Rates are: (I didn't find out about US rates for
this) besides, does anybody really use these anymore?

Station-Station (first 3 minutes)    $12.60
Person - Person (first 3 minutes)    $21.00
Each Addition Minute for both        $ 3.00

That's all the info I have. The basic conclusions are:

1.) Only in the premium time do you save "significantly"
    over AT&T with the other 2 US carriers.
2.) The rates are generally cheaper calling from Japan to the USA,
    but it depends on the time you are calling. (It is
    interesting to note that Japan's Premium rate is during
    their working hours, while USA's are when both countries
    might have people in the office.)
3.) If you make a lot of calls during the cheaper period the
    MCI bulk plan could save you some money.

Hope this is of interest to someone.

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

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

From: Ken Basye <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code Data Requested
Date: 21 Aug 90 01:11:11 GMT



I'm looking for a machine-readable copy of a list of U.S. and Canadian
cities and their area codes.  What I really want is the location of
some site I can ftp the list from.  I'd settle for just not having to
type in the meager list from the front of the phone book, but a more
extensive list would be better.

I'm looking for this information because I find myself frequently
trying to get directory information about some company in some town
whose area code I can only guess at using the map in the book.
Alternatively, I have the number of some company and want to see where
they are located without searching the map for the right area code.
Incidently, while the placement of the state borders in the map is
pretty accurate, have a look at a real map and compare the location of
some of the cities on the area code map sometime when you need a
laugh.  Trying to locate the right area code by triangulation is
clearly out.

You can see what my solution will be, but if you have some other way
of solving these problems I'd love to hear about them.


Thanks a lot,

Internet/CSnet  [e-mail]     U.S. MAIL  Ken Basye
UUCP            uunet!brunix!kjb                Box 1910
                                                Dept. of Computer Science
                                                Brown University
                                                Providence, RI  02912

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Free Terminals From USW
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 13:00:21 PDT


FREE TERMINAL OFFER
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Mnematics Videotex and U.S. West are giving away 200 terminals.

The terminals are being given away to introduce you to Mnematics
Videotex, an international online information service and Community
Link, U.S. WEST's gateway service that provides access to Mnematics
and other online services.

If you qualify, you get a terminal (described below) NO STRINGS
ATTACHED!!!  There is no obligation of any kind other than to meet the
requirements set forth below.

                            *****
Even if you do not qualify, you may know someone who does, so please
pass this information on!
                            *****

WHO QUALIFIES:

        * You must live in the Omaha, Nebraska area

        * You must be a U.S. WEST Customer

        * You must NOT be a Mnematics Videotex subscriber or user

        * You must NOT be a Community Link user

        * You must show ID and pick up your terminal in Omaha

        * This offer expires the end of August, so get moving!


HOW TO GET THE TERMINAL:

--->    * Send EMAIL to:
                                mneuxg!service@uunet
                                ...!philabs!mneuxg!service
                                ...!lamont!mneuxg!service

        * Include the name, address, and home phone number of the
          elegible individual.

        * Qualifying individuals will be mailed a certificate for the
          terminal. You simply pick up the terminal in Omaha as directed.


DESCRIPTION OF THE TERMINAL:

The terminal being given away is the Phillips M2. This terminal is
designed to handle Minitel and VT100 ("ANSI") formats. It has a
built-in 1200 baud modem. You plug it into a grounded outlet, plug in
a modular telephone connection, and you're ready to go online. The
screen is 9" diagonal, and can display 80 columns by 24 rows and 16
shades of grey in Minitel mode. It has a chicklet type keyboard
suitable for casual use of online services, mounted in a drawer that
conceals and protects it when the unit is not in use. The foot- print
is about 12 square inches. It has a screen-saver function, can
autodial one telephone number (or you can dial any number using the
numeric keypad).  The terminals are brand-new and unused. They
currently sell for $150 or more.

This is a no-cost way to introduce someone you know to the online world.


Caveats:
                * 7 bits, even parity, 1200 baud **ONLY**
                * Single-chip design, not suitable for hardware
                        hacking and/or modification
                * No RS-232 interface

SUMMARY:

* First come, first served.

* When they're gone, they're gone.


That's all there is to it.

        Mnematics Videotex
        722 Main Street
        Sparkill, NY  10976-0019
        [phone]                  mneuxg!service@uunet
                                        ...!philabs!mneuxg!service
                                        ...!lamont!mneuxg!service

Since 1983
"The people you've been wanting to meet are online with Mnematics"

Mnematics Videotex is a Service Mark of Mnematics, Incorporated
Community Link is a Service Mark of U.S. WEST


[Moderator's Note: This sounds almost too good to be true. Will
someone in the Omaha area who takes up these folks on their offer
please get back to us with details?  Is it for real?     PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 19:03:32 -0800
From: Alan Nishioka <[e-mail]>
Subject: Key System Light Timing


I am trying to build a box for my five line key system phone.  I want
it to flash the lights and do automatic hold.

Does anyone have the light flashing cadences?  (frequency and duty
cycle).

The system I was going to time has been dismantled and replaced with
Panasonic phones with LEDs so you can't tell which line is ringing...


Alan Nishioka      KC6KHV      [e-mail]      ...!ucbvax!cory!atn

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Lineman's Handset Help Needed
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 18:19:30 EDT


  I was thinking of putting together a linesman's handset here, and I
was wondering, is it really as easy as putting good-quality Alligator
Clips onto a rotary dial phone's two wires?

  I've always wanted to make one of these beasts, and I'd rather not
pay the $110 can I've seen them here in surplus stores.

  Any help appricated.

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

From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Recognition (was: A New Feature)
Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 90 16:16:29 GMT


 From: apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail] (John Nagle)

>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?

How about the phone company giving the number using DTMF after the
voice message? That would be trivial to recognise, unlike a human
voice!


Charles Bryant

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

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Laser Bypass; Hot-Wiring Out-of-Area 800 Numbers, etc
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 90 23:36:04 EDT


Alex Pournelle mentioned the use of lasers to bridge the
Detroit-Windsor frontier ... it does cost a bit of coin just to phone
across the creek either way. I wouldn't be surprised to see some folks
try telecommunications with those 100 mW walkie-talkies on 40 MHz....

In any case, there was a Buffalo number set up by some Canadian
satellite dealers in order to allow satellite dish owners access to
U.S. 800 numbers.  Dialing the (716) xxx.xxxx number would get a dial
tone; using a tone pad, the 800 number for the U.S. would be dialed,
bypassing the Canadian restrictions (but at the cost of a call to
Buffalo). This is apparently no longer in service, though.

Are there any numbers out there that allow access to 800 numbers by
bypassing zone restrictions? Or is this a job for 1 900 STOPPER, the
service that allows Caller ID bypass at $2/min? It might be
interesting for some of the LD carriers to provide an area bypass
service (at long distance cost) to get at 800 numbers, especially
where the regular phone number was not known or available.


[Moderator's Note: I'd rather not publish the *actual numbers*, you
understand, since this is a family Digest and I'd like to remain here
with my in-laws and my cats. Correspond direct with Woody, please.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: 500/2500 Handsets
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 16:54:29 GMT

    OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably
about 20 years.  Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the
microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals?


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

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 20 Aug 1990 10:33:20 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why, Where, How: Voice Terminal


I guess the subject almost says it all ... I wonder how it was that
ATT decided to coin the noun Voice Terminal?  (I used to that it was
an affectation, but take it more seriously today.)


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

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

Date: Fri, 17 Aug 90 10:33 EDT
From: len rose <lsicom2![e-mail]>
Subject: I Need Help With Internet Access


[Moderator's Note: In case you missed this the first time over the
weekend, I am repeating it here.   PAT]


Hi Patrick..

Due to the recent publicity in comp.docm.telecom it seems I have been
kicked off my last internet account (ames.arc.nasa.gov) .. Is there
any way you could post something like "Len Rose needs an Internet
account" message ? Something on the east coast would be nice, but I
will take whatever I can get.. The reason I need one is that alot of
my potential expert witnesses often ftp me things to forward to my
attorney and this site is unstable with mail being erratic at best.

If this is impossible for you to do, then maybe you could suggest an
alternative.


Len

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #582
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27887;
          21 Aug 90 4:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32234;
          21 Aug 90 2:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25836;
          21 Aug 90 1:34 CDT
Date:     Tue, 21 Aug 90 0:39:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #583
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Aug 90 00:38:45 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 583

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [Paul Robichaux]
    Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [Paul Wilczynski]
    Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number? [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [Irving Wolfe]
    Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements [Dave Bonney]
    Re: Phone Service in Ireland [Deryck Fay]
    Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Mitch Wagner]
    Scanner Diodes, etc (was: Re: No More Listening) [Nicholas J. Simicich]
    Re: Home Intercom Custom Calling Service [Charles Hawkins Mingo]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Paul E. Robichaux" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number
Date: 20 Aug 90 14:06:36 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing


Actually, the Onslow County, NC area offers (and has for at least a
year; maybe longer) a direct link to the NC highway patrol. Dialing
"*HP" will connect you to a dispatcher.

This systems seems like a good replacement for 911 calls while on the
highway; it doesn't suffer many of the liabilities of cellular 911
calls that were discussed here a while back.


Paul E. Robichaux
BEST: [e-mail]
OK:   ...!gatech!prism!gt0818a
Of course I don't speak for Tech.

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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 13:21:26 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emrgency Number
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, contact![e-mail]
(Nigel Allen) writes:

> For truckers, reporting an emergency on the famous
> Pennsylvania Turnpike is now as easy as punching three buttons on the
> cellular telephone.

> [Notes from NDA: This is from a trucking magazine that isn't terribly
> telecommunications-literate, and sounds like a rewritten press
> release. I do not know whether the claim of being first is correct.]

It is indeed incorrect.  Here in the Research Triangle area of North
Carolina, for instance, road signs on Interstate 40 advising motorists
that the cellular number for the state Highway Patrol is "*HP" have
been around for a couple of years.  I believe that the same service is
also available in other parts of the state.


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

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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 04:15 EST
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number


Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>, from a press release,
writes ...

> From {Motor Truck} Magazine, Toronto, August 1990

>Seven cellular carriers in Pennsylvania are cooperating with
>the turnpike authority to provide the toll-free service, the first
>highway in the U.S. to provide cellular direct-dial emergency service.

The first highway, huh?  They must have a pretty sophisticated system
to stop the service from working once I get off the Turnpike! <grin>

Massachusetts has had a similar system for quite a while.  It's not
restricted (!) to highways, though.

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

From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fastest Pulse-Dialable Number?
Date: 18 Aug 90 04:47:32 GMT
Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg <biosys!![e-mail]>


I think the fastest pulse dialable number is 1-212-221-1111.  It rang
for a while when I tried it.  No one answered, and I didn't get an
intercept, so I don't really know what kind of a number it is.


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]

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

From: Irving Wolfe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone
Date: 19 Aug 90 06:12:02 GMT
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Seattle


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

>BTW, 25-30 feet is about all you can expect from a cordless phone in
>an electrically hostile environment, such as the one I have here.

He doesn't know how lucky he is, or how bad Panasonic cordless phones
can be despite the quality of their other phone equipment.  Mine
starts becoming a little noisy at five feet and is about as noisy as
it can be and still be usable at fifteen feet.  My AT&T oordless
phone, on the other hand, probably can go twenty-five feet or more
(but not very much more).

However, I don't accept output power limitation by the FCC as a
legitimate excuse.  We pick up little tiny signals from satellites
that are thousands of miles away.  Ham radio operators pick up -- when
the ionosphere or somebody up there provides a cooperative bounce --
low level signals from around the world.  The FCC probably doesn't
prescribe a particular sort of modulation or the use of the cheapest
chip available.  If a 0.6 watt handheld portable cellular phone can
talk to a cell site miles away, which it can, with clear reception
both ways, certainly someone could design a cordless phone that really
lives up to the traditional 1,000 foot claim.

If anyone knows of one, please let me know!  I'd like to buy a couple.


Irving Wolfe    Happy Man Corp.   [e-mail]    206/463-9399 ext.101
4410 SW Point Robinson Road,  Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399     fax ext.116

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

From: Gordon Burditt <convex!sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements
Date: 19 Aug 90 07:57:52 GMT


>Should we celebrate the anniversary?  More than a few people have
>gotten rich from telephone recorded announcements, that's for sure!

If the anniversary of the invention of 900 and 976 numbers is to be
celebrated, let it be celebrated in the same way as the Hinsdale
central office fire, the first use of an atomic bomb in warfare, the
invention of the electric chair, the legalization of the COCOT, the
millionth "accidental" switching of someone's long-distance carrier
without their knowledge, and the coming-to-a-slum-near-you "piss test"
pay phones -- for when the drug dealers discover Radio Shack tone
generators.

            Gordon L. Burditt
            sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 13:20 EST
From: CTC Wang Labs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thirty Five Years of Recorded Announcements


Several issues ago our Moderator wrote:

 > The original number for the time of day in New York City was NERVOUS.

David Ofsevit <[e-mail]> has noted:

 > That works in the Boston area; the 637 exchange is the time announcement.

In both the 617 (Metro-Boston) and 508 (Eastern Mass) NPA's, any
number in the 637 exchange will give you the NewEngland Tel time
announcement, although the 'official number' is 637-1234.  In the days
of 'named exchanges' this was the MERidian (637-) exchange [Websters:
(archiac) the hour of noon].

I have a feeling that while NER-VOUS [637-8687] works just fine, the
'original' exchange in NYC was also MERIDIAN ... Comments??


Dave Bonney      <[e-mail]>      MCIMail: 422-4552

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Service in Ireland
Date: 17 Aug 90 16:51:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin


> I am going to Ireland in a couple of weeks and I am wondering what the
> phone service is like there.  Specifically:

> 1.)  Can I use my Sprint FON card to call the US?
> 2.)  Can I use my Sprint card for local Irish calls
> 3.)  I have an AT&T Universal card.  Can I use it to
>      make calls within Ireland or to the US?

        The only U.S. card that Telecom Eireann accepts is one issued
by AT&T, and only for calls to the U.S.  To use it, call the
international operator on

        114 if in Dublin (01 area code)
        10  from the rest of the Republic

        One problem is that the international operator lines are very
busy at this time of year due (according to popular mythology) to
tourists, expecially language students, looking for reverse-charge
(collect) calls home.

        It's probably easier, and cheaper in the long run, to dial
direct and get your caller to phone you back (All students know this
trick...!)  International calls can be made from any private phone (or
hotel phone, at great expense) and from all payphones, except the
antique black ones which you may come across in pubs, etc.

        The dialling code is:
        16 - 1 - area code - local number

        The number of the payphone is normally written on it, or
nearby, and you can give this to your caller.  The country code for
Ireland is 353.

        On a general note, the phone service in Ireland improved out
of all recognition during the 1980s and over half the local exchanges
are now digital.  This isn't bad for a country where some places still
had manual exchanges until quite recently.  Nevertheless, payphoenes
are often out-of-order, and long-distance calls are expensive.

        If you are going to Northern Ireland or Britain, you may be
able to use Sprint card from there.  International services are
cheaper, and there is also a Call U.S. Direct service from the U.K.


Deryck Fay

Geography Dept., Trinity College, Dublin
[e-mail]

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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California
Date: 20 Aug 90 03:11:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lou
Judice, 908-562-4103 17-Aug-1990 1103) writes:

# Well, in the wonderful Garden State (New Jersey), scanners, SW
# receivers and many kinds of ham radio gear are illegal when used in or
# near autos.  I know of several hams who have been arrested or
# harrassed under this law (Public Law 1977). Currently a measure has
# been passed in the State Senate to repeal the law, but it still needs
# to pass the Assembly and be signed by the Governor. Some police groups
# oppose it, though some police I know really don't care - since as you
# say these laws (like ECPA) are impossible to enforce.

In New Jersey, effective early-1989 at least, you could use a scanner
in your car if you got the municipal police chief's permission. The
rationale was that crooks would use the scanner to find out where the
police were, and know to commit their crimes elsewhere.


Mitch Wagner

VOICE: 516/562-5758             GEnie: UNIX-TODAY
UUCP: [e-mail]         ...uunet!utoday!wagner


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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 11:14:55 EDT
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Scanner Diodes, etc


 From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom%eecs.nwu.edu>

>  I beleive it is illegal in and of itself to make the mods in a radio
>  simply because having done so, the radio loses its type acceptance
>  from the FCC, and radios without type acceptance cannot be used.

>  All radios, even those that 'only' receive, such as scanners, still
>  none the less also transmit, even just a little, using the
>  intermediate frequency. That's why no mods are allowed, since you
>  could, if you know not what you are doing, cause the radio to transmit
>  in an inappropriate way ... even a scanner.

My belief is that one is allowed to build receivers without government
type acceptance.  I know that all radios that receive using a
superhetrodyne circuit also transmit (radar detectors, for example)
but I don't think that the emissions are considered to be "enough" to
matter.  I believe this, partially, because you can commercially
purchase receiver kits and build them without any sort of permission
or warnings against modification.

>  You take a diode from one place, and set it in another place. To
>  merely remove it is not enough (I don't think). You have to replant it
>  elsewhere to do the job, and in so doing, you lose 30-50.

There is a ftp site which maintains a list of mods for radio
equipment, scanners, etc.  A friend of mine pulled the Pro 34 mod for
me.  I've reproduced this file at the end of the note.  I believe that
it does indicate that you remove the diode, and throw it away.  If you
are interested in the name of the site, I've copied him on the note.
Respond, and I'm sure that he will be happy to tell you the name of
the site and give you FTP instructions.

>  I might be wrong on that, but to prove it, I'd need to open the unit
>  again, and pull the diode from where it is now and see if 800 still
>  was open in the process along with 30-50. Anyway, 30-50 is pretty much
>  a dead issue around here (most other places also?). No one is down
>  there to speak of.

Around here, all of the local Fire Departments are down around 39 Mz
or so.  VHF Low is alive and kicking in NY.  There is also some County
Sheriff activity in VHF Low.


Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, [e-mail]) ---SSI AOWI #3958


  Date: 4 Apr 89 14:24:01 GMT
  Subject: PRO-34 Scanner Modifications


    In  the  May 1989  edition  of  Popular  Communications  is a
"Letter  to the Editor" on the Radio Shack PRO-34 Scanner.  Below
is the text of that letter.


                  PRO-34 Scanner Modification

    In regard to the information  presented (March Issue)  on the
handheld Radio Shack PRO-34 scanner,  my own observations  on the
modifications have been:

1. To restore missing 800 MHz frequencies, remove D-11.

2. To add 66 to 88 MHz  (European Coverage),  install a diode at
   D-9.

3. D-10 must remain in place for full 800 MHz coverage.

4. If a diode is added at D-13 it cuts out aero band, also seems
   to affect 800 MHz channel spacing.

5. D-12 added dosen't seem to have any affect.

6. Only D-10 and D-11 are factory installed.

    I  wish to thank you  for a fine and informative  magazine. I
have had much reading enjoyment.

                             Sam S. Jones,
                             Rebel Antenna,
                             Falls Church, VA


Julian Macassey, n6are  julian@bongo    ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
n6are@wb6ymh (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Intercom Custom Calling Service
Date: 19 Aug 90 20:17:49 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


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

>Just saw on the news here (Philadelphia) where Bell of PA. is now
>going to offer a new custom calling service, Home Intercom...  Service
>is aimed toward elderly, handicapped, and people with several phones
>on the same line.  From a phone with the service, you can dial your
>own number, and other phones on the line will give a distinctive ring.
>Price is the usual two bucks and change per month.

When I was growing up in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada we could do this
too.  The exchange (902/423-xxxx) dated from the early fifties, did
not allow touch-tone, and apparantly had this feature to accomodate
party line customers who wished to call one another (according to the
phone book, where I first discovered this).

Anyway, one dialed 41091, hung up, and the phones rang with a double
length ring.  You waited until the ringing stopped (meaning someone
else had answered the phone), and picked up yourself.

I had used this feature as recently as April 1988 (when I was
convalescing at home with a broken leg); however, when I tried it in
August 1989, after the exchange went digital, it worked no more.

Plus ca change, plus le meme chose.


Charlie Mingo            Internet: [e-mail]
2209 Washington Circle #2    CI$:  71340,2152
Washington, DC  20037        AT&T:  202/785-2089

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #583
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28800;
          21 Aug 90 5:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04819;
          21 Aug 90 3:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32234;
          21 Aug 90 2:37 CDT
Date:     Tue, 21 Aug 90 1:55:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #584
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 21 Aug 90 01:54:29 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 584

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Marketing [Jill Holly Hansen]
    Cellular Calls and Equipment Modifications [Lou Judice]
    Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Answering Phrase [Danial Hamilton]
    Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices [Gary S. Mayhew]
    Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom [Tim Stradtman]
    Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [John Cowan]
    Re: Static Causes Hassle on YaleNet [William Clare Stewart]
    Re: Western Union Mnemonics [[e-mail]]
    1-555-1212 vs. 411 [Clayton Cramer]
    Administrivia: IBM's Internal Telecom List [David Singer]
    Administrivia: Our Addresses [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: jill holly hansen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing
Organization: Home for the incurables
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 15:33:20 GMT


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

: I'm beginning to suspect that cellular phones have no basis in
: reality, as we know it. If this country gets any closer to recession,
: a lot of people trying to get rich off of cellualar are going to be in
: for a rude shock.

: Consider the following print ad I saw recently: A person sitting in an
: airport terminal, talking to someone on a cellular phone. The blurb
: below: "Think of how much more productive you could be with a cellular
: phone."

: Uh, what's wrong with this picture? Let's see. I could spend .60+/min
: to use my cellular phone (plus roaming rates, etc), or I could pick up
: the pay phone right behind me and spend .25/min or less.

The poster seems to make making two statements:

1) "cellular phones have no basis in reality"
2)  pay phones are cheaper than cellular phones

The second point is correct, while bogus. The first point is just
plain bogus.

1) "cellular phones have no basis in reality"

Do you remember when hand-held calculators were introduced in the
early 70s?  They then cost at least $100 for units with limited
functions, and many of my colleagues couldn't understand why I could
pay that much when a slide rule did the job just as well. Cell phones
started out at $3,000; now you can get a transportable for $100 that
you can leave under the front seat of your car for emergencies.  In a
few years, cell phones *are* going to be as ubiguitous as pocket
calculators.  And that means that *someone* is going to do well if not
get rich.

2) pay phones are cheaper than cellular phones

Certainly true. However, when I am stuck in an airport with my garment
bag, my brief case, and my envelope full of 11 x 14 documents that I
*need* to refer to when calling back to Chicago to discuss changes in
the client's specs, I certainly don't want to have to do all this
business from a payphone in a noisy hallway.

Admittedly, I would rather make such a call from an quiet office, but
failing that, I can park myself in an unused airport waiting area or
at a restaurant table, spead my papers out around me, and then do my
business on my cell phone.  Considering that a business trip easily
costs upwards of $200-$400/day exclusive of air fare, the roaming fees
for the cell call are a small matter.

Then, when I get back to O'Hare, instead of waiting for a payphone to
check in with voice mail, I can grab a cab and do business as we creep
down the Kennedy.

Productive? I would like to believe so.


     Jill Holly Hansen
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Your mention of the high prices of the early
calculators brought back some nostalgia. I bought a TI-58 and a TI-59
programmable calculator from Texas Instruments in 1976. They cost
almost five hundred dollars each! That included the little printer
device you mounted underneath the calculator. And my very first 'home
computer' was the Ohio Scientific 'Challenger', model C-1-P. It had
all of 4 K-bytes of ram. I got it early in 1977, and it cost a mere
six hundred dollars. I converted it to 8 K ram and installed a 'lower
case chip' by bravely following the instructions in some hobbyist
magazine I found. My friend bought an Apple II with 64 K a couple
years later and I wondered, what do you need *that much* ram for? :)  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 07:10:45 PDT
From: "Lou Judice, 908-562-4103  20-Aug-1990 1005" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Calls and Equipment Modifications


Pat indicates that it's "highly illegal" to modify a radio to receive
cellular.

No way, Pat. It's just illegal to USE it to listen to cellular, or to
build and sell something that is specifically intended to receive
cellular. There are numerous radios that you can buy today that will
easily receive cellular communications.

I agree with the previous poster, though, that it's usually not very
interesting and I personally don't believe in "evesdropping".

I've ALWAYS been careful on cordless phones and cellular to avoid
business related or overly personal conversations ;)


/ljj

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 17:28:24 GMT


[From PAT:]

> >I have two lines that are separate accounts, but BILLED to one line
> >for convenience.  When I started up ROA, I gave AT&T the second number
> >(the non-billing one) but have the ROA rates on both lines.  Each bill
> >shows a full breakdown of all ROA-eligible calls, grouped by number,
> >and a "total" ROA charge which includes all eligible calls made on
> >either line.

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

>The Moderator must have both the numbers as part of the same ACCOUNT.
>Are you sure they are separate accounts?

I must confess to a lack of understanding; if the two lines are billed
to the same number, and the charges appear together on one bill, how
can that not be one account ? How do you define the word "account" ?

In my use of the word "account", I would use the term to define a
subscriber record, for which a bill is written, and for which a
running total of amounts due is kept. I.e. you may have two accounts
in the same name, with separate "customer" records in the accounting
database, and for which separate bills are issued (probably on
different billing cycles). Or you may have one combined account,
aggregating the billing for several different lines, possibly with
enough itemization to permit tracing each charge to the line from
which it was incurred.

Is there a defined use of the word "account" in telco contexts, that
is different from this?


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

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

From: Danial Hamilton <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Phrase
Date: 20 Aug 90 17:30:04 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


contact![e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

>I think Alexander Graham Bell once proposed "hoy-hoy" as the
>appropriate way to answer the phone.

I believe the Japanese have a greeting that is reserved for use on the
telephone.  Something like "moshi moshi".

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

From: "Gary S. Mayhew" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The LAW vs. Telephone Access Devices
Date: 20 Aug 90 14:05:05 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (A J
Annala) writes:

> The police claim is that such devices are telephone
> access devices which should not be in the hands of the public.  I am
> curious about whether any other technical people have been challenged
> by the police and what answer has satisfied them to go away without
> hassle.

>>In this context it appears to be to be completely ludicrous to
>>claim these tools must not be found in the possession of members
>>of the public.  They are ordinary tools.

Here in the rolling green hills of central Pennsylvania, I seriously
doubt if any of the ``LOCAL'' police forces would even know what the
purpose of such tools constituted. However, in answer to your comment,
I believe that a very sraight-forward declaration of purpose would
seffice. I dabble into PBX installations on the side and would be
***stunned*** if stopped by the local authorities and questioned as to
"why I carry such equipment?".


Gary S. Mayhew           Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.            Bitnet:            [e-mail]
State College, PA. USA         UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!gsm
[phone]; 237-6345 {DID}; 234-7720{FAX}

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

From: Tim Stradtman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 18:52:08 GMT


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

>I would like to setup a mini phone service at my home connecting just
>two  or three phones.  What do I need to buy (Radio Shack) to do this?

I would also like to know this information, but for a differant reason
 - we need to test various used modems for compatibility and operation.
Sending someone home with one so that we have a phone line between
them can be a real pain.

Thanks,

[e-mail]      or     [e-mail]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is a "Cable Address"?
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 15:16:13 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, The Moderator writes (in a note):

>Orchestra). This was all 1950/60-ish stuff. I did not know they were
>still making them available. I guess any telex carrier can do it.  In
>your example, you would call Western Union and tell the operator to
>send a message to the cable address "Broadcasts". That is, *IF* s/he
>even knows what you are talking about! :)  PAT]

Cable addresses are alive and well.  To contact a friend of mine in
Western Samoa, for instance, the procedure is to either cable UNDEVPRO
APIA (the U.N. Development Program office in Apia, the capital of
W.S.), or failing that, to cable AGGIES APIA (Aggie Grey's Hotel in
Apia).  I'm not quite sure what "failing that" means in this context,
unless it means that the UNDEVPRO machine is off-line or busted -- not
unlikely in W.S. conditions.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)
            e'osai ko sarji la lojban

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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 16:54:57 EDT
From: William Clare Stewart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Static Causes Hassle on YaleNet
Organization: Conspiracy?  What conspiracy?


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

] regular YaleNet voice lines, usually with middling success.  The
] age-old problem: bursts of static which destroy my connections and

] hardly noticable during conversations ("I don't hear any static, sir")
] but reduces me to 1200 baud or less with some regularity.

Don't you just HATE that?!  I had a lot of conversations about the
same topic with New Jersey Bell, which were only resolved when the
static got too loud to do voice on the line ("I don't hear any static"
"That's because I'm calling from the other line that works - you
couldn't hear me when I called you on the bad line.")  Turns out it
was a bad drop line going through one of my trees; I had tried to tell
them the problem was mainly during bad weather.

They also tried to suggest that if I had a business line instead of a
second voice line then maybe I could get guaranteed service quality.

A few years ago one of the Utah folks (? Donn Seeley or Jay Lepreau?)
related a story about trying to tell the local phone company that he
was getting phase jitter problems and there was a T1 out of sync.

"What does it sound like?" "You get these }}}}i}} curly braces every
second" "But what does it SOUND like?" "Is your supervisor there?"


# Bill Stewart 201-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs
# AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ 07733

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Western Union Mnemonics
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 17:36:46 PDT


Western Union's city mnemonics are more like code words than
abbreviations, if you're talking about what I think you're talking
about.  I work at a store that provides Western Union services, and
people use these code words whenever they make a "Quick Collect
Payment" (Which is a payment made to a specific company, usually a
credit card company, to pay a bill.  The company doesn't have to make
any special effort to collect what was sent to them.  Apparently this
service is used to make payments at the last possible moment.)

You may want to try calling Western Union again.  They recently went
through some labor problems, and were using a lot of "scabs".  You may
have talked to one of these.  They are back to their union operators
now, who, generally, have been around longer and know what's going on.


[e-mail]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: 1-555-1212 vs. 411
Date: 20 Aug 90 17:44:20 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


My wife and I went on vacation along the Mendocino County coast last
weekend, and found another pocket of phones where 411 doesn't get you
information.  The phone company is Continental Telephone.  The card on
the payphone claims that 411 gets local directory assistance -- but
when I called 411, after a long delay, the recording asked me to check
the number again, because it wasn't in service!  I tried 1-555-1212,
and reached directory assistance.

Mendocino County is a remote, backwater part of California, recently
occupied by the U.S. Army in the pursuit of marijuana.


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

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

Date: Mon, 20 Aug 90 08:36:05 PDT
From: David Singer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: IBM Internal Telecom List


Patrick -- I see that you've gotten at least one query from an IBM'er
wanting to know how to get the TELECOM Digest redistribution.  Here's
the information; feel free to publish this in the Digest, or just send
it to IBMers asking about it.  Thanks!

IBMers wishing to subscribe to the TELECOM Digest redistribution list
can find it as TELECOM DIGEST on the NETFORUM disk, run by ARCNET at
ALMVMA.  Questions about NETFORUM should be sent to NETADMIN at ALMVMA.


      yhos,
      David


[Moderator's Note: And welcome back to the IBM readers. A
redistribution list was available a few years ago at ibm.com, then for
various reasons, distribution was discontinued to ibm.com sites until
about three weeks ago. I'm glad to have you back.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 1:45:03 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Our Addresses


From time to time people write me at chinet or somewhere other than
telecom and say they tried to get through here and the mail bounced.
Here are the addresses you may use in writing to the Digest or myself:


INTERNET/UUCP:   [e-mail]   (articles for publication)
                 [e-mail]  (administrivia)
                 [e-mail] (personal mail to me)
         [e-mail] (an alternate which is
                             forwarded to [e-mail])
                 [e-mail] (an alternate for me personally)


FROM BITNET:     [e-mail]   (forwards to telecom, above)

FROM FIDONET:    Telecom Digest 1:129/87  (forwards to telecom, above,
                                           via Heart of Gold BBS)

FROM MCI MAIL:   222-4956  *Only* if you must! I pay to forward here!

FROM ATT MAIL:   !ptownson  *Only* if you must! I pay to forward here!

FROM TELEX:      6502224956  or 155296378

US MAIL:         Telecom Digest, Box 1570, Chicago, IL 60690

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #584
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16642;
          22 Aug 90 3:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21592;
          22 Aug 90 1:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26137;
          22 Aug 90 0:50 CDT
Date:     Wed, 22 Aug 90 0:40:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #585
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 22 Aug 90 00:40:08 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 585

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Local 900 Sleaze [John Higdon]
    Those Cellular Phone Deals [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Marketing [Ken Jongsma]
    Kuwait Cellular Phones [Brian D. McMahon]
    Re: Answer Phrase [Brian D. McMahon]
    What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [Dan Bernstein]
    Antique Equipment [Jack Winslade]
    Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*? [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    800 Bypass [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Observations [Hector Myerston]
    Oceanic Fiber Optic Cables in Meditteranean Area [Hank Nussbacher]
    Re: Oceanic Fiber Optic Cables in Meditteranean Area [P. Kirstein]
    Telecommunications Industry Association [Mary Ann Corsetti]
    A Typographical Error [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Local 900 Sleaze
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 20 Aug 90 23:40:12 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


So you think you've heard it all when it comes to 900 scams. From flag
burning to self improvement, sex to "inspiration", nothing would
surprise you. Well, hold on for the latest:

"[Name Forgotten] accurately predicted the October 17 earthquake
within four days. His [mumbo jumbo] method of predicting earthquakes
has been demonstrated to be alarmingly correct. He has predicted
another moderate quake in the San Francisco Bay Area before August 31.
You should be prepared for the sake of your loved ones and family.
Write this number down: 900 844-JOLT. You will get valuable
information on surviving earthquakes and [Name Forgotten] will explain
his infallible methods for earthquake prediction. It's a matter of
survival. Call 900 844-JOLT. Two dollars for the first minute, one
dollar each additional."

Valuable information on survival of earthquakes? Like that in the
front of the phone book?


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

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

Subject: Those Cellular Phone Deals
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 20 Aug 90 23:26:49 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Somewhere the question was raised about those "deals" on cellular
phones that are tied in to activation with a carrier who provides
kickbacks to the dealers. In California, it is no longer legal to
market cellular phones and require activation as a condition of sale.

But those "great" deals still abound. How do they do it? Your
investigative reporter has just finished some undercover work and
here's the scoop:

You walk into Jack's Souper Sellular, where he is offering the
Gouchygama handheld phone for $499 (ad quote, "Cellular activation not
required..."). You ask to look at the Gouchygama and he produces the
dummy demo model. At the same time, he produces a Cellular One (or GTE
Mobilnet) service and credit application form. From that point, one of
two things happens if you decide to buy.

CASE 1: You start filling out the application. At that point, he goes
to the back room to get your phone. He appears periodically to see how
you are coming on the application. "Oh, that's right. I need to get
your Gouchygama. I'll be right back." Magically, when you have
finished with the application, he produces the phone, programmed with
your new number. You pay and leave.

CASE 2: You say, "Actually, I just want the phone with no activation."
He says, "Let me go in back and check stock." Moments later, he
appears with the sad news that he is out of stock. Yes, he'll take
your order, but it could be some time before he gets any more. Don't
call him, he'll call you. You ask to see something else. Isn't it the
damnedest thing? He is out of stock on almost every model!

And that (with variations), friends, is how cellular phones are sold
in California.


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

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 9:23:00 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


In her reply to my original post on the economics of Cellular Phones,
[e-mail] correctly points out that there are some very
valid uses of Cellular Phones. I think we both agree that there must
be a cost benefit trade off when using any business tool. However,
based on my limited sampling of calls in one city, at various times of
the day and night, Cellular Phones have a very high degree of misuse.

1) Jill's example of setting up an office at a quiet gate is a good
use of the tool. However, would it be cheaper to use a desk in the
airline "Red Carpet Club"? Maybe, maybe not. Cost benefit again.

2) The analogy regarding calculators is a good one. Let's look at
where we are on the technology curve though. I think we're still at
the beginning stages of cordless, personal communication devices.
While the costs of the cellular phone are low, the overall cost of
service is much higher than wireline service. It's much less expensive
to run a radio tower to 1000 customers than it is to bury cable to
those same customers. I suspect the novelty of the service and the
lack of real competition is keeping rates much higher than they could
be.

Note: I realize that LA is running out of capacity, but in most of the
country, scarcity of capacity is not a factor in pricing.

Cellular has it's place. It's just being misused in many cases.


Ken Jongsma               [e-mail]
Smiths Industries         [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan    ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 8:40:36 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Kuwait Cellular Phones


An interesting telecom angle on Iraq's occupation of Kuwait came up in
an NPR (National Public Radio in the U.S.) report, heard at 0815 CDT
today over KUNI.  According to the report, Kuwaitis who had escaped to
Saudi Arabia are using cellular phones as they attempt to reach
friends and family who remained behind.  Regular phone service has of
course been cut, but apparently cellular still works sometimes.

(Probably not often; according to the report, the Kuwaitis drive to
the border area every day to try again.)

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 8:40:36 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Phrase


Danial Hamilton <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

>contact![e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

>>I think Alexander Graham Bell once proposed "hoy-hoy" as the
>>appropriate way to answer the phone.

>I believe the Japanese have a greeting that is reserved for use on the
>telephone.  Something like "moshi moshi".

In Germany, there is a special formula for terminating a phone
conversation.  The usual "auf Wiedersehen" (meaning approximately,
"until we see each other again") makes no sense over the phone, and
German is a very precise language, so the correct way to say good-bye
becomes "auf Wiederh<o">ren," or "until we HEAR each other again."


Brian McMahon  <[e-mail]>
Grinnell College Computer Services
Grinnell, Iowa 50112
[phone]

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

From: Dan Bernstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Date: 21 Aug 90 14:33:07 GMT
Organization: IR


In this city, a local phone call of unlimited length has fixed cost.

Call waiting is a lot cheaper than an extra line.

It occurs to me that modems could reasonably recognize the call
waiting beep. Then the user could answer the call and talk normally,
without dropping the computer connection. In other words, for a
monthly call waiting charge, you could get a permanent, basically free
connection to the computer of your choice.

What would it take to get this working in practice? The modem
technology would be relatively simple: the hardest part would be
convincing the modem on the other side not to hang up during a regular
phone conversation. (It shouldn't be hard to make this work with
answering machines either.) But what would the phone companies think
of people getting connections so cheaply?


Dan


[Moderator's Note: Suppose you could set your modem to never time out;
to never drop carrier, meaning you could flash your switchhook to take
a call and your modem would just sit there waiting. If you could do
that, how would the other end know you were on a call-waiting and had
not disconnected abrubtly?  What would prevent the other end from
dropping carrier after it found your carrier was lost? Now if the one
on the other end was fixed like yours, to ignore loss of carrier and
just sit there humming away waiting for someone to return, then what
would happen if some other user called and got accidentally cut off?
How would the distant modem recover from that?  What you are asking
for is not as easy as merely fixing your own modem to ignore loss of
carrier while you are on another call. And if your modem did work that
way, would you want to sit there and try to converse with someone over
the carrier tone (which was still there since you told it not to
leave)?  I don't think it would work out at all. And do not think that
the telco is very concerned 'about people getting calls so cheaply',
since most modem owners probably already have a second line to start
with, and a phone bill double what a non-modem user is paying.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 19:57:59 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antique Equipment
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


This is a true story.  I wouldn't have believed it had it happened to
a friend of a friend, but it happened to me.

Just recently, the rectifier tube in my 30's vintage Atwater-Kent
superhetrodyne (it picks up '77 WABC {clang}' here in Omaha, if only I
wanted to listen to it ;-) started arcing and sparking in yellow and
blue flashes.

Halfway joking, I asked one of our local electronic distributors to
include a number 80 rectifier tube in our next order.  I almost
fainted when he replied that they always stocked the number 80.  He
said that one of the larger independent phone companies buys a lot of
them for their carrier equipment.

No, he wasn't kidding.  I now have a brand new number 80 in the A-K.
For those of you who are old enough to remember tube shapes, this one
is labeled '80' but looks like a 5Y3 with a glued-on 4-pin base.

With all of this talk about digital ESS and interoffice fiber, I find
it amazing that equipment of that age is still in use, even in central
Nebraska.  For those of you who don't know tubes, the number 80 was
phased out in the 1940's.


Good Day!        JSW

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 1990 21:09:51 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*??


Why is it that most phone systems insist on "knowing" about CO lines,
*only* if these lines are properly "grabbed" by requesting extensions
on the other side of the switch? If I can buy a cheap "line status
indicator" which "knows" that a CO line is off hook, why can't the
switches use similar brain power to figure the status of CO lines?

The problem arises when you try to hook devices (modems, answering
machines, faxen, etc.) *directly* to CO lines (which are also
connected to the phone system). The phone system (stupidly) has no way
of knowing when such a line is active and will merrily grab it at
random with disastrous effects.

Please don't tell me to hook my modem into an extension port, I only
have 16, and that's not enough for a one bedroom place, besides having
to dial 9....:-)

P.S. This problem is present on both cheap systems like the Panasonic
KX-T61610 and the expensive Merlin 2. Both fail the basic intelligence
test in this respect. Arrg.


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor and Publisher
ConneXions--The Interoperability Report    Interop, Inc.
480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100       Mountain View, CA 94040    USA
Phone: [phone]   FAX: [phone]    [e-mail]

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

Subject: 800 Bypass
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 02:15:50 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


contact![e-mail] (woody) writes:

> Are there any numbers out there that allow access to 800 numbers by
> bypassing zone restrictions?

Several years ago, when I still lived in Kenai, Alaska, I used GCI as
my LD carrier. In most cases, I could dial 800-numbers through GCI and
pay for a Seattle call (~0.15/min off-peak). As time went on, more and
more 800-numbers became available from Alaska, and I had less use for
this feature. Eventually, Alascom began offering access to nearly all
wide-zone 800's, as they became more competitive.

It's interesting to note that Kenai-Seattle is ~2800 miles.
Kenai-Anchorage is only 160 miles by road and 60 by air, yet a
Kenai-ANC call was 0.10/min off-peak. You don't even want to _know_
what Tymnet (via Alaskanet) cost!


Roy M. Silvernail | [e-mail] | (tiny Telecom .sig :-)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 21 Aug 90  08:54 PST
Subject: Observations
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


Re: The claims of emergency Cellular coverage on the PA Turnpike.

1.  Experience has shown that, just as in the real world, any claim of
the First, Last, and Only whatevers are likely to be bogus and open to
challenge.  A search of the archives will reveal, for example,
numerous claims of "The Last Cordboard", "The Last Magneto Phone" etc.
All are bogus without a long list of qualifiers.  (For example there
are still hundreds of each left in places like the military).

2.  The best ways to prolong a thread endlessly are: (A) For someone
to use the key phrase "FINAL WORD" and (B) For Patrick to announce he
is closing the topic.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 15:46:25 P
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Oceanic Fiber Optic Cables in Meditteranean Area


    I just got a map of the new fiber-optic undersea cable
infrastructure being laid in this area of the world.  Some of it
already exists, and some is in the process of being installed.  The
installer of the cable is SUBMARCOM - a subsidiary of CGE (France).

- EMOS-1 a cable from Palermo, Sicily to Tel-Aviv, Israel with shunts
off to Lechaina, Crete and Marmaris, Turkey..

- MAT-2 a cable from Palermo, Sicily to Palma, some small island off
the eastern shore of Spain (Balearic Islands).

- MAT-3 is a cable from Palma to Estephona, Spain.

- From the Estephona area, there is a connection to TAT-9, one of the
two optic transatlantic cables.  Since both TAT-9 and TAT-8 end near
Plymouth, England there is the cabability of selecting either TAT-8 or
TAT-9 for transatlantic service.


Hank Nussbacher
Israel

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

Subject: Re: Oceanic Fibre Optic Cables in Meditteranean Area
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 14:37:41 +0100
From: P. [e-mail]


There a further transatlantic cable laid by Cable and Wireless and a
number of others called PTAT-1.  There is substantial choice of
alternate routes - though you must be very careful of how the final
national and local routing goes.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 08:47:36 EST
From: Mary Ann Corsetti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecommunications Industry Association
Organization: State University of New York - Central Administration


Does anyone have a mailing address for the Telecommunications Industry
Association?

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 23:53:17 -0400
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Typographical Error


In a recent TELECOM Digest, I quoted an address at Boston University as:

  [e-mail].

One too many bu's in there - should be:

 [e-mail].

My thanks to Bruce Howells at BU for catching this and telling me.

PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #585
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11295;
          23 Aug 90 2:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01287;
          23 Aug 90 1:05 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24952;
          23 Aug 90 0:02 CDT
Date:     Wed, 22 Aug 90 23:45:22 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #586
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 22 Aug 90 23:45:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 586

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Answering Telephone [Paolo Bellutta]
    Re: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan [Norman R Tiedemann]
    Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: 500/2500 Handsets [Christopher Owens]
    Re: 500/2500 Handsets [Rob Warnock]
    Re: 500/2500 Handsets [Herman Silbiger]
    Re: Free Terminals From USW [Mark Jones]
    Re: Free Terminals From USW [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: Modems Recognizing Call Waiting [John McHarry]
    Re: Cellular Marketing/Future Capacity and Old Calculators [Ted Ede]
    Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed [Julian Macassey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Telephone
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 13:55:29 MET DST


contact![e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

>I think Alexander Graham Bell once proposed "hoy-hoy" as the
>appropriate way to answer the phone.

In Italy the typical answering phrase is "pronto" (= ready).


Paolo Bellutta
I.R.S.T.                vox: [phone]
loc. Pante' di Povo     fax: [phone]
38050 POVO (TN)         e-mail: [e-mail]
ITALY                           [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 14:17:48 EDT
From: Norman R Tiedemann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


To add to my comparison of phone rates between USA and Japan: AT&T has
a "Reach Out World" Plan which can includes Japan. The costs and times
are very similar to MCI's except after 10 minutes of calling per month
the rate actually drops below MCI's.

AT&T Reach Out World to Japan:

$3.00 per month charge (same as MCI)
Calling times 10PM-2PM (same as MCI)
Cost $ .80 per minute (the standard one    cent more than MCI)

BUT after ten minutes per month the cost goes to $ .76 per minutes, a
whole three cents per minute less than MCI's plan. So for lots of
calling, this is the cheapest USA -> Japan and almost the cheapest
around. (Japan to USA, after the first minute rate of 0.73 is still
cheaper based on 150 Yen/Dollar exchange.)

Here I worked for the company and I didn't know about this plan until
someone else told me about it.


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

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IRIDIUM: Motorola's New Cellular Phone System
Date: 21 Aug 90 22:55:26 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> gronk![e-mail] (John
Limpert) writes:

>[e-mail] (Kolkka Markku Olavi) writes:

>>Does anybody know what kind of compression they plan to use to squash
>>8kHz bandwith sound through a 4800bps channel?

>The original article said that the system used vocoders, not telco
>style A/D converters.  A vocoder (voice encoder/decoder) can operate
>at very low data rates.  The Texas Instruments Speak and Spell toy
>used vocoder technology (linear predictive coding) to fit digitized
>voice into the toy's ROM chip.  A vocoder uses a model of the human
>vocal tract to transmit speech.  It continually adjusts the model to
>approximate the speech input and periodically transmits the parameters
>to the decoder on the other end.

    The USAF has been using 10th order LPC vocoders for a number
of years. They operate at 2400 bps, with a couple of different
(incompatible) types in use. These are early '80s technology, and
everyone tends to sound a little bit like Donald Duck - but really not
much worse than analog cellular. (The signal/noise requirement in most
tactical voice comm systems is only 10 or 12 dB anyway.)


    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

From: Christopher Owens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 500/2500 Handsets
Reply-To: Christopher Owens <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 18:12:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, roy@alanine (Roy Smith) writes:

>    OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably
>about 20 years.  Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the
>microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals?

The microphones on 500/2500 handsets were (still are?) made using a
pellet of tightly-packed granulated carbon as the transducer.  These
pellets go bad (mechanical wear?  environmental contamination?),
resulting in lousy fidelity.  A phone in this state can often be
brought back to prime condition for a short while by giving the
handset a rap on the desktop.  But eventually the microphone needs to
be replaced.  It's about the only part of a 500 or 2500 that doesn't
last forever.

Someone at Bell undoubtedly decided that, since they expected to own
the phones forever, the money spent at the factory on the drop-in
mount would be more than paid back in savings of the repairman's time.

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 22:30:39 GMT
From: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 500/2500 Handsets
Reply-To: Rob Warnock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


Just a guess: I suspect that the failure rate for carbon microphones
is *far* higher than electrodynamic earphones, thus the "quick-change"
connection.


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

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 22:39:10 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 500/2500 Handsets
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>     OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably
> about 20 years.  Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the
> microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals?

The "standard" 500/2500-type handset is/was the G-type handset.  It
originally had a U-1 ring armature receiver, but I forgot the code for
the carbon trans- mitter.  Note the use of the terms "receiver" and
"transmitter", rather than speaker and microphone.

The receiver is an electromagnetic device, and rarely fails during the
life of the telephone set.  The carbon transmitter depends on the
action of the carbon granules, which have to remain mobile.  They have
a tendency to pack, however, especially if the fone is used in the
same position for a long time.  This often happens in a wall phone.
While this can often be fixed by banging the handset against a hard
object, it is an easy matter to open the handset and slip in a new
transmitter capsule.

New telephone sets now usually have electromagnetic ot electret
transmitters, and the handsets cannot any longer be opened.


Herman Silbiger

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 16:22:59 +0200
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Free Terminals From USW


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

>[Moderator's Note: This sounds almost too good to be true. Will
>someone in the Omaha area who takes up these folks on their offer
>please get back to us with details?  Is it for real?     PAT]

These terminals have been offered to clients of France Telecom (the
French national telephone monopoly) for five years now, under terms
even more liberal than those in Nebraska.  The program had some
trouble getting off the ground, but is now considered a major success.

At first the idea was that the Minitel terminals would be used
essentially for directory lookups, and that the money saved in
printing directories would more or less pay for the terminals.  Income
from Minitel services such as electronic shopping, train and air
reservations and the like (these are privately-run and charged
somewhat like 900 numbers) was not predicted to amount to much.  The
directory replacement idea didn't work as well as planned, since
people demanded the hard-copy directories anyway.  What turned the
tide was the advent of message services, and in particular the "pink"
ones (soft-core porn), for which the French public seems to have an
unlimited budget.

The pink message services were a two-year fad and have now faded out
somewhat, but they did the trick: The Minitel is now firmly anchored
in the French way of life, and service income from the average user
far exceeds the couple of hundred dollars that the termnals are worth.
I use mine a lot to log in to my work computer from home, via
Transpac.  It's cheaper than buying a PC (especially at French
prices).

My guess is that USWest and Mnematics are counting on a similar
scenario in Nebraska.  Note that in France, and I presume in Nebraska
(the USW posting was cagey on this point), the terminal remains the
property of the telco; only the *use* of the terminal is offered for
free.  In any case, however, the economics of home terminals can be an
excellent investment for a telephone company.


Mark James  <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 17:07:18 CDT
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Free Terminals From USW


In Houston, if you subscribe to U.S. Videotel (Minitel in the States,
essentially, but with no "Rose" services and severe restriction of
users) you get a terminal for "free".  Base cost is $14.95/mo.  I
cancelled several months ago, and they still haven't asked for their
cheesey Minitel terminal ... :-) (This is the really old, non-anything
else, V.23 only terminal.)


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]

Internet: [e-mail]   Bitnet: jet@UHOU     Skate UNIX(r)

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

Date: Wednesday, 22 Aug 1990 08:19:48 EST
From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems Recognizing Call Waiting


In Vol 10: Iss 585 PAT commented that setting the modems to never time
out would eliminate the call waiting problem, but would cause the
system to remain off hook (and hung up by never hanging up!) in the
event of a disconnect.

Some, but I think not all, lines have a feature called "forward
disconnect."  This is invoked by the switch on a disconnect, and
causes the line to go either open or short, interrupting the -48v
feed.  I think it was provided to knock down hold buttons when the far
end hung up.  The hold button set a relay which was held in by the
-48v feed, keeping the off hook condition when the phone was on hook.

Picking up a phone drew off enough current to drop the relay, but it
was necessary for the switch to interrupt the current when the other
end hung up.  I believe this is also used by some answering machines
to detect and hang up on no message or the end of a short message.  At
any rate, it could be used to knock the modems down on a disconnect,
if the modems were designed to sense it, or if some ancillary
circuitry were provided to handle the case, perhaps by cycling the
power on the computer (?!)

My opinions only, with the exception of the last suggestion, which
even I cannot accept.


* John McHarry    [phone]             [e-mail] *


[Moderator's Note: But didn't you know that call-waiting plays the
same kinds of tricks on the voltage in the phone? For example, I know
someone with a five line / six button phone.  He foolishly had call
waiting installed on a couple of those lines, which were all
independent and not in hunt or anything like that. If a line was on
hold when a call-waiting signal came through, it would always knock
down the hold and dump the party holding, allowing the call-waiting to
force its way onto the line instead.  Call-waiting is not compatible
with any electronic device which depends on changes in line voltage or
what it 'hears' on the line to decide what to do. Modems, hold
circuits, you name it. It even makes some PBX's think the call they
are handling is complete and should be disconnected.  PAT]

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

From: Ede <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing/Future Capacity and  Old Calculators
Date: 22 Aug 90 13:14:43 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (jill
holly hansen) writes:

>In a few years, cell phones *are* going to be as ubiguitous as pocket
>calculators.

Does anyone have an idea how today's technology will meet the capacity
demands of say, 1995?  Can the cellular companies just keep adding
cells to keep up with the increasing density of cellular calls?

>[Moderator's Note: Your mention of the high prices of the early
>calculators brought back some nostalgia. I bought a TI-58 and a TI-59
>programmable calculator from Texas Instruments in 1976. They cost
>almost five hundred dollars each!

If you want to talk vintage calculators, my dad has one of the first
Bowmar calculators.  In 1973 it cost $189.95 and had four functions.
They bought the chip from TI, who later refused to sell them the six
function chip, wedging them out of the market.

He bought it back in '73 and got a deal on it because he sold them the
LED displays.  Power supply and all still work today, seventeen years
later.


Ted Ede -- [e-mail] -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road
 linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B091 -- [phone]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed
Date: 22 Aug 90 13:52:00 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

>   I was thinking of putting together a linesman's handset here, and I
> was wondering, is it really as easy as putting good-quality Alligator
> Clips onto a rotary dial phone's two wires?

    Simply put yes.

>   I've always wanted to make one of these beasts, and I'd rather not
> pay the $110 can I've seen them here in surplus stores.

    Simply speaking, you can get a 500 or 2500 set from a swapmeet
or garage sale, add some zip cord and roach clips from Rat Shack and
goferit. But I assume you wanted something more portable and less
clunky than that. Consider though, just a regular telephone set with
leads attached will work very well, it even has a ringer. If you want
to look hip, you will feel pretty silly with a 2500 set hanging from
your belt. The handset will keep falling off, and the handset cord
will tangle. Many "phone rooms" have a wall mounted phone with long
test leads a dangling, that provides an in situ buttset for $25.00 or
so.

    If you want to build your own buttset, here is something I
have done.  Get a Western Electric (AT&T) Trimline phone (The one that
looks like a hot dog that people insist on calling a Princess).
Discard the base.  Open the phone and perform the following surgery.

    Attach test leads to the Tip and Ring. You can buy real
telephone buttset test leads - only $50.00! So I assume you will make
your own.  You can also add regular Rat Shack roach clips or buy the
telco ones which cost $4.00 each. The Telco type clips are designed to
attach to 66 blocks and also some have a bed of nails that will
penetrate insulated wire for a fast connect.

    What you have now is a buttset that is touchtone only and has
no monitor function. To add the monitor function you need to add a 2
uF (4 is better) 250V mylar cap. This cap is switchable in series with
Tip and Ring. When the cap is in series, you can listen but not speak.
A miniature toggle switch can fit in the lower part of the earpiece,
the cap is best made up of units distributed in nooks and crannies
round the set.

    Put the plastic together again and feel proud of your
"do-it-yourself" buttset.

    Why the real ones cost so much. Real buttsets can survive
being dropped from great heights. They come with a real man belt clip
so you can bang them against other people's furniture as you stroll
around.  They have super tough test lead wire. They have a monitor
function, some have polarity and other test features.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #586
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12893;
          23 Aug 90 3:50 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25925;
          23 Aug 90 2:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01287;
          23 Aug 90 1:05 CDT
Date:     Thu, 23 Aug 90 0:44:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #587
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Aug 90 00:43:34 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 587

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number [W. T.  Sykes]
    Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*?? [John Higdon]
    Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [Shawn Nunley]
    Re: Cable Addresses [Larry Lippman]
    Re: 500/2500 Handsets [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Source Needed for 900 Pricing [Hector Myerston]
    Re: Typographical Error [Nigel Roberts]
    The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes [Carl Moore]
    The Netherlands Direct (R) [Hans Mulder]
    Automated Salesmen [Steve Cirian]
    Cellular Error Recordings [John R. Covert]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 15:09:14 EDT
From: W T Sykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pennsylvania Turnpike: New Cellular Emergency Number
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies - Burlington, NC


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul E.
Robichaux) writes:

>Actually, the Onslow County, NC area offers (and has for at least a
>year; maybe longer) a direct link to the NC highway patrol. Dialing
>"*HP" will connect you to a dispatcher.

>This system seems like a good replacement for 911 calls while on the
>highway; it doesn't suffer many of the liabilities of cellular 911
>calls that were discussed here a while back.

The information supplied above by Paul applies statewide (given the
presence of a cell.)  It seems that the cellular operators and the
state have gotten together on this.  There are signs posted on the
interstate to advise drivers to dial *HP. Apparently it will connect
you to the Troop dispatcher responsible for the area that the call is
placed from.  If the accident is out of the jurisdiction of the HP,
they will notify the local authorities. Typically the HP is reponsible
for all auto accident investigations that occur outside of corporate
city limits.


William T. Sykes  AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies  Burlington, NC
UUCP: att!burl!wts  att!cbnewsl!wts

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*??
Date: 22 Aug 90 01:36:12 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Why is it that most phone systems insist on "knowing" about CO lines,
> *only* if these lines are properly "grabbed" by requesting extensions

> P.S. This problem is present on both cheap systems like the Panasonic
> KX-T61610 and the expensive Merlin 2. Both fail the basic intelligence
> test in this respect. Arrg.

Are you serious? What you describe is also true of the most expensive
Mitels, ITT 3100s, Meridian/SL1s, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Why on earth
should a PBX be equipped with "line status detection" when it was
never intended that a trunk would be shared with foreign equipment?
Would you dangle some gadget off of a four-wire E&M trunk and then
expect a PBX to detect it and deal with it?

A trunk to a PBX, whether it be two wire (ground or loop start) or
four wire E&M is supposed to be a trunk to a PBX and is not intended
to be shared with modems, answering machines, dialers, or any other
doodads.  Some PBXs accept trunks as T-spans. What kind of gadgetry
would you expect to be able to tack on to those circuits and have the
PBX recognize it and deal with it?


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

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

From: Shawn Nunley <shawn@ka>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone
Date: 22 Aug 90 22:17:49 GMT
Reply-To: Shawn Nunley <shawn@ka>
Organization: Excelan, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Irving Wolfe)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 583, Message 5 of 11

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

>>BTW, 25-30 feet is about all you can expect from a cordless phone in
>>an electrically hostile environment, such as the one I have here.

>He doesn't know how lucky he is, or how bad Panasonic cordless phones
>can be despite the quality of their other phone equipment.  Mine
>starts becoming a little noisy at five feet and is about as noisy as
>it can be and still be usable at fifteen feet.  My AT&T oordless
>phone, on the other hand, probably can go twenty-five feet or more
>(but not very much more).

I suspect that either the quality of cordless phones is on the rise,
or that these folks have purchased defective phones. I purchased a
Sony, tne channel cordless that performs very well in an electrically
hostile environment. By very well, I mean that I can have a mostly
noise-free conversation as far away as three houses down and across
the street! That is well over 300 feet from the base station. In
addition, the Sony has a stand-by battery life of seven days, twelve
hours of continuous talking. When I am using my computer (a large
beast of power cosumption), I notice no degredation in quality
whatsoever. In fact, nothing in my house seems to affect the quality
of sound at all.


Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco}
         !novell!shawn
Shawn Nunley    Tel: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: What Are "Cable Addresses"?
Date: 22 Aug 90 00:29:55 EDT (Wed)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> [Moderator's Note: Cable addresses are nothing more than shorthand for
> the entire telex address. They were devised many years ago by Western
> Union as a sort of precurser to what we call 'speed dial' today, or
> 'abbreviated dialing'. Except, you really did not dial anything. You
> merely passed the cable address to the Western Union agent/operator,
> who had a lookup table of addresses versus telex numbers. They were
> used as advertising gimmicks, and ways to easily remember long
> numbers.

    Cable addresses are still used today, although telex traffic
is, in general, declining due to better and lower cost international
direct dialing.  FAX is rapidly replacing telex.

    Cable addresses are coordinated in the U.S. by the Central
Bureau for Registered Addresses in New York City.  There is an annual
fee for maintaining the cable address registration.  A telex directed
to a cable address gets routed to the telex number associated with the
cable address.  I believe there may be other delivery options, but I
am only familiar with routing to an existing telex number.

    Cable addresses are often chosen for mnemonic significance.
The cable address for my organization is "RECOGNIZE".  Clever, huh?
 :-) If you send to our cable address, it will come in on our telex
line furnished by RCA Global Communications (now MCI).  We get very
little cable and telex traffic these days, probably 5% of what we got
10 years ago, since most international communications now arrive via
FAX.

    My favorite cable address is that of a law firm in Chicago
which I have used as patent counsel on certain matters: Kinzer, Plyer,
Dorn & McEachran.  Their cable address is "ELECTRIFY".  They get quite
a bit of international traffic, and that cable address is not easily
forgotten!


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 500/2500 Handsets
Date: 23 Aug 90 04:04:42 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

>     OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably
> about 20 years.  Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the
> microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals?
>
    Well, not only do 500 and 2500 sets have drop in microphones
(Transmitters in telco speak), but all Western Electret sets using a
carbon transmitter use the same device called a T1. Do not confuse a
T1 transmitter with "T1 carrier".

    The reason for the easy removal of the transmiter is for
simple field replacement. Carbon transmitters go bad more often than
"speakers", known as receivers in telco speak.

    The following countries also have drop in transmitters,
Denmark, Sweden, UK (old phones) Germany. There are no doubt others
that I am not familiar with. Denmark also used to have drop in
receivers.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: 22 Aug 90  11:16 PST
Subject: Re: Source Needed for 900 Pricing
Organization: SRI Intl, Inc., Menlo Park, CA  94025  [[phone]]


Re: The issue of pricing 900-calls from a PBX.  This is major emerging
problem.  The problem has been highlighted by the increasing number of
"legit" 900 services.  For example, many software vendors are now
providing technical support via 900 services.  It simplifies their
operation, encourages brevity and perhaps brings in a few bucks :-) If
your company buys from these vendors then it makes little sense to
block 900 calls.  AT&Ts 900 service (Multiquest) prices on NXX-X
((900) NXX-X---).

For example (900) 820-2--- is $3/1st min while (900) 820-5--- is
>$50</1st min.  The list is available from AT&T.  Further
complicators: Non-AT&T 900 services and the recently announced ability
of individual users to change their AT&T rates at will ... Not an easy
problem since not many PBXs parse routing to 7 digits.  Our solution:
Make staff use Credit Cards for 900 calls.  Route Credit Card Calls
(O+) over dedicated toll-connecting trunks.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 01:09:51 PDT
From: "Nigel Roberts, not-so-average bear" <"iosg::robertsn"@iosg.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: Typographical Error


In Digest #585, PAT writes:

; In a recent TELECOM Digest, I quoted an address at Boston University as:

;  [e-mail].

; One too many bu's in there - should be:

;  [e-mail].

Could this be describe as a bu-bu?


Nigel Roberts (I just _couldn't_ resist)


[Moderator's Note: Very funny, and a clever play on words.  :)   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 11:01:23 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes


I just now got to May 4, 1990 microfilm for the {Washington (DC) Post}.
Page A-1 has article (continued inside) about the Oct. 1, 1990
local-calling change (must then use area code on DC-area local calls
which cross area code boundaries).  Comments I gleaned (opinions and
examples are only from that article):

"Whether the change will weaken the psychological ties among city and
suburbs remains to be seen."  People often do NOT take such changes
kindly, but resistance is usually short-lived.  In DC area, you
generally know if you are calling DC, Md., or Va.; but in Mass.  when
508 was formed, you had to learn the new code by town.  C&P expects
that if growth continues, Md. will need new area code in several
years, but there currently is no decision about this.  Under the new
way of making local calls, someone living in Anacostia area (DC) could
have the same 7D number as someone living in Oxon Hill (Md.), just a
mile away.  [ <-- note by me: this obviously puts an end to use of
area code 202 for points not right in DC proper.]

Up to now, DC area has had the "privilege" (since the 1950s, with
quotes mine) of making local calls without area code; however, in
Manhattan (NYC), you routinely use 718 area code to make local call to
Brooklyn.  There is a worldwide proliferation of phone numbers, and
networks have to be reconfigured to allow more phone numbers (the
article specifically mentions the London split occurring right around
then).

Article apparently came out before the announcement about Pentagon
being put in 703 (Pentagon is physically in Virginia, but had been in
area 202, NOT in 703).

I should also mention that leading 1+ is cited as OPTIONAL in those
local calls crossing NPA line.  You are REQUIRED to use it for toll
calls.

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 17:58:39 +0200
From: Hans Mulder <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Netherlands Direct (R)


It is still impossible to originate a collect call from the
Netherlands, but collect calls can now be placed from many other
countries via "the Netherlands direct (R)".  Their numbers are:

Australia      0014 881 310
Austria            0229 03031        (local call)
Belgium               11 0031
Brazil              000 8031
Canada        1 800 363 4031
Denmark             800 10331
Finland            9800 10310        (local call)
France               19 0031
Greece            00800 3111
Hong Kong          008 1311        (not from rotary phones)
Indonesia          008 0131        (not from coin phones)
Italy
    Rome and Milano    1720031
    phone offices      1031
Japan              0039 311
New Zealand           0009 31
Portugal         0505 0031        (not from coin phones)
Singapore          800 3100
South Korea            009 31
Spain           900 9900 31
Sweden           02 079 5731        (local call)
United Kingdom       0800 890031
United States    1 800 432 0031

Yes, the country code for the Netherlands is 31.

(BTW, can anybody explain the bit about rotary phones in Hong Kong?)

If you live in the Netherlands, you can get a free flyer with this
info from the folks at 06-0402.

All typos are mine.


Hans Mulder    [e-mail]

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

From: Steve Cirian <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated Salesmen
Date: 22 Aug 90 15:23:08 GMT
Organization: EDS/TSD - Troy, MI


Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me
something.  After listening for a few moments, I lost interest, and
hung up.  I tried to call a friend a minute or two later.  To my
surprise, the recording was still going, and there was nothing I could
do to break the connection.  A thought occurred to me: what if I had
an emergency, needed to call 911, and couldn't because Kodak had tied
my phone up (for at least 5 minutes)?  Is this legal?  Shouldn't
companies that use this sales strategy be required to have a system
that would recognize a hangup, and break the connection?

(I appologize if this subject has already been covered in detail, I am
new to this newsgroup :-))


Steve Cirian  750 Tower Drive, Troy, MI 48007 [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 14:12:35 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  22-Aug-1990 1712" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Error Recordings


Some callers have expressed confusion over the two different NYNEX
Mobil error messages.  Let me try to clear this up.

Message 1 (out of the service area)

  "Thank you for using the NYNEX Mobile Cellular System.  Your call
   cannot be completed at this time.  The mobile customer you have
   dialled has left the vehicle or travelled beyond the local service
   area.  Please try again later."

   This means one of the following:

   a. I've turned the phone off because I'm in a meeting, movie,
   concert, or whatever.  Please call later.

   b. I'm either completely out of the service area or in a dead
   spot.  Please call later.

   c. I've gone to lunch in Nashua and "Follow Me Roaming" is taking
   its time about following me.  It can take from five minutes to
   over an hour.  Hopefully Judge Greene will someday let the two
   systems be connected together.  Please call later.

Message 2 (connection rejected)

   "Thank you for using the NYNEX Mobile Cellular System.  I'm sorry,
    we're unable to complete your call at this time.  Please hang up
    and try again later."

   This means the phone is turned on and responding to your call, but
   one of the following conditions exists:

   a. All channels in the cell site I'm in are busy.  Try again
      right away, and you may get through.

   b. I'm in a weak but not completely dead spot (such as the ZKO
      cafeteria).  Try again a few times; a different channel with
      better propagation characteristics might get selected.

If my calls are being sent to a different area, the recordings may be
completely different.  Some systems use the same recording for both
conditions; other systems provide reorder (fast busy) for the second
condition.

john

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #587
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05002;
          24 Aug 90 0:52 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05396;
          23 Aug 90 23:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02850;
          23 Aug 90 22:19 CDT
Date:     Thu, 23 Aug 90 22:17:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #588
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Aug 90 22:17:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 588

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Answering Machine as Room Bug? [Tom Neff]
    NY State Police Round Up Hackers [Colin Plumb]
    Toll Calls on 800 Service [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Phone Calls to Kuwait [Carl Moore]
    Schematic For AT&T Cordless Phone [Bob Ansaldo]
    Where To Obtain The USOC Book [A. J. Annala]
    Phone Line RF Bypass Needed [Brian Kantor]
    Automated Collect Calling [David M. Archer]
    Rates, Wonderful Rates [Jerry Leichter]
    Inexpensive Test Sets and Other Telecom Equipment [Paul J. Zawada]
    Call Here For Instant ANI [The Blade]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine as Room Bug?
Date: 22 Aug 90 07:21:15 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


I turned on the shortwave receiver in my apartment this morning and
was flipping past the 5-6 MHz neighborhood when I distinctly a voice
coming from the speaker.  It was my friend in the other room!  I
couldn't believe it.  Throwing on headphones I told her "keep talking"
(nothing surprises her at this point :-) while I fine tuned the messy
signal.  Something was broadcasting from my living room!  (Nobody was
on the phone, and there's no intentional transmitter in the apartment
 - not even a walkie-talkie.)

Then I switched places and had her listen while I walked around the
other room talking, to see if we could localize the source.  Not much
luck.  So I started unplugging things.  Speakers... no.  Radios...
no.  The phone itself... no.  The answering machine... YES!  As soon
as it was unplugged the signal disappeared.  Plug back in... back
comes the signal.  Conversation anywhere in the living was audible and
reasonably intelligible.

This is a Panasonic KX-T1470 answering machine.  It does have the
"room monitor" feature where you press <5> from a remote phone to
listen to what's going on at home.  I wonder -- is the mike always
live, with the only difference being that <5> switches it into the
circuit?

Is everyone with a Panasonic answering machine bugging himself?

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

From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
Subject: NY State Police Round Up Hackers
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 1990 21:05:53 -0400
Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA


In the latest {Computerworld}, Michael Alexander has written another
interesting article.  "The hackers allegedly used an 800 number to
break into the computer, making it easy to identify them, Delaney
said."

"`The information gleaned from the computer is of unclassified,
administrative nature,' said Major Steve Headley of the Air Force
investigations office at Bollings Air Force Base in Washington, D.C.
`However, the office of special investigations of the Air Force is
concerned primarily that the act was criminal of itself and...while it
was innocuous, unclassified stuff, in aggregate, over a long period of
time, it could have meaning or be perhaps sensitive.'"

Reference: Computerworld, August 20, 1990, Vol.  XXIV, No. 34, page 99.


Colin

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 16:18 EST
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toll Calls on 800 Service


I just read of a disturbing development involving 800 service.  Can anyone
confirm or deny the following:

(Detroit Free Press, 22 August 1990, Front page)

"Starting September 15, with the football season opener against
Syracuse University, fans can phone an 800 number and listen to the
play-by-play of MSU football, basketball and hockey games, but for a
price.

"UNLIKE OTHER 800 NUMBERS, WHICH ARE TOLL FREE, CALLERS WILL BE BILLED
FOR CALLING 1-800-CALL-300.  (Note: Emphasis added.)

"Football games, which usually last about three hours, would cost
$36.50.

To my knowledge (although I've subscribed to Telecom only since last
week), this is totally without precedent.  It disturbs me for the
following reasons:

1) Up to this point, 800 service has been synonymous with toll-free
calling (from the standpoint of the caller).  It is conceivable that
some businesses could abuse 800 service by advertising their number
but withholding the fact that their number incurs a charge.  (Or
putting it in very small print.)

2) We have a five-year old in our house, and hearing of all the horror
stories regarding 900 and 976 services involving children playing with
the phone, we now have 900 and 976 service blocking.  Now, with the
advent of NON-tollfree 800 service, I am at a loss as to how to deal
with it (aside from physically putting locks on the phones).  Whereas
I can generally do without 900 service, I don't think I can say the
same regarding 800 service.

3) Businesses using 800 service should be outraged (again, assuming
the above is true).  If people become afraid to use 800 service
because of the possibility of a charge, calls to 800 numbers in
general may significantly decrease.  Businesses that use 800 numbers
as the primary means of dealing with their customers should be
especially concerned.

In all of this, I can't help but feel that Michigan State University
deliberately took the 800 route to circumvent call blocking measures.
This is a truly unfortunate occurance, and I would hope that this is
the only time that anyone uses 800 service in this fashion.

I am sending carbon copies of this message to Michigan Bell and my
Congressman.

Best wishes from Sander Rabinowitz
MCI MAIL: 382-9147    Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think you will find the billing is on a credit
card number which you must punch in when you first connect. You will
NOT be billed by telco for the 800 call, but you WILL be billed by the
University (or some affiliated organization handling university sports
promotions, etc) via the credit card you authorize on the touch pad.
Therefore, a person dialing that 800 number will be greeted only by a
synthesized voice asking them to enter their card number. If it is not
valid; or valid, but credit cannot be authorized, then it will simply
disconnect you.  Every example I've seen in the past like this has
been for phone sex, horoscopes or similar services. I don't think you
need to worry about anyone running up your phone bill, and I doubt
your child has access to your credit card numbers. The price quoted,
$36.50, would only buy five or ten minutes on many 900 lines. I
suspect the University went with 800+credit card to keep the price
down.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 23:57:38 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Calls to Kuwait


In an issue of TELECOM Digest dated June 20, a writer said that
Kuwait, before international DDD, had a U.S. area code. As you know,
Kuwait has been invaded since then.

I found that calls to Kuwait (country code 965) are being intercepted
with message "914-1T": "Due to an emergency situation in the country
you are calling, your call cannot be completed at this time.  Please
try your call again later."

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 09:25:28 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Schematic for AT&T Cordless Phone


I am in search of a schematic for an AT&T model 4110 cordless
telephone. I have one of these beasts that for some reason developed
gobs of extra sidetone and I'd like to fix it. If anyone has or knows
where I could get a schematic for it, please let me know. Replies
direct to me to conserve net usage. Thanks.


Bob Ansaldo             | e-mail:  [e-mail]
Stratus Computer, Inc.  | or:      ...uunet!lectroid!es!Bob_Ansaldo
55 Fairbanks Blvd.      |
Marlboro, MA 01752      | phone:   [phone]  fax: [phone]

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

From: A J Annala <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where to Obtain the USOC Book
Date: 23 Aug 90 07:52:05 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Anyone know where to get a book of standards (e.g. USOC - Universal
Service Order Code) for things like the order of colors to punch down
on '50 blocks from 50 pair, 100 pair, 200 pair, etc cables?

Thanks,

AJ

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed
Date: 23 Aug 90 15:49:55 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


Does anyone happen to remember the USOC or other ordering code for the
widget used for bypassing phone line entry to radio transmitter
buildings?

Lemme spring this one on you: Ham radio repeaters on the 2m band are
spaced 600 kHz between receiver and transmitter.  About five miles
from our repeater site is KOGO-AM, on 600 KHz.  We didn't have a
problem until the phone line was installed into our mountaintop site,
but we've measured nearly a VOLT of 600 KHz KOGO on the phone line -
seems that fifteen miles of rural phone lines will make a hell of an
antenna.  When combined with the very strong transmitter signal in the
building, we get a mix that generates a weak carrier on the repeater
station's input and it sits there and sings to itself.

We've used one of the CORCOM power line EMI filters to bypass the
telco line we have, but we're going to be ordering several new lines
installed in the next few weeks and I'd rather have the "official"
filter box if I can get it.  Our installer wasn't able to find the
ordering codes in his references.

Thanx!

Brian

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

From: David M Archer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated Collect Calling
Date: 23 Aug 90 15:52:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo


A week or so ago, I received a most interesting call on one of my
phone lines.  For some reason I at least seem to get a lot of wrong
numbers on this line, so a wrong number is not at all unusual.  What
was somewhat interesting was that it was one of those automated
collect call handling systems whereby I hear a recorded message along
with a recording of the calling party saying his/her name, and am then
asked to reply either yes or no.  Now, I've heard about these systems
for some time, so I wasn't too astonished, except that for some reason
I wasn't in the right frame of mind and replied "what?".  Luckily it
interpreted that as a no, and it said goodbye and hung up. But it does
make me wonder how foolproof it is, and just how many people have or
will be charged for collect phone calls that they didn't authorize.
I'm wondering if there are any readers of this newsgroup who have had
troubles with this system and if they have any comments?


[Moderator's Note: A few days ago, someone said they recieved such a
call, said NO and got billed anyway. Was your call from a telco
payphone or from a COCOT, or could you tell?  Phone phreaks love the
easy way fraud can be committed with this system: When asked to tape
record their name, they say, "Call me at xxx-xxxx" or otherwise
deliver some message. A live operator would never accept that for a
'name', but the equipment can't tell the difference. It calls and
tells me there is a collect call from 'call me back at xxx-xxxx', and
will I accept the charges. I say no, but that's okay; the message was
delivered!  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 09:08:02 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rates, Wonderful Rates


All of you who complain that you local Telco is still charging for
Touchtone - or justify charges for services like Call Waiting as
needed to offset development costs and such - will be delighted with
the rate increase that SNET has filed for.  It's the first increase in
eight years, and comes to a total of $86.4 million.  (BTW, I've never
been able to figure out what those totals are sup- posed to mean.  Are
they saying "$86.4 million extra in the first year?  Each year, on
average, for the next eight?  Over the next eight years?")

The increases apply to almost everything.  Basic rates for residential
custo- mers increase by anywhere for $.80 to $1.70; the current range
is from $5.17 for "Select-A-Call" (no message units included, you pay
per call) to $11.02 (Class III flat rate).  (All the exchanges in the
state are in one of three "classes", depending presumably on the
number of phones in your local area or something like that.)  Business
rates will increase by $2.40 to $4.97; currently, they range from
$15.61 to $22.38.  One thing SNET fails to mention in its brochure -
unless you look in the fine print - is that a number of exchanges are
changing class.  Surprise: Every one of them is moving to a higher
(i.e., more expensive) class.  A rough count seems to indicate that as
a result of the changes, the majority of exchanges will now be in
Class III, whereas previously a majority were in Class II.

Here are some other changes.  (Totalphone includes speed dial, call
waiting, call forward, three way calling, and one other thing I can't
remember: It was added after I got Totalphone on one of my lines and
the only reason I found out about it is that I later added Totalphone
to another - and now I can't find the new brochure!  I think it also
includes Touchtone.  You can't get the individual services "unbundled"
 - except, it appears, for call forwarding, which the business office
didn't tell me about when I asked.)

        Current        New
Touchtone
Residence    $1.85        $2.20
Business     2.13         2.50
PBX         3.12         3.70

TotalPhone
Residence     6.58         7.80
Business    11.59        13.80

Call Forwarding
Residence     2.84         3.35
Business     4.73         5.60

Non-listed #     .57         1.00
Non-published #    2.08         3.05 !!!
Add res. lstng     .52         1.00
Add bus. lstng    1.09         1.50
Add nonlcl lst    1.09         1.55

Oper dialing    free          .75
Verify busy    free         1.00
Interrupt call    free         1.00
Calling card     .24          .65 !!!
Bill 3rd party     .71         1.75 !!!
Person-2-person    1.42         3.50 !!!

There are many other increases e.g., residential FX lines go up by
between $6.76 and $14.41 a month.

On the plus side, in-state long distance calls are going down.  The
example they give of a "typical" call from Hartford to Stamford (about
60 miles, at a rather rough estimate) at daytime rates for 3 minutes
goes from $.92 to $.78.  Some "business services", including WATS and
800 and "some digital private line services" are also going down.

Local coin calls remain at a dime.


Jerry

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 14:38:27 -0500
From: Paul J Zawada <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inexpensive Test Sets and Other Telecom Equipment


Lately people have been discussing cheap test sets and test sets in
general ... Here's what I was fortunate enough to stumble onto ...

I bought two Western Electric rotary butt sets at the Dayton
Hamvention last April for only $25.  The vendor had HUGE box of these
things.  Most were in "average" shape.  Some looked and worked real
well (including the two I bought) a few were pretty ugly looking.  (I
tested the sets on a 12 V battery the vendor supplied.) I guess the
former BOCs have replaced most of the craftsmen's rotary sets with the
fancy new pushbutton type.

I've been pretty lucky at hamfests for telcom equipment ... I've
picked up: ... a  bunch of telco or "bed of nails" clips for $2.00 a
pair. (Instead of the normal price of four for $25...) ... Western
Electric three pair cross connect wire 600' for $5.00 ... Scotchlok IDC
connector crimper (cartridge type - the model number escapes me right
now) complete with a couple of boxes of UR connector catridges for
$30. ... Plantronics StarSet II phone headset - brand new in original
packaging - $10 (This alone is worth over $150) ... and a few other
bargains.


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

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

From: The Blade <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 15:52:31 PDT
Organization: The Dark Side of the Moon +1 408 245 SPAM
Subject: Call Here for Instant ANI


More 800 ANI fun, with less the wait.


To get an instant replay of the number you are dialing from, without
having to listen to any garbage:

800 648 2980

I believe it belongs to MCI.


The
Blade


[Moderator's Note: I've tried it off and on over the past two hours.
It has been continuously busy. If anyone else tries it, don't bother
writing with your results unless it is different than with the other
thing we tried a couple weeks ago. Even then, I don't really care if
you write about it or not.  800-649-2981 is also always busy.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #588
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07362;
          24 Aug 90 3:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08704;
          24 Aug 90 1:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31454;
          24 Aug 90 0:23 CDT
Date:     Thu, 23 Aug 90 23:42:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #589
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 23 Aug 90 23:41:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 589

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Handset Receiver Elements [Larry Lippman]
    Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [Larry Lippman]
    976- and 900- Phone Numbers [Robert M. Hamer]
    Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [David Ptasnik]
    Legal Aspects of "Those Cellular Phone Deals" [Ted Ede]
    CINDI and No-Light Phones [Pete Holsberg]
    Re: Automated Salesmen [Chris Petrilli]
    Re: Automated Salesmen [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Telephone Handset Receiver Elements
Date: 23 Aug 90 13:29:58 EDT (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

>     OK, here's a question that's been bothering me for probably
> about 20 years.  Why, on a standard 500/2500 handset, does the
> microphone just drop in but the speaker have screw terminals?

    That's a pretty good question!

    In attempting to give you a reasonable answer, I must first
point out that some telephone handsets did have drop-in receiver
elements.  For example, the WECO 300-type telephone set used the
F-type handset, which used the HA-type receiver.  The HA-type receiver
was of the drop-in variety.  Some older operator headsets, like the
51-type and 52-type use the HC-type receiver which also drops in
place.  Other vendors of telephone apparatus, such as Automatic
Electric, Northern Electric (pre-Northern Telcom days), and
Stromberg-Carlson also had telephone handsets which used drop-in
elements.

    The introduction of the WECO 500-type telephone set around
1953 with the G-type handset created a departure from drop-in receiver
elements.  There is no singular reason why the G-type handset, using
U-type receiver elements, no longer employed a drop-in receiver.  The
reasons are multiple, and include but are not limited to:

1.    The receiver element was now more reliable, and therefore much
    less prone to failure and replacement.  Better varistors across
    the receiver element, and additional varistor loop current
    limiting in the "newer" 425-network (as opposed to 300-type sets)
    resulted in less likelihood of overcurrent and failure of the
    receiver element.

2.    Eliminating the receiver element drop-in contacts resulted in a
    cost reduction.

3.    Eliminating the receiver element drop-in contact assembly resulted
    in a size and weight reduction of the G-type handset over its
    F-type predecessor.

4.    Eliminating the receiver element drop-in contacts resulted in an
    elimination of failure or noise as a result of receiver element
    contact corrosion.

    The carbon transmitter, however, was still a source of
potential failure, and therefore remained as a drop-in device for ease
of its replacement.

    BTW, when is the last time that anyone saw a 300-type telephone
set in service?


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry


[Moderator's Note: Last 300 phone seen, about five years ago,
admittedly in an obscure location: The clock and bell tower of Holy
Family Church on West Roosevelt Road. A tiny room in the tower, rarely
visited, where the clockworks was located. The phone was probably for
use by the men who did the repair work on the clock and bells or the
sexton, from the days when the clock had to be wound with a crank. The
phone did operate; it was an extension of a line in the office
downstairs. On the bottom was penciled in a date in 1938.   PAT]

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

Subject: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit
Date: 23 Aug 90 13:00:57 EDT (Thu)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan
Nishioka) writes:

> I am trying to build a box for my five line key system phone.  I want
> it to flash the lights and do automatic hold.

> The system I was going to time has been dismantled and replaced with
> Panasonic phones with LEDs so you can't tell which line is ringing...

    I would suggest that you look around for a used key service
unit (KSU) with 400-type line cards, which will perform all of the
functions you desire.  With the extensive proliferation of electronic
key telephone systems and "mini" PABX's, such used KSU's often sell
for very little money - especially at say, an amateur radio flea
market.

    Design of a 1A2 key system to work with your telephones is not
a trivial effort.  It's not that difficult, either, but you will spend
some time doing it.  If you are determined to build it from scratch, I
would suggest a "non-traditional" approach.  Use a microprocessor with
I/O expander for all logic and timing functions.  Detect ringing and
loop current using optoisolators.  Drive the lamps with ten volts DC
switched by suitable current drivers.  Sense the A-lead ground
closures preferably with optoisolators.  Use a reed relay to place a
300 ohm hold resistor across the telephone line.  In summary, your
microprocessor would have five ringing detector inputs, five loop
current detector inputs, five A-lead inputs, five lamp outputs, five
hold relay outputs, and one common audible relay signal output.
Everything else is software. :-) The lamp signals and interrupted
common audible signal sequence would be generated under software
control.

    Yet another alternative would be to obtain just the 400-type
line cards, make your own card cage, and build a power supply and
interrupter circuit yourself.  All you need is -24 volts DC for the
400-type line card control power and ten volts AC for lamps (do not
substitute DC for AC on the ten volt lamp circuit with newer 400-type
line cards since they use triacs or SCR's for lamp control instead of
relay contacts).  The standard KSU interrupter operates from the ten
volt AC supply.  You will also need 18 volts AC or 20/30 Hz ringing
for common audible signals, depending upon whether you use buzzers or
ringers.

> Does anyone have the light flashing cadences?  (frequency and duty
> cycle).

    Lamp flash for incoming calls is interrupted at 60 IPM with a
50% on-duty cycle (i.e., 500 ms on, 500 ms off).  Lamp wink for hold
is 120 IPM with an 80% on-duty cycle (i.e., 400 ms on, 100 ms off).


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry

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

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 17:00 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers


I am troubled by the use of 976- and 900- type phone numbers, and also
by AOS, COCOT, etc exploitation of some of the stupider and less
sophisticated members of our society.

I am troubled saying this, as I would basically like to be a
libertarian, and feel people ought to keep themselves informed and
make informed choices.  However...

My wife, who is not a stupid person, did not realize until I told her,
that the owner of a 900-type phone number did not just collect for the
long distance charges, but in fact could collect anything he or she
wished, and have it appear on your phone bill.  (She also can't set
our VCR to the correct time when the clock fails after a power
failure.)

I am beginning (only beginning; I'd like the thoughts and opinions of
other telecom readers to help me focus my thinking) to for the opinion
that the only thing phone companies should be allowed to stick on your
phone bill is the cost of telephone calls.  If someone wants to have a
900- or 976- number and stick me with the cost of the call, fine
(although at that point a POTS phone number would serve as well), and
if, once I call them, they want a credit card number so they can
charge me $15 to hear Jose Canseco (did I spell that right) babble, or
hear someone else talk dirty, then that's their business.  But when I
get my phone bill, all I want to see on there is telephone charges.

Now my thinking is not at all fully focused or complete on this.  I'd
like to hear others' opinions.


[Moderator's Note: The ignorance of the general public relating to
matters of telephony is what the 900, AOS, COCOT, and OCC industries
have relied on since their inception. I'll bet very few if any of the
900 services would bother stating their rates in their ads if the
telcos did not make them do it under their contract.  PAT]

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 9:09:20 PDT


In article 7629 of comp.dcom.telecom, [e-mail] (Scott
D. Green) writes:

>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

Sorry that it has taken so long to reply to this, but I just attended
an AT&T System 75 training course.  You cannot send a # in any way
from a 75.  Hard to believe but true.  It cannot be dialed manually,
and it cannot be embedded in a speed dialing string.  AT&T doesn't use
it, so it must not be important to them.  At least, neither the AT&T
instructor, nor any of the eight class members could get it to do it.
This is with the latest software available for the switch.  Coming
from a Key System background, I found the limitations on this switch
very disconcerting.  I thought PBX's were supposed to provide more
user functions, not fewer.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: So if I use a bank by phone service, a digital
display pager, or dial international calls and would prefer to time
myself out with an octothorpe on the end I am high and dry with a
System 75, eh?  Marvelous.   PAT]

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

From: Ede <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legal Aspects of "Those Cellular Phone Deals"
Date: 23 Aug 90 17:55:00 GMT
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA


>In California, it is no longer legal to market cellular phones and
>require activation as a condition of sale.

I know this is a dumb question, but what's the logic behind the law?

>And that (with variations), friends, is how cellular phones are sold
>in California.

And is Massachusetts, that's how it's done too.  Fretter and Highland
regularly sell Novatel transportables for under $200, and other
cellular phones for as low as $79.  And they get a kickback of
$200-$400 depending on how hard up either Cellular One or Nynex are.
When I bought my phone, I was obligated to use Cellular One for three
months.  I signed a slip saying I would pay Highland $300 if I dumped
service before the end of the three month period.

My mom bought a phone.  That week Fretter had the better deal, and she
was forced onto Nynex for three months.  She stuck with it for about
six months, but when Nynex raised basic service almost $20/month, she
called Cellular One.  Within two days they set up service and, at no
charge, went to her office to reprogram the phone.  (Heck, they saved
the original $300, that'll pay for bus fare to just about anyone's
office!)

Sure, it's a bit of a scam, but who cares, I don't need a law to
protect me from it, I knew the deal before I went to the store.
Saving the $300 made it economically feasible for me to buy a phone.
It was well worth sticking with a company for two or three months.
And with two carriers in most areas, it's hardly a problem.  If you're
looking to buy a phone, and you don't like the carrier that the store
is pushing, just go to their competition.  They're sure to be pushing
the other carrier.

I think the people that are doing most of the complaining are the
shops that specialize in cellular phones.  They can't do the business
that the department stores do.  Either they can't get the same sizeable
kickbacks, or choose not to apply it to the price of the phone, and
now they can no longer compete.  I have a hard time feeling sorry for
them.


Ted Ede -- [e-mail] -- The MITRE Corporation -- Burlington Road
linus!mbunix!ted -- Bedford MA, 01730 -- Mail Stop B090 -- [phone]

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

Subject: CINDI and No-Light Phones
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 15:15:54 EDT
From: Pete Holsberg <[e-mail]>


CINDI is a voice messaging system that we have installed at the
college.  However, we do not have phones with "message waiting" lights
on them.  Does anyone know of a mod we could make so that we could add
those lights?  Otherwise, we have to poll CINDI every time we return
to the office!  Yuck!!

Thanks,


Prof. Peter J. Holsberg      Mercer County Community College
Voice: 609-586-4800          Engineering Technology, Computers and Math
UUCP:...!princeton!mccc!pjh  1200 Old Trenton Road, Trenton, NJ 08690
Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Another option might be instead of message-waiting
lights to modify the phone switch to give 'stutter dial tone' as an
indicator of a message, the way some telcos like IBT and Centel handle
it.  PAT]

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

From: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen
Date: 23 Aug 90 14:22:53 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin


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

>Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me
>something.  After listening for a few moments, I lost interest, and
>hung up.  I tried to call a friend a minute or two later.  To my
>surprise, the recording was still going, and there was nothing I could
>do to break the connection.  A thought occurred to me: what if I had
>an emergency, needed to call 911, and couldn't because Kodak had tied
>my phone up (for at least 5 minutes)?  Is this legal?  Shouldn't
>companies that use this sales strategy be required to have a system
>that would recognize a hangup, and break the connection?

I also had one of these "calls" about one week ago, which after
fifteen MINUTES! was still on the line.  It also kept calling back
until I listened to it (it tried five times).

To say the least I was annoyed (a little stronger word here), and I
immediately called the Texas Attorney General the next day. According
to the lady I talked to there, they are already investigating it, and
looking at filing charges against them.  When I phoned SWBT, they were
unable to tell me who it was, but they had also had complaints, so
they probably knew who it was, and they said that they had given the
company one week to stop, or they would disconnect service, and look
into legal action.

Sounds like a major problem to me.

Chris Petrilli                                    "Opinons represented here
University of Texas at Austin                      do not necessarily
INTERNET: [e-mail]              represent those of a sane
SNAILMAIL: 429 Brady Lane, Austin, Texas, 78746    person.  Take them as
PHONE:     [phone]                         simply that."

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen
Date: 23 Aug 90 11:47:51 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Cirian <[e-mail]> writes:

> Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me
> something.  After listening for a few moments, I lost interest, and
> hung up.  I tried to call a friend a minute or two later.  To my
> surprise, the recording was still going, and there was nothing I could
> do to break the connection.

If you have three-way calling, you can always flash the switchhook and
make a call in that manner. My favorite method of handling these
people provides double satisfaction.

Although you theoretically cannot transfer a call outside of a
Commstar group, there is a way to "trick" the switch into allowing a
call to be transferred to another telephone within the control group
(switch). In preparation for the hapless junk computer call, I prepare
a list of slimy businesses that have telephone service served by
applicable prefixes. This being a bedroom CO, there aren't many, but I
managed to scrape up two or three.

When the XYZ Portrait Offer calls, I simply transfer the call to Big
Al's Used Cars or some such. It is no longer tying up my line and it
gives Big Al something to do!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #589
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07373;
          24 Aug 90 3:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08704;
          24 Aug 90 1:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31454;
          24 Aug 90 0:23 CDT
Date:     Fri, 24 Aug 90 0:23:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #590
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Aug 90 00:22:52 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 590

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Answering Telephone [Roy Smith]
    Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements [Linc Madison]
    Re: Source Needed For 900 Pricing [Linc Madison]
    Re: Cellular Marketing/Future Capacity and Old Calculators [C. Petrilli]
    Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones [Jordan Hayes]
    Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid* [Peter da Silva]
    Re: The Netherlands Direct [John R. Levine]
    Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed [Brian P. Crawford]
    Make Your Own Buttset [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Answering Telephone
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 15:33:23 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paolo Bellutta)
writes:

> In Italy the typical answering phrase is "pronto" (= ready).

    I was taught that the proper phrase in Spanish for answering a
phone is "Diga me", literally "Speak to me", but, at least from what I
have observed in Mexico, the most common phrase is just "Bueno",
literally "Good".  Probably different Spanish speaking countries have
different idioms.


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

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone
Date: 23 Aug 90 09:53:05 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Irving Wolfe)
writes:

>He doesn't know how lucky he is, or how bad Panasonic cordless phones
>can be despite the quality of their other phone equipment.  Mine
>starts becoming a little noisy at five feet and is about as noisy as
>it can be and still be usable at fifteen feet.  My AT&T oordless
>phone, on the other hand, probably can go twenty-five feet or more
>(but not very much more).

This is on cordless phones rated to be usable up to 300 meters.  Here
in Japan, the maximum allowed is 100 meters.  Some of the ones sold
here are rated at a maximum of ten meters.  Now if it really goes ten
meters this shouldn't be a problem since most Japanese apartments are
not more than ten meters wide or long (think of them as a walk-in
closet).

But my sister tells me that her 300 meter cordless phone (in New York)
fades out if she crosses to her husband's side of the bed.  I wonder
if you actually have to sit on top of the base unit on these ten meter
models?  I'll find out soon.  I'm supposed to hook up a jack for one
in the next few days.

Note that because Japanese living quarters are so small, the local
market is full of space-saving devices.  The big rage right now is
combination telephone/cordless-phone/answering-machine units.  I just
saw an ad for one that adds a fax to the above.

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Rates USA to/from Japan
Date: 23 Aug 90 09:45:49 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Norman R.
Tiedemann) writes:

>        AT&T        MCI        US-Sprint Japan Time
                              ^^^^^^^^^^
Note that the times listed are relative to Central time (U.S.).  The
time in Japan is different for those in other time zones.

>KDD is the only one that offers operator assisted calls,

This is true.

>and appears to bill in six second increments.

All the carriers's rates are based on six-second increments.  But
calls from public telephones must be charged slightly differently, as
the phone can not collect 32 yen (or whatever) every six seconds.  It
can only collect 100 yen per X seconds.

>KDD is the "standard" (until two years ago, national phone company).

You are thinking of NTT, which was privatized two years ago.  KDD
(Kokusai Denshin Denwa [International Telegraph & Telephone]) has
always been a private company (at least as private as big companies in
Japan get).

>ITJ is the International Telecom Japan (its slogan is "Digital
>    Optical Fiber"). Access 0041...
>IDC is the Intrntl. Digital Communications Inc. (It's slogan is "The
>    Intelligent Choice"). Access 0061... (0062-0065 for feature calls)

Likewise, ITJ uses 0042 and 0043 for some of its features.  IDC is
partially owned by, among others, Pacific Telesis.

IDC, however, has inferior connections to ITJ.  I don't know if they
are using some kind of compression or what, but their calls to the
U.S.  always sound muddy.

>MCI has a bulk rate plan to four Asian Countries including Japan which
>costs $3.00/month and allows you to call between 10PM and 2PM (almost
>the full two cheaper periods) for only $.79 per minute (including the
>first minute).

AT&T has an identical plan except that the rate is $0.81 per minute.
I keep meaning to order that for the line my Telebit uses to call here
twice a day on.

>(It is interesting to note that Japan's Premium rate is during
>their working hours, while USA's are when both countries
>might have people in the office.)

Yes, the rates from here to anywhere in the world use the same rate
periods.  AT&T figured out a few years back that they should base
their rates on both time zones (and actual usage?).  The cheapest time
to call to Japan from the U.S. is the time when either _you_ are
sleeping or the person you want to call is sleeping.


Jim Gottlieb         Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 03:50:14 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 "Out-of-Band" Announcements
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


Two years ago, I was in western Canada, and placed a couple of calls
to the 800 number for the ATM-locator service on my ATM network.  They
use the same 800 number for calls from anywhere in the US/Canada.

 From Vancouver, B.C., the calls completed fine, but then when I tried
 from Victoria, B.C., I got a recording that NNX-XXXX is not a working
number.  I didn't get a chance to look up to see where the particular
prefix was located, but it seemed that the mapping of the 800 number
to a POTS line was very specific, or else the switch on the island was
out of date in its database.

Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 04:32:12 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Source Needed For 900 Pricing
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Paul Sawyer writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 580, Message 11 of 13

>[e-mail] (Joel B. Levin) writes:
>>The charges do indeed seem to be determined by the "exchange" digits,

>At one time this seemed to be so, maybe when it was all AT&T, but now
>any 900 number seems to be able to be priced as the end user wants,
>within (very few) limits imposed by laws, tariffs, and/or carrier
>policies.

>[First .50/.35, then some exchanges 5.00/0.00 or 2.00/2.00, etc., and
> finally no consistency at all within an exchange.]

I happened to notice that the exchange 900-535 has a wide variety of
charges for calls.  There are some adult services advertized in local
freebie papers and 4:30 a.m. tv shows on this prefix, and also some of
the "call this number and get a guaranteed $1000 credit card" types,
with charges of at least $8 or $9 and maybe more on some of them.  I
saw one that I *think* was on this prefix that had a charge of
something on the order of $35.


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]

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

From: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing/Future Capacity and Old Calculators
Date: 23 Aug 90 14:15:57 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin


>>[Moderator's Note: Your mention of the high prices of the early
>>calculators brought back some nostalgia. I bought a TI-58 and a TI-59
>>programmable calculator from Texas Instruments in 1976. They cost
>>almost five hundred dollars each!

>If you want to talk vintage calculators, my dad has one of the first
>Bowmar calculators.  In 1973 it cost $189.95 and had four functions.
>They bought the chip from TI, who later refused to sell them the six
>function chip, wedging them out of the market.

>He bought it back in '73 and got a deal on it because he sold them the
>LED displays.  Power supply and all still work today, seventeen years
>later.

This is nothing ... a friend of mine has a Wang Programmable
Calculator Mainframe (key word) ... it supports six add on
"terminals", and is implemented in discrete logic (i.e. 1000s of
transistors).  The main unit is about 4'x4', and makes an aweful sound
when on.  At the moment it doesn't work, and for some strange reason,
Wang doesn't support it anymore (I wonder....).  The date on it is 1969.


Chris Petrilli                                    "Opinons represented here
University of Texas at Austin                      do not necessarily
INTERNET: [e-mail]              represent those of a sane
SNAILMAIL: 429 Brady Lane, Austin, Texas, 78746    person.  Take them as
PHONE:     [phone]                         simply that."

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines
Date: 23 Aug 90 16:26:54 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lars
Poulsen) writes:

[Stuff PAT and I wrote about his phone billing deleted.]

>I must confess to a lack of understanding; if the two lines are billed
>to the same number, and the charges appear together on one bill, how
>can that not be one account ? How do you define the word "account" ?

[Lars definition deleted]

A account is a file on the BOC's computer giving a account # (which is
the billing number plus three digits ... the three digits are the time
the account was opened.  (Don't ask me what they do between 10-1 :))
It also contains the address and other info about the customer.
Associated with the account can be one or more phone numbers.

Now if you have two or more accounts and recive one bill then the
other accounts have a field that says 'take all charges and forward
them to account NPA NNX XXXX xxx for billing ... it normally
calculates the charges before the transfer of charges. (It appears to
do that).

I hope that clarifies things.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the three digits are the RAO,  or
Regional Accounting Office code. At least they were prior to the
tragedy. I can't imagine them being used now for 'the time the account
was opened'.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 16:00:10 EDT
Subject: Re: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones
Organization: Morgan Stanley, & Co., Inc. / New York City, NY
From: Jordan Hayes <[e-mail]>


I have had Panasonic three-line phones (3170?) that I got for $169.
Your mileage may vary since I live in NYC and I also am a good haggler
 ;-).  They have conference, hold, speakerphone, 50 programmable
numbers, good feel, wall or desk, music-on-hold jack (sub-miniature,
pretty cool), automatic outgoing line hunter, three input jacks for
folks who can't get an RJ-25 out of the phone company or Rat Shack,
although the first jack also accepts an RJ-25 with all three lines on
it. I treat it like a sick dog and it has never given me a problem.

I even have a *really* clumsy girlfriend who seems to drag one of them
(I have three) off the four-foot-high table it sits on to crash down
onto the floor once per week.

jordan

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*??
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 21:21:57 GMT


Why not stick an answering-machine-cutoff gadget on the line to the
switch that you want to put the modem on?


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

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

Subject: Re: The Netherlands Direct
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 23 Aug 90 10:46:35 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>It is still impossible to originate a collect call from the
>Netherlands, but collect calls can now be placed ... via "the
>Netherlands direct (R)". ...

I see that the USA Direct number in the Netherlands is 06-022-9111,
which gets you an AT&T operator in the U.S.  Any idea what happens if
you tell that operator that you want to call a number collect?


Regards,

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

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 16:25:56 -0700
From: "Brian P. Crawford" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed


Well, don't know what features you're looking for in a lineman's
handset, but I've often used a standard one-piece phone, then built a
two-tone tester to go along with it.

Is this too primitive?

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

Subject: Make Your Own Buttset
Date: 24 Aug 90 00:29:37 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> >   I was thinking of putting together a linesman's handset here, and I
> > was wondering, is it really as easy as putting good-quality Alligator

>     If you want to build your own buttset, here is something I
> have done.  Get a Western Electric (AT&T) Trimline phone ...
>     Attach test leads to the Tip and Ring. ...
>     What you have now is a buttset that is touchtone only and has
> no monitor function. To add the monitor function you need to add a 2
> uF (4 is better) 250V mylar cap. This cap is switchable in series with
> Tip and Ring. When the cap is in series, you can listen but not speak.
> A miniature toggle switch can fit in the lower part of the earpiece,
> the cap is best made up of units distributed in nooks and crannies
> round the set.

    A word of caution on creating a monitor function through the
above technique...

    This will work, but it will create a monitor function that
will bridge a rather low impedance across the telephone line under
test.  A very noticeable "click" will be heard if the telephone line
is in use, in addition to a noticeable degree of attenuation.
Furthermore, should a data call be in progress, you may cause
interruption - unless there are error-correcting modems in use.

    "Real" buttsets are carefully designed to create as high an
impedance as possible in the monitor mode - typically 6,000 ohms or
better.  The "talk-monitor" key switches more leads that just a
capacitor in series with one side of the line.  A transformer is
switched in and out of the circuit, with the transformer providing
coupling between the receiver element and the telephone line.  A
series capacitor is also used; however, in better quality buttsets
this capacitor is typically 0.02 uF - which is a far cry from 2 uF.

    While a trimline telephone set makes a good poor man's
buttset, there is almost no room to attempt any circuit modification
to improve monitor mode sensitivity by increasing its impedance.

    Incidentally, here is an old trick to minimize click when
connecting a buttset in monitor mode.  Connect one lead first, then
use your finger to bridge the gap between the other lead and its
terminal; then make the connection.  The presence of your finger will
usually provide enough series resistance to charge the monitor circuit
series capacitor, thereby minimizing the click.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #590
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08448;
          24 Aug 90 4:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13709;
          24 Aug 90 2:40 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac08704;
          24 Aug 90 1:36 CDT
Date:     Fri, 24 Aug 90 1:16:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #591
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 24 Aug 90 01:16:02 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 591

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Local Networks Proposal From Canada [David Leibold]
    SIT Tone Sequences [CTC Wang Labs]
    Re: Industry Update [Linc Madison]
    Re: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes [Robert Hamer]
    Administrivia [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Local Networks Proposal From Canada
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 0:26:36 EDT


[The following appeared as a Canadian Department of Communications
notice last year. While somewhat outdated, the discussion on this will
still continue, and provides some ideas for local loop competition
possibilities.]


Department of Communications Act

Notice No. DGTP-09-89 - Local Distribution Telecommunication Networks

Introduction

The conversion from analogue to digital switching and transmission,
the deployment of optical fibre and other technical improvements are
enabling both the telecommunications common carrier and cable
television industries to offer increasingly similar services over two
presently independent networks.

These developments are eroding the existing barriers which previously
prevented each major player from offering the others' services.
Current trends in technology, market environments and service
opportunities involving both the cable television and common carrier
industries, appear to be leading towards a local duopoly offering a
range of common services.  The need has been identified to establish
new rules to govern the operation of these two, presently distinct
industries so that each may flourish in a healthy competitive
environment.

The Minister of Communications, under the Department of Communications
Act, has the responsibility to promote the establishment, development
and efficiency of telecommunications services and facilities for
Canada.  Similarly the Minister, under the Broadcasting and Radio
Acts, has certain responsibilities with respect to the Canadian
broadcasting industry. Under the Radio Act, for example, the Minister
is authorised to control all technical matters relating to the
planning for and the construction and operation of all broadcasting
facilities, which include cable television systems.

Background

Both the telecommunications common carrier and cable television
industries are now utilising high capacity fibre optic cables in their
distribution systems. Some cable television operators are endeavouring
to enter the common carrier services market by developing
non-programming services.  At the international level, on-going
development of technical standards for future broadband (high
capacity) Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) services will
accelerate the convergence of narrowband and broadband technology and
service carriage. The Canadian carrier industry is introducing on a
trial basis new narrowband (moderate capacity) ISDN services. All
these activities together make it necessary to consider the need for
new ground rules governing the introduction of new services and to
encourage economical development of network infrastructures.

The telecommunications policy framework, as reflected in the
announcement by the Minister of Communications on July 22, 1987, has
three main objectives:

   - universal access to basic telephone service at affordable prices;
   - an efficient telecommunications network infrastructure;
   - a competitive marketplace in the supply of telecommunications services
     and equipment in all regions of Canada.

Last year, the government introduced the Broadcasting Bill C-136 in
the House of Commons for first reading on June 23, 1988. In Section 3
of this Bill a Broadcasting Policy for Canada is enunciated which
obliges cable television companies to provide efficient delivery of
programming at affordable rates, using the most effective technology
avaiable at reasonable cost.

The Department is desirous of encouraging competition both in services
and carriage and with this aim, the Minister of Communications
outlined in his speech to the CCTA Convention in Toronto on May 8,
1989, two possible rules which might be applied. Firstly, cross-
subsidisation between broadcasting services and telecommunications
services would not be permitted, and secondly, cable television
operators should allow telecommunications service suppliers to access
their infrastructure on a non-discriminatory basis (as is the case
presently for federally-regulated telephone companies). This approach
would permit a continuing status quo operation for those cable
companies not wishing to enter the telecommunications service market.

The policy review now underway within the Department of Communications
will be undertaken with a view to fostering the development of local
distribution network(s) to facilitate the efficient delivery of voice,
video and data services. It will seek to determing the legitimate
roles of the major players in the industry, to establish new ground
rules and an appropriate regulatory framework within which the
industry will operate. To this end, public comment is invited on any
or all issues, whether regulatory, technical or socio- economic, which
are considered pertinent.

Issues

To date, public policy initiatives and regulatory control of the cable
television and telecommunications industries have safeguarded the
public interest as these services have expanded. These measures
include, inter alia, the following:

    - cable hardware ownership regulations imposed by the CRTC;
    - specific prohibitions imposed on some telecommunications carriers
      to exclude them from holding a broadcast licence.

The Department is in favour of a competitive environment for locally
distributed services. It thus follows that the Department is
supportive also of local duopolies for this competitive service
provisioning, unless it can be shown that such duopolies would result
in economic hardship for the service providers or service users.
Comments are invited on the economic and regulatory aspects of local
duopoly networks, both for and against.

In addition, the Department solicits from the cable television and
telecommunications industries a forecast of what they foresee as the
major technological and economic forces that in the next 10 years are
likely to affect the growth and type of new services. Based upon these
technological, market and service projections, interested parties are
invited to outline what policy initiatives and regulatory environment
should be introduced in order to ensure the rapid and economical
introduction of these new services while reconciling the requirements
and public service obligations of both the cable television and common
carrier industries.

There is a need in the policy review to investigate the effectiveness
of the hardware ownership rules. Is there a need for any limitations
to be imposed?  Industrial concentration both vertically and
horizontally, concentration of cable industry ownership, telephone
company, parent and affiliated companies' ownership of cable
television companies and cable company investment in common carriers
are issues which also need to be addressed in the assessing of the
regulatory status of both industries.

Summary

On the basis of the above issues or any other pertinent issue, the
Department would encourage interested parties to comment on these
important structural and regulatory questions. In addition views are
also solicited on what would be the most appropriate next step for the
Department to take in considering public input in response to this
Notice, to propose policy options and to reach appropriate conclusions
and recommendations.

Public Submissions

All written submissions from interested parties on any aspect of the
issues listed above, or on any other matters deemed pertinent to the
policy review underway on the evolution of broadband network
infrastructures and services should be addressed to Mr Paul Racine,
Director General, Telecommunications Policy, Department of
Communications, 300 Slater St, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C8 and to ensure
consideration must be postmarked on or before January 2, 1990 or
delivered by other means by the same date. All submissions must cite
the publication date [2 Sept. '89] and notice number of the
_Canada_Gazette,_ Part I [DGTP-09-89]. These submissions will be
placed on the public record on or about January 16, 1990. Written
comments on these submissions may be submitted, in the same manner as
described above, on or before February 28, 1990.

All submissions and comments received in response to this Notice will
be made available for public viewing at the Department of
Communications Library, 300 Slater St, Ottawa and at the regional
offices of the Department in Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and
Vancouver for a period of one year from the closing date for comments.
Approximately 14 days after the close of submissions, copies of all
written submissions may be obtained by phone, mail order or over the
counter from Kwik-Kopy Printing, 300 Slater St, Ottawa, Ontario.
Reasonable costs of duplication and distribution will be charged.

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 14:10 EST
From: CTC Wang Labs <[e-mail]>
Subject: SIT Tone Sequences


Some time ago, there were several inqueries and comments concerning
SIT tones (the do-da-dee tones) and their uses:

In Digest dated 18 July, Kenny Crudup <lotus![e-mail]>
writes:

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

> >Does this give anyone any ideas about saving money when checking your
> >messages on your machine or voice mail? Oops, did I say that?

> Don't worry. Beat you to it. What *I* need are frequencies....
> ($10 bucks says the mod ices this note....)

> [Moderator's Note: You lose. I don't know what kind of 'frequencies'
> you are seeking, but they all are of public record at the FCC. Could
> you be more specific in your request, please?   PT]

I suspect that the following is what Kenny is looking for:

Special Information Tones (SIT Codes) are used by some telephone
companies for automating various reporting and network observation
operations.  They are special coded tone sequences transmitted at the
beginning of network advisory recorded announcements.

There are four sequences defined:

Seq  Symb  Catagory                 Announcements

 1    NC   Trunk Blockage           No Circuit, emergency.
 2    IC   Customer Irregularity    Vacant Number, AIS, CENTREX Number
                                    Change and Non-Working Station, Access
                                    Code Not Dialed/Dialed in Error,
                                    Manual Intercept Operator.
 3    VC   Vacant Code              Vacant Code.
 4    RO   Equipment Irregularity   Reorder Announcement.

The tone sequences are coded as follows:

Seq    First Tone/Duration    Second Tone/Duration    Third Tone/Duration

 1     985.2 Hz / 380 msec    1428.5 Hz / 380 msec    1776.7 Hz / 380 msec
 2     913.8 Hz / 274 msec    1370.6 Hz / 274 msec    1776.7 Hz / 380 msec
 3     985.2 Hz / 380 msec    1370.6 Hz / 274 msec    1776.7 Hz / 380 msec
 4     913.8 Hz / 274 msec    1428.5 Hz / 380 msec    1776.7 Hz / 380 msec

Note that these tones are defined for 'advisory messages' and are not
(usually) used for billing or supervisory purposes.

P.S.  Kenny:  Did you ever pay off our esteemed Moderator??   dab


Dave Bonney      <[e-mail]>      MCIMail: 422-4552

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 04:18:36 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Industry Update
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Patricia O'Connor writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 573, Message 3 of 12

>California's trend-setting PUC is embarking on its most far-reaching
>deregulation of telephone service yet.  Its proposal would let the
>likes of AT&T and MCI compete for regional toll service with local
>carriers.  Regional toll calls are currently priced higher than some
>long-distance calls.  PacTel and GTE say they welcome the change,
>since the proposal would allow them to offer discounts to large-volume
>customers.  The California agency's proposal could be a model for
>other states.  [Bus. Week, 8/13/90]

Umm, but, uh, Pac*Bell already *does* offer discounts to large-volume
customers.  They call it "Call Bonus."  For customers large enough for
the monthly fees to be negligible, the discounts range from 30% to
upwards of 50%.

They have three basic plans: "Community" (pick a C.O. and get a
discount of around 50%), "Circle" (discount of about 35% on all calls
outside Zones 1, 2 and 3 but still within 40 miles), and "Wide Area"
(about 35% off all calls within your LATA, including Zones 2 & 3, but
only during night/weekend and noon-2pm and 9-11pm).  The Community
plan is of somewhat limited utility, because San Francisco is three
"communities," and even FREMNTNWRK (Fremont/Newark) is two.  I had
"Wide Area" when I shared a line with 17 other people, and had the
Community plan when I was running up about $30 a month to the same
number.  You can have more than one plan, but only one discount
applies on any given call, and you might not be able to make all
conceivable combinations.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 23 Aug 90 09:02 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes


On Wed, 22 Aug 90 11:01:23 EDT Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
writes:

>Up to now, DC area has had the "privilege" (since the 1950s, with
>quotes mine) of making local calls without area code; however, in
>Manhattan (NYC), you routinely use 718 area code to make local call to

Two weeks ago I stayed in the Crystal City Hyatt (I like Hyatts; they
tend to be classy hotels) and the phone behavior was as follows:

(A telephone call from Crystal City to DC proper is a local call.)
When I tried to dial a local call from 703 to 202 using 9+NPA+7D on
the room phone (the instructions said to use 9+ for local calls) the
computer told me I had to dial an 8 first.  When I called the front
desk, they said I would be charged the minimum fee (a $1.25 or $1.75
surcharge; I forgot which) for the call although it was a local call.
I finally gave up on trying to do things right and dialed it using
9+7D which still works, but won't as of Oct 1 if I read things right.

My question is, how are other hotels adjusting to the increasing
number of local calling areas which are split between area codes.  Are
they mostly using it as an opportunity to rip off customers?  How
about some of you who have recently stayed in hotels in local calling
areas split between area codes telling us about your experiences, and
those of you who travel to such places, trying things out?

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

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 0:37:16 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia


This issue marks the conclusion of nine years of publication of
TELECOM Digest. The Digest's first issue was dated August 24, 1981,
however that issue was actually mailed August 25.

For much of that time, the Digest has been distributed both as a
mailing list and as Usenet's comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup.

Jon Solomon, was the founding Moderator of TELECOM Digest, and
conducted this forum through the late summer of 1988. I assumed
responsibility for the Digest in October, 1988. Just as Computer
Underground Digest and the Caller*ID mailing list began as offshoots
from this Digest, likewise TELECOM Digest itself began as an offshoot
of the HUMAN-NETS group; and its original purpose was to discuss
telephone topics which had been raised in the HUMAN-NETS group which
were not of interest to most readers there. Chip Rosenthal maintained
the gateway between TELECOM Digest and the comp.dcom.teleom newsgroup
for a few years.

Many of you have been participants since the very beginning. It has
been fun, and the time has passed quickly. The changes we have seen,
documented and discussed in the Digest are rather incredible. But the
changes in the telecom industry in the past decade have been pretty
incredible also. Here's to another nine years of the Digest!

OVER THE WEEKEND: An Illinois Bell service representative, in dire
need of money to pay her bills was bribed to provide some confidential
company data to an outsider. Names and specifics tomorrow.


PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #591
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02011;
          25 Aug 90 6:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11661;
          25 Aug 90 4:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01948;
          25 Aug 90 3:46 CDT
Date:     Sat, 25 Aug 90 3:03:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #592
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Aug 90 03:03:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 592

Inside This Issue:                         This issue starts our tenth year!

    Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [Doug Faunt]
    Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [Kevin L. Blatter]
    Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed [Gordon Wilson]
    Re: Crank Calls [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [John Higdon]
    Re: Legal Aspects of "Those Cellular Phone Deals" [John Higdon]
    Re: Automated Salesmen [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Automated Collect Calling [Jerry B. Altzman]
    Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait [Bryan M. Richardson]
    Re: Billing of Multi-Lines [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures [Tad Cook]
    Re: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 10:16:00 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing


Sorry, this is incorrect.  We have a System 75 here, and the "#" is
used with the Octel Voicemail system, and works just fine, manually.
There are also "#"'s in the system abbreviated dialing strings, and
that function also works. We're running V1R3.

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

From: "Kevin L. Blatter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing
Date: 24 Aug 90 16:18:17 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


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

> In article 7629 of comp.dcom.telecom, [e-mail] (Scott
> D. Green) writes:

> >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

> Sorry that it has taken so long to reply to this, but I just attended
> an AT&T System 75 training course.  You cannot send a # in any way
> from a 75.  Hard to believe but true.  It cannot be dialed manually,

Yes it does sound incredibly odd to me.  What happens if you dial it
manually?  No tone generated?  We have a system 85 here in the
building and an octothorpe is an integral part of the operation of the
"voice terminal".  I use the octothorpe key several times a day to
retrieve my messages from AUDIX.  (The octothorpe key is an integral
part of the AUDIX product -- it would be impossible to use without
it.)  I have also used the key several times to call my bank and
perform financial transactions.  Never have I seen it where I could
not use the key.  I don't know who originally devised the
specification which the world now uses for DTMF dialing, but I have
always believed that AT&T has tried to comply to that specification.
It is a part of every AT&T specification that I have seen which refers
to dialing on the system 85, 75 or 5ESS.

The reason I bring up the stuff about using it with a System 85 is
that the voice terminals for the '85 are identical to those of the
'75.  While working on a previous assignment with the '75 we used the
octothorpe key for several programming features.

I'm not questioning the abilities or findings of the original posters
or anything like that.  My guess is that the PBX is not configured
properly and the problems stem from that.

Perhaps someone from Bell Labs in Denver where the System 75's are
made can give a more accurate description of what these people have
been experiencing and what to do to correct it.


Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs
Lincroft, NJ

Disclaimer -- Even though it may sound like I am speaking for the
company, it truth I am not, nor would I ever speak for the company
unless they told me what the company wants said.

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

From: Gordon Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lineman's Handset Help Needed
Date: 23 Aug 90 21:33:02 GMT
Organization: HP Design Tech Center - Santa Clara, CA



>  I was thinking of putting together a linesman's handset here, and I
>was wondering, is it really as easy as putting good-quality Alligator
>Clips onto a rotary dial phone's two wires?

>  I've always wanted to make one of these beasts, and I'd rather not
>pay the $110 can I've seen them here in surplus stores.

Hello Frank,

I have an old linesman handset, rotary dial and heavy black rubber
frame.  Make me an offer, it has been sitting unused for many years.


Gordon Wilson  [e-mail]  1334 Spoonbill Way  Sunnyvale, Calif 94087

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crank Calls
Date: 23 Aug 90 18:22:55 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

>Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]> writes that in
>UK he was taught to answer the phone with the number, but that in
>North America this is not done.

    I usually answer the phone this way at the office. Since at
least half my calls at the office come from other Boeing-owned phones,
it's kind of silly to say "Boeing Company, may I help you?". To most
callers from outside, the name of my department is meaningless,
especially since it was designed to be that way, so that doesn't make
sense either. Almost all the phones here are shared by two to four
people, most of whom get calls from people who have no idea who the
other person(s) assigned to that line are; so it doesn't make sense to
answer with one's name, as if one expected to be recognized by the
caller.

    But most of all, it's very consistent with Boeing corporate
culture for engineers to pick up the phone and say in an irritated
tone, "6349. Carroll." So that's what I do. It makes Boeing people
feel at home, and if it makes salesmen slightly uncomfortable, so much
the better.

>If there is a problem with a wrong number, you might ask the caller
>what number he/she is trying to reach.  Also, I have had at least one
>or two cases where I reached an answering machine which announced the
>number I had reached (in lieu of giving out a person's name?).

    We do this at home. Some of us *like* our anonymity. If the
caller doesn't know who he's calling, it's none of his business. Wrong
numbers are easily rectified anyway.


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service
Date: 23 Aug 90 23:43:12 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]> writes:

> 2) We have a five-year old in our house, and hearing of all the horror
> stories regarding 900 and 976 services involving children playing with
> the phone, we now have 900 and 976 service blocking.  Now, with the
> advent of NON-tollfree 800 service, I am at a loss as to how to deal
> with it (aside from physically putting locks on the phones).  Whereas
> I can generally do without 900 service, I don't think I can say the
> same regarding 800 service.

Excuse, please. Pray tell, what do you do about all of those hundreds
of "pay" prefixes (like 212, 303, 415, etc., etc.) with that
five-year-old in the house? For years I have heard people moan the big
groan about how tough it is with small children in the house who could
accidently pick up the phone and dial things that would actually COST
MONEY!!! But it is always in reference to 900/976 (the evil,
wallet-sucking devil prefixes) and never about the mundane, simple,
little-talked-about toll calls. Other than possibly the amount, what's
the difference?

Reminds me of an incident at a client's business. The controller was
looking over some phone bills. There was (probably) page after page of
major employee phone abuse -- personal short-haul toll. Many tens of
dollars were involved. Then her eyes zeroed in on one particular call:
Memphis TN. It was for $0.16., made on a Sunday. You would have
thought that she had nailed D. B. Cooper. "I'm going to find out who
made this call and make them pay for it."

Sixteen cents? No the problem was that it was Memphis, TN. Never mind
that office people routinely chat to their wives, girl/boy friends,
etc., and run up bills for individual calls as high as a few dollars.
It's that someone would have the nerve to use a company phone to call
THAT FAR AWAY without copping to it. During the business day a local
call of 11 minutes would cost $0.16. I wonder how many of those are
personal.


        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: Legal Aspects of "Those Cellular Phone Deals"
Date: 24 Aug 90 01:29:55 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ede <[e-mail]> writes:

> I think the people that are doing most of the complaining are the
> shops that specialize in cellular phones.  They can't do the business
> that the department stores do.  Either they can't get the same sizeable
> kickbacks, or choose not to apply it to the price of the phone, and
> now they can no longer compete.  I have a hard time feeling sorry for
> them.

In California, the whole flap over hardware tied to service
arrangements came about from the squealing of service "resellers".
These are middlemen who buy up banks of numbers from the provider and
then work in conjunction with retailers. These agreements came up at
the beginning of cellular service in the area, but seem to be on the
wane.

Resellers were complaining that they were being squeezed out, having
to share more and more of their kickbacks with the retailer so that
their "customers" could remain competitive with those doing business
directly with the provider. What really hurt were those retail
operations that were operated by the provider directly. As you might
expect, if it were up to the provider, you would be given a phone for
free if they could expect a certain level of usage in return.


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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 10:51 EDT
From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me
> something.

Are you sure it was from Kodak and not just from some house that was
possibly selling you Kodak products?  I certainly don't rule out that
it was Kodak, but that just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that
Kodak does.

(warning:  written by ex-Kodak employee)

Craig R. Watkins    Internet:    [e-mail]
HRB Systems, Inc.        Bitnet:        [e-mail]
[phone]        UUCP:        ...!psuvax1!hrbicf!crw

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

From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling
Reply-To: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Organization: mailer daemons association
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 15:18:43 GMT


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

>[Moderator's Note: A few days ago, someone said they recieved such a
>call, said NO and got billed anyway. Was your call from a telco
>payphone or from a COCOT, or could you tell?  Phone phreaks love the
>easy way fraud can be committed with this system: When asked to tape
>record their name, they say, "Call me at xxx-xxxx" or otherwise
>deliver some message. A live operator would never accept that for a
>'name', but the equipment can't tell the difference. It calls and
>tells me there is a collect call from 'call me back at xxx-xxxx', and
>will I accept the charges. I say no, but that's okay; the message was
>delivered!  PAT]

My freshman year of college, when I was poor and not yet employed by
Columbia (who is not speaking for me now, by the way! DISCLAIMER!) I
used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and
call me right back. Well, Bell of PA saw this pattern happening on a
regular basis (this was before a cousin's wedding, and we had to talk
on an every-other-day basis to get info back and forth) and decided to
bill my parents for the *refused* collect call, their (unsaid)
reasoning I suppose being "We know what you're doing, so you can't get
away with this..."

Mom didn't take lightly to this, and raised hell as only a mom can :-)
in the local BPA office. The charges were later taken off.

Has anyone else seen this? I was giving my full name to the operator,
not some code like "yes, my name is 'callmeback Altzman'"

As always: DISCLAIMER: This isn't Columbia. This is me. Columbia is them.


jerry b. altzman        212 854 8058
[e-mail]     jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)  ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 11:33:26 EDT
From: Bryan M Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>I found that calls to Kuwait (country code 965) are being intercepted
>with message "914-1T": "Due to an emergency situation in the country
>you are calling, your call cannot be completed at this time.  Please
>try your call again later."

The "914-1T" is not the announcement number, but rather the
identification of the switch playing the announcement.  This is used,
as needed, to trouble-shoot things in the network.  I can tell that
you are presubscribed to AT&T, and this call entered the network at
the 4 ESS in White Plains, New York.

Thanks for using AT&T!


Bryan Richardson
AT&T Bell Laboratories

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing of Multi-Lines
Date: 24 Aug 90 16:27:32 GMT
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


>[Moderator's Note: Actually, the three digits are the RAO,  or
>Regional Accounting Office code. At least they were prior to the
>tragedy. I can't imagine them being used now for 'the time the account
>was opened'.   PAT]

Nope they are time account was opened for years here at Southern Bell
according to the lady that told me about it. There are actually more
numbers ...

For example my current account is 407-676-xxxx 321 3147 but on the
payment part under the date is:    CP 0514 R07 046267

The R07 is the RAO and the 3147 is the central office I think, but the
321 is the time the account was opened.

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

From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Teletype Marked "Crypto" and Other Found Treasures
Date: 24 Aug 90 06:04:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Michael H.
Riddle) writes:

> Your final question, W2VZM is an amateur call sign.  I'll leave it for
> the hams in the group to explain if there was anything special about
> it.

Nothing special about W2VZM.  It is not listed in my 1990 Callbook,
but I have an old 1963 Callbook, and it shows Joseph G. McGettigan of
1880 N. 42nd St, Pensauken, NJ as the holder of W2VZM.  You probably
inherited some RTTY gear from a ham who passed on.


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: Fri, 24 Aug 90 12:58:51 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Washington Post Reports on Local Calling Changes


It occurs to me that you can now dial any call (within country code 1,
for international readers of the Digest) in the DC area as 1+NPA+7D.
The May 4, 1990  {Washington Post} article (excerpted & paraphrased in
very recent posting from me) cited optional 1+ for local calls across
NPA lines, and the new NPA+7D calling scheme works within your own NPA
if you are calling locally in & around DC, right?

If correct, this is beginning to answer the problem of moving speed-
dial program, etc., across NPA lines.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #592
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02619;
          25 Aug 90 7:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26793;
          25 Aug 90 5:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11661;
          25 Aug 90 4:51 CDT
Date:     Sat, 25 Aug 90 4:21:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #593
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Aug 90 04:20:53 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 593

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [John Higdon]
    Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [John Slater]
    Re: Automated Collect Calling [[e-mail]]
    Re: Call Here for Instant ANI [Bob Yasi]
    Re: Answering Telephone [Ray Guydosh]
    Re: Answering Phrase [Steven King]
    Re: What is a "Cable Address"? [Tad Cook]
    Re: Answering Telephone [[e-mail]]
    Re: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed [Larry Lippman]
    Multi-Media via Usenet? [David J. Camp]
    Touch Tone Decoding Service [John Lefor]
    How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [David J. Camp]
    Credit For Wrong 900? [Dean Sirakides]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers
Date: 24 Aug 90 01:57:05 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]> writes:

> 900- or 976- number and stick me with the cost of the call, fine
> (although at that point a POTS phone number would serve as well), and
> if, once I call them, they want a credit card number so they can
> charge me $15 to hear Jose Canseco (did I spell that right) babble, or
> hear someone else talk dirty, then that's their business.  But when I
> get my phone bill, all I want to see on there is telephone charges.

The whole point of 900/976 service is to provide a convenient "casual"
means of billing for information providers, and to provide universal
access to those services. Obviously, the moment you require a credit
card, you have just excluded a significant number of people. You have
also added a layer of billing complexity that would discourage some
from entering the IP business. The original thought was that anyone
with a telephone would have access to the information provided by the
900/976 system.

It actually is a good idea in its purest form. IMHO, most of the
objection to these services is not related to the technical
implementation of the billing at all, but rather to the generally
sleazy material that has taken over the industry. A lot of people,
rather than being "unhip" criticizing the content, have concocted
objections to the CONCEPT of 900/976. I find this intellectually
dishonest. If you don't want to pay $15 to hear Jose babble, don't
dial his number. If you are afraid of small children accidently
dialing and running up your bill, you've got more than 900/976 to
worry about. Give me fifteen minutes with your telephone and I'll run
up charges that will curl your hair WITHOUT dialing a single 900/976
number. If you are worried about older children dialing these numbers
on purpose to hear their dirty messages, then you have a larger
problem than telephony.

> [Moderator's Note: The ignorance of the general public relating to
> matters of telephony is what the 900, AOS, COCOT, and OCC industries
> have relied on since their inception. I'll bet very few if any of the
> 900 services would bother stating their rates in their ads if the
> telcos did not make them do it under their contract.  PAT]

Absolutely true. In fact, I submit that this is true of a significant
portion of this country's market place. Space would not permit a
comprehensive listing of situations where money is extracted from the
American consumer under shady conditions. But a little knowledge goes
a long way. And in all these years, I have yet to lose a dime to the
900/976 crowd. It's not really that hard to avoid.


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

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone
Date: 24 Aug 90 17:17:04 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, shawn@ka (Shawn Nunley) writes:

>the Sony has a stand-by battery life of seven days, twelve
>hours of continuous talking.

 ... and the hernia is getting better by the day. I'm saving up to buy
the optional Batt-Kart(TM) accessory, which enables me to drag the
battery unit around on wheels rather than lift it.

Is this the world's first "transportable" cordless phone ?   :-)

Seriously, if it can do that then it's an impressive beastie. My
SouthWestern Bell model does 24 hours/1 hour, I think.


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling
Date: 24 Aug 90 17:58:18 GMT
Reply-To: bill <[e-mail]>
Organization: Home for Homeless Homing Pigeons


What is this "Automated Collect Calling?"  Sounds like a great way to
cut down man-hours, sort of... ;-)

What Telcos use it and in what areas?


Bill


[Moderator's Note: It is a method of placing collect calls without
operator intervention. The calling party records his name; the person
who is being asked to pay for the call hears the recorded message and
accepts or rejects the call.  Many of the COCOTs (privately owned
payphones) currently use this system; in addition, many actual
telephone companies have recently experimented with it.  PAT]

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

From: Bob Yasi <mtxinu!atlas.la.locus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Here for Instant ANI
Date: 24 Aug 90 20:50:34 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, San Diego, CA


You can get a pretty instant ANI from 800/666-6258: just hit the
octothorpe (#) when the voice starts talking and the sales pitch is
skipped.

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

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 21:58 EST
From: Ray Guydosh <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Telephone


Reflecting on recent comments about how the telephone is answered in
various countries, whatever is it that the resident of Fiji says when
he answers the telephone in the AT&T television ad?

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Phrase
Date: 24 Aug 90 20:49:45 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL]


In article <[e-mail]> Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.
bnr.ca![e-mail]> writes:

>On another track, when I lived in the U.K. we were taught to answer
>the phone with the number.  I presume this dates from a time when the
>switching system was even less reliable than it is today. But in North
>America one thing you never do is tell a caller what number s/he has
>reached.  How does the rest of the world answer the phone?

I answer my home number with simply "Hello?" and my work number with
"Motorola, this is Steve."  My father answers his home number with
"King's" and has his secretary answer his work number.  (Ah, the
life.)

I was recently in Bangkok for a few weeks, and found the people there
have the annoying habit of always answering the phone with "Hello" --
regardless of whether or not they spoke English!  I don't speak a word
of Thai, and I couldn't keep from expecting that if the phone was
answered in English then the person on the other end should UNDERSTAND
English.  Linguistic prejudice, I know.


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

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

From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is a "Cable Address"?
Date: 24 Aug 90 06:12:42 GMT


> Unlike Alex Bell's first message on the telephone,
> ("Watson! Come here, I want you."), the first telegraph message from
> Samuel Morse to an associate was "What Hath God Wrought?"  Indeed.  PAT]

Well, not really.  Any "first" telegraph message is lost in antiquity.
S.F.B. Morse sent "What hath God Wrought?" when he demonstrated the
telegraph before members of Congress, when he was seeking backing for
his invention from the U.S. government.


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: Fri, 24 Aug 90 17:35:14 BST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Answering Telephone (was Crank Calls)
Organization: Computer Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin


> Henry Troup <bnrgate!bwdlh490.bnr.ca![e-mail]> writes that in
> UK he was taught to answer the phone with the number, but that in
> North America this is not done.

Here in Ireland, when I was in school we were told to answer the phone
with our number as a help to people using payphones.

At that time the payphones in use here were the same as those
intoduced by the U.K. Post Office around the 1930s.  To use them the
caller inserted the fee, dialled the number (local calls only) and
when the called party answered, pressing button A connected the call
and deposited the coins.

If the called party announced his/her number upon answering, it
assured the payphone user that the correct number had been obtained.
In the event of reaching a wrong number, the caller could simply hang
up and redial without paying again.

The practice of answering calls with the number seems to be a minority
practice in Ireland these days, but it is still common in Britain.
The type of payphone described has long since been banished from the
U.K., but some examples still survive here.

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed
Date: 24 Aug 90 16:14:55 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


Many thanks to those who replied; the answer seems to be a 40BA
capacitor at the protector and a 1542A inductor connecting block.
Per BSP 500-150-100.


Brian

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

Subject: Re: Phone Line RF Bypass Needed
Date: 24 Aug 90 23:58:42 EDT (Fri)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Kantor)
writes:

> Does anyone happen to remember the USOC or other ordering code for the
> widget used for bypassing phone line entry to radio transmitter
> buildings?

> We've used one of the CORCOM power line EMI filters to bypass the
> telco line we have, but we're going to be ordering several new lines
> installed in the next few weeks and I'd rather have the "official"
> filter box if I can get it.  Our installer wasn't able to find the
> ordering codes in his references.

    What you want is generally referred to as a 1542AM Filter,
which is used for radio frequency noise suppression on subscriber
telephone lines.  While this is the traditional WECO designation, the
same type number is used by other telephone apparatus vendors, such as
Suttle.  GTE, as an example, calls it an SE1542 Suppressor Filter.

    This device is similar to a modular jack, but on a larger base
with a potted toroidal dual-winding inductor.  The modular jack
version is the 1542AM, but a screw terminal-only 1542A is also
available.  Other vendors, such as Transcom, manufacture multiple
units for simultaneous protection of several pairs.

    I can't easily help you with the USOC code, however.  But if
all else fails, and you *must* have the USOC code, let me know, since
I do have a USOC handbook lying around somewhere.


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: "David J. Camp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multi-Media via Usenet?
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis, MO
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 08:14:17 GMT


I just had an idea.  There has been a lot of noise about upcoming
multi-media products.  We already distribute graphics images via .gif
and other formats from archive systems.

Why not distribute live video via Usenet?  It has the perfect
bandwidth-reducing (flooding) algorithm built-in.  Of course, it may
be necessary to increase the bandwidth of the transmission media, but
that does not preclude us from using existing protocols.

The expiration of such a newsgroup may need to be less than one
second.  I do not know what technical hurdles this will entail.

I propose that we set up a test group for this purpose.  In its early
incarnation, it can simply distribute stills at a low rate, e.g. 1 per
day.  It would still be useful to test the idea, and experiment with
software changes to make the protocol work.

This is not a formal newsgroup proposal.  I have yet to read
news.announce.newusers to learn how to do that.

I could not find the ideal newsgroup on which to post this, but for
now address followups to rec.video, or (better) mail to me directly.
I would be interested in hearing any comments regarding the
feasibility or desirability of this scheme.


[e-mail]   David J. Camp
 ...!uunet!wugate!wubios!david  [phone]

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

From: John Lefor <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 12:28:06 EDT
Subject: Touch Tone Decoding Service


A few weeks ago I made available a "Touch Tone Decoding" service from
my business answering system.  A number of you have used it and I
certainly hope it is useful.

It turns out I am moving over the next few weeks.  The number for the
service will be disconnected and you will be asked to call a number in
San Diego.  This number will not have the Touch Tone Decoder service.
As soon as I get the thing reconnected I will let you all know the
number.

Thanks,

John Lefor        University of Rochester        Dept of E. Engineering
716-275-8265    [e-mail]        uunet!ur-valhalla!jal

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

From: "David J. Camp" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed?
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis, MO
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 16:45:31 GMT


I have traditionally listed my telephone number as "[phone]".
My previous work number was accessible via an internal 5-digit suffix,
so I listed it as "(314) 36-23635".  Someone complained that that was
improper, and could cause problems for certain exchanges.  Yet another
sources suggested "[phone]", under the vague impression that
this was an international standard encoding.

My question is: What is the most portable encoding of a USA telephone
number?  Is there a standards document that addresses this issue?

Note that the number used in the example is no longer valid for me.



[e-mail]              David J. Camp
 ...!uunet!wuarchive!wubios!david   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: You really should not use () around the area code.
The area code part of the number, there is nothing parenthetical about
it. In other words, 123-456-7890 is the preferred way to write it.
[phone] is not preferred.   PAT]

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

From: Dean Sirakides <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Credit for Wrong 900?
Date: 24 Aug 90 18:38:34 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


So there I was dialing a 1-800 number from my desk.  Of course, as
usual, I was attempting to dial the number at record speed and with a
minimum of attention.

To dial out we have to dial 9 first.  This, and a misguided finger
lead me to dial 9,1-900-xxx-xxxx.  As I pushed the last digit, the
realization of what I had just dialed hit me and I quickly hung up
(although I'm sure our PBX would have blocked the 900 call anyway).

Question: could I get credit for mis-dialing a 900 number?  Who would
credit me, my local telco or default LD or 900 provider?

I wonder if this has become a problem for companies offering say,
customer service at 1-800-abc-defg, while some sleazy $35 service is
at 1-900-abc-defg (or vice versa, but that seems much less serious).

Is there any way to contact the business behind the 900 number to
dispute a bill?


Dean Sirakides              |    Motorola Cellular Group
...uunet!motcid!sirakide    |    Arlington Heights, IL

Of course I speak for myself, not my employer...

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #593
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11431;
          25 Aug 90 18:46 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18048;
          25 Aug 90 17:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00282;
          25 Aug 90 15:58 CDT
Date:     Sat, 25 Aug 90 15:37:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #594
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Aug 90 15:37:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 594

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    San Jose Mercury Strikes Again [John Higdon]
    Antique Wiring; Phone Service Goes Out When it Rains [Dennis G. Rears]
    Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Christopher Ambler]
    Thoughts on 900 Service [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service Number [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    More Than 7D on Local Calls From Hotel Rooms [Carl Moore]
    Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [Joel Snyder]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 24 Aug 90 00:09:34 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Several months ago, I related the story of the {San Jose Mercury News'}
telemarketing boiler room and its calls to my ten home phone lines on
a semi-regular basis. After speaking with the president of the
telemarketing firm, I was led to believe that there would be no
further calls. Not true.

Last Monday evening at 7:40 PM, they hit again. When the first call
came in, I tried to explain to the person that I had many lines in the
hundreds group and would appreciate it if they could refrain from
calling them. I was hung up on. Then, for the next thirty minutes, I
went through modem hell.

The next day, I called the president of the boiler room company as well
as head of marketing for the {San Jose Mercury}. I posed this question:
What would you do if every so often someone called you at home at
various times of the day, disturbing your sleep, your dinner, and your
work? In addition, they called all of your computer modem lines,
wreaking havoc? And they continued to do this in spite of the fact that
you had repeatedly asked them to stop and you had cooperated with them
to the point of revealing all of the unlisted numbers to them for the
purpose of having them not dialed inadvertantly?

I told them that I considered this to be telephone harrasment. Then I
asked for a good reason for me not to turn the matter over to my
attorney for civil action. The reason one of them gave was, "This is a
major telemarketing effort. It is virtually impossible to guarantee
that some specific numbers won't be called in light of how many
automated calls are made each day." Translation: Your telephone
tranquility and privacy, Mr. Higdon, is secondary to the larger
picture of telemarketing and commerce. My response was that I viewed
the situation in reverse. My peace and privacy would prevail over
their entire operation, if necessary. If I had to shut them down to
keep from getting further calls, that's what I would do.

Where did we leave it? They will block the entire 723 prefix from
their machine until they figure out how to REALLY block individual
numbers.  (I guess all the previous conversations were just pissing in
the wind; they never were able to block as they had claimed.) If the
calls stop, that's just fine.

Now when they call my 266 number...

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

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

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 16:37:53 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Antique Wiring; Phone Service Goes Out When it Rains


   I recently decided to checkout fully all the telephone wiring in my
house.  All the extensions are wired directly to the unit in the
basement.  I found many things that were wierd.  First I have five
rooms with active connections.  I had nine pairs of wire attached to
the unit though.  Four of them led to various places in the basement
and were then cut.  I removed them.

   The interesting thing is that all the cables except for one was
"standard" cable with red, green, black, and yellow wires.  The one that
wasn't I had never seen before.  It consisted of three individual cables
jacketed with a string like material and twisted together.  Only two
of the wires were used.  It was as thick as thin wire ethernet.  Has
anyone ever seen such cable.

  BTW, John H. suggested I get Quad E jacketed wire to replace some of
my broken wiring.  I haven't been able to find any.  I went to the
AT&T phone store at the local mall and they had no idea what I wanted.
They did try to sell me a Merlin system when they found out I had
lines (really!).

My phone service goes out when it rains hard.  I have two lines, a 989
and 361 exchange.  It seems as if the 989 will go out everytime it
rains and the 361 about 50% of the time.  The 361 will never go out
unless the 989 goes out.  When the service is out parties calling get
a busy signal.

    I have service with NJ Bell.  I have a relatively new (eight months)
Network Interface Unit on the side of the house.  Two black wires
about the size of coax come from the NIU to the unit in the basement
about a distance of ten feet.  In the basement I have two units (one
for each line) that takes one wire and splits it into the red and green
component.  I have tested that unit and found that it is dead or
nothing but static when it rains.  Current is getting there but no
dial tone.

  Two other wires come from the NIU on the side of the house.  One is
grounded to the  metal spike on the ground.  The other goes two inches into
the basement and is cut off.  NJ Bell has come out and stated the problem
is not with their stuff.  Any idea what I should do?  BTW, is there a
name for what I call the unit that takes the wire from the NIU and breaks
it into two components?


Dennis


[Moderator's Note: Judging from your comments about antique wiring, I
suggest you have a problem with water getting into something. The next
time this happens, why don't you try to isolate exactly where the
problem is? Lift everything off the network block where NJ Bell enters
your home. Allow a few seconds for the line to reset and see if dial
tone is heard at that point (the network block).  If it is heard on
both lines, then the trouble is on your side. If you get no dial tone
on either or both lines *at the network block, with everything
removed* then call NJB and tell them there is no dial tone at the
'demarc'.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Subject: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 7:16:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Organization: Fantasy, Incorported: Reality None of Our Business.


US Sprint says that their rates are lower than AT&T, and that they
provide better service. And what's more, you can get it in writing. I
decided to do so.

After viewing their commercial on CNN touting the above claims, I
called the number they gave. They answered with "US Sprint, Sales
Department."  I explained to the gentleman that I had just seen their
commercial saying that they had better rates, and that they would put
it in writing, and that I would like to receive such information.

He put me on hold, saying that he would get me a number that I could
call to order the information. I have to give US Sprint one bit of
credit here: the music they have while you're on hold isn't bad. In
fact, it's rather nice, compared to some of the myoozak I've heard out
there. Some nice light jazz. But I digress.

He returned six minutes later and said that the number was forthcoming
from a supervisor. I asked him if this was such an uncommon request,
especially since the commercial's main selling point was the
documentation of superior services. He said yes, that is was uncommon.
I then asked if he expected people to just call and switch, faithful
in truth in advertising, that somewhere, the lower rates were, indeed,
in writing. He was surprised, but curteous in his asking if I would
hold just a bit longer. Sure.

Seven minutes later, he was back, telling me that I would have to be
called back, as the supervisor hadn't responded to him yet. I gave him
my phone number. The home one. The one with the AT&T long distance
service.  Well, to be fair, ALL my numbers have AT&T. They never put
me on hold.

Immediately after getting my number, he said that the information was
on it's way, if I could hold for just a moment more? Sure.

All this to "get it in writing..."

Three minutes later he informed me that I would have to be refered to
the business office, which won't be open until Monday morning. I was
surprised that after claiming in their commercial that I could get it
in writing, that it was this difficult. He persisted in his courteous
request for my address.  I gave it to him.

So, according to the salesman, I can expect it. The "in writing," that is,
in 14 to 21 days.

14 to 21 days.

"Thank you for calling US Sprint, we appreciate your business."

Sure.


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

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 09:26 EST
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thoughts on 900 Service


In the 24 August 1990 issue, the Moderator wrote the following in
reply to what I thought was the first non-tollfree 800 number:

>[Moderator's Note: I think you will find the billing is on a credit
>card number which you must punch in when you first connect. You will
>NOT be billed by telco for the 800 call, but you WILL be billed by the
>University (or some affiliated organization handling university sports
>promotions, etc) via the credit card you authorize on the touch pad.]

Well, that is a relief.  Unfortunately, I had already dashed off that
letter to my congressman ... but when it comes to 900 service, I scare
kind of easy.  =)

Is it too much to ask to make it mandatory for the most expensive of
the 900/976 services to require credit card billing?  True, it won't
prevent a really determined kid from "borrowing" his parent's Visa
card, and perhaps 900/976 blocking may be needed anyway ... but my
primary concern is this: What if you want to access a desired service
(say, the "Weather Line" for example), and you accidentally dial "The
Car Loan Connection"?  The first service costs 25 cents, while the
second costs $35.00 per call!  (Now I don't know what the telephone
numbers are, but I assure you the charges are NOT hypothetical.)

Alternatively, there should be a warning for every 900 and 976 service
that's out there that should give the caller the option of aborting
the call without charge if the caller selected the wrong service or if
it's too expensive and the caller changes his mind. Something like
this:

[Computer:] "You have reached a number that will result in a $______
charge (per minute) on your telephone bill.  If you wish to proceed,
press 1-2-3 on your touch-tone telephone, or wait 30 seconds.  Otherwise,
please hang up.  Thank you."

With that in mind, there could be three levels of 900/976 service,
where everyone starts off at Level #2 (all services get the above
computer message).  Then, the subscriber can either go up to Level #1
(unlimited access to 900/976 services without the computer message),
or down to level #3 (no access to 900/976 whatsoever).

If the above is feasible, it can may 900 and 976 work to the advantage
of everyone involved.  If the service can be made more flexible for
meeting the caller's needs, then the number of customers who are dialing
the lines may increase. There would be less accidental dialing, so
some of the burden would be lifted off the phone companies.  Above
all, the customer would be more satisfied.


* * * Sander J. Rabinowitz [e-mail] * * *

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 10:06 EST
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service


"John Higdon" <[e-mail]> writes:

>"Excuse, please. Pray tell, what do you do about all of those hundreds
>of "pay" prefixes (like 212, 303, 415, etc., etc.) with that
>five-year-old in the house? . . .Other than possibly the amount,
>what's the difference?"

First of all, I would never let the kid play with the phone ANYWAY.
But this kind of this does happen ... and anyway, the amount DOES
make a big difference.  I am aware locally of a 976 service that costs
as much for a single one-minute call as it does to dial ALASKA for at
least twenty minutes!  And where else do you get local numbers that
charge you at least as much on a per-minute basis as a direct-dial
call to EUROPE at prime time rates?

The point is this: If I found that the kid was playing with the phone
with strictly long distance numbers, it would take a lot of calls
before the damage to the phone bill becomes serious, and hopefully I
would be able to notice what was happening.  But with a 900 or 976
number, a single call could inflict a lot of damage, and that's
something that I'd rather not deal with.

Of course, with 900/976 blocking, I don't have to deal with that
problem.  My original letter was concerned about the possibility of
toll calls on 800 service, and I have since been reassured that
there's no such problem.  Above all else, I didn't see 800 service
what 900 service is now.


* * * Sander J. Rabinowitz   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 13:09:50 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Than 7D on Local Calls From Hotel Rooms


How do the hotels handle those extended-area calls to the "Prince
William" area from the Va. suburbs (DC area)?  Those calls have to
stay at 1+703+7D because of prefix duplication with Md. (not DC?), and
cannot reduce to 7D until after the dust settles from the change to
NPA+7D local calls in DC area.  (But the other way around, they are
already reduced to 7D.)

Another area to try w/r to more-than-7D local calls from hotel rooms
would be Chester/Concordville/Chadds Ford/Kennett Square area in
southeastern Pa. in area 215.  I know of hotels there (including one
just off I-95 in Chester), and those areas have local service to
Delaware (formerly 7D, now 1+302+7D).  (215 area also has 1+NPA+7D
local calls into NJ; I don't yet know what the story is for those few
cases of local service from 215 into 717.)

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 1990 11:15:03 MDT
From: "Programmin' up a storm." <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed?


I'm at home, so I don't have my Blue Books huddled around me, but
there IS a CCITT standard for "how to write your telephone number,"
and it goes roughly like this:

    [phone]

Because of the magic wonderfulness of the US country code being "1"
and the number we all use to access long distance being "1," this is
incredibly cosmic and confuses neither NA nor European subscribers.

There is specific advice NOT to put parentheses around the area code,
and there is discussion about writing it two ways: once for "national"
callers and once for "international" callers, with the national being
on the top, and the international on the bottom.

There is also a specific symbol (which looks kind of like a Q) that
you are supposed to put on the side of your number if you have an
answering machine (actually, a "device substituting for a subscriber
in his absence").  In fact, E.117 is the standard for what your
answering machine message should be.  Again, I forget the details.

On a similar vein: there was a discussion several years ago about the
# sign.  While this may be called "octothorpe" in Bell parlance, it is
not in CCITT parlance.  There is, however, a specific format for
displaying the sign, depending on whether you're in North America (in
which case it's slanted, look on your phone if you don't remember,
with a specific angle to the slant) or elsewhere, in which case it's
straight up-and-down (as my terminal is displaying it now; your
mileage may vary).  There are specific rules about the ratio of the
short pieces to the long pieces, as well.

In general, I think that a large percentage of the questions of this
nature in this newsfroup have good answers in the E-series
recommendations: the touch tones, why the tri-tone is SO DAMN LOUD,
etc.  If the Moderator agrees, I'd be willing to type in some of the
"official CCITT" answers to some of the more commonly and hotly
debated questions here. Note, of course, that the CCITT is the CCITT
and Bell is/was Bell, so no answer is authoritative -- and the history
is often more interesting than the answer.


Joel Snyder
Member US Delegation to CCITT SG VII)


[Moderator's Note: Yes, please send along some CCITT 'questions and
answers' for the Digest.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #594
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12684;
          25 Aug 90 20:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16709;
          25 Aug 90 19:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01712;
          25 Aug 90 18:03 CDT
Date:     Sat, 25 Aug 90 17:55:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #595
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Aug 90 17:55:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 595

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Illinois Bell Employee Given a Bribe [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [David G. Cantor]
    Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Marketing [Rich Sims]
    Re: Answering Machines as Room Bug? [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing [Herman Silbiger]
    Old Calculators [Rick Bensene]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:53:35 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell Employee Given a Bribe


Denise Wilder, 37, has been employed for some time now by Illinois
Bell Telephone Company in the Chicago area as a customer service
representative. Like a lot of us working people, Ms. Wilder usually
manages to make do with the paycheck she receives, while always
thinking about ways to get more money.

But Ms. Wilder had an all-to-common problem: she got over her head in
debt, and began having trouble meeting obligations to her creditors.
Gradually she was catching up, but one of her creditors got impatient
and decided to place her with a collection agency.

L & P Financial Adjusters, 6326 North Cicero Avenue in Chicago was the
agency given the assignment of collecting a bill from Ms. Wilder. One
characteristic of most collection agencies, including L & P, is their
vigorous attention to their duty. Before long, Ms. Wilder was
receiving frequent calls at work from the agency, demanding payment.
One time, the collector even threatened to attach her wages if she did
not pay.

Then on August 8, Ms. Wilder recieved a call from the owner of L & P
himself, Mr. Allan M. Michell. Michell, 39, of 553 Cobblestone Lane in
Buffalo Grove, IL had an interesting proposition for Ms. Wilder, and
he wondered if they could get together and talk about it. Ms. Wilder
agreed to meet Mr. Michell to see what he had on his mind.

Mr. Michell laid it all out: He needed a regular contact inside Bell
to provide his agency with non-published phone numbers of debtors in
the area. In particular, he had a list of 91 names. Could Ms. Wilder
get him the current phone numbers and addresses for these people? In
exchange for her cooperation, Mr. Michell offered to ignore any
collection claims that might come in against her at his agency, and he
would give her $50 extra for her trouble.

Ms. Wilder thought about it. It seemed easy enough, and the extra
money would be good to have ... but after thinking about it awhile
longer she decided to tell her supervisors about it instead. Soon she
was talking to Illinois Bell security representatives about what had
taken place.

Security asked her to go along with it, to help 'set the guy up' in a
trap, and Ms. Wilder agreed. She met Mr. Michell in a restaurant near
the office where she worked, and received a list of the 91 names he
was seeking. Security was nearby to observe the transaction, and
assist Ms. Wilder if anything went wrong.

On this past Tuesday night, August 21, Ms. Wilder met Mr. Michell in
the parking lot at the telephone building, 318 West Adams Street in
downtown Chicago. She handed him a 'print out of what he wanted' -- or
so he thought! -- and he handed her fifty dollars. Of course the
security guys were nearby, watching it all, along with Chicago Police
Sgt. Robert Gurwig, and detective James Mack.

When Ms. Wilder opened the car door to step out and leave, the police
officers rushed in and arrested Mr. Michell. Freed on $10,000 bond --
meaning, under Illinois law that $1000 in actual cash must be
presented -- Mr. Michell appeared on Wednesday morning before Judge
Dennis Dernbach, charged with one count of computer fraud and one
count of commercial bribery. Judge Dernbach found probable cause to
hold Mr. Michell for trial, and the preliminary hearing is scheduled
for September 25.

On conviction, Mr. Michell will note that Illinois law provides that
his collection agency license will be pulled. Collection agencies here
are regulated closely by the state, and he will be, very simply, out
of business. Of course, under the Constitution of the United States,
he has to be presumed innocent of the charges against him until he has
his day in court.

Thank you, Denise, for doing the right thing!


Patrick Townson

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:28:25 GMT


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

>The whole point of 900/976 service is to provide a convenient "casual"
>means of billing for information providers, and to provide universal
>access to those services...

This thread, on the similarity of 900 numbers to 800 numbers, with
billing, raised the following question: Is there a POTS number for the
900 number?  If so, what happens if you call the POTS numbers directly
instead of using the 900 prefix (billing-wise)?


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 14:32:08 -0700
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: In this message and the one which follows, Cantor
and Higdon share correspondence between themselves with the rest of
the Digest readers. I've re-arranged part of Cantor's comments to make
them follow Hidgon's response.  PAT]

John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes

> "The whole point of 900/976 service is to provide a convenient
> 'casual' means of billing for information providers . . .
> Obviously, the moment you require a credit card, you have just
> excluded a significant number of people. . .  A lot of people .
> . . have concocted objections to the CONCEPT of 900/976.  I find
> this intellectually dishonest. . . .  If you are afraid of small
> children accidently dialing and running up your bill, you've got
> more than 900/976 to worry about.  Give me fifteen minutes with
> your telephone and I'll run up charges that will curl your hair
> WITHOUT dialing a single 900/976 number."

Mr. Higdon doesn't understand the concept of "contracts" and
especially "adhesion" contracts.  The 976 and 900 services (claim to
permit) anyone who has access to my telephone to impose a charge upon
me.  By special provision of the state laws, telcos can impose such
charges (for "telephone service") and, as a consequence, are heavily
regulated.  I don't consider 976 service nor 900 service to be
telephone service.  It won't be long before you can order flowers
delivered, groceries, etc.  using these services.  I doubt that if the
State laws that permit telco charges would, upon test in court, apply
to 976 and 900 services.

I wouldn't object to these services if the usual laws of contract
applied, in particular:

1.  The charge is to the one who enters into the contract-- i.e., not
    the "owner" of the telephone line.

2.  Minors are exempt (contracts that minors make, except for
    necessities of life, may usually be voided).

3.  The usual protections againts fraud and misrepresentation applied.

4.  Protections provided to bank card holders apply here, also.  As with
    such cards, before the sercvice is provided the user should request
    it and sign a contract for it.

The argument that a service is "convenient" doesn't justify it.

According to high-level staff of the California PUC, no California
resident has ever lost telephone service by not paying 976 or 900
charges, and I've never head of anyone being forced to pay them by
lawsuit.  Most likely, for the reasons I've given, Courts won't
enforce these charges.

As for children running up lond distance bills: While they do it, it's
much less of a problem.  However, Mr. Higdon has given me fair
warning: If he's ever near a phone for which I'm responsible, I'll
watch him like an owl :-).


David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  [e-mail]


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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 and 976 service
Date: 25 Aug 90 13:11:40 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Aug 25 at 12:19, David G. Cantor writes:

> [massive psuedo-legal discourse deleted]
> According to high-level staff of the California PUC, to whom I have
> spoken on this matter, no California resident has ever lost telephone
> service by not paying 976 or 900 charges, and I've never head of anyone
> being forced to pay them by lawsuit.  Most likely, for the reasons I've
> given, Courts won't enforce these charges.

Then what's the problem? Why the beef? Then who cares? As any IP will
be quick to tell you, uncollectibles in the 976/900 business are the
single most prevalent reason that services go under. In the case of
976, the telco reps will, if you make the slightest complaint about
such a service, practically beg you to let them take the charges off
of your phone bill. If it is possible to run up massive 900 charges
and then just walk away from them, why even bother to complain? Sounds
like you have inadvertantly come up with a major "gotcha" when dealing
with IPs.

> As for children running up lond distance bills:  While they do it,
> it's much less of a problem.  I don't consider myself "intellectually
> dishonest"; however, Mr. Higdon has given me fair warning:  If he's ever
> near a phone for which I'm responsible, I'll watch him like an owl.

I'm the last person you have to worry about. Unlike many others, I
have a plethora of LD accounts in good standing and I never NEVER make
personal calls on other's phones and leave charges thereon. Besides,
if I wanted to put massive charges on your phone, I wouldn't need to
be anywhere near it.


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


[Moderator's Note: While he was in the process of correcting a couple
things in his message, Cantor (and I) received Higdon's message,
above. When he sent the corrected version of his original message (see
above) Cantor added the footnote shown below.  PAT]

Note: The Moderator asked me to clarify a couple typographical errors
in my message.  While doing so, I received Mr. Higdon's reply.  To
save repeated messages, let me briefly address his main points:

1.  He refers to "[massive psuedo-legal discourse deleted]".  I don't
    claim to be a lawyer.  All I'm saying is that consumer protections,
    of the type I describe, earned with great difficulty over many years,
    should apply.

2.  He states:

    > Then what's the problem? . . .  In the case of 976, the telco reps
    > will, if you make the slightest complaint about such a service,
    > practically beg you to let them take the charges off of your phone
    > bill.

The above is true only when the amount is small.  But, in my case,
this has been a personal tragedy involving a family member with
serious mental health problems.  The amount of effort dealing with GTE
has been great.  I have been frequently lied to, mislead, and hassled.
It was only with great difficulty that these charges, in the thousands
of dollars, were removed.  I've been involved in legal matters before
and I want to avoid them.

I believe that the recent PUC decision requiring GTE and PacTel to
block 900 calls upon request, stemmed in part from my problems and
complaints.  GTE's original position was that it was not authorized to
block 900 calls since Federal Law required it to provide equal access
to all long-distance providers.

dgc

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

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 05:48:17 EDT
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Marketing


In-Reply-To: message from wybbs![e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)

> Cellular has it's place. It's just being misused in many cases.

If the individual using the cellular phone is paying for such use, and
they're not using it for illegal activities or to harass and annoy
other folks, how can it possibly be construed as "misuse".  If such
were the case, I'd guess that we've been "misusing" the telephone
since Day One!!

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 09:23 EST
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machines as Room Bug?


In reference to a TELECOM issue of 24 August 1990, Tom Neff <tneff@
bfmny0.bfm.com> wrote the following:

"I turned on the shortwave receiver in my apartment this morning and
was flipping past the 5-6 MHz neighborhood when I distinctly a voice
coming from the speaker.  It was my friend in the other room!  I
couldn't believe it. . .

". . .So I started unplugging things.  Speakers... no.  Radios...  no.
The phone itself... no.  The answering machine... YES! . . ."

The message went on to ask whether other Panasonic answering machines
broadcast on radio frequencies.  Tom Neff's machine was a Panasonic
KX-T1470.

I own a Panasonic KT-T1450 which I had purchased only 48 hours ago on
sale at a local KMart, as well as a Sony ICF2010 shortwave receiver,
and I wanted to see if I could recreate the above events.  As it
turned out, when the answering machine was idle but turned on, it did
send out signals on 5,655 kHz.  I then hooked up my tape recorder to
the radio, and deliberately started speaking within various distances
from the answering machine.  When I played the tape back, I did
recognize my voice, but it sounded so muffled as to make the signal
useless for intrusion purposes.

Two other things I noticed with my model: 1) The signal cuts off when
the tape players are activated.  In other words, it appears that
telephone messages do not get sent over the air.  2) The apparent
strength of the answering machine signal seemed to depend on whether
or not the short wave receiver was plugged into an A.C. wall socket.
When it was plugged in, I could pick up the signal as described above,
but when the radio ran off of batteries, the receiver had to be
practically next to the answering machine for the signal to be
received.

My tentative findings, then: Yes, the answering machine may be
broadcasting, but a) the audio distortion is horrible, and b) the
signal may not travel far beyond the confines of your living room.


* * * Sander J. Rabinowitz  [e-mail]  * * *

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 11:48:57 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: System 75 Abbreviated Dialing
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Sorry that it has taken so long to reply to this, but I just attended
> an AT&T System 75 training course.  You cannot send a # in any way
> from a 75.  Hard to believe but true.  It cannot be dialed manually,

I don't believe this is true.  When I was on a System 75, I used to
dial many international calls, using # as a terminator.  I am sure it
was transmitted, since if I forgot it, the setup was noticeably
longer.

I also recently accessed my Audix system from someone on a System 75,
and used the # a lot.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: Rick Bensene <servio![e-mail]>
Subject: Old Calculators
Date: 24 Aug 90 20:22:27 GMT


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

>This is nothing ... a friend of mine has a Wang Programmable
>Calculator Mainframe (key word) ... it supports six add on
>"terminals", and is implemented in discrete logic (i.e. 1000s of
>transistors).  The main unit is about 4'x4', and makes an aweful sound
>when on.  At the moment it doesn't work, and for some strange reason,
>Wang doesn't support it anymore (I wonder....).  The date on it is 1969.

Looks like time for comp.old.calculators.  I have TWO of these, and a
large number of the 'terminals'.  I also have a working Wang LOKI-1,
which I believe is Wang's FIRST calculator.  Hardly a pocket-sized
device.

I'm always interested in old-calculator stories.  Let's carry the rest
of this discussion out via EMail, however, and leave comp.dcom.telecom
for telecommunications topics.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #595
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13987;
          25 Aug 90 22:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16926;
          25 Aug 90 21:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29475;
          25 Aug 90 20:08 CDT
Date:     Sat, 25 Aug 90 19:46:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #596
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 25 Aug 90 19:45:50 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 596

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Symposium: International Telecommunications Futures [TELECOM Moderator]
    Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [David Albert]
    Help a Model 500 Ring [Jamie Cox]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Darren Griffiths]
    Re: Automated Collect Calling [David M. Archer]
    Re: Multi-Media via Usenet? [Jamie Hanrahan]
    Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 18:34:03 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Symposium: International Telecommunications Futures


The Second Annual Symposium on "International Telecommunicatons
Futures" will be held October 4-5, 1990 at the Peter Kiewit Conference
Center in Omaha, Nebraska.

Sponsored by the International Center for Telecommunications
Management and the College of Continuing Studies at the University of
Nebraska at Omaha, this two-day symposium will include the following
presentations:

Thursday, October 4:

    New Directions in Network Development - Tom Thompsen, retired
president of AT&T Technologies and other speakers.

    Privatization -  John Crook, Telecom Corporation of New Zealand.

    Regulatory Approaches - various speakers.

    At luncheon, the guest speaker will be Richard Wiley, former
chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Friday, October 5:

    Telecommunications in the Infrastructure -  Margaret Goatcher,
president of Cimarron Telephone Company, Mannford, OK and other
speakers.

    The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe - Speakers from the Soviet
Union and Hungary will discuss telecom in their countries.

    Demonstrations of the latest in telecommunications technology and
a tour of the telecommunications facilities of the Strategic Air
Command will conclude the symposium on Friday afternoon.

Attendees will have an opportunity to greet the symposium participants
at a reception and dinner at the Henry Doorly Zoo on Thursday evening,
and at the registration period on Wednesday evening, October 3, from
5PM to 9 PM at the Peter Kiewit Conference Center, 1313 Farnam, Omaha,
Nebraska.

Standard registration fee is $350, which includes all symposium
materials, two lunches, one dinner, coffee breaks, etc.

Academic registration fee is $200, a special reduced rate for college
or university professors.

Admission to the reception and dinner on Thursday evening is by ticket
only; attendance is optional at no extra charge, but you must
specify if you wish to attend.

Admission to the telecommunications facilities of the SAC also
requires advance arrangements. Please specify if you wish to be
included in the tour.

When registering, include your home address, your employer's name and
work address, and your day and evening telephone numbers. Indicate if
confirmation should be made to your home address or office address.
Include your social security number.

Payment can be made by check, credit card, or purchase order from your
agency, institution or company. Checks should be made payable to, and
charges will be identified as "University of Nebraska at Omaha". If
you wish for your company to be billed later, include your
supervisor's name in your request.

Indicate your priority code when registering:  (TELECOM Digest) "006"

Mail your payment and registration information to:

     College of Continuing Studies Business Office
     University of Nebraska at Omaha
     Omaha, NE 68182-0330


For more information, telephone [phone], or Sharron Cook at
402-595-2316.

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:06:43 EDT
From: David Albert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University


[e-mail] wrote:

>I used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and
>call me right back. Well, Bell of PA saw this pattern happening...
>and decided to bill my parents for the *refused* collect call...

In our family, accepted practice when I was in college was to call
person-to-person for one's self.  Of course, the requested person is
not there, and then the operator would let you leave a message asking
them to call you back at a given number.

Now, my question is, obviously the phone company (this was pre-breakup)
couldn't have been too thrilled about this practice, but was (is) it
illegal?  Immoral?  Perfectly okay?


David Albert
UUCP: ...!harvard!albert
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has stated your practice is not okay,
nor the ruse of calling collect and getting called back, etc. Telco's
rationale is that by pre-arrangement, you have still managed to
deliver a message, even by using coded words and phrases to convey the
message to the receiver of the call. They want to be paid for the
message they delivered, namely that you are positioned at a telephone
somewhere waiting for a call. This is not high on their list of
priorities for types of fraud to be prevented, but it is fraud none
the less, and a kind of cheap, petty fraud at that.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jamie Cox)
Subject: Help a Model 500 Ring
Date: 25 Aug 90 22:17:23 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jamie Cox)
Organization: Harris Govt. Aerospace Systems Division


This seems like an easy question for comp.dcom.telecom:

I have an old desk top dial phone which works but does not ring.  I
would like it to ring.  It is a model 500.  The wires from the ringer
solenoid have been disconnected.  Where should they go?  I have the
original connections written down and tried that, but it still didn't
ring.

The ringer solenoid has four wires, red, white, red/white and black
(or maybe it used to be green, it's hard to tell:-)).  I have measured
the resistance among these and its like this:

           Red        R/W     Blk        White
            |          |       |          |
            \/\/\/\/\/\/       \/\/\/\/\/\/
             ~ 3k ohms          ~ 1k ohms

There was no connection between the two sides of the above diagram.
Question number 1: Is the ringer solenoid broken?

Question number 2: Please post or email information about likely
wiring diagrams.  The network is labeled with letters: GN, B, R, RR,
F, K, G, L1, L2, A.  Apparently some phones use numbers instead, and I
already have a diagram for such a phone which doesn't help much.

I have seen several different connection patterns in similar phones
and have tried them on this phone, but still no ring.  Wow, there are
a lot of (apparently valid) ways to hook up a ringer. The phone in
question is known to have rung when in service about seven years ago.
It was on a different exchange, and I remember it had a distinctive
ring back when called, and perhaps an unusual audible ring from the
instrument.  It may have been on a party line at one time.

Thank you.


Jamie Cox  [e-mail]  | Phone:    [phone] (work)
Harris Government Aerospace Systems,|           (407)-723-7935 (home)
MS 19/4827, P.O. Box 94000,         |
Melbourne, Florida  USA             |

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 22:04:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, cambler@polyslo (Fubar) writes:

| Seven minutes later, he was back, telling me that I would have to be
| called back, as the supervisor hadn't responded to him yet. I gave him
| my phone number. The home one. The one with the AT&T long distance
| service.  Well, to be fair, ALL my numbers have AT&T. They never put
| me on hold.

Based on recent experiences of others here, I'd be calling
1-700-555-4141 every few days to make sure that my 1+ dialing didn't
get switched over in the process.

After all, you *did* call *them*.  Maybe they consider that a request
for a switch.  :-)

Just another phone user (with AT&T as my default and only carrier...
we don't have 10xxx here),


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

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

From: Darren Griffiths <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 25 Aug 90 22:23:18 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


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

>Three minutes later he informed me that I would have to be referred to
>the business office, which won't be open until Monday morning. I was
>surprised that after claiming in their commercial that I could get it
>in writing, that it was this difficult. He persisted in his courteous
>request for my address.  I gave it to him.

>So, according to the salesman, I can expect it. The "in writing," that is,
>in 14 to 21 days.

>14 to 21 days.

One of my sources within Pacific Bell tells me that US Sprint is going
to come through on their promise to put it in writing.  Pacific Bell
does the billing for Sprint and they are currently working on software
to distribute a "contract" along with bills.  Evidently it is
something a little unusual for Pacific Bell because the contract is
supposed to be customized and different ones will go to people
depending on what long distance service they currently have. This
requires some customized software.

It'll be interesting to see how well this works, Pacific Bell has had
some problems with bill inserts in the past.  They print a disclaimer
on the back of the bills that lists the PUC address in case of
complaints.  They made the mistake of designing the bill so that the
PUC address showed through the return window if someone put the bill
in backwards.  Many people did this and the bills dutiful where sent
to the PUC causing all sorts of problems for Pacific Bell.  The design
of the bill has since been changed :-).


Cheers,

darren

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

From: David M Archer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling
Date: 25 Aug 90 21:25:09 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (bill)
writes..

>What is this "Automated Collect Calling?"  Sounds like a great way to
>cut down man-hours, sort of... ;-)

>What Telcos use it and in what areas?

Interestingly enough, a day or so after I sent my message, I caught a
story on the TV news that apparently some of the local operators are
not very happy about these things, and they were on strike, or maybe
not on strike, but very unhappy.  I never saw the story in the
newspaper, so I don't really know.  But what I do remember was the
phone company claimed it saves somewhere around $7,000 a day (gee,
that's almost 2.5 million dollars a year, I wonder if that means they
really don't need to raise rates? <snicker>) Actually, come to think
of it, one TV station claimed it was automated customer services in
general, and another station claimed it was automated directory
assistance.

Oh, Pat, you had asked if the call I received was from a COCOT or not.
I somewhat remember a mention of NY telephone, so I assume it was the
phone company itself.

And speaking of automated directory assistance, what the heck is that?
Don't tell me they've got voice recognition down good enough that I
can ask a computer for "Joe Hergesheimer" and it will understand me?
Or is it just the system where you tell the human operator who you're
looking for, and then the recorded numbers come on the line?  I never
really considered that automated.


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell operators recently had an
'informational picket' based on their fear of the automated collect
calling feature being installed here. They're afraid it will take away
their jobs. They should read up on telco history: In the 1940-60
period, as central offices all over the United States were being
converted to dial from manual service, the operators raised cain about
how the automated stuff would cause them all to get laid off. In fact
it did not happen that way. The automated stuff merely made it
possible for telco to keep up with increases in calling volume without
having to hire, as the saying goes, every female in the world over the
age of 18 to be a telephone operator. (Yes, that was someone's
mathematical projection fifty years ago.)  Regarding automated
directory assistance, the only part here that is *not* automated is
the typing on the keys at the terminal, to wit:

1) You dial 411.
2) Operator's pre-recorded voice: "Directory, Ms. Brown"
3) You cite your request, the operator sits there silently typing.
4) The number is located, and the cursor moved to it on the screen.
5) Computer says, "The number is xxx-xxxx" (and repeats it).

In many (most) directory assistance calls here, the operator never
says a word. Her pre-recorded voice greets you; the computer responds
with the answer.  PAT]

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

From: Jamie Hanrahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi-Media via Usenet?
Date: 25 Aug 90 11:31:29 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA


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

> Why not distribute live video via Usenet?  ...

> I propose that we set up a test group for this purpose.  In its early
> incarnation, it can simply distribute stills at a low rate, e.g. 1 per
> day.  It would still be useful to test the idea, and experiment with
> software changes to make the protocol work.

While you're about it, go read (sort of) alt.sex.pictures.  They're
way ahead (if that's the word) of you.


Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA
Chair, VMSnet [DECUS uucp] and Internals Working Groups, DECUS VAX Systems SIG
Internet:  [e-mail], or if that fails, [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh

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

Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:12:56 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying


Several employees of Epson America have filed a class action suit
against their employer, accusing Epson of spying on them for several
months by monitoring thousands of their electronic messages.

According to the suit, Epson's computer operations manager made
printed copies of electronic mail sent and/or received by 700 workers.
The plaintiffs claim this type of act violates a state wiretap law.

Epson responds that the suit is entirely unfounded, and I agree with
that assessment. The right to privacy in email or on the telephone
means privacy on computers *you own or control* (i.e. lease or rent a
mailbox, etc), and on telephone lines *you pay for*.

Whoever legally controls the computer controls the information on it.
Obviously if you lease a mailbox from MCI Mail, then you legally
control that part of the MCI computer. If you subscribe to phone
service, then you are entitled to privacy on *your phone and line*.

If the Epson employees can demonstrate that their employer granted
them the right to receive and send personal mail, then a case might be
made in their favor. But I doubt any such right was given. And if the
email is all business related, then what gives the employees the right
to say their employer cannot supervise or review their work?

Likewise with telephones: Your employer has the legal right to monitor
your business phone calls to evaluate your performance, etc. If you do
not like him listening to your personal calls, then a counter-question
would be in order: why are your personal phone calls being made on
company phone facilities?  Use the payphone in the cafeteria. Use your
own MCI Mail or ATT Mail account to send and receive personal stuff.
Don't complain because the owner of the equipment wants to see how it
is being used.

The Epson employees deserve to lose this suit, and I hope the court
requires them to compensate their employer for his expense in
defending it.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #596
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14580;
          27 Aug 90 10:44 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31684; 27 Aug 90 9:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02938;
          26 Aug 90 18:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01615;
          26 Aug 90 16:15 CDT
Date:     Sun, 26 Aug 90 16:05:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #597
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 26 Aug 90 16:04:45 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 597

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [John Higdon]
    Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [siegman]
    Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [John R. Levine]
    Re: Thoughts on 900 Service [John Higdon]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Herman Silbiger]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Daniel Jacobson]
    Re: Automated Salesmen [David M. Archer]
    Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [Steve Warner]
    Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*?? [Steve Warner]
    Re: SIT Tone Frequencies [Scott Fybush]
    Re: Answering Phrase [Wolf Paul]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers
Date: 25 Aug 90 18:33:31 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]> writes:

> This thread, on the similarity of 900 numbers to 800 numbers, with
> billing, raised the following question: Is there a POTS number for the
> 900 number?  If so, what happens if you call the POTS numbers directly
> instead of using the 900 prefix (billing-wise)?

To my knowledge POTS numbers are not used for 900 service. I am
familiar with two types: Pac*Bell and LD carrier. In the case of
Pac*Bell, 900 service can only be called from within the LATA. The IP
must locate its equipment within the physical service area of a
particular CO that issues the 900 lines. In the case of the San
Francisco LATA, a 900 IP must locate his equipment within the area
served by the "Bush/Pine" central office. This just happens to be the
financial district of SF, so a lot of office buildings are picking up
some extra bucks leasing basement space to IPs. It is not uncommon to
see a bunch of IBM clones lined up on a shelf in the basement of a
large office building. In any event, these lines have no POTS number
assignment that can be called from an ordinary phone.

The other type of 900 service involves dedicated lines from the
carrier. Telesphere, AT&T (Megacom), and others will deposit a T-span
in your facility which will break down into the requisite 900
circuits.  The lines, since they don't even come through the LEC, have
no POTS assignment.


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


[Moderator's Note: John, are you positive 900's are never translated
into POTS at the final destination? I'm almost certain a couple of the
talk lines here can be reached on 312-702 numbers. In fact, didn't we
have a message here in the Digest more than a year ago where someone
said there ought to be a 'handy lookup table' showing the POTS version
of the 900 numbers?  Most are done like you describe them, though. PAT]

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

From: siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers
Date: 26 Aug 90 01:38:53 GMT
Organization: Stanford University


>I'd like the thoughts and opinions of other telecom readers to help me
>focus my thinking) to for the opinion that the only thing phone
>companies should be allowed to stick on your phone bill is the cost of
>telephone calls.

1) I _strongly_ agree with your thinking on this (even if you feel
your own thoughts on the subject are not yet "fully focused").  The
_only_ thing I want from the phone company, or on my phone bill, is
telephone service.  If they're going to serve as a collection agency
for other services, then it should be on a separate bill; and it
should be clear it's independent of my telephone service.

2) On a related track, if I'm supposed to pay a 900 provider for
services, there must be a contract between us.  I've asked repeatedly:
When and how does a contract between us get created?  Should just
dialing a phone number -- whether knowingly, or unknowingly -- be able
to create a contract, under which I have to pay the provider?  I don't
think so!  The service should have to say, on _every_ call, "There's a
charge for this service, do you want it?  If so, do...".

Wm. Baxter, one of the main sources of all these headaches, is back as
a law school professor at my own university.  Like to see what he
thinks of all this one of these days...

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

Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 25 Aug 90 00:09:02 EDT (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


There have been a lot of surprisingly fundamental changes in what
phone companies do in the past few years.  One of the worst is the way
that local telcos have become bill collectors for everyone from
reputable long distance companies to AOSes that charge you $14.75 for
saying "NO" to a computerized collect call from a COCOT and 900
sleazos that charge $2/minute for your kids to hear this week's wisdom
from Elmer the Pig, not to mention the 900 number lotteries thinly
disguised as contests of skill.

In particular, it used to be the case that when you dialed a phone
number you could tell fairly easily from the number you dialed how
much the call would cost.  AOSes and 900 numbers have made a mockery
of this.  It seems to me that at the least, 900 numbers should answer
with a message along the lines of "This number is serviced by <the foo
company>.  You will be charged $2.00 per minute starting after the
third tone. ... boop ... boop ... boop" giving you a chance to hang
up.

But I suspect that the only really viable approach is to decree that
no charge on a phone bill is collectable unless there is a signed
agreement from the subscriber.  If someone chooses voluntarily to pay
a bill to a company without an agreement, OK, but as soon as you
contest it the bill is cancelled unless they can show the paper.  The
agreement doesn't have to be fancy, the card you send in asking to
switch long distance companies would be adequate.  This might make it
harder to switch long distance companies on a whim; I don't see
anything intrinsically wrong with that.

Regards,

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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on 900 Service
Date: 25 Aug 90 18:11:46 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Alternatively, there should be a warning for every 900 and 976 service
> that's out there that should give the caller the option of aborting
> the call without charge if the caller selected the wrong service or if
> it's too expensive and the caller changes his mind. Something like
> this:

Funny you should mention this. This is exactly what many 900 service
packages provide. Through a strange quirk of fate, I happen to know
that both Telesphere and Pac*Bell 900 allow about twenty seconds of
900 supervision before the billing clock begins. IPs are admonished to
provide a "chicken exit" on their recorded intros so that inadvertant
callers can bail.

In a previous Digest there was an article by someone who was worried
that by simply dialing a 900 number and then instantly hanging up a
charge would appear on the bill. Even if there is no "chicken exit", a
900 call must supervise just like any other for billing to begin.


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


[Moderator's Note: But if, as you pointed out earlier, the LEC is not
involved at all, with the 900 guys putting a dish on your roof, etc,
then *when* does the supervision take place? Who does it?  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 08:30:38 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> In our family, accepted practice when I was in college was to call
> person-to-person for one's self.  Of course, the requested person is
> not there, and then the operator would let you leave a message asking
> them to call you back at a given number.

Years ago, my kids lived in a different billing area from mine.  I had
extended area service, so I could call them free.  If they called me,
they would hang up after two rings.  I would always let the phone ring
at least three times.  Thus, if there were only two rings, I would call
them.

Since there was never a voice on the line, the first call was not
chargeable.  However, the phone company might use such a practice as
an argument why there should be charges for unsuccessful attempts.


Herman Silbiger

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 08:13:59 CDT
From: Daniel Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA

>[Moderator's Note: [...] you have still managed to deliver a message
>even by using coded words [...] They want to be paid for the message
>they delivered.

Are there any cases of people using the utterly cheapskate idea of
sending morse code via ring length to the other party?
{\Law_Abiding_Tone=on One would hope that telcos can detect this so us
regular folks' phone bills aren't subsidising all night (1 baud?)
style communication. }


[e-mail] [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Regardless of the exact methods used, whenever the
telephone service is manipulated to deliver a coded message -- be it
by a certain ringing pattern; coded messages unwittingly delivered by
the operator; or whatever -- telco says a message has been delivered.
If they cannot prove that is what you did -- or can't conveniently
prove it -- then of course they write it off. But these techniques are
as old as the phone itself, and telco knows all the tricks.  PAT]

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

From: David M Archer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen
Date: 25 Aug 90 21:09:34 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Craig R. Watkins)
writes...

>> Last night, I had a call from a computer at Kodak, trying to sell me
>> something.

>Are you sure it was from Kodak and not just from some house that was
>possibly selling you Kodak products?  I certainly don't rule out that
>it was Kodak, but that just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that
>Kodak does.

I recall getting the same call, and thinking the same thing, "Kodak
has taken to computerized telemarketing?  Odd.".  So I listened a bit
longer and it ended up being an independant company, most likely one
of those companys that wants you to mail your film to them.  I guess
it was just another one of those cases where they are trying to
mislead you, in this case, making the answerer think that the
promotion/whatever is sponsored/whatever by a large company, Kodak.

Another call which I seem to get every couple months, is one of those
deals here they say to call within five minutes to claim a prize or
something like that.  With this one, the guy musically repeats the
number to call over and over again ... to claim your prize, call
540-xxxx, 540-xxxx, the number to call is 540-xxxx, call 540-xxxx in
five minutes to claim your prize, call 540-xxxx.  And then the seedy
part is where they are obligated to say how much the call costs, the
guy musically mumbles, call costs $5.40.  It's a fairly obvious
attempt to make the listener not hear the cost of the call, while they
are still legally stating the cost of the call.  One might say someone
would have to be pretty stupid to fall for that, but since you can't
ask a recording a question, someone with bad hearing might not hear it
quite right and not know it costs something.

I guess that's progress.  Nobody's walked up to me on the street and
tried to sell me a Rolex lately, I guess they must have all moved to
telemarketing.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 21:24:58 PDT


On the subject of actually BUILDING a 1a2 ANYTHING --

After talking recently to a few phone system people in the SF BAY
area, I would just go out any BUY 1A2 stuff if I needed it as these
guys will sell it for practcally nothing.

Examples $10 for five line phone ... Maybe $2 for a 400 line card.

$50 would probably get you a complete system with phones if you call
the right place.  Since not many businesses WANT 1A2 stuff, and it
gets traded in all the time, the trade in stuff is cheap and easy to
come by.

Do some calling in your area.  In this case I think it is cheaper
to buy it than build it.


Steve Warner
fremont, CA, USA, etc

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why Are Phone Systems so *Stupid*??
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 21:11:02 PDT


> Why is it that most phone systems insist on "knowing" about CO lines,
> *only* if these lines are properly "grabbed" by requesting extensions

> P.S. This problem is present on both cheap systems like the Panasonic
> KX-T61610 and the expensive Merlin 2. Both fail the basic intelligence
> test in this respect. Arrg.

The Merlin PLUS has an RJ-11 on the line card to which standard
telecom stuff can be placed (modem/fax/etc).  When a device loads this
jack, by going off hook, the Merlin + busies out the associated line.

I am sure the Merlin 2 has capability to connect standard equipment
AFTER the switch.  I suspect the reason most switches don't monitor
incoming lines as you suggest is that doing so would probably cause
more problems than the mostly nonexistant need for it would benefit.


Steve Warner
fremont, CA, usa, etc

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 00:00:05 edt
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SIT Tone Frequencies


A friend (really!) of mine added the SIT tones to the start of his
answering machine message a few weeks ago.  I've spent some time calling
his machine from various COCOTs to see what their response is.  None has
kept my quarter.  Most of them spit the quarter right back as soon as
they hear the tones...but none let you maintain the connection
indefinitely.  A couple have let me stay on the line long enough to
leave a message, and one cut off my voice path as soon as it heard the
tones.

All this talk of SIT tones in lieu of answer supervision leads me to
wonder: How does my university PBX (a Northern telecom SL-1) know not
to bill me if I call an out-of-service number?  Can it assume that
I can hear the new number within the 42 uncharged seconds it gives me?
Or does it, too, listen for SIT tones and stop billing if it hears them?
You may draw your own conclusions ... I'd never want to defraud *any*
beast, COCOT or PBX, that won't do 10xxx dialing, etc, etc...

Scott Fybush / [e-mail]

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Phrase
Date: 26 Aug 90 13:53:33 GMT
Reply-To: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] (Steven
King) writes:

)I was recently in Bangkok for a few weeks, and found the people there
)have the annoying habit of always answering the phone with "Hello" --
)regardless of whether or not they spoke English!  I don't speak a word
)of Thai, and I couldn't keep from expecting that if the phone was
)answered in English then the person on the other end should UNDERSTAND
)English.  Linguistic prejudice, I know.

That's right, since the assumption that the phrase "H[aeu]llo",
pronounced only slightly differently in each case, is English, is
fallacious.  I know of at least three other languages which have that
word, meaning essentially the same thing, and being used to anser the
phone in each of these languages.


Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: [phone]     FAX: [phone]      UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: [e-mail]    BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #597
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18292;
          27 Aug 90 14:14 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ax17473; 27 Aug 90 12:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25980;
          27 Aug 90 3:02 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12761;
          27 Aug 90 1:08 CDT
Date:     Mon, 27 Aug 90 0:30:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #598
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 Aug 90 00:30:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 598

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Interop 90 - Networking Conference [TELECOM Moderator]
    Networking Conference - 91: Call For Papers [B.V. Jagadeesh]
    Octothorpes [Frederick Roeber]
    US Sprint: Another Satisified Customer [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: USA Direct From the Netherlands [John R. Levine]
    Re: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Where to Obtain the USOC Book [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [John Higdon]
    Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [John Higdon]
    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug? [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Peter da Silva]
    Last Laugh! Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait [Robert J. Woodhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 0:17:01 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interop 90 - Networking Conference


You may wish to mark your calendar for the Interop 90 conference
October 8 - 12, 1990 at the San Jose, CA Convention Center.

A record 200 exhibitors are expected to demonstrate interoperable
products based upon TCP/IP, GOSIP/OSI, the X-Window System and other
Open Systems technologies. All major computer and communications
vendors are represented at Interop 90, including IBM, Digital
Equipment Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, AT&T,
Pacific Bell, and NYNEX, to name just a few.

Plenary addresses will be given by Dr. Eric Schmidt of Sun
Microsystems and Dr. Ira Goldstein of the Open Software Foundation. In
addition, Dr. Valery Udalov, Vice Chairman of the USSR's networking
authority will discuss opportunities for networking in the Soviet
Union. Japanese Internet authority and Keio University professor Dr.
Jun Murai will discuss Japanese internetworking developments. Attorney
Geoffrey Stewart of the firm of Hale and Dorr will discuss "The Legal
Implications of System Security Weaknesses".

The conference fee prior to September 7 is $1050 per participant.
After that date, the fee will be $1150. This fee includes your choice
of one (out of two dozen) tutorials being offered.

For more information on Interop 90 contact the sponsors as follows:

Interop, Inc.
480 San Antonio Road #100
Mountain View, CA 94040 USA

Phone: 1-800-INTEROP , extension 639 (within the USA)
       1-415-941-3300, extension 639 (elsewhere)
       1-415-949-1779  (FAX)

If you want more information before registering, ask for a copy of the
complete program ... it is far too detailed to include in a message
here.


PT

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

From: "B.V. Jagadeesh" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Networking Conference - 91:  Call For Papers
Date: 26 Aug 90 07:51:53 GMT
Organization: 3Com Corp., Mt. View, CA


Papers are solicited for the Silicon Valley Networking conference to
be held April 23rd to 25th, 1991 at Santa Clara, CA Convention Center.
Papers are solicited in the following areas.

   Distributed Systems
   Internetworking
   Network Management
   X-windows
   Advanced File servers
   High Speed Networking
   Standards activities
   PC Networking.

This conference is run by the same people who succesfully organised
Systems Design and Networking Conference (SDNC) for the last three
years.  The conference typically attracts over 300 networking
professionals every year and is a nice forum to discuss system design
architecture and other networking system aspects.

If you are interested in presenting a paper, please send me an
abstract of the paper before October 1, 1990. If you have any
questions about the conference, please send me email.

Thanks,

Jagadeesh
Technical Program Chairman
[e-mail]

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

From: "Roeber, Frederick" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Octothorpes
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Caltech & CERN
Date: 25 AUG 90 14:41:37


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Programmin'
up a storm.) writes...

>On a similar vein: there was a discussion several years ago about the
># sign.  While this may be called "octothorpe" in Bell parlance,

Along with the usual "wham" (or "bang") for `!', "splat" for `*',
"hat" for `^', and sometimes "hunh" for `?', I've often heard and used
"thud" for `#'.  (thud as in pound, `#' can be a pound sign.)
"Octothorpe," indeed!


Frederick

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Sprint - Another Satisified Customer
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 22:21:50 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


So far, US Sprint has done fine by me.  Bills on time, and mine, and I
just dialed 00, got the operator, on the first ring, asked her for the
new city code for an exchange in London, she keyed in a few digits and
told me my answer within a few seconds, all in all quite pleasant.
(Not that AT&T couldn't do the same thing, just as pleasantly.)


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                          Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd                        FAX:   [phone]

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

Subject: Re: USA Direct From the Netherlands
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 9:20:09 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


WRT the note that you can't call anywhere collect from the
Netherlands, AT&T's International Information people say that you can
indeed call collect from the Netherlands via USA Direct.  Does the
Dutch PTT know about that?

Regards,

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

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 00:23:29 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Maintenance Calls, Two-line Phones
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <23 Aug 90 20:00:10>, Jordan Hayes writes:

 > I have had Panasonic three-line phones (3170?) that I got for $169.
 > ...
 > They have conference, hold, speakerphone, 50 programmable

Do you (or anyone) know for sure if they have a 'real' conference
facility (bridged, amplified, equalized, etc.) or do they just do some
kind of funky parallel or transformer coupling of the lines, which
results in the end parties having to shout in order to be heard by
each other over the line loss ??

Thanks.

Good Day!        JSW

[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)
 --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
[e-mail]

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Where to Obtain the USOC Book
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 16:56:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A J
Annala) writes:

>Anyone know where to get a book of standards (e.g. USOC - Universal
>Service Order Code) for things like the order of colors to punch down
>on '50 blocks from 50 pair, 100 pair, 200 pair, etc cables?

We had begged a USOC book from the operating company back when we had
Centrex and dozens of billing codes to figure out; It did not address
color codes or wiring standards, so you probably want a different
Telco manual, or probably something similar from the local Radio
Schlock.  The basic wiring color code or pair count was addressed in
this Digest some time back, so it may be available from the archives.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 25 Aug 90 21:01:01 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Darren Griffiths <[e-mail]> writes:

> One of my sources within Pacific Bell tells me that US Sprint is going
> to come through on their promise to put it in writing.  Pacific Bell
> does the billing for Sprint and they are currently working on software
> to distribute a "contract" along with bills.

Er -- excuse me. My Sprint bill, which includes all calls made on all
of my lines, plus all calls made with my F(O)ON card appears to be
laser-printed on Sprint letterhead, is sent from an out-of-state
address and bears no mention of Pacific Bell. In addition, the bill
envelope is usually stuffed with slick Sprint promotional stuff -- and
again no mention of Pacific Bell.

Are you SURE Pac*Bell does the billing for Sprint? I have received a
bill directly from Sprint since my account was absorbed from US
Telecom, previous to which time I received a bill directly from THEM.
The only Sprint calls I am aware of that are billed by Pac*Bell are
those made by customers who don't have a Sprint account.


        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: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying
Date: 25 Aug 90 21:44:21 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Aug 25 at 19:46, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> Epson responds that the suit is entirely unfounded, and I agree with
> that assessment. The right to privacy in email or on the telephone
> means privacy on computers *you own or control* (i.e. lease or rent a
> mailbox, etc), and on telephone lines *you pay for*.

My initial reaction to all of this was, "Pat, lighten up. People
shouldn't have their private mail read." And then I remembered the
days of owning a "real" business myself. And then I started to steam.

There really is an attitude that saturates the workplace. The
assumption is that employees have some god-given right to use the
communications facilities of their employer for personal messages.
Facing ever escalating telephone bills, we decided to investigate and
possibly crack down on personal calls. We started with a memo that
re-stated company policy that personal calls were not permitted.
Further, any calls so detected would be charged back to the employee
and repeated abuse could result in termination.

So we fired up the SMDR and set a scan for calls over five minutes in
length. A hodge-podge of what we discovered:

The sales manager lived in Sacramento and apparently had to call the
wife several times a day. A service rep would wyle away the (slow)
hours by chatting with a friend in San Francisco. The general manager
(!) conducted her Werner Erhard volunteer business off and on all day
long.

You should have heard the squeals when we put the hard copy in front
of these people. Offers to pay were ignored -- my company was not in
the telecom reselling business. The point was: we wanted people to
stop using the bloody phone for personal business. It blocked REAL
calls, distracted the person from doing his job cheating us out of the
time we were paying for, and the cost of the calls took the money out
of our pockets.

Everywhere I have gone, people treat the phone on their desk as their
own personal service. It also happens to be handy for use in their
work. Oh well, who wouldn't want to save 100% on his long distance
calls?


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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your input on this. The same thing is
true of computer terminals and email systems. Most companies overlook
a small amount of personal phone calls and a small amount of personal
email. But when the employees take the attitude it is their property,
and that the employer has no right to see or know what is being done
with his phones and his computer, then the time is ripe for a
crackdown on personal calls and email, cutting out or restricting this
privilege for everyone. I suspect what will happen at Epson once the
suit is dismissed or the employees lose is that Epson might will go on
the warpath and cut out all personal use of their facilities. So all
employees will suffer from the arrogance of a few.

And speaking of arrogance, is it true that Los Angeles attorney Noel
Shipman, representing the handful of *former* employees of Epson who
brought this suit named all present Epson employees as members of the
class? Is it true he has received demands from *very angry* current
employees demanding to have themselves removed from the class, saying
'you do not represent me in anything'?  Just asking.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 00:35:21 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug?
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <22 Aug 90 07:21:14>, Tom Neff (1:30102/2) writes:

>I turned on the shortwave receiver in my apartment this morning and
>was flipping past the 5-6 MHz neighborhood when I distinctly a voice
>coming from the speaker.  It was my friend in the other room!  I
>couldn't believe it.  Throwing on headphones I told her "keep talking"
>(nothing surprises her at this point :-) while I fine tuned the messy
>signal.  Something was broadcasting from my living room!  (Nobody was
>on the phone, and there's no intentional transmitter in the apartment
> - not even a walkie-talkie.)

I dunno if this is the answer to your particular problem, but tape
machines use what's known as a 'bias oscillator' when in recording.
If for some reason the thing were recording, it may have been
radiating.

I know that some tape machines, when recording, will radiate at
harmonics of the bias frequency (125kHz or so) and can sometimes be
picked up on general coverage receivers.  You'll only see this if the
bias signal is 'dirty' and it will most likely appear several places
on the dial -- like even in the normal AM radio band.

Good Day!        JSW

[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)
  --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
[e-mail]

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 02:53:23 GMT


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

> MONEY!!! But it is always in reference to 900/976 (the evil,
> wallet-sucking devil prefixes) and never about the mundane, simple,
> little-talked-about toll calls. Other than possibly the amount, what's
> the difference?

Well, the money is significantly higher. But more to the point, kids
aren't having advertising directed at them encouraging them to call
particular numbers long distance (to talk to Santa or whatever).


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

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait
Date: 25 Aug 90 23:19:23 GMT
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


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

>I found that calls to Kuwait (country code 965) are being intercepted
>with message "914-1T": "Due to an emergency situation in the country
>you are calling, your call cannot be completed at this time.  Please
>try your call again later."

At the risk of an awful joke, the intercept message could have been:

    "We're sorry, but the country you have called is
     no longer in service.  Please watch CNN, and then
     dial again..."


Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: That is funny ... but it is *not* funny, if you get
my drift. Thanks to modern telecommunications, the mid-east crisis
will be the first 'war' -- or police action, or whatever -- to be
broadcast live to the world on television. In the second war and
during the Korean operation we got the newsreels at the Forum Theatre
downtown; during Vietnam we had coverage on the television; now we get
live press conferences from both sides, and when the big weapons start
firing (and don't you think they will soon?), CNN will be there live
to show it all, from first shot to final surrender. Maybe someone will
start a 900 number you can call to listen for five minutes at a time.
Let's hope for a peaceful solution soon.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #598
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01814;
          28 Aug 90 3:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25571;
          28 Aug 90 1:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24769;
          28 Aug 90 0:12 CDT
Date:     Mon, 27 Aug 90 23:26:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #599
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 27 Aug 90 23:25:57 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 599

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone [Shawn Nunley]
    Re: San Hose Mercury Strikes Again [Mark Earle]
    DIY Residential Phone Switch [Alain Fontaine]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Sam Ho]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Steve Lemke]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [[e-mail]]
    Re: Answering Phrase [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Real Operators? [John Higdon]
    Interesting Scanner Test Case in Atlanta [John G. DeArmond]
    Re: Automated Collect Calling [John R. Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shawn Nunley <shawn@ka>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With AT&T Portable Phone
Date: 27 Aug 90 04:54:43 GMT
Reply-To: Shawn Nunley <shawn@ka>
Organization: Excelan, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


I wrote:

>>the Sony has a stand-by battery life of seven days, twelve
>>hours of continuous talking.

And John Slater wrote:

> ... and the hernia is getting better by the day. I'm saving up to buy
>the optional Batt-Kart(TM) accessory, which enables me to drag the
>battery unit around on wheels rather than lift it.

>Seriously, if it can do that then it's an impressive beastie. My
>SouthWestern Bell model does 24 hours/1 hour, I think.

I kid you not! Since I am at home now, I can add the model number...

8) It is a Sony SPP-120. The nicest thing about it is that it never
has to sit in a base. It comes with two batteries. One charges while
the other is in the phone. The battery life is as claimed, amazingly
enough. I am very impressed with the unit. Whats even *MORE* amazing
is that the battery is smaller *AND* lighter that a regular nine-volt.

The wonders of modern technology...


Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco}
          !novell!shawn
Shawn Nunley    Tel: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 18:49:08 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: San Hose Mercury Strikes Again


John Higdon writes of his continuing trouble with receiving calls from
the newspaper telemarketing effort (I'm a little unclear if it is
internal or contracted, but that does not matter). John says the
temporary solution is for them to inhibit dialing of a complete
exchange, since they do not know how, or cannot, actually not call
specific numbers.

Here in Corpus Christi, TX, a machine aparently makes the rounds of
various organizations (I hear of it as being resold often) with a
similiar flaw. On several occasions, my voice and modem lines got
calls from this thing. The exchange in question was 850. Fortunately,
(yes!) in this case, they messed with the wrong folks. 850-0 to 850-8
are pagers, DID for cellular, etc. Only 850-9 is residential. After a
week of getting a pitch on my car phone, and my pager going off very
often.. the calls stopped. The pager company tracked down the source
of calls and had them stopped. This same sleeze machine would not
release your line for two minutes (length of pitch). Quite an annoyance.

This was six months ago, and just yesterday this nonsense started
happening again. Guess the machine got re-sold to another sucker, who
is not in until Monday; even if you call the number in their pitch,
you get THEIR answering machine. Arrrrgh! Complaints to the
approprieate PUC bodies, and the phoneco, but guess until mid week
we're stuck (we being the pager and cell phone users).

Oh well. Joys of modern technology! Aparently this machine just starts
at the beginning of the exchange and dials up incrementally. Maybe
they'll PO some hospital this time, or better yet the Police
Department. Well, I can hope, can't I?


[e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
CIS 73117,351                MCI Mail to: MEARLE
My BBS: (512)-855-7564       Opus 1:160/50.0
Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University


[Moderator's Note: I think for all you guys who have noted that the
machine will not release your line for 'x' minutes the key is in your
picking up the receiver every few seconds to see if the line is free
or not. Every time you pick up the receiver, hear the message still
playing and hang up again, you are resetting something in the CO. Try
hanging up *and staying hung up* for 30-45 seconds or more, then lift
the receiver. Chances are that will have been long enough for the CO
to have found you gone and dumped the caller.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 08:57:24 +0200
From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DIY Residential Phone Switch


A few weeks ago, I told you that the Dutch magazine 'Elektuur' (which
also has numerous editions in other languages) had announced the
publication of a DIY phone switch project. This is just to tell you
that I have just received my copy of the september issue of the dutch
edition, and it does *not* contain this project. No need to try to
find it...

Background note: it has already happened in the past that announced
projects have been delayed. They usually appear some day (this
magazine has published some very sophisticated projects).  /AF

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 08:00:37 PDT
From: Sam Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages with Free Collect Calls


Hong Kong Telephone apparently does concern itself with such message-
passing tricks.  Right up front in the phone book, it says that if you
make any operator-assisted call, you will be charged a `report charge'
which amounts to about 30 seconds of calling if the call is then
abandoned before completion (e.g. collect call refused,
person-to-person not found, etc.)  I think there's no charge for busy
and no answer, though.

By the way, Hong Kong is one big local calling area.  All domestic
(within Hong Kong, Kowloon, and New Territories) calls are free.  The
phone company claims to have one of the largest number of people in
its free calling area of any in the world.  So report charges only
apply to international calls.


Sam Ho

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

From: Steve Lemke <radius![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 27 Aug 90 01:19:01 GMT


[e-mail] (David Albert) writes:

}[e-mail] wrote:

}>I used to call home collect, and my parents would refuse the charge, and
}>call me right back.

}In our family, accepted practice when I was in college was to call
}person-to-person for one's self.

As Pat pointed out, this is a sort of petty fraud, as you are actually
taking an operator's time to relay this message.  And, although I
suppose that the method my father and I used could also be labeled as
petty fraud since we also got a message through, I don't feel as bad
about using it.

Basically, our arrangement was this: If I wanted my dad to call me, I
would call his house and let the phone ring only once (and then hang
up).  He would therefore wait until a second ring before ever
answering the phone.  We have done this for almost ten years now, and
it works like a champ.  Considering the amount of money he has spent
on the phone talking to me on these return calls (and the other calls
that he made without my prompting), we certainly don't feel bad about
using this method of "call request".

And, occassionally, he would call me and say "did you 'one-ring' me?"
to which I might say "no, actually I didn't".  The cause: someone else
had called him, probably realized they had a wrong number, and hung up
after one ring.  Of course, this also didn't work if I wasn't at home,
unless he knew in advance that I was somewhere else (like if I was out
of town and he knew where I was).

I'm guessing that Pat will liken this to the "toll-saver" feature of
an answering machine in that a message is being conveyed (long time
Telecom readers will remember this other discussion from some time
ago).  However, I still claim that the hundreds of dollars they made
from all of my dad's return calls more than offset whatever it cost
them to let me one-ring him, and besides, we weren't using an operator
to relay the message.


Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose
Reply to: [e-mail]     (Note: NEW domain-style address!!)


[Moderator's Note: Yes, it is similar to the toll-saver technique, and
I guess since AT&T now includes that feature on their own answering
machines they must have decided if you can't do anything about it, you
might as well make some profit from it yourself.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 06:32:20 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


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

) [delivering message via "collect" call] is fraud none the less,
) and a kind of cheap, petty fraud at that.

Yes, it probably is.  It annoys me, too, to hear of people pulling
such stunts regularly.

In fact, it annoys me ALMOST as much as the fact that, to legitimately
deliver that message from that payphone, I must dump in over a dollar
 -- in change -- to make a call which would normally cost about a
quarter at full day-time cross-country rates.


 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Phrase
Date: 27 Aug 90 14:31:09 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail]
(Danial Hamilton) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 584, Message 4 of 12


>contact![e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

>I believe the Japanese have a greeting that is reserved for use on the
>telephone.  Something like "moshi moshi".

When I took Japanese in college (only one or two quarters,
unfortunately), my instructor, who had lived there for a while, told
use that the calling party would use 'moshi moshi' when they heard the
called party pick up the phone.

I'm sure we'll hear if this is untrue.  I don't know what, if
anything, the called party would say.

Beware of false cognates.  English hello is somewhat similar to German
Hallo, but they use it only in one sense of the word, similar to the
British hello, and not to answer phones --- again, second-hand
information.


Bob Zabloudil
#include std.disclaimer

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

Subject: Real Operators?
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 27 Aug 90 00:11:41 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Sprint's latest TV spot: "...We have REAL operators..."


1. Collect Call (after dialing 10333+0+AC+7D for Sprint and
10288+0+AC+7D for AT&T):

  Sprint: "May I help you?" "Collect from John Higdon" "May I
  have the number you are calling?" "[Number given]" "May I have
  the number you are calling from?" "[Number given]"--"I have a
  collect call from John Higdon will you accept?"....

  AT&T: "May I help you?" "Collect from John Higdon" [number
  already ringing] "I have a collect call from John Higdon in San
  Jose, CA, will you pay?"...

2. Rate info request (dialing 10333+0 for Sprint and 10288+0 for AT&T):

  Sprint: "Thank you for calling Sprint, may I help you?" "Yes,
  could you give me the rate at this time [10:30PM Sun] for a
  call to 619/243?" "Sir, our rate information is based on
  mileage. Do you have any idea how far that is away?" "I think
  about 300 miles" "Then it would cost $0.14 for the first minute
  and $0.14 for each additional minute."

  AT&T: "Thank you for using AT&T." "Could you give me the rate
  at this time for a call to 619/243?" "That would be $0.15 for
  the first minute and $0.11 for each additional, plus tax." [Now
  that I find out the rate difference in AT&T's favor, I ask
  myself why I went through all that hassle with the
  Trailblazer's!!!]

3. Place name request (dialing as in -2-):

  Sprint: "Thank you for calling Sprint, may I help you?" "Could
  you give me the place name for 213/945?" "I'm sorry, did you
  wish to be connected to information?" "No I want to know the
  city name for that area code and prefix." "Could you give it to
  me again?" "213/945" "Excuse me just a moment. [45 seconds]
  That is Whittier, CA."

  AT&T: "Thank you for using AT&T." "Could you give me the place
  name for 213/945?" "Yes, it is [2 seconds] Whittier, CA."

I don't know what definition Sprint is using for the term "real" in
their ads, but if that means operator service like that from AT&T then
they are misleading potential customers. AT&T operators know the
number you are calling from as well as having essential information at
their finger tips. That old TSPS still dispatches calls better than
any of the Johnny-Come-Latelys. Maybe AT&T had better "lighten up",
but Sprint had better "shape up" when it comes to operator service.

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

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

From: "John G. DeArmond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Scanner Test Case in Atlanta
Date: 27 Aug 90 03:05:40 GMT
Reply-To: "John G. DeArmond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car
  and gun works facility)


There is an interesting case developing here in Atlanta (actually
Marietta) that could test scanner laws.  The case itself is
interesting.  Seems as if this Marietta cop was hanging out at the
house of another cop after his wife kicked him out.  Seems as if he
had a sweetheart on the side.

Seems that the guest cop used his friend's cordless phone to call his
sweetie and while this was going on, his friend (the homeowner) used
his scanner to "entertain" himself by listening in on the
conversation.

Further seems that the guest cop found out about the monitoring.  The
end result has been not a civil suit but the DA filing a case against
the homeowner-cop!  The charges do not involve any communications act
and instead involve invasion of privacy.

Those are the generalities I read in the paper.  My attorney is
handling the defense so I'll find out more when I see him next.  This
could prove to be very interesting.  And with the court forcing the
county to release prisoners because of overcrowding and a docket
backlog, one has to wonder what kind of politics are involved to get
the DA to get involved.


John De Armond, WD4OQC
Radiation Systems, Inc.
Atlanta, Ga
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd

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

Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 26 Aug 90 12:49:58 EDT (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>many actual telephone companies have recently experimented with it.  PAT]

New England Tel is using auto-collect in Massachusetts.  You dial
0+number, then at the bong enter 11 for collect or 12 for third party
billing, then speak your name and enter the third party's number if
needed.  The voice prompt only tells you about 11 and 12 on calls from
pay phones, but they work everywhere.

Experimenting shows that you can hear the callee or third party being
asked to accept charges and hear their response, though they cannot
hear you, which is nice both to be sure you've got the right number,
and for the fraudulently inclined to hear them say that they'll call
you back.  Besides, it's hard to run up an enormous phone bill making
intra-lata calls in Mass.

Third party calls from pay phones call the third party to see if they
accept, while third party calls from home don't, presumably because
they have a number to charge back if the third party refuses payment.

If you don't say or dial something at the prompt, it still falls
through to a human operator which is important both for non-tone
phones and slightly odd calls.  When I call the business office in New
Jersey to turn on the phone service at the beach house, it answers
with a long spiel the end of which says that they accept collect
calls.  But since the first word isn't "Yes" an automated system can't
handle it.

Regards,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #599
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02790;
          28 Aug 90 3:53 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04183;
          28 Aug 90 2:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25571;
          28 Aug 90 1:16 CDT
Date:     Tue, 28 Aug 90 0:34:05 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #600
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 Aug 90 00:33:45 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 600

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [William Degnan]
    Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [John Higdon]
    Re: Answering Machines as Room Bug? [Chris Petrilli]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Wallace Colyer]
    Re: Telephone Handset Receiver Elements [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Bush and Cellular Phones [Thomas Neudecker]
    Re: Answering Phrase [Paul S. R. Chisholm]
    Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Roy Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 19:09:17 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan
Nishioka) writes:

> I am trying to build a box for my five line key system phone.
> I want it to flash the lights and do automatic hold.
> The system I was going to time has been dismantled and replaced
> with Panasonic phones with LEDs so you can't tell which line is
> ringing...

I picked up a 1A2 with four line cards for five bucks. A few other
folks _gave_ me some key telephone sets. There is little commercial
value.  You probably would use more than $5 worth of gas picking up
the parts.  Why not see what you can find gathering dust someplace?


Regards,

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock.
William Degnan                   | [e-mail]
Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
 -Independent Consultants        | [e-mail]
   in Telecommunications         | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan
P.O. Drawer 9530                 | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530            | Voice [phone]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit
Date: 27 Aug 90 12:10:05 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> $50 would probably get you a complete system with phones if you call
> the right place.  Since not many businesses WANT 1A2 stuff, and it
> gets traded in all the time, the trade in stuff is cheap and easy to
> come by.

Jeez, anyone who shows up at my doorstep can have, absolutely free,
any and all 1A2 stuff they can find in my garage. There is at least
one KSU with an assortment of standard and specialized line cards, at
least five telephones in pretty good shape, and an assortment of other
1A2-style garbage.

> Do some calling in your area.  In this case I think it is cheaper
> to buy it than build it.

With the advent of cheap electronic key equipment (that doesn't
require the bulky 25 pair cable), someone's elevator would have to
stop short of the top floor to want to mess around with 1A2 anymore.
My business associate, the most die-hard of 1A2 enthusiasts, has
finally given up the cause.


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

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

From: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machines as Room Bug?
Date: 27 Aug 90 01:41:25 GMT
Reply-To: Chris Petrilli <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Sander J.
Rabinowitz) writes:

>In reference to a TELECOM issue of 24 August 1990, Tom Neff <tneff@
>bfmny0.bfm.com> wrote the following:

>"I turned on the shortwave receiver in my apartment this morning and
>was flipping past the 5-6 MHz neighborhood when I distinctly a voice
>coming from the speaker.  It was my friend in the other room!  I
>couldn't believe it. . .

> [. . .] When I played the tape back, I did
>recognize my voice, but it sounded so muffled as to make the signal
>useless for intrusion purposes.

[... he continues by noting that when plugged into the AC wall socket,
he is able to receive a much stronger signal than when running off
batteries...]

Being someone interested in radio propagation, and working with alot
of radio equipment, it would appear to me that electrical circuits in
both the answering machine, and your Sony radio are not too well
isolated from AC noise.  Apparantly, the Panasonic machine is
modulating the AC carrier in some way, and your radio is picking that
up ... this means that it would most likely be just as strong at your
neighbors house (as long as you are on the same power transformer).  I
could be wrong, but this would be the most likely cause of something
like this happening ... you might try isolating the Panasonic from the
wall with some sort of line filter (I like the DEC VAX filters myself,
but...) that goes through an isolation transformer ... if it still
appears, I'm wrong.


+ Chris Petrilli                                    "Opinons represented here
| University of Texas at Austin                      do not necessarily
| INTERNET: [e-mail]              represent those of a sane
| SNAILMAIL: 429 Brady Lane, Austin, Texas, 78746    person.  Take them as
+ PHONE:     [phone]                         simply that."

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 18:41:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Wallace Colyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!


Excerpts from netnews.comp.dcom.telecom: 25-Aug-90 Make Sprint Put it
in Writing! [e-mail] (2366)

> So, according to the salesman, I can expect it. The "in writing," that is,
> in 14 to 21 days.

Well it looks like you made an impression.  I am a US-Sprint customer
and called Customer Support this evening.  After a couple minute wait
for an available agent I explained what I wanted.  The agent, who did
not act surprised, asked for my phone number, put me on hold to lookup
my account information, then explained that in 14 days I would receive
the information.  Then she attempted to sell me on an additional
US-Sprint service.

I guess that leaves them about ten days to figure out what they are
going to say and get it aproved since it appears they were not
prepared.


Wallace

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Handset Receiver Elements
Date: 27 Aug 90 11:37:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, kitty![e-mail] (Larry
Lippman) writes:

> BTW, when is the last time that anyone saw a 300-type telephone
> set in service?

About ten minutes ago!  Where?  At AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany,
NJ!  They are hung on the wall, next to the house fire alarm boxes, at
most of the intersections of the corridors in the older sections of
the building.  Heavy-looking black rotary-dial wall sets with F-type
handsets.  I'm not sure who is supposed to use them, or under what
circumstances.  I think they are part of an old house-phone system
that pre-dates Centrex and pre-dates the walkie-talkies that are now
carried by the AT&T building maintenance and security forces.  Maybe
someone who works there can tell us why.


Dave Levenson           Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.           UUCP: {uunet | rutgers |att}!westmark!dave
AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave  [The Man in the Mooney]

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 19:10:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Thomas Neudecker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bush and Cellular Phones


 From the {Pittsburgh Press}, Sunday 8/26/90

WIRE EXPERTS KEEP VACATIONING BUSH ON SPY-PROOF LINE

A extra large contingent of about four dozen WHCA (Wah-cah) staffers
are in Kennebunkport so that President Bush can reach out and anyone
in the world from his speed boat or golf cart.

Presidential phone calls require special lines that encode their
signals, beam them to a satellite and recode them to be understood by
the receiver.  There are probably as many WHCA staffers here as Secret
Service agents and a total staff of 700, all specially recruited from
the military services.

They wired an aircraft carrier in Norfolk (reportedly troublesome
because of the sealed hatches), ran secure lines into the middle of no
where out side of Jackson Hole, Wyo., and spent a month in Warsaw,
Poland piggybacking onto a phone system that was modern in the 1950Us

Truth is, even WHCA has its limits - like when the president of the
United States uses a cellular from the boat of golf cart.  Its just
like all cellular phones - annoying because of the static, said a WHCA
staffer. But the president usually only uses it to call his grandkids
as he is headed into shore.

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

From: "Paul S. R. Chisholm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Phrase
Date: 25 Aug 90 03:09:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


At the office, I always answer with the name of the company and my
name.  It has just the right effect on wrong number callers; if
they're expecting to reach someone at the Labs, they ask if I know how
I can reach someone (and I can usually transfer them); if not, they
apologize and hang up.

My wife treats this as a barometer.  If I answer, "Hello," I'm having
a rough day.  If I answer, "What???," I'm having a *really* bad day!

My wife's sister and her family live with us.  Her husband (my
brother- in-law) runs a small steel fabrication business, and forwards
calls to the house when he's out of the office.  My six and seven year
old nephews had been taught to answer the phone, "Hello, this is
Christian [or Shane], how can I help you?"  This only lasted a little
while; apparently, the contractors couldn't handle calling a steel
fabricator and getting an answer, no matter how professional, from a
little kid!

We grown ups usually answer line two, "Hello, Edison National, how can
I help you?"  It throws the telemarketers for a loop!  It's also
confused some of our friends; they *think* they recognize my wife's
voice, but they thought they were calling a residence.  If we get,
"Sorry, I think I have the wrong (click!)," and we're called back a
minute later, I answer the phone, "Hello?"

My mom's answering machine starts off, "Hello, you've reached three
one four one."  Nice; it confirms the essential part of her number,
but not enough to call it back if you reached it blindly.


Paul S. R. Chisholm, att!mtunq!psrc, [e-mail]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service
Date: 27 Aug 90 22:53:34 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

>"Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]> writes:

## 2) We have a five-year old in our house, and hearing of all the
## horror stories regarding 900 and 976 services involving children
## playing with the phone, we now have 900 and 976 service blocking.
## Now, with the advent of NON-tollfree 800 service, I am at a loss
## as to how to deal with it (aside from physically putting locks on
## the phones).  Whereas I can generally do without 900 service, I
## don't think I can say the same regarding 800 service.

# Excuse, please. Pray tell, what do you do about all of those hundreds
# of "pay" prefixes (like 212, 303, 415, etc., etc.) with that
# five-year-old in the house? For years I have heard people moan the big
# groan about how tough it is with small children in the house who
# could accidently pick up the phone and dial things that would
# actually COST MONEY!!! But it is always in reference to 900/976 (the
# evil, wallet-sucking devil prefixes) and never about the mundane,
# simple, little-talked-about toll calls. Other than possibly the
# amount, what's the difference?

The difference is that no one runs TV ads aimed at children
encouraging them to dial prefixes like 212, 303, 415, etc.  Further,
even if kids did dial such numbers, the odds are remote that they
would do so 20 or 30 times in a week.

Also, SOME of the 900/976 numbers (NOT the ones aimed at kids), carry
material that is utterly inappropriate for a five-year-old.  It's
unfortunate that the adolescent phone sex services are on the same
prefix/area code as some of the other pay-per-call services.  If they
were kept separate, I would probably arrange for those to be kept
unavailable from our phone, and the other pay-per-call services
available.  As it is, everything is off limits.

# Reminds me of an incident at a client's business. The controller was
# looking over some phone bills. There was (probably) page after page of
# major employee phone abuse -- personal short-haul toll. Many tens of
# dollars were involved. Then her eyes zeroed in on one particular call:
# Memphis TN. It was for $0.16., made on a Sunday. You would have
# thought that she had nailed D. B. Cooper. "I'm going to find out who
# made this call and make them pay for it."

# Sixteen cents? No the problem was that it was Memphis, TN. Never mind
# that office people routinely chat to their wives, girl/boy friends,
# etc., and run up bills for individual calls as high as a few dollars.
# It's that someone would have the nerve to use a company phone to call
# THAT FAR AWAY without copping to it. During the business day a local
# call of 11 minutes would cost $0.16. I wonder how many of those are
# personal.

Doubtless, the call to Memphis wasn't the major cost to the company --
but it was the most obvious.  Sorting personal calls from business
calls Mon-Fri would be nearly impossible -- but a call on a Sunday
isn't just clearly a personal call, it's someone who probably came in
to the office just to avoid the charge.  (Which says something about
what a cheapskate and fool such a person must be, for $0.16.)


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

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 20:36:47 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


John Higdon writes:

> people [with small children moan about] 900/976 (the evil, wallet-sucking
> devil prefixes) and never about the mundane, simple, little-talked-about
> toll calls. Other than possibly the amount, what's the difference?

    The difference is that there are very few TV commercials
telling kids in California to call some number in 212-land so they can
hear Jose Canseco talk about his whatever he was talking about, or
True Confessions, or phone sex, or whatever.  Also, if your five
year-old were to rack up a $20 phone bill chatting with Grandma for an
hour cross-country in prime time, would that be so bad?  Even if it
were $100 because Grandma was still in the Old Country, how mad could
you get?  It's still cheaper than a plane ticket :-)

    On a different subject, are long-distance DA calls from pay
phones supposed to be free?  I called 212-555-1212 from a 516-area pay
phone yesterday and had to put in $0.40 (not bad, considering the rate
card said it would coast $0.75).  Once I got my number, I never did
get my call placed because I couldn't figure out how to place a
calling card call through AT&T (and this from a phone which claimed to
be owned by NYTel!)  Does using an AT&T calling card guarantee that
your call goes through on AT&T, or do the various long distance
companies accept each other's calling cards and cross-bill?


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 only thing which 'guarentees' your call will be
placed on AT&T -- and then, only provided the owner of the phone
and/or phone switch does not act in a fraudulent manner -- is by
dialing 10288 on the front of every call. Other companies often times
accept the AT&T card, but bill via your local phone company at
outrageous prices. The card itself is no guarentee, but must be used
in connection with 10288+1+10D to be almost certain.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #600
******************************