Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss601-650

Text File | 1990-09-16 | 975KB | 23,735 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03587;
          28 Aug 90 4:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19591;
          28 Aug 90 3:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04183;
          28 Aug 90 2:20 CDT
Date:     Tue, 28 Aug 90 1:23:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #601
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 Aug 90 01:22:42 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 601

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    IMPORTANT CORRECTION: PLEASE READ [TELECOM Moderator / Ole Jacobson]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Carl Moore]
    Re: Automated Collect Calling [David Smallberg]
    Fraudulent Use of Collect and/or Person-to-Person Calls [John R. Covert]
    Re: Answering Telephone (was Crank Calls) [Carl Moore]
    Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [Toby Nixon]
    Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom [Tad Cook]
    Re: Symposium: International Telecommunications Futures [Thomas Herbst]
    Automated Directory Assistance [Ed Greenberg]
    Directory Assistance Opeators (was: Automated Collect) [Barrey Jewall]
    Help With Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Marcel D. Mongeon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 22:49:12 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: IMPORTANT CORRECTION: PLEASE READ


Patrick,

Thanks for the excellent review of INTEROP 90 in the Digest. But before
we annoy too many people let us give the correct phone number. The
415 number is 941-3399  (not 3300 as you posted).

Thanks again.


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]
                 ^^^^
------------------------------

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 90 13:58:57 GMT


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

> 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?

Pre-breakup I can't see how there was that much of a problem. The call
would still be made, just billed in a different part of the country.
Post-breakup is a different matter, but still on average it evens out.
Sure, they're out one operator-assisted surcharge, but presumably the
calls will be longer if it's your parents (who presumably have more
disposable income) paying for it.


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

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 17:21:51 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls


There was or is available, in PA exchanges adjoining "Phila. metro"
(this is in area 215 -- an example would be West Chester), metro
service as an option.  As a result, you could have a local call from,
say, West Chester to Philadelphia, but not the other way around; and I
did, years ago, hear of a case where one ring followed by hanging up
was used (from the Philadelphia end, and then the person at the far
end -- here, that's West Chester -- would call).

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

From: David Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling
Date: 28 Aug 90 01:38:05 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


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

>What is this "Automated Collect Calling?"

>[Moderator's Note: ... 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. ...]

"Rejects" has been what I've done both times I've received these
calls.  Neither time could I understand the recorded voice of whoever
was calling me!  The two occasions were widely separated in time, and
the voices were different, so their having the wrong number seems
unlikely.  Have other people had trouble with unintelligible
recordings?  And why is there no option to replay the name, in case
you miss it the first time?  And what happens if a non-English speaker
answers the phone?  In areas where automated collect calls are
implemented, can one make a collect call using a live person for
situations like the last one?


David Smallberg, [e-mail], ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 07:54:21 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  27-Aug-1990 1044" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fraudulent Use of Collect and/or Person-to-Person Calls


AT&T Security is deadly serious about catching and prosecuting serious
violators of its tariffs (which, in the case of fraud, tend to be
backed up by federal and state law).  In particular, w.r.t. collect
calls, old tariffs (1974) that I have state:

    "Abuse or fraudulent use of service includes the placing or
    acceptance of a call by a subscriber, his agent, employee or
    representative, in response to an uncompleted long distance
    call, which was not completed in order to transmit or receive
    intelligence without the payment of the applicable message toll
    charge."

This means that both parties can be charged in cases where a collect
or person-to-person call is made for fraudulent purposes.  If someone
calls you person-to-person collect, and leaves a callback, you (in
theory) must call back via the operator number given in the callback
message, which guarantees that the call ends up billed at the full
rate, not the dial rate.

In 1969 I visited the offices of Telephone Company Security to settle
a small matter of accused (but not committed) fraud.  I had been
calling NPA 555-1212 and whistling it off, then listening to the
failure recording, in order to determine what the first routing point
was for each principal city in the U.S.  Since this is the first step
in the blue-box procedure, security demanded that I explain what was
going on, which I did.

While there, I was shown a box of operator tickets.  Security had been
sorting through all uncompleted calls looking for patterns, like
trucking companies getting person-to-person calls and telling the
caller that the called person had gone to city x.  Truckers were
calling for themselves, and the city was a coded message.

With the automated system, fraud will be even easier to prove -- there
is a recorded record of the fraudulent message in the callers own
voice!

Don't try it.


john

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 10:02:46 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Telephone (was Crank Calls)


If I forgot to say so: it's my OFFICE phone that gets answered with
the number ("number" restricted to the 4 digit extension in a Centrex-
type system, where I'd have to dial 9 for outside calls).  But it's
apparently RESIDENCE phones from which I received rare recoreded
messages announcing what number I had just reached.

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed?
Date: 27 Aug 90 10:42:08 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> My question is: What is the most portable encoding of a USA telephone
> number?  Is there a standards document that addresses this issue?

CCITT Recommendation E.123 standardizes the notation for telephone
numbers both within countries and internationally.  It specifies that
your "national" telephone number be written with the "city code" (area
code) in parenthesis, with the number following with spaces between
segments as appropriate.  For example, my phone number would be
written as "[phone]".  Parenthesis, according to paragraph 4.2
of E.123, indicate that the enclosed portion of the number is not
always dialed (e.g., if you're within the same city/area code).
Parenthesis should not be used in an international number, since the
entire number must be dialed.

E.123 specifies that international phone numbers be written with a
plus sign and the country code, followed by the city code and local
number; by number would be written as "[phone]".  The "+"
means that the international prefix ("011" in the USA) should be
dialed before the number; the country code always immediately follows
the "+".

Paragraph 6.1 of E.123 says that spaces should be used instead of
hyphens to separate portions of a phone number.  Countries may
authorize other notations, such as use of a hyphen, but hyphens are
never to be used when specifying an international number.
Nevertheless, I put the hyphens in my signature (below) because most
of the people I send messages to are used to seeing it and because it
"keeps it together" so its less confusing.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer     Fax:    [phone]  Telex: 6502670805
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc.  Voice:  [phone]  CIS:    70271,404
Norcross, Georgia, USA             BBS:    [phone]  MCI:       TNIXON
                                   Telemail: T.NIXON/HAYES  AT&T:     !tnixon
UUCP:   ...!uunet!hayes!tnixon     Internet:        hayes![e-mail]
MHS:    C=US / AD=ATTMAIL / PN=TOBY_L_NIXON / DD=TNIXON

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 15:08 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji?


Well, I'm back from vacation in New York, and after scanning ten days
of telecom I see that I'm probably going to be the first to tell y'all
that, according to the Television guide in Newsday ("The Long Island
Newspaper"), the greeting in Fiji is (ta da)

        "Baku Vinaku Beachside"

 ... which is the name of a real live beach resort in Fiji.

And that's the news ... so now ya know!

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

From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom
Date: 28 Aug 90 00:38:28 GMT


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

> 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.

For just doing functional testing of modems, you could use a line
simulator, like the Proctor 49200 Telephone Demonstrator.  It has four
lines, with real sounding dialtone, ringback, busy, etc.

You can reach Proctor at 206-881-7000.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or,  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 1990 17:00:37 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Symposium: International Telecommunications Futures


The location of the the ...

>The Second Annual Symposium on "International Telecommunicatons
>Futures" will be held October 4-5, 1990 at the Peter Kiewit Conference
>Center in Omaha, Nebraska.

 ... is rather ironic since Peter Kiewit and Sons is the sole owner of
Kiewit Telecommunications, which is the majority owner of MFS, one of
the leading fiber bypass companies.


tom

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 14:57 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Automated Directory Assistance


TELECOM Moderator writes:

>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).

Actually, I've been meaning to write about my observations on this for
a while.

When automated readback came out, we found ourselves saying thank you
to the machine.  Then we felt guilty because we hadn't thanked the
operator.

Now, this is my observation of automated directory assistance:

1) You dial 411
2) Operator's prerecorded voice says something (usually, "Miss Brown,
   What City Please")
3) You say "In San Jose, Joe's Pizza, Please"
4) You hear "type type type typettie type type"
5) The operator says "Here's your number"
6) There is a loooooooong pause.
6a) If you say thank you, the computer is kicked in and you get your
   number.
6b) If you don't say anything, the operator tells you to have a nice day
   or thanks for calling or something else then kicks in the computer.

My surmise is that while the operators can accept the prerecorded
greeting, and can accept not reading you the number, it's mighty
difficult to accept not being thanked.

                                -edg


[Moderator's Note: Incidentally, if you hear a pre-recorded greeting
which sounds noisy, muffled, or otherwise not the best, tell the
operator about it. I do, and they are always glad to find out and will
usually record it over again. And for anyone who answers the phone
quite frequently each day, you can get the same little gizmo the
operators use for their answer phrase from the {Hello Direct} catalog.
They are devices to have, and help save your voice.   PAT]

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

From: Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka>
Subject: Directory Assistance Opeators (Was: Automated Collect)
Date: 27 Aug 90 23:30:39 GMT
Reply-To: Barrey Jewall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


In article <[e-mail]>, Our Esteemed Moderator (Patrick
Townson) appends:

>[Moderator's Note: (edited for brevity)
>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]

Out here (San Jose and the San Francisco Bay Area) I have had more
than a few interesting calls with DA operators, usually when I ask for
more than one number at a time...

On a related note, and even better, I once went out with a girl I met
while making hotel reservations for a Holiday Inn in Southern
California. It turns out that their phoneroom is in Salt Lake City,
Utah, and I just happened to be going there on business in a couple of
days, so I got her to call me back when she was off work, and we
exchanged phone numbers, and met in a club in SLC, (not a BAR, a
CLUB!) 8-) :-) , and I'll keep the rest of to myself, but I will add
that one should never discount the amazing things that can happen when
one picks up a phone....


+ Barrey Jewall                 ++ "My opinions are my opinions" +
+ [e-mail]            ++ (rather self-evident, eh?)    +
+ Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++                 +

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

From: "Marcel D. Mongeon" <joymrmn![e-mail]>
Subject: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1
Date: 26 Aug 90 15:23:33 GMT
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


We have a reasonably large Northern Telecom Meridian SL-1 PBX serving
a hotel environment.  For calls made from guest rooms we have two
types of trunk lines: a) regular outgoing trunks for local calls and
message toll calls which are costed by a call detail recorder; and b)
toll trunks which are used strictly for 0+ calls.  On the second types
of trunks a HOBIC hooked up to the CO gives us any charging
information.

I discovered a major problem the other day with respect to the
blocking of calls on the first type of trunks (which use '9'+
dialing).  A guest can dial '9', access the outside trunk, then dial
'0', let the line time out and speak to an operator and presumabbly
have a call made which is charged on the line but which we *can't*
charge to the guest because the Call detail recorder has no
information other than the fact that '0' was dialled.

A little investigation showed that the problem results from the fact
that although '0' is denied on the particular trunk route '011' to
allow direct dialled international is allowed.  Apparently the SL-1
time out is longer than the trunk line '0' time out and the call does
not get blocked.  Obviously, we could just require all calls starting
with '0' including '011' to go out over the toll trunks.  However, we
have 200 rooms full of dialling instructions that would have to be
changed.

Are there any SL-1 experts out there that can suggest a work-around?
Perhaps changing some of the trunk timers?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #601
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03782;
          28 Aug 90 5:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19591;
          28 Aug 90 3:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac04183;
          28 Aug 90 2:20 CDT
Date:     Tue, 28 Aug 90 2:14:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #602
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 28 Aug 90 02:12:45 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 602

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Sunday Oregonian via George Pell]
    Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again [Mitch Wagner]
    What Hath God Wrought? [David Smallberg]
    Dunkin' Telephone Demilitarized Zone [David Tamkin]
    Re: Area Code Data Requested [Tad Cook]
    Last Laugh! Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [Paul Wilczynski]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers
Date: 26 Aug 90 23:47:18 GMT
Reply-To: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


"Sorry, Wrong Number"

Margie Boule'  {The Sunday Oregonian}  Portland, Oregon   August 26, 1990

Irnalee Stohrs has had the same phone number since 1959.

In fact, Mrs. Stohrs has had the number for so long, she remembers
when the first two numbers weren't numbers at all, but the letters
"C-H" (short for "CHerry").  These days, Mrs Stohrs' phone number
starts with "2-4", but Mrs.  Stohrs still finds herself saying
"CHerry" once and a while.  Old habits, you know.

About a decade ago, Irnalee Stohrs realized that her telephone number
was just one digit off the number for the Multnoma County juvenile
court system.  Three or four times a year, someone would call to
discuss a son's truancy problem, or to ask Irnalee to connect the
parent with a daughter's parole officer.

As Irnalee puts it, "I was always very happy to tell them they had the
wrong number, and then I'd give them the correct one.  I didn't mind."

Of course, that was before the state court system printed up a huge
batch of official summonses, and put Irnalee Stohrs' telephone number
 - that's right, her very own, 32-year-old phone number- on the bottom,
right under the words "For More Information."

Once Irnalee realized the state's mistake, she minded quite a lot.
Believe you me.

"It started about three months ago," says Irnalee.  "The phone started
ringing off the hook." Irnalee was fielding calls for the entire
county justice system: the Donald E. Long Juvenile Home, the juvenile
court itself, and all the coun- selors. Sometimes Irnalee would tell
the callers they had the wrong number, and they would insist it was
the number printed on the official summons they held in their hands.

So Irnalee called the correct number for the county juvenile system,
and explained the mistake to the operator.

"The lady wouldn't put me throught to anyone else," says Irnalee.
"She said 'We'll look into it.'"

A week passed, and still the bells rang in Irnalee's living room.
Irnalee answered the phone each time it rang, because she never knew
whether it would be someone from her church, or someone explaining
that a son was relly a good boy at heart and hadn't meant to shoot
anybody.

The trouble was, even though the operator at the county had said she'd
"look into" Irnalee's problem, the calls just weren't letting up.

Irnalee kept calling.  The county kept promising.  The calls kept
coming.  I think you can see the pattern.

By the time Irnalee called me in frustration last week, she'd made a
total of five polite calls, and one less polite one.

"Last week I said to them 'I think I've been nice long enough,'" says
Irnalee, in her sweet little-old-lady voice.  She was finally
connected to a man named Rob Grantham, whose official title is Court
Operations Supervisor.

Rob told Irnalee that "only" 4,000 summonses had been printed with her
phone number on them, and that the court had no intention of
collecting the remaining blank summonses and printing new ones with a
corrected number.  Rob said that in his department, he was having
people cross out Irnalee's number and write in the correct one.  But
Rob also said that he couldn't vouch for what other departments were
doing.

Rob told me he was profusely apologetic when he spoke to Irnalee.  "I
told her I had done everything I possibly could to correct the
problem." (Except, of course, recalling the summonses with the
screwed-up phone number on them.  "Nothing like this has ever happened
before," Rob explains.  "We have no policy established for something
like this.")

But why are summonses still going out with Irnalee's number on them?

"The criminal justice system is so huge," says Rob "you're dealing
with so many people.  These things just get lost."

Irnalee remembers Rob's apology, but she's still a little upset at his
response.

"He suggested I change my phone number," says Irnalee.  That's right:
A state bureaucrat has suggested Irnalee Stohrs actually change the
phone number she has had since 1959, because of a state printing
error.

I'm sure you understand Irnalee's chagrin.

The trouble is, the juvenile court system doesn't seem to understand
her chagrin.  What's the big deal about a few hundred wrong numbers?
they seem to be saying to Irnalee.

So let's help the county understand what a nuisance it is, always
getting someone else's calls.  Let's all pick up our phones on Monday
morning, and call the correct number for the county juvenile justice
system.  It's [phone].  Only when they answer, let's ask for
Irnalee Stohrs.

And then let's see how fast the justice system prints up a new batch
of sumonses.  With the right phone number on them.

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

[Moderator's Note: Bravo, and thanks for an interesting article. I
assume TELECOM Digest readers around the world are invited to join
the call-a-thon in progress; that'll add about thirty thousand calls! :)
T'would be a pity if the courthouse operator -- the one who got
ignorant with Irnalee on her first call -- got trashed out and had to
go home with a headache a couple days in a row.

I had to practice the very same guerrilla warfare twenty years ago. My
telephone number appeared in error on a list of janitors assigned to
various apartment buildings here belonging to one real estate company.
They flatly ignored my requests to correct their list. I finally
started taking tenant complaint calls, and giving smart aleck answers
back; i.e. tenant says 'no heat in my apartment', my answer would be
to consult my imaginary roster of tenants and reply, "The rent you pay
does not entitle you to have heat in the winter." Tenant says 'my
toilet is out of order', my answer would be to use the one at the gas
station on the corner instead. Finally the realtor got the hint and
corrected the list they gave tenants.  PAT]

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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again
Date: 26 Aug 90 22:51:21 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


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

[ That he has ten phone lines in his home, and he's been getting calls from
the San Jose Mercury News boiler-room telemarketers on every one of them
and that he hasn't been getting any cooperation from the telemarketers in
getting the calls to stop. ]

# 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.

I suggest you start sending them registered, return-receipt-requested
letters of the "As we discussed in a telephone conversation earlier
today.... " variety. Also, keep careful notes of your phone
conversations with these people. You want to have evidence of your
good-faith efforts if you do go to court on this.

Have you tried going to the Merc to complain about what their
contractors are doing in their name?

Also, have you considered filing *CRIMINAL* harassment charges against
the president of the company by name, and John Doe, Richard Roe, etc.,
being employees of that company acting on orders of the president.

If you've considered it and rejected it, think again. This strikes me
as being right down the middle of the definition of criminal
harassment: They've been calling you ten times a night, on several
nights, despite your repeated requests to stop. If they are found
guilty, they'd be fined a couple of hundred bucks, which would
probably not hurt them much, but you'll have achieved two goals: (1)
You will have impressed them as being not just some moron off the
streets, but rather someone with access to the courts and willingness
to use them and (2) Perhaps more importantly, the defendants will be
required to show up in court or face contempt charges and possible
jail time. Let them learn what it's like to lose time to petty
bullshit!

Also, you may want to have your lawyer send them a letter demanding
that they stop, for reasons similar to number one in the above
paragraph -- let 'em take a gander at that law-firm letterhead and
know you are not just some schmuck in a trailer-park.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, so you take my advice at your own risk.
            (Actually, most people I know have learned better than to take
            *my* advice; that's why I've been forced to take my act to
            comp.dcom.telecom.... :-)

As an afterthought, why do you have ringers on your modem lines,
anyway?  I don't even have a phone on my modem line; when I do get
around to getting a cheapie to plug in there, I'll probably keep the
ringer off. Everybody who knows me knows that I only answer the other
line -- since I only dial out on the modem line, I couldn't even tell
you off the top of my head what the number is.... )


Mitch Wagner

VOICE: 516/562-5758       GEnie: UNIX-TODAY
UUCP: [e-mail]   ..uunet!utoday!wagner


[Moderator's Note: Bravo number two! Really, the only thing some
companies understand is repeated slaps with lawsuits; particularly
in Small Claims/Pro Se Court, which they *hate*. And document
*everything*, and every name, even the switchboard operator and the
receptionist. Sue 'em all, individually and in their employment
capacity.  PAT]

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

From: David Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Hath God Wrought?
Date: 28 Aug 90 01:55:56 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


In article <[e-mail]> hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail].
washington.edu (Tad Cook) writes:

>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.

I wonder how the demo went.  How did the observers verify that the
message sent was the one received, and that no secret pre-demo
arrangement had been made?  I mean, they couldn't just phone Baltimore
and ask! :-) Did they wait around for the train from Baltimore to
arrive with a Congressman saying "We just got the message 'What hath
God wrought?'.  Is that what was sent?"


David Smallberg, [e-mail], ...!{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!cs.ucla.edu!das

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dunkin' Telephone Demilitarized Zone
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 14:50:23 CDT


Jeff Carroll wrote in volume 10, issue 481:

|        This thread reminds me of a remarkable phenomenon I observed
|on a recent trip to Chicago. At the Dunkin' Donuts in Des Plaines (on
|Higgins, if I recall correctly), there are four pay phones; one next
|to the entrance, and three on the back wall. My recollection is that
|the one at the entrance and one of the ones on the back wall were
|Centel phones, and the other two were operated by *Illinois Bell*.

|        Question: Are the IBT phones COCOTs? Or is the Dunkin' Doe
|franchise located in some sort of Telephone Demilitarized Zone?

No, there are no TDZ's here yet; I think the ICC is still mulling over
local loop competition.  It certainly isn't a reality in 1990.  [There
are several buildings along the Chicago/Park Ridge border that
straddle the boundary between the two cities (and thus the boundaries
of telqi, cable providers, natural gas suppliers, and area codes); all
but one of them (several apartment buildings and single-family
dwellings, no businesses) have an address in one city or the other and
probably the utilities follow suit.  One house has two addresses,
apparently with Illinois Bell phone service from its Chicago side but
Northern Illinois Gas from its Park Ridge side.]

The clue of having both telqi at a Dunkin' Donuts in Des Plaines led
me to the one on Elmhurst Road, just south of Thacker (barely in IBT
territory), there being none on Higgins (there is one on Higgins in
Elk Grove Village, the next town west, but it is very deep into
IBT-Land).  It had two Illinois Bell paystations and no COCOTs.

However, the Dunkin' Donuts on Oakton, just west of Lee, well within
Centel's satrapy, had almost what Jeff described: a Centel payphone in
the vestibule and two paystations on the back wall, of which one was a
second Centel coin phone and the other was a COCOT in a housing that
resembles IBT payphones.

Why any informed person would use the COCOT, except in an extreme
emergency with both the Centel phones in use, is beyond me.  Even
then, there are a very large number of other retailers at Oakton and
Lee, many of whom have Centel payphones at their establishments.

I'll let the Digest readership know if I spot anything telephonically
odd at the other Dunkin' Donuts in Des Plaines (at Rand and Miner)
next time I'm in its vicinity.  The recent increases in gasoline
prices have cut seriously into my joyriding.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]

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

From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code Data Requested
Date: 27 Aug 90 19:18:19 GMT


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

> 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.

> 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.

For figuring out area codes from addresses, I use "The Zip/Area Code
Directory" by Ruth Marks, $4.95 from Pilot Books, 103 Cooper St,
Babylon, NY 11702.

This was suggested by someone else on TELECOM Digest.  It works,
although I did find a few errors.  I understand they will be corrected
in the next edition.


Tad Cook  Seattle, WA  Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544      Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 04:16 EST
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed?


"Programmin' up a storm." <[e-mail]> writes ...

>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.

To the contrary, I would think it would confuses lots and lots of people,
who would all ask ...

        "But where is the + on my telephone?"


Paul Wilczynski
Krislyn Computer Services

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #602
******************************


ISSUES 603 AND 604 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 603 FOLLOWS AFTER 604
NEXT.











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28509;
          29 Aug 90 5:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25596;
          29 Aug 90 3:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30391;
          29 Aug 90 2:31 CDT
Date:     Wed, 29 Aug 90 2:10:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #604
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 29 Aug 90 02:09:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 604

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Thoughts on 900 Service [John Higdon]
    900 Supervision [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Gary S. Mayhew]
    Those (900) Numbers [Sunday Tribune via Colum Mylod]
    900 Lines - Cost - Blocking - Cutoff [News & Observer via Henry Schaffer]
    Re: What Hath God Wrought? [Mark Brader]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [David M. Archer]
    Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit [John Boudreaux]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gordon Burditt <convex!sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers
Date: 28 Aug 90 06:49:33 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


>The whole point of 900/976 service is to provide a convenient "casual"
>means of billing for information providers, and to provide universal

This in of itself is objectionable when "causal" means billing the
wrong person and ignoring consumer protection.  Telephone companies
have considerably more clout in billing, and Information Providers
have no business piggybacking on the ability of telephone companies to
cut off a very basic and essential service (telephone service) and to
fall back on excuses that would sound extremely stupid outside the
telephone business.  Can you imagine MC Pizza claiming that you have
to pay for their pizza anyway, because by "mistake" they switched your
default pizza carrier to them, even though you ordered your pizzas
from AT & Pizza?  How often would Southwestern Pizza claim that they
can't remove the charge for Extra Roaches because the tarrifs won't
allow it?  And Sprint Pizza threatening to cut off your water if you
don't pay your pizza bill?

The California PUC states that no one has lost telephone service
because of delinquent 976/900 charges.  Is that a decision or a
statement of historical fact?  If it's not a decision with the force
of law, I'm not satisfied.  The bills should be separate, and the
bills for IP service should not be identifiable with a phone company.
And the only thing a consistently-overdue IP bill should do to your
phone service is demonstrate that you have intelligence not to pay it,
and therefore you don't need to put down a deposit for your phone
service.

I've got a great idea!  I have this home-improvement and repair
company.  I'll bill my services *ON YOUR ELECTRIC BILL*.  I think you
can imagine how renters who pay their own electric bill and are not
enthusiastic about paying for maintenance which the landlord is
supposed to pay will feel about that.  And my magazine publisher can
bill your subscription on your income tax - sorry about that mistake
that caused the IRS to seize your car.  Too bad the law won't let them
give it back.

>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

Um, you mean the people doing the billing might be able to find the IP
for legal service, and that would discourage some people from going
into the IP business?  Southwestern Bell says it won't reveal who's
behind 976 numbers even for people who have run up bills calling them.

>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

If, by "sleazy material", you mean material that might be considered
"soft-pore cornography", I don't care.  In my view, there is very
little pornography in the world, and what little there is has been
enacted into law by various legislatures under the category "obscenity
laws", and other forms of censorship.

976/900 numbers encourage a sleazy way of doing business.  You can't
know the cost when you receive the information.  If the ad lied about
the charge, the phone company can hide behind the tarrifs.  There is
no customer service number to complain if all you heard was dead
silence instead of the material you wanted.  Phone companies let the
IPs hide behind them without revealing their identities, but they can
harass you with bills.  If there was a way to deliver drugs over the
telephone, the drug dealers would be in seventh heaven.  They'd never
have to face quality complaints from customers.

On many numbers, the charge happens when you connect, but the
information is useless unless they can get information from you, like
your address (all those lines for getting a credit card or a loan)
because the real service is delivered later by mail.  Between that
time, the call can disconnect, or an impasse can be reached: "We don't
deliver to P.O. boxes" "But I don't have anything else!"  "Sorry
(click)(bye bye $$)".

>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.

I doubt it.  How much have businesses had to spend, in self-defense,
on equipment to block numbers like this?  (976 numbers have been
around a lot longer than free blocking of them) You don't suppose they
might pass on some of the extra cost to their customers, do you?  And
how about all the time telco customer service people spend removing
charges?  I bet the cost of extra people finds its way into the cost
of residential phone service.


        Gordon L. Burditt
        sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on 900 Service
Date: 27 Aug 90 12:01:44 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Aug 26 at 16:05, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: John, are you positive 900's are never translated
> into POTS at the final destination?

In California I'm about 99% sure.

> [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]

When the IXC provides 900 service directly with, as you point out, a
dish on your roof, it is fundamentally the same as if it came in as
pairs from the LEC. T1 comes in from the short-haul microwave, is sent
to Rockwell or Newbridge channel banks and comes out as tip and ring.
When a call comes in, ring voltage supplied by the channel bank is put
on the line. The answering equipment goes off-hook and the supervision
is sent back towards the IXC's switch which in turn relays it on to
the originating LEC. The only thing left out of the path is an LEC
switch at the terminating end.

The twenty-second chicken exit period begins when the answering
machine goes off-hook. (Some newer equipment can accept the T-span
directly, but the process is the same. Only the channel banks are
eliminated.)


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

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

Subject: 900 Supervision
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 00:34:14 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> 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.

My roommate found out, the hard way, that this supervision delay isn't
universally implemented.

See, I didn't think about 900 blocking, and tried to call 900-410-8463
(the Naval Observatory Master Clock). I was informed that the service
was unavailable on our line. My roomie then called one or another of
these cheeseball 900 outfits on TV, on a whim, and the service
answered!  He had thought we were blocked, after my call had failed.
The connection lasted seven or eight seconds, at the most. (Just long
enough to hear "Thank you for...") Sure enough, the call appeared on
that month's bill.

This rather incensed the third roommate, who is the actual person on
the billing. He _had_ ordered 900 blocking, and obviously it hadn't
been turned on. A call to the USWest office cleared it up, and the
charge was removed. Still, there was certainly no "chicken exit"
period. Our LD carrier is Telecom*USA, if that makes a difference.


Roy M. Silvernail
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Here is an example of a 900 number which is routed
to a POTS: The Naval Observatory Master Clock as noted above is
reached at 900-410-TIME. But why pay 900 rates when you can call the
clock on its POTS number: 202-653-1800 -- and pay 12 cents during the
overnight hours!  A public service message from TELECOM Digest! :)  PAT]

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

From: "Gary S. Mayhew" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help With Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1
Date: 28 Aug 90 16:20:26 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> A little investigation showed that the problem results from the fact
> that although '0' is denied on the particular trunk route '011' to
> allow direct dialled international is allowed.  Apparently the SL-1
> time out is longer than the trunk line '0' time out and the call does
> not get blocked.  Obviously, we could just require all calls starting
> with '0' including '011' to go out over the toll trunks.  However, we
> have 200 rooms full of dialling instructions that would have to be
> changed.

> Are there any SL-1 experts out there that can suggest a work-around?
> Perhaps changing some of the trunk timers?

You can change most of the trunk timers through your local TTY device
on your SL-1(?). Overlay 15 [Customer Data Block] allows you to set
both your EOD timer for non-DTMF trunks and your ODT timer for DTMF
trunks (``DIGITONE'' in NT nomenclature). Default settings are usually
sufficient for most applications, however, you must have extremely
fast CO trunks. Reducing the timer's values may indeed help your
situation, but take heed ... too much will raise `havoc' with the
people using the system. Try reducing EOD timer by 25% of the default,
and ODT timer by the same. Consult the NTP's for more information.
Reach me by one of the methods below if you wish to discuss in depth.


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: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Those (900) Numbers
Date: 28 Aug 90 21:10:53 GMT
Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands


It's interesting all those opinions on premium-line/900 numbers, but
they are for profit and no-one NEEDS to dial them in any case.  But
what if you do? From the Quotes section of "The Sunday Tribune" dated
19 August:

       "Calls to this line are charged at 25p per
        minute cheap rate and 38p per minute all
        other times."

        - British Foreign Office answering ma-
        chine for concerned relatives of those
        trapped in the Gulf.

(These are the charges for the BT 898 service, not the normal trunk
charges.)

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


[Moderator's Note: Isn't it pretty rotten when someone wants to make a
profit from a family's concern and grief about their loved one?   PAT]

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Lines - Cost - Blocking - Cutoff
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 02:12:43 GMT


  The son of a North Carolina resident ran up almost $4,000 in
900-number calls (without the father's permission.)  The phone
company, Central Telephone of Hickory, cut off his service.  The
cutoff came after the resident "had tried to have the calls from his
line blocked."

  Information and quote from an editorial, "Trouble on the 900 line"
in the Monday, Aug. 27, {News and Observer}, Raleigh, NC.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Hath God Wrought?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 1990 01:28:55 -0400


Some recent items have had it that Morse invented telegraphy.  Isaac
Asimov says otherwise.  From "Asimov's New Guide to Science":

#  For the work that led to the early application of electricity
#  to technology, the lion's share of the credit must fall to
#  Joseph Henry.  Henry's first application of electricity was the
#  invention of telegraphy.  He devised a system ... [where] the dying
#  signal [would] activate a small electromagnet that operated a switch
#  that turned on a boost in power from stations placed at appropriate
#  intervals.  Thus a message consisting of coded pulses of electricity
#  could be sent for a considerable distance.  Henry actually built a
#  telegraph that worked.

#  Because he was an unworldly man, who believed that knowledge should
#  be shared with the world and therefore did not patent his discoveries,
#  Henry got no credit for this invention.  The credit fell to ... Morse.
#  With Henry's help, freely given (but later only grudgingly acknowledged),
#  Morse built the first practical telegraph in 1844.  Morse's main original
#  contribution to telegraphy was the system of dots and dashes known as
#  the Morse Code.


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

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

From: David M Archer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 29 Aug 90 05:57:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo


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

>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.

I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent
user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user,
they will bill you through your local phone company.

When I had a new line installed, I requested Sprint as my long
distance company.  About a year and a few months later, when I
actually got Sprint as my long distance company, I was calling long
distance a bit more than I normally do.  I was getting my bill
directly from Sprint.  Then after a few months, my long distance
calling went back down to it's normal level of maybe 1 or 2 calls
every couple months.  I'm now getting my Sprint bill in with the
regular phone bill.

So, at least, my experience agrees with what I've heard.  I'm sure
that if I was really interested in knowing, I could call up Sprint and
ask them.  I don't like the phone company acting as a bill collector
myself, but Sprint hasn't tried to rip me off yet, so I am not
terribly concerned, yet.

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

From: John Boudreaux <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Building a 1A2 Key Service Unit
Date: 29 Aug 90 05:04:45 GMT
Followup-To: [e-mail]
Organization: JBX Consulting


I've been blessed(cursed) with hooking up some 1A2 stuff. Anyone know
where I can get the wiring layout etc for it? I thought I had it all
but ...  It works, but no lights and no interupter and hold hangs up
the line?


John Boudreaux             INTERNET: [e-mail]
JBX                        UUCP: ...!uunet!jbx!johnb
*Disclaimer* - I Don't Care What Anyone Thinks of My Views

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #604
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28549;
          29 Aug 90 5:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25596;
          29 Aug 90 3:36 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30391;
          29 Aug 90 2:31 CDT
Date:     Wed, 29 Aug 90 1:33:17 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #603
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 29 Aug 90 01:32:13 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 603

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Is My AOS Cheating? [Scott Fybush]
    MCI International Information [Andy Rabagliati]
    Looking For a Good Home Intercom System [Gordon Edwards]
    Wanted: Connectors for 1A2 KSU's [Steve Pershing]
    Intercept Recordings [Roy M. Silvernail]
    ATT/Sprint Conference Calls Comparison [John R. Levine]
    Voice/Fax/Modem Switches Revisited [cup.portal.com!fleming]
    Re: Answering Phrase [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Modems Recognizing Call Waiting [Steck Thomas]
    Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [Mark Elkins]
    Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again [Wolfgang S. Rupprecht]
    Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Clive Dawson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 03:47:55 edt
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is My AOS Cheating?


Just recently, operator-assisted calls through Telesphere from
Brandeis have become partially automated.  Dialing 9+0+NPA+ number+
Brandeis access code now yields a recorded "please enter your card
number now or dial 0 for an operator."  So far, so good, but upon
entering the card number, a staticky voice asks you to "please wait."
After nearly a 20-second wait, the call either goes through or gets a
"this is not a valid card number" recording.

This sounds to me very much like the traditional AOS scam of trying
the card number by placing a call through ATT, then approving the call
only if the ATT-placed call goes through.  And _that_ practice is
clearly unethical and (I think) illegal.  So, how do I prove that
that's what International Telesphere is doing, and, once proven, how
do I shut the scumbags down?

BTW, I've _never_ been stupid enough to actually allow an
operator-assisted or card call to go through on Telesphere; the
Telesphere operators can (grudgingly) connect you to ATT, thank God.


Scott Fybush / [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is illegal, and AT&T has sued before because of
this. There's a few AT&T security guys who read the Digest, and
perhaps they will be motivated to check things out at the Telesphere
point of presence wherever they are at picking up Brandeis traffic.  PAT]

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

From: Andy Rabagliati <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI International Information
Organization: INMOS Corporation, Colorado Springs
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 17:49:19 GMT


Today I attempted to get a phone number in the UK from MCI.

They said to call 10288-0 - which, as you are aware, is the
access code for AT&T, to the operator.

Our Company PBX is blocked from alternate carrier
access - I get a busy signal after 10.

I called MCI back again - they advised me to call 800-874-4000,
which turned out to be AT&T, who informed me politely that they
could not connect me with directory information, and that I
should dial 10ATT-0.

I then called MCI customer service, who asked if I could call from
a payphone (!!) in the building.

We have no payphone here.

I then called our company telecom personnel, who immediately
conferenced in the MCI rep. in Dallas. Her suggestion was to call the
800 number, and say that AT&T was my long distance carrier!!  This in
front of our company telecom person.

I think that this is poor service from MCI. I think that AT&Ts
position is entirely reasonable - it is an 800 number, and therefore
paid for by AT&T - why should I call them for free, and then use MCI
to call international if they do not have the support?


Cheers,  Andy Rabagliati    EMAIL:- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: While you are at it, why not call in whoever does
your PBX programming and ask him when he can get his act together and
correct the *illegal* blocking of 10xxx.  PAT]

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

From: Gordon Edwards <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For a Good Home Intercom System
Date: 29 Aug 90 01:10:05 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering & Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA


I am looking for a good inexpensive home intercom system that will
support at least three stations.  Each station needs to be able to
'call' the other stations (not individually).  I would like a system
that doesn't require any wiring but could use existing phone wire
(either the first phone line or the second set of phone wires at each
jack) or could use the power lines inside the house.

I have tried the set that Radio Shack has on sale for $60.00 that use
the AC lines in the house but they have a loud buzzing sound on all
boxes and some intercoms can not reach other ones within the house on
the same wiring system.

I would like to have one intercom in each room and another in the kitchen.

Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


Internet: [e-mail]       NCR Corporation
UUCP: uunet!ncrlnk!ncratl!gedwards             2651 Satellite Blvd.
Amateur Radio: N4VPH                           Duluth, GA  30136

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

Subject: Wanted: Connectors for 1A2 KSU's
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 18:57:09 PDT
Organization: The Questor Project: FREE Public Access for All callers!


A friend of mine who has a couple of junked 1A2 KSU's is looking for a
quantity of 40 to 50 scrapped connectors (40-pin, that is 2-rows of 20
pins each) for WECo or NECo 1A2 KSU's.

I suspect he would be willing to pay a reasonable price.

Please post any sources directly to my "domain" address.

Much thanks.

  Internet: [e-mail]     | POST: 1027 Davie Street, Box 486
  Phones:   Voice/FAX:  [phone] |       Vancouver, British Columbia
            Data/BBS:   [phone] |       Canada  V6E 4L2

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

Subject: Intercept Recordings
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 00:39:43 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


I happened upon a very unusual intercept recording today. In typical,
slightly halting sampled speech, it said "The number you have reached,
xxx-xxxx, has been disconnected. Calls are being taken on xxx-xxxx."

I'm used to "The number has been changed ...", but have never heard
this particular version before. Any ideas what it means by "Calls are
being taken on xxx-xxxx"?


Roy M. Silvernail
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Did I get a strange one Sunday night! I had
finished an international call and immediatly flashed and dialed 00 to
get AT&T for another call. It rang once, and a recording said, "This
is TS-6, Frame 2, Rogers Park". I hung up, dialed 00 a second time,
and got the recording a second time. Third time around, I got the
operator. I never was able to get it again.  Any ideas?   PAT]

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

Subject: ATT/Sprint Conference Calls Comparison
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 90 15:51:14 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


I have been making a fair number of conference calls lately, so I
thought I'd see what the competition is like.  The only two carriers I
could find that provide conference service are AT&T and Sprint.  (MCI
said they don't.)

Here's the comparison of AT&T Alliance and Sprint FON Conference.
AT&T also still has their old operator completed conference service
which seems noisier and more expensive except for very long (many
hour) conferences.

ACCESS:

AT&T:    Dial 0-700-456-1000 if you want to dial it yourself,
    1-800-544-6363 if you want operator assistance.

Sprint: Dial 1-800-FON-CONF for a Sprint conference operator.

SETUP:

AT&T:    If you dialed the 700 number, you dial the numbers yourself, and
    dial # to add them to the conference, * to hang up on them.  (There
    are voice prompts.)  For operator dialed calls, you give them your
    list of names and numbers.

    You are encouraged but not required to call ahead to reserve operator
    assisted conferences.  If you don't reserve, they don't promise that
    the capacity will be available.  Operator dialed calls are placed
    person-to-person.

Sprint: Call at least 15 minutes ahead to schedule the call and tell them
    who to call.  They call you back.  All calls are placed
    person-to-person.

CALL QUALITY:

In my experience, both are very good.  They both have digital
conference bridges that keep the noise way down.

In both cases you can get an operator during the conference (dial #0 or 0
respectively) but I've never needed to do so.

COST:

AT&T:    25 cents/minute/location plus toll charges.  You pay the toll charge
    from the caller to the conference bridge, and from the bridge to
    each callee.  There are four bridges in White Plains, Chicago,
    Dallas, and Reno; normally you get the closest one, but you can call
    a specific bridge if most of your callees are nearer to it.  If the
    operator dials the call, there is a setup charge of (I believe)
    $3/location.  You can call any dialable number in the world.

Sprint: Setup charge of $3/location plus 44 cents/location/minute anywhere
    in the US.  I don't know if they allow foreign locations.

BILLING:

AT&T:    Billed to the calling number, or to a third party if they accept
    the charge.  You can't charge to a calling card.

Sprint:    They mail you a separate bill, even if you're a Sprint subscriber.
    (How quaint.)  No other billing options, though it seems they'll
    send the bill anywhere you tell them to.

OTHER NOTES:

AT&T has a "call me" conference which is assigned its own 700 number
for the duration of the call so that people can call in themselves.
There is a large extra charge for this.  Calls to the 700 number can
be billed to the caller or to the conference originator.  This seems
useful if you don't know where your participants are, e.g. salesmen
calling in from the road.

The rate structures are quite different -- Sprint is cheaper for calls
during the day and people far away.  AT&T customer-dialed is cheaper
at night and for calls with people closer together.

Regards,

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


[Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA also provides operator assisted
conference calling via their calling card and 800 number.  PAT]

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Voice/Fax/Modem Switches Revisited
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 03:44:56 PDT


Several months ago, there was a discussion in the Digest of voice/fax
and voice/fax/modem switches.  Not having a fax machine, I skipped
these messages.  Now, the Tooth Fairy has left a fax machine on my
doorstep and I really want to set it up for unattended operation.

Is there any consensus on which of these units is best?  Which is
least irritating to human callers?  How about a good mail order source
(are the Damark ones any good)?  Any assistance would be appreciated.

(Note:  I do not have access to the Telecom Archives... sorry.)


   Stephen Fleming
   [e-mail]
   CI$:   76354,3176
   BIX:   srfleming        |   My employers may disagree vehemently.   |

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

Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 9:11:08 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Phrase


My answering machine says "Hi, this is Rich and Michelle's.  Please
leave your message..." (or, during immediate pre-convention season
"Hi, this is the Archon hotline, also known as Rich and Michelle's.
Please leave...".

This immediately lets callers know they've reached the right (or
wrong) place, yet gives neither a number or last name for
random-dialing harassment callers to use in calling you again.  I
could answer the phone myself the same way, which would probably be
useful to callers, but a lifetime of simply saying "hello" is hard to
overcome (except when I answer with "telephone" every once in a blue
moon).

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

From: Steck Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modems Recognizing Call Waiting
Date: 28 Aug 90 14:52:43 GMT
Reply-To: Steck Thomas <[e-mail]>
Organization: Johns Hopkins University


The Moderator wrote, some time ago:

>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]

PAT - I beg to differ with you on this one.  On the older switching
systems, this may have been true.  However, on the new ATT 5ESS and
the Northern Telecom DMS-100, call waiting is not implemented as a
voltage changee - simply a tone introduced to the line.  There is no
true interuption of the line and no 'switching' sounds (clicks, etc..)
like there used to be.


Tom Steck

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

From: Mark J Elkins <mje99![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Date: 28 Aug 90 06:27:35 GMT
Reply-To: Mark J Elkins <mje99![e-mail]>
Organization: Mark's Machine (Working for Olivetti Africa)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan
Bernstein) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 585, Message 6 of 14

>In this city, a local phone call of unlimited length has fixed cost.

As used to be the case in Johannesburg ... (Until 'local' meters were
installed ... Local calls in most other areas are still unlimited by
time.)

>.... In other words, for a
>monthly call waiting charge, you could get a permanent, basically free
>connection to the computer of your choice.

>... But what would the phone companies think of people getting
>connections so cheaply?

As one customer used to do ... dedicate a phone line just for modem
use.  His cost was 2 X monthly rental which was 18 Rand X 2 which is
about $13 a month for the total cost of the line - etc (both ends).
When the PO found out - they were not too happy - they developed some
manual routine of disconecting him some time about 5pm each night - so
he was forced to make at least one call a day.  They don't like people
doing this, as it competes with their own 'data-line' service which
costs a lot more per month.


      Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa
      UUCP: {uunet,olgb1,olnl1}!olsa99!mje (Mark Elkins)
      [e-mail] (Postmaster) Tel: [phone]

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

From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wsrcc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: San Jose Mercury Strikes Again
Organization: Wolfgang S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Washington DC.
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 90 11:19:50 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark
Earle) writes:

>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. [...] This same sleeze machine would not
>release your line for two minutes (length of pitch). Quite an annoyance.

Does anyone know if whistling a 2600 hz note into the phone would
break this call off?

   "But officer, I was just doing that to disconnect a telemarketer..."


Wolfgang Rupprecht      uunet!nancy!wsrcc!wolfgang
Internet:        nancy!wsrcc![e-mail]
Snail Mail Address:     Box 6524, Alexandria, VA 22306-0524

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

Date: Tue 28 Aug 90 16:28:18-CDT
From: Clive Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers


George,

Great article!  I hope you'll keep TELECOM Digest posted of any
developments on this.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a bunch of
different news stories talking about how the Juvenile Court phone
system was paralyzed, how the county decided to sue the newspaper and
columnist for "irresponsible behavior" etc...


Clive

P.S.  I tried calling the court several times just a few minutes ago,
and got nothing but a busy signal...


[Moderator's Message: I got a busy signal several times also, but my
Demon Dialer came to the rescue and kept pounding away. I never did
actually reach anyone. A couple calls did get through: on one, it rang
*37 times* and was finally picked up with the response "please hold",
and dead silence; no one ever returned to the line as of when I
abandoned the call about a minute later. On the other answered call,
it rang about a dozen times, a voice answered "Operator", said
"Hello?" and disconnected. I'd say the board must have driven 'em
crazy the past couple days!  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #603
******************************

ISSUE 604 IS FILED BEFORE 603 DUE TO BEING REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION.
605 IS NEXT.











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09955;
          30 Aug 90 3:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11320;
          30 Aug 90 2:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26234;
          30 Aug 90 0:51 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 Aug 90 0:25:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #605
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Aug 90 00:25:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 605

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Linc Madison]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Piet van Oostrum]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Barrey Jewall]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Craig R. Watkins
    Re: Automated Directory Assistance [Steve Lemke]
    Re: Answering Phrase [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [D. Archer]
    Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [J. Higdon]
    Re: USA Direct From the Netherlands [Piet van Oostrum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 01:15:38 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


I have a very simple (and legal!) method of evading payment for calls
to my parents.  If I'm home, I call them.  I say, "Mom."  My mother
says, "Do you want us to call you?"  I say, "Yes."  We hang up, I pay
anywhere from 12c to 25c for the privilege, she calls me back.

If I'm away from home, but in 415 area code, I use my MCI card, and
answer the question, "Yes, I'm at 415-XXX-XXXX."  Because of the
"Around Town" feature, I still pay two bits or less for the call.  If
I'm farther afield than that, I just call on AT&T and bill to my
parents' calling card number, but in that case the one-ring scheme
doesn't work, and the operator is likely to get suspicious about my
calling p-to-p and asking for a callback to a roadside payphone, so
the 80c surcharge is worth the savings in trouble.

Seriously, with one-minute calls from a residence as cheap as they now
are, I can't justify using some cumbersome ringing/collect/person
scheme to get my parents to call me.  I can afford 12c for a half-hour
call half way across the country, and my parents don't call me every
time someone hangs up on a wrong number.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You are not 'evading' payment (illegal). You are
legitimatly reducing the costs of your calls. (legal).    PAT]

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 29 Aug 90 14:19:10 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]>, radius!lemke@apple (Steve Lemke)
writes:

|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.

I used something similar to let my computer pickup the phone when I
wanted to login from the office: the computer would pick up the phone
when a SINGLE ring would be followed by another ring after 15-30 sec.
This will hardly ever happen by accident, and is also easily
recognised by human beings. The 15-30 seconds was just enough to
redial the number on an old fashioned rotary dial.


Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: [phone]   Uucp:   uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet
Telefax:   [phone]   Internet:  [e-mail]   (*`Pete')

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

From: Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 29 Aug 90 16:25:09 GMT
Reply-To: Barrey Jewall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel
Jacobson) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 597, Message 6 of 11

>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. }

Maybe this is why my phone will ring about five times (seperated by a few
seconds), usually at about 5:30 AM.

Someone must be trying to send me a message!

If I find the guy who is doing this, I would like to devise a real
nasty method for ending his life.

The first call rings until I pick up th phone, at which time I am
treated to the merry sound of DTMF (two or three key, I think), and
then he hangs up. For about the next five or six MINUTES, this idiot
redials my number, lets it ring once, and hangs up and redials...

Telco (Pac*Bell) says change my number, and become unlisted...

Maybe I should look into an ANI here ... (Not sure about the
California law on them things, anyone know? - No, don't lets start a
discussion here again, but E-Mail me if you have any pertinent info.)

>[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]

Awhile ago, this used to take place:

About once every two weeks, my mom would call my number, person to
person collect , for some guy I've never heard of, and when I reply
that he's not here, and I don't know when he will be, the operator
(AT&T) usually asked if my mom wants to leave a message for him, and
she replies "just have him call me when he arrives", and the operator
says thank you for using AT&T, or somesuch thing, and we hang up. Then
I called my mom.

Doesn't seem like they care that much.

BTW- My mom had never recieved a bill for these calls, in about eight years.

Postscript to the MCI switchover racket:

A friend of mine, who was quite happy with AT&T, answered the phone
about a month ago, and lo and behold, it was MCI. Well , he was kinda
busy with his SO at the time, so he hung up on the guy after learning
it was MCI.

He related this tale to me one night, and I recalled the discussion
here a while back, and suggested it might be a good idea to check his
LD carrier, well, he called the 700 number, and sure enough, MCI!!!!

Took him about two months to get things straight, though.

He actually took MCI for about 150 bucks in LD calls, because he was
buying some property in Alaska, and was on the phone constantly that
month.

That's all for now,

Barrey Jewall                  ++ "My opinions are my opinions" +
[e-mail]           ++ (rather self-evident, eh?)    +
Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.

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

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 29 Aug 90 17:36:52 GMT
Reply-To: Rolf Meier <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

>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

This trick is not reliable.  The ringback tone you hear does not
necessarily correspond to the ringing at the other end.


Rolf Meier                        Mitel Corporation

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service
Date: 28 Aug 90 11:32:01 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> On a different subject, are long-distance DA calls from pay
> phones supposed to be free?

I don't know of anywhere which requires free LD DA calls from pay
phones.

However, when I use AT&T and use my calling card to "pay" for the LD
DA call, it never appears on my bill.  I don't know if there is any
limit per month or a requirement that a matching number of toll LD
calls be placed, etc.


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

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

From: Steve Lemke <radius![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Directory Assistance
Date: 29 Aug 90 06:06:44 GMT


}[Moderator's Note: Incidentally, if you hear a pre-recorded greeting
}which sounds noisy, muffled, or otherwise not the best, tell the
}operator about it. I do, and they are always glad to find out and will
}usually record it over again. And for anyone who answers the phone
}quite frequently each day, you can get the same little gizmo the
}operators use for their answer phrase from the {Hello Direct} catalog.
}They are devices to have, and help save your voice.   PAT]

Can you tell us more about this device?  How much does it cost?  How
does it interface to the phone and/or line?  Where exactly can one get
it from?

Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose
Reply to: [e-mail]     (Note: NEW domain-style address!!)


[Moderator's Note: The one I saw is just a little unit, much smaller
than a desk (Model 500) phone. The phone line plugs into it, then it
has a jumper which plugs into the back of the phone. A chip inside
stores about a five second message which you record (or re-record) at
any time. When you answer a call, take the receiver off hook and hit
the button on the unit. It feeds the pre-recorded message out to the
line. This will typically just be your name and number, or department,
or whatever you ordinarily say when you answer the phone. The caller
hears it, starts talking, and you take over in your own voice at that
point. The appropriate use for the device is to answer incoming calls
where you get several dozen to several hundred per day. It saves
several minutes of speaking each day for phone operators;
receptionists, etc. Inquire from Hello Direct: 1-800-HI-HELLO.  PAT]

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <amdcad!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Phrase
Date: 29 Aug 90 05:43:08 GMT
Reply-To: amdcad!netcom![e-mail]
Organization: UESPA


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
writes:

>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.

Lucky you.  Mine just hang up.  I really do wonder what's going on at
that motel....

But I'm reminded of a joke.  Once a guy was manning the desk at some
installation called Military Air Reconnaisance Support (or something
like that), when the phone rang.  He pick up the receiver and said,
"MARS, Sergeant Wolowitz speaking."  A moment of silence, and a voice
at the other end said, "Jeesh, I *know* I didn't dial long distance!"

It might even be true.  I mean who would *invent* those jokes they
publish in {Reader's Digest}, huh?


[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!


[Moderator's Note: I heard AT&T was going to start a new program
called "Reach Out Outer Space" but they abandoned it when they
experienced difficulty getting billing information back on a timely
basis. :)  PAT]

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

From: David M Archer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Date: 29 Aug 90 08:32:59 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo


In article <[e-mail]>, mje99![e-mail]
(Mark J Elkins) writes...

>As one customer used to do ... dedicate a phone line just for modem
>use.  His cost was 2 X monthly rental which was 18 Rand X 2 which is
>about $13 a month for the total cost of the line - etc (both ends).
>When the PO found out - they were not too happy - they developed some
>manual routine of disconecting him some time about 5pm each night - so
>he was forced to make at least one call a day.  They don't like people
>doing this, as it competes with their own 'data-line' service which
>costs a lot more per month.

Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this?  I've never heard
of a maximum period of time for a phone call.  I consulted my phone
book, and the term it uses is untimed.  I'd call the customer
representatives once a day and request a credit.  After all, my phone
call was interrupted by them, and so their "equipment failure"
required me to make a second phone call.  Seems appropriate to me.  I
ask about this, because I can quite easily see myself doing something
similiar in the future.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Date: 29 Aug 90 03:57:34 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steck Thomas <[e-mail]> writes:

> PAT - I beg to differ with you on this one.  On the older switching
> systems, this may have been true.  However, on the new ATT 5ESS and
> the Northern Telecom DMS-100, call waiting is not implemented as a
> voltage changee - simply a tone introduced to the line.  There is no
> true interuption of the line and no 'switching' sounds (clicks, etc..)
> like there used to be.

But even on these digital switches, the talk path is interrupted for
the duration of the "beep". In most cases, this is enough for a modem
to consider that there has been carrier loss and to hang up. There may
be no clicks, but there is definately interruption of the line. If you
don't believe me, call someone on a 5ESS or DMS100 who has call
waiting and have them hum into the line. Then call them on another
phone and see if you don't hear the person disappear for a moment.

But that's all quite moot. There are so many 1AESS switches that will
be around for so long as to make it impossible to discount their
presence in the telecom world. Even the ancient 1ESS "serving" my home
phone is not scheduled for replacement. ("Hell, we wouldn't want to
waste money replacing THAT -- it still completes calls sometimes,
doesn't it?")


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

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Direct From the Netherlands
Date: 29 Aug 90 14:41:47 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


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

|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?

You can call collect to other countries (but not all) even through the
Dutch operator. At least that is what my telephone directory says. The
directory says that the extra costs are Dfl 5.00 for a collect call,
as well as for person-to-person and credit card calls.


Piet* van Oostrum, Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University,
Padualaan 14, P.O. Box 80.089, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Telephone: [phone]   Uucp:   uunet!mcsun!ruuinf!piet
Telefax:   [phone]   Internet:  [e-mail]   (*`Pete')

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #605
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11002;
          30 Aug 90 5:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05901;
          30 Aug 90 3:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11320;
          30 Aug 90 2:10 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 Aug 90 1:35:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #606
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Aug 90 01:35:24 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 606

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    We Are Flooded! No More Messages, Please [TELECOM Moderator]
    Telephone Cable Color Code (was: USOC Book) [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed? [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Home Intercom Using Telephones [Peter G. Capek]
    West German Toll-Free Numbers are [Nigel Roberts]
    The COCOTs Are Coming to Europe [Nigel Roberts]
    File Format for AT&T VoicePower Board or VSF Products? [Jose Diaz-Gonzalez]
    "Air Time" Charges for Unanswered Cellular Calls [Richard B. August]
    Explain This Conversation [Roy Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 1:19:53 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: We Are Flooded! No More Messages, Please


Due to a problem with the computer at this site being extremely
sluggish today, it has taken approximatly *four hours* to create this
Digest. Something is going on that has brought the machine to an
almost virtual halt.

Messages are flooding in; there is at present a *three day backlog* of
messages for the Digest.

I have FIVE special issues to be released in the next couple of days.

Since messages received Thursday and Friday will not appear for a few
days, I must ask that you stop sending all traffic to this account at
this time, and resume following the holiday.

Please do not 're' any existing messages unless you feel yours is so
different and special that it must be seen.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 21:57:17 CDT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Telephone Cable Color Code (was: Where to Obtain the USOC Book)


In article (Digest v10, iss 588), AJ 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?

The fabled "Blue-Orange-Green-Brown-Slate" of North American telephone
cables is a real "fun" standard, AJ.  Most people think it was set up
by Bell, of course, and it might indeed well have been. I have some
(rather spiffy circular slide-rule/chart) documents from Western Union
citing "Western Electric" as the source.  However, these are recent
enough (1950's) that WECo had certainly been manufacturing to them for
several decades.  It turns out that the"Blue-Orange-Green-Brown-Slate"
IS the "standard" of an organized group you might have fun tracking
down.  The standard number (S-83, as I recall), is from the Insulated
Cable Engineers Association, listed in the "Encyclopedia of
Associations" as resident at a phone in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
That reference says the ICEA has been around since 1927.  My gut
feeling makes that a vintage year for the color code to have been
"standardized" by somebody.

I ran across the reference in standards work on wiring in buildings
per EIA TR 41.8.  However, that path ran dry when I found the ICEA
phone number really was a point in the North American network you
couldn't get to from here.  All sorts of peculiar recordings and no
assistance operator that could or would help.  It all led me to wonder
if, in fact, the ICEA was resident in telephone Oz.  If you REALLY
want the document, I suggest you start back with the Encyclopedia of
Associations listing at the library to validate the number and such.

(In fact, tracking that number and its routing problem sounds like the
sort of dialing adventure some of our more intrepid Digest readers
take on as their challenges of choice.)  As to the USOC book, its
purpose is not to list the color code, and I wouldn't expect you'll
find any indications there.  Universal Service Order Codes have become
one of the true "phone business" oxymoronic contradictions in terms.
Once a stellar monopoly-era Bell System attempt to automate and
standardize ordering and billing codes for service orders, that system
never did get very well standardized as the Bell people kept finding
and attempting to rationalize all the variations the local operating
company people had.

And, the local people of different companies invented different USOCs
for the same thing, sometimes even division by division of the same
company.  Today, there are as many "USOC books" as there are Telcos
 ... all of them "Universal." If you don't believe me, ask them!
Whatever one they have, it's LAW. If you don't believe me, ask them
again!  If you really WAMT a "USOC book," prepare yourself for another
adventure in "Telephony by Oz."  You will be constantly assured that
you have the right to have one, because it's public information.

However, you'll also be told that the "nasty lawyers" of the Telco
always have the "nice guy" employee you get on the phone stonewalled,
and there's just no one for you to talk to about it.  (Oh, there are
USOC books in circulation, always in the hands of someone who has a
"friend on the inside."  These are usually recent 20-30 year retirees
who know where to call for a 'sub rosa' copy.)  But, you'll still find
no color code in the USOC book.  Even the various Plant Practices
(BSP, GSP, CSP, you-name-it SP) practices hardly ever mention the
color code, because it's something everybody "just knows," or it
_might_ be on the drawing for a particular assembly ... but in the
USOC book?

Uh-uh.  I'd be interested to hear what adventures AJ and others have
tracking along this route, either to USOC books or the color code
"standard."  (Those who want the color code recited from memory can
get any of a number of us old crustaceans to recite it for an hourly
fee, I'm sure. Rates similar to those of Bhuddist monks and Tibetan
prayer-wheel makers.)

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 22:57:56 CDT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Org: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: How Should Telephone Numbers be Listed?


In article (Digest V10, iss594), Joel writes:

>In general, I think that a large percentage of the questions of this
>nature in this newsgroup 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.

To which I must say, "Amen, Brother Snyder."  I hope you will become
the resident reference authority, and to give the readers some sense
of antiquity to their many discoveries, quote some of the heading
material in the Recommendations that shows a lot of these "standards"
have been in the CCITT books since it was called the CCIF and the
CCIT. And, don't make it just the "E" series, but show them the "F"
series on registered cable addresses and such, the "G" series about
analog and digital transmission, and dig out others as they come up.
It seems to me the Digest goes around in loops about certain topics as
new readers come on board and recite the latest misleading tripe they
got from their local telco about "standards."  Whose "standards,"
indeed?

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 22:02:57 EDT
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Home Intercom System: Call Manager I


In TELECOM Digest 10.603, Gordon Edwards asks about home intercoms.
His question seems like a good spur for me to mention something I have
installed at home called Call Manager I. I've had it installed for
several months and have been quite happy with it.  Unfortunately, the
device itself doesn't give any identifying information, and I've
misplaced the manual which came with it, so I can't immediately give
the manufacturer's name.  It was a gift, so I can't quote a price.

This product provides the ability to use telephones installed on the
same line as an intercom.  It connects (as would a Demon Dialer; I'm
not sure if both could feasibly be installed on the same line) just
inside the demarcation point, and works by allowing a user at a phone
to cause all the phones installed on the line to ring.

It affects the operation of the phones only when invoked, which is
done by a switchhook flash.  It can be invoked either by picking up
the phone, getting a dial tone and flashing (it responds with 2 beeps,
"hangs up" the phone line, and waits for you to proceed), or by
flashing when a call is established (it puts the call on "hold" and
responds with 3 beeps).  In either case, the user can then dial (on
pulse phones) a number from 1 to 6, and hang up.  This selects 1 of 6
distinct ringing cadences, which is applied to all connected phones.
When the ringing stops, you know that one of the other phones has been
picked up, and you can pick up and be connected to that person, and
also to the phone line, if a call had been in progress.  If you do
this from a touch-tone phone, it is a bit more of a nuisance to select
a ringing cadence other than "1" because you have to push ANY tone
button the appropriate number of times.  (It doesn't distinguish the
tones from one another.)

There's only two of us, so we don't particularly care about the
distinctive rings, but they're intended to be assigned to different
occupants of the house.  One thing that is lacking which I think would
have been nice is a continuous ring, so that it would have been
immediately apparent to the caller when the other party picked up,
rather than waiting for the start of the next ring phase.  It also
seems appropriate to mention that it does require a 110 volt outlet
near where it is installed for power.  The documentation for
installation also left something to be desired.  But once installed,
it works well.  Usual disclaimers apply.


           Peter Capek

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 08:41:38 PDT
From: "Nigel Roberts, 0860 578600" <"iosg::robertsn"@iosg.enet.dec.com>
Subject: W. German Toll-Free Numbers


Reportedly, W. German toll-free service has eliminated the local call
charge as of August 1. My wife read this in STERN or SPIEGEL or
something when we were in Germany at the weekend, but I don't have a
reference. (Can anyone confirm or deny?)

0130 numbers (originall called _Bundesweit zum Ortstarif_ service -- I
don't know if there's a new name) are the nearest German equivalent to
U.S.A. toll-free (800) and U.K. LinkLine (0800) service.

Previously, 0130 numbers were charged as if the call was a local call
(like the underused U.K. 0345 service).

One other piece of telecom trivia which came my way recently is that a
U.K. direct service is likely to be instituted from Germany using an
0130 number in the coming months. This information came from BTI.

W. Germany does not allow collect (reverse-charge) and credit card
calls either to or from foreign countries. The reason for this was the
fact that they have very few operators, but the Bundespost (recently
renamed Telekom) is now apparently prepared to consider Home Country
Direct services.


Nigel Roberts; Orichalk Ltd (on contract to DEC)

Tel: [phone] & [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 09:14:00 PDT
From: "Nigel Roberts, (0860" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The COCOTs Are Coming to Europe


On several trips around Europe recently I have noticed a credit card
operated telephone at various airports operated by a company called
CCC.  After the education I've received here in the Digest, it pretty
much screamed "Hello, I'm a COCOT" at me! (Thanks, folks!).

The one I tried in Luxemburg a couple of months ago didn't work, and I
couldn't even reach their problem reporting service.

Servisair, an otherwise excellent and reputable company, which is a
large ground handling agent, has recently installed one in their VIP
lounge at Heathrow (presumably also at Stansted and other British
airports). I've seen them elsewhere, too, though I can't remember
where -- possibly in the British Airways Club lounge in Terminal 4.

As I had a couple of hours to wait for my flight to Hamburg on Friday,
I decided to check it out. The rates charged by this phone appear to
be pretty COCOT-sized; 120 pence (about $2.35) per minute, if I
understood the sign on the phone correctly. (A peak rate call to
Germany on British Telecom costs approximate 84 pence/minute between
8:00-20:00, 68 pence /minute between 20:00-08:00) when made from a
public call box -- this information from British Telecom International
on 0800 272 172).

So I just used the neighbouring coin-phone and my BT chargecard via
144 dialling to get BTIs normal dialled rates as above (plus 20p
facility fee) to call my relatives to let them know of a flight delay.

Oh yes, and of course the COCOT blocked 144 access!

By the way, the public payphones at Heathrow are now pretty evenly
split between British Telecom and Mercury. The Mercury ones don't take
coins -- you have to use a pre-payment card, or a major credit card.
But they aren't COCOTS -- you get normal Mercury payphone rates.

Looks like it's all starting over here now.


Nigel Roberts; Orichalk Ltd (on contract to DEC)

Tel: [phone] & [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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

From: Jose Diaz-Gonzalez <[e-mail]>
Subject: File Format for AT&T VoicePower Board or VSF Products?
Date: 29 Aug 90 22:40:19 GMT
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc., Waltham, MA


Hello there,


I'm doing some work with the AT&T VoicePower board and I need to know
where I could find the format used for voice files in this system.  I
believe this format is also an AT&T standard for voice store and
forward (VSF) products.  I think the name of this "standard" is the
"AT&T Sub-band Coding Standard".  In particular, I need to know just
what the headers are for indicating speech coding format as well as
silence duration.  Any pointers will be greatly appreciated.  Please
respond by email.


Jose Pedro Diaz-Gonzalez
SrMTS
GTE Laboratories, Inc.       +       Tel:   [phone]
MS-46                          +       email: [e-mail]
40 Sylvan Rd.
Waltham, MA 02254

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 1990 9:28:00 PDT
From: "Richard B. August" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls


Is there information available in the Archives or other repository
which mentions a movement of cellular telephone users to lobby the PUC
regarding the charging for "AIR TIME" in cellular systems?

If not, we should start one.

Thanks in advance.

Richard B. August
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There is no such file in the archives.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Explain This Conversation
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 17:18:22 GMT


    I tried to place a long distance call the other day from a
bedside phone in a hospital room the other day.  I was in 212 and was
trying to call 512 (both served by NYTel, so I'm not sure if "long
distance" is the appropriate term").  I wanted to put it on my AT&T
calling card, so I tried 9-10288-0-516-xxx-xxxx.  This got me 2 rings,
then a recording advising me that it was not "necessary" to dial an
long-distance access code for this call.  What did that mean?  Did it
mean that NYTel would handle it as a local call themselves, or was it
an attempt to "encourage" me to use whatever the default carrier was?
Just dialing 9-1-516-xxx-xxxx got me a "boinggg" but not a "Boinggg
twinkly-noise/AT&T", so I have idea who the carrier was.

    So, I dialed 9-0 and told the operator that I wanted to place
an AT&T calling card call.  One or two rings later, another operator
gets on the line and the first operator says something like "I have a
customer requesting AT&T long distance", and then gets off the
circuit.  The AT&T operator takes the number I'm calling and my
calling card number, and connects me.  Why the little inter-operator
conversation?  Did it really mean, "Operator, this here caller tried
his best to dial the call direct but our phone system wouldn't let
him, so he shouldn't be charged operator assisted rates"?  And who was
the first operator?  Some AOS?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #606
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02953;
          30 Aug 90 23:03 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07282;
          30 Aug 90 21:30 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15852;
          30 Aug 90 20:23 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 Aug 90 19:55:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Telecom Symposium Notes
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Aug 90 19:55:00 CDT    Telecom Symposium Notes

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Notes From `Telecomunications For Ohio Economic Development' [Jane Fraser]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 20:00:00 CDT
From: Jane M. Fraser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Notes From `Telecommunications For Ohio Economic Development'


On August 9, CAST (The Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications)
held its fifth one-day symposium, in Columbus, Ohio, titled
``Telecommunications for Ohio Economic Development: A Computer Network
for Small Businesses?" The symposium centered around a proposal,
presented by myself (Jane Fraser) and Alex Cruz, for a state-wide
computer network to link small businesses to each other, to state
agencies, and to worldwide networks. The argument we presented was
that better access to information for such businesses, better
communication among such businesses, and better communication with the
world would benefit Ohio through economic development.

The following posting reports on the symposium.  At the end of this
posting is information on how to order copies of papers prsented at
the symposium ($5 for the package), audio tapes of most of the
symposium ($5), and an email version of the main paper (free).

After I presented the basic proposal and its justification, Al Albarran
presented the results of a survey of small businesses in Ohio done
this summer (with the support of LiTel Telecommunications
Corporation).  That survey found that 73.7% of businesses surveyed
have personal computers and 65.0% have a modem, but only 13.1% use
them for some form of communication.  However, 59.9% said they would
try a network like the one proposed.  Alex Cruz, on whose Master's
thesis the proposal was based, demonstrated features of 5 existing
computer systems (Usenet, ONet, Cleveland FreeNet, Prodigy, and the
Big Sky Telegraph).  While many of these have many of the features we
proposed, none has all nor, as far as we know, is any used by small
businesses in the way we proposed.

To provide the audience with a larger perspective, Edwin B. Parker
presented an excellent mini-course in telecommunications and economic
development.  Ed is an independent consultant and former Chairman,
President, and CEO of Equatorial Communications. Prior to joining
Equatorial fulltime in 1979, he was a Professor of Communication at
Stanford University.  He is a noted expert on telecommunications and
economic development.

I found this talk to be a wonderful education, particularly in rural
development, as well as a powerful view, from a person with a great
deal of perspective on what might happen in the future.  For example,
Ed suggested there are three stages in the view of economic developers
regarding how to accelerate economic development in rural areas.  The
first is smokestack chasing, the second involves trying to lure `back
offices' (to handle, for example, bank transactions), but the third is
to focus on small businesses.  While Ed's research and talk focused
on rural development, he applied the ideas to small business
development, noting that many of the problems and issues are the same.

The afternoon sessions began with a presentation by Dave Spooner,
senior economic development office for the Manchester (England) City
Council.  Dave described the efforts they are making to improve the
use of telematics (the convergence of telecommunication and
informatics) in Manchester, in particular by small businesses and
voluntary organizations.  Manchester will soon have a node in the
worldwide Geonet system, enabling small businesses and voluntary
organizations in Manchester to access data, to communicate with each
other, and to communicate with similar groups in other cities around
the world.  They are also providing, through the local polytechnic,
education to small businesses and voluntary organization on how such a
communication network can be used.

A panel of three speakers discussed the use of computers in economic
development in three states.  Kay Lutz-Ritzheimer described the
Montana Entrepreneurship Center, which makes the expertise of three
Montana universities available to entrepreneurs.  Tony Roso described
a system used to link economic developers in Colorado.  Both cited the
usefulness of such systems in states with wide open spaces.  In both
cases, the networks are available currently only to people involved in
economic development, but both states plan to expand to bring
businesses on-line.

John Niles (from Washington state) presented a more skeptical view
asking whether it was really necessary to provide yet another
information source for businesses, but agreeing that dialog among the
businesses can be a strong source of emotional support and good
advice.

In the final session, four speakers from inside Ohio described various
computer activities.  Dick Decker describe ONet, which links Ohio
colleges and universities. Tom Grunder described the Cleveland FreeNet
and the National Public Telecomputing Network.  Keith Ewald and Tim
Steiner described databases and computer projects in the State of Ohio
government. I thought Keith had some very strong arguments against
direct state involvement in a system such as we proposed.  For
example, he pointed out that data (and perhaps `private' electronic
mail) stored on a state computer is subject to sunshine laws.

The FreeNet concept of free telecomputing available to all on the
model of the public library is a powerful concept.  Tom's presentation
raised a great deal of discussion in the audience and among the other
presenters.  Many of the latter felt that free networks are inherently
self-limiting since they must continually seek new funds to maintain
their current status, much less grow.  Tom would argue, I think, that
computer networks with a large user base can easily generate funds
since there are many agencies that want to be able to reach members of
the public with information, for example, on AIDS prevention.

The discussion continued that evening in small groups and even into
the breakfast the next day since many speakers stayed in Columbus.  We
at CAST have found that we can play a valuable role in putting people
in touch with each other and I know that many contacts made at the
symposium will lead to further discussions.

Overall, I found that the comments I got in response to our proposal
were both more positive and more negative than I anticipated.  Many
negative comments concerned how users would actually use the system;
what kind of exchange of information and communication would occur and
how would that help a small business?

I believe the symposium failed to convey adequately the uses to which
we anticipate such a system could be put; I'll make some comments on
that here.  We believe the communication among companies and with
companies elsewhere is much more important than their access to
databases. If this were not the case, there would be little point in
our proposal; John Niles is correct in that there are many sources
that enable companies to access databases. Although there are many
State of Ohio sources of information that are not available on-line
currently, they could be made available through current information
sources.  Another point we may not have made clear is that one way a
network of small businesses could be implemented is by subsidizing
their use of appropriate existing networks.  It may be that the most
important need is to educate potential users about what already
exists.

In the paper by Alex and I, we listed the following examples of
possible uses, many of which focus on communication, not on access to
information:

``OTTO (the Ohio Technology Transfer Organization, an organization in
the Ohio Department of Development) might maintain a file giving
answers to common questions. For example, they are often asked
questions about how to dispose of toxic waste.  OTTO agents could also
be available through electronic mail and through bulletin boards to
answer specific questions.  Existing computer connections used by
agents of Agricultural Extension could be integrated into this system,
improving access to information for the agricultural community.

``Sales people might keep in touch with their home office by using a
laptop and a hotel phone to check their mail each evening and to enter
new orders.  A company might use electronic mail to communicate with
its customers.  For example, it might send price updates by the
network.

``Consultants willing to consult for a fee on specific topics could
advertise their availability through the network; inversely, a company
needing such services could advertise its need and allow consultants
to respond.  A company wishing to dispose of used equipment could
advertise its availability; inversely, a company seeking equipment
(used or new) might advertise its need.

``Engineering diagrams, such as circuit boards, could be sent by the
customer to the manufacturer.  Users of computer systems could post
questions and answers on bulletin boards on specific systems.
Chambers of Commerce in various parts of the state might post notices
of events and might maintain bulletin boards to answer questions.

``In general, the network could be used by companies to: improve
access to customers and suppliers, improve access to up-to-date
information, speed communication and thus decision making, reduce
distribution costs by increasing efficiency, reduce need for inventory
in many locations, reduce need for messengers, reduce response time
when repairs are needed, and improve scheduling of time of personnel
and machinery.  Also, it is very likely that new, unanticipated uses
will arise if the network is established.''

The more positive responses involve contacts from people who want to
work with CAST to make at least parts of the proposal happen.  After
organizing the symposium, I made contact with June Holley and Roger
Wilkens of the Worker Owned Network in Athens, Ohio.  With funding
from the Ohio Department of Development and other sources, they are
seeking to establish flexible manufacturing networks, that is,
networks of companies that cooperate; these networks are not
necessarily computer based.  Such networks have had great success in
Italy and in Sweden and the DoD is seeking to establish similar
structures in Ohio.  June and Roger attended the symposium and were
able to stay to talk further with many of the presenters. Plans are
still developing, but it seems very probable that the Worker Owned
Network, the Manchester program, and CAST will cooperate in linking
Athens with Manchester.

I am also talking with the Ohio Business Retention and Expansion
Program (part of the Ohio Cooperative Extension Services) about
possibilities for a demonstration project.  Other contacts are
emerging and I would be happy to discuss possibilities with people,
whether they attended the symposium or not.

For those who could not attend, or who did attend but would like a
better record of the day, two packages of material are available at a
price set to cover our costs; each package costs $5.  The first
package contains copies of background papers; the second package
contains four audio tapes, covering all presentations beginning with
Dr. Parker's.

The background papers in the first package include: the Symposium
program, the Biographies of Symposium Speakers, A proposal for a
state-funded computer network for small and medium sized companies in
Ohio (Jane M. Fraser and Alex Cruz), The use of computers and
telecommunication networks by small and medium size businesses in the
state of Ohio: Results of an exploratory study (Alan B. Albarran),
Telecommunication and economic development (copies of the overheads
used by Edwin Parker), The Manchester Host (Dave Spooner), The Montana
Entrepreneurship Center, Telematics: A force for development (John S.
Niles), Stimulating regional economic development in Colorado (Anthony
Roso, Jr.), Networking Ohio colleges in support of statewide economic
and human resource development stategies (Richard C. Decker),
Illusions associated with electronic technology for data integration
and sharing (Keith Ewald and Dixie Sommers), Community computing and
the National Public Telecomputing Network (T.M. Grundner), and
Background and supplemental reading (Mary Leugers).  For those who
attended the symposium, the papers by Spooner, Roso, and Ewald and
Sommers were not handed out there.  The paper by Spooner corresponds
to his talk; the papers by Roso and Ewald and Sommers do not
correspond exactly to the presentations made by those speakers, but
provide some background.

Unfortunately, most of these papers are not available in electronic
form. However, the Fraser and Cruz paper (`A proposal ...') is
available in electronic form and we will email copies of that upon
request.

For more information or to order either package, contact me:

Jane M. Fraser
Associate Director, CAST
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH, 43210
614-292-4129
[e-mail]

Checks for either or both packages should be made out to CAST/OSU.

Our next symposium will be in November and will be on the role of
commercialism in the classroom, using the example of TV, such as
Whittle Channel One, for broadcasting to schools.

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Telecom Symposium Notes
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03164;
          30 Aug 90 23:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07282;
          30 Aug 90 21:27 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15852;
          30 Aug 90 20:22 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 Aug 90 19:28:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: E-Series Recommendations
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Aug 90 19:27:00 CDT    E-Series Recommendations

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    E-Series Recommendations Excerpts [Joel M. Snyder]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 1990 01:13:43 MST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: E Series Recommendations Excerpts - for Edification and Emusement


Here are Interesting Facts and Figures entered from the CCITT
Recommendations of 1988.  There are errata for these Recommendations,
but I have not applied them to these!  Also, my typing skills are not
perfect.

Note: these are all excerpts, and quotes.  I have left out substantial
text, and am including only some of the more interesting tidbits.  If
you are really interested, make sure you get the entire text! Things
in [] are my comments.

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

 From Recommendation E.180, Technical Characteristics of Tones for the
Telephone Service

[I left out all the stuff about dB levels of tones, mostly because it was
accompanied by a lot of graphs]

Dial Tone: It is recommended that dial tone be either a single
frequency tone in the range 400 to 450 Hz, or a combined tone composed of
up to three frequencies, with at least one frequency in each of the ranges
340-425 Hz and 400-450 Hz.  The difference between any two frequencies
should be at least 25 Hz.

When adopting a new single frequency dial tone, Administrations are
recommended to use 425 Hz.

Ringing Tone: Ringing tone is a slow period tone, in which the tone
period is shorter than the silent period.  The recommended limits for
the tone period (including tolerances) are from 0.67 to 1.5 seconds.
The recommended limits for the silent period separating two tone
periods are 3 to 5 seconds.  The first tone period should start as
soon as possible after the called subscriber's line has been found.

The ringing tone cadence should be similar to the cadence used for
applying ringing current to the called subscriber's telephone set, but
these two cadences need not be synchronized.

[It goes on to discuss frequencies for ringing tone]

Busy Tone and Congestion Tone: The subscriber busy tone and the
equipment or circuit group congestion tone are quick period tones in
which the tone period is theoretically equal to the silent period.
The total duration of a complete cycle (tone period E + silent period
S) should be between 300 and 1100 milliseconds.

The ration E/S of the tone period to the silent period should be
between .67 and 1.5.

The busy tone and the congestion tone can be identical, but a
distinction is desirable.

Special Information Tone: [This is that tri-tone we've been talking
about lately.]  The special information tone has a tone period that
consists of three successive tone signals, each lasting for 330 +- 70
milliseconds.  Between these tone signals may be a gap of up to 30
milliseconds.  The frequencies used for the three tone signals are 950
Hz; 1400 Hz; 1800 Hz (all +-50 Hz) sent in that order.  After the
special information tone is a 1000 millisecond (+-250 ms) silent
period.

[ Other tones are described: the warning tone to indicate that a
conversation is being recorded, the payphone recognition tone, the
call waiting tone (400 to 450 Hz for 300 to 500 ms, followed by 8 to
10 sec silence OR 400 to 450 Hz on for 100 to 200 ms, silent for 100
to 200 ms, and on for 100 to 200 ms, followed by 8 to 10 sec silence);
and caller waiting tone (you didn't know we had one of those, did you?
It's supposed to be similar to ringing, so if you don't know what it
is, it sounds like ringing)]

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

Supplement 2 to Fascicle II.2 (E-series Recommendations)

This is a really interesting one.  It gives the frequencies and
cadences for dial tones, ringing tones, busy tones, etc. around the
world.  Example:

In Finland, the dial tone is a 425 Hz tone generated as three pulses
of .2 sec length separated by two pulses of .3 sec length, followed by
.8 second silence.

In El Salvador, the busy tone is 1/3 second tones of 425 Hz separated
by 1/3 seconds of silence.

In the US, the "special information tone" is three 1/3 second pulses
without pause at 950, 1400, and 1800 Hz.

God only knows how much of this is accurate, of course.  I'm sure our
Finnish readers will be able to comment on the first.

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

Recommendation E.123 Notation for National and International Telephone
Numbers

1.1 The international number should be printed below the national
number, with corresponding digits lined up one under the other to
facilitate understanding of the composition of the international
number as showd in the examples in 1.3 and 1.4 below.

1.2 The words "National" and "International" in the appropriate
langauge should be placed to the left of the national and
international numbers, and these should be separated by a horizontal
line.

1.3 Either the symbol for the telephone given in Rec. E.121 or the
word "Telephone" in the appropriate langauge should be placed to the
left of (or above) the national and international numbers (to avoid
confusion with other letterhead numbers.)  The + (plus) signifies the
international prefix.

Example:

                            National               [phone]
                 Telephone  --------------------------------------
                            International        [phone]

1.4 Because the countries of World Numbering >one 1 (North America)
have the country code 1, the same number as is used for the trunk
prefix, and because dialing between these countries is the same as
long-distance dialing within them, subscriber difficulties are avoided
by using an alternative notation that has been found superior for use
within those countries and equally good for subscribers in other
countries dialing to Zone 1.

Example:

                            Within N. Amer. zone    [phone]
                 Telephone  --------------------------------------
                            International         [phone]

1.5 If it is desirable to write only the international number, it
should be written in the form:

    Telephone International [phone]

1.6  [abbreviated: Extensions use the word "ext.", like this:]

                       National               [phone]
            Telephone  -------------------------------------- ext. 876
                       International        [phone]


2. Classes of symbols

[not too exciting, but there is one interesting part:]

4.4 Multiple numbers without automatic search

For a subscriber with multiple numbers who does not have automatic
search, the symbol / (oblique stroke, solidus, or slant) may be used
to separate the alternative numbers.

Example A:  [phone] / 123 7272 / 627 1876

It is especially important that there be a space on either side of the
symbol /.

When it is desired to abbreviate the alternative numbers, and they are
consecutive, only the last digit should be shown for alternative
numbers:

Example B: [phone]/8/9

It is especially important that there be no space on either side of
the symbol /.

4.6 Symbol to indicate the existence of an additional dial tone.

[Essentially: use a tilde (~), or as close as you can get to the
graphical representation of a full cycle of the sine wave.  Don't use
a hyphen, and put spaces around it so it won't be confused for a
hyphen.

7. Facsimile number notation

The printed format for facsimile numbers should follow the conventions
set forth for voice telephone numbers except that facsimile numbers
should be clearly labeled with the upper case letters FAX printed to
the left of the numbers as illustrated here:

                       National               [phone]
                  FAX  --------------------------------------
                       International        [phone]

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

E.163 and E.164 should be familiar to any of you ISDN hackers --
they're the numbering plan for the international telephone service,
which includes all of the Country Codes.  Some of these have appeared
before in this forum.  I won't retype them.

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

E.161 Arrangement of Figures, Letters, and Symbols on telephones and
other devices that can be used for gaining access to a telephone
network:

1. Use of figures and letters in telephone numbers

[Don't use figures. Use numbers]

2. Rotary dials.

[There's a picture there, which looks like our standard rotary dial,
sort of.  The holes are numbered from 1 to 0, with the letters as
follows:

1    (none)
2    ABC
3    DEF
4    GHI
5    JKL
6    MN
7    PRS
8    TUV
9    WXY
0    OQ

]

3. Pushbuttons or keys

3.1 10 buttons

[More figures.  Essentially says:

    1 2 3
    4 5 6
    7 8 9
      0

Also, if you HAVE to, you can do:

    1 2 3 4 5
    6 7 8 9 0

or

    1 2
    3 4
    5 6
    7 8
    9 0

with a note: "User dialing performance on these special arrays is
slightly inferior to that on the standard array given above."]

The letters are the same as on rotary dials; note the letter O is on
the number 0, and not on the number 6.


3.2 12 buttons

[Add * and # in the usual places.  There's this big picture of the *,
and it will be known as the "star."

Also, there's two big pictures of the #, which I'll try to reproduce
here:

          X               X
          X               X
        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
          X               X
          X               X
          X               X
          X               X
          X               X
          X               X
        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
          X               X
          X               X

The length of the long bar is b, and the length of the stub after the
cross (two Xs in my picture) is called a.  The angle is called alpha.

In Europe,

    alpha = 90 degrees with a/b = 0.08

In North America,

    alpha = 80 degrees with a/b close to the upper limit of 0.18

This symbol will be known as the square.

[There's more, noting that you shouldn't color the pushbuttons
different colors, and you should have a register recall pushbutton
instead of using switchhook flash.]

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

Recommendation E.114  Supply of Lists of Subscribers

1. Each Administration shall supply by mutual agreement and free of
charge to the Administrations with which a telephone service exists a
sufficient number of copies of its lists of subscribers for official
use.

2.  A subscriber wishing to obtain a telephone directory of another
country must apply to his own Administration.  If an application for
one of its telephone directories is received directly by an
Administration by a subscriber in a foreign country, the receiving
Administration shall inform the subscriber that such requests should
be addressed to his own Administration.

3. An Administration which has supplied telephone directories of its
own country to another Administration for distribution to subscribers
shall indicate the sale price of the directories plus any postal
charges (in principle expressed in gold francs) for the use of the
receiving Administration.

4. Accounting concerning the supply of such directories for
subscribers' use shall be conducted according to the usual procedure
followed between Administrations (see Recommendation D.170) unless
Administrations, by mutual agreement, elect to forego such accounting.

[typed in its entirety]

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

Recommendation T.20, Standardized Test Chart for Facsimile Transmissions

You probably have heard of this test chart, since that's what your FAX
manufacturer used to propose the incredibly high rate of transmission
you never see on your own equipment.  The funny part of this one is
that the test chart has some half tones, some lines, and other stuff,
but the center is a picture of a small child: "Argentine Boy."  One
wonders how long they had to argue over the picture...

T.21 is a second test chart, which has texts in English, French,
Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, and Russion.

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

Recommendation E.117  Provisions concerning the device substituting a
subscriber in his absence

1. Precautions will have to be taken by the Administrations to warn
callers of the presence on the called subscriber's line of a device
substituting him in his absence:

    a. Devices of this type should be indicated in the telephone
directories by means of a special sign [...]

[Here, I'll try to describe the sign.  It looks very much like a
backwards Q: There is a large circle, larger than any other character
in the type face, with a small stroke through it, going South-West.
The stroke doesn't go quite to the center, and extends out about as
far as it extends in.  I bet the angle is exactly 45 degrees (or 225,
if you want to think of it that way).]

    b. Administrations should invite the owners or renters of such
equipment to mention the fact on their letterheads by means of a
printed indication.

2. To facilitate the disposal of international traffic on a device of
this type, the Administrations should, when consenting to this
equipment, insist that it complies with the essential conditions set
out in the following Annex.

(end of Recommendation, beginning of Annex A to Recommendation E.117

A.1 Operating Conditions

A.1.1 Delay in Answering

The ringing current from the telephone exchange should be premitted to
operate the telephone bell for at least three seconds but not for more
than ten seconds before the call is answered by the apparatus.  This
will enable the call to be answered in the normal way in those
countries which wish to provide for such a facility.  The timing of
this interval (three to ten seconds) should be independent of the
periodicity or the duration of the ringing current.

A.1.2 Normal conditions for metering and supervision

In answering a call the apparatus should loop the subscriber's line
and should give the normal conditions for control of metering and for
supervision as with a normal subscriber's installation.  The
disconnection of the apparatus should break the loop on the
subscriber's line.

A.1.3 Announcement of the presence of the apparatus

A.1.3.1 The presence of the apparatus should be indicated to the
calling party by means of a verbal announcement following, in
principle, immediately on the closing of the loop on the subscriber's
line.

A.1.3.2 This verbal announcement should include, in particular, the
following:

    - first, that it is a reconding apparatus;
    - the subscriber's name or business style;
    - the subscriber's number and particulars of the locality (e.g.,
        Geneva, St. Moritz, etc.)
    - clear instructions as to the functioning of the apparatus
        (whether a message may be recorded, and if so, the moment
        when the message may be recorded and the maximum duration
        of the recording).

A.2 Signalling conditions

A.2.1 Avoidance of interference from signalling frequencies

The correct functioning of the apparatus should not depend upon (nor
be affected to any extent by) the sending or receiving of signalling
frequencies used in the telephone system or specially generated in the
apparatus.

A.2.2. Avoidance of interference with national signalling systems by
the tones transmitted by the apparatus

To avoid interference with the national signalling system of a country
by the tones transmitted by the apparatus over the network of that
country, it is recommended that:

    - the transmission of tones should be in short pulses and not a
        continuous transmission;

    - the tones should not be composed of a single frequency, but
        should be a mixture of at least two frequencies, so that
        the guard circuit of the signal receiver of the
        corresponding country, where there would be a risk of
        interference, may operate.  For this purpose, the choice
        of the following frequency-combinations should be avoided:

        2040 and 2400 Hz
        600 and 750 Hz
        1200 and 1600 Hz
        500 and 20 Hz
        1000 and 20 Hz

A.3 Transmission Conditions

Any recording apparatus which takes the place of the called subscriber
should give a level and quality of speech comparable to that given
when the station is used by a person.

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: E-Series Recommendations
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04397;
          31 Aug 90 0:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02297;
          30 Aug 90 22:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad07282;
          30 Aug 90 21:30 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 Aug 90 20:42:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Dial Tone Monopoly
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Aug 90 20:30:00 CDT  Special: Dial Tone Monopoly

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The End of the Dial Tone Monopoly [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 20:20:00 CDT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: The End of the Dial Tone Monopoly


Several weeks ago, one of our British colleagues here placed a good
description of the current status of telephone services deregulation
in the UK, and asked for a response that indicated the usual question
of, "How is it over there?"  The way here in the US is definitely
different, but no one seemed to respond.  It just might be that many
US Digest readers don't yet understand.  What follows is a short piece
I recently prepared for an editor, and I hope it answers both kinds of
parties:


                 THE END OF THE DIAL TONE MONOPOLY
           By: Donald E. Kimberlin, Principal Consultant
               Telecommunications Network Architects
                         Safety Harbor, FL
                          August 12, 1990

While many Americans have been trained to believe that "dial tone" is
the sacrosanct property of telephone companies, evidence is coming
clear to show that "dial tone" is not a "natural monopoly."  Saying
this is certain to raise many hackles, but it is time we faced up to
it: The "natural monopoly" view of providing Public Switched Telephone
Network services on a local basis was valid in its 1913 context, when
the Bell interests struck a deal to end their pillage of Indpendent
telephone companies in the U.S.

Technology and removal of the art of running a telephone network from
the status of "trade secret" has changed all that.  It's occurred so
rapidly and in so many ways that few know of all the prongs now stuck
into what was once a nicely-closed pie.

Even though it was published, few took note that in 1984, the
departing Chairman of the FCC said in a speech that since the
demonopolization of long distance service had been accomplished, the
time had come to work on breaking up the local telephone monopoly.
Nobody reported that speech, except the general press the following
day.  It was obvious the Chairman had touched on a taboo of the
telephone business.

Despite the fact that the FCC's Open Network Architecture mandate has
gone on and continues to move, nobody wants to face up to what it
really means: Detaching the dial tone of the local network from the
wires of the local telephone company, separating the two such that the
dial tone is put on somebody else's transmission channel, or
connecting the local telephone company's wire to somebody else's dial
tone.

That's not any technological breakthrough.  It's been possible for
decades.  The single thing that made the dial tone and transmission
channel inseparable was the lack of "somebody else" being around to do
it with.

Well, that's all changed, in more ways than one might think.  Let's
run through a few of the possibilities that really could happen today
 ... but for the desire of "somebody else" to take up the cudgel and
push the matter into full visibility.

There are some historical backgrounds to the alternatives that may be
worth knowing about; these often have roots in history of things the
monopoly-era telephone business didn't care too much about.  They are
generally exemplified in reasons behind the FCC's 1947 and 1948
decisions that opened radio-paging and use of microwave radio to
non-Telcos.  (That's right, we're here talking of temblors some four
decades prior to the eruption of nearly unbridled competition in "the
phone business.")

For the most part, the Bell interests had so narrowly focused their
business that even though they claimed anything moving information was
their birthright, there were numerous items they handled in only the
most marginal of ways.

Among these was telephone service to ships in coastal waters, several
earlier versions of mobile telephone service, various forms of
telegraphy, burglar alarm services and others.  For the most part,
other firms engaged these markets, particularly in the 65% of the land
area of the U.S. covered by non-Bell "Independent" telephone
companies, which focused totally on telephone business.  In that large
territory, almost all non-telephone aspects of telecommunications were
provided by private, often local business.  These almost all used some
form of radio in their business and became known as Radio Common
Carriers (RCC's).

We can thus see the roots of the FCC policy of two competing cellular
companies in every market reaching back into these RCCs.  In fact,
McCaw Cellular, one of the larger "non-wireline" cellular operators,
was a long-standing RCC in the pre-divestiture era.

In that era of the "natural monopoly," there was more "patching" and
"hauling" of dial tone on RCC facilities than ever made official
print.  Where it was of note, the Telcos treated it as "private," not
as a connection of their PSTN to another common carrier.  The point
was that the only breach in the wall was the connection of "foreign
apparatus" at the extremity of the local network; the bond between
dial tone and local telco wire remained intact.

The traffic truth was that telcos accounted for less than half of the
stations and traffic with boats and aircraft, and as the famous Huber
report showed, less than a third of paging and mobile radio
operations.  Much of that had already extended the "dial tone" into
non-Telco hands.

That situation was stable for several decades, but it ultimately did
wind up today with dial tone coming from non-wireline cellular
carriers and even dial marine VHF shore stations that are now all
private.

The "hauling" of dial tone we can readily see today as microwave
bypass, but it has also gone a giant step beyond.  In a case that no
Telco-employed "consultant" will tell about (it's doubtful they have
been "trained" on it), Arco Oil Company put in its own private
microwave from downtown Dallas, Texas to its corporate headquarters in
suburban Richardson, about ten miles away. Arco's reason:
Dissatisfaction with the performance levels of GTE of Texas, the
"natural monopoly" dial tone supplier for Richardson.  The microwave
hauled Southwestern Bell dial tone from downtown Dallas to Richardson.
To reach Arco, all one did was dial a Dallas number.  The dial tone on
Arco's PBX was SW Bell, not GTE.

When Arco's "illegal action" was discovered, GTE of course wanted its
brother in the cloth, Southwestern Bell to disconnect the dial tone.
Both telcos got the Texas utility regulators to order them to
disconnect, but Arco is no stranger to court action.  Arco immediately
went to the FCC, arguing that the dial tone was only incidental to
connections containing a high proportion of interstate traffic, which
was beyond the purview of the Texas State regulators.  The result: The
FCC ordered Southwestern Bell to maintain dial tone supply to Arco's
microwave channels to Richardson, to provide interstate calling
service.  GTE and Southwestern Bell appealed, and after several years
in the Federal Appeals courts, GTE and SW Bell lost again in early
1990, with but one step left: The U.S. Supreme Court.

It is unlikely that GTE or SW Bell want to risk a Supreme Court
decision after the several slaps they have suffered on their way to
the Supreme Court; they doubtful would want to be responsible for it
becoming wide public knowledge that the "natural monopoly" for a dial
tone is really no longer supported by the US government and its
courts.

An outfall of this is that if you have the means and desire, you can
really carry in a dial tone from wherever you want.  That opens a
wealth of possibilities.  It means that anyone who has the means to
provide transmission to your premises can import a dial tone from
whatever local telco network they want.  The issue to settle is if
they can SELL it to you.  This portends a boon to independent Telcos
located in the hinterlands who want to engage in selling their dial
tone to people a thousand miles away. (And if you REALLY understand
the true love/hate relation between Bell and Independent Telcos in the
US, you'll see that's not a flight of fancy!)

Who would sell this dial tone?  The first moves have already been made
in England, where instead of simply demonopolizing long distance, the
government authorized a "duopoly," permitting England's globe-spanning
Cable & Wireless to establish Mercury Communications to provide local
dial tone as well.  Mercury has done so in more than one way.  In the
major cities, Mercury immediately pulled fiber into abandoned steam
pipes and used Northern Telecom's telephone network architecture and
equipment to pop electronic exchanges in service with a speed most
telephone people would not understand.

The Mercury network was operational almost overnight, in typical
telephone capital plan terms.  And, Mercury offered services that
British Telecom hadn't thought of, like Centrex, intrinsically
available in the NT equipment, but not in BT-controlled designs, even
the fabled System X.  In less-dense areas, Mercury used existing
technology to use vacant capacity in cable TV systems to reach
telephone subscribers.  The latter method has been slow to expand, but
not for technical limits as much as economic disagreement with the
cable operators.

The implication for the U.S. is obvious: Your local cable TV company
has the transmission plant in place to become the "other phone company
in town."  The technology to get telephone channels on the present
coaxial cble plant exists; there is no need for a "fiber rebuild" to
handle the need.  Existing unused capacity in many US cable TV systems
offers in the order ot 50,000 lines of capacity in every cable passing
every building.  The "fiber" story is chanted by Telcos, because they
need fiber to get their capacity up to be able to compete in wideband
data and television carriage.  Adding fiber to the cable TV systems is
just a convenience and modernization to their plant.  In fact, in many
disparate areas of the nation, cable TV companies have quietly sold
telephone and data channel capacity for years, some even
interconnected between cable companies for distances in excess of 100
miles, and channels up to T-1 digital rate.  Again, these are not
applications stories your Telco-paid "consultant" is likely to tell
you about, but they are not secret nor are they illegal.  Carrying a
dial tone down them is no great technology problem at all.

Another front of the attack on the "dial tone monopoly" exists in the
buzzword "co-location" now being raised more loudly by another new
form of competition to the local Telcos, the Alternative Access
Carriers.  The AACs are typically local fiber optic network providers
such as the Metropolitan Fiber Systems now building in more than 20
cities around the nation, with nearly parallel competition from
Teleport Communications in most of the same cities, while there are a
number of unpublicized regional local fiber companies, like Florida's
Intermedia Communications.  Williams Telecommunications Group
headquartered in Tulsa, OK seems to be making moves to acquire some of
these firms and as well build some plant of its own in cities.

Another aspect of this incursion into the "local monopoly" may come
from MCI, through its acquisition last year of the local facilities of
Western Union Telegraph natiowide.  My own work led to discovering
miles of brand new Western Union conduit in the streets of Los Angeles
late last year prior to the MCI purchase, while another recent
revelation was discovery of *wooden* WUTCo conduits in Oklahoma City
recently.  All this is now MCI property, and its purpose is obvious;
MCI's intent to use it is not yet so obvious.

The AAC segment is following MFS's lead to get local Telcos ordered to
permit interconnection of their channels to user premises to Telco
dial tone.

But, they have no need to wait for that.  They can just as well import
dial tone from wherever they want, for VSATs already make that
practical.  In fact, if the U.S. can get cheap computer data entry
performed on Caribbean islands by VSAT link, what is there to prevent
U.S. AACs from importing cheap dial tone via VSAT from them as well?
Probably nothing, if anyone really looks into the possibility.

And, most recent, we have alternative space-based potentials.
Motorola's IRIDIUM is but one, and has recently been well-publicized
and described.  Less public is NASA's Personal Access Satellite System
(PASS), which proposes to use techniques rather well-developed by the
military for acquiring and tracking on geosynchronous satellites. PASS
focuses on developing use of the 35 gigahertz portion of the spectrum
where enormous dish gains are possible with 0.3 meter (12 inch!)
dishes and tiny transportable earth stations, offering megabit-sized
data streams to even the remotest of locations. Both IRIDIUM and PASS
propose use of satellite "crosslinks," the satellite term for having
the switching network in the sky with direct trunklines between
satellites.  So, you could readily be in Detroit but getting your dial
tone from Auckland.  In fact, what's to say there can't be a "virtual
Centrex" located in satellites, so the "global corporation" can have a
"global Centrex?"

In this context of our ability to get a dial tone from anywhere at a
cheap price, does it really seem so strange that we do it?  The
technology for much of it is already in hand; some of it has really
already been used, and all of it is so close to accomplishment that we
will be doing it soon.

The largest obstacle is not in technology at all; it is in people's
emotions and in vested economic interests of an industry that faces
threats many of its most endangered species participants cannot even
understand:  America's local "natural monopoly" telephone companies.

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

(Historical afternote: One way to understand the way in which the
"natural dial tone monopoly" has been fabricated and ingrained into
minds in the U.S. is to read a book on the non-Bell "independent"
telephone industry.  This history has been documented several times
this century, and the latest is titled, "The Spirit of Independent
Telephony," by Charles A. Pleasance, 1989, ISBN 0-9622202-0-7.

It indexes 37 U.S. cities that once had independent telcos competing
with Bell, and I know of others that had multiple independent Telcos,
some until after WW II.  This history will surprise some when they
learn that the Independent telcos even tried to form a non-Bell long
distance network; one that Bell interests finally quashed with the
formation of AT&T's Long Lines "department," really a shadow company
that built the long-distance links and pooled the money collected for
long distance calls.  The point here is that the "natural monopoly"
concept for dial tone is a fabrication that may have made sense in
1913, was driven home by vested interests, and today is obviously a
dinosaur running out of food.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Dial Tone Monopoly
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05472;
          31 Aug 90 1:00 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26279;
          30 Aug 90 23:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02297;
          30 Aug 90 22:38 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:33:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Mailing Error: Duplicate Copies of Special
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

In error, you may have received TWO copies of the special issue on
local dial tone monopolies which was issued Thursday evening.

One copy (correct) would have been entitled "Dial Tone Monopoly"

One copy (incorrect) would have been entitled "Issue 606".

Please disgard the duplicate and incorrectly titled copy. Accidents
will happen, you know!


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05778;
          31 Aug 90 1:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26279;
          30 Aug 90 23:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id af02297;
          30 Aug 90 22:38 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:44:01 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #607
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:43:32 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 607

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Steven King]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Darren Griffiths]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Jeff A. Duffel]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Intercept Recordings [David Tamkin]
    Re: Intercept Recordings [Peter Clitherow]
    Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? [Linc Madison]
    Re: Octothorpes [John Slater]
    Re: Octothorpes [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [D. Bernstein]
    Message Overload! Please Hold Off [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 29 Aug 90 21:53:58 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

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

>>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.

>I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent
>user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user,
>they will bill you through your local phone company.

I called Sprint today to discontinue service.  I'm moving and taking
neither my local nor my long distance service with me.  When the
customer rep lady asked me if I'd been displeased with my service, I
answered that it was fine except I preferred to be billed through my
local telco rather than directly by Sprint.  Her reply is that that
was "being worked on" but that she couldn't say how long it would
take.

For the record, I generally make only one or two long distance phone
calls per month.  I've had Sprint for nearly a year and they've always
billed me direct.  The local telco is Illinois Bell.


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

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

From: Darren Griffiths <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 30 Aug 90 02:13:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]>
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 598, Message 8 of 12

>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.

I don't subscribe to Sprint but I do know that my AT&T bills come
along with my local phone bill and, if I've used any other long
distance company, they are included in the same envelope.  Basically
each long distance company has a seperate sheet of paper with the logo
printed on the top, however, I'm looking at them as we speak and all
the papers are the same and the logo is printed on the page,
presumable with the same printer that does the billing info.  I send
one check to Pacific Bell and it pays my local calls, my long distance
(AT&T, Sprint, MCI etc) and my AT&T calling card.  Perhaps you have a
different type of service that Sprint prefers to bill direct or that
Pacific Bell doesn't have the capability to bill for.

The Pacific Bell billing software is still somewhat limited.  The
software that is currently being worked on is supposed to send two
different letters to subscribers.  I believe people who already have
Sprint will get one letter saying that they now have a contract, and
people that don't have Sprint will get another letter explaining that
Sprint is going to "put it in writing".  In addition the letters will
be customized with the person's name etc.  It's not a terribly
difficult program to write, but I can see why Pacific Bell would want
to make changes in the billing system slowly, which is natural when
using IBM's and COBOL (ick.)


Cheers,

darren

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

From: "Jeff A. Duffel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 30 Aug 90 08:31:53 GMT
Organization: Sacramento Public Access Unix, Sacramento, Ca.


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

>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.

Don't be so quick to jump on him, as a matter of fact, most
residential US Sprint subscribers including 1+ dialing and 'Easy
Access' dialing (Pac*Bell coined that phrase, I prefer 'Equal Access')
are billed through Pac*Bell.  However, phone card and business customers
are billed directly through Sprint.

Since 800-877 is FGD, I don't see how they can tell the difference
between the calls, whether they are EA or FON card.  They billed a
bunch of phreaks about two years ago for using the 'Sprint Backdoor'
where phreaks would call 800-877 (and some other 800-xxx's) and simply
hold down the pound sign and dial their number and they did this thru
Pac*Bell from what I understand.  This was when they were first
installing the poundable hangup feature which was obviously buggy.

>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.

Of course he's sure, do you think he dreamed it all up?  Not
everyone's case is exactly like yours.


Jeff Duffel @ SAC-UNIX            Sacramento, California
Internet: [e-mail]   UUCP: ames!pacbell!sactoh0!jad

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 30 Aug 90 12:12:26 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


If US Sprint is not your default carrier, you may still use them by
prefixing your called number with 10333, if your telco provides equal
access.  Calls dialed this way generally get billed by your local
telco.

If you make US Sprint your default inter-lata carrier, they bill you
directly for calls placed from your pre-subscribed number(s) and from
your FON card.


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: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 11:05:16 CDT


Roy Silvernail wrote in Volume 10, Issue 603:

| I happened upon a very unusual intercept recording today. In typical,
| slightly halting sampled speech, it said "The number you have reached,
| xxx-xxxx, has been disconnected. Calls are being taken on xxx-xxxx."

| I'm used to "The number has been changed ...", but have never heard
| this particular version before. Any ideas what it means by "Calls are
| being taken on xxx-xxxx"?

"The number has been changed" means that the same customer has new
service on a different number (usually at a new location).  "Calls are
being taken at" (or "on" as you heard it) means that the party called
no longer has telephone service (or temporarily doesn't have service,
but then the recording would have been "is out of service" rather than
"has been disconnected") and that calls are being taken at some other
number that was already in service before the number you dialed was
disconnected.

For example, a person dies and calls are being taken at the number of
a surviving relative who already had a phone; a business shuts down
and calls are being taken at the number of a former competitor who
will now be taking care of the clients (or at the home number of the
retired proprietor); a residential customer moves in with someone else
and henceforth receives calls on the other person's existing number;
or somebody with a twelve-line hunt group cuts it down to eight lines
(and the "calls are being taken" recording intercepts calls dialed
directly into the four disconnected trunks, referring people to the
number at the start of the hunt group).

The easiest way to put it is that "has been changed" means that a new
telephone number has replaced the old one; "calls are being taken"
means that the service was merged into service on another number that
was already in use.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings
Date: 29 Aug 90 16:10:45 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bellcore - Wierd Ideas Factory


In article  <[e-mail]> is written:

> I happened upon a very unusual intercept recording today. In typical,
> slightly halting sampled speech, it said "The number you have reached,
> xxx-xxxx, has been disconnected. Calls are being taken on xxx-xxxx."

> I'm used to "The number has been changed ...", but have never heard
> this particular version before. Any ideas what it means by "Calls are
> being taken on xxx-xxxx"?

When I moved from PA to NJ some years ago, I asked for the new number
to be put on the intercept message, and ended up with what you
describe above.  Perhaps it has to do with being in a different LATA?
I can't see any technical reason to require the different message.


peter clitherow

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 01:53:08 PDT
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji?
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]> Ed writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 601, Message 8 of 13

>        "Baku Vinaku Beachside"

Zowie.  Now, the only question is who on earth could possibly be
stupid enough to confuse "0-602-NNX-XXXX" with "01-679-NXXXX"...  It
would've made more sense with calling Annapolis and got Athens, or
called Mississippi and got Malaysia, or called Rhode Island and got
Romania, or called Tennessee and got Turkey, or called Kansas City and
got Calcutta, or called Kansas City and got Osaka, or called Manhattan
and got Morocco, or called L.A. and got Algeria, or called the French
Quarter and got Latin America, or called New Mexico and got Nicaragua,
or called St. Paul and got Sydney, or called Boston and got Brisbane,
or called San Diego and got Perth (with an appropriate comment about
America's cup), or called Tampa and got Tokyo.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Date: 29 Aug 90 13:18:32 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roeber,
Frederick) writes

|> 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!

'#` is called "hash" in the UK - I was convinced this was US in origin
until I started reading TELECOM Digest. Also '!` is "shriek" for some
people.

When you say '#` is a pound sign, do you mean pounds as in weight
(it's never used for that purpose in the UK), or pounds sterling? We
have our own symbol for pounds sterling which I can't reproduce here
as it's not part of ASCII, so we often use '#` for this purpose,
especially in email.


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Date: 30 Aug 90 02:44:40 GMT
Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg <biosys!![e-mail]>
Organization:


I have also heard (and continue to use) "hook" for "?", and "hash" for
"#".

Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]

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

From: Dan Bernstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Date: 30 Aug 90 05:57:39 GMT
Organization: IR


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

> [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 abruptly?

A timeout is okay. Anyway, I envisioned something like this: Local
modem hears call waiting beep. Local modem somehow communicates to
remote modem that it's call waiting time. Remote modem acknowledges.
Local modem shuts up, dropping carrier. You talk. Eventually the line
flashes back to the remote modem. Local modem hears remote's carrier
again.  Local modem starts generating carrier. Remote hears this and
undoes whatever flow control it might have done before.

> 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.

Certainly; I don't see this sort of thing working unless both modems
are modified to take positive action upon the call waiting beep. Note
that once you've gotten over the technical hurdle of recognizing the
beep, you can use that for the wait-ack sequence (sort of like a
connect).

> 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)?

The local carrier would disappear. You wouldn't hear the remote one.

> I don't think it would work out at all.

On the contrary: all your technical objections are answered by newer
phone systems; there's nothing inherently difficult about the idea;
and I think most modem users would jump on it in an instant.

> 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.

But a large number don't. Even the ones who do probably wouldn't mind
turning one line plus one modem connection into two lines plus one
modem connection, for just the cost of call waiting. And as Mark
Elkins points out (10/603/10 of 12), the phone company could very well
be concerned about this.


Dan

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:19:17 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Message Overload! Please Hold Off


We are still considerably backed up with messages in the queue, and I
would ask again that you hold off sending new articles until at least
the first of the week. Likewise, no 're' messages if you see the topic
has been pretty well covered.

Thanks.

PT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #607
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07060;
          31 Aug 90 2:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08258;
          31 Aug 90 0:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae26279;
          30 Aug 90 23:45 CDT
Date:     Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:59:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #608
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:58:47 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 608

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Mitch Wagner]
    Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Jeff Wasilko]
    Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [James Van Houten]
    Re: CINDI and No-Light Phones [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Explain This Conversation [Steve Schwartz]
    Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [Steve Vance]
    Re: Intercept Recordings [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Real Operators [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Mitch Wagner]
    Several Special Issues in Transit [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers
Date: 30 Aug 90 13:28:16 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


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

# I had to practice the very same guerrilla warfare twenty years ago. My
# telephone number appeared in error on a list of janitors assigned to
# various apartment buildings here belonging to one real estate company.
# They flatly ignored my requests to correct their list. I finally
# started taking tenant complaint calls, and giving smart aleck answers
# back; i.e. tenant says 'no heat in my apartment', my answer would be
# to consult my imaginary roster of tenants and reply, "The rent you pay
# does not entitle you to have heat in the winter." Tenant says 'my
# toilet is out of order', my answer would be to use the one at the gas
# station on the corner instead. Finally the realtor got the hint and
# corrected the list they gave tenants.  PAT]

Fabulous! I'll have to remember that one.

I was getting dunning calls for some poor guy named Jose Silvera for a
while there. When I moved to a new place, they continued -- much to my
surprise, until I figured out that someone there had heard the "calls
are being taken by... " message and taken down the new number.  The
chain was broken when I had my number changed to an unlisted one for
entirely unrelated reasons.

For a while there, I was also getting a series of phone messages for
 -- apparently -- a nice, conservative Long Island couple in their
'60s or '70s. One of these messages was absolutely hilarious. I didn't
have the presence of mind to save it, but I can still break friends up
laughing with my imitation.

At the time, I had one of those cute answering machine messages on my
home phone. You also have to imagine the sort-of-whiny voice with the
heavy New York accent of a Long Island woman in her 60's or 70's.

MY ANSERING MACHINE: "Hi. This is Superman. You know, I woke up this
    morning and decided all this truth, justice and American way
    stuff is just a bunch of crap. I'm going to stop wasting
    my time with it. I'm going out now for a couple of beers.
    Maybe I'll pick up some whores. I'll be back in a few
    hours. Leave a message." <BEEP>

WOMAN:  (Long pause.) "Hello?" (Another long pause.) "Oh,
    Roz, I don't understand your answering machine *ONE BIT.*"
    (Aside) "Shh, Henry, I'm *cawling*, I'm *tawking* to her."
    (To phone.) "Anyway this is *Shirley.* We're at the *airport.*"
    (Aside.) "Shh, Henry, I'm *cawling,* I'm *tawking* to her."
    (To phone.) "Come *get* us, we're at the *airpawt....*"

Another time Shirley called from Florida to tell Roz the directions
that Roz gave her were messed up and her and Henry were completely
lost.

I miss Shirley and Henry and Roz.


Mitch Wagner

VOICE: 516/562-5758                                   GEnie: UNIX-TODAY
UUCP: [e-mail]                          ...uunet!utoday!wagner

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 18:44:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers


I tried to call the Juvenile Court, and the first couple of times I
got a circuits-busy. When I finally got through, I was placed in a
queue.

When the operator finally answered and I asked for Irnalee Stohrs, she
said 'wrong number' and immediatly hung up. I have a feeling that they
have been getting flooded!! I think I'll try a few person-to-person
calls tomorrow. (:

Serves 'em right.


| 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.|

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

Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 21:05:31 EDT
From: James Van Houten - KA3TTU <csense![e-mail]>


I called and after waiting in queue for about two minutes I asked the
Operator for our little old friend and the Operator said Quote "Please
stop calling here."  It appears that they are getting plenty of
calls!!  Hope this helps our distant friend!!


James Van Houten

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CINDI and No-Light Phones
Date: 30 Aug 90 19:53:00 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> 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

Modifying a (2)500 type set to have the traditional M/W lamp is
trivial, but a real pain if any quantity needs to be done.

The real question is whether your switch is spiking your line with the
M/W supply voltage that is high enough to fire the neon M/W lamp.

Take a vanilla neon pocket line voltage tester and try it across tip
and ring.  It will light if your switch has M/W turned on for you. It
will also flutter during ringing but presents so low a load that it
can't trip ringing.

The commercial kits to add the feature are simply some snap in mount
lamp cartridge manufacturer's product with fast-ons crimped on the
wires, and a pre drilled new face mat. Other models may have a bracket
that mounts under the dial's left bracket screw. Typically these kits
have lamp leads that are barely long enough and you might just as well
buy the lamps bulk, make a jig for drilling face plate holes, and put
some students to work.

Allen-Tel (available through Graybar, at least) has made such kits
(with too short leads...) for years.

Somewhere is the zillion ads for new/used/rebuilt/cloned stuff in
Telecom Gear ('The Marketplace to Buy & Sell Telecom Gear'
800-322-5156 - the mag the interconnect peddler wishes you never
saw...) you will find someone with parts or kits you need.

Another popular mount location is to bore a hole in the housing above
the face plate but where the lamp cartridge won't hit the hook switch.
Even longer lamp leads are needed to make the phone easy to assemble
this way.

For an outboard lamp, the old large beehive lamp housings (Suttle
makes them still, I am sure) can be had with a neon lamp.

Recently I have seen a clip/stick on the side of your phone little
mini box (like the add on hold buttons or hearing impaired amps) that
has a short modular cord to plug into the rear of the phone, and a
jack to receive the phone's normal line cord. This is the sort of
thing someone like Proctor or Crest is apt to make, but I don't
remember where I saw it. You might try 800-HI-HELLO if you don't mind
paying HI prices.

n.b. - no affiliation with any vendor mentioned


[Moderator's Note: That's one thing I have noticed about the Hello
Direct people. Their prices are HI. They have excellent quality
merchandise but not *that much better* for the prices they get.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Explain This Conversation
Date: 31 Aug 90 02:19:48 GMT
Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


>I tried to place a long distance call the other day from a
>bedside phone in a hospital room the other day.  I was in 212 and was
>trying to call 512 (both served by NYTel ...

212 (New York City; also 718) and 516 (Long Island) are in the same
LATA (as well as part of 914 and a smidgen of 203).  Your call was, in
fact, local, and was probably cheaper using NYTel than any LD carrier.

>the first operator says something like "I have a customer requesting
>AT&T long distance", and then gets off the circuit.  The AT&T operator
>takes the number I'm calling and my calling card number, and connects
>me.  Why the little inter-operator conversation?

Sounds like the NYTel operator was telling the AT&T operator, "This
customer insists on using a LD carrier for a local call."


Steve

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

From: Steve Vance <decwrl!apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe
Date: 30 Aug 90 03:58:16 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In regards to the capability of calling 800 numbers from countries
other than the United States, there was a blurb in last month's
Compuserve Magazine (July 90), page 8:

                    ----begin quoted article----

BYPASSING TOLL-FREE TROLLS

Toll-free numbers provide a convenient and cost-effective method for
businesses to stay in touch with customers.  The drawback, however, is
they are inaccessible to anyone who happens not to be in the targeted
market area*.

For those individuals, as well as travelers seeking an alternative to
the high international telephone call surcharges imposed by many
hotels, Credit Card Calling Services can help.  CCCS provides access
by bypassing local telephone companies, which typically block
toll-free calls as they can collect no revenue on them.  For $4.80
plus $1.35 a minute, CCCS connects you with any US telephone number,
bypassing local telephone operators.

The service is currently available in several countries including the
United Kingdom and the United States.

For more information, United Kingdom residents can call CCCS toll-free
at 0800-891-800.  Others may obtain an information packet and a local
access number by calling 212/323-8030 or writing: Suite 2411, 67 Wall
Street, New York, NY 10005.

                 ------end of article-----

I put the "*" above next to something that surprised me.  I didn't
know that the Locals blocked 800 numbers for that reason -- I thought
you restricted 800 number access to only be available in areas you
wanted to market to, to minimize the number of hours of use and
therefore the cost.

In fact, I thought that more than one person or company could have the
same 800 number, as long as the regions were far apart geographically.
But anyway, there is probably some usefulness in some of the above
information to someone, I hope.


[Moderator's Note: I think CCCS or someone is lying about the blocking
of 800 calls by telcos 'as they can collect no revenue on them'. Of
course they collect revenue on them! 800 calling is nothing more or
less than automatic reverse-charge, or collect calling. And the telco
which originates the call *always* gets paid for the call, through
intercompany billing and settlements with the telco which actually
collects for the call. If you called me collect through the operator,
are you saying your local telco would be working for free? Responding
to your second statement about duplication in numbers based on
distance, this is not correct. 800 numbers, like all telephone
numbers, are not duplicated within an 'area code', which in this case
is 800. Telcos *do* block 800 calls if the receiver of the call -- the
person who is paying for it, remember -- says he won't pay for calls
from some particular area of the country; i.e. a subscriber who only
accepts intra-state calls, or local area calls.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 08:42 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings


I believe that "Calls are being taken by...." indicates that the new
number belongs to somebody other than the old subscriber.

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Real Operators?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:13:47 GMT


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

> Sprint's latest TV spot: "...We have REAL operators..."

[Three examples of what seem to me to be very similar service.]

> but Sprint had better "shape up" when it comes to operator service.

You got the information you wanted each time. The difference seems
lost in the noise to me. I've had similar results with Emily Latella.

As for collect calls:

I don't know about Sprint, but the last time anyone called us collect
via AT&T it went like:

    "Hello, I have a collect call. Is this Stephanie da Silva?"

    "Yes"

    *Click*

No "will you accept a call from..." or even "will you accept
charges...".  As it turned out, we didn't want to talk to this person
and they were good enough to remove the charges. We didn't get instant
credit, either.


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


[Moderator's Note: Your story illustrates how all the carriers,
including AT&T, are only as good as their front line personnel. The
chain is as strong as its weakest link, etc. The customer knows
nothing of the back office ... but he knows plenty about cranky
service reps; dirty, stinky payphone booths; and phones which rip off
his money. He remembers all the times the operator has sassed him. He
could care less -- if he knows anything at all -- about 195 Broadway.
That is why operators and service reps should be *highly paid* and
*highly trained and skilled*. Its what's up front that counts!  PAT]

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

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: Thu, 30 Aug 90 17:22:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> optilink![e-mail]
(Clayton Cramer writes:

> a call on a Sunday [is] 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.)

This is an unfounded assumption. It could just be someone who came to
work on a Sunday. And someone who does that probably deserves a few
personal calls.


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


[Moderator's Note: It may also be they called in on the company's WATS
extender, like I do when I work at home for my firm.  PAT]

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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 30 Aug 90 13:49:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


What is "toll saver"?


Mitch Wagner

VOICE: 516/562-5758         GEnie: UNIX-TODAY
UUCP: [e-mail]      ...uunet!utoday!wagner


Moderator's Note: "Toll Saver" is a way of saving money on calls to
answering machines by having the machine not pick up until after
several rings if there are no messages received. If a message is on
the tape, then the answering machine picks up immediatly, on the first
or second ring, as you have it set. If there are no messages, then the
owner calling in knows to hang up after about the third ring so no
charge will be made to call an answering machine which has nothing to
say.  Its a little more involved than that, but that is the idea.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:46:58 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Several Special Issues in Transit


Two more special issues are planned for Friday night: One will contain
numerous messages responding to my op-ed on the Epson email suit. I've
received a huge number of replies, and will squeeze in as many as
possible by eliminating all but one set of reference quotes; no
signatures, etc.

The other will deal with responses to the op-ed on the problem getting
10288 from the company switchboard.  This issue will also be crammed
full of individual replies.

In both instances, I will glibly explain what I said and what I meant
in those messages.  :)   Watch for these Friday night/Saturday morning.

You should have received three special issues Thursday evening.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #608
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10538;
          31 Aug 90 4:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03898;
          31 Aug 90 2:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16820;
          31 Aug 90 1:50 CDT
Date:     Fri, 31 Aug 90 1:22:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #609
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 31 Aug 90 01:22:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 609

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Riposte to Morse Credits by Asimov in Digest [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Need Help Finding NEC Telco Equipment [Steve Vance]
    Conference Calling - Try the Local CO! [Steve Elias]
    Different 'To' and 'From' Lines [Dolf Grunbauer]
    Telecommunications Management Software [Harvey Newstrom]
    How Can I Tell What Switch is Being Used? [Paolo Bellutta]
    Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Paolo Bellutta]
    Caller ID and Modem Codes [Krishna E. Bera]
    900 Supervision and Other Rumors [Bill Cerny]
    Re: Automated Salesmen [Tad Cook]
    Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom  [Steve Friedl]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 00:27 CDT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Riposte to Morse Credits by Asimov in Digest
From: Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]>
Org: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


Subject was titled: Re: What Hath God Wrought?

In article, (Digest v10, iss604) Brader quotes Isaac Asimov concerning
the "true" inventor of telegraphy, wherein Asimov credits Joseph Henry
for the "invention."  Henry undoubtedly contributed much toward the
ultimate development of Morse's telegraph, but there were also a
myriad of others who developed electrical signaling schemes for
railway block traffic control. Many of these were extremely complex
multi-wire, balanced-bridge DC wire circuits that would daunt one of
today's Telco "wire experts."  The railroad industry came to call
these "telegraph," for they evolved into schemes that could signal
representations of alphabetic characters and transmit messages.

What fell to Morse's credit was doing it all on one wire with a serial
signaling technique.  But, even there, Morse seems to be overcredited,
even in Asimov's book, as quoted by Brader in his message cited:

>From "Asimov's New Guide to Science":

>Morse's main original contribution to telegraphy was the system of
>dots and dashes known as the Morse Code.

Even the so-called "Morse Code" was not Morse's invention, but that of
his shopworker subordinate named Vail (probably an ancestor of the
Vail of AT&T fame).  Morse was, in fact, an arrogant, foppish son of
a rich man who frequently took long yacht trips and sessions painting
in oils, leaving Vail to do the work.  Morse's idea of the
"instrument" to send telegraph signals was a cumbersome,
piano-keyboard-like thing he called a "portrule," on which one set up
the character to send, then pressed on a long lever for it to send the
pulses to line.  During one period of Morse's absence, Vail gave up on
trying to manufacture a portrule that would work, and instead made a
"key" like the one we have all seen, including a means to use it for
transmission ... the code.

So, what we have all been taught to call the "Morse Code" should
probably really be called the "Vail Code."

Morse's son wrote a two-volume biography in which he was not at all
kind to his father's image.  Serious students should look it up.
(While I read and enjoy Asimov, he does suffer errors trained into
him, just as we all do.)

And, I note some readers on here have little time for "history
lessons."  However, if one really studies the books and how the first
developers did these things, it opens a great insight into the simple
basis of many of today's "wonders of telecommunications."

The final truth is that all the real _processes_ were accomplished
many years ago, with things mechanical and at of course slow speeds in
slow volumes. What makes it all possible today is vast improvement in
devices, that can do on your desktop what once took a building full of
people and hardware, and do it in an eyeblink (sometimes even
disgustingly wrong!).  But, any complex process we have today can be
broken into a series of simple processes, for which we can find an
early electromechanical example.

Want to understand what you are doing or what you are buying?  Read
the history.  No one said it better than Professor Santayana in about
1903:

    "Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed
    to repeat them."

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

From: Steve Vance <decwrl!apple!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Need Help Finding NEC Telco Equipment
Date: 30 Aug 90 04:03:35 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


A friend of mine has a NEC telephone system in his office.  It has the
ability to run special phones on ten desks.  Each of these special
phones has five telephone lines on it, twenty buttons for
frequently-called numbers, a hold button, etc.  All this thru one pair
of wires back to the big NEC box in the basement, which connects to
the five trunk lines.

When the system was installed about five years ago, they only
installed eight of the maximum ten stations.  Now they want to add the
remaining two stations, but they are having a hard time finding the
special "desk station" phones anywhere.

The dealer that sold them the system can "order them from Japan" at
about $600 each.  Of course, the dealer is less interested in doing
that than selling them a whole new whiz-bang phone system, for mucho
bucks.

Does anyone know where I can buy a couple of these desk stations
cheaply, OR know if there is a "clone" or "compatible" unit that can
be substituted?  The telephone system is called the "NEC Electra 616".
The only markings on the bottom of the desk station (besides date and
serial number) are "ET-6-1".

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Conference Calling - Try the Local CO!
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 07:41:43 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


If you're into conference calling, methinks it would be worth your
money to sign up for three-way calling with your local CO.  The
quality of conferences through the local CO is *outstanding* in my
experience.  it's about $2 or $3 per month here in the Beantown area.

Also, with this method of conferencing, you can choose the carrier for
each leg of the conference.  For example, if one of the conferees is
in one of those extremely rare areas :) which don't get good Sprint
service, you can use ATT to dial that person, while using Sprint to
dial the other conferee.


eli


[Moderator's Note: And by each person in the call having three-way
calling of their own, additional parties can be added, with each of
the two people you call responsible for adding one more, etc.  Also,
if your multi-party conference call is strictly local in scope, try
your local telco operator. They can also handle conference calls
provided everyone is local.   PAT]

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

Organization: Philips Information Systems, P.O. Box 245,
Subject: Different 'To' and 'From' Lines
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 13:56:27 MET
From: Dolf Grunbauer <[e-mail]>


I always assumed that when making a telephone call the line to the
otherside is the same the line back from him to me. The other day
someone told me that this is not the case, especially when making a
international phone call.  According to him it is possible that for
example when calling from europe to the USA one line could use a
satellite connection while the other could use a transatlantic cable.
Is this true?


Dolf Grunbauer  Tel: [phone] Internet [e-mail]
Philips Information Systems        UUCP     ...!mcsun!philapd!dolf

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

From: [e-mail] (Harvey Newstrom)
Subject: Telecommunications Managment Software
Date: 30 Aug 90 20:27:41 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Harvey Newstrom)
Organization: Harris_Electronic_Systems Telecommunications Network_Engineering


Has anyone had any experience with the following companies, especially
as relating to Telecommunications Software?

   Logica Data Architects, Inc.
   Stonehouse & Company
   Westinghouse Communications Software

Any experiences or information would be appreciated.  Thanks in advance.


Harvey Newstrom      [e-mail]       uunet!x102c!hnewstrom
[phone]  FAX:[phone]   P.O.Box 37; M/S 15/8873; Melbourne, FL 32902

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

From: Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Can I Tell What Switch is Being Used?
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 14:24:03 MET DST


Is there a way to determine the type of switch the telco is using?
Last December I got my number changed, after a couple of months I
discovered by accident that now I can use tone dialling.

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

From: Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 14:24:03 MET DST


In Italy the area codes (called prefix) is related to the place (more
or less like the prefix in the US).  01xx is north west, 02 is Milan,
03xx is Lombardia, 04xx is north east, 05xx is central, 06 is Rome,
07xx is south west, 08xx is south east, 09xx are the isles.  The same
occours with the ZIP codes.  The prefix can have two digits (Rome and
Milan only) three digits (main cities) [example 045 is Verona] four
digits (the smaller areas) [0461 is Trento].  Phone numbers usually
have from four to eight digits.  I noticed that in the US while
prefixes are related to the place, area code are not (212 is Manhattan
NYC, 213 is L.A.!!!). Is there a reason? Moreover, are there other
countries that use prefix-place correlation like in Italy?


Paolo Bellutta
I.R.S.T.        vox:    [phone]
loc. Pante' di Povo    fax:    [phone]
38050 POVO (TN)        e-mail:    [e-mail]
ITALY                [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Ecept perhaps by coincidence, area codes in the
United States do not follow in a path one after another. When area
codes were originally laid out, we were using mostly rotary dail
phones. It takes longer to dial nines and zeros than ones and twos.
So the big cities were all given low area code numbers, on the
assumption more people would be calling those places and the dialing
would be more convenient with 'short pull' digits. That is why NYC has
212 (quickest, easiest code for rotary dialers); Chicago has 312;  Los
Angeles has 213; Detroit has 313, etc. Now of course with tone dialing
it really doesn't matter.  But the area codes do relate to a specific
part of the United States or Canada. Its just that they do not fall in
any set pattern, except as noted above. PAT]

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

From: "Krishna E. Bera" <mitel!sce!cognos!alzabo![e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID and Modem Codes
Organization: Brian's Gang, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 90 11:29:59 GMT


Has anyone seen what the format of the Caller ID information that is
sent between rings looks like? Specifically, what tones/voltages are
used? We are trying to build our own decoder for these. Our local
telco is Bell Canada, but the format for any telco would be helpful.

Please e-mail.

Thanks,

Krishna E. Bera, Andras Kovacs
Programmers and Hardware hackers

[e-mail]
nrcaer!alzabo!kebera

Krishna E. Bera
Programmer/Analyst            [e-mail]
MIL Systems Engineering, Inc.        nrcaer!alzabo!kebera
Ottawa

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: 900 Supervision and Other Rumors
Date: 29 Aug 90 17:53:09 GMT


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

>> IPs are admonished to
>> provide a "chicken exit" on their recorded intros so that inadvertant
>> callers can bail.

Southern California IP's call this the "kill message."

>My roommate found out, the hard way, that this supervision delay isn't
>universally implemented.

I was surprised by John's article that stated Telesphere has a 30
second grace period before billing for a 900 call.  But my experience
with Telesphere tells me this isn't a "consumer protection" thing, but
probly a fluke of their billing system.

I have a fairly accurate table of 900 NXX codes, identifying the IXC
(it's actually Scott's old list, updated with the Sprint prefixes).
Readers might get a copy before they post their next 900 horror story.

>[Moderator's Note: Here is an example of a 900 number which is routed
>to a POTS:

Aagghh!  900 numbers don't route to POTS translations!  As John posted
earlier, the average 900 IP connects to the IXC network via T-span,
either at a service bureau (e.g., Lo-Ad Communications) or in their
office/home (don't laugh, it's true!).  AT&T will provide their 900
Multiquest service over individual dedicated access lines, if you're
silly.  There are no switched termination arrangements presently
available from any of the Big Four 900 IXC's.

If you see a POTS number in conjuction with a 900 number, then it is a
_separate_ facility that terminates on the same equipment running the
900 program.  In the case of the Naval Observatory time, the IP has a
dedicated channel from his premises to the Naval Observatory offices
(where the 202 POTS number terminates).  If the IP has a switch, then
he can send a 900 call back into the public switched network if
necessary.  He could even use the switch to mix 900 circuits and POTS
lines to create the illusion that his 900 program has a POTS
translation. ;-)


Bill Cerny
[e-mail]   |   attmail: !denwa!bill

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

From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Salesmen
Date: 29 Aug 90 16:25:19 GMT



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

> 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 had the same problem one time.  I called US West, my local phone
company, and they said that their switches were programmed to drop an
incoming call no later than 22 seconds after the called party hangs
up, assuming that the calling party stays off hook.

The problem for the telemarketers is that there is no way to detect
hookswitch status from the far end ... this is the same problem that
private payphones have.

But maybe they could listen for dialtone?

The problem for emergency callers is that I am unlikely to wait for 22
seconds when I hang up and attempt to call 9-1-1 again.  If I keep
coming off hook every 10 seconds, which is an agonizing amount of time
in an emergency, I will never lose the obnoxious sales call.


Tad Cook    Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544    Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]

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

From: Steve Friedl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed Building Home Intercom
Date: 29 Aug 90 16:13:33 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


Tim Stradtman is looking for a test set that will let him test modems
for compatibility without going through real phone lines.

Tad Cook (who works for Proctor) responds:
> For just doing functional testing of modems, you could use a line
> simulator, like the Proctor 49200 Telephone Demonstrator.  It has four
> lines, with real sounding dialtone, ringback, busy, etc.
> You can reach Proctor at 206-881-7000.

These units are GREAT!  I have one on my desk for testing our fax
modem software, and it is absolutely indispensible.  Proctor is
reportedly coming out with a two-line unit this fall, and I will be
getting one of those too for road demos.

     Steve (who is just a happy customer)

Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

Steve's bright idea #43: put TV Guide on CD-ROM for quick access

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #609
******************************

DUE TO REVERSE IN TRANSMISSION TO THE ARCHIVES, ISSUE 612 ARRIVED
FIRST. ISSUES 610-611 FOLLOW, ALONG WITH THREE SPECIAL ISSUES.
THE ORDER FOR THE NEXT FIVE ISSUES AFTER 609 (ABOVE) IS 612, SPECIAL,
SPECIAL, SPECIAL, 610, 611.











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06998;
          1 Sep 90 4:20 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac05298;
          1 Sep 90 2:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01904;
          1 Sep 90 1:44 CDT
Date:     Sat, 1 Sep 90 1:02:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #612
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 1 Sep 90 01:02:04 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 612

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    City Codes For the Soviet Union [Soviet Discussion List via Floyd Vest]
    National Fax Directory (U.S.A.) [Nigel Allen]
    How to Connect FAX Machine to FAX Card? [Tim Kay]
    System 75 Features [[e-mail]]
    Calling Cellular From COCOT [Jack Winslade]
    Answering Machine Messages [Mitch Wagner]
    Strange Testing [David Leibold]
    Call From NYC to Long Island and Fisher's Island [Carl Moore]
    Long Calls, was: Modems/Call Waiting [David Lesher]
    Trying to Fix Old Phone [Mark Geary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 22:57 CDT
From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: City Codes For the Soviet Union


Knowing the interest of readers of this Digest in collecting
potentially useful telecom trivia, I am passing on this post from the
Bitnet Soviet Union discussion list:

 *** FORWARDED MESSAGE:
 Subject: Cities & Area Codes
 Date: 30 Aug 90
 From: Igor Yastrzhembsky IKI/SDDPD <[e-mail]>
 Sender: USSR news & information list <[e-mail]>

Dear friends,

It looks from the mail I receive that a lot of people is interested
in obtaining the list of cities and area codes for the USSR.

Few remarks:

1) This list is not exhaustive. These are only MAJOR cities. If
anybody would like to get an area code for a city not mentioned in
the list, drop me a line.

2) I do not know if all these cities can be reached from abroad. But
within the USSR they are all 'the same', i.e. there is no difference
between calling this or that particular city.

3) If an asterisk appears immediately after city name it means that,
for 5 or 6 digit numbers you should add '2' or '22', respectively,
before the number
           i.e. 12345 -> 2212345 or 123456 -> 2123456.

If there is NO asterisk you should put '0' or '00'
           i.e. 12345 -> 0012345 or 123456 -> 0123456

4) You should ALWAYS dial '0' if it appears in the area code!

5) The area code for MOSCOW is 095.

6) I do not bear any responsibility for this list.

=====================================================================
   Alma-Ata                 327         Mogilev                  022
   Andizhan*                374         Murmansk                 815
   Arkhangelsk              818         Nalchik                  866
   Astrakhan                851         Namangan                 369
   Ashkhabad                363         Nizhnii Novgorod*        831
   Baku*                    892         Nikolaev                 051
   Barnaul*                 385         Novgorod                 816
   Batumi                   882         Novosibirsk*             383
   Belgorod*                072         Odessa                   048
   Blagoveschensk*          416         Omsk*                    381
   Brest*                   016         Orel                     086
   Bryansk*                 083         Orenburg                 353
   Bukhara                  365         Penza*                   841
   Vilnus                   012         Petrozavodsk             814
   Vinnitsa                 043         Petropavlovsk-Kamchatski 415
   Vitebsk*                 021         Perm*                    342
   Vladivostok              423         Poltava*                 053
   Vladikavkaz*             867         Pskov                    811
   Vladimir*                092         Pyatigorsk               879
   Volgograd*               844         Riga*                    013
   Vologda*                 817         Rovno                    036
   Voronezh                 073         Rostov-na-Donu*          863
   Gomel                    023         Ryazan                   091
   Grodno*                  015         Samarkand                366
   Groznii                  871         Saransk                  834
   Gulistan*                367         Saratov*                 845
   Dzhizak                  372         Sverdlovsk*              343
   Dnepropetrovsk           056         Simferopol*              065
   Donetsk*                 062         Smolensk                 081
   Dushanbe                 377         Sochi                    862
   Erevan                   885         Stavropol*               865
   Zhitomir                 041         Sumi                     054
   Zaporozhje               061         Sukhumi                  881
   Ivanovo*                 093         Siktivkar*               821
   Ivano-Frankovsk          034         Tallinn*                 014
   Izhevsk*                 341         Tambov                   075
   Irkutsk*                 395         Tashkent*                371
   Ioshkar-Ola              836         Tbilisi*                 883
   Kazan*                   843         Tver*                    082
   Kaliningrad              011         Termez                   376
   Kaluga*                  084         Tomsk                    382
   Karaganda                321         Tula*                    087
   Karshi                   375         Tumen*                   345
   Kemerovo*                384         Uzhgorod                 031
   Kiev*                    044         Ulan-Ude*                301
   Kirov                    833         Ulyanovsk                842
   Kirovograd               052         Ufa                      347
   Kishinev                 042         Fergana                  373
   Kostroma*                094         Frunze                   331
   Krasnodar                861         Khabarovsk               421
   Krasnoyarsk*             391         Kharkov                  057
   Kuibishev*               846         Tsilinograd              317
   Kurgan*                  352         Cheboksari               835
   Kursk                    071         Chelyabinsk              351
   Kustanai*                314         Cherkassi*               047
   Leningrad                812         Chernigov*               046
   Lipetsk                  074         Chernovtsi               037
   Lugansk*                 064         Chita                    302
   Lutsk                    033         Elista                   847
   Lvov*                    032         Juzhno-Sakhalinsk        424
   Magadan                  413         Yalta                    060
   Makhatchkala             872         Yakutsk*                 411
   Minsk*                   017         Yaroslavl*               085
=====================================================================
IAY

Igor Yastrzhembsky               Voice: [phone]
Space Research Institute         Fax:   [phone]
Profsoyuznaya St. 84/32          TELEX: 411498 STAR SU
117810 Moscow, USSR              E-mail: [e-mail]


Floyd Vest     Auburn University      ##### [e-mail] #####

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

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 90 21:27 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: National Fax Directory (U.S.A.)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


If your company or organization would like to be listed free of charge
in the National Fax Directory, please write to or call:

  General Information Inc.
  401 Parkplace, Suite 305
  Kirkland, WA 98037
  telephone [phone]
  fax [phone]

The directory only lists U.S. fax numbers. Residents of other
countries may be able to get information about fax directories for
their country from a local fax machine dealer or telecommunications
administration.

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

From: Tim Kay <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Connect FAX Machine to FAX Card?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 00:10:37 GMT


I have a Fax machine and a Fax card.  I'd like to use the Fax machine
as a 200 dpi scanner without having to tie up two phone lines.  What
do I do to plug them together?  Can I simply tie them in parallel with
a 48 V supply also in parallel?  Do I have to simulate a ring signal?


Tim

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 04:13:00 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: System 75 Features


Can anyone tell me how to order a copy of the installer/programmer's
manual for an AT&T System 75 system? The place where my mom works has
a feature which allows select persons to listen in to any phone call
they wish -- without the usual click.

While I think this is crappy to do, it does have it's purposes if you
run a telemarketing company and want to make sure your employees are
doing their job well ... Suffice it to say, she's a manager, and
lower-level peons which "got the codes out of the installer" are
listening in to everyone's phone conversations.

Is there any way to set Deny Executive Override (or whatever it is to
cut out this feature) from the individual extension -- it's kinda
tough to get to the KSU.

Please reply to me directly ... I'm not often viewing the list.

Thanks in advance,

Greeny

BITNET: MISS026@BOGECNVE
Internet: [e-mail]
GEnie: GREENY   AOL: GREENY1     CI$: 72567,457

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 22:30:52 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Cellular From COCOT
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


Yesterday afternoon I had to make a quick call to a friend who had a
US West cellular phone.  The only phone around was a COCOT, but what
the heck, I needed a phone.

Drop the quarter in, get a somewhat realistic phony dial tone, dial
the number, long pause.  Ring .... ring .... ring .... {with no
answer} ... ring 'The mobile phone you are calling is not answering at
this time, please {loud click, COCOT swallows quarter} try your call
again later.'

Now I know the far end did not supervise.  I've done this on 'real'
pay phones and they do not rip off the coins.  I figure this COCOT
only guessed at the loss of ringback tone and figured it had an
answer.  Maybe they should put the BOOOP-boop-beep tritones on the
cellular 'no response' intercept.


Good Day!       JSW

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

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


[Moderator's Note: Do you ever call up the COCOT owner to complain and
get a refund when a private payphone steals your money like that? I
have done so, and they sent me a *check* for 25 cents!  Illinois Bell
at least sends little credit slips you can turn in when you pay your
own phone bill.  They used to send loose change to you in the mail,
taped to a card which said 'sorry we were unable to refund your money
on your call the other day ...' but they had to quit that because so
many people were ripping them off. Maybe that is why the COCOT people
send checks also. When AT&T sends out refunds for money lost in coin
phones they send a check also, marked "Pay to the Order of The
Telephone Company" and you can turn it in with your phone bill to them
or the local telco, or whoever. PAT]

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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 30 Aug 90 14:02:33 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


I have my full name on my home answering machine messages, "Hi. This
is Mitch Wagner. I can't come to the phone just now... " etc. etc.
etc.

I notice most people have just their first name, or even just "You
have reached 555-1212." This is, I think, so people don't give out
information that can be used to take advantage of them.

But, what information is that? "Gosh, you know my full name! Here's my
car keys!" Is there an actual reason for withholding this information?
Or is it just one of those paranoid, half-baked Krimestopper Tips that
makes just enough sense on he surface to keep people from questioning
it?


Mitch Wagner

VOICE: 516/562-5758             GEnie: UNIX-TODAY
UUCP: [e-mail]         ...uunet!utoday!wagner

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Testing
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:30:56 EDT


Does anyone know what the following tests (as found on a DMS 100
switch) are for:

1. Dial a test number, receive four quick rings (about 1/sec) then
silence.

2. Dial another test number, rings twice (normal ringing) then returns
to a normal dial tone allowing dialing as usual.

3. A test which sounds like a short fax carrier blast, then silence.

4. A couple of numbers that don't do anything but sit there silently.

Any ideas on what any of the above are would be appreciated, as well
as any other weird and wonderful stuff that anyone else has found.


|| [e-mail]  /// David Leibold

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

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 9:51:19 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call From NYC to Long Island and Fisher's Island


[e-mail] writes that a call from 212 to 516 is
local.  But I had a message from [e-mail] saying that
the call in question was going about 20 or 30 miles beyond Cold Spring
Harbor.  Back in the 1970s (I don't know what has changed in the
meantime), the message-unit calling area from NYC went as far east as
the Amityville, Cold Spring Harbor, and Farmingdale exchanges, which
are somewhere around the Nassau-Suffolk border.

Fisher's Island, NY:

It's served by 516-788, and is more easily reached reached from
Connecticut than it is from the rest of N.Y.state.  It is toll from
other parts of area 516 (and of course this would make it a toll call
from NYC).  Calls to Fisher's Island are apparently routed thru
Connecticut, according to info I read from a 1982 tape (also, Fisher's
Island has a Connecticut zipcode 06390, which long ago replaced 11943;
and at least one church lumps it in with a Connecticut, not a N.Y.
state, diocese).

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

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 18:32:07 -0400
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Calls (was: Modems/Call Waiting)


{can you time up a dial-up line all month?}

|Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this?  I've never heard
|of a maximum period of time for a phone call.  I consulted my phone
|book, and the term it uses is untimed.

An alarm distributor once told me that Sonitrol {sp} tried this. They
offered an alarm system that triggered on loud noises inside the
buildings at night. Then the alarm office could listen, mike by mike,
to hear if it was an intruder, or a burping furnace.

To do they, they used standard dialup lines, and kept them open all
night, or all weekend. Ma took them up the court ladder, and won. I
suspect the tariffs have some catchall phrase about "abnormal use" or
such.


[e-mail]
(305) 255-RTFM
pob 570-335
33257-0335

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

From: Lord High Everything Else <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trying to Fix Old Phone
Date: 31 Aug 90 02:02:48 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer & Information Science


    I have a telephone that I'm trying to fix. The dictionary
identifies it as a "300" model telephone. We last used it in 1976 and
it worked fine then.  Now, when I plug it in I can dial out; it will
ring when we receive a call and I can answer the call and here the
other party's voice; but when I try to talk, it won't transmit my
voice.  I've tried swapping the microphone element with a phone that
works, and I know that it is good, so the fault must be elsewhere in
the phone. I've looked inside and nothing obvious is broken, but,
while I can identify most of the individual components, I don't know
how they all work together.

    Can anyone give me advice on fixing this telephone, or tell me
where to look for information?


| Mark Geary, Department of Computer and Information Science             |
| The Ohio State University, 2036 Neil Ave., Columbus OH USA 43210-1277  |
| ...!{pyramid,killer}!cis.ohio-state.edu!geary        (614) 292 - 0915  |
| [e-mail] or [e-mail]               |

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #612
******************************











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08316;
          1 Sep 90 5:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02191;
          1 Sep 90 3:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad05298;
          1 Sep 90 2:51 CDT
Date:     Sat, 1 Sep 90 1:45:41 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Epson Email Spying - Part 1 of 2
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 1 Sep 90 01:42:00 CDT    Epson Email - Part 1 of 2

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [Many of You]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 1990 01:00:00 CDT


Here are several responses received this week from readers of the
op-ed on the Epson email case. Quotes have been severely cut back.
This is part one of two parts -- yes, I told you the mail came
flooding in this week!  :)


 From: [e-mail]
 Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX

If I have any opinion at all, it's a gut reaction that a company can
legally monitor the phones of its workers, but ethically shouldn't
unless their job involves phone contact with the public.  The best
justification for this comes from a friend who works at one of those
big three-letter companies, when he was explaining why his company
should relax its restrictions on Usenet news.  He said that the
company should provide space, time and access for news for the same
reasons they have soda machines and a jogging track: To make a better
work environment.

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

John Higdon and the TELECOM Moderator make extremely good points from
the business viewpoint on the subject.  The business is paying and
they own everything on the computer.  However, like most subjects
there is more than one side: the employee, employer, and the third
party ...

What about the non-Epson employee who sends email to the Epson
employee over the internet or their paid account on Compuserve or
somewhere else?  (I realize this is probably not the case but we are
talking about privacy of email.)  Does the company have a right to
read mail from him to an epson employee?  To employ the paper analogy,
If I send US mail to John Doe at his Acme, Inc.  place of work, does
Acme have the right to open it?  If you say no, Acme can say that it
costs them money to distribute it internally so they have a right.
Sure they can refuse it but then they could have refused the email
from the remote site.

At my government work site, the telephone book states that I consent
to telephone monitering by using the phone.  That means they have my
consent but what about the person I am calling.  What happens when a
another person calls me; have they consented to thier call being
monitored?

I believe the contents of email, telephone, or paper mail should be
kept private.  A company should be able to prohibit personal use and
enforce but never be able to read mail.  In my job I send lots of mail
that is 100% business related that is meant for only a few people.  It
would be damaging to some people and the mission itself if other than
the people who it was intended for saw it.

I don't want my boss or my boss'es boss to know than I am dealing with
certain people or organizations.  If I found out he could read my
mail, I wouldn't send it and productivity would go down.  Do your
business search maintain the right to search your desk?  Personally, I
am disgusted that things like this have to go to court in the first
place.  Employees should respect the property rights of the employer
and employers should respect the privacy rights of the employee.
There are privacy concerns on email that has nothing to do if that
email is personal or not.


 From: [e-mail]

Pat, re this topic, could someone post the court filings?  I suspect
the case is a little more complex than you make it out.  While I agree
with you that email/phone calls on company resources are converting
the company resources to private use, spying on mail/listening to
phone calls is not considered "polite" behavior, and is normally not
done unless the abuses become obvious.  For employeees to be in a
court case with an employer is a sign of *serious* problems of trust.


 From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
 Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA

There is a case pending in NJ today.  The state claims that the owner
of a business in this state monitored telephone calls to/from his
employees, while they were at work, without their permission or
knowlege.  He is charged with several counts of wiretap.  Because he
is in a heavily-regulated industry, he may be in danger of losing his
right to operate his business.

The press coverage does not indicate whether the monitored phone calls
were considered 'personal', either by the employer or by the
employees.  A company spokesperson has stated that the monitoring was
done by a private investigator hired by the owner to investigate
possible fraud by employees.  It is further claimed that the
monitoring was done without the knowlege of the owner who hired the
investigator.

Others have stated that the employees whose phones were monitored were
believed to be making arrangements to start up a new business in
competition with that of their employer.

It is not clear that any charges of fraud were ever brought against
any current or former employees as a result of the investigation.

The case has not come to trial.


 From: Brendan Kehoe <[e-mail]>
 Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Uh, sorry that doesn't jive -- I've been running with the assumption
that the ECPA gave me the right to *NOT* have email read on, for
example, a bulletin board, unless the owner explicitly says that
he/she will be doing so to protect their system. Supposedly that whole
idea is the BASIS of the ecpa; if it were as you propose, then
theoretically you could say that if a call placed by an AT&T
subscriber were routed to a US Sprint trunk, for whatever reason
(lines down, etc), then US Sprint has the legal right to do whatever
they wish with the traffic they forward, since the person that "owns"
that traffic isn't a Sprint subscriber? C'mon.

If I'm wrong about the way I see this law being interpreted, please
correct me ... (but keep the flames to email, ok?).


 From: Mike Godwin <[e-mail]>
 Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

This suggests that the right to privacy depends on ownership of
property. Does a landlord have the right to plant a listening device
in an apartment just because the tenant doesn't actually own it?
Maybe, according to Pat, since the tenant paid for something, and
maybe privacy was part of that something. But suppose I'm a
housesitter or a houseguest who hasn't paid a dollar of rent, and
suppose the landlord installs a listening device to hear *my*
conversation. Does our Moderator *really* want to say that privacy is
something one has only if one has paid for it?

Suppose the Epson employees testify that they were under the
impression that e-mail was private and would not be reviewed by anyone
other than the recipient. Suppose they then can testify that they
wrote things they would not have written if they had known Epson
supervisors were spying on them.

[regarding if the company should be able to see all business-related
email]

This, to me, seems naive. I have never had a job in which it was not
true at some point that I had a business-related communication I did
not want my boss to review. For example, if I wrote a note to X
telling her to include charts in her presentation because the Boss is
more impressed by graphics than he is by reasoned logical argument, it
is quite likely that I wouldn't want the Boss to see that I had
written that, even if the Boss himself knew it to be true.

Nor is it always the case that such e-mail would concern something
negative about supervisors. Sometimes, communication among peers,
while business-related, is informal to a degree that would make it
embarrassing if a boss saw it.

Finally, it is a mistake, I think, to characterize corporate e-mail
use as business or non-business. I cannot think of a computer system
of which the following statement is not true:

"Informal, 'playful' use is required if the system's formal, 'serious'
use is to reach its full potential."

The corporate cultures of most computer-related firms (and many other
firms too) inculcate the attitude that learning how to use a system is
a higher priority than limiting one's use to 'justifiable'
circumstances.  I wouldn't be surprised if Epson employees, prior to
their fateful discovery, had thought that using e-mail for private
purposes was tolerated, and perhaps even encouraged, by Epson
management.

But this last is a side issue. The irreducible fact, it seems to me,
is that almost everyone who is given access to a corporate e-mail
system is given the impression, directly or indirectly, that her
communications are private. Since this is true, the employees may well
have acted in reliance on that impression that their e-mail
communications would be private, and may thus have been 'tricked' into
making statements they otherwise would not have made.

>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.

Obviously, I think this issue is a little subtler than any question
of property rights.


 From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>
 Organization: Array Systems Computing, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA

It is legitimate to complain when it costs the company money, either
in phone bills or a material impact on employee work, but I believe
minor use of communications facilities is more of a right than a gift.
I'm using company equipment to send this message, which is only
peripherally related to my work.  But I know they don't object.

How many repair men and delivery trucks need a daytime phone number?
How do you call the hospital to ask how your child/spouse/relative's
surgery went?  It's silly to expect that work consumes one's undivided
attention for hours on end; you have to accept the fact that you're
paying people when they're not at top efficiency as well as when they
are.  Similarly, you have to allow some humanity overhead on
communications lines.

And if, say, a close friend calls me up in tears after a breakup, I
expect to be able to comfort them with some reasonable expectation of
privacy.  No, not perfect, but anyone who hears part of it should not
stick around to hear it all.  I need to know more of the details, but
Epson's organized eavesdropping efforts seemed excessive.

(Note: I'm in the programming business, where there's a very high
premium on Keeping Them Happy, so I may have different experiences
than others.  I've heard stories about A Certain Company that has
people keeping in regular touch with girlfriends in Japan and neglects
to block long distance from the front-door intercom phone.  That seems
just a *trifle* cavalier!)


 From: Jordan Kossack <[e-mail]>

In general, I agree with you and John Higdon that a company has a
right to know what their computers, telephones, etc. are used for. On
the other hand, there are legitimate privacy concerns on the part of
the employees and the persons they communicate with.

In your article, you say:
-
-         [ ... ]  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*.
          [ ... ]
- Likewise with telephones: Your employer has the legal right to monitor

     By a direct extension of this, I should be allowed to record all
telephone conversations in my house/apartment.  After all, since I am
paying the telephone bill, I am the only one who has a right to
privacy on these phone lines.  However, if I recall correctly, some
states require the permission of both parties before a call can be
legally recorded.  Now, one may argue that the Epson employee has
given his/her implicit agreement by using an Epson owned telephone,
but what about the other party?  Do they have any 'rights' in this
situation?

     I don't intend this as a flame, since I agree that Epson, or any
other company, should be able to control company resources.  However,
there are privacy concerns to be considered - primarily on the part of
the non-employees who sent electronic mail to Epson employees.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Epson Email Spying Part 1 of 2
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08530;
          1 Sep 90 5:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad02191;
          1 Sep 90 4:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ai05298;
          1 Sep 90 2:52 CDT
Date:     Sat, 1 Sep 90 2:36:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Epson Email Spying  Part 2 of 2
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 1 Sep 90 02:35:00 CDT    Epson Email - Part 2 of 2

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [Many of You]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 1990 01:00:00 CST


Here are more of the many responses received to the op-ed on Epson.
This is part 2 of 2 parts.


 From: "Carl M. Kadie" <[e-mail]>

In comp.dcom.telecom Patrick Townson writes:

>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.

I don't think "monitoring" is the right word; I think "spying" is more
accurate. Here is how the OED2 defines "monitor":

   "In more general use: to observe, supervise, or keep under review;"

It defines "spy" as:

    "To watch (a person, etc.) in a secret or stealthy manner;"

Regardless of the the legality of Epson's actions, they behaved
unethically by spying on their employees. The ethical alternative
would have been to 1) tell all employees that e-mail was to be used
for business purposes only 2) to tell employees that their e-mail
might will be read by management 3) to tell an employee every time his
or her e-mail is actually read.

When my manager looks over my shoulder while I work, he or she is
monitoring.  When my manager watches me through the office keyhole, he
or she is spying.


 From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
 Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland

In some places (such as Ireland, and I think the UK) it is illegal for
the owner of the phone to record conversations without the knowledge
and consent of the other party. This obviously implies that an
employer is not entitled to record employees' conversations without
the consent of both the employees and the parties they call. Is there
any similar law in the US?


 From: Robert E Stampfli <[e-mail]>
 Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

I must say that I currently presume that any e-mail I send thru my
employee account may, at some point, be read by others, even though my
company has strict guidelines about such things.  The privacy of
telephone conversations, however, is protected by a long history of
legal standards and societal mores, which make it a somewhat different
animal.  For instance, the misguided and untenable Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 provides a legal assumption of
privacy with regards to cellular calls even though, in this case,
privacy cannot be assured.

An employer certainly has the right to control company resources, and
that includes at some point the right to listen-in on phone
conversations made on company lines.  However, if such is done prior
to notifying those affected that they have no expectation of privacy,
then in my opinion, a privacy violation has occurred and those
affected have every right to seek legal redress.  That is what the
courts are for.

Maybe one day, when electronic mail is more mature and accepted, we
will employ the same standards with this media.


 From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
 Organization: Xenix Support, FICC

Pat makes a few unfounded assumptions here. I'm not going to comment
on the E-mail aspects of things, but there's a bit much big-brother in
the following.

> 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?

Because there is no alternative?

> Use the payphone in the cafeteria.

What payphone? What cafeteria? The nearest payphone is in a Circle-K over a
mile away.

I use my own Sprint account (via 1-800-877-8000) for long distance
calls.  Would my employer have the right to tap those?


 From: David Dick <decvax!siia.mv.com![e-mail]>
 Organization: Software Innovations, Inc.

Do you believe it is reasonable for the administrator of their
telephone system to record and review all phone calls made on their
phone system?  How about salary discussions?

Do you believe it is reasonable for the people responsible for
maintaining offices and meeting rooms to be privy to everything that
goes on in those rooms?  Including salary discussions and employee
discipline and firings?

I don't think that the fact that Epson owns the machines that the
email was carried on *necessarily* implies that the company or *more
importantly* a mere functionary, who is supposed to administer the
email facility, is entitled to violate the confidentiality of those
communications.

I agree that, in the matter of personal use of company machines (or
resources of any kind), Epson is entitled to be upset with
misappropriation.  However, even in the conduct of company business, I
don't think it is an absolute that the "company" deserves every
detail, and I think an administrator of a communications facility (of
whatever kind) is not entitled to eavesdrop, except when authorized
for specific purposes (and possibly not even then).


 From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>

I read an article in {Information Week} which had this as a cover
article.  The lady in question was upset because she was sending
business-related e-mail to person B.  Her supervisor intercepted the
mail (which was not addressed, nor intended to be seen by him), and
after viewing it, fired her for insubordination (and in a way which
wasn't exactly professional, either).

If I recall that article from memory, she had asked her boss for an
account on a public e-mail system so that she could use it to do work
from home, or somesuch.  He refused.  Her message that was intercepted
was to someone else in the company asking the procedures for getting
this account.  I don't think she had actually TOLD the other fellow to
get her one, just asking how to go about it.  (Shucks, I've done the
same thing: send e-mail asking about the procedure before I ask my
boss for the okay.  If she approves, it gets done even faster, and if
she doesn't it isn't a lot of time wasted -- it may be approved later
anyway as things change.)

I don't disagree with you Patrick, on the idea of not using business
resources for personal use.  And I agree that anything I type on my
company owned terminal and e-mail system has every right to be audited
by the company.  Same as making personal calls at work.

I think that based upon your message and the article I read in
{Information Week}, I think that the suit is going for the wrong
thing.  There seems to be three possible suits here, and only the
first two are worth pursuing: Firing the lady in a most unprofessional
way, supervisor reading confidential documents (ie. the BUSINESS
e-mail message not sent nor intended for him), and the privacy of
corporate e-mail in general.  I say that the second is worthwhile as
well, but I'll save that for another posting if there is any interest.


 From: [e-mail] (Kurt Baumann)
 Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA

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

> 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?

The above happened to me as well.  I made a point of asking people to
not use the phone for personal use, quick phone calls were "ok", but
certainly not to extend to 90 minutes talking to ones significant
other.  My pleas went unheard until we shut the long distance off
except at my desk.  It is sad that things like this happen.  However,
I hope that there was a policy in place stating that the messages were
being monitored.

People have come to expect that thier incoming US mail will not be
opened while at work, I think that this expectation has been extended
to cover Email as well.  I don't know what the answer is here, but it
seems that some legislation is in order here.


 From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
 Organization: University of California, Berkeley

I disagree entirely.  If you use a piece of company-owned stationery
to write a personal letter, the company has no right whatsoever to
read it, not even if you use a company-owned pen to write it on
company time and use a company postage meter.  They can ask you to
reimburse them their costs, they can fire you for misuse of their
property, but they CANNOT read the message.  PERIOD.

As to the point about telephone lines, the company does not have the
right to monitor its employees' telephone conversations without PRIOR
NOTICE AND CONSENT of the employee.  I rather doubt that any of these
employees was notified and gave consent that any e-mail sent could be
monitored and printed out.  Furthermore, if I am a guest at someone's
house and use her telephone and she (unknown to me) taps the line, she
has committed an illegal act.  (At least that's how the law reads to
me.)  It doesn't matter if she let me use the phone under particular
conditions which I violated; she has tapped a phone conversation
without the consent of either party, and that's illegal, even though
it's her phone.

The company is entitled to keep records of to whom e-mail was sent and
the size of the message.  If they are concerned about private e-mail,
they have the right to call an employee in and say, "We see that on
August 26 at 11:35 you sent 126 KB of e-mail to foo@bar.  What was the
purpose of this message?"  If the employee cannot provide an
acceptable answer, the company can take action against the employee
(including requesting reimbursement for the cost of sending the e-mail
or firing the employee or docking the employee's pay for the time
spent).  However, unless the employee has made a prior agreement that
e-mail is to be used only for business purposes, the employer's case
is tenuous except on the misuse of company TIME.

If the company reads the e-mail without prior consent, it's wiretapping,
it's invasion of privacy, it's illegal, and they deserve to get sued.
The right to privacy is in no way contingent on ownership of the premises.

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Epson Email Spying Part 2 of 2
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08536;
          1 Sep 90 5:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00702;
          1 Sep 90 0:35 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30128;
          31 Aug 90 23:29 CDT
Date:     Fri, 31 Aug 90 22:39:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 31 Aug 90 22:36:00 CDT    Special: Blocking 10xxx

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls [Various writers, responding to Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls
Date: 31 Aug 90 19:00:00 CDT (Fri)


A few days ago in the Digest, a reader wrote to explain the difficulty
encountered when trying to make a call to International Directory
Assistance from his office PBX. For some reason (I will leave it to
your imagination what it was), the company had all long distance
service blocked except via MCI. No doubt at some point, someone told
them the BIG LIE about 'how much money they would save' by using MCI
as their long distance carrier exclusively. Rather than ask their
employees to use the default carrier as much as possible and only make
exceptions as needed, they simply blocked the switch from all 10xxx
access.

Then came the day an employee needed to call International Directory
Assistance in some country MCI does not serve. MCI kept telling him to
use AT&T (for the free, directory only portion of the call, mind
you!), but his switch would not permit the connection. The MCI rep
suggested calling AT&T at the International Information Center and
lying about it, telling them they were a customer of AT&T. Finally the
suggestion was made to use a nearby payphone!

Aside from being amused at the folks who never yet have realized that
you get what you pay for; and that for years, MCI was famous -- or
infamous perhaps -- for skimming the cream while leaving
heavily-regulated AT&T to carry the losers, I was amazed that after
such an experience, the company with the PBX would still persist in
thinking that MCI was such a great deal ... or do they?  The few cents
they 'saved' on the call -- once it was made, if it was finally
accomplished -- were more than offset by the time wasted by employees
trying to manipulate the phone and PBX to get the call through!

So AT&T is to handle directory assistance calls to India, Pakistan,
Venezula, and similar countries where the phone service is poor, you
can wait for five minutes of ringing before the operator answers and
another ten minutes after she answers and goes to look up your number
all the while MCI handles the very profitable east coast corridor
traffic in the USA. Is that the way it works?  If you ever wonder why
MCI gives discount rates, consider all the expenses they *do not*
have: i.e. a very expensive to operate international center in
Pittsburg, a toll free international information center, etc.  If you
want quality, you have to pay for it. One AT&T supervisor told me it
is routine to spend 10-15 minutes on the line with one customer if
that customer is calling Directory Assistance in certain countries I
will not name here. We regular users of AT&T International Service
have the MCI abusers to thank for the fact that the Pittsburg IOC is
now clamping down on making directory assistance calls without an
actual call -- which they place for you -- following immediatly.

But I digress ...

Is it legal to block access to 10xxx from any phone? According to both
Illinois Bell and AT&T, 10xxx access may not be denied from any
phone. Likewise, 911 may not be denied from any phone, although
perhaps you would not be so foolish as to want to do that. Illinois
Bell will, on request, set your default carrier to NONE, meaning you
must dial 10xxx on every call, but they will not do away with 10xxx
itself.

And in the example before us, its a dumb thing to do anyway ... at
least if you are expecting the OCC which gives you such low rates to
actually handle the drudge jobs only AT&T is *forced* to handle at
present.

Here are some replies received in the past couple days:

 From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

On Aug 29 at  1:33, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: While you are at it, why not call in whoever does
> your PBX programming and ask him when he can get his act together and
> correct the *illegal* blocking of 10xxx.  PAT]

Wait a minute. Didn't we just conclude that the owner of a PBX had the
right to control it in regards to his business? At the customer's
request, I have programmed an ITT 3100 to block 10XXX access. The
proprietor subscribes to no less than three different carriers and has
a complex routing table to select via trunk or access code the carrier
that provides the least cost at that particular time to the particular
destination. He does NOT want someone, employee or otherwise, to
select his own carrier and in effect override the (laboriously worked
out by me) tables for his own purposes or convenience.

10XXX blocking may be "illegal" from COCOTs, but it is certainly up to
the business owner to determine how his business calls are being
routed. If they are not business calls, then maybe a final check is in
order.

[Moderator's Note: AT&T claims it is illegal. Certainly, the average
employee will dial the PBX's LD access code, and then just dial the
number, letting the routing tables do their thing. But show me where
in your routing tables you allowed for Directory Assistance in some
far-away country?  PAT]


 From: <[e-mail]>

How can this be illegal? If the equipment is owned and operated by
INMOS, aren't they free to program it as they see fit? If not, how is
it different from the lawsuit pending against Epson, where the Telecom
Moderator advocates the position that "what the Company owns (for its
own use), the Company can do what the Company wants"? If INMOS were in
the business of providing public phone service, I'd agree with the
Telecom Moderator. As it stands, though, while it may be inconvenient,
it certainly isn't illegal.


Jeff E. Nelson                | [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corporation | Affiliation given for identification purposes


From: Kian-Tat Lim <[e-mail]>


    I don't believe that it's illegal (or unethical) for a private
business owner to block the use of 10XXX on the business' PBX.  This
is not a public telephone, after all.  In fact, with outgoing WATS
trunks and lowest-cost routing, 10XXX may not even make sense on a
PBX.

Kian-Tat Lim ([e-mail], KTL @ CITCHEM.BITNET, GEnie: K.LIM1)


[Moderator's Note: You do not consider it illegal or unethical for a
PBX to have 10xxx blocked, but do you consider it *stupid* for them to
do so? If they want employees to pay for their personal calls, why not
allow 10xxx so that the employee can put it on his AT&T Card or Sprint
Card if desired?   PAT]


 From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>

Pat,

    I don't understand how it can be illegal for a Company owned
PBX to block access to 10xxx on it's own phone lines, when the lines,
use of the lines, and payment of the bills is completely provided at
the discretion, if not pleasure of the Company.

    I realize that such blocking can prevent an employee using his
own credit card for billing a call, thus encouraging petty
embezzlement, but the right to use the phone itself is under the
control of the Company.

jim
Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6061
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086


 From: Colin Plumb <[e-mail]>

Excuse me?  If it's the company's dime, it seems they can do anything
they like with it.  It's only illegal if you're selling the service.
Or is it unfair to the carriers, and do those rulings bind PBX's as
well as LEC's?

Please elaborate.  And remember the recent condemnation of non-company
calls on company telephones.

Colin


[Moderator's Note: My understanding is that yes, it is illegal to
block 10xxx from any phone technically equipped to handle it. And if
you are giving the use of the phone to your employees as a fringe
benefit, then that would sort of be tantamount to selling the service,
no? If the slaves don't provide you with their labor, they won't have
a desk to sit at any longer to make calls.

And yes, I remember the condemnation of non-company calls on company
phones. What does that have to do with a *business call* to some
country where MCI will not connect you with directory assistance?  PAT]


 From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>


I'm curious about this claim ... I understand that it is illegal for
a public telephone, or one in a public place such as a hotel room or
an airport, to block access to 10xxx.  I was not aware that it is
illegal to block such access from non-public phones, such as those
provided by a company for the use of its employees on company
business.  Is this actually the case?  Is AT&T legally required to
allow its employees to select MCI when calling on company business
or from company-provided telephones?  (They don't.)

Just curious!


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: Are you saying that if someone using the phone in
an AT&T office dials 9 (or whatever for an outside line) that New York
Telephone blocks 10xxx access at that point? Or is the 9-level call
completely processed internally before the switch ever lets it out of
the system and into NYT's hands?  No company is required to 'allow'
its employees to select anything. You say to your employees, "Don't
let us catch you making calls over carrier 'x' ... ", and if they do
it, you make them justify it. But how can you deny the employee the
right to use his own calling card of the company of his choice? Yours
is an extreme example. I can't see why they would want to use MCI.
There is nothing MCI can offer them, unlike the other way around.  PAT]


 From: "Jeffrey J. Carpenter" <[e-mail]>


I really don't think this is a case of illegal blocking, Pat.  Don't
you think his company can choose what long distance company they want
to use?  If you were the telecom manager, and you had selected MCI for
your calls, would you want people using AT&T anyway?

Here were I work, 10xxx is also blocked, but only because our PBX
determines which carrier has the lowest rate for my particular call and
routes it accordingly.


Jeff Carpenter, University of Pittsburgh, Computing and Information Services
600 Epsilon Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15238
[e-mail], [e-mail],
  [phone],    FAX [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Well fine. Maybe someday you will need directory
assistance in the middle-east somewhere also. If the nearest payphone
is on the corner be sure when you come back to advise the telecom
manager how much money you saved that day by having carrier 'x'.  PAT]


 From: [e-mail]

Our esteemed moderator writes:


I'm not so sure about this. I know that it is illegal to block 10+
access from public phones, but I don't think this applies to a company
who owns its own PBX. Can anyone clarify this one way or the other.

If I owned a PBX which was for "official company use" I might want to
make sure employees don't use any carrier but the one I selected.
Since I pay the bill, I think I should be in control of such things. I
realize this is not clear-cut because of credit card calls.

        R. Kevin Oberman
        Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
        Internet: [e-mail]
        [phone]



 From: Hofer <[e-mail]>


I don't see why this blocking of alternate carriers is illegal.  In a
post several days ago you asserted that a business has the right to
control the phones which it pays for.  If it is OK for the company to
evesdrop on employee phone calls and the like, why isn't it OK for the
company to control what LD carriers the employees can access?

Personally, I value the right to privacy more than the right to choose
LD carriers.


Doug Hofer
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: A company has the right to control the phones it
pays for, as long as it does not attempt to place illegal controls on
the use of the phones. As an example, a company does not want its
employees to call 911, so it blocks it out. That is illegal. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, blocking 10xxx is also illegal.

It is not illegal to 'eavesdrop' on employee business calls because a
tariff along the way says it is not illegal, and makes provision for
supervisory monitoring in the conduct of the company's business. And
the company *can* tell the employees what long distance company to use
for *business* calls. If the company allows personal use of its
phones, then it cannot legally block the personal user from using a
credit card of his choice, or a third number call, or collect call, or
whatever, and placing it on the carrier of his choice. To say you
value privacy over the right to choose a long distance carrier is a
very strange comment. The two have nothing to do with each other.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls
******************************

DUE TO TRANSMISSION ERROR, ISSUE 612 CAME AHEAD OF THE THREE SPECIAL
ISSUES OF FRIDAY NIGHT, AUGUST 31-SEPTEMBER 1. ISSUES 610 AND 611 GOT
HERE AFTERWARD AND FOLLOW NOW.












Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08682;
          1 Sep 90 5:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00702;
          1 Sep 90 0:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30128;
          31 Aug 90 23:29 CDT
Date:     Fri, 31 Aug 90 23:11:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #610
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 31 Aug 90 23:10:52 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 610

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? [Tom Perrine]
    Re: Real Operators? [John Higdon]
    Re: Real Operators? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Those (900) Numbers [John Slater]
    Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Carl Moore]
    Re: E Series Recommendations Excerpts [Martin Harriss]
    Re: Help a Model 500 Ring [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service [Ron Heiby]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji?
Date: 31 Aug 90 18:13:59 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Linc
Madison) writes:

>Zowie.  Now, the only question is who on earth could possibly be
>stupid enough to confuse "0-602-NNX-XXXX" with "01-679-NXXXX"...  It
>would've made more sense with calling Annapolis and got Athens, or
   ...
>or called San Diego and got Perth (with an appropriate comment about
>America's cup), or called Tampa and got Tokyo.

About eight years ago I was calling work in San Diego from Pheonix
using my brand-spanky-new calling card and I *did* get Perth,
Australia. It is, of course, just a matter of an extra 0 at the
beginning:

    0  1 619 4XX XXXX    San Diego via calling card
    0 01 61 9 4XX XXXX    International via calling card

When I talked to the operator about the mis-dialed call, I mentioned
that I had reached Perth by mistake and she immediately responded:
"Oh, you were calling San Diego!". It is apparently a *very* common
mis-dial.

How convenient that my San Diego work number is also a handy mnemonic
for what sounded like a very nice pub in Perth. If I ever get down
that way, I'll be set. :-)


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Real Operators?
Date: 31 Aug 90 00:34:58 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


peter da silva <[e-mail]> writes:

> [Three examples of what seem to me to be very similar service.]

If this was the impression you got, then I did an inadequate job of
describing the events. Amplification must be in order.

> As for collect calls:

Yes, about collect calls. In the case of AT&T, I simply spoke my name
and within five seconds was conversing with my party. In the case of
Sprint, I had to give my name, the number I was calling (even after
dialing it -- why should I have bothered to dial it?) and the number I
was calling from. After all of this I had to wait many seconds for the
operator to dial the call from scratch. It made the difference between
five seconds and about one minute. That's hardly insignificant.

In the case of requesting place name and rate information, the Sprint
operators seemed genuinely flustered. The AT&T operators snapped back
the information as if in one stroke. The Sprint operators had to leave
the line, and that was AFTER I managed to carefully explain what
information I needed.

> [Moderator's Note: Your story illustrates how all the carriers,
> including AT&T, are only as good as their front line personnel. The

True, but I believe it goes a little further than that. It appears
that Sprint is not fully utilizing the data being supplied by the LEC.
Otherwise, why would you have to tell the operator both the called and
calling number. The last time I remember having to do that was in the
early sixties before TSPS.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Real Operators?
Date: 31 Aug 90 19:14:58 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, our Moderator adds:

> [Moderator's Note: Your story illustrates how all the carriers,
> including AT&T, are only as good as their front line personnel. The
> chain is as strong as its weakest link, etc. The customer knows
> nothing of the back office ... but he knows plenty about cranky
> service reps; dirty, stinky payphone booths; and phones which rip off
> his money. He remembers all the times the operator has sassed him. He
> could care less -- if he knows anything at all -- about 195 Broadway.
> That is why operators and service reps should be *highly paid* and
> *highly trained and skilled*. Its what's up front that counts!  PAT]

The point is well taken.  But on a minor technicality:

AT&T no longer lives at 195 Broadway.  They've moved.  The corporate
headquarters is now at 550 Madison Avenue (but still in NYC).  This is
the unusual-looking building designed by Phillip Johnson, with the
"Chippendale" top design.


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: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Those (900) Numbers
Date: 31 Aug 90 16:07:18 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Colum Mylod)
writes:

|>        "Calls to this line are charged at 25p per
|>         minute cheap rate and 38p per minute all
|>         other times."

|>         - British Foreign Office answering machine for concerned relatives
|>         of those trapped in the Gulf.
|>
|> (These are the charges for the BT 898 service, not the normal trunk
|> charges.)

Yes, this didn't go unnoticed over here. This is particularly
unreasonable (to say the least) when you conside that the information
line for business people concerned about events in the Gulf was at
normal toll rates.

We don't have an equivalent of the US dial-900-and-we'll-charge-what-
we-feel-like service, which is probably just as well in the light of
the above.

"Calls to this line are charged at five pounds for a friend, ten pounds
for a blood-relative or twenty pounds for a spouse ..."


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976- and 900- Phone Numbers
Date: 31 Aug 90 07:26:11 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>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.

Here in Japan, the telephone company provides a message before it
connects you with any pay-per-call service (except their own, those
sleazeballs!).  It goes something like...

"The charge for this call, inclusive of vendor and toll charges, will
be ten yen per XX seconds."  Then it connects you to the number, so you
have time to hang up if you don't like the charge.  It's really neat
how they include the toll charges in the message.  None of this "Two
Dollars plus tolls, if any."

What us IPs over here really like is the fact that phone bills are not
itemized, so it isn't quite clear just _why_ your phone bill is so
much higher this month.  Our charges are just included on the line
that says something like "Usage Charges: 23,980".  Just presenting the
other side of the story.


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

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

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 10:10:49 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?


Here are some comments which I wrote with the international readers in
mind.  They apply to country code 1.

The present area codes are of the form N0X and N1X (where N is any
single digit except 0 or 1, and X is any single digit INCLUDING 0 and
1), and were (according to my readings of Telecom) originally laid out
so that N0X was assigned to states/provinces having only one area
code, and N1X was assigned to states/provinces having more than one
area code.  (The area codes were given out both to states of the U.S.
and to provinces of Canada.)  A lot of area codes have been created
since then, but you still find that:

If a state/province has one area code, it's N0X (this is NO LONGER
true the other way around); N1X is in a state/province having more
than one area code (but N0X now occurs in some states having more than
one area code).

Area codes do not cross state or province lines (but this rule is
relaxed w/r to Canada's Northwest Territories and w/r to Prince Edward
Island in the Canadian Maritime area).

Sometime around 1995, area codes of N0X/N1X form are projected to run
out, and area codes will have to generalize to NXX.  This will prompt
many changes in dialing instructions, but some areas (such as
Maryland) already have dialing instructions which could accommodate
NXX area codes.

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

From: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E Series Recommendations Excerpts
Date: 31 Aug 90 14:42:15 GMT
Reply-To: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore


[ Much stuff deleted about CCITT recomendations]

Ok, here's today's trivia question: what were the following tones used
for:

[ quoted from CCITT reccomendations about tones that answering machines
shouldn't use ]

>        2040 and 2400 Hz
>        600 and 750 Hz
>        1200 and 1600 Hz
>        500 and 20 Hz
>        1000 and 20 Hz

Some of them, I think, may be a little obscure to North American
readers.  I'll followup with some answers in a couple of days.


Martin Harriss
[e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help a Model 500 Ring
Date: 30 Aug 90 21:34:37 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jamie
Cox) writes:

> I have an old desk top dial phone which works but does not ring.  I

> The ringer solenoid has four wires, red, white, red/white and black
>
>            Red        R/W     Blk        White
>             |          |       |          |
>             \/\/\/\/\/\/       \/\/\/\/\/\/
>              ~ 3k ohms          ~ 1k ohms

The BLACK and RED go to tip and ring (the green + red line cord wires)
probably on (L2) and (L1). Polarity only matters if you get
tappity-tapping from an extension rotary dialing or going on/off hook.
There are also mechanical adjustments to eliminate tapping. The SLATE
(white) and RED/SLATE go to (A) and (K) that are the 2 ends of a 1/2
mfd cap to block talk battery from the ringer coils.

There is a lot of history behind those two different size windings,
but the simple description is that they provided a second party id by
connecting one of them between ground and the electrical midpoint of
the transmission network (B) when a second party phone went off hook.
The CO could determine which subscriber went off hook - the one with
or the one without the connection to ground.

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

From: Ron Heiby <mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Toll Calls on 800 Service
Date: 28 Aug 90 14:38:39 GMT
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL


I believe that another reason why people are concerned about the 900
and 976 numbers and children is because children see Santa Claus on TV
telling them to dial a 976 or 900 number to find out what's happening
at the North Pole.  They see comic book heros telling them to dial the
phone to find out their latest adventures.  I've yet to see a
commercial on TV asking kids to phone a non-976/900 number.


Ron Heiby, [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 31 Aug 90 03:35:17 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) writes:

> About once every two weeks, my mom would call my number, person to

> she replies "just have him call me when he arrives", and the operator
> says thank you for using AT&T, or somesuch thing, and we hang up. Then
> I called my mom.

Would seem wise to call back using 10xxx to select a DIFFERENT
carrier.  Let the first carrier lose the return business for being
dangerous to use!

Just a thought...

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 31 Aug 90 00:57:17 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Jeff A. Duffel" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Don't be so quick to jump on him, as a matter of fact, most
> residential US Sprint subscribers including 1+ dialing and 'Easy
> Access' dialing (Pac*Bell coined that phrase, I prefer 'Equal Access')
> are billed through Pac*Bell.  However, phone card and business customers
> are billed directly through Sprint.

I didn't "jump" on him, I was simply asking. There is a difference. I
have examined my Sprint bill and have found the phrase "COMMERCIAL
DIAL 1 SERVICE" at the top of each page. I had never noticed that
before and certainly had never set the account up that way. First,
it's a residence account, and second, it is a secondary "casual dial"
account.  Perhaps the "commercial" designation happened when they took
it over from US Telecom.

> >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.

> Of course he's sure, do you think he dreamed it all up?  Not
> everyone's case is exactly like yours.

Every one of my friends has or has had a Sprint account. Every one of
them was billed by Sprint. Many of my clients have Sprint accounts.
All of them are billed by Sprint. Of at least twenty accounts, I know
of no one who pays from their Pac*Bell bill. This is hardly a
parochial observation and in light of that I think that my questions
were valid. No one's comments on this forum (including mine, the
Moderator's or anyone else's) are the revealed word of God.

When someone makes a catagorical statement that differs from imperical
evidence, questions with the attendant claifications are in order. I'm
sorry if you took offense at my questions; apparently the original
poster did not and answered them to my satisfaction. That, for your
information, is what this whole exercise is all about.


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


[Moderator's Note: Speak for yourself, John! Did I see my name taken
in vain above?  I rely exclusively on Rev. Bob Dobbs for my truth. If
he says its true, then I print it here in the Digest.  :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #610
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08844;
          1 Sep 90 5:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01904;
          1 Sep 90 1:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac00702;
          1 Sep 90 0:38 CDT
Date:     Fri, 31 Aug 90 23:53:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #611
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 31 Aug 90 23:53:21 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 611

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Reach Out and Touch the Bureaucracy [Portland Oregonian via George Pell]
    Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Tad Cook]
    Legal Definition of Harassment [Leroy Donnelly]
    Re: Intercept Recording [Andrew Hastings]
    Intelligent Intercept by OTC [[e-mail]]
    The Number You Have Reached... [Roy Smith]
    Make Sprint Put it in Writing [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Need Help Finding NEC Telco Equipment [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Octothorpes [Nelson Bolyard]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reach Out and Touch the Bureaucracy (Was: Getting Action)
Date: 31 Aug 90 22:50:13 GMT
Reply-To: George Pell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


The Portland Oregonian
Thursday August 30, 1990
Margie Boule'

"Reach out and touch the bureaucracy"

Irnalee Stohrs is not having any trouble at all adjusting to the quiet
in her apartment.

[recap of problem with Multnomah County juvenile court printing her
number on 4000 summons, and then refusing to do anything about it]

So on Sunday, it was suggested that people call the correct number for
the juvenile court system Monday morning, and ask for Irnalee.

The idea was that mayby the people at the court would say to
themselves, "Boy, these wrong numbers are really a hassle.  Maybe this
is what Irnalee Stohrs has been going through.  Why don't we print new
summonses, with the right phone number on them, so she doesn't have to
deal with any more pesky phone calls?"

Which is close to what happened.

The first callers set to work as early as 7:15 Monday morning.  They
report that the court operators were "amused" when they asked for
Irnalee.  They were transferred to the state department that prints
the summonses.

By 8:15, readers report, the operators were beginning to sound "curt."

"She said I had a wrong number," said a guy named Al, who runs an auto
body store.  "She sounded pretty sore about it, and then she hung up."

By 8:30, few callers were able to get past the busy signals.

One fellow, who works at Tektronix, put the number on his autodialer.
"When I finally got through," he says, "I asked for Irnalee, and the
woman said, 'Wrong...' and she hung up before she even said 'number.'"

Most folks who reported back had no luck at all placing calls.  An
attorney with one of the largest firms in town said several lawyers in
his firm had called all day long and had never gotten through.

In fact, the calls were so heavy, the juvenile court system was
virtually without phone service on Monday.  Which, of course, was not
the intent of the suggestion.  The idea was to create sympathy for
Irnalee's situation, not create a crisis at the court.  To all those
who were unable to conduct business with the juvenile court system at
the beginning of the week, I apologize.

Nevertheless, Irnalee has finally been given some assistance.

The court arranged for Irnalee to have a temporary new telephone
number.  And they arranged for an intercept.  So now, when somone
calls Irnalee's old phone number, an operator comes on and asks, "Who
are you calling?"  If the caller says Irnalee, Irnalee's new number is
given.

In addition, the court has formally apologized to Irnalee.  The trial
court administrator has sent her a letter of apology, as has the chief
judge.  And the juvenile court referees even sent Irnalee flowers.

The best part of all is that when the new summonses - with the correct
court phone number - are printed in a few weeks, Irnalee will get her
old phone number back.

(The next best part is that the court is picking up the bill for the
temporary new number.  It was hooked up Monday afternoon.)

"I'm as happy as can be," says Irnalee Stohrs.

But please do not call the juvenile court system to thank them for
solving Irnalee's problem.  The court operators are just not in the
mood.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers
Date: 31 Aug 90 15:59:01 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> csense![e-mail] (James
Van Houten - KA3TTU) writes:

>I called and after waiting in queue for about two minutes I asked the
>Operator for our little old friend and the Operator said Quote "Please
>stop calling here."  It appears that they are getting plenty of
>calls!!  Hope this helps our distant friend!!

But what did the operator do that was bad?  It wasn't her fault that
the number was mis-printed?  Why make the poor operator mad?  You
should ask for the bozo who wouldn't change the form, and when he
answers ask for the 'old friend'. (Just think what it would like to be
that operator).


Bill


[Moderator's Note: Please recall the original report. When Irnalee
first reported the problem, it was the operator who *refused* to put
her through to anyone -- even her own supervisor! The operator of all
people should have known the importance of having numbers correctly
published. Irnalee had to call various times before finally the
operator put her through to someone who at least would deal with the
problem, even if the way they dealt with it was to toss it back at
Irnalee to worry about. That is what the operator did that was 'bad'.
It was not her fault the listing was wrong, but she made no effort to
correct the problem either.  PAT]

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

From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers
Date: 31 Aug 90 22:45:42 GMT


 SUBJECT: Wrong Number!

A couple of years ago, a GTE company in the midwest printed up a handy
little wallet card that listed tech support numbers for various
telephone equipment manufacturers, and distributed them to their
repair folks in the field.

Unfortunately, for TIE they listed our company's 800 number!  Since I
do tech support on telephone products, the calls all got routed to me.
It didn't matter that our receptionist answered with our company name
... or that I told them that the MOD-KEY 16 was not manufactured by
our firm ... these guys refused to believe that they had not reached
TIE!


Tad Cook  Seattle, WA  Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:38:58 EDT
From: Leroy Donnelly <[e-mail]>
Subject: Legal Definition of Harassment
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


For those interested, I pulled the legal wording from my Black's law
dictionary.

Harassment:

Used in variety of legal contexts to describe words gestures and
actions which tend to annoy, alarm and abuse (verbally) another
person.  A person commits a petty misdemeanor if, with purpose to
harass another, he: (1) makes a telephone call without purpose of
legitimate communications; or (2) insults, taunts or challenges
another in a manner likely to provoke violent or disorderly response;
or (3) makes repeated communications anonymously or at extremely
inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language; or (4) subjects
another to an offensive touching; or (5) engages in any other course
of alarming conduct serving no legitimate purpose of the actor.  Model
Penal Code, 250.4.

(Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition)

[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS
(CP/M, the virus-proof OS), Omaha  --

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings
Date: 29 Aug 90 20:29:40 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI


In article <[e-mail]> cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M.
Silvernail) writes:

>I'm used to "The number has been changed ...", but have never heard
>this particular version before. Any ideas what it means by "Calls are
>being taken on xxx-xxxx"?

It means that the person who had service at the disconnected number
did not get new service at his/her new location.  The "calls are being
taken by" number was already in service.

When I moved out of the Twin Cities area, I told NW Bell to refer
calls to my sister who still lived in the area.  It would be incorrect
to say that my number was "changed" to her number.

Another situation where this message is used is if you decide to share
an apartment with someone who already has telephone service at that
apartment.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Intelligent Intercept by OTC
Date: 31 Aug 90 14:57:53 (UTC+10:00)
Organization: The University of Melbourne


It appears OTC, Australia's international carrier, goes to significant
lengths to check dialled numbers for validity.

On May 6th, this year, the London area code 01 was split into 071 and
081.  Now, dialling 0011 44 1 7D results in the following recorded
message.

The area code of the number you have dialled has been changed from 01
to 071 (081).  Please dial 0011 44 71 (81) followed by the wanted
number.

The caller is given the 071/081 message as appropriate after the third
digit of the local number has been dialled.

603 xxxx was moved to 071, and dialling 0011 44 81 603 xxxx also is
diverted to the 071 recording.

Oh, by the way, someone asked about USA area code 510.  It does not
work from Oz yet.

Just some more trivia...

danny

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

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 12:32:40 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Number You Have Reached...


    While playing with my latest techo-toy (a marine VHF handheld)
I overheard somebody attempting to place a call via the local marine
operator (perfectly legal, to the best of my knowledge; this isn't
cellular, or even cordless).  He gave the operator the number he
wanted.

Then I heard the number being touch-toned, and then, "La-Dee-DAH!  The
number you have reached, xxx-xxxx i ..."  I have attempted to
represent as best as I can in ascii the sound of the operator hanging
up in the middle of the word "is".  Then the operator asked the
calling party to repeat the number he wanted (which did indeed match
the xxx-xxxx in the intercept message) and told him that the number
"doesn't exist" (yes, that's the phrase the operator used).

    The problem is that the operator never listened to the
complete message, just enough to get the number.  Did she have some
way of knowing what the rest of the message was going to be without
having to listen to it, or did she just make a data-free guess?  It
could have been "is no longer is service", "is currently being checked
for trouble", "has been changed ...", or any of a number of
alternatives which don't correspond very well to "doesn't exist".  Of
course the number exists, it just may not be bound to anything useful!


[Moderator's Note: She was just guessing at it, and wasting everyone's
time, including her own. It might well have given a referral elsewhere
for all she knew.  PAT]

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 18:02:41 GMT


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

> I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent
> user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user,
> they will bill you through your local phone company.

If you have a real Sprint account (FONCARD and the works) instead of
an equal-access account Sprint bills you directly anyways.


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

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

From: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 31 Aug 90 22:45:04 GMT
Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg <biosys!![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Linc
Madison) writes:

>[stuff about calling home, and Mom says "Do you want me to call you back?"...]
>If I'm away from home, but in 415 area code, I use my MCI card, and
>answer the question, "Yes, I'm at 415-XXX-XXXX."  Because of the
>"Around Town" feature, I still pay two bits or less for the call.

According to the insert in my phone bill, and as reported in this
forum, (and as confirmed by MCI customer service), MCI's Around Town
Feature no longer lets you make a call for less than "two bits".
Previously, Around Town meant *no* surcharge on *any* card calls
*from* any phone in your local calling area, which apparrently was too
good a deal for MCI to continue.  Now, however, it means that there is
only a 25 cent surcharge in addition to normal calling rates, rather
than the 75 cent normal surcharge for using the calling card, when
making a *local* call from any telephone in your local calling area.
Making a long distance, out of state call from any phone (even your
home phone) with the calling card still results in a 75 cent
surcharge.  So, unfortunately, you will have to pay more than two
bits, not less, to phone home.

I just wanted to keep everyone straight on MCI rates (assuming I'm
keeping myself straight).


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Help Finding NEC Telco Equipment
Date: 31 Aug 90 18:34:47 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, decwrl!apple!well.sf.ca.us!
well![e-mail] (Steve Vance) writes:

> Does anyone know where I can buy a couple of these desk stations

The generic answer to where do you find some old telecom thing is to
look in the trade magazine for that industry that caters to buying and
selling new/used gear. You will see occasional ads in the equivalent
computer magazines, or in data or telecom mags, but for a magazine of
over 100 pages of little else but ads for new/used/whatever telecom
stuff you want

            "Telecom Gear".

Many of the companies selling there DO NOT WANT to do retail sales to
end users/hackers, but others could care less who they sell to. It is
reasonable to be a data or alarm wiring type who is just doing a job
and has this customer request that lets him break into some
interconnect work which should lead to more, etc. Any reasonable line
that makes you 'trade' but explains any 'stupid' questions should get
you by with the used gear dealers.

"Telecom Gear" bills itself as "The Market Place to Buy & Sell Telecom
Gear".

Yuo m i g h t be able to get a single comp copy to 'see if you want to
subscribe', but you WILL LOVE IT, SO SUBSCRIBE! Try their 800 # for
ads, rather than paying to call them. 800 322 5156

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

From: Nelson Bolyard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 00:19:02 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> Jeremy Grodberg <biosys!!jgro@
cad.berkeley.edu> writes:

>I have also heard (and continue to use) "hook" for "?", and "hash" for
>"#".

In the internationally accepted notation for music, the octothorp is
also known as a "sharp" symbol, the opposite of flat.  If one is
seeking a good monosyllabic utterance for the octothorpe, I suggest
"sharp".


Nelson Bolyard      [e-mail]      {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson
Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #611
******************************

ISSUE 610-611 WERE DELAYED GOING OUT. ISSUE 612, FOLLOWED BY THREE
SPECIAL ISSUES COMES FIRST. GO BACK FOUR ISSUES TO SEE 612. THE ORDER
THEY APPEAR HERE IS 612, SPECIAL, SPECIAL, SPECIAL, 610, 611.   ISSUE
613 WILL COME NEXT.  (HOPEFULLY)











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05317;
          2 Sep 90 1:44 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01784;
          2 Sep 90 0:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05176;
          1 Sep 90 23:09 CDT
Date:     Sat, 1 Sep 90 23:02:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #613
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 1 Sep 90 23:01:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 613

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Happy Anniversary to Emma Nutt and Associates [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Automated Collect Calling [Tad Cook]
    Color Codes (was: Where to Obtain the USOC Book) [William Degnan]
    Gummit Paranoia [Robert Savery]
    Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Jeff Crilly]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Randal Schwartz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 19:16 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Happy Anniversary to Emma Nutt and Associates
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL


It seems appropriate that members of this forum recognize that today,
September 1, was the day in 1878 that Emma Nutt became the first
"telephone operator" as recorded in Bell annals.  Prior to that time,
the telephone industry had suffered a real problem in that its labor
practices of having young boys work in sweatshop conditions (as was
commonplace in that era) was a real customer service problem.  It
seems that the "phone business" hadn't really as yet gotten its act
together about servicing customers, and that foul language to the
telephone exchange was more the order of the day.

With what amounted to a Victorian-era stroke of management genius, the
manager at the Boston (or was it New Haven?) exchange employed young
Miss Emma Nutt to make the customers talk to a female, a class of
person who in that point in history NO male would DARE utter foul
words to.  The improvement in customer relations and reduction of
delay in work attributed to placing courtesy on the telephone was
supposed to have been nothing short of incredible.  And, we know of
course that it began a legendary era of the female telephone operator.
Miss Nutt must have done something very right.

Perhaps some enterprising institution will honor her name in an
appropriate field of today's telecommunications education by
establishing a Nutt Fellowship or a Nutt Chair.


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps if the educational institution had a rule
that all freshman students had to live on campus, a dormitory could be
named for her; i.e. Nutt House.  Even though Emma's gender and class
did indeed cut down the profanity, the Victorian era was not without
its kinky people; the earliest obscene call noted in ancient AT&T
records occurred in 1879, when a female subscriber complained that a
man, whose identity was unknown to her made lewd propositions over the
telephone. A police investigation was unable to resolve the matter.
After the Victorian era ended, subscribers were as ornery as ever: The
front cover of the 1921 alphabetical directory for the Chicago
Telephone Company (predecessor to IBT) printed this admonition to
subscribers: "Subscribers are requested to address our operators using
the same courteous language they expect to hear in response.  Our
operators do not use profane language or curses, and do not wish to
have it spoken to them."  PAT]

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

From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automated Collect Calling
Date: 30 Aug 90 20:56:10 GMT


> 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.

> Has anyone else seen this? I was giving my full name to the operator,
> not some code like "yes, my name is 'callmeback Altzman'" >

There is an interesting code that some ham radio operators have used.
When you need to alert someone to meet you on the air, you call for a
phoney name that rhymes with the "band" that you wish to meet on.

80 = Katy   40 = Morty  20 = Benny  15 = Christine  10 = Ken

Then when the called party says "Benny isn't here", you leave a
message that (your name) called, and to have Benny call you back at
extension 212.  Since the 20 meter band is on 14 MHz, this tells the
called party to look for you on a frequency of 14.212 MHz.

Not legal, but ... it works!


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: Sat, 1 Sep 90 13:22:56 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Color Codes (was: Where to Obtain the USOC Book)


In a message of <Aug 23 07:52> [e-mail] 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?

Sure. I've got a half a dozen USOC books on the shelf, but what you
_say_ you want won't be in them.

Here is a diagram of a typical block. An article I saw in one of the
trade magazines recently actually called one of the colors "grey".
Folks who don't know that much, shouldn't own a punch-down tool. The
color is "slate".

Promise me that if you need help, you'll call a professional. Don't
mess with anything you can't afford to replace.

[Our moderator asked me to reformat this chart prior to publication.
Normally, you would expect to see this information in a single
column. -- wd]

    COLOR           COLOR       COLOR

 26 W-BL         36 BK-BL       46 V-BL
  1 BL-W         11 BL-BL       21 BL-V
 27 W-O          37 BK-O        47 V-O
  2 O-W          12 O-BK        22 O-V
 28 W-G          38 BK-G        48 V-G
  3 G-W          13 G-BK        23 G-V
 29 W-BR         39 BK-BR       49 V-BR
  4 BR-W         14 BR-BK       24 BR-V
 30 W-S          40 BK-S        50 V-S
  5 S-W          15 S-BK        25 S-V
>               >
 31 R-BL         41 Y-BL
  6 BL-R         16 BK-Y
 32 R-O          42 Y-O
  7 O-R          17 O-Y
 33 R-G          43 Y-G
  8 G-R          18 G-Y
 34 R-BR         44 Y-BR
  9 BR-R         19 BR-Y
 35 R-S          45 Y-SL
 10 S-R          20 SL-Y
>               >
 36 BK-BL
 11 BL-BL
 37 BK-O
 12 O-BK
 38 BK-G
 13 G-BK
 39 BK-BR
 14 BR-BK
 40 BK-S
 15 S-BK
>

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]

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

Date: Thu, 30 Aug 90 21:47:41 EDT
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gummit Paranoia
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <14 Aug 90 18:16:22>, John Higdon (1:30102/2) writes:

[ Los Gatos Police story deleted to save space ]

JH> From the way things are going these days, my challenge to the officer
JH> would now result in my arrest.

You could be in real trouble if the officer's brother-in-law happens
to work for GTE !!  ;-)

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: Not only GTE. I hear Sprint also has a warrant out
for his capture, dead or alive.  :)  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1
Date: 31 Aug 90 02:49:45 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> that although '0' is denied on the particular trunk route '011' to
> allow direct dialled international is allowed.  Apparently the SL-1

I can't help you with an SL-1's programming, but I will tell you what
I do with a Mitel SX-200, and it may help.

Before you pick the trunk group to use, you must look at more digits!

Consider:

    011+        is for direct dialed with NO operator assistance
    01+        is for direct dialed WITH operator assistance (the
            next digit must obviously test NOT a 1)
    00        is just to reach the IXC operator

In your environment, you want to route the first onto your regular
trunks for pricing by your own call accounting machine, but the last two
MUST go to HOBIC trunks.

For customer sanity, and to keep existing instructions on phones
valid, it is often simplest to simply treat 8+ and 9+ identically, and
YOU do the route selection based on what else is dialed.

The smart exception to 8+ = 9+ is to treat 9+11 as a panicked 9+911,
and allow both those and 8+911 from ANY phone reguardless of how
otherwise restricted. That includes maid's closets, elevator, lobby
house phones, pool area phones and phones that can't even terminate an
incoming call.

The other reasonable option is to totally DUMP hobic! and get
'screening 94' or whatever they call it where you are. This says allow
0+ on the trunk, but NOTHING gets billed back to the property.
Obviously CC, 3rd party, collect, and free calls are about all that
get through. You can have this on a regular trunk where 1+ (that your
accounting box can price) can go anywhere. The HOBIC folks won't allow
you to keep HOBIC if you are also using screening. All you have lost
is 'bill-to-the-room' operator handled services. Your call accounting
probably posts to the room's bill automatically, HOBIC may, but often
is a manual posting pain - worth losing.

At 200 rooms, why don't you have T1 into some IXC's POP for some
serious low cost service?

The following is a more general comment on carrier access from hotels,
hospitals, prisons, school dorms, nursing homes, timeshare condos,
etc.

For fairness to all CC users, it would be 'nice' to allow 10xxx0+
routing, but a hotel clearly wants to prohibit 10xxx1+ because they
are reselling those calls and MUST control what carrier is used. What
would solve lots of problems would be for the LEC to offer a class of
screening where 10xxx routing would only work for 0+ calls and they
would also be subject to the 'bill elsewhere' restrictions currently
provided by 'screening 94' or whatever it is. Any call would be valid
as 1+ traffic to the default carrier on the same trunks. This does
eliminate requests for AT&T to provide feature group B (950 type)
access for their card users in non-AT&T hotels, and also helps stamp
out feature group B trunks in general.

If you like the idea, tell 1) your LEC, 2) your DPU, 3) your Senators,
and 4) your IXCs.

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

From: Jeff Crilly N6ZFX <xanadu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California
Organization: AMIX Corporation, Palo Alto, CA
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 00:39:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> radius![e-mail] (Steve
Lemke) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 579, Message 4 of 9

>[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?

I couldn't resist putting my $2 E-10 in.  This story is second hand.
Apparantly someone "overheard" drug deals on their cordless baby
monitor.  So they called the police.  The police showed up and checked
the neighbors, and sure enough, they found the dealer.  They arrested
him.  This happened a few years ago in Spokane, Washington.  I wonder
if the dealer went to jail.

If this incident happened in California today, and the person with the
baby monitor called the police, the baby monitor would be confiscated
and they would be arrested ;^).

I can't beleive California is gonna try to implement such a law.  What
a waste of taxpayer dollars.  Don't they realize that everyone
(including drug dealers) already know that you can monitor cordless
phone calls from another handset?  Does this mean that when my handset
rings and I pick it up only to find out that my neighbor got a call
and I now hear the conversation, that I must turn myself in with the
hope that I can get a light prison sentence because it wasn't
intentional?

Jeff Crilly (N6ZFX)   AMIX Corporation
2345 Yale Street      Palo Alto, CA  94306
[e-mail], {uunet,sun}!markets!jeff

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 07:26:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, wagner@utoday (Mitch Wagner)
writes:

| I notice most people have just their first name, or even just "You
| have reached 555-1212." This is, I think, so people don't give out
| information that can be used to take advantage of them.

| But, what information is that? "Gosh, you know my full name! Here's my
| car keys!" Is there an actual reason for withholding this information?
| Or is it just one of those paranoid, half-baked Krimestopper Tips that
| makes just enough sense on he surface to keep people from questioning
| it?

Presume I'm a bad guy (I've been called that before, but you probably
shouldn't know that :-).

I am calling my friend.  I misdial.  I hear your message.  If you're
female, and I'm into harrassing, I wanna know what number I dialed so
I can look it up again, and harrass you later when you are home
(sexist comment intended ... there are probably other combinations
too).  If I'm a thief, I now know you probably aren't home, so I can
look up your address in the book, and rob you.

Basically, if I've looked you up in the book in the first place (or
I'm already in an ongoing interaction with you), I *know* who I've
called, so your message should just confirm it (with the minimum
information possible).  If I *don't* know who I've called, there's no
point in filling me in, from a security standpoint.  (Are there any
other uses for ID besides these two?  Write me if there are ... I'm
trying to keep up on pop security issues.)

Just another security weenie,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #613
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07170;
          2 Sep 90 2:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09003;
          2 Sep 90 1:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01784;
          2 Sep 90 0:13 CDT
Date:     Sun, 2 Sep 90 0:01:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #614
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Sep 90 00:01:17 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 614

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available [James Van Houten]
    Caller ID Display Wanted [David O'Heare]
    Survey: Is This Product Needed, Wanted? [Frank Merrow]
    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Patrick Humphrey]
    38.4 Modems: Myth? [Jean-Francois Lamy]
    Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California [Jeff Crilly]
    Re: Octothorpes [Clive Carmock]
    Re: Trying to Fix Old Phone [John Higdon]
    Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [Rich Kulawiec]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 11:43:12 EDT
From: James Van Houten - KA3TTU <csense![e-mail]>


I think this will catch the attention of many.  Bell Atlantic Business
Supplies is marketing a device called "CLASSMATE".  It is a device
that plugs has a RJ-11 and a DB-25 connector on it.  It converts
CallerID to Your serial port.  It comes with some software that allows
you to hook the output of the box to your favorite database (or other
application program.).

The device is priced at about $49.00 and will be shipped in about two
to three weeks.  Judging by the usefulness of this unit I would order
early...

Note for the PROGRAMMER: Please let me know about the interesting
software you write for this GEM!!


James Van Houten
POTS [phone]

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

From: David O'Heare <dciem!gandalf![e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Display Wanted
Date: 31 Aug 90 16:55:02 GMT
Organization: Goodgulf Greyteeth


Does anybody out there have suggestions for a Caller ID display device
(besides the Bell-supplied Maestro phone) for use in Canada? I'd
prefer a printer, or something with an RS-232 output, but I'll gladly
accept schematics, suggestions for kit suppliers, whatever. Reply via
e-mail and I'll summarize.

I've been told that the boxes sold for use in the USA do not work
properly with the Caller ID info that Bell Canada provides. Can
anybody authoritatively confirm or deny this?  The Hello Direct
operator told me that they did indeed have a display that would *work*
in Canada, but they will not *ship* to a Canadian address ... Sigh.


Dave O'Heare
[e-mail]
[phone]
1255 Emperor Avenue,  Ottawa, ON  K1Z 8C4  CANADA


[Moderator's Note: Remember, a new mailing list, specifically for
Caller*ID discussion is now available. To be added to the mailing
list, write to the list maintainer, Dennis G. Rears. The maintainence
address is: [e-mail].  To make comments to
the list write to: [e-mail].  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:19:30 PDT
From: Frank Merrow <odetics!mars![e-mail]>
Subject: Survey: Is This Product Needed, Wanted?


I have long wanted to get a "computer readable" version of my phone
bill from the phone company.  They only offer a very expensive nine
track tape option and that only to "business customers".  Not only do
they ignore residental customers, but the format and cost are so high
they keep many small companies with a "few PCs" from getting the
service as well.  I have an idea for a fairly inexpensive piece of
equipment that could probably support 5,000 to 10,000 customers a
month and cost only about $100,000 to build.  If the phone company
only charges $10 per customer for the service they will get all their
money back in a couple months.

What I need to know is how many people out there would really be
interested in such a service from the phone company.  I would, and I
believe I am not alone.  I want to write up a little "questionairre"
and send it out just to "ca" (I only want to cover the PacBell area
for now).  The questionaire would have a description of the service (a
little more than I have given you here) and then questions like: Would
you pay $10 a month for this service?  How concerned would you be if a
copy of your bill was decoded by another user on a public network?
Would you be will to release the phone company from such a liability,
and so on.

What do you think the proper forum for such a question are should be?
If professionally done, would you be willing to release it here in
TELECOM Digest?


Frank
uunet!odetics!frank


[Moderator's Note: Why don't you write your questionairre and send it
to the folks who respond to your posting here? Not all will be from
California of course, but by getting an idea of the general level of
interest, you can make some reasonable assumptions about your target
area. Then, send the results when you have tallied them. Readers who
wish to participate should write to Frank: uunet!odetics!frank.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Patrick L Humphrey)
Organization: Rice University, Houston, Texas
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 07:24:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 610, Message 6 of 11

>Here are some comments which I wrote with the international readers in
>mind.  They apply to country code 1.

>The present area codes are of the form N0X and N1X (where N is any
>single digit except 0 or 1, and X is any single digit INCLUDING 0 and
>1), and were (according to my readings of Telecom) originally laid out
>so that N0X was assigned to states/provinces having only one area
>code, and N1X was assigned to states/provinces having more than one
>area code.  (The area codes were given out both to states of the U.S.
>and to provinces of Canada.)  A lot of area codes have been created
>since then, but you still find that:

>If a state/province has one area code, it's N0X (this is NO LONGER
>true the other way around); N1X is in a state/province having more
>than one area code (but N0X now occurs in some states having more than
>one area code).

It never was arranged that way.  Kentucky has always been split
between 502 and 606, Texas has always had 806 (with five N1Xs at the
time), Oklahoma has always been 405 and 918, and Nebraska has always
had 402 and 308.  (Washington has always been split between 206 and
509, as well.)  "Always" in this instance means at the time of the NPA
assignments being made in 1954.  The NPA assignments were made
seemingly on consideration of how long the NPA would take to be
dialed, since that was of concern in an age where pulse dialing was
the only kind available.  The reasoning was that the areas with large
numbers of calls should get the NPA numbers that could be dialed the
quickest -- hence New York City got 212, Los Angeles 213, Chicago 312,
Detroit 313, and so forth.


Patrick L. Humphrey  ([e-mail])
Networking & Computing Systems
Rice University, Houston, Texas
My opinion is not that of Rice, except this one: BEAT THE *&$#! OUTTA TEXAS!

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

From: [e-mail] (Jean-Francois Lamy)
Subject: 38.4 Modems: Myth?
Organization: Sobeco Group - Montreal, Canada
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 13:02:51 GMT


I'm staring at an ad in {Communications Week} about the Motorola UDS
FastTalk V.32/42b modem that is claimed to provide throughputs of up
to 38.4.  We have an application currently using stat muxes over a
leased digital 19.2 line that we'd like to move to TCP/IP, and
compressed SL/IP (or PPP) seem like good candidates for the
application.

We suspect however that the additional demand created by the added
functionality and extra overhead will spell the death of the 19.2
connection.  Leasing 56kbps lines in Canada is outrageously expensive
(8000$ a month), and we don't have enough voice traffic either to
justify going to fractional T1.  We've seen boxes at 7000$ each that
do quite a good job muxing data from four channels at 38.4,
compressing down to a 19.2 sync link -- we're using only one channel
at 38.4.  Sending pre-compressed data, however, reduces actual
throughput to close to the line capacity, as one might expect
(fortunately the unit does not actually degrade in those cases).  But
14000$ for 2 units, plus the cost of modems and the line is a bit
much.

We need sustainable 19.2 at the very minimum, and more the better.
Has anyone tried the Motorola UDS FastTalk V.32/V.42b and seen whether
the unit will --

- maintain 19.2 in the presence of pre-compressed (meaning compress(1)
  Lempel- Ziv) data such as a bozo transferring a tape over a serial
  line, or will it sink down to its "native" 9600bps?

- achieve anything close to 38.4 doing SLIP or PPP. (Where what is
  flying by are either very short packets (2-10 chars) or short packets
  (we'd be keeping our MTU size down to keep echo latency down).

I will summarize replies mailed to me.  Vendor plugs welcome too, to
my e-mailbox, that is.


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

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

From: Jeff Crilly N6ZFX <xanadu![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No More Listening in on Cordless Phones in California
Organization: AMIX Corporation, Palo Alto, CA
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 00:43:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Faunt N6TQS
415-688-8269) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 579, Message 5 of 9

>>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.

Because of "production and distribution problems" (ICOM's reason) you
can't even buy an R1 in the U.S. Some people argue that it ICOM is
holding back because of the 800 mhz coverage and legal hassles of
selling such a device that covers cellular frequencies.


Jeff Crilly (N6ZFX)   AMIX Corporation
2345 Yale Street      Palo Alto, CA  94306
[e-mail], {uunet,sun}!markets!jeff

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

From: Clive Carmock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Date: 1 Sep 90 13:25:52 GMT
Reply-To: Clive Carmock <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Science Dept. - University of Exeter. UK


On the subject of what to call '#' - The British Telecom announcements
on System X exchanges call it 'SQUARE'.  When I was recently talking
to a BT operator (I could get on of the star services to work) I
assumed that 'SQUARE' was the BT word for it, so that was the term I
used, only to confuse the operator, who asked me to describe the
symbol.  This I duly did, and she said 'Oh you mean HASH, no-one ever
calls it SQUARE'.  That being the case, you would think that BT would
change their announcements.  I have heard some PABX units with
synthesised speech call it 'GATE'.


Clive Carmock

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Trying to Fix Old Phone
Date: 1 Sep 90 11:01:03 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Lord High Everything Else <[e-mail]> writes:

> I have a telephone that I'm trying to fix. The dictionary
> identifies it as a "300" model telephone. We last used it in 1976 and
> it worked fine then.  Now, when I plug it in I can dial out; it will
> ring when we receive a call and I can answer the call and here the
> other party's voice; but when I try to talk, it won't transmit my
> voice.

If you have cleared the transmitter itself, and the phone will seize
the line when off-hook, then look for a short in the handset
transmitter "pair". There are three wires going to the handset (vs four
in a 500 series phone) and one of them is common to both receiver and
transmitter. The other possiblity is a defective network.

One of the neat things about a 300 set is that when you disconnect the
transmitter (unscrew the cap and take it out), the network releases the
line, but you can monitor perfectly through the receiver. If you remove
the transmitter and the call stays up, then the transmitter circuit is
shorted or something else is screwy.


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

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

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 90 19:31:50 MDT
From: Rich Kulawiec <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying


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

>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*.

I disagree, at least in the case of computer systems.  Below is a copy
of memorandum that appear at PRIVACY@RUTGERS a few years ago and was
forwarded to me by Dave Curry (then of the Purdue Engineering Computer
Network).  This memo is a preliminary attempt to assess the impact of
the ECPA, and contains the comment that clarification of the intent
and scope of the ECPA will probably be determined in the courts; my
guess is that the Epson class action lawsuit might be one of the cases
which does exactly that.

BEGIN MEMORANDUM

 To: The MIT Community
 From: James D. Bruce, Vice President for Information Systems
 Re: The Electronic Communications Privacy Act


    The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 was enacted by
the United States Congress in October of last year to protect the
privacy of users of wire and electronic communications.

    Legal counsel has advised MIT that its computer network and the
files stored on its computers are covered by the law's provisions.
Specifically, individuals who access electronic files without
appropriate authorization could find themselves subject to criminal
penalties under this new law.

    At this time, we can only make broad generalizations about the
impact of the Act on MIT's computing environment.  Its actual scope
will develop as federal actions are brought against individuals who
are charged with inappropriate access to electronic mail and other
electronic files.

    It is clear, however, that under the Act, an individual who,
without authorization, accesses an electronic mail queue is liable and
may be subject to a fine of $5,000 and up to six months in prison, if
charged and convicted.  Penalties are higher if the objective is
malicious destruction or damage of information, or private gain.

    The law also bars unauthorized disclosure of information within an
electronic mail system by the provider of the service.  This bars MIT
(and other providers) from disclosing information from an individual's
electronic data files without authorization from the individual.

    MIT students and staff should be aware that it is against
Institute policy and federal law to access the private files of others
without authorization.  MIT employees should also note that they are
personally liable under the Act if they exceed their authorization to
access electronic files.

END MEMORANDUM

Based on my own reading of the ECPA, this memo, and other discussions
(some of which appeared in TELECOM), I've formulated a policy which is
used here [Colorado State CS Dept.; I'm the systems manager].

We will access the "envelope" of a mail message if necessary to see
that it's delivered correctly, but not the "body".  This is possible
when using Unix sendmail because enqueued messages in the process of
delivery are stored as two separate files, one of which contains the
message itself, the other of which contains information such as the
sender, recipient(s), etc..

This information is publicly accessible by use of the "mailq" command
or by examination of the publicly-readable logs written by sendmail;
it seems to me to be reasonable for us to rewrite it when necessary to
ensure delivery of messages.  (I would compare this to the US Postal
Service's use of forwarding stickers to ensure delivery of paper
mail.)  But we will not access the contents of a mail message whether
it's enqueued or has actually been delivered.

Rich Kulawiec

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #614
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25738;
          3 Sep 90 2:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29975;
          3 Sep 90 0:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19112;
          2 Sep 90 23:23 CDT
Date:     Sun, 2 Sep 90 22:47:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #615
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Sep 90 22:47:45 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 615

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Labor Day, 1990 [TELECOM Moderator]
    Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market [Coloradoan via R. Kulawiec]
    Re: Octothorpes [David M. Archer]
    Re: Octothorpes [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Caller*ID to RS232 Now Available [James Van Houten]
    Re: Caller*ID to RS232 Now Available [Gilbert A. Amine]
    Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [C. Jackson]
    Re: Gummit Paranoia [John Higdon]
    The Meaning of COCOT [Greg Montgomery]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 21:52:28 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Labor Day, 1990


Labor Day is a good time to stop and reflect on the years of labor by
the men and women in the telephone industry in America who have made
the network what it is today.

Despite the several problems that have arisen since divestiture was
deemed to be what was good for the American public, the United States
still has the finest, and most technically complex phone system in the
world. For that, we can thank the telephone workers, and we should pay
tribute to them today, along with all workers, for their contributions
to our nation.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 09:04:29 MDT
From: Rich Kulawiec <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market


Excerpts from an article in the {Fort Collins Coloradoan}, Sunday 8/26/90:

Duo Develops Phone Device - Owner can Choose Calls to Receive
by J. Lewandowski

No one should ever be bugged by nuisance phone calls, two Fort Collins
businessmen believe.

So Rob Day and Andy May are convinced people will pay $200 to stop
unwanted calls.

The two Fort Collins businessmen wlil soon be selling an answering
machine-sized device that can stop incoming calls.  They're so
confident in their product that they expect to sell 500,000 of the
electronic machines during the next twelve months.

[...]

The product, called Tess, plugs into into the phone just like an
answering machine.  It prevents the phone from ringing and only lets
calls through from people you might wnat to talk to.  Tess is an
acronym for Telephone Exclusion Screening System.

[...]

Tess works like this: Users enter phone numbers from whom they'll
accept calls -- up to 25 numbers can be programmed.  The machine
answers before the phone rings and asks the called to enter their
number.  If the machine doesn't recognize the number, a recorded
message asks the caller to try again later.  Approved numbers allow
the phone to ring.

[...]

Telesync [the company the pair have formed] is now signing up a
variety of national marketing companies to sell the product
nationwide.  And in what could be considered a case of entrepeneurial
cannibalism, the bulk of sales in the first year will be done by --
get this -- telemarketing companies.

"They'll call up and say 'how would you like this to be the last phone
call at dinner you ever need to answer?'" May said.

[...]

   -- end excerpts, begin comments --

There are a number of obvious problems with this system, and a few
that aren't clear, at least from the text of the article.  The
caller's "number" isn't specified.  Is it their phone number, or is it
a unique N-digit number that must be told to each caller?  If it's
their phone number, then it could perhaps be deduced by someone with
knowledge of the personal relationships involved, allowing an
unauthorized person access.  If it's only a few digits, then it could
be found by trial and error.

That deals with the problem of unauthorized folks gaining access; but
what about folks who should be authorized but can't get in?  The
police and fire departments, for instance; the person who found your
lost dog and is calling the number on the tag; a friend you haven't
heard from in a while, etc.  And with only 25 storable numbers, it
seems like it would quickly be necessary to start giving multiple
people the same number.

Finally, their use of telemarketers to sell the device is one of the
sleaziest tactics I've seen yet; it's reminiscent of the street types
in certain large cities who run up to cars stopped at intersections
and throw mud on the windshields -- and then offer to wash the car for
a fee.


Rsk


[Moderator's Note: You'd have the device on your public, listed line.
Your animal's tags would show your non-pub private number. And since
this new device apparently does not distinquish one number from
another, except that either it is listed in the table or not, you'd
just program one number, i.e. 12345, and let it be known to the people
you want calling your public number to insert that sequence on answer.
If instead of merely saying 'call later' this device would transfer
the call to an answering machine, that would be the best arrangement
of all.  This isn't really a new idea. A company called International
Mobile Machines of Bala Cynwyd, PA had a similar product on the market
about ten years ago. Why it did not become more popular, I do not
know. Their model shunted unwanted calls to an answering machine. I
bought one, then later sold it to a friend. PAT]

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

From: David M Archer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Date: 2 Sep 90 05:55:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Clive
Carmock) writes...

>On the subject of what to call '#' - The British Telecom announcements
>symbol.  This I duly did, and she said 'Oh you mean HASH, no-one ever
>calls it SQUARE'.  That being the case, you would think that BT would
>synthesised speech call it 'GATE'.

I'm surpised that no-one's ever mentioned "that little tic-tac-toe
button" yet.  I mean, that's what >I< always have to call it when
trying to get people to know what I mean.  (And in my experience, you
can pretty much forget about "asterisk", I've had to call it the star
button.)

After all, not everyone who uses a phone is as technically orientated
as I assume the people who read this group are.

I sometimes wonder if they should have just called those buttons A&B.
I know about the "extra" 4 keys A-D, but they could have given those
keys the "weird" symbols instead, considering that a normal phone
isn't supposed to have them.  I guess we can be thankfull they didn't
label them with '&' and '~'.

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 13:51 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: Octothorpes


Clive writes (in Digest V10,Iss614):

>On the subject of what to call '#' - The British Telecom
>announcements on System X exchanges call it 'SQUARE'... recently
>talking to a BT operator that was the term I used, only to confuse
>the operator, and she said, 'Oh you mean HASH, no-one ever calls it
>SQUARE'.

And so we see how Telcos on both sides of the Atlantic confuse their
public with non-standard 'meta-jargon.' Also:

>I have heard some PABX units with synthesised speech call it 'GATE'.

Seems to sort of show how little the vast majority understands or
attempts to take benefit from the work of the CCITT, I guess.

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

Subject: Re: Caller*ID to RS232 Now Available
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 10:28:12 EDT
From: James Van Houten - KA3TTU <csense![e-mail]>


   I forgot to include the 800 Number for Bell Atlantic Business
Supplies.  It is 1-800-523-0552.  This might be helpful!!


Jim

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 18:35 EST
From: Rochelle Communications <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID to RS232 Now Available


In a message dated September 2, 1990, James Van Houten writes:

>Bell Atlantic Business Supplies is marketing a device called "CLASSMATE".
>It is a device that plugs into an RJ-11 and has a DB-25 connector on it. It
> converts Caller ID to your serial port.

I just want to bring to the attention of interested developers, that
this is not the first product on the market that demodulates Caller ID
and provides a computer interface. My company, Rochelle Communications,
have announced such a product some time ago. It has several features
that CLASSMATE lacks: 1) a ring detect indication, 2) a on-hook /
off-hook monitor (so that the PC can determine whether the incoming
call has been answered, and if so track its duration), and 3) it is
compatible with both US and Canadian implementations of Caller ID.

Rochelle will also provide extensive support for serious software
developers and systems integrators (Caller ID simulator, software
drivers, and direct technical support). Our ANI-232 has also undergone
extensive modem testing and received high marks from a leading
independent testing organization.

Rochelle has also developed an end-user product, Caller ID+Plus, which
adds a memory resident software package to the ANI-232. Caller ID+Plus
is a contact management system ideally suited for small businesses and
home office professionals.

Interested parties, please contact us at: [phone] or e-mail at
[e-mail]


Gilbert A. Amine
Rochelle Communications, Inc.
Austin, Texas

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

From: Craig Jackson drilex1 <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Date: 2 Sep 90 02:39:44 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 605, Message 8 of 10

>In article <[e-mail]>, mje99![e-mail]
>(Mark J Elkins) writes...

>>As one customer used to do ... dedicate a phone line just for modem
>>use.  His cost was 2 X monthly rental which was 18 Rand X 2 which is
>>about $13 a month for the total cost of the line - etc (both ends).
>>When the PO found out - they were not too happy - they developed some
>>manual routine of disconecting him some time about 5pm each night - so
>>he was forced to make at least one call a day.  They don't like people
>>doing this, as it competes with their own 'data-line' service which
>>costs a lot more per month.

>Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this?  I've never heard
>of a maximum period of time for a phone call.  I consulted my phone
>book, and the term it uses is untimed.  I'd call the customer
>representatives once a day and request a credit.  After all, my phone
>call was interrupted by them, and so their "equipment failure"
>required me to make a second phone call.  Seems appropriate to me.  I
>ask about this, because I can quite easily see myself doing something
>similiar in the future.

Years ago the way to handle play-by-play coverage of a college
basketball game, etc was for the radio station (or network) to order a
'radio loop' from the arena to the origination point.  This was a
dedicated circuit, which was valid during the period of the game.
(Typically, it actually was put up the preceding business day.)

Around about 1970, the tariffs in Virginia (where I worked at a
student radio station) changed so that it became cheaper to have a
POTS line installed in the press box, and send the game back via an
ordinary long-distance call.  (I mean a POTS line installed *just* for
the event -- I never saw the tariffs, but this is certainly true.)
This use of an ordinary long-distance call was not a subterfuge--the
TELCO craft people knew all about it, and I believe that the business
office recommended it.

The service for the POTS long-distance call was generally just as good
as a radio loop offered in the way of bandwidth, etc.  However, it
came with fewer guarantees.  Regular radio loops had their punchdowns
marked and other steps to ensure continuous service.

One time during a football game, the coverage was interrupted partway
through the game.  It was restored in just a few minutes.  What had
happened was that the long-distance call simply dropped during the
middle of the broadcast, and had to be re-dialed.  Obviously someone
was upset, because we found out what had happend.  It seemed that this
game was coming from some place with older equipment in the frame.
After the call had been live for several hours, some part of this
equipment was overheating.  The person manning the frame noticed the
problem, and disconnected the call manually.  (Of course, he didn't
listen in -- that would be an unnecessary violation of privacy.)

So at least in this case, the 'equipment problem' was real.  I don't
know if any monetary relief was in order due to the interruption.  But
I'm pretty sure that the TELCO has themselves covered so they don't
have to fork out, or forgo charges, when a call runs so long that it
causes equipment failure.


Craig Jackson
[e-mail]
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Gummit Paranoia
Date: 2 Sep 90 14:31:40 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Savery <[e-mail]> writes:

> [ Los Gatos Police story deleted to save space ]

> You could be in real trouble if the officer's brother-in-law happens
> to work for GTE !!  ;-)

Chuckle, chuckle. But unfortunately there is more truth to this than
most people realize. With the government naivete being what it is, all
it takes these days is to get some agency with clout and a security
force pissed off at you and you will shortly find Federal agents at
your door with a search warrant. I have seen the sworn affidavits for
search warrents in association with some current cases of alleged
Federal "felonies and misdemeanors" and they are downright laughable.

Using language that is reminiscent of that used by "Kingfish" in "Amos
'n Andy", a telco "special agent" will flim-flam reasons why the
warrant should be granted. To make it sound more impressive and
sinister, buttsets are described as "telephone eavesdropping and
monitoring equipment" and PCs are described as "equipment that can
receive, transmit, and modify data". A judge takes one look at this
and immediatly grants the warrant.

While it is unlikely that any of this would stand up in court (a la
Neidorf), the "aggrieved" agency will have accomplished its revenge
through the search and siezure and indictment alone. By the time this
has happened, a person's livelyhood is damaged or destroyed, his
financial resources are exhausted (through defense of the charges),
and his reputation has been made questionable.

Trust me; this is not "hacker paranoia". I have now seen how this
works for myself (fortunately from the sidelines) and have what can
best be described as some well-founded concerns.

> [Moderator's Note: Not only GTE. I hear Sprint also has a warrant out
> for his capture, dead or alive.  :)  PAT]

Yeah? Well, I don't remember cutting Pac*Bell any slack, either.


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

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

Subject: The Meaning of COCOT
From: Greg Montgomery <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 90 17:44:34 EDT
Organization: Montgomery Consultants, Inc.


I have been reading this newsgroup for a little while, and I see many
messages with stuff about COCOTs in them, but I can't figure out what
one is ... Would someone please tell me what a COCOT is?

Thanks.

Greg Montgomery        Internet:  [e-mail]
                   UUCP (smart):  [e-mail]
                   UUCP (route):  {rutgers,ogcise,gatech}!emory!turbo!greg


[Moderator's Note: COCOT = Customer Owned, Coin Operated Telephone.
Some say it in reverse. They are the privately owned payphones you see
springing up everywhere. A good reference to the many acronyms we use
here all the time is found in three glossary files in the Telecom
Archives. Look for the files 'glossary.xxxxx'  The Telecom Archives is
accessed by ftp at lcs.mit.edu. Use regular ftp commands; i.e. login
anonymous; give [e-mail] for password, then 'cd telecom-archives'
and make your selection from the nine years of Digests on line and the
many other files of interest.  Non-Internet users can access the
archives via the archives mail server: [e-mail].  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #615
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26828;
          3 Sep 90 3:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00046;
          3 Sep 90 1:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29975;
          3 Sep 90 0:28 CDT
Date:     Sun, 2 Sep 90 23:51:28 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls  Part 2
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Sep 90 23:50:00 CDT    PBX Blocking 10xxx - Part 2

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls - Part 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 23:05:46 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls - Part 2


This is another topic which really created an overflow of messages in
recent days. A special issue was put out a couple days ago on this
topic. While it was in distribution, some additional messages arrived;
then the comments in the special issue itself brought some additional
rebuttal from readers. Here, greatly edited in order to get in as much
as possible are some final comments on the topic of 10xxx blocking.

PT

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

 From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

On Aug 31 at 22:39, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> But show me where
> in your routing tables you allowed for Directory Assistance in some
> far-away country?  PAT]

In the 16 or so years I have consulted with this company, NO ONE has
had that need. If it ever happens, the attendant can place the call.
After hours, all outside calls are blocked anyway.

> [Moderator's Note: You do not consider it illegal or unethical for a
> PBX to have 10xxx blocked, but do you consider it *stupid* for them to
> do so? If they want employees to pay for their personal calls, why not
> allow 10xxx so that the employee can put it on his AT&T Card or Sprint
> Card if desired?   PAT]

If employees want to make personal calls and pay for them, I allow 0+
(goes on AT&T by the switch appending 10288), 800 (Sprint F(O)ON
Card), and 950. That pretty well covers the ground for alternate
billing, no?  What can you do with 10XXX in the world of alternate
billing that cannot be done with 800, 950, and 0+?

> And if
> you are giving the use of the phone to your employees as a fringe
> benefit, then that would sort of be tantamount to selling the service,
> no? If the slaves don't provide you with their labor, they won't have
> a desk to sit at any longer to make calls.

But wait a another minute. From Campbell to Stockton (70 miles) calls
are a rip. But there is an FX available. So when someone dials a
number in Stockton, the switch selects what amounts to a local route.
What you are saying is that the proprietor must allow the all
deserving employee the opportunity to derail the tables and cause the
call to go full toll on someone's network. No employer can be expected
to be that generous (or stupid).

> [Moderator's Note: Are you saying that if someone using the phone in
> an AT&T office dials 9 (or whatever for an outside line) that New York
> Telephone blocks 10xxx access at that point? Or is the 9-level call
> completely processed internally before the switch ever lets it out of
> the system and into NYT's hands?

On an automatic routing PBX, you dial 9 for "outside" not for an
"outside line". In fact, technically "9" means "give me ARS". A dial
tone from the switch itself then says, "ARS ready". Then you dial your
number.  In full-blown ARS, the PBX switch does not even select a
trunk until the user dials the complete number. Then and only then, it
checks the full and complete number against the ARS programming. Based
on the match, the switch selects a trunk and outpulses the entire
number as well as any access or accounting codes required. It is no
problem at all to obtain LD service that will receive a number
appended on the end of the called number that identifies the
extension. I even have some numbers fully modified before
retransmission (such as my cellular phone number -- I give the client
a phony one and the switch translates it into the correct one, but no
can use the number I give outside the office). At no time in a fully
automatic routing PBX does the caller dial directly on an outside
trunk.

So let's turn it around. Am I required to add to the complexity of the
ARS by working out the protocol for "allowing" 10XXX calls?

> [Moderator's Note: Well fine. Maybe someday you will need directory
> assistance in the middle-east somewhere also.

For the once-per-century this may be required, I think the attendant
wouldn't mind putting the call through.


 From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
 Organization: Westmark, Inc.

> [Re: AT&T employee phone calls: I can't see why they would want to
> use MCI. There is nothing MCI can offer them, unlike the other way
> around.  PAT]

It may be an extreme example, but it is real.

I would like to clarify:

I am not an AT&T employee, but I have spent a significant amount of
time consulting for AT&T Bell Laboratories at several locations in New
Jersey.  The telephone service at the Bell Labs facility in Whippany,
NJ, is provided by NJ Bell.  It is Centrex service provided by the
local 5ESS switch.  Important people at the labs get ISDN feature
phones, with multiple call-appearances, caller-id display (name and
number, on calls within the centrex group, number-only for other
intra-lata calls) and AUDIX voice mail coverage.  Less important
people get 2500 sets with typical centrex features.

POTS customers in the Whippany area are served by the same switch, and
some use the same prefix (201-386) as the labs centrex group.  These
customers are given equal access and may use 10xxx to select a carrier
on both inter- and intra-lata toll calls.

Within the centrex group, however, 9+10xxx is blocked.  Inter-lata
calls may be made by simply dialing 9 1 aaa ppp nnnn in which case the
call is billed to the labs.  Calling-card calls may be placed by
dialing 9 0 aaa ppp nnnn and then entering an AT&T calling card or
Universal Card(sm) number.  In this way, personal calls or non-AT&T
business calls may be billed to the appropriate party.  It is not
possible, however, to place such a call on the carrier chosen by the
party paying for it, unless that carrier is AT&T (or NJ Bell, for
intra-lata toll.)

> There is nothing MCI can offer them, unlike the other way around.  PAT]

Compare the calling-card rates of AT&T and MCI.  That is the only
place in the rate structures of these two carriers where there is a
significant difference.  MCI's calling-card surcharge is approximately
50% of AT&T's surcharge.  The Universal Card, with its 10% discount,
helps to equalize things if the call duration is such that the 10% off
the time-sensitive portion of the cost exceeds the premium paid for
the per-call surcharge.  But the Universal Card is only offered to
individuals, not businesses.

The number of non-AT&T business calls I need to make from their
premises is small enough that we're talking about only a couple of
dollars' worth of savings per month.  Not worth making a stink about
it.  My point, for purposes of this discussion, is that in this case,
the party paying for the toll call is not free to choose the carrier
he pays.  At AT&T locations served by PBXes, they block 10xxx calls
within the PBX.  At locations served by Centrex, they apparently have
the telco do it for them.

My original question was: is this legal?  I haven't heard any lawyers'
opinions on this.  Our Moderator says it is not.


 From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)

I know that 10XXX blocking at payphones is illegal, but is it illegal
from a PBX at a private business?  My employer also blocks 10XXX
dialing, but I figured that was their right.

A couple of years ago there were a few numbers that I would try to
call via AT&T (our carrier at work) and the connection was quite
noisey.  For fun, I tried using my Sprint 800 access, just letting the
other end ring once so I could hear the quality of the connection. The
difference was astounding ... much better via Sprint.  I would have
preferred to put those calls via Sprint, but I suspect that if I had
been able to dial 10333 I would have annoyed the folks in accounting.

These days it isn't an issue, as voice communications over AT&T seem
to be as good as Sprint most of the time.  But it would be nice to be
able to dial 10XXX.  Is it really illegal for a business owner to
block this access from a PBX?


 From: Macy Hallock fmsystm![e-mail]
 Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, OH

A few things to consider in this discussion:

- Many PBX's our there just do not understand 10XXX dialing.  In the
case of the systems I maintain, software installed prior to a certain
date (sometime in 1987, I think) did not have modifications to deal
with 10XXX properly.  North American Dialing Plan did not anticipate
the 10XXX function prior to the advent of Equal Access.  On many
systems, the owner does not wish to spend the money to upgrade to
later system software due to the substantial costs involved.  Most
businesses and hotels do not consider software that does not allow
10XXX to be broken and will not pay to fix something that is not a
problem they recognize.

In fact, at least two key systems presently on the market do not deal
with 10XXX calls properly in their toll restriction feature.  I
wouldn't be surprised to learn of others.

950-XXXX dialing is often permitted on most systems that are not
"table-driven".  On "table-driven" Automatic Route Selection PBX's,
950 is often blocked because it is not viewed as a local exchange.
(Look in your phone book dialing instructions and see if 950 is
mentioned as a dialable local exchange code...)

Did you know that there are provisions for ANI on 950-XXXX Feature
Group B access trunks for carriers?  This means a carrier could bill
the caller for 950-XXXX calling without a security code ... rough on
hotels ... This is seldom done in practice, but since it is possible,
should a hotel block 950 access?

- Very few users understand 10XXX dialing, even after having it
explained to them in simple terms.  Its just not something they are
used to thinking about and they do not recognize it as something they
"need to know".  Ditto for 950-XXXX access.

- At least one phone company I know of has stated that 10XXX type
calls consistute a miniscule percentage of their calls and takes 10XXX
less than seriously.  Their surveys show almost all 10XXX and 950-XXXX
calls are from automated equipment ... ARS equipped PBX's, OCC dialers
and COCOT's.  They have accidently wiped out 10XXX access to carriers
on occasion and received almost no complaints.

In fact, Litel, a regional carrier in Ameritech territory has a
continuing problem with having their 10432 access wiped out by GTE in
exchanges during GTD-5 database upgrades, with very few complaints
about it ... Litel doesn't like it much, though.  Note that this
problem seems not ot affect their customers with Litel as their
selected 1+ carrier, only 10XXX access.

I like 10XXX and 950 access.  I program nearly all my PBX's to use
these codes.  Since the phone company views these codes as revenue
threatening to their intra-LATA calling traffic, I suspect they have
little concern for educating users.  Their fears may be well founded,
since this is a state that both allows intra-LATA calls to carried by
all carriers and the BOC intra-LATA rates are high.  I use 10XXX and
950-XXXX to route all my PBX cusotmers' intra-LATA calls through their
carrier of choice.


 From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
 Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.

I think there is a simple solution to the 10xxx PBX problem that will
solve almost everyone's problems. First some background, though.

I certainly sympathise with anyone who wants to use 10xxx access to
place a 0+ call they are paying for with their own credit card, or are
calling collect or 3rd party billing.

I also totally believe that a switch's owner should be able to BLOCK
10xxx access for calls that will be billed to him.

I also totally believe that a switch's owner has a serious problem
with 0+ calling, because his SMDR call logging/pricing gear has NO
idea what is being said to the operator. It could be a request for
expensive person-to-person service, it could be verbally changed to a
totally different number, or anything else.

To cater to operator handled services, but to eliminate any risk of
customer call fraud, HOBIC type service has been available to hotels
and certain other classes of businesses. The operator KNOWS it is a
hotel guest, and knows that time and charges need to be reported back.
HOBIC service is provided on special seperate trunks that are
generally outgoing ONLY. They are simply NOT available to everyone,
are definitely expensive (but not rip-off AOS class expensive), and
depend on some place to immediately report back time and charges to.

More recently, there has been available another type of service
sometimes called 'screening-94'. There are several related offerings,
and I am unaware of all the differences there are between them. In
some cases the order code only differs by the type of institution
served. Curiously school dorms and prisons share the same code!

Any local or 1+ calls that can be captured on a call accounting box
are allowed, BUT the operator gets a console indication that won't let
her take 0+ calls that are billed to that phone number. She is allowed
to provide any service as long as it paid for elsewhere.  Another
version is particularly good for time-share condos, and anyone renting
their summer home. This one blocks toll calls unless they are billed
elsewhere.

In the real world of PBXs there exists a WIDE range of call analysis
and routing smarts. What is needed is a simple way for the owner of
any PBX, but especially ones catering to customers who will be long
gone the next day, to provide 10xxx0+ calling at NO risk, while being
able to linit 10xxx1+ dialing to his choice of carrier. This should be
able to be acheived without his buying a whole new smarter switch and
paying for someone to program it at some unreasonable price.

A simple solution, that IMHO solves all the problems, would be for the
LEC to provide an enhanced version of the screening that would allow
10xxx0+ calls but flag them to the operator as 'bill-elsewhere-only'
(obviously BLOCKING carriers unwilling to provide this service...),
and DISALLOW 10xxx1+ calls (the switch owner's equal access choice
must stay for calls he pays for). Also, 976 type blocking should work
regardless of areacode dialed first, not just in the home NPA. The
owner of a fairly smart switch might only use a few of these for
10xxx0+ calls, and retain 10xxx capability for his own use on other
trunks, but the owner of a dumb switch would have this on ALL outgoing
trunks guests could access.

Does anyone see his valid rights/needs trampled on by this? I think it
should work. KNOW full well that the hotel industry is lobbying
AGAINST 10xxx access, not so much that they insist on selling you
service (they may well charge for your placing a credit card call from
your room anyway), but simply because they legitimately fear having to
BUY and program smarter switches. If they could give you the 10xxx
access you want safely on their existing trunks with the LEC solving
their problems, many would not object.

This also hastens total conversion to feature group-D trunks for the
IXCs (because feature group-B 950 traffic will drop), and obviates the
need for AT&T to provide 950 access (which they won't do anyway) for
AT&T card users stuck in an MCI hotel.

BTW, does anyone know all the 'screening 94' class USOC codes and what
features they provide?


 From: Craig Jackson drilex1 <drilex![e-mail]>
 Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA

Why would be *illegal* to block 10xxx in a private PBX?  Surely it
would be within a business' rights to restrict the long distance
carriers used from their phones, which are obviously only used to
further company business?  (Wasn't the personal-call issue just
discussed here?)


[Moderator's Note: And there you have it. The consensus seems to be
that if subscriber blocking of 10xxx is illegal, it should not be. I
think the ideal solution, as noted by one writer above, would be to
allow 10xxx in all cases, but force such calls to HOBIC lines.
However, as noted before, HOBIC has problems also at times; it is not
a perfect solution.  Thanks to all who wrote in response.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: PBX Blocking 10xxx Calls - Part 2
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14154;
          4 Sep 90 0:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22784;
          3 Sep 90 23:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00573;
          3 Sep 90 21:53 CDT
Date:     Mon, 3 Sep 90 21:09:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #616
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 3 Sep 90 21:08:47 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 616

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [John Higdon]
    Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [Donald Krapf]
    Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting? [Ken Crudup]
    Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Mitch Wagner]
    Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Marcel D. Mongeon]
    Re: Caller*ID to RS-232 Now Available [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Labor Day, 1990 [Jim Breen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Date: 3 Sep 90 01:51:40 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Craig Jackson drilex1 <drilex![e-mail]> writes:

> One time during a football game, the coverage was interrupted partway
> through the game.

> So at least in this case, the 'equipment problem' was real.  I don't
> know if any monetary relief was in order due to the interruption.  But
> I'm pretty sure that the TELCO has themselves covered so they don't
> have to fork out, or forgo charges, when a call runs so long that it
> causes equipment failure.

With the rapidly advancing cost of equalized lines, most broadcasters
have been looking to other methods of carrying program material in
both temporary and permanent situations. Most radio stations now use
950 MHz equipment to carry program to the transmitter. But for remote
broadcasts, there are a number of options. With the advent of
frequency agile, wideband 450 MHz equipment, and large number of
broadcasters are turning to the airwaves to solve their remote
broadcast woes.  Unfortunately, in major metro areas the available
frequencies for 450 MHz remote use are scarce. Even with coordinating
committees, the scramble for channels frightens many away.

A semi-popular alternative is to use a dial up telephone line with a
"frequency extender". This device operates under the assumption that
what makes a phone line sound bad is the lack of low (yes -- low)
frequency response. To correct this, the audio channel is shifted up
about 500 Hz. That would mean that a tone of 1000 Hz would travel over
the phone line as 1500 Hz. It would also mean that a sound occurring
around 50 Hz would travel as 550 Hz, well within the response
capability of any phone line. There are also multi-line models that
split the band up into parts and send 3000 Hz wide "slices" over each
line. Obviously, there is appropriate decoding equipment at the
receiving end in all cases.

I am personally unimpressed by these devices and feel that if a
broadcast is going to travel over a dialup line, it might as well go
barefoot for all the improvement you get with "frequency extenders".
One of my clients just bites the bullet and buys 8 KHz and 15 KHz
dedicated lines and builds them into the cost of the remote as billed
to the advertiser. A good telco equalized line is still the champ when
it comes to quality -- even over wideband 450 MHz equipment. With the
amount that they spend with Pac*Bell (they do MANY remotes), they have
been provided with a virtually permanent on-site installer. The
service with those lines has been VERY reliable and they sound VERY
good.

Which brings us to the question about telco liability for service
interuptions on dialup. Most tariffs call for a credit of one day's
worth of the monthly service charge for each day that the service is
unusable after the first 24 hours of service loss. So for the lost
call, there would be no liability whatsoever. Only if no calls could
be made for at least the next 24 hours would there be any remuneration
from telco. And that would be minimal.


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


[Moderator's Note: His message and your response reminds me of years
ago when once a week I would see a very large truck parked in the
alley behind Orchestra Hall on Michigan Avenue. The truck was
inscribed "Illinois Bell Telephone Co". A large cable coming out the
stage door of Orchestra Hall ran into the back of this truck.  Then it
came out of the truck, and down into a manhole nearby. The weekly
broadcast of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra to how many ever radio
stations carried it started out at that point.  This would have been
the early 1950's; I was around ten years old, and fascinated by the
inside of the truck, and the fellow who worked inside backstage
wearing an operator's headset into which it seemed he was constantly
talking to someone, somewhere. PAT]

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

From: Donald Krapf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Reply-To: Donald Krapf <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: 3 Sep 90 22:36:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <[e-mail]>
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 605, Message 9 of 10

>Steck Thomas <[e-mail]> writes:

>> voltage changee - simply a tone introduced to the line.  There is no
>> true interuption of the line and no 'switching' sounds (clicks, etc..)
>> like there used to be.

>But even on these digital switches, the talk path is interrupted for
>the duration of the "beep". In most cases, this is enough for a modem
>to consider that there has been carrier loss and to hang up. There may

Most modems can be instructed to ingore carrier loss for a brief
period.  The only problem here is that the modem at each end must be
so instructed.  When I have control of both ends of a line I typically
instruct the modems to tolerate a carrier drop of up to three seconds.


Don

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

From: Kenneth R Crudup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Would it Take For Modems to Recognize Call Waiting?
Organization: Software Tool&Die, (Boston), MA
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 01:04:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, mje99![e-mail]
(Mark J Elkins) writes:

>As one customer used to do ... dedicate a phone line just for modem use.
>When the PO found out - they were not too happy - they developed some
>manual routine of disconecting him some time about 5pm each night - so
>he was forced to make at least one call a day.

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

>Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this?

He lives in the Republic of South Africa. Obviously the government and
its agencies (which I bet the phone company is) do anything they want.


Kenny Crudup, Unix Systems Consultant    nubian![e-mail]
14 John Eliot Sq. #2B, Roxbury, MA 02119-1569    [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 00:27:05 CDT
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics


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

>[Moderator's Note: You'd have the device on your public, listed line.
>Your animal's tags would show your non-pub private number. And since

Right.  How many of us can afford to have two voice lines?

I have two lines because I need a dedicated data line.  The idea of
two voice lines, one published and one unpublished, strikes me as both
silly and expensive.


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]    Bitnet: jet@UHOU    Skate UNIX(r)


[Moderator's Note: Many folks have two lines, particularly if there
are children in the family. Or, they may have two lines with one for
voice and the other *primarily* for data, like myself. I still
take/make some voice calls on my second line as needed.   PAT]

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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 2 Sep 90 16:21:01 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


#Moderator's Note: "Toll Saver" is a way of saving money on calls to
#answering machines by having the machine not pick up until after
#several rings if there are no messages received. If a message is on
#the tape, then the answering machine picks up immediatly, on the first
#or second ring, as you have it set. If there are no messages, then the
#owner calling in knows to hang up after about the third ring so no
#charge will be made to call an answering machine which has nothing to
#say.  Its a little more involved than that, but that is the idea.  PAT]

Oh, yeah, I have that on my machine. You mean to say they're not doing
it any more? Well, mine isn't really reliable, anyway.

(For the record, I should state that I have a Panasonic Easa-Phone.
Another thing I don't like about it is that it has a two-digit
security code. Now, how hard would it be for some phone phreak to
break into my phone machine and start listening to messages with a
two-digit security code, fa' Pete's sake? Not hard at all.

(Of course, the real challenge, once said phone phreak has broken into
my phone machine and heard my messages, would be to remain awake.... )


Mitch Wagner

VOICE: 516/562-5758   GEnie: UNIX-TODAY
UUCP: [e-mail]  ...uunet!utoday!wagner


[Moderator's Note: Yes, toll saver is still found on most answering
machines. Like yourself, my answering machine had a two digit code,
but I no longer use the machine since I now call forward to voice mail
when I am not around. And, my voice mail has toll saver also.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Subject: Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1
Date: 3 Sep 90 00:55:42 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Marcel D. Mongeon)
Organization: The Joymarmon Group Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barton F.
Bruce) writes:

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

>> that although '0' is denied on the particular trunk route '011' to
>> allow direct dialled international is allowed.  Apparently the SL-1

>I can't help you with an SL-1's programming, but I will tell you what
>I do with a Mitel SX-200, and it may help.

>Before you pick the trunk group to use, you must look at more digits!

How do I do this without a least cost routing system in place?  Bell
Canada refuses to implement BARS (The SL-1 least cost system) for us
on the basis that we are not permitted to resell anything but Message
Toll Service to hotel guests.  We are not allowed to resell FX,
Outwats or anything!

>The smart exception to 8+ = 9+ is to treat 9+11 as a panicked 9+911,
>and allow both those and 8+911 from ANY phone reguardless of how
>otherwise restricted. That includes maid's closets, elevator, lobby
>house phones, pool area phones and phones that can't even terminate an
>incoming call.

Excellent Idea!!  I especially like the panic version!  One problem
that I have is that I would also like the SL-1 to imform the front
desk area when 911 has been dialled.  Apparently, such a feature does
not exist!

>The other reasonable option is to totally DUMP hobic! and get
>'screening 94' or whatever they call it where you are. This says allow
>0+ on the trunk, but NOTHING gets billed back to the property.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Bell Canada.  Even though Northern
Telecom is a subsidiary of Bell Canada and keeps coming up with
wonderful technical enhancements for everything which is Telecom
related, Bell Canada doesn't see the point of implementing any of it!
Therefore, the screening system you suggest doesn't exist North of the
Border!

>At 200 rooms, why don't you have T1 into some IXC's POP for some
>serious low cost service?

This is really funny.  When I asked our Bell Canada account rep about
the possibility of a direct T1 to the CO she asked: "What's that?".
Someone who was a little more in the know let me know that in Bell
Canada territory (which is presently already 100% digital) T1's
wouldn't be available in any substantial number (or at a rate that
made it price competitive) for a couple of years and then it would be
principally for data service.

A fully digital switching system and they don't know what T1 is!  Go
figure.


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

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

Date: Sun, 2 Sep 90 13:51 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available


<Van Houten describes Bell Atlantic Business Systems' CLASSMATE
product offering>

>It is a device that plugs has a RJ-11 and a DB-25 connector on it.
>It converts CallerID to Your serial port.  It comes with some
>software that allows you to hook the output of the box to your
>favorite database (or other application program.).

There's another existing source, perhaps offered in a way PC bulletin
board operators and general business would like it.  The product:
CallerID+Plus, from Rochelle Communications, Inc., Suite 200, 8716
North Mopac, Austin, TX 78759 POTS [phone], FAX [phone].

Rochelle offers their RJ-11/RS-232 interfacing hardware separately or
in conjunction with software that appears to be nicely suited to the
small business.  Their market thrust for the total package seems
slanted toward small business use.

For interest, their ANI-232 demodulator appears to be workable with
either LEC CLASS Caller ID or with MCI's IXC Caller ID functions.

It certainly will be neat when my local Sysop's BBS can just answer up
and take me directly to the menu screen because he could get Caller ID
on my when I dial in ... just to mention a possible hobbyist example
as well.

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Labor Day, 1990
Organization: Monash_University
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 23:22:14 GMT


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

> Despite the several problems that have arisen since divestiture was
> deemed to be what was good for the American public, the United States
> still has the finest, and most technically complex phone system in the
                 [1]                       [2]
> world. For that, we can thank the telephone workers, and we should pay
> tribute to them today, along with all workers, for their contributions
> to our nation.

[1] Come, Patrick. What is your evidence for this assertion?  While
not singing praises for my own country's network, I must say that my
observations of the US network compared with others in the world lead
me towards other less complimentary adjectives.  It is a common
observation that Americans always seem to shout on the telephone. The
reason?

[2] if you mean most technically advanced, I must ask again for the
evidence. If you mean the most complicated mish-mash of vendors,
companies, and switches, not to mention prices and operating
standards, I must agree. Do you really want to pay tribute for this?


Jim Breen ([e-mail])
Dept of Robotics & Digital Technology, Monash University
PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
(ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I think many Americans shout on the telephone not
from any failure of the telephone to convey their voice properly, but
from some other cultural thing. I've experienced what you say, and I
cannot explain it, but it has nothing to do with the clarity of the
connection in most cases.  Regards the technical mish-mash prevelant
here, please note my message said *despite* divestiture -- not because
of it -- we have an excellent system. And I for one *will* sing
praises for your telephone system there. I spend about $1000 per month
on international calling. I call about a dozen countries routinely, on
both sides of the world. Most of my calls to Australia and New Zealand
connect within seconds and sound like they were in the same phone
exchange as myself. I still think the USA's network is best; but
surely yours is in second or third place, along with New Zealand, the
UK, and Hong Kong (loud and clear!). Most South American telephone
systems are bad news, as is a lot of the middle east.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #616
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19915;
          4 Sep 90 7:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12907;
          4 Sep 90 5:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07694;
          4 Sep 90 4:03 CDT
Date:     Tue, 4 Sep 90 2:17:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #617
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 4 Sep 90 02:13:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 617

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [TELECOM Moderator]
    World Wide Teleconferencing - Current Status? [Anthony Lee]
    TASI Acronym? [Chris Schmandt]
    RJ11 --> French Phone Jack Adapter [Mick Laver]
    Call Detail Recording [John Higdon]
    Clever, Eye-Catching Ad  [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Mitch Wagner]
    Re: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: What is Toll Saver? [Pushpendra Mohta]
    Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Barton F. Bruce]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 22:10:37 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff!


While conversing with someone the other day about profitable 900
services, we tried to decide which would make more money for the
proprietor of such a service: sex or religion. Both would pay, but
which would be more profitable? We left it as a toss up.

And now comes a report from the {Weekly World News}, July 31, 1990,
which leads me to believe religion would be a far more profitable type
of 900 service. Here is the report from WWN:


"Suckers Fork Over Big $$ to Talk to God on the Phone!"

By Scotty Paul


Desperate, downtrodden believers were easy prey for three coldhearted
con artists who bilked them out of their life savings -- by pretending
to have a direct phone line to God.

But instead of talking to the Almighty, the gullible old fools were
chitchatting with a bearded wino in a rundown flat in the ghetto of
Naples, Italy.

[Moderator's Note: Bearded wino in a rundown flat? Sounds like a few
900-Service phone rooms in Chicago!  PAT]

"Those poor people were lonely with nothing much to live for except a
glimpse into the hereafter," said Police Inspector Guiseppi Nonno.

"They were convinced they were talking to God and paid big money to do
it."

The sleazy swindle was set up by two ex-convicts, Antonio Meli and
Mario Locatelli, according to Inspector Nonno.

"They charged 50,000 lire ($40 USA) for the first minute, and 25,000
lire for each additional minute thereafter," he added. "Some of the
victims gave these bums everything they had."

Heartless hucksters Meli and Locatelli showed no remorse as they were
convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to six years in prison.

They admitted forming a weird religious cult and persuading naive,
trusting souls to join. "And then the two creeps squeezed them dry.
Three believers even mortgaged their homes," said Inspector Nonno.

The greedy gurus opened their hotline to God soon after an elderly
woman came into their headquarters pleading for spiritual guidance.

"She was afraid the Devil had taken over her soul. She wanted to drive
him away and get right with God again," said Meli at his trial.

Another pitiful old man sought sanctuary in the cult because he was
lonely. "There was really nothing going on in his life ... nothing to
live for," said Meli. "He wanted to talk to God about heaven."

"We told them we could arrange for them to talk to God directly," Meli
testified. "They fell for it hook, line and sinker."

Playing God was alcoholic Roberto Scalfari, a well-educated man who
had once been a college professor, but had slipped to skid row.

"We gave him a piece of the action and he was a very, very convincing
God," said Meli. "When the word spread, people were lining up to use
our heavenly line. We could not make the calls fast enough."

Scalfari died of liver failure before he could be brought to trial for
his part in the crime.

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

And you thought 900 Service was a ripoff!


PT

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

From: Anthony Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: World Wide Teleconferencing - Current Status ?
Date: 2 Sep 90 23:51:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The Federation for a Democratic China is about to have their Second
Congress in the middle of September (this month).  Many of their
members are scattered across the world.  The Congress will be in San
Franciso but for various reasons many members probably won't be able
to attend.  What is the current status of world wide teleconferencing?
How many studios can be hooked at the same time?  Are there any
agreements between different Telcos (e.g. AT&T OTC(Australia)) for
world-wide teleconferencing?  Most of all, what's the cost?

Thanks in advance,


Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor)
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651
Internet: [e-mail]        +(61)-7-377-4139 (w)
SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia


[Moderator's Note: To the extent the telephone administrations and the
US telcos (AT&T/Sprint/MCI) have billing and interchange agreements
with each other, they would have them where teleconferencing was
concerned. For example, AT&T will establish a conference to anywhere
in the world, provided at least one participant is in the USA. The
cost is not inexpensive, but on a per-participant basis gets less
expensive as more people get involved.   PAT]

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

From: Chris Schmandt <[e-mail]>
Subject: TASI Acronym?
Date: 3 Sep 90 15:55:59 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA


A number of conversations can share a significantly smaller number of
circuits by freeing the circuit associated with a conversation during
silent periods, and re-assigning one when speech starts.  I recollect
such a scheme being referred to as "TASI", but can't find this term in
the online glossaries.

Can anyone enlighten as to what it stands for?  Is there a standard
number for how much "circuit compression" it provides?

Thanks in advance,

chris

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

From: Mick Laver <siodo![e-mail]>
Subject: RJ11 --> French Phone Jack Adapter
Date: 3 Sep 90 18:35:31 GMT
Organization: University of California, San Diego


My boss is taking a MacPortable with a FAX/Data modem to Nice in a few
weeks. I've been trying to find a source for an adapter to allow him
to use a RJ11 plug with a French phone jack, since I can't really send
him with wire strippers and a soldering gun.  I'm not having much luck
with sources like the French consulate or travel agencies. Can anyone
point me to a US source for such an animal?

Thanks much.

Mick Laver
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Call Detail Recording
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 1 Sep 90 12:14:26 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


After reading parts one and two of the Epson special, an interesting
question has come to mind. What about Call Detail Recording?

A short time back, a distant acquaintance dropped by to conduct a
matter of business. During the visit, he asked to use the telephone.
No problem. He made a couple of calls and happened to notice the sound
of a printer in the other room everytime he hung up the phone. In
response to his inquiry, I told him that it was SMDR that monitored
all calls, in and out. He turned white and asked, "You mean that
everything I have dialed on this phone is on paper?" "Yes, it is." "I
dialed some very private numbers and I would like to see those records
destroyed."  "No way."

This fellow is still miffed. Well, what about it? Does anyone have the
right to know what numbers are dialed on his phone (including local)?
What about big companies who run SMDR, and a guest uses the phone in
the lobby -- leaving a trail of his calling card and what have you on
the SMDR? Should I have a sign in my living room that says, "All
numbers dialed on this phone are recorded"?


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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 22:28:48 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clever, Eye-Catching Ad


John Higdon's message today on Call Detail reminded me of a witty,
very clever ad in {Teleconnect Magazine}, September, 1990.

A man's picture, with a caption saying:

"300 truckers had a major hang-up, so this man recommended analysis.
Control Key call accounting straightened them out."

The man in the picture turns out to be John Stenger, President, GBS
Communications, Inc., St. Louis, MO.  He goes on to tell us,

"Telecom problems were hurting the trucking company's business.
Drivers and customers were frustrated by long delays and busy signals.
So we installed a new Toshiba Perception II Digital PBX with a Control
Key PL-300 Call Accounting System.

"It's been a big success, right from the installation. The company is
happy, because the PL-300 product helped them identify trunk usage
problems. That meant smoother operations for my customer, In fact,
they have given me more business, and that makes me happy, too."

Etcetera ... I thought the part about the hang-ups being solved by
analysis was pretty clever, and thought you would enjoy it also.

Since I've quoted this much from their ad, I'll mention the company,
which is the Control Key Division of Moscom Corporation. They are in
East Rochester, NY on the number 716-385-6440.


PT

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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 3 Sep 90 05:00:54 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


In article <[e-mail]> Randal Schwartz <merlyn@iwarp.
intel.com> writes:

# If you're female, and I'm into harrassing, I wanna know what number
# I dialed so I can look it up again, and harrass you later when you are home
# (sexist comment intended ... there are probably other combinations too).

Okay, good point. Still, I'm *not* female, and, as a matter of fact, I
ain't getting enough "harassment" lately, ha-ha.

# If I'm a thief, I now know you probably aren't home, so I can
# look up your address in the book, and rob you.

VERY good point. I am changing my answering-machine message forthwith.


Mitch Wagner

VOICE: 516/562-5758           GEnie: UNIX-TODAY
UUCP: [e-mail]       ...uunet!utoday!wagner

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 23:03:50 CDT
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics


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

>It certainly will be neat when my local Sysop's BBS can just answer up
>and take me directly to the menu screen because he could get Caller ID
>on my when I dial in

*There's* a security hole for you.  All J. Random Phreak has to do is
patch into a local junction box.  (I forsee people not having both
password *and* CNI protection on a line.)

And you thought your C$ bill was high when your password got hacked.
1/2 :-)


J. Eric Townsend
University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics
[phone]   Internet: [e-mail]   Bitnet: jet@UHOU   Skate UNIX(r)


[Moderator's Note: Well Eric, nothing is going to be perfect, but many
little things help with the problem of computer break-ins. Yes, the
phreak could tie into a junction box someplace, and of course he could
easily get discovered by the owner of the pair he is on. He could take
his laptop portable down to the payphone on the corner, I guess, even
on a cold night in January. It boils down to how much effort is a
phreak going to make to break in somewhere when he knows he has to run
a veritable obstacle course along the way of Caller*ID, callback
modems, eight or ten character passwords to be deciphered, etc. There
will still be some who try, and some who succeed at breaking in, if
not necessarily succeeding at avoiding prosecution later.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 23:35:36 PDT
From: Pushpendra Mohta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is Toll Saver?
Organization: CERFnet, La Jolla, CA


#Moderator's Note: "Toll Saver" is a way of saving money on calls to
#answering machines by having the machine not pick up until after
#several rings if there are no messages received. If a message is on
#the tape, then the answering machine picks up immediatly, on the first
#or second ring, as you have it set. If there are no messages, then the
#owner calling in knows to hang up after about the third ring so no
#charge will be made to call an answering machine which has nothing to
#say.  Its a little more involved than that, but that is the idea.  PAT]

Be prepared to be mislead if you call immediately after someone called
and left a message.  On most (non-digital) answering machines, You
will continue to hear rings till the machine resets itself.


pushpendra
CERFnet

[Moderator's Note: This of course depends on your call arriving within
seconds of the last call; not impossible, but not terribly likely
unless you have a very busy line. And one guideline would be if you
called and got a busy signal, then called a minute later and got a
ring, let it ring until it does reset.  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
Date: 4 Sep 90 02:32:45 EDT


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

> One problem that I have is that I would also like the SL-1 to
> inform the front desk area when 911 has been dialled.

The PC (that I assume is) monitoring the SMDR port might be able to
also notice 911 calls and give special notice of any desired sort, but
it would be after the call is completed and logged. Still it would
generally be before the Police/Fire/Ambulance truck arrives.


[Moderator's Note: An interesting aspect of some 911 tariffs is a
provision that a 'responsible' subscriber with a recognized security
force of his own, i.e. a university or medical center complex,
occupying hundreds of acres, or several city blocks can have 911 calls
from within the subscriber's premises routed to his own security or
police force. Typically, the subscriber will have centrex service,
occupying all, or most of an exchange. Panic calls to 911 are routed
by the CO to the proper office within the institution. Not all 911
tariffs are written to provide this, and the municipal police/fire
agencies generally resist this unless they have a *very good* working
relationship with the private force. Sometimes telco has to write the
tariff after the fact, once the subscriber and the local police have
a working agreement. It cannot be implemented without local police and
fire approval.

For example, the University of Chicago Police are fully sworn officers
of the law. Their authority is equal to that of a police officer of
the city of Chicago within the geographic limits of the UC campus.
Chicago police monitor the UC Police radio frequency and vice versa. A
call from a security 'hotline' phone to campus police can be 'patched'
immediatly to the city with a button on the dispatcher's console. As
he is talking to the caller and learns the address is outside their
immediate jurisdiction, he already has the Chicago PD en route.  UC is
surrounded by a crummy neighborhood on three sides. A call of 'a woman
screaming for help', a report of shots fired, or an officer needs
assistance brings help from both forces in a minute. PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #617
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10132;
          5 Sep 90 3:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18441;
          5 Sep 90 1:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15154;
          5 Sep 90 0:38 CDT
Date:     Wed, 5 Sep 90 0:20:38 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #618
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Sep 90 00:20:27 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 618

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 38.4 Modems: Myth? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: TASI Acronym? [Henry E. Schaffer]
    Re: TASI Acronym? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: TASI Acronym? [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: TASI Acronym? [Steve Pershing]
    Re: Call Detail Recording [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Call Detail Recording [Kevin L. Blatter]
    How Much is Recorded on SMDR? [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 38.4 Modems: Myth?
Date: 4 Sep 90 01:26:24 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jean-Francois
Lamy) writes:

> FastTalk V.32/42b modem that is claimed to provide throughputs of up
> to 38.4.  We have an application currently using stat muxes over a

You don't want a V.32/V.42bis modem, you want a V.32bis/V.42bis! The
dust may not quite have settled in the standards arena, but IF you buy
a product from a company that is doing the modem part of it with DSP
technology (as opposed to having used the Rockwell chips), it is quite
reasonable to assume they can cover all bases NOW, and if push comes
to shove and someone fiddles yet again with the standards, they can
simply give you a new prom or (for those that blast their own) let you
suck it off their BBS.

V.32bis does 14.4 FULL DUPLEX as its native speed. The V.42bis gets
you the error correction and compression you want. Having V.42bis on a
9.6kb V.32 modem is 'nice', but why not start with the latest
pre-compression speed.

With normal success for compression these days, 19.2 just isn't
enough, you need at least 38.4, especially if you are starting at
14.4. You may well have other problems, brought on by this speed. If
you have a built-in PC card modem, pray they either use a UART like
National's NS16550AN, or at least have it socketed so you can stuff
one in. If you use an external modem, most, even the 'el-cheapo',
AT-IO cards have socketed UARTS, and many simply leave the 2nd one
unpopulated, anyway, ready for you to stuff in an NS16550AN.

Someone who knows for sure better correct me, but I think any
standards level bickering about v.42bis is currently over what other
lower speeds are supported, not about the 14.4 itself.

A company like Digicom Systems Inc (DSI) right NOW will give you
V.32/V.42bis or V.32bis/V.42, but not both. The current hardware
should be readily upgradable is a few WEEKS to the new proms to do
V.32bis/V.42bis!

Their "PLUS OPTION" upgrade package will take a (not so) vanilla v.32
modem listing at around $795. and make it do BOTH V.32bis AND V.42bis
as well as to do Group-3 FAX! (they include a floppy for for their
MSDOS 'FlashFax' s/w - the OS2 and Unix flavors are being developed)
is about $200. more list. Of course noone ever pays list ... That was
the boxed modem price, the PC card will be less.

If you want to take T1 in, there is a company that makes a rack mount
little gem that can take in up to 20 T1s! and on DSP cards that can
start you at economical v.22(bis) type speeds. When you need faster
speeds for any of the 480 modems that implements (20 x 24 = 480), you
just pay for new license to run the V.32 (or better) s/w! You can get
all 480 ports out as eia cables if you really want, but you may prefer
to let them keep the signals inside and run them through the built in
PAD and bring all out via a HIGH SPEED x.25 cable.

These can be used for central computer sites, but, since they also
work on feature group B and D trunks, anyone with enough traffic can
deploy these around the country where 'normal' IXC carriers would
connect to LECs, and get user's dial in traffic on 950-xxxx (feature
group B) or other creative numbers (but needing 10xxx or default
status) on feature group D trunks.

WHY? Try saving probably OVER 1/2 the cost of using 1-800 terminating
into T1s. If you are a credit card verification, or Compuserve, or a
Telenet, or Amex or <unmaned Mega-Bank> type application, this is
where your world probably is heading.

Given time, this hardware might just implement LAT/TCP-IP terminal
server functionality as am alternate to the built in PAD. Lest I
forget, for the few of you that need something this big, they are:
Primary Access.

That slight digression was simply to point out that DSP chips right
NOW are in modems that are UPGRADEABLE by S/W (firmware if you prefer
to nitpick), and that you can BUY today.

If you can't get v.32bis with v.42bis, or a FIRM no/low cost upgrade
commitment for the very immediate future, try another brand!

  - no connection to any vendor above (yet)...

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TASI Acronym?
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 12:31:30 GMT


  [in a section on TDM] "... to TDM several speech channels by taking
advantage of pauses between words and statements.  Utilizing this
principle, a Time Assignment Speech Interpolation (TASI) system is
used on many overseas channels to effectively increase the capacity of
the channels.  Again, to avoid problems with more simultaneous talkers
than available channels, the number of talkers and channels should be
rather large (100 or so).  Obviously, the switching in such a scheme
must be very rapid, and the resulting complex equipment is not
attractive except for use on expensive channels such as overseas
applications."

 From Transmission Systems for Communications, 4ed, 1970, Bell Labs.
Since this reference is 20 years old, the costs and tradeoffs have
changed.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TASI Acronym?
Date: 4 Sep 90 15:37:19 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


> circuits by freeing the circuit associated with a conversation during
> such a scheme being referred to as "TASI", but can't find this term in

TASI stands for something like: "Time Assignment Speach Interpolation"
if I remember correctly. It was expensive to implement, so was mostly
used on transatlantic cables. The old analog versions have given way
to the modern digital versions marketed to folks with large global
nets and big budgets.

Not only is no bandwidth given you in quiet periods, but also your
speech may be slightly further delayed if buffers instantaneously
backup beyong the capacity of the pipe to carry it all. When you can't
see the lips speaking, how are you to know that that pause was more
than just satelite delay? Also beginnings and ends of sylabyls may get
slightly clipped, and the human ear, wonderful thing that it is, never
misses anything.

Republic Telecom can easily give you 40 voice channels on 5 x 56kb,
with some provision for handling fools who try to sneak modem traffic
across where it does not belong. That is a small size box for them.

Folks with more modest budgets may want to check Pacific Communication
Sciences, Inc, too, if you want clever voice compression, but not
traditional TASI.

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: TASI Acronym?
Date: 4 Sep 90 19:36:08 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Chris Schmandt) writes...

>A number of conversations can share a significantly smaller number of
>circuits by freeing the circuit associated with a conversation during
>silent periods, and re-assigning one when speech starts.  I recollect
>such a scheme being referred to as "TASI", but can't find this term in
>the online glossaries.

> Can anyone enlighten as to what it stands for?  Is there a standard
>number for how much "circuit compression" it provides?

Time Assignment Speech Interpolation is actually a form of packetized
voice transmission.  It was first used in the early 1970s on undersea
cables.  The idea is to take small chunks of audio, run them through a
level detector, and only send them if they aren't "silent".  Then each
one can be prefaced with a channel header so the receving end knows
which channel is getting which call over the trunk pool.  Typically
you get nearly 2:1 compression with voice.

While AT&T's large TASI systems came first, many private networks used
the Storage Technology COM-II TASI about a decade ago.  (We did here
at Digital.)  But analog TASI is obsolete.  Newer Digital TASI, now
called DSI, systems generally run over T1 carrier.  The StrataCom IPX
is such a box; it sends 192-bit frames with a 24-bit header and
168-bit audio payload. It's nearly toll-quality even with silence
suppression enabled.

Another example is AT&T's Integrated Access Cross-Connect Switch
(IACS), which uses frame relay-based DSI.  It's widely used on AT&T's
international network.  You may have used it without knowing.

Typical 2:1 compression ratios are being impacted by fax.  Since fax
(like dial-up data) sends a constant audio signal, it can't be
compressed.  We had the same problem on our TASI years ago, and
actually routed a lot of dial-up data around it.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission

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

Subject: Re: TASI Acronym?
From: Steve Pershing <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 90 19:52:22 PDT
Organization: The Questor Project: FREE World-wide News & e-Mail for All!


TASI was (I think) invented by Bell Labs at least 15 years ago.  It
stands for Time Assignment Speech Interpolation.  The original purpose
was to provide more voice circuits on overseas cables.  Since the
actual time that a voice is really speaking is rather small, the
original TASI allowed for somewhere around a 5:1 increase in
conversations.


 Internet: [e-mail]       |  POST: 1027 Davie Street,  Box 486
 Phones:   Voice/FAX:  [phone]   |        Vancouver, British Columbia
           Data/BBS:   [phone]   |        Canada  V6E 4L2


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

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 08:04 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording


John Higdon tells of having an associate visit who was p*ssed that
John's SMDR recorded details of his calls.  This happened to me,
visiting a friend who has a little Panasonic switch.  Fortunately, I
was standing right by the printer and grabbed the printout.

In this case it was mild.  I'd _give_ Larry my credit card number, but
he does have kids (good kids, but kids nonetheless), and it points out
that we leave that credit card number all over the place when we dial.

On a similar subject, did you know that most Unix machines can be set
to record both bad login attempts and bad passwords entered to a good
user id?  So, if you normally log in with a password of "rosemary" and
you accidentally use "trosemary" by hitting two keys, you've left your
password for the sysadmin.  Moral: don't use the same password on more
than one system.  I forget the names of these files, but they live in
/usr/adm/something_or_other and they should most definitely be
protected 600 and owned by root.


[e-mail]

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

From: "Kevin L. Blatter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording
Date: 4 Sep 90 18:40:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


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

[ Story of John's acquaintance using his phone deleted ]

> This fellow is still miffed. Well, what about it? Does anyone have the
> right to know what numbers are dialed on his phone (including local)?
> What about big companies who run SMDR, and a guest uses the phone in
> the lobby -- leaving a trail of his calling card and what have you on
> the SMDR? Should I have a sign in my living room that says, "All
> numbers dialed on this phone are recorded"?

I say that I have an absolute right to know what numbers are being
dialed from my phone (I, like John, have an SMDR device hooked up to
my two home lines) whether the calls are toll calls or not.  On the
other hand most people do not realize that when they check in to a
hotel and use their calling cards to avoid the hotel's rip-off phone
rates, that chances are the hotel is going to have their calling card
number!

For a few years prior to coming to work for AT&T I wrote call
accounting systems which utilizes SMDR information for billing or
whatever and our standard practice was if we saw a calling card number
come through that we stripped the information out and classified the
call as a 'charge call' which meant that we would not rate the call.
However, we could have stored the information for who-knows-what
purpose.

Perhaps 'we' (whoever 'we' are) should place notices on our phones as
John suggests, stating that dialed information is being recorded.
After all, resturants often announce that they use microwave ovens for
the would-be pacemaker customers.  Use at your own risk.


Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs
Lincroft, NJ

Disclaimer - AT&T may or may not share my opinions.


[Moderator's Note: Re hotels and others with call detail having a
record of your calling card number: How do you think credit card calls
were handled years ago? You passed the number to the operator and the
hotel got 'memo' time and charges for commission purposes, etc. You
are dealing with an ethics thing here. Either the people that must
deal with record keeping that you create are honest about it, or they
are not honest about it. Many a telco operator could secretly write
down your calling card number and abuse it later. Some have done so,
some have been caught. Hotel operators are the same way. An honest
person in a position of trust does not abuse the trust.  PAT]

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

Subject: How Much is Recorded on SMDR?
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 4 Sep 90 11:39:24 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


A number of e-mail correspondents have raised the question of how much
information is recorded via SMDR. Does it just record the phone number
dialed into the local exchange, or does it record calling card
numbers, F(O)ON card numbers and the like as well?

The answer is: it depends, even within the same system. In the case of
my simple Panasonic KX-T1232, if the caller is using an electronic
phone (which actually sends digits to the switch via keyscan rather
than DTMF), the entire session will appear on the SMDR printout. Since
it is not tying up a DTMF register, the electronic phone's keyscan
will be active for the entire call.

On a single line phone, however, once the original number is dialed,
the delay between those digits and the subsequent ones that include
the actual call billing info is usually great enough to give the DTMF
register time to drop off the line. At that point, the system is deaf
to DTMF on that line and those digits will not be recorded.

On a "real" PBX, such as the ITT 3100, the entire number to be dialed
on the exchange is recorded by the switch which then selects the route
and redials the call. From that time on, the SMDR is deaf to DTMF
entered by the caller. In other words, only the call as presented to
the local exchange appears on the SMDR.

Has my SMDR scooped up people's private call billing info? Yes. Do I
use it for nefarious purposes? No. That's not why I have SMDR.


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


[Moderator's Note: See my comments above. I'd like to think that most
telecom professionals are ethical people who do not abuse information
provided to them in the performance of their duties. If we have to
start worrying about *that*, then every telco operator, every hotel
operator, every billing clerk in the business office, etc becomes
someone to suspect. Where does it stop?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #618
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12161;
          5 Sep 90 5:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14934;
          5 Sep 90 3:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18030;
          5 Sep 90 2:43 CDT
Date:     Wed, 5 Sep 90 2:02:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #619
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Sep 90 02:02:19 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 619

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What is Toll Saver? [John Higdon]
    Re: What is Toll Saver? [Ted Powell]
    Re: Labor Day, 1990 [Adam J. Ashby]
    Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers [Jody Kravitz]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Barrey Jewall]
    Re: The Meaning of COCOT [Dan Bloch]
    Re: Caller*ID to RS-232 Now Available [Peter da Silva]
    Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [Paolo Bellutta]
    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around? [[e-mail]]
    CO's Split Across AC's [Jack Winslade]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is Toll Saver?
Date: 4 Sep 90 10:24:31 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Pushpendra Mohta <[e-mail]> writes:

> Be prepared to be mislead if you call immediately after someone called
> and left a message.  On most (non-digital) answering machines, You
> will continue to hear rings till the machine resets itself.

Ah, what a sheltered life I've led. The two mechanical answering
machines that I have owned that had "toll saver" (or as someone once
put it, "cheap realtor") didn't have that problem, and for different
reasons.

The first was an ancient Coda-a-Phone model 333. This unit did not
come with this mode, but one day I got a great idea. The machine had a
light on it that would come on if the incoming message tape was "off
home", indicating visually that you had messages. There was also an
internal resistor that one could change to set the number of rings
that would be ignored before the unit answered. Why not put a little
relay in the unit that would bridge another resistor in the circuit if
the "off home light" was lit, causing the machine to answer on the
first, rather than fourth ring?

It worked perfectly. And this was long before I had ever heard (1975)
of "toll saver". The machine also had the advantage of being able to
"reset" immediately. As soon as it hung up, it was ready for the next
call.

The other machine was a Panasonic two-line (I forget the model
number).  After each call, it would churn and whirr and clunk, but the
entire time this was going on the line was kept off hook.


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

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

From: Ted Powell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is Toll Saver?
Reply-To: Ted Powell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver, BC
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 00:15:52 GMT


}[Moderator's Note: This of course depends on your call arriving within
}seconds of the last call; not impossible, but not terribly likely
}unless you have a very busy line. And one guideline would be if you
}called and got a busy signal, then called a minute later and got a
}ring, let it ring until it does reset.  PAT]

Better yet, hang up and try again in a couple of minutes. With my
machine at least, if the caller hangs up before the beep, this doesn't
count as a message. That is, assuming no other messages on the tape,
it will answer after four rings rather than two. Getting a busy signal
only means that someone was on the line, not that they had anything to
say.


[e-mail]   ...!ubc-cs!van-bc!eslvcr!ted    (Ted Powell)

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

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 10:07:22 CDT
From: "Adam J. Ashby" <motcid!marble![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Labor Day, 1990


In comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>Despite the several problems that have arisen since divestiture was
>deemed to be what was good for the American public, the United States
>still has the finest, and most technically complex phone system in the
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 From what I read daily in comp.dcom.telecom, the US definitely does
not have the finest or the most technically complex phone system in
the world.  What have you based this sweeping statement on??  Surely
not the all important 'User Satisfaction'?


Adam Ashby  ([phone] - work time
([phone] - play time      ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya


[Moderator's Note: Alright, fine. If the USA does *not* have what I
described, then what country *does* have it? If TELECOM Digest was
published in East Germany, Poland, Brazil or Haiti, what type of
messages would you see here from day to day? Admittedly, user
satisfaction has gone down since divestiture, and we have lost some of
the margin we maintained for decades, but we are still far in front,
which is more a testament to the old Bell System than it is to the
federal judge :{ who made it all possible. Readers, suppose you tell
me: (You generally have no reluctance to do so!) -- Whose is best?
Whose is worst? Why? And if you say the USA, was it because of the
judge, or despite him?  Title your replies, Re: The Best and Worst.  PAT]

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

From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting Action on Wrong Numbers
Date: 4 Sep 90 15:41:39 GMT
Organization: The Foxtail Group, San Diego, CA


[e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko) writes:

>When the operator finally answered and I asked for Irnalee Stohrs, she
>said 'wrong number' and immediatly hung up. I have a feeling that they
>have been getting flooded!! I think I'll try a few person-to-person
>calls tomorrow. (:

I'm behind on my reading, so by the time I called this morning there
were no busy signals, and the operator answered promptly.  When I
asked for Irnalee Stohrs, she said 'wrong number' and immediately hung
up.  I called back, and began with an apology, and then asked if she
had received very many calls.  Her answer: Yea! about 1000 per day for
the first two days.  I then asked if there was any way she could help
me get hold of Irnalee.  Answer: "No, I really doesn't know Irnalee's
phone number."  I thanked her, and hung up.

Tongue in cheek mode on: Does anyone know the POTS numbers for the
Mercury News' telemarketers?

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

From: Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 5 Sep 90 01:25:30 GMT
Reply-To: Barrey Jewall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


In article <[e-mail]>[e-mail] (Barton F.
Bruce) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) (ME!)
>writes:

>> About once every two weeks, my mom would call my number, person to...

>> she replies "just have him call me when he arrives", and the operator
>> says thank you for using AT&T, or somesuch thing, and we hang up. Then
>> I called my mom.

>Would seem wise to call back using 10xxx to select a DIFFERENT
>carrier.  Let the first carrier lose the return business for being
>dangerous to use!

>Just a thought...

I'm afraid I may be dense, but what do you mean "being dangerous to
use" ???

Is AT&T going to cut off my arms (or other, more neccessary body
parts?!?)  8-) That's a BIG smiley for the Humor-impaired (no, NOT the
guy I'm replying to!)


+ Barrey Jewall                 ++ "My opinions are my opinions" +
+ [e-mail]            ++ (rather self-evident, eh?)    +
+ Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++                 +


[Moderator's Note: As John Covert pointed out in a recent message, the
tariff does say this is illegal, and the security forces of the
respective telcos have very sophisticated detection methods in place.
And sometimes, yes, they *will* make an issue out of it. As for body
parts, the worst case I've ever heard of was when they had a guy in
custody who had been caught phreaking; they took a large, sharp knife
and cut off his ... uh, his dialing finger. Yes, that's it! His
dialing finger. They told him since he wouldn't use it the way nature
and Ma Bell intended, they would just cut it off and he wouldn't have
one any more. Plastic surgeons built a new dialing finger for him, but
it never did work as well as the original. The poor devil was in
therapy for a long time afterward, and I understand to this day he
still has to place all his calls manually through the operator.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue,  4 Sep 1990 23:16:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Meaning of COCOT


> I have been reading this newsgroup for a little while, and I see many
> messages with stuff about COCOTs in them, but I can't figure out what
> one is ... Would someone please tell me what a COCOT is?

> [Moderator's Note: COCOT = Customer Owned, Coin Operated Telephone.
> Some say it in reverse. They are the privately owned payphones you see
> springing up everywhere.

I've also been reading this newsgroup for a little while, and I'd
figured out what COCOT stands for, and I've gathered that the general
opinion on this bboard is that they're a crime against humanity.  I'm
still unclear on exactly what they can do to me, e.g. if I use one to
make a calling card call with an AT&T calling card.  So what kind of
stuff do they do?

Thanks,

Dan Bloch
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: For starters, they typically charge rates much
higher than payphones operated by telco. They rip you off on long
distance calls; they disable the keypad after you connect to a number,
making it impossible to use them when calling pagers, etc. They accept
your AT&T card for calls, pretend to connect you to an AT&T operator,
then send you an outrageous bill for the call.  PAT]

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID To RS232 Now Available
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 18:30:29 GMT


Interesting. The problem is that for home computers with one RS232 port
that port is already used up for the modem. On the other hand, it does
sound like a nice job for the CP/M machine in my closet.

(How I wish that computers still came with two serial ports ... one
for the printer! The difference in cost between a serial and parallel
printer is way outweighed by the greater utility of a second serial
port.)


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

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

From: Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff!
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 14:33:56 MET DST


In TELECOM Digest Volume 10, Issue 617, Message 1 of 10 our Moderator
reports a nice rip off from a guy in Naples using a service to talk
to God.  I don't have any problem in beleiving the fact that someone
in Naples could come up with such an idea.  I remember that someone,
just after the Chernobyl accident, was going door to door to
"decontaminate money".  After collecting the money from the people he
asked to be left alone with the money so that people couldn't be
contaminated, then he would steal the money, and tell those poor
people not to enter the room for some hours.

Anyway, in the message about this God Calling Service, there is
something that sounds strange.  As far as I know in Italy while there
is a service similar to the 800 numers (the "prefix" 1678 costs as a
local call from everywhere in the country), there is no equivalent to
the 900 numbers.  The phone service is billed by SIP (the Italian
Telco) in therms of "scatti" (roughly "ticks").  A local call costs
one tick (not everywhere), a 1678- call one tick, and long distance
calls are billed on a time basis (one tick every xx seconds, where xx
depends on the distance and time of call).

SIP offers some services, like DA, DA in Europe, international DA,
time, news, weather report, etc.  The cost of these services is
expressed in ticks as well.  For example DA is free if the number is
not yet published on the phone directory otherwise is five ticks, time
is three ticks and so on.  These services are operated by the Telco
(some of them in association with other companies. For example, news
is organized by RAI the public broadcasting company). But I've never
seen a pay-phone service organized by other companies. Therefore I see
no way that this guy collected that money using the phone calls.


Paolo Bellutta
I.R.S.T.        vox:    [phone]
loc. Pante' di Povo    fax:    [phone]
38050 POVO (TN)        e-mail:    [e-mail]
ITALY                [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: My assumption is they put the call through on a
regular phone line, taking care the sucker did not see what number
was dialed. They then collected money from the person, handed the
victim the phone, and let them talk to God for a certain number of
minutes before taking the phone away. If the police had not broken up
the racket first, I guess it would have stopped anyway since they say
God is dead, apparently from liver disease.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?
Date: 4 Sep 90 17:01:00 GMT
Organization: Bellcore - Wierd Ideas Factory


Patrick Humphrey wrote:

> the only kind available.  The reasoning was that the areas with large
> numbers of calls should get the NPA numbers that could be dialed the
> quickest -- hence New York City got 212, Los Angeles 213, Chicago 312,

That's what I always heard.  yet, Pittsburgh (population of the metro
area about one million?) has 412, and Phily (population of the metro
area about five million?) has 215, which is surely anomalous under the
above rule.

Similarly, why Austin (512) and Cleveland (216)?  Were there other
technical considerations at the time?  (Apart from physical proximity
of adjacent numbers, such as 212 not being near 213 and 312 etc)

pc


[Moderator's Note: 412 and 215 are about the same length: seven pulls
versus eight. 512 and 216 are close: eight pulls versus nine. It is
not like Nevada or North Carolina (19 pulls) or southern Indiana's 812
area (11 pulls).   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 04 Sep 90 21:17:32 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: CO's Split Across AC's
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


A while ago we had a discussion on CO's that straddle area code
boundaries and are dialable as more than one.  If you remember, we
found one here in the Omaha area which was -- in SOME cases --
dialable either as 402 or 712.  I recently returned from a trip to the
Black Hills area of South Dakota.  (Deadwood: Las Vegas of the
Midwest. ;-) I stumbled upon many examples of CO's split between the
308/605 codes or the 402/605 codes.  I don't know how many of these
there are.  There may be hundreds.  I saw more in the local phone
books than I can remember.

These were cases where there are communities right on or near the
Nebraska - South Dakota border.  They often appear in such form as
'Whatnot, SD' and 'South Whatnot, NE' or 'Cornholdt, NE' and 'North
Cornholdt, SD'.  (I forget the actual names, but these are typical.)
These communities are VERY small.  If you think Omaha is out in the
toolies ... we are talking major sticks here.  These towns are only a
few hundred in population, if that.  From the limited amount of
dorking around I found time and place to do, I determined that these
were all SxS offices (with some REALLY funky ringback and busy tones)
which maybe served 100 or so subscribers on both sides of the border.
These offices came nowhere near to filling up a complete 1000's group
out of an office code.  In some cases, the NNX were the same in both
area codes, in some, they were different.

In every case, the same lines (and vacant levels, etc.) could be
reached via either AC.  My conclusion is that in the 48 states, there
are potentially thousands of examples of 'split' central offices if we
consider all of the rural communities that are adjacent to or straddle
state lines.

Good Day!       JSW

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4
[1:285/666@fidonet] CP/M, the virus-proof OS, Omaha  --
 --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: An example of that here was 414-396 / 312-396.
Antioch, IL was 312-395. North Antioch, WI is 414-396, but was dialable
from *Antioch only* as 396+4D. To reach the *real* 312-396 residents
of the village of Antioch had to dial one plus. 414-396 is Illinois
Bell's one incursion into the 414 area. Now, Antioch is 708, but so is
Blue Island, IL where the 'real' 708-396 lives. I don't know what they
do up there now.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #619
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04616;
          6 Sep 90 2:28 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01274;
          6 Sep 90 0:55 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19893;
          5 Sep 90 23:52 CDT
Date:     Wed, 5 Sep 90 22:57:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #620
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Sep 90 22:56:46 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 620

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Robert Kinne]
    "Hello, You've Reached Theta Chi's VMB" [Brendan Kehoe]
    Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Jay Libove]
    New 917 Area Code [Tom Neff]
    Email Privacy and BBS Law [Michael H. Riddle]
    Hotels Get Message on Phone Charges [Michael H. Riddle]
    ANI and AMA Question [Matt Funkchick]
    Follow-Me Roaming Research [Douglas Scott Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Kinne <boulder!boulder![e-mail]>
Subject: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
Date: 5 Sep 90 03:20:33 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Kinne <boulder!boulder![e-mail]>
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


A few weeks ago I rejoined the Sierra Club after a few years hiatus.
Shortly thereafter, we received a telephone call requesting financial
support for a specific Sierra Club fund.  We politely declined,
explaining that we never contribute or purchase in response to phone
solicitation.  Somewhat huffily, the caller accepted this.  Since then
we have had at least one, often two calls per day.  The tone has
ranged from arrogance to insult, with some relatively abusive.

The callers have refused our request to take our name off the targeted
list for their solicitations.  This has been going on for about three
weeks.  Today I mailed a resignation to the Sierra Club, pointing out
that I am opposed to all pollution, including sound pollution, and
that I consider unwanted harassing phone calls to be sound pollution,
and that I had no wish to belong to any organization that operates in
this manner.  I also plan to contact appropriate federal officials to
seek a total ban on telephone solicitation, which has grown to
comprise at least 20% of the incoming phone calls at my home.  Others
are encouraged to do the same.


[Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was
doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing
organization. If the latter, you really should not take it out on the
Sierra Club until you are sure they are aware of, and approve of the
techniques being used. The organization may have not known how
obnoxious their agents were on the phone.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 07:33:09 EDT
From: Brendan Kehoe <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Hello, You've Reached Theta Chi's VMB.."


 A pamphlet was placed in my mailbox at school (Widener University in Chester
PA) recently:

[Fold 1]
        Attention College Students!
        Now you can have private
        800-based voice mail for less
        than $10 per month!
        (plus connect fee and air time)

        Introducing:

          International Voice Exchange

          1 - 800 + NETWORK        (copyright 1990 Eagle Comm Inc)

[Fold 2]

    Do you realize:

        You could have your own private 800 number for less than
         $10 per month plus only pennies a call!

        Through any touchtone phone you could retrieve confidential
         messages from parents, friends or professors, 24 hours a
         day, 365 days per year!

        You could have these convenient services without even owning
         a telephone!

[Fold 3]

       Presenting: 1 - 800 + NETWORK "Voice Mail" Confidential
       Message Center!  [Undln'd] Now you can enjoy the prestige and
       convenience of a private 800 number [Blah blah blah blah blah]

[Finally:]

        All of these fabulous features and benefits for only
        $9.50 per month plus 35 cents perminute air time and
        a one-time connect fee of $100.00.

[And now:]

        Your international voice exchange communications consultant
        will meet with you or set up your service over any touch tone
        phone. Installation time: 5 minutes.

[End of pamphlet]

    This rubbed me wrong the second I saw it; I'm all for the
entrepreneurial spirit and all that, but come on ... charging 35 cents
for each minute's worth of storage of a digital voice? And $100 for
installation??  It's NOT exactly $100 worth of work to add another box
on your handy-dandy Plug-Me-Into-Your-PC-And-Get-Five-Hundred-
Mailboxes-Going. Yeah, I want to pay this bozo over a dollar and a
half per second to add one.

    This is an affront to me personally simply because I'm well
aware of the financial problems that I've gone through during my
college career thus far -- having these con artists trying to suck a
bit more out (or take blatant advantage of those whose parents are
affluent) is disgusting.


Brendan Kehoe | Soon: [e-mail]
For now: [e-mail] | Or: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Bear in mind the 35 cents pays for the storage
*and* for a minute of conversation on the 800 line. It may still be
high priced though. Telecom*USA gives 800 voicemail for $2.75 per
month plus 29 cents per minute of use, whether its a message being
left for you, or you in the box retrieving messages, changing the
outgoing message, etc. The 29 cents includes the incoming phone call
over your private 800 number.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 11:40:36 EDT
From: Jay Libove <[e-mail]>
Subject: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Dave Levenson):

> For two-line service, they should use a cable with two (or more)
> twisted pairs.  If they did, they would probably have connected one
> line to the blue-white pair and the other to the orange-white pair.
> If they did that, you shouldn't experience crosstalk, regardless of
> the connectors used.

Well, I have two phone lines - one voice, one data - on a four wire
typical phone line, and I experience crosstalk that I believe might
actually occasionally interfere with my data communications, and is
always annoying (to both parties) on the voice line.

Do I have any legal right to make the phone company come in and
correct a situation that they caused? They knew before doing the
second line "installation" (just plug in a two-jack plate and split
the wires, $75, on top of $40 'line charge' !!!) that the line was to
be used for data communication.


Thanks,

Jay Libove        [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corp    decwrl!"kamet::libove"

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

From: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>
Subject: New 917 Area Code
Date: 4 Sep 90 10:52:46 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Neff <[e-mail]>


The most recent Area Codes list from Patrick showed 917 as (unused).
For what it's worth, the newsletter enclosed in this month's New York
Tel bill says they're proposing to give it to the Bronx (currently in
212) and also use it for all cellular phones and pagers now in 212.

The article at one point says they want to meet "the growing demand
for telecommunications devices SUCH AS cellular phones and pagers"
[emphasis added], which sounds like maybe modems too, but that's the
only mention -- I haven't seen the proposed tariff.

If the PSC approves, 917 would open for business in 1992.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 11:30:06 cdt
From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Email Privacy and BBS Law


Patrick:

The next two messages contain the text of a paper I wrote for a class
in mass media law, "The Electronic Pamphlet: Computerized Bulletin
Board Systems and the Law," and a paper Ruel Hernandez wrote about
email privacy.  They both seem pertinent to the discussions recently,
particularly to the special editions about the Epson suit.

They're both pretty good size (70K and 20K+), so I imagine it's
straight to the archives again.


Mike


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for donating these two files to the
Telecom Archives. They have been placed on display, under the titles
'email.privacy' and 'computer.bbs.and.the.law'. Readers who want a
copy can obtain them using regular ftp protocol: 'ftp lcs.mit.edu',
with login anonymous, and [e-mail] for a password. Then, you
must 'cd telecom-archives'.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 16:19:33 cdt
From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hotels Get Message on Phone Charges


 From the September 10, 1990, {Insight Magazine.}
Story by Susan Dillingham

              HOTELS GET MESSAGE ON PHONE CHARGES

Hotel telephone service, the bane of many a business traveller, is
getting a much-needed revamping. After years of runaway pricing, and
growing complaints by guests, major hotel chains are starting to
reduce or even eliminate surcharges on long-distance calls.

First to go at most hotels are charges on tool-free dialing and some
credit card and collect calls, says Corporate Travel magazine, a New
York monthly that recently reviewed the phone policies of eight hotel
chains that cater to corporate travelers.  According to the magazine's
July survey, only Westin imposes a fee (75 cents) for 800-number
calls.  Stouffer, Marriott and Radisson all received high marks for
having abolished surcharges on collect and credit card calls, while
Hilton, Hyatt and Westin still charge 75 cents to $1.  Rates for
Ramada, also included in the survey, are under review.

The hotels are also moving to standardize rates for direct-dial
long-distance calls.  For those calls, most operations use AT&T's
operator-assisted day rate plus a surcharge of 30 to 50 percent.  Only
the Westin and Hilton chains do not impose surcharges on direct-dial
long-distance.

Look for the new phone policies to be featured in the hotels'
marketing efforts in the coming months.  Plans are already under way
at Sheraton to offer frequent business travellers a free "safe
arrival" call home, says Bill Oates, manager of hotel systems and
telecommunications.  Free local calls are also under consideration.

Says Oates: "Telecommunications has become the latest areas of
competition among hotels."

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

From: funky chicken <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI and AMA Question
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 21:25:02 GMT


In the process of recording information for billing, are there any
times when the originating or destination number is not recorded?

I suspect there are.  For example, I recall that, in SxS offices with
ANI, each phone number's sleeve wire was cabled to a grid of bus
panels.  Each directory number terminated on a card which held 10
numbers.  An identifier would come by and hierarchically (sp?) scan
this bus system for a 5800 hz which identified the calling number.
However, my memory tells me that all the directory numbers associated
with a PBX were fed into a single number network associated with the
primary or billing number.  If this were the case, wouldn't ANI always
identify the calling number as being the primary number, regardless of
the actual line used?

Is this true and are there similar cases with ESS?  I would think it
would be wasteful to record all of the numbers called on an AMA tape
if many of them do not result in charges.  When I used my modem
extensively, I had a service which allowed me to make unlimited calls
within my LATA for a a monthly fee of $25.  Except for analyzing
traffic patterns, there would seem to be no reason to keep detailed
logs of calls in this sort of situation.

Hmmm.  I suppose that it is, unfortunately, improper to refer to SxS
in the past tense.


Matt Funkchick

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

Date: 4-SEP-1990 19:50:49.24
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Follow-Me Roaming


A while back I asked a few questions as to how Follow Me Roaming
operates and why it is sometimes seemingly inoperative, and here's
what I found out:

After talking to GTE Mobilnet and the Follow-Me dept (now located in
Tampa, Florida), I am now pretty sure that Follow-Me Roaming cuts off
at 12AM Eastern time, all over the country. This used to be 1AM
Eastern, since Follow Me was previously located in Houston, Texas, (in
the Central time zone), but is now in Tampa, which is the Eastern
Zone.

It had/s been my experience that Follow-Me cuts off at 12AM Eastern no
matter where I am, so, it will cut off around 9PM Pacific time. I've
noticed this many times while on the GTE SF and the Pac*Tel Sacramento
systems. Other people who have Wireline ("B") cell service also noted
this, two of them are GTE SF customers, one is a GTE Santa Barbara
customer, one is an Southern New England Tel/ "LYNX" customer, and
finally, a friend of mine with Bell Atlantic (Philadelphia?) service
also noticed this. (Of course the last two are on the East Coast
anyhow, so that really doesn't prove anything.)

I complained about this to GTE/SF customer service (after waiting for
25 minutes on hold! - but *611 is free, so no airtime charges), and
they told me there is nothing that can be done about it right now.
They said that the Follow Me Roaming division in Tampa "advises"
customers that between 11:30P (Eastern time) and 1AM (Eastern time),
Follow-Me may be slow or unavailable, as it is during this time that
the system "dumps" all the old numbers and resets itself.

This process involves both the Follow-Me Roaming computers in Tampa,
as well as those of your home cellular system, which in my case is GTE
San Francisco. Therefore, if GTE/SF has 1000 numbers set for Follow
Me, it requires time for Tampa to dump all the Follow Me numbers it
had stored, and time for the GTE/SF system to "unforward" calls to
either the Follow Me system or to the specific remote system that I
was Roaming in. Because of this, it may take a while to invoke any *18
(initiate) requests made between 11:30P and 1:00A Eastern time.

(Note that I'm not exactly clear as to HOW Follow Me directs the calls
 ... Does Follow Me in Tampa maintain a large database of all the
people in the US and Canada who had invoked Follow Me that day? IE, if
I initiate Follow Me, does GTE SF just send all my calls to Tampa, and
then Tampa sends the calls to where it knows that I am roaming? Or
does Tampa just tell GTE SF what remote system I am in and then GTE SF
sends my calls there directly? This may seem a bit of an esoteric
distinction, yet if the former were true, all systems using Follow Me
would be slow if Tampa were having a slow day, while if the latter
were true, then one could get faster Follow Me Roaming by picking a
"home" system that didn't have too many customers and thus not have to
process as many Follow Me activation/deactivations as a larger company
like GTE San Francisco would.)

In any event, it seems as if Follow Me is dependent upon its center in
Tampa, and if they choose to deactivate at 12A Eastern then West-coast
based customers are forced to have a gap in service between 9P and
10:30P (and at times MUCH later!), when Follow Me simply won't work.

Why can't Follow Me come up with a code, let's say *17, that DOES NOT
automatically deactivate? This way, if I am going to be in Chicago for
a week, I won't have to worry about pressing *18 every day, and won't
miss any calls due to some of the activate/deactivate problems which
Follow Me Roaming seems to have ... I called the Follow Me Roaming
people in Tampa and asked them about this, and they were more
concenred with who gave me the "secret" number rather than working the
problems out or even discussing the possiblility of a "*17" type
service with me. Oh well, I should have expected that, but it was GTE
Mobilnet SF who told me to call! Initially they thought I WORKED for
GTE Mobilnet and wondered why I was asking what appeared to be such an
idiotic and naiive question!

I'm curious if anyone else has had similar problems with Follow Me
Roaming.  I realize that 12A Eastern is a bit late for Cell-calls
(although cellular service, like landline service, should operate
flawlessly 24 hours a day), so probably most of the people on the East
coast have not had the opportunity to experience these problems, but
maybe some of the more "Western" cell phone users?


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

P.S. Pat/Moderator - Have you noticed Follow Me cutting off at about
11P Central recently instead of 12A? If so, this would confirm what
the FMR people (reluctantly) told me. If not, well.....who knows...


[Moderator's Note: On my trip to the Land of Ahs, the cutoff was
always midnight; I was in the central time zone throughout my trip.
The reason there is no code to leave Follow Me turned on 'permanently'
until you turn it off is because if you should happen to leave the
area where you turned it on 'permanently', how would ever it ever get
turned off again?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #620
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04986;
          6 Sep 90 2:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01274;
          6 Sep 90 0:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19893;
          5 Sep 90 23:52 CDT
Date:     Wed, 5 Sep 90 23:40:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #621
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Sep 90 23:40:23 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 621

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Info Wanted on RS232 Port Selectors [John Koontz]
    TDR Recommendations [Bill Darden]
    Unusual Connections [Steven King]
    Repeated Harrassing Calls [Rick Adams]
    Washington State Running Low [Ken Jongsma]
    800 and 900 Prefix Assignments [Ken Jongsma]
    Multi-Line Phones and Conferencing [Jack Winslade]
    Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story [Philadelphia Inquirer via G. Segal]
    Telecom Software [Sonny Shrivastava]
    Long Calls (was: Modems/Call Waiting) [Robert Savery]
    US West Tests CLASS [Ken Jongsma, from the Telecom Privacy List]
    Re: Call Detail Recording [David Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Koontz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Wanted on RS232 Port Selectors
Date: 4 Sep 90 22:54:27 GMT
Organization: V-Systems, Inc. -- Santa Ana, CA


Does anyone have any information on RS232 port selecters?

Basically, I have several dumb terminals that communicate to a host
(Unix system) via a multiplexor.  The mux is only eight channels, but
I'd like more than eight terminals.  Users should be able to log in on
a first-come, first-serve basis.

I do not have the option of adding more channels to the mux since the
computer has no space left for any more physical ports.

Thanks.


John Koontz, V-Systems, Inc.     [phone]
{attmail uunet}!vsi!john         [e-mail]

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

From: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Subject: TDR Recommendations
Date: 5 Sep 90 14:16:43 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Darden <[e-mail]>
Organization: Northrop Research & Technology Center, Palos Verdes, CA


I would greatly appreciate recommendations on Time Domain
Reflectometers (TDR's) that can be used for 10Base-T UTP, T Screened
(or High Capacity) Twisted Pair, Coax used for Ethers and Twisted Pair
for Token Rings.

Thanks,

BiLL

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Unusual Connections
Date: 5 Sep 90 15:31:33 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

>[...] once a week I would see a very large truck parked in the
>alley behind Orchestra Hall on Michigan Avenue. The truck was
>inscribed "Illinois Bell Telephone Co". A large cable coming out the
>stage door of Orchestra Hall ran into the back of this truck.  Then it
>came out of the truck, and down into a manhole nearby.

Not dissimilar to what many cellular operating companies do for large
sporting events, political rallies, and whatnot: Drive up in your
base-site-in-a-truck, park it next to the stadium with the antenna
pointing inward, and point the truck's microwave antenna back to the
switch.  A little extra capacity never hurts!


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 07:44:06 -0700
From: fico2![e-mail]
Subject: Repeated Harrassing Calls


I work part-time for a radio station in Santa Rosa, California, and
lately we've had problems with repeated harrassing calls.  Of course,
there are the usual crank calls: "Sonoma and Marin County are to be
evacuated due to a large toxic waste spill, announce it over the air
as soon as possible so everyone can get out while I play my guitar to
try to hold back the forces of darkness..."  But we're used to those.

We broadcast over a wide area using repeaters, so we have an 800
number for listeners to call in on so that they can easily reach us
from any area code.  Somebody's decided they're going to call that
number, around five times an hour, with a "hangup" call.  You know,
like, "Hello, may I help you?"  "Click."  He/she did that for eight
hours straight one day ... rather persistent, eh?  The calls are
usually grouped into pairs, one minute apart.  I logged them one day,
and they're irregularly spaced enough that I don't think an autodialer
is being used.

Sometimes this person gets REALLY dedicated and calls 50 times in an
hour.

I've heard complaints from people about automated salesdrone machines
that don't hang up when you hang up on them, and which can still be
heard wending their merry way through their sales pitch minutes later,
when you try to call out.  Can I do that, and will it work?  Can I
just lay the phone receiver back down on the counter and go back to
work, knowing that the next time bozobreath picks up the phone, he'll
hear nothing but the sounds of me slamming carts and scritching out
log entries?

I tried that last week, and the person DIDN'T CALL BACK, though that
may have just been coincidence.  I left the phone off the hook for
about ten minutes, then put it back on hook.  (We have three 800 lines
on a hunt group, and no lights went on, so I know he/she didn't try to
call in.)

Any suggestions?


Rick Adams            UUCP email: (work) ...!apple!fico2!rca
Delphi: RICKADAMS                 (home) ...!apple!fico2!ccentral!rickadams


[Moderator's Note: If you 'lay the phone down on the counter and go
back to work', you are going to be paying for an 800 call for however
long the phone lays there! Instead, try to reconcile your monthly ANI.
I assume you are getting a list of what calls you are paying for on
the 800 number. Log the times for the harrassing calls, then compare
your log to the ANI when it arrives. Look for repeated calls from the
same number within minutes, etc. That might catch the caller!   PAT]

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

Subject: Washington State Running Low
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 19:21:30 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


This week's issue of {Communications Week} as an interesting blurb
entitled "Area Codes Near Exhaustion." In addition to mentioning the
forthcoming 917 code assigned to New York City, they mention that US
West  "is studying the possibility of restructuring dialing patterns
so that additional prefixes become available." [in Washington state]

Good grief! Well, let's see. That could mean just about anything now,
couldn't it?


Ken Jongsma                [e-mail]
Smiths Industries          [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan     ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Subject: 800 and 900 Prefix Assignments
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 19:25:18 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Also from this week's {Communications Week}:

   As of July, 794 out of 999 CICs ("exchanges") have been assigned
   for 800 numbers to 141 carriers.

   286 CICs have been assigned for 900 numbers to 77 "providers."


Ken Jongsma              [e-mail]
Smiths Industries        [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan   ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Date: Tue, 04 Sep 90 21:16:03 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multi-Line Phones and Conferencing
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


I want to thank all who replied to my query about the conference
feature on the Panasonic phones.  Although the bottom line is
inconclusive, I'll summarize what I've received.

> ..the conf feature is a JOKE!! Especially on speaker. Nobody can
> hear anybody without shouting. The speakerphone sounds like calls
> are coming from Mars!

> The Panasonic KXT-3170 does NOT have amplification between the
> lines while in a conference call.  I have one. I am not all that
> happy with it.  Most people hate the way that I sound on the
> Speakerphone, and this thing causes ***SEVERE*** interference(sp)
> to my short-wave radio !!!  I wish that I could get my hands on a
> KXY-3160.  Had one before ... it was great.  Do you know of any
> speakerphone with two or more lines that provides amplification ...

> It's not too bad with all three lines going, so I'd say that it's
> at least amplified.

This weekend, I looked around at all types of phones with the 'con-
ference' feature.  Not one manual, and not one salesperson could
answer my question.  Manuals were >>VERY<< vague.  Some sales droids
were overwhelmed when I used the term 'conference', let alone such
terms as 'bridge' and 'amplified'.  :-(

Having been involved with the hardware end of such things, I know that
doing such things as bridging, amplifying, 2w<->4w, etc. from the
subscriber end of the loop is about as close to a black art as you can
get in the field of telephony.  I am wondering if some of the new
wonder-widget-hi-tech phones are able to provide 'real' conference
calling or if they fake it by simply connecting one line to another to
another.  I can see that it might be possible to design a phone which
could compensate for the variations in line characteristics and do a
fair job of overcoming the losses between the far ends, but I saw
phones with the 'conference' feature that were priced as low as $69 or
so.  I seriously doubt that they do much more in conferencing than the
old trick of removing the 'cat' sliders in the key phones to allow
more than one line key to be pressed at once.  (Seriously, they must
at least block the DC with capacitors or a cheap 1:1 transformer.  Or
do they ??? ;-)

If anyone out there knows of multi-line phones that do a 'real'
conference, I'd appreciate knowing about it.  Thanks.

Good Day!         JSW

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4
[1:285/666@fidonet] CP/M, the virus-proof OS, Omaha  --
 --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
[e-mail]

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story
Date: 5 Sep 90 04:07:54 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


Reprinted from {The Philadelphia Inquirer}, Tuesday, September 4, 1990

"The Scene, In the Nation and the World" (News blips from allover).

"Directory Unassistance"

They'll be talking about Irnaless Stohrs in Portland, Ore., for some
time to come.

Her story combines all the elements of a true saga: an underdog
(Irnalee), a cold unfeeling bureaurcacy (Portland's county court
system); a provocateur (a local newspaper columnist) and hudreds, if
not thousands, of sympathetic telephone callers (you, the teeming
masses).

Our story begins in 1959, when Irnalee got her telephone number.

Several months ago, however, someone ordered new offical summonses for
the county court system and put Irnalee's 31-year-old telephone number
on it, right next to the words, "For more information".

"The phone started ringing of the hook," Irnaleee recalled.  Nearly
everybody wanted to speak to somebody in the courthouse.

When Irnalee called to complain, an operator gave her the run-around,
refusing to even connect Irnalee to any officals.

Irnalee continued to answer the phone each time it rang because she
never knew whether it would be a friend or someone from her church.

In desperation, she called Margie Boule, a columnist for the Sunday
Oregonian.  The columnist got nowhere with the county bureaucracy
either.

But Boule wrote about Irnalee's plight in her August 26 column.
"Let's all pick up our phones Monday morning and call the correct
number...  Only when they answer, let's ask for Irnalee Stohrs."

A nationwide computer file, called TELECOM Digest, put the story out,
motivating hundreds of computer hackers from across the nation to do
their part, too.

Well, as you can imagine, by 8:30 Monday morning the calls were so
heavy that the juvenile court's phone system quickly broke down.

The chief judge sent Irnalee an apology.  They're going to print new
summonses, and Irnalee got a temporary number until she can get her
old number back.

"I'm as happy as can be," Irnalee said.


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: Sonny Shrivastava <lever!f444.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Sonny.Shrivastava>
Subject: Telecom Software
Date: 2 Sep 90 02:33:12 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:161/444 - BMUG, Berkeley CA


I just bought Microphone II 3.0 for my new Hayes Ultra 96 modem.  The
software is good, but I find the screen response to be VERY slow (I
have a IIci).  I often find myself typing ahead of the display.

I used ZTERM, and like its screen response, but I don't like the way
the software works - not as nice and clean like Microphone II.  I
heard some stuff on Smartcom II, but it doesn't have ZMODEM protocol.

Could I get suggestions from anyone on which telecommunications
program is good, both in terms of quick screen response and
functionality?  What have your experiences been with various telecom
software?  Thanks!


Sonny Shrivastava - via FidoNet node 1:125/777
    UUCP: ...!uunet!hoptoad!fidogate!161!444!Sonny.Shrivastava
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 04 Sep 90 21:14:19 EDT
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Calls (was: Modems/Call Waiting)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <31 Aug 90 14:32:06>, David Lesher (1:30102/2) writes:

DL>{can you time up a dial-up line all month?}

DL>|Are they, the phone company(s), allowed to do this?  I've never heard
DL>|of a maximum period of time for a phone call.  I consulted my phone
DL>|book, and the term it uses is untimed.

DL>An alarm distributor once told me that Sonitrol {sp} tried this. They
DL>offered an alarm system that triggered on loud noises inside the
DL>buildings at night. Then the alarm office could listen, mike by mike,
DL>to hear if it was an intruder, or a burping furnace.

DL>To do they, they used standard dialup lines, and kept them open all
DL>night, or all weekend. Ma took them up the court ladder, and won. I
DL>suspect the tariffs have some catchall phrase about "abnormal use" or
DL>such.

Someone should tell Ma Bell about the hundreds of dial up lines the
Postal Service is using for their data collection system.

With the exception of equipment failures, many of these have been
running for years.

Last year I tested the installation of 15 sites that are reporting
back to the main office by way of ordinary dial up lines, 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year.

Of course, Ma Bell might not want to get U.S.P.S. too mad at them.
Imagine what would happen if phone bills started showing up late. ;-)


Bob

 --- msged 1.99S ZTC
[1:285/666.5@fidonet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne.

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

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

Subject: US West Tests CLASS
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 19:32:38 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: Copied from the new "Telecom Privacy" list, with
permission of the Moderator there, Dennis Rears.  PAT]

 From this week's {Communications Week}:

US West Communications Group introduced CLASS to small business
customers in Omaha, NE last week, kicking off a 5 month marketing
trial ... US West is aiming the services, which include Caller ID,
caller ID block, [...] at small business customers, will will provide
them to other business or residential customers if they request them.
Customers will pay between $3 and $8 a month for each service.

[...]The caller ID service in Omaha will provide numbers only [US West
has tested Name and Number] and blocking will be free of charge.


Ken Jongsma                   [e-mail]
Smiths Industries             [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan        ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 18:32:16 CDT


In volume 10, issue 617, John Higdon wrote:

| Should I have a sign in my living room that says, "All
| numbers dialed on this phone are recorded"?

If you do, you'll have to word it differently.  I'd say more than 75%
of the population would read that and think their *conversations* were
being recorded.  Better to say, "All telephone numbers dialed from
this phone are logged."  Note the changes of preposition and verb.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #621
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05957;
          6 Sep 90 3:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25769;
          6 Sep 90 2:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01274;
          6 Sep 90 0:58 CDT
Date:     Thu, 6 Sep 90 0:41:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #622
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Sep 90 00:41:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 622

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Sam Drake]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Call Detail Recording [Mark Kallas]
    Re: Call Detail Recording [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market [John Opalko]
    Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [A. J.  Annala]
    Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls [Art Gentry]
    Re: PBX Blocking of 10XXX Calls [David Tamkin]
    Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1 [Adam J. Ashby]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Tom Ohmer]
    Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [P. Knoppers]
    Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [John Nagle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: ibmarc!rufus![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 5 Sep 90 07:27:04 GMT
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center


We got a call from a US Sprint salesperson about 3.5 weeks ago, asking
us to switch (from MCI) to Sprint.  We asked them to "put it in
writing", and were told we'd get something in the mail.  So far,
nothing.  Has ANYONE got it in writing?  Anywhere?


Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center
Internet:  [e-mail]            BITNET:  DRAKE at ALMADEN
Usenet:    ...!uunet!ibmarc!drake   Phone:   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Sam, that was a television advertisement, not
reality. They did not *really* expect anyone to ask for it in writing,
let alone insist on it.  In fairness to Sprint however, telcos do not
like writing letters. Never have; never will.  PAT]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 5 Sep 90 19:34:48 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

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

>>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.

>I've heard that the way Sprint works is that if you are a frequent
>user, Sprint will bill you directly, but if you're an infrequent user,
>they will bill you through your local phone company.

    I think that it very likely depends on the local telco. I have
been a Sprint customer since 1982, and I have always been billed by
Sprint, even during months when the bill said "$0.00", which in my
case was not uncommon for a few years. Moreover, I haven't heard of
anyone else up here being billed for their Sprint accounts through
USWest (for about one year of my Sprint-customer-hood, my local telco
was General Tel of Indiana; for two other years, it was GTE Northwest.
Otherwise PNB/USWest.)

    Neither would I be surprised if it were just that the Sprint
billing department handles different accounts different ways, for no
compelling reason. That would be consistent with my experience with
Sprint.

>So, at least, my experience agrees with what I've heard.  I'm sure
>that if I was really interested in knowing, I could call up Sprint and
>ask them.

    Obviously you've never called Sprint to ask them anything
else.  (Read the other recent postings on this subject, which are
corroborated by my experience.)

>  I don't like the phone company acting as a bill collector
>myself, but Sprint hasn't tried to rip me off yet, so I am not
>terribly concerned, yet.

    Good luck. Long time Sprint customers will remember the class
action suit that was required to get Sprint to stop billing us for
busy signals and no-answers.

(Before I hear from the I-love-Sprint / I-work-for-Sprint /
Sprint-would-never-do-me-wrong crowd, just let me say that I stay with
Sprint because I like the idea of being able to call across the
continent and have it sound like I'm just across town. When AT&T can
claim an all-digital network, maybe I'll switch back.)


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

From: mark kallas <texbell!letni!digi!digi.lonestar.org![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording
Date: 5 Sep 90 10:30:06 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications, Plano Tx.


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

(some stuff deleted)

>Well, what about it? Does anyone have the right to know what numbers are
>dialed on his phone (including local)?  What about big companies who run
>SMDR, and a guest uses the phone in the lobby -- leaving a trail of his
>calling card and what have you on the SMDR?

The company supplying the service is responsible for paying for the
call.  They will get an itemized bill from the phone company for toll
call. It seems clear to me that the provider has a right know who is
dialing which numbers and how long the call was active.

Many businesses ask employees to pay for non-business calls if they
are billed for them. I also remember something about billable
non-business calls on a business phone are actually a benefit which
could be taxed by the IRS.

So yes, the company supplying the service has the need to know how the
phone system is being used. They are financially and legally
responsible.


Mark Kallas

UUCP    : texsun!digi!mkallas
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording
Date: 5 Sep 90 09:53:37 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


If you use the # (call it what you may) key at the end of your dialed
phone number it will often but not always tell the 'system' there are
no more dialed numbers. This certainly speeds international DDD, where
there is an unknown number of digits to expect. The # generally also
knocks off tone to pulse converters if they are present, and some SMDR
units will stop capturing, too. You will probably find situations
where adding the # will mess up your dialing, but it is worth a try if
you are paranoid.

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

From: "John Opalko, N7KBT" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market
Date: 5 Sep 90 02:34:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich
Kulawiec) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 615, Message 2 of 9

[ Description of the Tess device for screening incoming calls. ]

Sounds like the old American Bell "Telstar".  I've got two of 'em.

Not a new idea at all, I'm afraid...


John Opalko
[e-mail]

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

From: A J Annala <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying
Date: 2 Sep 90 07:15:02 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


The right of employee privacy in telephone conversations on employer
owned equipment was settled a few years ago in a suit brought against
one of the major air carriers.  My recollection is vague, but I seem
to remember an air carrier tried to dismiss a reservations employee
for some kind of union organizing activity.  The dismissal was based
on surrepticious monitoring of an employee telephone conversation.
The court ordered the employee reinstated ... with probable damages.

Email is a bity more complicated.  My gut reaction is that there is a
reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the employee in the
absence of any official notice that email will be monitored.  I also
suspect outside individuals will have some right of action in the
event their communications are intercepted.  Frankly, I believe all
email should be encrypted and not made available in any form to an
employer without probable cause to believe a crime is committed.


AJ Annala

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

From: Art Gentry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls
Date: 30 Aug 90 19:33:35 GMT
Reply-To: Art Gentry <[e-mail]>
Organization: Gentry and Associates


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard
B. August) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 606, Message 8 of 9

>Is there information available in the Archives or other repository
>which mentions a movement of cellular telephone users to lobby the PUC
>regarding the charging for "AIR TIME" in cellular systems?

I am assuming from your Subject: line that you are speaking about
charges for air-time on an unanswered or busy call.  My cellular
company does NOT charge for uncompleted calls.  My air-time charges
start at answer super- vision time, not at call placement time.  The
same applies for incoming calls, I am not charged for calls that I
don't answer.  Just FYI, my supplier is Cellular One.


R. Arthur Gentry  Gentry and Associates  Excelsior Springs, MO   64024
   Email: [e-mail]          ATTMail: attmail!kc4rtm!gentry
   The UNIX BBS: 816-221-0475        The Bedroom BBS: 816-637-4183
                   $include {std_disclaimer.h}

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: PBX Blocking of 10XXX Calls
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 22:08:01 CDT


It surely is frustrating when someone who has to read email and
netnews on his own time finds, in a single session's reading, that a
subject newly reaching his attention (or having just reached his
attention a day or two before without a chance to respond yet) has
already generated so much reply traffic that Pat has proclaimed it
closed.

Very briefly, one thing about the problem that a PBX wouldn't allow
10XXX dialing to override the MCI default on an international call
that MCI couldn't handle in the first place: if AT&T had an 800
dial-up number available for placing outgoing calls (instead of
holding dearly to their belief that they are THE long-distance company
and that use of AT&T should be automatic, with use if the competition
requiring extra work), the matter would be strictly theoretical.  The
employee who found that the PBX blocked 102880 would still have a way
to reach an AT&T operator.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]

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

From: "Adam J. Ashby" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help with Call Blocking on a Meridian SL-1
Date: 5 Sep 90 13:49:02 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
writes:

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

>> One problem that I have is that I would also like the SL-1 to
>> inform the front desk area when 911 has been dialled.

>The PC (that I assume is) monitoring the SMDR port might be able to
>also notice 911 calls and give special notice of any desired sort, but
>it would be after the call is completed and logged. Still it would

When I worked at BNR (R&D for Northern Telecom) I tested the Emergency
Calling Feature on the DMS-250 and Centrex switches for Mercury (UK).
As far as I can remember, there was a log output plus optional MMI
Alarm whenever the emergency code (999 or whatever you programmed) was
dialled, thus giving immediate notification of an emergency call.  Of
course, whether or not this feature is the same for the North American
market and the SL-1 I cannot tell you.


Adam Ashby            | Most, if not all of the above
([phone] - work time    |  came from my mind...and not
([phone] - play time    |   even I have control over
 ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya    |      that. - madA 1990

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

From: Tom Ohmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 5 Sep 90 17:23:39 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Mitch
Wagner):

< In article <[e-mail]> Randal Schwartz <merlyn@iwarp.
< intel.com> writes:

< # If I'm a thief, I now know you probably aren't home, so I can
< # look up your address in the book, and rob you.

< VERY good point. I am changing my answering-machine message forthwith.

I did this, just the other day.  I NEVER pick up my phone when it
rings.  At home, that is.  My outgoing message used to be:

"Hello, you have reached 239-9519.  I'm either screening my calls, or
I just can't come to the phone right now.  After you hear the tone,
please leave your name, day and time of your call, and a message.  You
will have about 30 seconds.  Thank you."

Now it is:

"Hello, you have reached Tom at 9519 in Columbus.  When trying to get
me to answer your call if I am able, or when leaving a message,
include your name, as voices are not easy to identify on the answering
machine speaker.  Also, include the day and time.  Thank you."

I realize that you don't have to be a rocket scientist to spend a
little time and figure out what my full number is.  I'm just not
handing it out anymore.  Any comp.dcom.telecom.outgoing.message.gurus
care to improve on this?

Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center,
            DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH  43216-5002
UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer   INTERNET: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]   AutoVoN: 850-8059   Disclaimer claimed


[Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point
announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience,
this line is answered at all times by an answering machine. You will
never reach anyone direct at this number. At the tone, leave your
name, telephone number, a brief message and the time of day that you
called. If it is convenient for me, and I wish to do so, I will return
your call." Nothing left to the imagination, is there!  Another
machine here in Chicago I've called comes right to the point. It
answers, "You know what this is, what it is used for, and what to do
next." (Beep)   PAT]

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

From: "P. Knoppers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe
Date: 5 Sep 90 11:13:30 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Knoppers <[e-mail]>
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dep. of Electrotechnical
 Engineering.


>Toll-free numbers provide a convenient and cost-effective method for
>businesses to stay in touch with customers.  The drawback, however, is
>they are inaccessible to anyone who happens not to be in the targeted
>market area*.

[The remainder of the article suggested that this might not be true]

Well, it is true from the Netherlands. It is not possible to reach 800
numbers from this country. Apparently they are blocked in the
international exchanges of PTT telecom, the Dutch phone monopoly
holder.

American visitors having an AT&T phone card can probably reach 800
numbers through AT&Ts USA-direct service (I may have this name wrong),
which has a toll-free number in the Netherlands.

I believe that the toll-free numbers in this country can not be
reached from abroad, so the "problem" is symmetric.


P. Knoppers, Delft Univ. of Technology, The Netherlands, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 22:40:00 pdt
From: John Nagle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff!
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


      I suspect that such a service would be legal in the U.S.  The
difference between that and the lines run by some televangelists is
slight.


John Nagle


[Moderator's Note: I really don't think I could start a 900 line and
purport to be Goddess, without having the Federal Bureau of
Inquisition breathing down my neck; freedom of religion and speech not
withstanding. I know I'm simply divine :), but I don't think it would
fly here either. I could offer prayers to Goddess; interpret and
explain Her wishes; deny Her existence, i.e. "Dial The Athiest" in
Austin, TX; but I don't think I could claim to be Goddess without
running afoul of the law.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #622
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29905;
          7 Sep 90 2:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22174;
          7 Sep 90 1:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14249;
          7 Sep 90 0:06 CDT
Date:     Thu, 6 Sep 90 23:09:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #623
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Sep 90 23:08:53 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 623

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    SWB Files Application For CCO Tarriff in Texas [Jeff Hayward]
    What Kind of Switch is This? [Dave Levenson]
    Info Needed on Submarine Cables [Jeremy M. Harmer]
    Polywater A - Have You Heard of It? [Robert Kelley]
    Nevada Requires Free Caller ID Blocking [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Alain Fontaine]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [David J. Birnbaum]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Cliff Frost]
    Re: Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable [John Higdon]
    Re: Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable [George Merriman]
    Re: Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Roger Cornelius]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Hayward <[e-mail]>
Subject: SWB Files Application For CCO Tarriff in Texas
Date: 6 Sep 90 18:28:24 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Hayward <[e-mail]>
Organization: The University of Texas


 From the September 6, 1990 {Austin American-Statesman}:

                            PUBLIC NOTICE

Southwestern Bell Telephone Company has filed an application with the
Texas Public Utility Commission to introduce new optional services -
Call Control Options.

Call Control Options include six new services - Call Blocker, Call
Cue, Call Return, Priority Call, Call Trace and Selective Call
Forwarding.  The Features will be available to single-line residence
and business customers.

CALL BLOCKER - enables the customer to block incoming calls from a
maximum of three specified telephone numbers and/or to block the last
incoming call.

CALL CUE - enables the customer to automatically redial the last
outgoing telephone number dialed.  If the recalled number is busy,
equipment will monitor the line for a maximum of 30 minutes and will
let the customer know when the call can go through.

CALL RETURN - enables the customer to automatically redial the
telephone number of the most recent incoming call.  If the number is
busy, Call Return will continue to dial the number for up to 30
minutes, or until it completes the call.

PRIORITY CALL - provides the customer with a distinctive alerting
signal, ring, or Call Waiting Tone (if the customer has subscribed to
Call Waiting), when the customer is called from a maximum of three
preselected telephone numbers.*

CALL TRACE - enables the customer to initiate a trace of the last
incoming call received.  The number, date and time will be recorded by
Southwestern Bell Telephone so that the call's origin can be
identified.

SELECTIVE CALL FORWARDING - enables the customer to forward incoming
calls from specified telephone numbers (maximum of three) to another
telephone number.

                       Proposed Rates (monthly)

                          Residence              Business
                     individual packaged    individual packaged

        Call Blocker   $3.00   $3.00           $3.00   $2.00
        Call Return     3.00    3.00            4.00    3.50
        Priority Call   2.50    1.00            3.00    2.00
        Call Cue        2.00    2.00            4.00    3.50
        Selective Call
         Forwarding     2.00    1.00            2.65    1.00
        Call Trace**    1.00    1.00            1.00    1.00

Installation charges for residence customers will be $2.70 per
feature, with a maximum installation charge of $5.40 per request per
line.  Installation charges for business customers will be $5.40 per
feature, with a maximum installation charge of $10.75 per request per
line.

The proposed effective date for Call Control Options is October 7,
1990.  These services, however, will not be available to all customers
in all areas.  Customers should contact the Business Office for more
information on the availability of these services in their area.

Call Control Options are projected to generate first-year annual
revenues of $1,900,000.

Persons who wish to comment on this application should notify the
commission by September 27, 1990.  Requests for further information
should be mailed to the Public Utility Commission of Texas, 7800 Shoal
Creek Boulevard, Suite 400N, Austin, Texas 78757, or you may call the
Public Utility Commission Public Information Office at [phone]
or [phone] teletypewriter for the deaf.

* Some telephone equipment may not be compatible with the Priority
Call Service.

** In addition to the $1.00 monthly rate, Call Trace will cost $8.00
per use.


Jeff Hayward                [e-mail]
The University of Texas System        [phone]
Office of Telecommunication Services

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Kind of Switch is This?
Date: 6 Sep 90 12:25:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


A customer has a loop-start CO line (it happens to be the first in a
small hunt-group) where outgoing service is normal.  On incoming
calls, the caller hears the ringback tone, but no ringing voltage at
all is delivered to the line.  Listening with a butt set (in monitor
mode) when an incoming call is attempted, one hears absolutely nothing
 ... no clicks, no tones, and no ring power.  But switch to talk mode,
and you answer the incoming call and can converse with the caller.  If
the first line is in use, calls hunt to other members of the group,
and those lines ring normally.  I wonder if the CO is administered
with none of the possible ringing options selected?  (No, it's not tip
party, it's not ring party, it's not bridged ringing, etc.  None of
the above?  Don't ring at all!)

The CO is probably a digital time-division switch of some kind, as
there are no audible clicks or loop current interruptions when calling
out.  The access code is 516-234.  The customer's site is in Central
Islip, New York (which is on Long Island).

Has anybody ever heard of this failure mode?  Does anybody know the
type of CO used by New York Telephone in those parts?

The telco has promised to have somebody out today to look at the
problem.  I suggested to the repair bureau agent that they ought to
look at the CO first, as the loop works normally for outgoing service,
but what do _I_ know about 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

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

Date: Thu, 06 Sep 90 16:52:59 BST
From: "Jeremy M. Harmer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on Submarine Cables


Can anyone tell me how I can find out the routes of all the submarine
cables in the world (yes, I actually need it :-) )...

Back on the subject of the '#' on keypads, an employee of British
Telecom when giving a lecture on the use of a new phone system
referred to this as "the GATE symbol"...!

Thanks.

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

From: Robert Kelley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Polywater A - Have You Heard of It?
Date: 6 Sep 90 17:59:10 GMT
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Beaverton, OR


I recently heard of a product called "Polywater A".  It's a slimy
liquid used as a cable lubricant in the telecom industry, among other
things.  What is it made of?

This is not to be confused with the bogus discovery of a supposed
water polymer, years ago.


Robert Kelley
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 13:58:41 -0400
From: Bruce Klopfenstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nevada Requires Free Caller ID Blocking


The Nevada Public Service Commission approved Caller ID with two free
blocking functions: per line blocking and per call blocking.  The
Commission said that protecting the privacy of residential customers
was key to its decision.  Centel wanted only free per-call blocking.
Call Trace is cited as helping to reduce the future number of
annoying, harassing, obscene, and threatening phone calls.

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

Date: Thu, 06 Sep 90 09:28:03 +0200
From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!


>[Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was
>doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing
>organization. If the latter, you really should not take it out on the
>Sierra Club until you are sure they are aware of, and approve of the
>techniques being used. The organization may have not known how
>obnoxious their agents were on the phone.   PAT]

Are you sure ? Would not punishing those who use the services of
telemarketers by boycotting them be The Best Way to finally apply some
pressure to the brakes ????  /AF


[Moderator's Note: In a strictly commercial application, I would agree
with you completely. In the case of the Sierra Club, I'd prefer to
give them the benefit of the doubt at least the first time. I think
their good generally outweighs the bad associated with the
telemarketing program. Call it my blind spot if you wish.   PAT]

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

From: David J Birnbaum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful
Date: 6 Sep 90 12:02:01 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services


In response to a complaint about abusive behavior by telemarketers
working for the Sierra Club, our Moderator commented:

>[Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was
>doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing
>organization. If the latter, you really should not take it out on the
>Sierra Club until you are sure they are aware of, and approve of the
>techniques being used. The organization may have not known how
>obnoxious their agents were on the phone.   PAT]

With all due respect, it is the responsibility of the Sierra Club, or
anyone else who farms out their telemarketing, to monitor performance
and techniques.  If the Sierra Club is going to hire someone to call
their members, the Sierra Club has a duty to guarantee that those
members will not be bothered by unethical behavior by these Sierra
Club agents.  They should care about such matters as much as they care
about raising money through telemarketing.  And they have an
affirmative duty to know about and disapprove of the techniques in
question.

I don't belong to the Sierra Club, have never received a telephone
solicitation from them, and don't mean to single them out.  No company
that hires telemarketers should be excused for those telemarketers'
unethical behavior because the company "may not have known."


David

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

From: [e-mail] (Cliff Frost)
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Cliff Frost)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 18:09:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, boulder!boulder![e-mail]
(Robert Kinne) writes:

|> The callers have refused our request to take our name off the targeted
|> list for their solicitations.

|> [Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was
|> doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing
|> organization.

I think the Moderator is right.  You should let the Sierra Club know
how bad these clowns were.

My cousin worked for a telemarketing group for a couple of weeks until
she realized the slime was so thick she had to get out.  Apparently in
California these organizations are required by law to turn over a
whopping 10% of their take to the non-profit they are working for, and
she doubts that compliance with this law is total.

Where my cousin worked some of the best callers were drug addicts who
were motivated to sound convincing on the phone and couldn't work any
job where they had to regularly show up.  They would come in and work
until their commission was high enough to satisfy whatever needs they
had at the moment.  They might say just about anything.

My policy is to never, ever, give money in response to a phone
solicitation.  When I like a group I donate directly, so 100% goes to
the group.

My sister, on the other hand, has worked extensively in non-profits
and sees these folks as necessary evils.  Even with only a 10% cut
they do better than skeleton crews of volunteers.  So, I think the
best thing to do about these obnoxious marketeers is to let the
non-profit know what they're doing.  Then the non-profit will hire a
different outfit -- apply market pressure without hurting the
non-profit.


    Cliff Frost
    Central Computing Services
    UC Berkeley

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable
Date: 6 Sep 90 14:02:21 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jay Libove        [e-mail] writes:

> [complaint about data/voice crosstalk]
> Do I have any legal right to make the phone company come in and
> correct a situation that they caused?

They caused? If you are using standard red/green/yellow/black
non-twisted pair IW then it is your problem. If they come in and fix
it they have every right to charge YOU time and materials. Telco is
not responsible for your interior wiring and they are not responsible
for determining if your wiring is suitable for your intended use.

I would be almost willing to guarantee that the crosstalk is not
occurring outside of your premesis. Frankly, if you don't know what
you are doing, then you should consider having someone come in and
help you. It will be cheaper than having telco do it.


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

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

From: George Merriman -- CCA/NY <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable
Date: 6 Sep 90 18:47:22 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay
Libove) writes:

> Well, I have two phone lines - one voice, one data - on a four wire
> typical phone line, and I experience crosstalk that I believe might
> actually occasionally interfere with my data communications. . .

The standard TELCO four-wire cable known around here as "quad" (I've
also known it as JKT) does NOT consist of two twisted pairs. I don't
think the standard four-wire outside drop wire (black rubbery sheath
with Copperweld conductors) does either.

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

From: Roger Cornelius <sherpa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable
Date: 6 Sep 90 20:27:43 GMT
Organization: Personal System Computing,  St. Petersburg, FL


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Jay Libove):

> Well, I have two phone lines - one voice, one data - on a four wire
> typical phone line, and I experience crosstalk that I believe might
> actually occasionally interfere with my data communications, and is
> always annoying (to both parties) on the voice line.

> Do I have any legal right to make the phone company come in and
> correct a situation that they caused? They knew before doing the
> second line "installation" (just plug in a two-jack plate and split
> the wires, $75, on top of $40 'line charge' !!!) that the line was to
> be used for data communication.

When I had my second line installed, I specifically requested a
completely separate line coming off the pole because I had heard of
problems like the above.  The phone company didn't seem to mind, and
there was no additional charge either.  Some months later, someone
pointed out that once my two lines connect to the pole, they're
connected back to a single line -- with everyone else's in the
neighborhood to boot.  Makes sense to me, but then I know next to
nothing about phone systems.

I've never had a problem with crosstalk on either line, but that may
only be coincidence.  Does having the separate line really make a
difference?


Roger A. Cornelius          [e-mail]         uunet!sherpa!rac

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #623
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00488;
          7 Sep 90 3:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22174;
          7 Sep 90 1:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14249;
          7 Sep 90 0:07 CDT
Date:     Thu, 6 Sep 90 23:48:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #624
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Sep 90 23:47:45 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 624

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story [Steven King]
    Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Sean Malloy]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages ["Hollywood" via Ed Horch]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Brian S. Oplinger]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Mitch Wagner]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Stan Brown]
    Re: Washington State Running Low [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: More Follow Me Roaming [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls [Peter M. Weiss]
    Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [David Schanen]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [John Macdonald]
    Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [Henry Mensch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story
Date: 6 Sep 90 13:48:02 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] (Gary
Segal) forwards a newspaper article:

>A nationwide computer file, called TELECOM Digest, put the story out,
>motivating hundreds of computer hackers from across the nation to do
>their part, too.

>Well, as you can imagine, by 8:30 Monday morning the calls were so
>heavy that the juvenile court's phone system quickly broke down.

Oh oh!  Now we've done it!  We've gotta be on somebody's list as a
bunch of dangerous hackers, able to take down a court's phone system
on a whim.  And since this was arranged over a computer -- worse, over
a computer NETWORK -- we're probably a grave threat to the national
security.

Let us know when the Secret Service gets there, Pat.  I wonder if they
can confiscate the entire Internet?  1/4 :-)


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

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

Subject: Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story
From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: 6 Sep 90 13:04:00 CDT (Thu)


> A nationwide computer file, called TELECOM Digest, put the story out,
> motivating hundreds of computer hackers from across the nation to do
> their part, too.

What do you suppose he means by that? Which version of "hacker" was he
thinking of when he wrote that? Which version will the readers of his
column think of? Will Tailgunner Joe pick it up?


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Who is this Tailgunner Joe person? I've seen a
couple messages about him in news.admin but haven't paid attention.
Will someone please explain it further?   PAT]

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

From: Sean Malloy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 6 Sep 90 15:00:00 GMT
Reply-To: Sean Malloy <[e-mail]>
Organization: Navy Personnel R&D Center, San Diego


>[Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point
>announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience,
>this line is answered at all times by an answering machine. You will
>never reach anyone direct at this number. At the tone, leave your
>name, telephone number, a brief message and the time of day that you
>called. If it is convenient for me, and I wish to do so, I will return
>your call." Nothing left to the imagination, is there!  Another
>machine here in Chicago I've called comes right to the point. It
>answers, "You know what this is, what it is used for, and what to do
>next." (Beep)   PAT]

I fell in love with an answering machine message from a recent 'Shoe'
comic strip, and adapted it for my machine. It's arrogant, it's
honest, and since putting it on my answering machine, the number of
telephone solicitations has dropped off almost completely (one call in
two months, when the previous rate was two or three every week):
"Hello. You've reached Sean Malloy and Richard Campbell. We can't come
to the phone right now, because we're listening intently to this
machine to decide whether you're someone we want to talk with.  So, at
the beep, start talking. If we want to talk to you, we'll probably
come on the line with some lame excuse, such as 'I was just on my way
out the door when the phone rang.' If you get all the way through your
message, and we don't pick up, it's because we don't want to talk to
you."


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


[Moderator's Note: Actually, I reprinted that Shoe cartoon here
several months ago, but it is worth a repeat. Thanks for sending it
in!  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 9:52:08 EDT
From: Ed Horch <[e-mail]>


 From Charles Bukowski's _Hollywood_:

    I decided to phone Francois Racine to see how he was doing.
    I got his answering machine:
    "Do not speak to me.  Speak to this machine.  I am nowhere
    and you are also nowhere.  Death comes with his little hands
    to grip us.  I do not wish to speak.  Speak to this machine."
    The beep sounded.

-Ed

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

From: "B. S. Oplinger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 6 Sep 90 12:17:25 GMT
Reply-To: "B. S. Oplinger" <[e-mail]>
Organization: General Electric Corp. R&D, Schenectady, NY


>[Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point
>announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience,

I rather like my friend's: 'Eric not home. Leave message.'


brian
[e-mail]

<#include standard.disclaimer>

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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 6 Sep 90 20:34:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


In article <[e-mail]> nam2254%dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil@
dsac.dla.mil (Tom Ohmer) writes:

# [Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point
# announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience,
# this line is answered at all times by an answering machine. You will
# never reach anyone direct at this number. At the tone, leave your
# name, telephone number, a brief message and the time of day that you
# called. If it is convenient for me, and I wish to do so, I will return
# your call." Nothing left to the imagination, is there!

This is called "surrendering to the criminals." My friends may have to
get a tape message when the call me -- at least they can have a
friendly, cheerful tape message.

# Another machine here in Chicago I've called comes right to the point. It
# answers, "You know what this is, what it is used for, and what to do
# next." (Beep)   PAT]

I used to have one that said, "Hi, you know who I am, what this is,
what it's used for, what to do, what to put in it, when to do it, and
why.  So do it. Bye."


Mitch Wagner

VOICE: 516/562-5758                                   GEnie: UNIX-TODAY
UUCP: [e-mail]                          ...uunet!utoday!wagner

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

Date: 6 Sep 90 11:30:00 EDT
From: "BROWN, STAN" <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages


>[Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point
>announcement: "This is a recorded announcement. For your convenience,
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Arrgh!  This sort of thing really ticks me off -- being INconvenienced
is bad enough, but told that it's for my convenience goes beyond the
pale!  Why not be honest and say "For MY convenience"!  Otherwise, I
like this message.

Thank you, I feel better now!

Just for the record -- I am _not_ against answering machines.  All I
am saying is, don't pretend that it's for someone else's convenience.


Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.  [phone]
The opinions expressed are mine. Mine alone!  Nobody else is
responsible for them or even endorses them -- except my cat Dexter,
and he signed the power of attorney only under my threat to cut off
his Cat Chow!

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State Running Low
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 06:05:48 GMT


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

| This week's issue of {Communications Week} as an interesting blurb
| entitled "Area Codes Near Exhaustion." In addition to mentioning the
| forthcoming 917 code assigned to New York City, they mention that US
| West  "is studying the possibility of restructuring dialing patterns
| so that additional prefixes become available." [in Washington state]

| Good grief! Well, let's see. That could mean just about anything now,
| couldn't it?

Oh, it's probably pretty simple.  We use 1+ to indicate long distance
around here (assuming our neighbors up north use the same phone
calling scheme as we do).  It'd probably just be a transition to using
1+ to indicate an area code instead.

[small segue now that I have your attention...]

But for those of you that have already made that transition, how does
that work on toll-restricting phones, like PBXs that block long
distance calls?  I mean, right now, I know that if I dial 635-nnnn
(Lake Oswego) from here, I get an intercept, because it's long
distance, so I have to redial 1-635-nnnn to get through.  It makes me
think twice.  I cannot imagine just picking up the phone, and dialing
some random unfamiliar seven-digit number, and having to pay long
distance charges on it instead just because I didn't know.  (My 1-
calls are *much* shorter than my free local calls, and I like the
added warning that the 1- provides.)

Actually, let me guess.  Are we one of the last few areas that still
has free local calls?  (If that sounds weird to you, *not* having free
local calls sounds weird to me. :-) Has the rest of the world gone to
these "message units" that I keep hearing y'all squawk about?

Enough digression.  I'm presuming that's what they were talking
about...  transitioning the 1+ from "long-distance" flag to
"area-code" flag, and thus freeing up [2-9][01][0-9] for local
exchange codes.

Just another local phone caller,


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

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

Date: 6-SEP-1990 04:37:02.36
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Follow Me Roaming


Pat-

I'm not sure about cell service in the Chicago area, but one can
always dial *19 to cancel FMR from *ANY* FMR system.

Thus, if I were to activate FMR in Boston, and then drive to
Philadelphia, upon arriving in Phil. I could dial *19 and cancel it if
I chose, or *17 ('my' version of semi-permanent Follow Me Roaming) or
*18 to establish FMR in the Philadelphia system. A "*17" system should
work EXACTLY like *18, except that it does not cancel out at 12AM.
Otherwise, it is the same, and can be superseded by another "*17", a
*18, or a *19 command while away from your Home system.

Alternately, back in my home/GTE San Francisco system, I dial *720
(cancel call forwarding, *73 for most other systems), which also
cancels it. (Although *19 seems to work in my home system as well...).

The only way (at least that I can see) in which dialing "*17" can get
you stuck so that you can't deactivate is if you activate FMR in a
system and then roam to a new system that does NOT have FMR. (For
example, I activate in Connecticut and drive to New York City, which
still, believe it or not, does not have FMR!). This is a potential
problem, but as more and more systems get FMR, it should greatly
diminish. (Note that in such a rare situation I could just call
customer service and have them deactivate FMR for me, which would
allow callers to get my voicemail or the generic message that I am not
in the area.)

Moreover, even if "all" my calls did go to CT instead of NY, no big
deal, as no one pays if I'm not in the area, so all callers will get
is the message "The mobile customer you have dialed is not in the
vehicle.  Please try your call later.", which is pretty much the same
thing they would get if FMR automatically deactivated at 12AM and my
callers got the local GTE recording. (Unless, again, I turned on
Voicemail, in which case callers wouldn't be able to get voicemail
unless I specifically *19'ed the FMR system when I got back to CT or
San Francisco.)

So overall, it seems like a "*17" system is workable ... I mean, FMR
itself isn't all that reliable, and there have been plenty of
instances when the 12AM cancel period has caused service outages for
me, so a *17 system, although creating a few potential (and minor)
problems, could go a long way towards alleviating the 12AM
"cancel-out" problems and also cut down on the number of Follow Me
requests which FMR has to process. (IE, if I go to Denver, I press
*17, and leave it that way until I leave. Thus, FMR no longer has to
cancel me out every day, and doesn't have to reactivate me the next
morning.)

Oh well, it's just an idea...;-)

Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 6 Sep 1990 07:31:15 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Art Gentry) says:

>My air-time charges
>start at answer supervision time, not at call placement time.  The
>same applies for incoming calls, I am not charged for calls that I
>don't answer.  Just FYI, my supplier is Cellular One.

It is my understanding is this part of the globe that C-1 charges from
the moment you hit the SEND key if (and only if) the call is answered.
Otherwise, no charge.


/Pete ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: The same policy applies to Ameritech, the carrier I
use. If a call is answered, then the charging is backdated to when you
hit the send button. No answer, no charge for air time.   PAT]

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff!
Date: 6 Sep 90 12:57:44 GMT
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


>[Moderator's Note: ..deleted stuff.. I don't think I could claim to be
>Goddess without running afoul of the law.  PAT]

  "Thou Art God" -Valentine Michael Smith
  from 'Stranger in a Strange Land' by Robert Heinlein


 Internet: [e-mail]  *  UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv

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

From: John Macdonald <eci386![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Reply-To: John Macdonald <eci386![e-mail]>
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Date:     Thu, 6 Sep 1990 09:25:10 -0400


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

> that's it! His dialing finger. [...] I understand to this day he
> still has to place all his calls manually through the operator.  PAT]
                                   ^^^^^^^^
Since he is no longer able to place his calls digitally, of course.


John Macdonald
jmm@eci386

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

Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 15:18:03 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe
Reply-To: [e-mail]


 From: "P. Knoppers" <[e-mail]>

>American visitors having an AT&T phone card can probably reach 800
>numbers through AT&Ts USA-direct service (I may have this name wrong),
>which has a toll-free number in the Netherlands.

Nope ... people who have 800 numbers agree to pay for calls
originating from certain areas (and often the entire US and Canada).
they never agreed to pay for calls coming in from abroad.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #624
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01420;
          7 Sep 90 3:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01543;
          7 Sep 90 2:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac22174;
          7 Sep 90 1:12 CDT
Date:     Fri, 7 Sep 90 0:33:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #625
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Sep 90 00:33:27 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 625

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Call Detail Recording [Robert Halloran]
    Re: Call Detail Recording [George Horwath]
    Re: Intercept Recordings [John R. Levine]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Jim Breen]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Adam J. Ashby]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Henry Troup]
    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Dan Sahlin]
    Re: Repeated Harrassing Calls [Ron Newman]
    Re: Hotels Get Message on Phone Charges [David E. Bernholdt]
    Re: Washington State, 800, and 900 [David Tamkin]
    Re: More Follow-Me Roaming [Doug Davis]
    Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: What Kind of Switch is This? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Halloran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording
Date: 6 Sep 90 13:02:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barton F.
Bruce) writes:

>If you use the # (call it what you may) key at the end of your dialed
>phone number it will often but not always tell the 'system' there are
>no more dialed numbers. This certainly speeds international DDD, where
>there is an unknown number of digits to expect. The # generally also
>knocks off tone to pulse converters if they are present, and some SMDR
>units will stop capturing, too.

I used to be in software development for a company in Rochester NY who
made SMDR units for the Bell System, pre-breakup.  I found soon after
I started that there was a known bug in the unit's software that would
reject any records that were not 7, 10 or 11 digits (1+ dialing was
not so entrenched in '81).  If the people reading the reports weren't
checking the exception log, calls with extra digits slipped through.
Punching the last digit of your number a few extra times was a common
practice in-house :-).


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: George Horwath <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording
Date: 6 Sep 90 13:27:37 GMT
Reply-To: motcid![e-mail]
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I always get a good laugh out of these postings describing surprise
and/or outrage on the amount of "detail" captured by call detail
recording on PBXs. The last time I worked on a PBX's SMDR was seven
years ago and the only thing that limited the amount of information
captured was what the customer was willing to pay for a program
change. The hardware capability is there to collect every digit you
dial from when you go off hook 'til on hook. Doesn't matter if you get
answer, dial "#", or whatever. Just a matter of writing the software
to do it and getting someone to pay for it!

To start another thread - I hope no one out there believes those ads
in the back of {Popular Science} or other such mags.  You know, the
ones that sell a device that turns on a red light when your phone is
"tapped".


George Horwath              |    Cellular Infrastructure Division
 ...uunet!motcid!horwath    |    Motorola, Inc.
                            |    Arlington Heights, IL
      Of course I speak for myself, not my employer...

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

Subject: Re: Intercept Recordings
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 6 Sep 90 13:06:01 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


To add another data point to this somewhat tired conversation, here is
the intercept that you get if you dial my beach house during the
winter, with line breaks approximating the phrasing.  It's the longest
one I've ever heard.

"At the customer's request,
3-6-1 1-1-1-2
has been temporarily disconnected and
calls are being taken by
areacode 6-1-7 4-9-2 3-8-6-9."

Then the whole thing repeats.  Both phones are in my name, but in
different states with different telcos.

Regards,

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

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Organization: Monash_University
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 23:45:23 GMT


> In comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> ........ and we have lost some of
> the margin we maintained for decades, but we are still far in front,
            [1]                                      [2]

I cannot see any evidence of the US net either having once had a
margin, or of it still being "far in front".

Admirable patriotism, Patrick, now how about some evidence.

In the best/worst voting, my opinions (based on experience) are:

BEST:   Japan
WORST:  India


Jim Breen ($B%8%`(J) ([e-mail]) Dept of
     Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University
       PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
        (ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 11:01:05 CDT
From: "Adam J. Ashby" <motcid!marble![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)


>In comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>>Despite the several problems that have arisen since divestiture was
>>deemed to be what was good for the American public, the United States
>>still has the finest, and most technically complex phone system in the
>               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> From what I read daily in comp.dcom.telecom, the US definitely does
>not have the finest or the most technically complex phone system in
>the world.  What have you based this sweeping statement on??  Surely
>not the all important 'User Satisfaction'?

>[Moderator's Note: Alright, fine. If the USA does *not* have what I
>described, then what country *does* have it? If TELECOM Digest was
>published in East Germany, Poland, Brazil or Haiti, what type of
>messages would you see here from day to day? Admittedly, user

I don't think that E. Germany, Poland, etc. are fair examples, which
is why you you included them.  How about the U.K., Eire, West Germany,
Sweden and other (Western) European countries.  My point was not to
say that one country's system is any better than anothers, but to
point out to you that in its phone system as well as other areas the
U.S. is not still 'the best in the world', most other countries have
caught up, the U.S. has been standing still for too long, and as long
as it continues to ignore world standards and keep on going its own
way, the U.S. will start to lag behind.

The U.S. phone system is great, I can get service three days after
ordering it, it can take forever in some parts of England, but it is
no longer the finest and most technically complex phone system in the
world.

Just my opinion....I have *absolutely* no facts to back it up....Adam.

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

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 15:00:00 EDT
From: Henry (H.W.)Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Sender: Henry (H.W.)Troup <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>


In comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>[Moderator's Note: Alright, fine. If the USA does *not* have what I
>described, then what country *does* have it? If TELECOM Digest was

Canada

As still a holdout of monoply telephone systems we have:

- excellent service (Bell Canada Ontario Region newsletters says:
   "There are no CRTC reportables (levels of service not meeting our
   regulator's standards), and we continue to achieve substantial gains
   in customer sensitive measures.  Our Report Rate of 2.22 is almost
   10 per cent better than last year.

   Similarly, customer complaints per 100,000 accounts of 12.5 for
   the year by June's end is an improvement of almost 20 per cent over
   the same period last year."

- decent rates - real local service here (one Bell supplied phone, touchtone)
  is $15.50 Canadian (my data line)

- very high percentage of the public that has phones (95+, I think)

- an all digital toll network

- the toll rate Ottawa to New York is $0.52 per minute prime time, dropping to
  $0.34 and $0.21 in discount periods.  Ottawa to Toronto (500 kilometres)
  is $0.38/$0.25/$0.15  The discount is 35% 6pm to 11 pm Monday to Friday, and
  60% 11 pm to 8 am Monday to Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday

- and the headline in the Bell Canada newsletter is "Bell files proposal to
  reduce LD rates".

Obnoxious net.canadian that I am, there's some hard numbers.


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

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

From: Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 16:08:34 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paolo Bellutta) writes:

>...are there other
>countries that use prefix-place correlation like in Italy?

Most contries in the world seem to have a prefix-place correlation, so
North America is rather an exception to the rule (although it is a
large one).  In Sweden (as in most contries in Europe) the length of
the area code is inversely proportional to the size of the city. So
Stockholm is 08, Uppsala is 018 and Trelleborg is 0410.


Dan Sahlin, SICS, Sweden
email: [e-mail]

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

From: Ron Newman  <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Repeated Harrassing Calls
Organization: Lotus Development Corp.
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 15:52:22 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by fico2![e-mail]:

> We broadcast over a wide area using repeaters, so we have an 800
> number for listeners to call in on so that they can easily reach us
> from any area code.  Somebody's decided they're going to call that
> number, around five times an hour, with a "hangup" call.  You know,
> like, "Hello, may I help you?"  "Click."  He/she did that for eight
> hours straight one day ... rather persistent, eh?  The calls are
> usually grouped into pairs, one minute apart.  I logged them one day,
> and they're irregularly spaced enough that I don't think an autodialer
> is being used.

> Sometimes this person gets REALLY dedicated and calls 50 times in an
> hour.

Could it be that some computer or fax machine is repeatedly calling
your number thinking it's a fax or a modem, then hanging up when it
hears voice instead of a carrier?  If this happened for eight hours
straight one day, or happens 50 times an hour, it does sound like
you're the victim of a misprogrammed autodialer, even if the calls are
irregularly spaced.


/Ron Newman

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hotels Get Message on Phone Charges
Date: 6 Sep 90 15:50:37 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael H.
Riddle) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 620, Message 6 of 8

>Look for the new phone policies to be featured in the hotels'
>marketing efforts in the coming months.  ...
>Free local calls are also under consideration.

It might be worth mentioning that Motel6, a budget hotel chain
(catering to poor grad students & the like :-), has been offering free
local calls for at least a year or two now.  I have found this
extremely handy.  Of course you can't charge toll or long distance
calls to your room tab (must use calling card, collect, etc.), but
that's okay with me.


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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State, 800, and 900
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 10:59:40 CDT


Ken Jongsma wrote in volume 10, issue 621:

| This week's issue of {Communications Week} as an interesting blurb
| entitled "Area Codes Near Exhaustion." In addition to mentioning the
| forthcoming 917 code assigned to New York City, they mention that US
| West  "is studying the possibility of restructuring dialing patterns
| so that additional prefixes become available." [in Washington state]

| Good grief! Well, let's see. That could mean just about anything now,
| couldn't it?

Probably not.  Very likely it means allowing N0X and N1X prefixes, no
doubt only in area code 206 for now (and 509 some day).  However,
there may be border areas in 509 that can dial part way into 206
without an area code now, and their dialing patterns would be changed
as well, especially if an N0X or N1X prefix is assigned in the nearby
part of 206.

| Also from this week's {Communications Week}:

|    As of July, 794 out of 999 CICs ("exchanges") have been assigned
|    for 800 numbers to 141 carriers.

|    286 CICs have been assigned for 900 numbers to 77 "providers."

Out of 999?  Does that mean that prefixes for 800 numbers can be of
the form XXX?  I have yet to see N0X or N1X (though I have seen N0X
prefixes for 900 numbers)!  If the prefixes of 800 numbers must be
NXX, there can be eight hundred maximum, and we're already at 794.

We may not make it to 1995 without NXX area codes.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]

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

From: Doug Davis <letni![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More Follow-Me Roaming
Date: 6 Sep 90 15:33:15 GMT
Organization: Logic Process, Dallas Tx


>[Moderator's Note: On my trip to the Land of Ahs, the cutoff was
>always midnight; I was in the central time zone throughout my trip.
>The reason there is no code to leave Follow Me turned on 'permanently'
>until you turn it off is because if you should happen to leave the
>area where you turned it on 'permanently', how would ever it ever get
>turned off again?  PAT]

At least here in the land of South Western Bell Mobil Systems, a *79
in your home area will force an immediate release of FMR.

I too take frequent trips to other citys in the area and have resorted
to forwarding my phone to a land-line during the 11:30pm-1:00am limbo
time.  At least the last time I talked to SWBMS about this they were
"Working on a solution" for people who want a longer period of FMR.


Doug Davis/4409 Sarazen/Mesquite Texas, 75150/214-270-9226
{texsun|lawnet|smu}!letni!doug     [e-mail]

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

From: "Roeber, Frederick" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date:  6 SEP 90 16:09:14


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (P.
Knoppers) writes...

>Well, it is true from the Netherlands. It is not possible to reach 800
>numbers from this country. Apparently they are blocked in the
>international exchanges of PTT telecom, the Dutch phone monopoly
>holder.

It's not possible from Switzerland, either.  I tried.  The attitude of
the Swiss PTT (like most other Swiss organizations..) is, "If we can't
make money off of it, you can't do it."


Frederick Roeber, [e-mail]

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

Date: 7-SEP-1990 01:03:32.29
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Kind of Switch is This?


In response to Dave Levenson's posting about (what I believe) is the
516-234 exchange, I think it's a 5ESS.

It is in the Brentwood/Ronkonkoma area, and it serves LOTS of
exchanges, like 230-234,273, 348, 434-436, and 582. (I think there are
supposed to be 2 more, but they are not listed in the book or the
recording, so either they are planned or I'm just misinformed.)
(Probably the latter! :-) )

You can always call NYTel and ask them - they used to NEVER tell you
what sort of switch you were on, but they seem to have become less
paranoid and more progressive, and will now freely discuss equipment
types, cut-over dates, etc with you at length. (Other Bells, such as,
ahem, Pac*Bell, well, it's a different story with them...!)

Hope this helps,

Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #625
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02247;
          7 Sep 90 4:54 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29399;
          7 Sep 90 3:21 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01543;
          7 Sep 90 2:17 CDT
Date:     Fri, 7 Sep 90 1:31:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Telecom Archives
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Sep 90 01:30:00 CDT    Special: Telecom Archives

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Look at the Telecom Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 01:30:00 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Look at the Telecom Archives


This special issue of TELECOM Digest is devoted to a look at the
Telecom Archives -- a repository of almost everything which has
appeared in this Digest over the past nine years, along with many
articles and files which have never appeared in the Digest because of
their size.

Listed below are the directory listings for the main components of the
Archives. We have the general section, a section on telecom security
issues, and a section listing Canadian area codes and their associated
prefixes.

In addition, a sub-directory (not included here) details information
about Minitel. Another sub-directory contains some very old issues of
TELECOM Digest (dating to the early and middle 1980's) which were
compressed by Jon Solomon at Boston University but which somehow were
contaminated and cannot be uncompressed. What could be saved from them
has been saved, and appear in the main files.

How to use the Telecom Archives:

If you have ftp at your site, then you can access the archives, which
are stored at MIT in Boston with regular ftp commands, i.e. --

      ftp lcs.mit.edu
      login anonymous, and give your [e-mail] as password
      cd telecom-archives

      Then, proceed as usual.

This will only work for folks with an account on the Internet. If your
account is via Bitnet, UUCP, MCI Mail, ATT Mail, Fido, Compuserve, or
other networks gatewayed to the Internet, then you must use the
Archives Mail Server. This procedure is --

FIRST -- Send a letter to:  [e-mail]  (all but Bitnet)
                            [e-mail]    (Bitnet users)

Your letter should consist of the single word HELP, in upper case, on
the first line at the far left margin. The subject does not matter.
You will receive by return mail a help file for how to use the
Archives Mail Server, with contact names at Princeton if you run into
trouble.

SECOND -- When you have studied this document, you can then use the
facility to obtain the files you see in the indexes shown below. Since
the archives changes daily (with each issue of the Digest going into
the 'telecom-recent' file there), it is recommended you get an updated
version of the 'index.to.archives' file if you don't already have one.

Basically, you send 'letters' to the address above, and your letters
will consist of ftp commands and appropriate arguments for each. Here
is an example:

Write to: [e-mail]   (or [e-mail])
The subject does not matter. Issue the ftp commands at the left
margin, then a space, and the arguments:

FTP lcs.mit.edu
USER anonymous name@site
CD telecom-archives
ASCII
GET index.to.archives   (or, the name of the desired file)
GET the.next.file.you.want
BYE

Somewhere between a few hours and a couple days later, you will
receive the requested files sent to you as a letter. Large files will
be broken into several smaller parts. You will also get a couple of
letters from the daemon running this program showing you how your
commands were interpreted in the event of an error.

The Telecom Archives are maintained at MIT through the generous
assistance of Mike Patton, a sysadmin there. Most of the organizing
and editing of the files was done by myself in recent years, and by
Jon Solomon in years past. I hope you enjoy using them ... and
remember, *exact* file names are important. Enter all punctuation and
words just as you see them in the indexes.

FOR UUCP and FIDO readers using the Mail Server: It is *strongly*
recommended that before you request any volumes of back issues that
you communicate with your sysadmin ** and get that person's permission
to bring in files of that size! **  Note how <large> they are below,
and make certain your site has arrangements with whoever delivers mail
to handle such monsters!  For the smaller files, this is not so
important. Use discretion in what you pull, and how often, etc.

Otherwise, enjoy!

Patrick Townson

        -------  Index to the main directory ------

total 25516
drwxrwxr-x  6 telecom  telecom      4096 Sep  5 22:24 ./
drwxrwxr-x 21 root     wheel         512 Jul 26 15:14 ../
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    195000 Jan 12  1990 1981.vol1.iss004-020
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     33063 Jan 20  1990 1982.vol2.iss001-003
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    382277 Jan 14  1990 1982.vol2.iss089-141
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    191518 Jan 20  1990 1983.vol3.iss001-021
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     63880 Jan 14  1990 1983.vol3.iss083-095
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16811 Jan 15  1990 1984.vol4.iss001-002
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    121389 Jan 15  1990 1984.vol4.iss076-093
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    180604 Jan 20  1990 1985.vol4.iss155-184
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       658 Jan 27  1990 1985.vol5.READ-ME-FIRST
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    623292 Jan 27  1990 1985.vol5.iss001-076
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    861286 Jan 27  1990 1986.vol5.iss077-161
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    639112 Jan 26  1990 1987.vol6.most.issues
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    274580 Jan 20  1990 1987.vol7.complete.set
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21596 Jan 20  1990 1987.vol8.iss003-004
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    137265 Jan 20  1990 1988.vol8.iss070-083
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    724832 Aug  1  1989 1988.vol8.iss140-189
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    227589 Aug  1  1989 1988.vol8.iss190-213
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    577173 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss001-049
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    564262 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss050-100
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    653097 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss101-150
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    637611 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss151-200
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    744800 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss201-250
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    787166 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss251-300
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    805328 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss301-350
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    780366 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss351-400
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    784366 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss401-450
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    758330 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss451-500
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    794183 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss501-550
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    856691 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss551-603
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    861272 Jan 28  1990 1990.vol10.iss001-050
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    820574 Feb 14  1990 1990.vol10.iss051-100
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    842877 Mar  8  1990 1990.vol10.iss101-150
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    855090 Mar 24 23:47 1990.vol10.iss151-200
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    853551 Apr 13 22:57 1990.vol10.iss201-250
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    908585 May  1 00:00 1990.vol10.iss251-300
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    873608 May 16 00:26 1990.vol10.iss301-350
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    858605 May 31 20:13 1990.vol10.iss351-400
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    919538 Jun 23 14:09 1990.vol10.iss401-450
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    885056 Jul 20 22:22 1990.vol10.iss451-500
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    863414 Aug  8 23:06 1990.vol10.iss501-550
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    886042 Aug 29 00:59 1990.vol10.iss551-600
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       953 Jan 31  1990 READ.ME.FIRST
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21264 Apr 14 16:00 area.code.script.new
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32645 May 31 20:36 areacode.guide
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      8147 Aug  1  1989 areacode.program.in.c
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       474 Feb 11  1990 att.service.outage.1-90
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     18937 Aug  1  1989 auto.coin.collection
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4788 Jun 10 09:18 books.about.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     61504 Jul 30 01:56 caller-id-legal-decision
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17016 Aug  5 08:07 cellular.phones-iridium
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     15141 Aug  1  1989 cellular.sieve
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       298 May 31 20:37 cellular.west.germany
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16292 Mar 18 21:48 class.ss7.features
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70477 Sep  5 22:02 computer.bbs.and.the.law
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     23944 Aug  1  1989 computer.state
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9150 Jan 31  1990 country.code.list
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11370 Feb  9  1990 country.codes.revised
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11267 Feb 25  1990 cpid-ani.developments
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       436 Feb 23  1990 deaf.communicate.on.tdd
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15877 Sep  1 21:14 dial.tone.monopoly
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39319 Aug  1  1989 docket.87-215
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16367 Sep  1 21:20 e-series.recommendations
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      3422 Jan 20  1990 early.digital.ESS
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug  1  1989 ecpa.1986
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug  4 18:58 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39956 Jul 14 23:40 electronic.frontier
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20660 Sep  5 22:02 email.privacy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 enterprise-funny-numbers
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     33239 Aug  1  1989 fcc.policy
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     19378 Aug  1  1989 fcc.threat
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       484 Jan 14  1990 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9052 Aug  1  1989 find.pair
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     47203 Aug  1  1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1998 Jan 27  1990 fire.in.st-louis.1-90
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       377 Jan 27  1990 fires.elsewhere.in.past
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1247 Feb 10  1990 first.issue.cover
-rw-rw-r--  1 map      telecom     49029 Aug 16 12:20 glossary.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     42188 Jan 14  1990 glossary.phrack.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67113 Jan 14  1990 glossary.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68804 Feb  2  1990 hi.perf.computing.net
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2337 Jan 27  1990 history.of.digest
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32625 Mar 29 20:02 how.numbers.are.assigned
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9907 Sep  5 22:24 index.to.archives
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4816 Aug  1  1989 lauren.song
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       801 Aug  1  1989 ldisc.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2271 Aug  1  1989 ldnotes.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     13675 Aug  1  1989 ldrates.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12260 Jan 20  1990 london.ac.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12069 Mar  5  1990 london.codes.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15604 Aug  1  1989 mass.lines
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       463 Aug  1  1989 measured-service
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Sep  5 22:23 minitel.info/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     36641 Aug  1  1989 mnp.protocol
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2450 Jan 20  1990 modems.and.call-waiting
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      7597 Feb 10  1990 named.exchanges
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3014 Jan 27  1990 newuser.letter
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32815 Mar 25 20:47 nine.hundred.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     33440 May 12 17:17 npa.809.prefixes
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Sep  5 22:18 npa.exchange.list-canada/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16534 Feb 11  1990 nsa.original.charter-1952
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9886 Jan 23  1990 occ.10xxx.access.codes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8593 May  5 23:39 occ.10xxx.notes.updates
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14354 Aug 12 14:10 octothorpe.gets.its.name
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 old.fashioned.coinphones
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2756 Jan 27  1990 old.hello.msg
drwxrwxr-x  2 jsol     telecom       512 Jul 21 02:39 oldarc/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70153 Aug  1  1989 pc.pursuit
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      5492 Aug  1  1989 pearl.harbor.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38772 Aug  1  1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17950 Jan 14  1990 rotenberg.privacy.speech
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9764 Jan 20  1990 starline.features
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     46738 Jan 18  1990 starlink.vrs.pcp
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    103069 Apr 26 02:43 sysops.libel.liability
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3857 Aug  1  1989 tat-8.fiber.optic
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27533 Feb  9  1990 telco.name.list.formatted
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31487 Jan 28  1990 telco.name.listing
-rw-rw-r--  1 ptownson telecom    426760 Sep  5 05:17 telecom-recent
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Sep  5 22:15 telecom.security.issues/
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     11752 Aug  1  1989 telstar.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     26614 May 29 00:15 unitel-canada.ld.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     37947 Aug  1  1989 wire-it-yourself
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4101 Aug  1  1989 wiring.diagram
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24541 Aug  1  1989 zum.debate


     -------  Index to sub-directory: telecom.security.issues -------

total 455
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Sep  6 22:27 ./
drwxrwxr-x  6 telecom  telecom      4096 Sep  5 22:24 ../
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13343 Feb 25  1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27395 Jun 23 20:52 craig.neidorf.indictment
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9354 Jul 30 02:18 craig.not.guilty
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67190 Jun 23 20:53 crime.and.puzzlement
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug 12 14:29 ecpa.1986
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug 12 14:32 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28935 May 19 02:46 jolnet-2600.magazine.art
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     30751 Mar  7  1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     43365 Jan 28  1990 kevin.polsen
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     35612 Apr  1 21:30 legion.of.doom
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20703 Aug 12 16:16 len.rose.indictment
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 Sep  6 22:27 security.index

      ------- index to sub-directory: npa.exchange.list-canada -------

The contents of this directory were donated to the Telecom Archives by
David Leibold.

total 226
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Sep  6 22:29 ./
drwxrwxr-x  6 telecom  telecom      4096 Sep  5 22:24 ../
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 Sep  6 22:29 index.npa
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1351 Feb  4  1990 introduction-canada.lists
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15019 Apr 22 11:17 npa.204.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14708 Apr 22 11:17 npa.306.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17978 Apr 14 16:10 npa.403.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15907 Jul 20 22:31 npa.416.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15592 Feb  3  1990 npa.418.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10441 May 26 08:17 npa.506.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11647 Feb  2  1990 npa.514.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12818 Feb  2  1990 npa.519.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16701 Jul 20 22:32 npa.604.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12444 Mar 29 19:57 npa.613.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12016 Feb  2  1990 npa.705.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12899 May  3 20:50 npa.709.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      5566 Feb  7  1990 npa.800.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10479 May  5 23:29 npa.807.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15645 Feb  3  1990 npa.819.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12839 Mar 29 19:53 npa.902.exchanges-canada
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1762 Apr 11 02:53 updates.to.above.files


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

And there you have it! I hope you enjoy your visit(s) to the Archives!
Be _sure_ to get a copy of 'lauren.song' from the main file. It was
one of the classic messages we ran right after divestiture!


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: Telecom Archives
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27085;
          8 Sep 90 5:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16676;
          8 Sep 90 3:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27080;
          8 Sep 90 2:29 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Sep 90 1:54:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #626
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Sep 90 01:54:17 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 626

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Best Way to Long-Distance Connect [Randall Knowles Smith]
    Voice Mail!!! Anyone?  Anyone? [Alex Cruz]
    Want Homegrown Itemised Billing System [Mark J. Elkins]
    Conference Announcement: Caller ID, ANI and Privacy [Subodh Bapat]
    Time Limits on Calls [Arnette P. Baker]
    MCI Call Blocking [Boston Globe via B.J. Herbison]
    Ontario (Canada) Election Results and Telecommunications [Nigel Allen]
    800-800 Now a Valid Prefix [Scott Fybush]
    How to Participate in the Caller*ID List and CUD [Christine K. Paustian]
    Re: Octothorpes [John Cowan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed,  5 Sep 90 14:29:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Randall Knowles Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Best Way to Long-Distance Connect


My uncle runs a railroad-booking firm out of Atlanta.  You call him,
tell him what you want sent (cars, grain, large stuff), where to pick
it up, and he'll arrange to get it there via train. Of course, the
train companies have gone to computers (in the last 5 years, only!),
and so the main branch of the booking firm in Chicago is directly
connected to all the major train company computers.  What he'd like to
do is get connected to the main branch in Chicago.  Ideally, he'd like
a leased-line arrangement to Chicago from Atlanta.  However, the cost
is prohibitive.  IBM has offered to hook him into something called
IINET (or something close to that spelling), but at a cost of $1000 a
month.  At that cost, he'll continue to use a modem and just dial them
up once a day.

However, he'd really like to be able to cheaply get access to Chicago
whenever he wants.  So what are his options?  Whatever he can arrange,
Chicago will support the other end if possible.  Is it possible to
hook into the net easily?  Whom do you ask?  What are the normal
charges?  Is there a telecom company to sells leased lines cheaply, or
a way he could get lower changes from somebody?  He only wants to
transfer a fairly small amount of data daily (maybe 25-50 K) but would
like to be able to do it intermittently.  This sounded to me like a
TELNET capability would be useful, but perhaps hooking Chicago into
TELENET, and allowing dial-ups through them would work.

Any ideas out there?

Randy Smith
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
 ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!rs5o


[Moderator's Note: Telenet does have service to Chicago using PC
Pursuit, and there is a business version of that service he could use
involving a local call in Atlanta.  Maybe Dave Purks or someone at
Telenet will write to explain it. I think the name is "Business
Call". ?? It would be far less expensive than the service quoted to
him by Bell.  PAT]

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

From: Alex Cruz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail!!! Anyone?  Anyone?
Date: 7 Sep 90 05:02:46 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC)


The organization that I currently work for is considering the purchase
of a voice mail system.  I know nothing about voice mail systems.
Any advices?  I will post summary.

Incidentally, here is some pertinent info:

    - size of organization: 300 employees (likely to grow)
    - all in one building
    - will move to another building 1st qtr 91
    - do you need anything else? (I can't think of it!)

Thanks in advance.

A. Cruz
[e-mail]

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

From: Mark J Elkins <olsa99![e-mail]>
Subject: Want Homegrown Itemised Billing System
Date: 4 Sep 90 14:23:24 GMT
Reply-To: Mark J Elkins <olsa99![e-mail]>
Organization: Unix Commercial - Olivetti Africa


Whilst browsing through this group - I read...
(From...  <[e-mail]> - Frank )

>I have long wanted to get a "computer readable" version of my phone
>bill from the phone company.
>I have an idea for a fairly inexpensive piece of equipment...

What I'm looking for is something that can be connected to the phone
system and be able to read the numbers dialled.  All my equiptment is
tone-dial.  I'm also looking for either some way to monitor/count the
metering pulses - or - measure the time taken on the call.  Knowing
when the call was, the number dialled, and the length of the call - I
can work out the 'units' used - hence the call cost.  Oh - I then feed
the info via RS232 into my computer..

Most commercial switchboards provide this info - but I'm trying to
measure the costs on my modems ... (and also for my private line - no
modem or switchboard).

Can anyone help me at all?  I guess I'm looking for some sort of
circuit diagram that I can build into a working model.

The local Telecom does not do Itemised Billing - I've aske d..- or - I
think the story is - they won't until they can provide the service to
the majority of subscribers.  You can hire 'meter pulse counters' -
but they are only acumulative.


Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa
UUCP: {uunet,olgb1,olnl1}!olsa99!mje (Mark Elkins)
[e-mail] (Postmaster) Tel: [phone]

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Conference Announcement: Caller ID, ANI and Privacy
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 13:45:48 EDT


{Telecommunications Reports} is presenting a conference titled

               "Caller ID, ANI and Privacy"

also described as

        "A Conference on Recent Technological Advances in and
         Marketing of Customer Identification Services and the
         Legal, Regulatory and Social Issues Related to Protecting
         Telephone Customer Privacy."

This is to be held October 15-16, 1990 at the Sheraton Carlton Hotel,
Washington DC. The conference leader is Andrew Lipman, Partner,
Swidler and Berlin. The featured speakers include persons from
Northern Telecom, AT&T, BellSouth, the Pennsylvania PUC, and the DC
Public Service Commission.

A complete schedule for the 1-1/2 day conference, registration
information and additional details may be obtained by calling
800-822-MEET or 202-347-2970.

I have no affiliation with any of the parties mentioned in this
posting.


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

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

From: Arnette P Baker [phone] <ihlpf![e-mail]>
Subject: Time Limits on Calls
Date: Fri,  7 Sep 90 09:29:00 GMT


I want to relate a story on the subject of "time limits" imposed on
phone calls by the telco.  I grew up in Towanda, Il.  - population 578
(now over 650!)  When we moved there in 1972 we had 5 digit dialing on
local calls, plus a forced time limit of 2 minutes on the same local
calls.  We had 7 digit (well 10 counting NPA) phone numbers, but for
any other number on the stepper we only dialed 5 digits.  After two
minutes a warning tone would sound, and then 10 seconds later you
would be disconnected.  In '74 the telco (Inland Telephone of Il.)
upgraded the switch to a more modern (????) step-by-step and the 2
minute limit, along with 5 digit dialing was eliminated.  This time
limit only existed on calls within the switch, to call anywhere else
in the universe we had (still do) to dial 1+ to get an outgoing trunk.
1+ calls were never affected.

So, anyone out there ever hear of this kind of limit??  I presume it
was done to reduce the load on a switch that was under engineered for
the amount of traffic, but I really have no idea why it existed.
Actually I always thought it was a telco plot to make it difficult to
"share" math homework answers over the phone.  :)


Arnette Baker
[e-mail]
AT&T Network Systems


[Moderator's Note: It sounds likely they had a very dinky little
switch with very few talk paths available. Two or three local
conversations at once going on probably was all it could handle.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 07:50:53 PDT
From: "B.J.  07-Sep-1990 1034" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Call Blocking


The following item is from the T.G.I.F. column by Alex Beam in
today's {Boston Globe} (Friday 7 September 1990).

            She Put it in Writing

Elena Fernandez is an MCI card holder who phoned the Globe last May
complaining that a Boston-to-Puerto Rico call she had made on Mother's
Day from a friend's phone had been "blocked" by MCI operators citing
high fraud rates on calls to the territory.  Fernandez, a customer in
good standing, felt the policy was discriminatory.  At the time, an
MCI spokeswoman said she didn't think the company had a policy of
``blocking'' calls, but promised to look into the case.

Now Fernandez has detailed a second blocking incident, quoting an MCI
customer service representative, in a letter to the company's
corporate public relations director.  And now MCI's response has
changed.  MCI does block some third-party calls to the Caribbean area
code 809 because of fraud, explains spokeswoman Jane Levene, but not
to Puerto Rico.  Levene speculates that imprecise computer
instructions may have prompted MCI operators to mistakenly block
Fernandez' calls.

I called MCI customer service (1-800-444-4444) and and was told that
16 countries are blocked.  They will be sending me the list of the
countries.

                            B.J.

[Moderators Note: I doubt they will be sending you anything. AT&T
has told me twice they would send me the list of origin/destination
places they block, and they have yet to provide a list. This is an
illegal, very discriminatory practice -- both by AT&T and MCI. You
will note they block calls to third-world countries -- NEVER to the UK
or Australia. I am not saying they *should* block those places, only
that they discriminate against many immigrants to this country by
assuming the people are going to commit fraud. I certainly hope that
someone starts a class action suit against AT&T -- and all carriers if
appropriate -- forcing them to end this odious practice, or to
publicly list the origins/destinations which are blocked, and *why*,
and give precise figures to back up their claims, and let a court or
the FCC rule on the validity of it. The International Information
Center at 1-800-874-4000 tells me they will send the list; but they
never have. Maybe someone else can get a copy.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 04:19 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ontario (Canada) election results and telecommunications
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


The September 6 provincial election in Ontario brought the New
Democratic Party (NDP) to power, and some TELECOM Digest readers
may wonder what this means for telecommunications.

In brief, not much. Premier-designate Bob Rae has not yet announced
his cabinet, and I suspect that the new culture and communications
minister will have a background in the arts or broadcasting rather
than in telecommunications. Many of the newly elected NDP members are
extremely bright, but relatively few of them have much of a background
in business.

While most telecommunications activity in Ontario (including Bell
Canada and Unitel Communications Inc., as well as broadcasting and
cable) falls under federal jurisdiction, the Ontario government has
three areas of telecommunications involvement.

First, it is a large customer of telecommunications services, through
the Computer and Telecommunications Services division of the Ministry
of Government Services. A change in government is not likely to make
much difference to this operation. More significant whether the new
government will continue to decentralize government offices to cities
outside Toronto, where unemployment levels are higher and housing
costs are lower. Decentralization means higher government phone bills,
as bureaucrats in Thunder Bay have to talk to those left in Toronto,
and as toll-free telephone service may have to be provided to allow
the general public to reach the relocated offices.

Second, the Communications Division of the Ministry of Culture and
Communications "is responsible for providing policy, operational and
technical advice on issues affecting Ontario consumers, suppliers and
manufacturers of telecommunications and broadcasting and cable systems
and services. Activities include policy development, representations/
interventions before the federal government and Canadian
Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, research,
technology assessments, and industry and federal- provincial liaison
on communications matters." (quoted from an Ontario government
publication)

The advocacy role of the Communications Division is probably the most
important one for TELECOM Digest readers. I do not think that an NDP
government will support long distance competition; the former Liberal
government might have.  I don't expect that any senior officials will
be fired by the new government, though.

Third, the Ontario Telephone Service Commission regulates all Ontario
telephone companies other than Bell Canada. The OTSC is not a
particularly glamorous part of the Ontario bureaucracy, but perhaps
the new government will appoint new commissioners to the OTSC, and
that may make the commission more likely to support the consumer
viewpoint.

The address of the Communications Division, in case anyone wishes
to contact it, is:

  Communications Division
  Ministry of Culture and Communications
  77 Bloor Street West, 6th Floor
  Toronto, Ontario M7A 2R9
  Canada
  Telephone [phone]
  Fax [phone]

If you are interested in the Ontario communications industry, you may
want to request a list of the Communications Division's publications
and a free subscription to the division's newsletter.

Disclaimer: I don't work for the Ontario government.

Nigel Allen          [e-mail]
52 Manchester Avenue       telephone [phone]
Toronto, Ontario  M6G 1V3        fax [phone]
Canada

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 21:40:10 edt
From: Robert Kaplan <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix


While I have yet to see an 800 "exchange" of the form [0|1]XX in
actual use, one COCOT of my acquaintance gives its repair number as
1-800-111-1111.  Dialing this number from a non-COCOT always gives a
recorded "Please check the number and try again later..."  Probably
the COCOT translates that number to something else internally.  I
_have_ seen NXX-type prefixes; in fact, I recently saw a sticker with
an 800-800-XXXX number on it ... and, yes, that was the correct, valid
number!  Anyone know who belongs to 800-800?  And am I the first one
to notice NXX prefixes on 800?

Scott Fybush / [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: How To Participate in the Caller*ID List and CUD
Date: Fri,  7 Sep 90 16:05:32 PDT


Hi, Pat -

We've had a fair amount of interest from people here in the Caller-ID
mailing list - but I can't seem to locate the address of the fellow who
is hosting it.

Can you help me?

Many thanks -

    /Christine


[Moderator's Note: Surely. To be added to the mailing list, write to
'[e-mail]'. To write comments to the list,
once you are installed, write to '[e-mail]. And to
participate in the Computer Underground Digest, a journal which
discusses the legal and social ramifications of cracking and
phreaking, write to '[e-mail]'.   PAT]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 17:06:37 GMT


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

>I sometimes wonder if they should have just called those buttons A&B.

Please, no!  Remember that the 2 buttom is already labeled with both
an 'A' and a 'B' character.  Hopeless confusion would result in
dialing letter-number phone numbers, and they were still very much
around when the touch-tone dial was designed.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #626
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09687;
          8 Sep 90 20:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25527;
          8 Sep 90 18:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27835;
          8 Sep 90 17:35 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Sep 90 16:43:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #627
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Sep 90 16:43:38 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 627

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [John Cowan]
    Re: Different 'To' and 'From' Lines [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Tom Coradeschi]
    Re: World Wide Teleconferencing - Current Status? [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: Conference Calling - Try the Local CO! [John R. Levine]
    Re: PBX Blocking of 10XXX Calls [Paul Colley]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Paul Colley]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Mark J. Elkins]
    Re: Calling Cellular From COCOT [John Cowan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 17:45:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paolo Bellutta)
writes:

[asking why North American area codes aren't systematic by region]

The Esteemed Moderator notes that large cities were assigned area
codes involving minimum pulsing on a rotary dial, but says:

>Its just that they do not fall in any set pattern, except as noted
>above.

My understanding is that the codes were >deliberately< assigned to
spread the codes around the country, to minimize confusion.  Here in
212-land, I often call 718 (Brooklyn/Queens/Staten Island) to the east
and 201 (Northern New Jersey) to the west.  If these were 211 and 213
respectively, as a systematic plan would require given that
Manhattan/Bronx is 212, I would be more likely to confuse them.

On the other hand, it's always seemed interesting to me that AT&T
itself is located in 201, the first area code in numerical order.


[e-mail]    (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Different 'To' and 'From' Lines
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 09:08:41 EDT


 From: Dolf Grunbauer <[e-mail]>

>I always assumed that when making a telephone call the line to the
>otherside is the same the line back from him to me. The other day
>someone told me that this is not the case, especially when making a
>international phone call.  According to him it is possible that for
>example when calling from europe to the USA one line could use a
>satellite connection while the other could use a transatlantic cable.
>Is this true?

It could be worse.  A number of years ago (I think it was summer of
'84, when the Bell breakup was to have taken place but effects were
not everywhere felt) I was in San Francisco installing a packet switch
for a commercial client.  We were trying to obtain a leased line to
New York, and while waiting for it to be installed we were attempting
to use dial-ups and modems.

Rather to our horror we learned from AT&T that of cross country
dial-up calls like those, no more than 10% - 15% were terrestrial both
ways.  Terrestrial capacity was scarce compared to satellite service.
People notice (and complain about) delays and echo problems on two-way
satellite calls such as are common on intercontinental phone calls,
but if one direction was terrestrial the effect was generally not
noticed by the speakers, so most calls were satellite one way.

The scary part was that AT&T said that a few months later they would
no longer guarantee two-way terrestrial service for leased lines (at
least 9.6kb lines).  When you are doing store-and-forward packet
switching this can have a major effect on things like buffer
management or line utilization, especially if you don't know about the
satellite delay.

I don't know if they ever carried out that policy change.  We mostly
used higher speed lines in our other business, and we would definitely
have noticed it there.


JBL

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 9:58:13 EDT
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable
Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armaments RDE Center


With all the discussion of crosstalk between data and voice lines run
in the same physical cable, I thought I might relate our experiences
here.

Our building was recently (like one year ago) rewired for phones. Each
phone has an individual drop, with three pair feeding it. Aside from
upper level mucky-mucks, no phone uses more than one pair (the Army
doesn't allow us lowly engineers the "luxury" of a two-line phone).

At about the same time, we replaced the LocalTalk cabling we bought
from Apple with PhoneNet. PhoneNet uses twisted pair phone lines to
network Macs, IBMs, and the like at 230kbps using AppleTalk protocols.
Not ethernet speed, but faster than walking around the office with
diskette in hand. And AppleTalk is built into every Mac ever sold.

We set up a six node star, with each node being an office. We then ran
a backbone around the perimeter of each office, with RJ-11's about
every ten feet.  To get into each office, we used one of the existing
three pair phone lines.

The phone on my desk and the PhoneNet drop into my office use two pair
from the same line. I've honestly never noticed ANY noise in the phone
line - and I spend a LOT of time on the phone - and never noticed any
AppleTalk problems due to the phone being in use. This goes for both
voice transmissions, as well as data, i.e. modem (remember, I don't get
two lines:-{).

So, I guess what I'm wondering is - what's the problem? Is it possible
that the problems others experience, or think they experience, are due
to other factors? Poorly terminated lines, bad grounds, etc?


tom coradeschi  <+>   [e-mail]   <+>   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 16:10 EST
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: World Wide Teleconferencing - Current Status?


There are two kinds of teleconferencing; both are worldwide, and both
are relatively commonplace.

Conferences as you describe are often distributed over a one-way
analog satellite uplink, with provisions for phone call-in.  The
signal is uplinked from the conference, and picked up by as many
authorized sites as are in the footprint.  (A double hop may be
necessary to bring the broadcast to areas not covered by the
originating satellite.)

If two-way video is a must, you'll likely be using compressed video
teleconferencing.  Actually, multiple sites can also be hooked up
here, but in any case, each site must lease a digital channel (for
international, usually a T1 ckt.)

Yes, many international agreements exist, with the half-circuit
arrangements that PAT talks about.  Costs are impossible to ballpark.
Here are a few Oz mates who I bet can help you out.  I don't know any
of them personally but we are all members of the International
Teleconferencing Association.

Michelle deVries-Robbe, OTC Australia, Sydney, 612-287-5081
Michael Valos, Telecom Australia, Melbourne, 613-606-7983
Paul Griffiths, Sat. Networks Aus. Pty Ltd, St Ives, NSW 61-244-3975
Theodore Tsapepas, Aussat Pty Ltd, Sydney, 612-238-7964

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

Subject: Re: Conference Calling - Try the Local CO!
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 31 Aug 90 13:19:07 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>If you're into conference calling, methinks it would be worth your
>money to sign up for three-way calling with your local CO.
>[Moderator's Note: And by each person in the call having three-way
>calling of their own, additional parties can be added, ...

If you only need to talk to two other people, three way calling is
clearly the way to go.  Unfortunately, my conferences usually run to
five or six.  The call quality on lashed up conferences drops rapidly
as you add users.  A coworker used to do phone sales meetings with the
CONF button on a ROLM PBX, and by the time they added four or five
people, you could barely hear anything, even though the ROLM had a
digital bridge.  AT&T and Sprint's conference bridges clearly do a lot
of subtle processing so you can hear the people who are talking while
filtering out the breathing and background noise from everyone else.

>Also, if your multi-party conference call is strictly local in scope, try
>your local telco operator. They can also handle conference calls
>provided everyone is local.

The New Jersey Bell business office insisted that the only
conference-like facility they have any more is three-way calling.
There is still a mention of conference calling in the phone book,
though it is ambiguous enough that it may mean to call your LD rather
than local operator to set it up.  In any event, I rarely have need to
talk to even one person here in the World's Smallest LATA, much less
two or more.

Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Colley)
Subject: Re: PBX Blocking of 10XXX Calls
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 14:28:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David
Tamkin) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 622, Message 8 of 12

> [...] if AT&T had an 800
>dial-up number available for placing outgoing calls
> [...] the matter would be strictly theoretical.  The
>employee who found that the PBX blocked 102880 would still have a way
>to reach an AT&T operator.

Maybe not.

For no apparent reason (at least no reason discernible to
non-bureaucrats), the phone system at University of Waterloo blocks
800 numbers (in addition to long distance).

However, trying it out just now, they have made one improvement in the
last six months: Dialing "banned" numbers now gives re-order, instead
of the switchboard.

Hmmm ... maybe they got 800 and 900 numbers confused?  Anybody know
some interesting 900 numbers?  :-)


Paul
[e-mail] or .ca

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Colley)
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 15:25:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(H.W.)  writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 625, Message 6 of 13

>In comp.dcom.telecom, TELECOM Moderator writes:

>>[Moderator's Note: Alright, fine. If the USA does *not* have what I
>>described, then what country *does* have it?

>Canada

Canada may not be best, but it's better than the USA.  I'd like to add
a couple of points:

>- decent rates - real local service here (one Bell supplied phone, touchtone)
>  is $15.50 Canadian (my data line)

I pay $8.50/month for my phone line (still pulse, despite Bell's
frequent pamphlets on the $1.70/month benefits of touch tone).  No
Bell supplied phones.  My rate would be cheaper than Henry's mainly
because of living in Waterloo instead of (I assume) Ottawa, since
there are fewer phones in my local calling area.

>- very high percentage of the public that has phones (95+, I think)

In a recent newspaper article (Toronto Star) I remember as quoting
over 99%, contrasting it with a much lower figure for the USA.

Henry forgot to mention a couple of other points:

- Free long distance directory assistance.

- There are several discount packages available that can reduce your
  long distance bill substantially.

- Benefits for the handicapped.  Free voice/teletype conversions for
  the deaf, many payphones with volume adjustments for the hearing
  impaired, free local directory assistance if you have vision or
  physical problems, etc.

- Phone bills under $50.00 don't have to be paid immediately.  I.e., I
  only have to pay every second or third bill, given my usual long
  distance usage of $15-$20/month.  One month and 11 days to pay bills
  over $50.00

- No COCOTs.  If competition is so wonderful for the consumer, why
  do you need regulations on COCOTs?  My personal opinion (no doubt
  about to be flamed :-) is that competition hasn't been so wonderful
  for the consumer in the states.

And one somewhat unrelated note:

- I'm not a big hotel user, but every hotel I've been into in Canada
  has free phone service for calls that are free to the hotel (local,
  calling card, etc.).  Every hotel I've been into in the states has
  charged lots of $$$ for every call.  (One hotel in Canada had
  two-line speaker phones in the rooms!)

However, things may be changing.  According to the {Toronto Star}, a
company is going to petition the CRTC to set up a competing long
distance carrier.  They want permission to charge (from memory) 85% of
the long distance fee and pay local subsidization at 70% of the rate
Bell pays.

In my opinion, if lower long distance rates from less subsidization to
local service is "good" (I don't think so), they should just let Bell
do it; Bell has wanted to for years now.  And that seems to be what
the proposed competition plans to do, pocketing an additional profit.

Canada is much more thinly spread than the United States.  I wonder if
the competition plans to offer much support to the vast majority of
the country.  "Moose Jaw?  Dial 10288 before your number to place your
call through the real phone company, we only support Toronto/Montreal/
Ottawa/Vancouver..."

I've seen and heard about the competition.  I like our monopoly.

- Paul
  [e-mail] or .ca


[Moderator's Note: I liked our monopoly here in the United States
also, and it appears, based on consumer organization polls that people
here are finally beginning to wise up to the problems with
divestiture. I have no problem with competition: let people use
whatever service they want; but why was AT&T smashed to pieces in the
process?  PAT]

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

From: Mark J Elkins <olsa99![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (Was Re: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: 6 Sep 90 08:42:13 GMT
Reply-To: Mark J Elkins <olsa99![e-mail]>
Organization: Unix Commercial - Olivetti Africa


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

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

>> ...., the United States
>> still has the finest, and most technically complex phone system in the

>[2] if you mean most technically advanced, I must ask again for the
>evidence.

[Moderator's comments....]
>surely yours is in second or third place, along with New Zealand, the
>UK, and Hong Kong (loud and clear!). Most South American telephone
>systems are bad news, as is a lot of the middle east.   PAT]

The best telephone system I've seen is in ...  Botswana.  Botswana had
British Telecom come down and re-install the complete system from
scratch.  There are microwave channels everywere.  All numbers are six
digit - the first two being a 'town' code.  (Some towns have more than
a single code.) Everything is tone dial - and dialed numbers seem
almost to ring before the last number is dialled.  Its the only
national telephone system were I've seen 'call back on busy' work
country-wide.

Strangly enough - whilst in Italy - I couldn't get through to
Botswana.  I needed access to a machine there - so I ended up dialling
to my machine in South Africa on one line - and back out to Botswana
on another line.

 From my home phone (in RSA) - If I push 'repeat-dial' - from the time
the Touch Tones finish to the time a US phone begins to ring is
usually less than three seconds.


Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa
UUCP: {uunet,olgb1,olnl1}!olsa99!mje (Mark Elkins)
[e-mail] (Postmaster) Tel: [phone]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Cellular From COCOT
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 17:38:34 GMT


The Esteemed Moderator writes, describing various forms of telephonic
refunds (coins by mail, small checks, pseudo-checks marked "Pay to the
Order of The Telephone Company", credit chits).

None of this has ever happened to me here in NYTel land.  When I
request a refund here from a genuwine pay phone (I don't use any other
kind), I get asked "Do you have a New York Telephone phone?"  I say
yes and supply the number of my home phone.  I then get a credit on my
bill.  The credit appears as a single line on the bill aggregating all
such coin-refund credits I have accumulated over the month.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #627
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10604;
          8 Sep 90 21:15 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26004;
          8 Sep 90 19:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25527;
          8 Sep 90 18:39 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Sep 90 18:14:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #628
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Sep 90 18:14:24 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 628

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait [Mark J. Elkins]
    Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait [John Cowan]
    Re: Call From NYC to Long Island and Fisher's Island [John Cowan]
    Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji? [John Cowan]
    Re: Different 'To' and 'From' Lines [Bob Yasi]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [John Pettitt]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Steven King]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Brian D. McMahon]
    Re: Riposte to Morse Credits by Asimov in Digest [Marc Kwiatkowski]
    Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying [Craig Jackson]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [David M. Archer]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Ron Heiby]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Mike Coleman]
    Tailgunner Joe (was: Irnalee Stohrs) [Bob Halloran]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mark J Elkins <mje99![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait
Date: 3 Sep 90 05:55:07 GMT
Reply-To: Mark J Elkins <mje99![e-mail]>
Organization: Mark's Machine (Working for Olivetti Africa)


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bryan M.
Richardson) writes:

>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."

[ all about .. >Thanks for using AT&T!]

Talk about routing!  - Dialing +914 from South Africa is intercepted
with the message 'Due to difficulties in Kuwait, telephone service is
not available - British Telecom will resume services as soon as
possible.'

How many other non-USA countries use BT to do routing to Kuwait?

I wonder if this implies that any country that South Africa does not
route directly to is routed via BT?


Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa
UUCP: {uunet,olgb1,olnl1}!olsa99!mje (Mark Elkins)
[e-mail] (Postmaster) Tel: [phone]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Calls to Kuwait
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 15:52:30 GMT


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

>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.

How can you tell that he is presubscribed rather than using 10288+011?
I thought there was no way for the IEC to know whether a call comes in
through presubscription or on-the-fly choice until they compare the
ANI with their subscription database.

If you simply meant "you are using AT&T", that's different.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call From NYC to Long Island and Fisher's Island
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 17:51:27 GMT


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

>[e-mail] writes that a call from 212 to 516 is
>local.  But I had a message from [e-mail] saying that
>the call in question was going about 20 or 30 miles beyond Cold Spring
>Harbor.  Back in the 1970s (I don't know what has changed in the
>meantime), the message-unit calling area from NYC went as far east as
>the Amityville, Cold Spring Harbor, and Farmingdale exchanges, which
>are somewhere around the Nassau-Suffolk border.

This is no longer true.  I don't know exactly when New York Telephone
cut over, but as of now the entire New York Metropolitan LATA is a
message-unit calling area.  Within the NYMLATA, there are no longer
individually billed toll calls.  NYTel divides the area into seven
regions (I forget the official jargon for these): within each, calls
are one message unit each irrespective of length*; between regions,
calls are timed.

The region boundaries are political in nature and independent of area
code, thus New York City is one region but two area codes (212/718),
whereas Nassau and Suffolk Counties are one region each but share area
code 516.

* There is a service option whereby all calls, even within the region,
are timed: this option has lower per-month fixed charges.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Answers the Phone in Fiji?
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 17:02:11 GMT


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

>About eight years ago I was calling work in San Diego from Pheonix
>using my brand-spanky-new calling card and I *did* get Perth,
>Australia. It is, of course, just a matter of an extra 0 at the
>beginning:

>    0  1 619 4XX XXXX    San Diego via calling card

I think you botched this.  To dial using a calling card, one utters
0+NPA+NXX-XXXX, not 0+1+NPA etc.  01 is the prefix for operator-
assisted international calling, so the switch did the right thing.

>    0 01 61 9 4XX XXXX    International via calling card

001 is not international.  011 is direct-dial international, and 01 is
operator-assisted (calling card, etc.).  00 means "get the IXC
operator" if it means anything at all.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

From: Bob Yasi <mtxinu!wasat.la.locus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Different 'To' and 'From' Lines
Date: 4 Sep 90 20:15:59 GMT


Yes, it is true within the US so I see no reason it wouldn't be true
elsewhere.

I live in San Diego and could NOT get clean connections from AT&T to
either New Jersey or Boston.  I would sound great to the East Coast
but they would sound really bad.  I tried for _three months_ to get
AT&T to fix the problem, and learned a lot in the process, but they
never did fix it.  (If the call originated on the East Coast, then
both legs would sound fine.)  Anyway, that's why I have Sprint now --
AT&T could NOT provide decent service -- which, quite frankly,
surprises me to this day.


Bob Yazz (no bulky signature, thank-you) --

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

Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 9:32:57 BST
From: [e-mail]


Oh well, since we are on this subject: Our machine at home has the
follwoing message:

<meeeeeoooowwwww> [sound of rather dim British Blue cat being
squeezed] As you can hear we haven't trained the cats to answer the
phone so you will have to talk to this thing instead <beep>

We have had several people leave "I seem to have the wrong number but
I like the message" plus one threat to call the RSPCA !

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 7 Sep 90 16:34:04 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Then there's my friend's machine, which is really annoying the first
time you call it.

    "Hello? ... Yeah ...  Who is this? ... Uh-huh ... This is a machine.
    Leave a message.  *BEEP*"

Of course, if you're REALLY anti-social just record fast busy on your
outgoing tape...


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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 13:07:28 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages


In TELECOM Digest V10 #624, Sean Malloy <[e-mail]>
writes:

>I fell in love with an answering machine message from a recent 'Shoe'
>comic strip, and adapted it for my machine.

Shoe had an even better one a few moons ago.  The phone rings on the
Perfesser's desk, and picks up with "Hello, this is Perfesser
Fishhawk.  No one can find the phone right now..."

To appreciate this one, you'd have to know what the Perfesser's desk
looks like.  Or mine.  I *know* there's a desk here somewhere, because
something must be holding up all these printouts.  "The paperless
office" -- the BIG lie!


Brian McMahon  <[e-mail]>  Grinnell College Computer Services
Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA   Voice: [phone]  Fax:  [phone]

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

From: Marc Kwiatkowski <mtxinu!nath.la.locus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Riposte to Morse Credits by Asimov in Digest
Date: 31 Aug 90 22:37:28 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA


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

>Even the so-called "Morse Code" was not Morse's invention, but that of
>his shopworker subordinate named Vail (probably an ancestor of the
>Vail of AT&T fame).  Morse was, in fact, an arrogant, foppish son of
>a rich man who frequently took long yacht trips and sessions painting
>in oils, leaving Vail to do the work.  Morse's idea of the
>"instrument" to send telegraph signals was a cumbersome,
>piano-keyboard-like thing he called a "portrule," on which one set up
>the character to send, then pressed on a long lever for it to send the
>pulses to line.  During one period of Morse's absence, Vail gave up on
>trying to manufacture a portrule that would work, and instead made a
>"key" like the one we have all seen, including a means to use it for
>transmission ... the code.

I haven't heard of the portrule before, but in the SAMS book "Digital
Communications", author Campbell states that the earliest Morse
receivers were much like siesmographs, that is, a drum with paper
about it that rotated at a fix rate, while a pencil dragged across it
and went high for the duration of the pulse.  If I remember correctly,
the protocol of generating a pulse followed by a long gap, would
produce a MARK and a SPACE on the drum, the terms endured, but the
device did not.  Operators learned to simply hear Morse code by
listening to the pencil motions.


[e-mail]

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

From: Craig Jackson drilex1 <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against Epson Charges Email Spying
Date: 7 Sep 90 18:16:33 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (A J
Annala) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 622, Message 6 of 12

>The right of employee privacy in telephone conversations on employer
>owned equipment was settled a few years ago in a suit brought against
>one of the major air carriers.  My recollection is vague, but I seem
>to remember an air carrier tried to dismiss a reservations employee
>for some kind of union organizing activity.  The dismissal was based
>on surrepticious monitoring of an employee telephone conversation.
>The court ordered the employee reinstated ... with probable damages.

It would be difficult to draw a general principle from such a ruling.
Union-oriented activity has become specially enshrined in American
jurisprudence.  I wouldn't be surprised if union organizing was held
to be a legitimate business activity of any employee.

If the employee was doing something more obviously personal, such as
using the telephone to run a business on the side, it might not relate
to this decision.


Craig Jackson
[e-mail]
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}

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

From: David M Archer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 8 Sep 90 01:28:52 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo


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

>Obviously you've never called Sprint to ask them anything
>else.  (Read the other recent postings on this subject, which are
>corroborated by my experience.)

Actually, I've had to call Sprint twice so far.

The first time, was when I finally bothered to find out why I was
still getting billed by AT&T.  I knew I was still connected to AT&T,
but Sprint was who told NYTel to switch, so I figured I'd call
Sprint.  The Sprint person simply verified that I was "registered" as
a "dial 1" Sprint customer, and said that I should check with the
local phone company.  I suppose that if I was a purist, I would
complain that Sprint should have taken care of it for me, but in all
fairness, it wasn't Sprint's problem.  (I could complain about NYTel
for a couple pages, but that's not the point here.)

The second time was when I either lost a phone bill, or it was stolen
from the mail, or what, I don't know.  I called, asked "I never got my
bill for <whatever month>, can you mail me a copy of it?". I was asked
my account number, and that was that.  A week or so later, I got a
copy of it.  (Well, actually screen dumps from a terminal somewhere,
but close enough.)

Both times I had no problem at all.  As they say, your mileage may vary;
apparently yours does.

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

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
Date: 7 Sep 90 23:46:18 GMT
Organization: Motorola Microcomputer, Schaumburg, IL


This seems to be getting off the topic, but I wanted to reply to
Patrick's comments.

My wife joined (in *my* name) the Sierra club about a year ago.
Expecting a call on my data/answering-machine line that I actually
wanted to take, I picked up an incoming call and it was a Sierra
telemarketer asking what I wanted to "pledge" for renewing my
membership.  She finally agreed to accept a "null" pledge as I kept
insisting that it was my wife who made those decisions.  When I asked
her about it later, she told me that she'd decided not to send them
any more money as she felt that her entire initial donation had gone
to pay for mailings asking for more donations.  She wants to donate to
a similar organization that A) does good work, and B) sends members
(at most) a couple of low cost newsletters a year to let them know
what their money's going for.  I don't disagree!


Ron Heiby, [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod

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

From: Mike Coleman <twinsun![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 15:48:38 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was
>doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing
>organization. If the latter, you really should not take it out on the
>Sierra Club until you are sure they are aware of, and approve of the
>techniques being used. The organization may have not known how
>obnoxious their agents were on the phone.   PAT]

 From the standpoint of the call recipient, it's completely irrelevant
that the call is coming from an agent of the SC rather than then SC.
If I were to receive the kind of treatment the original author
describes, I might well cut them off forever with a letter describing
the reason, and that would be more than fair.

Would we consider the I. Stohrs fiasco to be any less serious if it
were the work of a telemarketing agency working on behalf of the
courthouse?  I doubt she would think so.

For the record, I'm a member of the Sierra Club and generally feel
that they are a fine organization.  I'm very dismayed to hear this
story.


[e-mail]
   @cs.ucla.edu

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 08:46 EDT
Subject: Tailgunner Joe (was:Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story)
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


Referring to Joseph Abernathy of the {Houston Chronicle}, who'd
written a piece back in May about how some H.S. student 'suddenly
found himself' in one of the alt.sex groups, how MIT was a 'known
storehouse of pornography', and how all this filth was being carried
cross-country on publicly-funded networking....  :-( :-(


Bob Halloran

Internet: [e-mail]        UUCP: att!mtune!rkh
Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed.


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for introducing him. He sounds like a real
winner for sure!  But I think the M.I. of T. would only qualify as a
'storehouse of pornography' if you included Telecom Archives!  :)
Psst, for a good time, ftp lcs.mit.edu, then cd telecom-archives.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #628
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11366;
          8 Sep 90 22:11 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22241;
          8 Sep 90 20:46 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26004;
          8 Sep 90 19:43 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Sep 90 18:57:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #629
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Sep 90 18:57:20 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 629

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Real Operators? [Subodh Bapat]
    Re: E Series Recommendations Excerpts [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Peter M. Weiss]
    Re: Best Way to Long-Distance Connect [Roger Fajman]
    Re: Washington State Running Low [John Higdon]
    Re: SWB Files Application For CCO Tarriff in Texas [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Peter da Silva]
    Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [Gordon Letwin]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Jim Rees]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [John Higdon]
    Re: Time Limits on Calls [Otto J. Makela]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable
Date: 7 Sep 90 12:56:34 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jay
Libove) writes:

> Well, I have two phone lines - one voice, one data - on a four wire
> typical phone line, and I experience crosstalk that I believe might
> actually occasionally interfere with my data communications, and is
> always annoying (to both parties) on the voice line.

> Do I have any legal right to make the phone company come in and
> correct a situation that they caused? They knew before doing the
> second line "installation" (just plug in a two-jack plate and split
> the wires, $75, on top of $40 'line charge' !!!) that the line was to
> be used for data communication.

    Legally, the Telco gave you what you asked for, a second line
connected to a jack. For $50.00 you could have got a freelance to do

it right.

    It's quad vs. twisted pair time again. Most domestic
installations use cable that has a white plastic jacket. This cable
has four wires inside. The four wires make up "two pairs". The first
pair, the wires that carry the first line, are the Red and Green. Most
telephone wire, like the wire going all the way back to the CO
(exchange) is what is known as twisted pair. It is twisted so as to
remain balanced to ground and null out induced signals. You can lay
hundreds of twisted pairs next to each other with no crosstalk
problems. None of the above refers to quad. Quad is not twisted. Using
quad can give rise to cross talk. The longer the quad run, the greater
the chance of cross talk.  One "Okie fix" to quad cross talk is use a
separate piece of quad cable for each line rather than use the Yellow
and Black second pair.

    The best thing to do is rip out all quad and install "Three
Pair".  This stuff uses a different colour code:

white/blue-blue/white, white/orange-orange/white, white/green-green/white.

This job is easy to do. Three pair is cheap, you can get 1,000 Feet
for about $40.00 (Your milage may vary). The jacket of twisted pair is
usually "artificial limb pink" which is for some reason called
"beige", it is available in "designer grey", I have seen some black
jacketed twisted pair.

    The drop wire. This is the overhead cable that brings the line
into some domestic installations. If it is a single line drop, the
wire is not twisted. It is also flying through the air so is not
liable to suffer from crosstalk. Multi-line drop wire, six pairs etc,
is twisted pair. All the underground subscriber feeds I have seen use
twisted pair.

    So it is very simple, want clean quiet lines? Use twisted
pair. The Telco will usually use quad in domestic and single line
installs.  Installers are often happy to use twisted pair if you ask
for them.  But, you don't have to get the Telco to do your inside
wiring, you can do it yourself or pay anyone else to do it. The Telco
has priced themselves out of the inside wiring biz and their standards
seemed to have slipped post divestiture.


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

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Real Operators?
Date: 7 Sep 90 18:59:19 GMT
Organization: Racal Milgo, Sunrise, FL


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

>Sprint's latest TV spot: "...We have REAL operators..."

> [ Several comparisons regarding AT&T and Sprint's operator service ]

Here's my story: I wanted credit for a couple of international calls I
had been wrongly billed for - one over MCI and one over AT&T.

MCI Billing Service Number: Made me go through an elaborate hierarchy
of voice menus on the ACD ("If you want new services, press 1; if you
have questions about your bill, press 2...etc.") If I had to map this
menu into a directed acyclic graph, I'd get a tree with a depth of 6
or 7 or so .... anyway, once I got to the point I wanted, "Please punch
in your telephone number now...." (I did so) "You have just entered
XXX-XXX-XXXX.... to prevent fraudulent access to your account, please
punch in your zip code now...." (I did so) "You have just entered a
zip code of XXXXX... your current account balance is $132.15 ... If
you want a human operator, press 0 now." (I do so).  Phone rings
somewhere. A recording tells me all operators are busy, please hold.
Musak for about 30 seconds or so....

    Operator: "May I help you."
    Me: (Explain problem).
    Operator: "May I have your telephone number please?"
    Me: "I just punched that in to your ACD before it routed me to you."
    Operator: "Huh?"
    Me: "You mean it didn't forward my number?" [And this is an 800 number,
         so presumably they could have gotten real-time ANI as well.]
    Operator: "No."
    Me: (gives number)
    Operator: (Arranges credit).

Total transaction time: 2 mins 55 sec

AT&T: Operator answers immediately.
      Me: (explain problem)
      Operator: (arranges credit).

Total transaction time: 22 sec.

Aside from a badly architectured operator service, MCI has a gaping
security hole - the only authentication they ask for before announcing
your account balance is your zip code, and it isn't too difficult to
map a zip code to an area code and prefix.


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

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E Series Recommendations Excerpts - for Edification and Emusement
Date: 7 Sep 90 23:46:51 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


    What color are the 1988 recommendations? Anyone know what
color the '92 ones will be?


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Saturday, 8 Sep 1990 08:29:16 EDT
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages


For the sake of your associates/friends who call you over toll
facilities, I would think it appropriate to have your OGM be as short
as possible.


Pete

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 90  11:11:19 EDT
Subject: Re: Best Way to Long-Distance Connect


An alternative to Telenet is BT Tymnet, another public data network.
They also have outdial service.  But for only 25-50 KB of data per
day, it might make more sense just to get higher speed dial modems,
such as the many V.32 9600 bps models on the market.  With the MNP 5
or V.42bis compression capability that most such modems have now, the
effective data rate for text can be up to 2-3 times 9600 bps.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State Running Low
Date: 8 Sep 90 13:36:25 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]> writes:

> I cannot imagine just picking up the phone, and dialing
> some random unfamiliar seven-digit number, and having to pay long
> distance charges on it instead just because I didn't know.

Since no '1' is dialed here for any long distance, I generally keep my
random dialing to a minimum. Not only does it save me money, but saves
me time since I only talk to people with whom I wish to converse.
Also, I'm told that some (not all, but some) people object to being on
the receiving end of "random" calls.

> Actually, let me guess.  Are we one of the last few areas that still
> has free local calls?

Unmeasured local calling is at least an option for all California
residence subscribers.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: SWB Files Application For CCO Tarriff in Texas
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 21:18:44 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Hayward <[e-mail].
utexas.edu> writes:

> Call Control Options include six new services - Call Blocker, Call
> Cue, Call Return, Priority Call, Call Trace and Selective Call
> Forwarding.

Wimps. They're happy to run roughshod over BBS hobbyists, but they
don't have the guts to get an actual *useful* service through.


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 21:29:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!
[e-mail] (BROWN, STAN) writes:

> Just for the record -- I am _not_ against answering machines.  All I
> am saying is, don't pretend that it's for someone else's convenience.

I don't know. Seems more convenient to leave a message than to keep ringing
back at random periods in the hopes of catching someone at a phone.


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Gordon LETWIN)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff!
Date: 7 Sep 90 23:23:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA


Re: the discussion of how the Italian "God Calling Service" worked -
please note that the {World Weekly News}, which published this story,
routinely makes up their stories from whole cloth.  So trying to make
sense of this story might be like trying to learn physics by studying
Star Trek episodes.

When standing in supermarket checkout lines I used to amuse myself by
reading the headlines on these rags and trying to guess what the real,
underlying story really was.  When I learned that they weren't just
distorting a germ of fact, but were literally just writing fiction,
then all the fun was out of it.  (I forget where I learned about this
(and similar rags) story creation - I think it was an interview with
an ex reporter for the sister pub. of WWN - Nat Enq?)


Gordon Letwin

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri Sep  7 19:51:04 1990 GMT


I've been to, and used the phone system in, about 40 countries in the
last two years.

The Best:  USA, Hong Kong, Singapore

The Worst:  India, Vietnam, Indonesia

None:  Laos (they don't have phones outside the big city!)

My biggest complaint with USA phone system right now is that it's very
hostile to outsiders.  The multitude of long distance companies is
confusing to someone used to the telephone monopolies of other
countries, and there is no provision for non-subscribers to pay for
phone calls.  AT&T won't give a credit card to someone who has no
phone.

Here is an exercise for you Americans.  Imagine yourself standing on a
street corner downtown in your city with nothing but lots of cash and
a Visa card.  You do not have a "home phone" in this country.  You
don't want to make the callee pay for the call. How would you make a
long distance phone call?  Remember, most of the world will cost you
on the order of $3 a minute.  That's 12 coins of the largest
denomination accepted by a pay phone.

Here are two ideas from other countries to make the USA phone system
more usable to outsiders (that includes me, and I live here!):

Do away with coin-operated phones.  Replace them with phones that take
a smart card.  They should take both pre-pay cards (available at any
corner market for $10, $20, etc) and telephone credit cards.

Make meters easily and cheaply available.  You go in to a bar and want
to make a phone call.  The bartender writes down the meter reading,
you make your call, and pay for the number of units you used.

One or both of these systems are widely used throughout Europe and
Asia, and it makes life a lot easier.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: 8 Sep 90 14:13:42 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jim Breen <[e-mail]> writes:

> In the best/worst voting, my opinions (based on experience) are:

> BEST:   Japan
> WORST:  India

Bzzzzt! Wrong -- but thanks for playing anyway. Without getting into
the "US is best" fray, I can categorically state that Japan does NOT
have the worlds best telephone service, unless there are criteria that
I am missing.

* No itemized billing (not even for "Dial-Q", Japan's 900 equivalent)

* About one out of ten calls bomb (don't go through).

* Long distance within Japan "sounds" like long distance.

* Digital services are just being introduced.

* Outside plant is pathetic and inadequate.

* Even though the system is "privatized", it is run like a government
  bureaucracy.

* You get to hear the "meter pulses" on many calls.

I don't know where the US fits on the scale, but it certainly is
higher up on the food chain telephonically than Japan.

Sources: close associates who live and work in Japan.


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

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

From: "Otto J. Makela" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Time Limits on Calls
Organization: Turing Police, Criminal AI section
Date: 9 Sep 90 02:34:57


In article <[e-mail]> ihlpf![e-mail] (Arnette P
Baker) writes:

[description of time limit on phone calls...]

>So, anyone out there ever hear of this kind of limit??

Yes, I ran into a phone system with the same kind of a limit.

When I was in the Army, I was stuck at the local Army HQ (right in the
middle of the town), and had to figure out a way to burn time.  One
evening I came up with the idea of calling one guy I met during basic
training, who was situated at another local HQ.  So, I walk out to a
quiet corner of the office, and use a MIL-standard digital line to
call the HQ (of course, that way no-one gets billed anything extra -
the army has their own leased hardened lines).

When the officer of the day answered, I asked for my opposite number
(I knew that if the setup was even remotely similar to the one at my
location, he'd not be able to tell if the call came from a MIL- line
or just a local dialup - they were all routed through the same
exchange under normal conditions).  So, I chatted with this friend of
mine for around 25 minutes or so, and suddenly we were cut off.
Strange, I thought, these lines are supposed to be VERY fail-safe.  I
redialed, and about 3 minutes into the 2nd call a military operator
suddenly cut in: IS THIS AN OFFICIAL CALL?  I naturally lied my ass
off...


Otto J. Makela <[e-mail]>
Phone: [phone], BBS: [phone] (CCITT, Bell 2400/1200/300)
Mail: Kauppakatu 1 B 18, SF-40100 Jyvaskyla, Finland, EUROPE

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #629
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12246;
          8 Sep 90 23:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16365;
          8 Sep 90 21:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22241;
          8 Sep 90 20:46 CDT
Date:     Sat, 8 Sep 90 20:37:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #630
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Sep 90 20:37:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 630

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Info Needed on Submarine Cables [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Subodh Bapat]
    Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market [Matthew McGehrin]
    Re: Time Limits on Calls [John Higdon]
    Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story [Peter da Silva]
    Calling Back to USA From the UK [John R. Levine]
    Using a US Modem in Scotland [Donald C. Hubin]
    Using a US Answering Machine in France [Donald F. Parsons, MD]
    SMDR's and Credit Card Calls [David Barts]
    Collect/Third Party Billed to Cellular [Bill Berbenich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info Needed on Submarine Cables
Date: 7 Sep 90 13:56:37 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


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

> Can anyone tell me how I can find out the routes of all the submarine
> cables in the world (yes, I actually need it :-) )...

    I have a list that is not up to date, it is from "Telephony's
Dictionary" by Graham Langley (1982). I know since then there has been
a fair amount of fiber optic laying. Also I would imagine that some
cables have been decommissioned. You could also try to locate a
friendly soul at AT&T Long Lines.

                      List of Submarine Cables

ADONIS, APHRODITE, ARIANE    France to Greece to Cyprus to Lebanon
AEGUS                Greece to Crete
ALPAL                Algeria to Majorca to Spain
AMITE                France to Morocco
ANNIBAL                France to Tunisia
ANTINEA                Sengal to Morocco
ANZCAN                Australia to New Zealand to Canada
APOLLO                Greece to Cyprus
APNG                Australia to Papua New Guinea
ARTEMIS                France to Greece
ASEANIS                Indonesia to Singapore
ASEANPS                Philippines to Singapore
ATLANTIS            Portugal to Brazil
BAPI                Spain to Italy
BARGEN                Spain to Italy
BARO                Spain to Italy
BER                USA to Bermuda
BRACAN                Brazil to Canary Islands
BRUS                Brazil to USA
CAM                Portugal to Madeira
CANBER                Canada to Bermuda
CANTAT                UK to Canada
COLOMBUS            Spain to Venezuela
COMPAC                Canada to Fiji/New Zealand/Australia
ECSC                Japan to China
EL FATAH            France to Libya
FLORICO                USA to Puerto Rico
FRATERNITE            Senegal to Ivory Coast
HAW 1, 2, 3            USA to Hawaii
IOCOM                Maylaysia to India
JASC                Japan to Russia
MARPAL                France to Italy
MARTEL                France to Israel
MAT 1                Spain to Italy
MED 1                Italy to Malta
MED 2                Sicily to Crete
MED 3                Italy to Greece
OKITAI                Okinawa to Japan to Taiwan
OLUHO                Okinawa to Philippines to Hong Kong
PENBAL                Spain to Baleric Islands
PENCAN                Spain to Canary Islands
PHILSIN                Alias for ASEANPS
SAT 1                Portugal to South Africa
SCOTICE, ICECAN            UK (Scotland) to Iceland to Canada
SEACOM                Singapore to Maylaysia to Hong Kong,
                                   then on to Papua New Guinea to Australia
SHEFA                Shetland Islands to Faeroe Islands
ST T                USA to US Virgin Islands
TAGIDE                France to Portugal
TASMAN                Australia to New Zealand
TAT 1 to 8            Europe to North America
TELPAL                Israel to Italy
TRANSCAN            Canary Islands (inter-island)
TRANSPAC 1            Hawaii to Japan to Philippines
TRANSPAC 2            Hawaii to Japan


    This is not a complete list. Many small cables have been
omitted.  For example, there is a cable between Key West, Florida and
Havana, Cuba. In the Telephony's Dictionary, there are diagrams
showing where these cables run and the number of circuits they carry.

    Students of Geography, History and Politics will have fun with
these cables. Some of them are between colonial powers and old
colonies, some are obviously for trade purposes and some for political
expediency. SAT 1 was set up between South Africa and Portugal because
the South Africans were reluctant to have circuits running across
possibly hostile Black Africa. Portugal was chosen as the European
landing country because of its political neutrality and the old trade
connections between Portugal and South Africa.

    According to the Dictionary, the first significant submarine
cable was laid in 1850.  The first major submarine cable was TAT 1; it
carried 50 circuits. TAT 1, laid in 1956, has been decommissioned. As
I recall the last trans-Atlantic cable laid was a fiber optic jobbie
with a 40,000 circuit capacity.


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

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 7 Sep 90 18:40:28 GMT
Organization: Racal Milgo, Sunrise, FL


In <[e-mail]> radius![e-mail] (Steve Lemke) writes:

>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.

I have a feeling that this may not always work the same way, depending
on the CO switches in the circuit, especially long distance where
multiple switches are involved. The reason is that the number of rings
heard by the caller is not necessarily the number of rings generated
on the called line.

I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me,
surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?"
when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end.

Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this?


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


[Moderator's Note: A telecom person once told me, "The only reason we
put a ringing signal on the line (for the caller to listen to) is
because otherwise the caller might think the line was out of order.
The ringing signal is simply a way to let the caller know he is not
being ignored and that telco is attempting to make a connection."  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market
Date: 8 Sep 90 05:56:05 GMT


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

In reply to the message about 'two phone lines', I have an a cheaper
idea that would work. NJ Bell and other Baby Bell companies usually
offer a service called a 'teen line', that can be put on a subcriber's
line, for a family member or 'teen'.

When I first got my modem, I had my own 'teen' line and had higher
phone bills then my parents ever did, anyhow. If you need a second
cheaper line that is automatically unlisted, get a teen line. Use the
teen line for your 'voice' number and your 'orignal line' as your data
line. That way you can get unlisted service free of charge. Another
recommendation would to subscribe to PC-Pursuit or if you like faster
communications, use Reach Out America. The first hour is $8.70 (gone
in one day), and additional hours are $6.60 which is an great rate;
(about 11 cents) a minute after 10pm.


Matthew McGehrin
Internet :Matthew.Mcgehrin@f528!n520!z1!ieee!org
Fidonet  :1:107/528
Pro-Graphics BBS  908/469-0049

 ....UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics![e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Time Limits on Calls
Date: 8 Sep 90 13:58:36 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Arnette P Baker [phone] <ihlpf![e-mail]> writes:

> So, anyone out there ever hear of this kind of limit??  I presume it
> was done to reduce the load on a switch that was under engineered for
> the amount of traffic, but I really have no idea why it existed.

When I lived in Martinsville, VA in 1966, the local calling area
consisted of Martinsville and neighboring Collinsville. It stated
right in the Lee Telephone Company directory that local calls to and
from Collinsville were limited to five minutes due to a limited amount
of circuits between the two communities. After three minutes of
conversation, you got a tone and then two minutes later you were cut
off. No exceptions.

The work-around, of course, was to call back over and over again. I'll
bet a lot of teenagers got sore fingers.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Irnalee Stohrs; The Rest of the Story
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 21:25:51 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: Who is this Tailgunner Joe person? I've seen a
> couple messages about him in news.admin but haven't paid attention.
> Will someone please explain it further?   PAT]

Joe Abernathy, part-time reporter for the {Houston Chronicle}. In
reality Tailgunner Joe, with powers of distortion far beyond those of
mortal men.  Able to turn the Internet into a Sex Ring, more confusing
than ihave/sendme, and so on...


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: That's what I was told earlier. He must really
think he is something. Maybe if he keeps up his good work, he will get
promoted to the newspaper's telemarketing subscription department, or
maybe even a position as a classified ad counselor/salesperson, taking
ads on the phone.  PAT]

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

Subject: Calling Back to USA From the UK
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 10:56:45 EDT
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


There are now at least four different ways to call the US from the
United Kingdom and bill the call to a US calling card.  The rates are
all about the same though I was suprised to discover that AT&T USA
Direct costs more than calling through the UK overseas operator.

Who    Access Number    Rates

MCI    0800-89-0222    $3.36 for the first minute, then 89 cents/min
Sprint    0800-89-0877    $5.30 for 3 mins, then 94 cents/min
BT    via UK operator    $5.35 for 3 mins, then 94 cents/min
AT&T    0800-89-0011    $3.70 for the first minute, then 94 cents/min

For MCI, Sprint, and AT&T, you use your US calling card number from
that carrier.  For BT, you use the international version (the one that
starts 1M) of your AT&T number.  Some of the rates are expressed as
$N-2 for the first minute plus a $2 calling card surcharge, but I've
normalized them.  There are no time-of-day discounts.  In many cases,
particularly if it is before 7AM or after 1PM in the US, it is cheaper
for the person in the US to call back after the initial period is
over.

Sprint says this is their first and so far their only inbound
international service.

Regards,

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

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

From: "Donald C. Hubin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Using a US Modem in Scotland
Date: 8 Sep 90 11:44:39 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University (IRCC)


A friend of mine is going to Scotland for the Autumn and will have
access to the network there if he can get his external modem to work
there.  I know that the voltage is 240VAC 50Hz in the UK but it is
easy to find a cheap converter to solve that problem.  There are two
remaining problems (I think ;-) ):

  1.  The phone jacks are different.  I would love to be able to make
up the appropriate phone cables for him here, but I need to know what
type of jack is used in Scotland.  Does anyone know an ID number for
the jacks (like the RJ-11 number) that would allow me to get the jacks
over here and spare him running around there to do this?  I would
greatly appreciate any help on this.

  2.  I have gotten conflicting information about the electrical
compatibility of the phone lines.  I have another friend who bought a
laptop with an internal modem in the US and used it in England with no
difficulties (so far as I know) except for the need to have a special
telephone cable made up.  But others have told me that there are
significant electrical differences in the phone line voltage or
something.  If anyone *know* what the story is on electrical
compatibility of the phone lines, I would be very grateful for a
reply.

My friend is leaving on September 13th, so this issue is moot after
that; he'll be on his own over there.  But I would appreciate any help
I could get before that.

E-mail is probably better, since this isn't an issue that is likely to
interest a lot of people, but I will be following the discussion here
if anyone wants to post a follow-up.

Thanks,

Donald C. Hubin  |  Depart. of Philosophy, The Ohio State University
                 |  Columbus, OH  43210  USA   [phone]
[e-mail]   |  or [e-mail] or hubin@ohstmvsa

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

Date: Sat, 08 Sep 90 13:10:17 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Using a US Answering Machine in France


My daughter will leave for a job in Paris at the end of next week.
She uses an ordinary Panasonic answering machine -- will it work there?

I am not a subscriber - please reply to me.  Thank You.


Donald F. Parsons MD, Wadsworth Center, New York State Dept.Health,
Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12054. [phone], FAX [phone].
Home: 150 Mosher Rd, Delmar, NY 12054. [phone].
BITNET: dfp10@albnyvm1 or dfp10@albnydh2.
Internet: [e-mail] or [e-mail].
Compuserve: 71777,212.  Usenet: [e-mail].

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

Date: Thu, 6 Sep 90 14:26:49 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: SMDR's and Credit Card Calls


[e-mail] (Kevin L. Blatter) writes:

> I wrote call
> accounting systems which utilizes SMDR information for billing or
> whatever and our standard practice was if we saw a calling card number
> come through that we stripped the information out and classified the
> call as a 'charge call' which meant that we would not rate the call.
> However, we could have stored the information for who-knows-what
> purpose.

Of more concern to me is what happens to an SMDR printout AFTER the
hotel (or who/whatever) is no longer interested in it.  Is it treated
as the sensitive information it is (and shredded or incinerated), or
do they just toss it into the dumpster and leave it waiting for the
next pair of prying eyes to come along?  (I have this nasty feeling
that the latter is all-too-common.)

Before you ask ... YES, I *do* ask the sales clerk for my credit-card
carbons (or make sure she tears them up).


David Barts            Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Collect/Third Party Billed to Cellular
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 10:38:13 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Here's an oddity that I came up against yesterday (9/6).  It seems
that (at least for Atlanta-based cellular subscribers) it is not
possible to call a cellular subscriber collect or make a third party
billing to a cellular number.  The cellular numbers are blocked at
TSPS and will not even allow an operator to call through to the
intended "bill-ee" for a yay or nay.

This is the case for both the A and B systems here (Pactel Cellular
and Bellsouth Mobility).  Do any readers have a definitive answer why
this so?  Surely the cellco and telco know the proper number to bill
to and answer-supervision is returned, so these are not reasons to
forbid billing to a cellular subscriber.  I suspect that the real
reason has to do with petty infighting between the various telcos and
cellcos.

Along this same line, I've found that calls to 900 numbers from
cellular are blocked also (can't get a road-fix from the Jose Canseco
hotline, darn it! ;-).  Why?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #630
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16731;
          9 Sep 90 3:29 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23790;
          9 Sep 90 1:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21130;
          9 Sep 90 0:51 CDT
Date:     Sun, 9 Sep 90 0:01:35 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #631
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Sep 90 00:00:03 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 631

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [[e-mail]]
    Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [John R. Covert]
    Re: Best Way to Long-Distance Connect [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [claris!portal!cup.portal.com]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Robert Gutierrez]
    Re: Washington State Running Low [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Another Look At TASI (An Interview With John Fraser) [Jane Fraser]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Sep  7 14:49:16 EDT 1990
Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe


 From: "P. Knoppers" <[e-mail]>

>American visitors having an AT&T phone card can probably reach 800
>numbers through AT&Ts USA-direct service (I may have this name wrong),
>which has a toll-free number in the Netherlands.

Henry Mensch responds:

>Nope ... people who have 800 numbers agree to pay for calls
>originating from certain areas (and often the entire US and Canada).
>they never agreed to pay for calls coming in from abroad.

Incorrect!  The USA-Direct tariff specifically allows calls to 800
numbers in the US *if* you are using an AT&T calling card.  The call
is actually charged twice: once to the overseas caller for the
connection to AT&T's service center in Pittsburgh; and for the 800
call from Pittsburgh to the destination.  So the 800 user isn't
getting charged for a call from abroad - just another call from
Pennsylvania.


Jack Dominey - AT&T Commercial Marketing - Tucker, GA

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 07:30:59 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  07-Sep-1990 1020" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe


Henry Mensch <[e-mail]> replies to "P. Knoppers"
<[e-mail]> saying:

>>American visitors having an AT&T phone card can probably reach 800
>>numbers through AT&Ts USA-direct service (I may have this name wrong),
>>which has a toll-free number in the Netherlands.

>Nope ... people who have 800 numbers agree to pay for calls
>originating from certain areas (and often the entire US and Canada).
>they never agreed to pay for calls coming in from abroad.

Henry, it has been reported here before that this _is_ a service that
AT&T provides to AT&T customers.  The 800 number must be an AT&T 800
number, and the call must be billed to an AT&T or a local telephone
company calling card.

I placed a call to an 800 number from abroad recently.  I called USA
direct, gave my calling card number and the 800 number, and AT&T put
the call through.  I was billed for a call to a number in Pittsburgh,
412 394-6288.  You may be amused by the recording (for which you will
be charged) if you call this number.

I wish the people posting such authoritative statements as yours would
check them first.  It might also behoove the Moderator to at least post
a note stating that he had heard otherwise when false information is
placed in the Digest, especially when the correct information has been
posted earlier.


john

[Moderator's Note: It is impossible for me to remember every article
which appears every day in the Digest; to go back through old issues
looking for the 'correct' information on any given topic would take
more time than I am able to spend here. I certainly am in no position
to actually call the telcos and LD carriers to verify every statement
made here prior to publication. That's why I keep your name on the
mailing list, John: so you can read TELECOM Digest each day and give
us Truthful and Correct Information when we err.  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best Way to Long-Distance Connect
Date: 8 Sep 90 17:18:45 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


It depends on what sort of connections are supported at the Chicago
computer.

Does he want SYNC or ASYNC? Does Chicago support x.25 access? And if
Chicago has x.25, is it for cpu to cpu, or does it support remote
terminals dialing into a PAD? Does he have a terminal or a PC?

Regardless of how many characters he needs to send, what upper and
lower speed limits are imposed by each end? How many seperate times
each day?

Not knowing any of the above, I will toss out various things to
consider.

Renting a line will get you digital on the long haul even if you ask
for analog local loops. Just get DDS II (NOT the old rip off DDS I)
tail ckts and get fractional T1 (a DS0) bandwidth. The long haul part
of that from AT&T bought as (Acunet Spectrum of Digital Service) for >
101 miles, the fixed charge is $248, and the variable is $0.32/mile.
You then have local loops. If ordered 'right' you may even be able to
do 64kb, but certainly at least 56kb. I have NO idea what the local
loops are there, but, for example, NYC's DDS II prices are $72.13 per
end (in each city you need 2, one at your end and one at the long haul
carrier's POP). If the POP is in the same CO, all you pay is 2 x $72.
If different COs, you pay a fixed charge of $29.41, plus $4.73 per
mile. That is for ANY speed: 2.4,4.8,9.6,19.2,56kb.

A 9.6 permanent Telenet x.25 line probably will cost $800/mo and
packets on top of that! BUT many RBOCs are doing x.25 just for this
sort of application.

Here in MA it is $40/mo for a NET&T 9.6 x.25 port, and then you have
to pay for a channel to that port. The channel could be leased 4 wire
'3002' and you rent a v.29 modem from them for $95/mo (and supply
yours at your end), DDS II, DOV using any CO voice line you have, or
even over ISDN. You then also pay packets.

He could get a Telenet account and dial their pad.

He can simply dial up as needed, using all the usual games to keep DDD
costs down. An auto dialing high speed modem helps, as does some comm
program on a PC.

It is probably too early, but you might just ask about ISDN.

BTW, everyone else will be less than the AT&T prices above, some by a
LOT.  Some have 'deals' on now where they pay all installation (theirs
and the LEC's) or give you a couple of free months backbone free. They
want your long term business. Try C&W, Williams, MCI, SPRINT, and
DEFINITELY ask AT&T, too. Some of those may not go where you want, and
there wil be others that do. Check for BYPASS carriers in your
terminal cities. The IXCs will know if they are available. Long term
contracts can get you much lower prices.

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
Date: Sat,  8 Sep 90 12:11:40 PDT


Running an obnoxious telemarketing operation sound like it might be a
good business to get into.  Does anyone have any idea how profitable
these things are?  Is there a book or magazine article which explains
what you need to get started (like what phone equipment to buy and
where to find slimeballs to work the phones)?

As I understand it, you give a small amount to the charity and keep
all the rest, after expenses.  Are there many charities eager to have
their name associated with this method of fund-raising?  Like, gee, if
I can just rent some cheap office space, rent the phones, hire the
people, can I get the Sierra Club or the Audobon Society or some
prestigous name like that?

Would I be breaking any laws by doing this?  About how much money is
needed to get started?

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

Date: Sat, 8 Sep 90 18:24:40 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)


> I've been to, and used the phone system in, about 40 countries in the
> last two years.

> The Best:  USA, Hong Kong, Singapore
> The Worst:  India, Vietnam, Indonesia

> My biggest complaint with USA phone system right now is that it's very
> hostile to outsiders.  The multitude of long distance companies is
> confusing to someone used to the telephone monopolies of other
> countries, and there is no provision for non-subscribers to pay for
> phone calls.  AT&T won't give a credit card to someone who has no
> phone.

Ahh, but the current situation has become much better than in the
past.  Back when American Telephone and Telegraph ruled the states,
there were *no* phones with major credit card access, or alternate
L.D.  companies who you could order so-called "stand-alone" calling
card accounts.  AT&T, as far as they were concerned, didn't think you
exisited if you lived outside the USA or were not in the armed
services.

> Here are two ideas from other countries to make the USA phone system
> more usable to outsiders (that includes me, and I live here!):

> Do away with coin-operated phones.  Replace them with phones that take
> a smart card.  They should take both pre-pay cards (available at any
> corner market for $10, $20, etc) and telephone credit cards.

This is an excellent idea that AT&T should have adopted before `ol
Harry broke them up (that's Judge Harold "Equal Access" Greene to
you!).  But this is now impossible with the poliferation of the
one-armed bandits ...errr ... COCOTS, and different Long Distance
companies now.  Japan can (and did) do this, but only because they
were (at the time) a monopoly.  They didn't have to fight with X
amount of COCOT mfgr's or X amount of AOS carriers or L.D. companies
or X amount of local telco's, etc ... you get the idea.

The best we can hope for now is an Automated Teller/Instant Teller
debit card system that *maybe* some L.D. carrier would implement, and
allow the public at large (or at least the ones who hold such cards)
to use their services casually.  This will at least allow some people
from other major countries to use the services here.  This, of course,
doesn't even come close to the open access that NTT/Japan allows
through the use of their telephone debit cards.

I have three NTT 50 unit telephone cards myself (given as a gift to me
 ... they have my favorite Japanese cartoon characters on them).  I can
only look at them and wonder in frustration why there was never a
similiar system here.


   Robert Michael Gutierrez
   Office of Space Science and Applications,
   NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center.
   Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State Running Low
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 90 01:44:27 GMT


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

| Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]> writes:
| > I cannot imagine just picking up the phone, and dialing
| > some random unfamiliar seven-digit number, and having to pay long
| > distance charges on it instead just because I didn't know.
| Since no '1' is dialed here for any long distance, I generally keep my
| random dialing to a minimum. Not only does it save me money, but saves
| me time since I only talk to people with whom I wish to converse.
| Also, I'm told that some (not all, but some) people object to being on
| the receiving end of "random" calls.

Random was the wrong word.  Maybe it's because I run a business, but
I'm eternally calling back some phone number left by a message.  "Call
Suzie at 635-2233", it says.  Now, in the unfriendly system that it's
about to become (hopefully not for a while), I have to look up that
silly chart that tells if 635 is a local call to 643 (my home prefix),
and if not, *keep* the friggin' call short.  Right now, I just dial
away, and let the phone company figure it out.

It is *not* intuitive about what is and isn't a local call around
here, by the way.  There are parts of the city that are 1/4 the air
mileage as the furthest free call, that end up being a toll call
because of the mixture of US West, GTE, and random small telco around
here.  (Real example... local call from East Portland to Forest Grove,
about 20 airmiles, but long distance from Beaverton to Lake Oswego,
and they're adjacent, but *local* again from Beaverton to Wilsonville,
which is on the *other* side of Lake Oswego.)  I'd almost always be
guessing wrong, unless I had dialed the prefix before.  (And new
prefixes are showing up every day.)

I think this scam of using 1+ to indicate area codes instead of toll
calls is actually good for the phone company in two ways ... they can
sell more phone numbers (if it wasn't for PBX DID, we wouldn't be
running out), and people can get stuck with toll calls without knowing
it.  A scam.  Sorta like forced business measured service, which our
PUC has thumbed his nose at a few times around now.  (Anything the
phone company asks for that is footnoted as "will save the customer
money" probably won't, I suspect.)

Just another phone user,

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

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

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 11:20:20 edt
From: "Jane M. Fraser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Look at TASI (An Interview With John Fraser)


I've been reading the comments on TASI with great interest since I've
heard about it since I was a toddler, mumble years ago.  My father,
John M. Fraser, was one of the lead people in the systems engineering
for TASI.  He retired from Bell Labs in 1972, after 35 years with
them.

I finally got ahold of him last night and asked him about TASI.  I'm
sure I didn't get all this information exactly right.  I'm not a
telephone engineer (I am an industrial engineer).

Anyway, here goes.

Someone already gave the correct acronym: Time Assigned Speech
Interpolation.  Dad said the basic idea was described in the Bell
Systems Technical Journal very early; he thinks maybe in the 30s, but
that article ended by saying that, of course, relays can't switch fast
enough.  This changed, again of course, with the invention of the
transistor.  However, because of that early article, Bell Labs had no
patent on the technique.

The first transatlantic phone cable was finished in 1955 (Dad was a
Bell Labs representative on the ship, the Long Lines, that laid the
cable, and in Oban, Scotland, where the cable came ashore).  He knows
they got started on TASI right away and guesses it was implemented in
the early 60s.  He thinks the first system would have been installed
about 1962.

Dad said they did some measurements on the percent of time a speaker
actually talks, using conversation between operators and found each
one spoke, on average, 39.5% of the time.  He rounded it to 40% and
this became gospel.  The inverse of .4, gives 2.5, which is the
maximum compression theoretically possible.

They did make TASI work with 36 circuits (putting 72 speakers on it),
but the statistics improve considerably with more lines.  It is
currently used on telephone cables (the Japanese have used it quite a
bit), but is not used on satellite circuits, as far as he knows,
because of the considerable clipping that already exists.  (After
retirement from Bell Labs, Dad worked for Hughes Communication
Satellites as a telephony expert and did much of the systems
engineering for Palapa, the communication satellite for Indonesia.)
It is used even on land lines when there is an emergency and fewer
circuits are available.

He said there is (or at least was, when he was involved) no clipping
of final sounds, only initial sounds.  He said the system was
engineered to give only .1% clipping on initial sounds, which is
acceptable to most listeners.  He said most speakers can't detect when
they are on a TASI'd line, although he said my mother always could.

Dad said all the technical information was published in old IEEE
journals - probably when it was still the IRE, probably in the
Transactions.  It would all also be in old issues of the Bell Systems
Technical Journal.  He (modestly) said one of the best articles is
``Engineering Aspects of TASI," by K. Bullington and J.M. Fraser,
BSTJ, volume 38, number 2, March 1959.

If you want more details, Dad said he'd be happy to chat.  Call him at
619-239-2620 (San Diego).  He has lots of great stories.  Ask him
about the time Prince Phillip's boat anchored on the cable in Oban
harbor.

Jane Fraser

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #631
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28809;
          9 Sep 90 17:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26856;
          9 Sep 90 16:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10885;
          9 Sep 90 14:56 CDT
Date:     Sun, 9 Sep 90 14:21:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #632
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Sep 90 14:20:29 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 632

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Special AT&T International Rates This Weekend [Ravinder Bhumbla]
    Help Needed [Randall Rathbun]
    Caller ID Tech Specs Needed [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [J. Stephen Reed]
    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Stephen Tell]
    Re: Want Homegrown Itemised Billing System [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Octothorpes [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Roy Smith]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Christopher Gillett]
    Re: What Kind of Switch is This? [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Time Limits on Calls [Larry Lippman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special AT&T International Rates This Weekend
Date: 9 Sep 90 05:36:40 GMT
Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, San Diego


I didn't see this article posted till now, so I am sending it in the
hope someone may be able to use the info before it is too late.

I have learned and confirmed from AT&T that it is having special rates
in effect for this weekend (until 11:59 p.m. Sunday) for international
calls.  As posted in soc.culture.indian this is probably in
conjunction with the (re)opening of the Ellis island.  In case of
India, the rates are the usual economy rate for India which, in this
case, will apply during the non-economy period too.  You may check by
calling AT&T at 800-874-4000 (I think).


Ravinder Bhumbla    [e-mail]    Office Phone: [phone]

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

From: Randall Rathbun <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System
Date: 7 Sep 90 16:09:10 GMT
Reply-To: Randall Rathbun <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo


Has anyone encountered this problem? One of our users plugged their
Panasonic KX-T2355 Easa-phone into our Rolm single line phone jack on
our Rolm 9000-II CBX system. They called to complain that they
couldn't hear anyone.

Upon investigation, it appears that the impedance of this phone is too
high, causing low volume in the handset. Plugging in the regular Rolm
flashphone showed all the hardware functioning normally. We took the
Panasonic apart, hoping to find a volume control, but all we saw was a
small pot titled VR2.  Playing with it made no discernable difference
in volume.

Has anyone worked with different vendor telephones upon Rolm
equipment, and can advise us on what to do? The user wants to keep his
autodial buttons, speakerphone capabilities, etc., and really doesn't
want to give up his Panasonic phone. Any ideas? Thanks for all
suggestions.

You may email to [e-mail] if you like (no
space between San & Diego please). Hope to hear from you!


NCR E & M - San Diego     |     INTERNET - [e-mail]
16550 W Bernardo Drive    |       UUCP   - {backbone}!ncr-sd!thor!randall
San Diego, CA 92127       |      TELE #  - (USA) [phone] or 2358

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Tech Specs Needed
Date: 7 Sep 90 20:46:21 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


I'm looking for technical specs on telephone caller ID. All I know is
that it's an FSK signal during ringing, but I'd like to get more
details, or a pointer to where I can obtain (buy) tech. info.

Also, is the implementation standardised nationwide, across all
Bells?  What geographical areas currently have it?

Thanks,

Jon Sreekanth

US Mail : J Sreekanth, 79 Apsley Street, Apt #7, Hudson, MA 01749
          Digital Equipment Corp., 77 Reed Road, HLO2-1/J12, Hudson, MA 01749
email   : [e-mail]
Voice   : 508-562-3358 eves, 508-568-7195 work


[Moderator's Note: Caller*ID is gradually being implemented across the
USA. Several locations already have it installed. To participate in a
regular, ongoing discussion of Caller*ID and telephone privacy, you
are invited to subscribe to a mailing list on that topic. To join,
write to [e-mail]. To send comments to the
list, write to [e-mail].  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 8 Sep 90 20:59 EST
From: "J. Stephen Reed" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?


Many recent messages expressed puzzlement at the North American
Numbering Plan being so unsystematic about "scattering" the area codes
all over this continent without any visible rules behind it.

When I was a compulsive 12-year-old and had alphabetized my mother's
phone listings (I was tired of 50 cardboard markers in the phone
book), I noticed the same thing, matched this up in my head with ZIP
codes going from east to west ... I really was a compulsive kid ...
and asked the same thing.  She got hold of an cousin who had worked at
Northwestern Bell.

What I was told then was that it related to the clicks of the rotary
phone dial.  New York City (212), Chicago (312), and Los Angeles (213)
were the biggest cities and called the most, and to have only a few
clicks saved time for the long distance operators.  Someplace like
North Dakota would have 701 because it was <way> out of the way and
got few calls.  Someplace like Newfoundland would get 709 because it
was <really way> out of the way.

This always made sense to me.  When I became more libertarian in my
thinking, with a healthy disdain for that region Inside the Beltway,
it always made me happy that 202-land was ... once ... considered 'way
out on the fringe of America.  It still is!

That same cousin was the one who taught us kids to use "11916" to ring
another extension in our house, causing no end of fiendish delight to
us and no end of frustration to my folks.


Steve Reed
Liberty Network, Ltd. * P.O. Box 11296 * Chicago, IL 60611
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?
Date: 9 Sep 90 05:29:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Stephen Tell)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Cowan)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 627, Message 1 of 9

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paolo Bellutta)
>writes:
>[asking why North American area codes aren't systematic by region]
 ......
>On the other hand, it's always seemed interesting to me that AT&T
>itself is located in 201, the first area code in numerical order.

I had noticed that myself.  Soon, however, half of AT&T-land (northern
New Jersey) gets split off into 908.  908 is now in the "permissive
dialing" phase; the new code works but doesn't become mandatory until
next spring, I think.

Some time ago, someone speculated here that the geography of the
201/908 split was a way for Bellcore making life slightly more
complicated for their former AT&T brethren.


Steve Tell      e-mail: [e-mail] usmail:  #5L Estes Park apts
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.  919 968 1792         Carrboro NC 27510


[Moderator's Note: Although 201 is 'first in numerical order', it
isn't really the fastest, since 0 is actually 10 on the phone dial.
201 = 13 pulls, compared to 212, which is really 'first' with 5 pulls.
And Steve Reed, in the message before this one, correctly notes that
202, although second in numerical order, is actually in the mid-range
of area codes from a pulse-dial perspective, requiring 14 pulls.
Maybe AT&T was saying 'first comes Mother, then Our Nation's Capitol,
then the rest of you turkeys!'  :)   PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Want Homegrown Itemised Billing System
Date: 8 Sep 90 17:22:26 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


Radio Shack has a cheap thing that prints a list of calls for one line.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Date: 8 Sep 90 17:32:57 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

>>I sometimes wonder if they should have just called those buttons A&B.

> Please, no!  Remember that the 2 buttom is already labeled with both
> an 'A' and a 'B' character.  Hopeless confusion would result in

And if you have a 16 button TT pad (using the 1633hz column freq),
that right hand column may well have LARGE letters: A B C D. Don't use
A and B for anything else.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix
Date: 8 Sep 90 18:58:25 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I dialed a random 800-800 number and got the message 'your call cannot
be completed as entered.... 44 431.... which sounds like a US Sprint
recording' that I used to get when I would use them ocassionally.

(I use various carriers including MCI, AT&T and SouthTel now but not
US Sprint.)

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

Date: Sun, 9 Sep 90 09:51:00 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City

[e-mail] writes:

> This is an excellent idea that AT&T should have adopted before `ol Harry
> broke them up (that's Judge Harold "Equal Access" Greene to you!).

    The sentiment has been expressed long and loud (perhaps
longest and loudest by our esteemed Moderator) that Judge Greene did
some evil thing to AT&T, forcing them to break up.  Yet, I have heard
the idea put forth from time to time that AT&T actually (at least in
part) engineered the breakup themselves.  They wanted to be able to
shuck off the unprofitable local telcos and keep the long-distance and
manufacturing cash cows, as well as branch out into areas they were
formally prohibited from, such as computers and consumer electronics,
not to mention comsumer credit.

    Any comments?  (Throw a statement like that into the telecom
shark pool and wonder if you'll get any nibbles?  Yeah, right).


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: While it is true that AT&T 'engineered the breakup
themselves', they did so only once it was quite apparent that they
were not going to get away intact, allowed to keep their property. A
very sexist slogan says, "If you know you are going to get raped and
cannot do anything about it, then you may as well lay back and enjoy
it." That is sort of what happened here.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 9 Sep 90 09:11:40 PDT
From: Christopher Gillett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages


Thus spaketh the Moderator:

>[Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point
>announcement

Hmmm.  Let's cut through all this and get to the absolute bare
essentials:

    "When it beeps...speak!"

 :-)

Christopher Gillett               [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corporation
Hudson, Taxachusetts              [phone]
Semiconductor Engineering Group/Logic Simulation Group
Disclaimer: Ken Olsen speaks for Digital...I speak for me!

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

Subject: Re: What Kind of Switch is This?
Date: 9 Sep 90 12:23:17 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> A customer has a loop-start CO line (it happens to be the first in a
> small hunt-group) where outgoing service is normal.  On incoming
> calls, the caller hears the ringback tone, but no ringing voltage at
> all is delivered to the line.  Listening with a butt set (in monitor
> mode) when an incoming call is attempted, one hears absolutely nothing
>  ... no clicks, no tones, and no ring power.  But switch to talk mode,
> and you answer the incoming call and can converse with the caller.
> The CO is probably a digital time-division switch of some kind, as
> there are no audible clicks or loop current interruptions when calling

> Has anybody ever heard of this failure mode?

    Assuming that it is a digital CO, the ringing control is
provided directly by the subscriber loop interface circuit.  Since
ring control circuitry is unique to each line, a failure mode can
exist which affects only a single line.  Failure of the ring control
switching element (could be either solid-state or a relay, depending
upon the type of CO apparatus) that switches the ring conductor
battery feed between -48 volts and -48 volts superimposed upon 20 Hz
ringing could cause the *exact* problem you are describing.

> I wonder if the CO is administered
> with none of the possible ringing options selected?  (No, it's not tip
> party, it's not ring party, it's not bridged ringing, etc.  None of
> the above?  Don't ring at all!)

    My intuition is that it is a simple hardware failure as
described above, and not an administration error.  Besides, in most if
not all digital CO apparatus, party line control requires a subscriber
line interface card which is *different* from than that used for
regular single-party service.  Since it is not likely that such a card
would be furnishing service to the above single-party subscriber, such
an administration error is most likely physically precluded.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry

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

Subject: Re: Time Limits on Calls
Date: 9 Sep 90 11:52:24 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> ihlpf![e-mail] (Arnette P
Baker) writes:

> I want to relate a story on the subject of "time limits" imposed on
> phone calls by the telco.  I grew up in Towanda, Il.  - population 578
> (now over 650!)  When we moved there in 1972 we had 5 digit dialing on
> local calls, plus a forced time limit of 2 minutes on the same local
> calls.  We had 7 digit (well 10 counting NPA) phone numbers, but for
> any other number on the stepper we only dialed 5 digits.  After two
> minutes a warning tone would sound, and then 10 seconds later you
> would be disconnected.

> So, anyone out there ever hear of this kind of limit??  I presume it
> was done to reduce the load on a switch that was under engineered for
> the amount of traffic, but I really have no idea why it existed.

    The only CO apparatus I know of which offered this "feature"
was pre-1940 Automatic Electric SxS intended for very small rural
CDO's (Community Dial Offices).  This feature was particularly used on
multi-party lines.  I have never seen it actually installed, though.

    A "single-frame" factory-wired SxS CDO could typically handle
only 200 subscriber lines with sometimes a few as ten calls being able
to exist at any one given time.  Since considerable field wiring in
the CO was necessary to provide any expansion beyond the first factory
CDO apparatus frame, effort was often expended to make user
requirements "conform" to the limitations of that first CDO apparatus
frame.  If it meant timing conversations to eliminate the requirement
for additional selector and connector shelves, then so be it...


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 #632
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11577;
          10 Sep 90 4:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12764;
          10 Sep 90 3:08 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18912;
          10 Sep 90 2:04 CDT
Date:     Mon, 10 Sep 90 1:08:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #633
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 10 Sep 90 01:08:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 633

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [David Ritchie]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Chuck Paquette]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Clif Flynt]
    Re: 800 Numbers from Europe [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix [Brian Jay Gould]
    Re: Washington State (Really 206) Lunning Low [David Barts]
    Re: How Can I Tell What Switch is Being Used [David Lemson]
    Re: Answering Machine Recordings [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Hotels Get Message on Phone Charges [John Ockerbloom]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Jim Breen]
    PostScript File For Front Panel of ATT 730/732 Phones [Brian Reid]
    Tail Gunner Joe [A Friend]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Ritchie <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
Date: 9 Sep 90 23:57:46 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID


>insisting that it was my wife who made those decisions.  When I asked
>her about it later, she told me that she'd decided not to send them
>any more money as she felt that her entire initial donation had gone
>to pay for mailings asking for more donations.  She wants to donate to
>a similar organization that A) does good work, and B) sends members
>(at most) a couple of low cost newsletters a year to let them know
>what their money's going for.  I don't disagree!

  In the Fall 1990 Whole Earth Review, Paul Hawkin wrote an
interesting article about junk mail. In it, he said:

  "One of the largest and most famous environmental organizations in
the United States spends nearly eighty percent of its revenues on postage,
printing and name rental in order to live off of the remaining twenty
percent."

  Above the article, there was an example of how junk mail
solicatations are written for maximum effect. Wonder of wonders, it
was from the Sierra Club. Draw your own conclusions.

  Has anyone seen a Sierra Club annual report to confirm this?


Dave Ritchie

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

Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
From: Chuck Paquette <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 90 15:56:35 EDT
Organization: National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC


I found the opinions expressed by posters regarding telemarketing by
environmental organizations interesting.  I have passed them on to one
of my colleagues here at NWF who is responsible for our telemarketing,
which is done by NWF employees.

The Moderator is correct that most environmental organizations employ
firms to do telemarketing.  Telemarketing is most often used for
"lapsed" donors/members and for requests to significantly increase an
annual gift to an organization.  It is more (usually _much_) expensive
than mailing.

Telemarketing firms tend to have fairly high employee turnover.  Many
rely on traditional management methods (computing calls per hour and
gifts per hour, listening to caller conversations) rather than softer,
more enlightened approaches.  Consequently, some horrors do occur in
otherwise well-managed programs.

Feedback is essential.  If you don't wish to be called, tell the
caller what you think!  If that doesn't work, call or write the CEO of
the charity.  If that doesn't work, write to the Board chair.  As a
fundraiser, I often find there is a significant communications gap
between the senior officers of a charity and the telemarketing
operation.  Don't let them get away with it!

The Sierra Club has an e-mail address. It is --

            <cdp![e-mail]>

Someone may wish to forward to them a digest of this thread.


  Chuck Paquette <[e-mail]>   National Wildlife Federation
  1400 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20036, USA  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much, Mr. Paquette, for writing us and
sharing your thoughts. I must say where *good, worthwhile*
organizations are concerned, sometimes the telemarketers they employ
are simply an embarassment. I don't get angry at the organization, I
just feel terribly embarrassed for the person calling me. It behooves
all organizations trying to do something to save what little is left
of our planet, its animals, its plants, and its people to be as
professional in their fundraising as they are in their other efforts.
There are *highly professional* fund raising organizations which use
some telephone contacts; they are acquainted with and dedicated to their
cause; it's done so professionally and courteously the person being
called feels good about hearing from them.  PAT]

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

From: Clif Flynt <clif.ypsi.mi.usa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
Reply-To: Clif Flynt <clif![e-mail]>
Organization: Chaos and Confusion, Entropy Division
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 90 16:36:24 GMT


My solution to TeleSolicitors for a few years has been to explain
gently that I *NEVER* donate *ANY* money to a group that phone
solicits me.  If they are a group I used to donate money to (like my
Alumni group) they get knocked off the list.

I encourage the solicitor to relay this information up to the
supervisor.

I figure that if more people follow this practice, then the loss of
revenue will begin to exceed the gains, and this practice will cease.

In the meantime, I find that I'm saving more money every year as more
groups become ineligible for continued funding.


Clif Flynt
uunet!sharkey!clif!clif -------- [e-mail] -----------


[Moderator's Note: I'd be more impressed if you said you were
diverting the same amount of money to other worthwhile organizations
which you were holding back from the ones who phone solicit.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: 800 Numbers from Europe
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 90 10:02:25 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Perhaps some of the confusion about calling 800 numbers using USA
Direct stems from the fact that AT&Ts policies have changed.

Just over a year ago, I was in Australia and needed to reconfirm my
trip home with United Airlines. The local office was closed, so I
decided to call the US 800 number using USA Direct. The AT&T operator
*would not put my call through* even though I assured her I would pay
the international charges.

I gave up and had her connect me with the local Chicago number.


Ken Jongsma                 [e-mail]
Smiths Industries           [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan      ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix
Date: 10 Sep 90 02:16:37 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


My sister just got an 800-800-xxxx number.  I think she said it was Sprint.


Brian Jay Gould - Professional Brain-stormer

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

Date: Sun, 9 Sep 90 16:37:19 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State (Really 206) Running Low


[e-mail] (Randal Schwartz) writes:

> .... Now, in the unfriendly system that it's
> about to become (hopefully not for a while), I have to look up that
> silly chart that tells if 635 is a local call to 643 (my home prefix),
> and if not, *keep* the friggin' call short.  Right now, I just dial
> away, and let the phone company figure it out....

I was going to refrain from commenting on this, but since nobody else
has brought this up, I will: As I understand it, all that has been
mentioned is that NPA 206 is running low on NNX's (the NNX count
posted last June was 542 so there's only 98 left) and US West has
therefore decided to implement a dialing change within a few years
that will allow NXX exchange codes.  I did not hear anything about
just what dialing change they were going to implement.

The two most likely choices will be seven-digit dialing for all LD
calls within 206, OR to require LD calls within 206 to be dialed as
1-206-NXX-XXXX.  As I recall from discussions in this Digest last
spring, the latter alternative is the preferred choice.  So Randal
shouldn't worry.  (He also shouldn't worry because he lives in Oregon
and NPA 503 won't be affected by this change!)

I haven't heard any confirmation of this from alternate sources, but
if this story is indeed true (and it seems likely) then those of us
who live in NPA 206 should write to US West and the Washington PUC to
encourage 1+206 LD dialing be adopted in favor of seven-digit.

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

Date: Sun, 09 Sep 90 21:54:39 CDT
From: David Lemson <FREE0612@uiucvmd>
Subject: Re: How Can I Tell What Switch is Being Used?


Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]> writes:

>Is there a way to determine the type of switch the telco is using?
>Last December I got my number changed, after a couple of months I
>discovered by accident that now I can use tone dialling.

     One way to tell is if you have call waiting, the newer ISDN-ready
switches (i.e. AT&T 5ESS) uses a small beep instead of the horrible
old-style clink-clank.  Also, the beep is only heard on the side of
the person with the second call.  So, you can disregard the second
call if you wish, without the other side knowing.

     Another caveat about what you might be doing.  I've heard several
stories about someone 'accidentally' realizing that they could dial
tone (without specifically subscribing to the service), and finding a
bill for it on their bill!  Those new switches can recognize all sorts
of tones that aren't supposed to be there (a certain 2600 Hz tone is
an example ... much to the chagrin of the phreakers), including those
DTMF tones.


David Lemson
InterNet: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Answering Machine Recordings
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 90 13:23:33 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


motcid![e-mail] (Steven King) writes:

> Of course, if you're REALLY anti-social just record fast busy on your
> outgoing tape...

I wasn't exactly anti-social, but this message got me very few
messages left in return. (Imagine a Gary Owens style of delivery...)

"I'm not sorry. The number you have reached is in service at this
time.  Please do not hang up or try your call again." <BEEP>


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Hotels Get Message on Phone Charges
Date: 9 Sep 90 20:55:45 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI


Michael Riddle writes:

>>Look for the new phone policies to be featured in the hotels'
>>marketing efforts in the coming months.  ...

It's already happening.  When I went out to Beaverton, Oregon at the
end of May, the Nendel's I stayed at was offering a free hour of
long-distance calls (to standard US numbers) to anyone staying there.
Having just left the east coast, I gladly took advantage of the offer.
(The base room rate was reasonable, I might add.)


John Ockerbloom

[e-mail]                      ...!uunet!cs.cmu.edu!ockerbloom
[e-mail] (forwarded)      4209 Murray Ave., Pittsburgh PA 15217

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Organization: Monash_University
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 01:52:00 GMT


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

> Jim Breen <[e-mail]> writes:
> > In the best/worst voting, my opinions (based on experience) are:
> > BEST:   Japan
> > WORST:  India

> Bzzzzt! Wrong -- but thanks for playing anyway. Without getting into
> the "US is best" fray, I can categorically state that Japan does NOT
> have the worlds best telephone service, unless there are criteria that
> I am missing.
> * No itemized billing (not even for "Dial-Q", Japan's 900 equivalent)

           True, but then I was used to this.

> * About one out of ten calls bomb (don't go through).

           Not on my observation.

> * Long distance within Japan "sounds" like long distance.

           In my experience much less so than in the US.

> * Digital services are just being introduced.

           Whereas the US is *completely* digital?

> * Outside plant is pathetic and inadequate.

           Not in my experience.

> * Even though the system is "privatized", it is run like a government
>   bureaucracy.

           Whereas AT&T was a paragon of lean and mean private
           enterprise. Anyway, an irrelevant point.

> * You get to hear the "meter pulses" on many calls.

           I haven't noticed.

> Sources: close associates who live and work in Japan.

           So have I.


      Jim Breen ($B%8%`(J) ([e-mail]) Dept of
            Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University
              PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
                (ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Reid)
Subject: PostScript File For Front Panel of ATT 730/732 Phones
Organization: DEC Western Research
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 01:11:11 GMT


A while ago I replaced my GTE 4275 phones (which were always breaking)
with some ATT 732 phones (which haven't broken yet). Now that I've had
the ATT 732 phones for six months and they still work (except for the
"speakerphone" feature, which didn't work on any of the three units
the day they were new, but I am so tired of exchanging broken phones
that I'm ignoring it).

Since it looks like I won't be needing to exchange these on a
different model, I've taken the time to produce a PostScript file that
generates a front-panel label for the speed-call buttons and for the
line select buttons.  It looks so much more professional than using a
pen or a typewriter.

If you'd like a copy of this file, please let me know and I'll mail it
to you. It's about 5K bytes long, and will print on any PostScript
printer.  You'll need to use an Exacta knife to cut out the button
holes, but that turns out to be easier than it sounds.


Brian Reid
[e-mail]

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

From: A Friend <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tail Gunner Joe
Date: 10 Sep 90 02:19:48 GMT


[Moderator's Note: I don't usually publish anonymous messages, but I
know who sent this, and agreed to do it this one time.  PAT]


*** You probably don't want to publish this, at least under my name  ***
*** that is ;-)                                                      ***

>> [Moderator's Note: Who is this Tailgunner Joe person? I've seen a
>> couple messages about him in news.admin but haven't paid attention.
>> Will someone please explain it further?   PAT]

>[Moderator's Note: That's what I was told earlier. He must really
>think he is something. Maybe if he keeps up his good work, he will get
>promoted to the newspaper's telemarketing subscription department, or
>maybe even a position as a classified ad counselor/salesperson, taking
>ads over the telephone.

Pat,

Don't bait this guy, it's not beyond his power to publish a nice
little article about comp.dcom.telecom and how it has described
ripping-off the phone company in several ways.

Now, we all know better, but if you had read any of the past articles
he's written *and had published* in his newpaper, you would understand
that it's possible to pervert just about anything into the kind of
stupid sensationalism that his newspaper seems to thrive on.

This is one bit of fire best left alone.


A Friend


[Moderator's Note: Actually, I did read something of his today.  He
wrote a piece on Operation Sun Devil a few days ago, and at least this
time around seemed to be reasonably fair and even-handed in his
report.  He was very sympathetic in this article to Len Rose and Craig
Neidorf. Perhaps his superiors at the newspaper got on his case. He
may have even been educated a little after enough people complained
about his previous disasters. You can read the article yourself in the
current issue of our companion publication, Computer Underground
Digest. If you'd like a copy and do not have a subscription, write to
the Moderators at: tk0jut2.niu.bitnet.

As for Joe making trouble here, well, we'll have to deal with that
when it happens. He's not the only one with a typewriter and a forum,
you know. I guess I'm not terribly impressed. Frankly my dears, I
don't give a damn.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #633
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08125;
          11 Sep 90 4:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08427;
          11 Sep 90 3:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27935;
          11 Sep 90 2:18 CDT
Date:     Tue, 11 Sep 90 2:13:54 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #634
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 11 Sep 90 02:13:06 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 634

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Want Homegrown Itemised Billing System [Don H. Kemp]
    Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix [Bill Cerny]
    Detailed Billing Services [Information Week via Thomas Lapp]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing [Chris Ambler]
    AT&T Sourcebook Info [Thomas Lapp]
    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Dave Turner]
    Re: Tail Gunner Joe [Len Rose]
    Re: Tail Gunner Joe [Leonard P. Levine]
    Re: Tail Gunner Joe [Peter da Silva]
    Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff! [Wolf Paul]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful [Tad Cook]
    Re: Time Limits on Calls [Peter Knoppers]
    Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [Per Gotterup]
    Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls [Darryl Jacobs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Don H Kemp <uvm-gen!teletech![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Want Homegrown Itemised Billing System
Date: 10 Sep 90 02:42:24 GMT


There is a kuldge called "TRACE" available from NYNEX operating
companies that does what the original poster wanted, but not at much
of a cost savings.  TRACE is essentially the contents of the standard
billing tape, on diskette, in dBase III format.  There is a
rudimentary application included with the procuct, but to say that it
is _extreeeemly_ limited is to be too generous.  The cost is
~$70.00/mo.  If you want to write your own reports, and you haven't a
9 track tape drive, I suppose it's worth it but ...


Don H Kemp
B B & K Associates, Inc.
Rutland, VT
uunet!uvm-gen!teletech!dhk

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix
Date: 10 Sep 90 02:49:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill
Huttig) writes:

> I dialed a random 800-800 number and got the message 'your call cannot
> be completed as entered.... 44 431.... which sounds like a US Sprint
> recording' that I used to get when I would use them ocassionally.

I'm dismayed by the insurance company with 800-800-1212; it has a very
dumb "hack me" voice mail system.  For those of us on the receiving
end, the "800 is a free call" myth died in the early 80's.  Caveat
emptor: your 800 lines cost _real_ money; how much "free play" can you
afford? (no wonder insurance premiums have zoomed astronomically!)


Bill Cerny [e-mail] | attmail: !denwa!bill

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 17:32:27 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Detailed Billing Services
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Some snippits from the 3 September 1990 issue of {Information Week},
which talks about long distance carriers AT&T and MCI squaring off on
providing detailed bills...

"Customized billing was a major selling point for the 60 Tariff 12
customers of AT&T.  But some of these users have complained about a
lack of timeliness and accuracy in their bills and plan a meeting with
AT&T to discuss the problem later [in September]."

Although Tariff 12 was set up to provide customized services and
Tariffs for large customers, this seems to have proven to be a flop.
Bills are late, or wrong or they don't reflect what the customer is
actually paying for, or have installed.  A royal mess.

"For its part, MCI Communications Corp. has lined up users willing to
vouch for Portfolio, a billing package it introduced earlier this
year.

"Portfolio, which is directed mostly at large corporate customers,
does not offer customized billing, but a higher level of detail,
itemization, an analysis.  It operates like a standard report
generation service: a monthly recurring fee of $250 includes four
reports, with optional reports available for $50 to $100.  One time
set-up fee ranges from $250 to $2000."

Naturally, AT&T has one of its own as well.  They call it Detail
Manager and offers users 31 different reports.

Several of the large customers seem to like the MCI option.  The
article did not talk with anyone using AT&T's Detail Manager.  But
they did say that they liked having detailed billing as it helped them
reduce costs and see where they need to redesign their network.

In a complain about AT&T, Paul Yarick, VP and treasurer of Kansas
City, MO-based Interstate Brands Corp. said, "The biggest problem with
AT&T is their billing -- you can't understand it.  With MCI, at least
you know what you are paying for."  (IBC also uses MCI's Portfolio).


tom

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 1:6:11 GMT
Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business.


ibmarc!rufus![e-mail] recently informed us:

>We got a call from a US Sprint salesperson about 3.5 weeks ago, asking
>us to switch (from MCI) to Sprint.  We asked them to "put it in
>writing", and were told we'd get something in the mail.  So far,
>nothing.  Has ANYONE got it in writing?  Anywhere?

I got the "in writing" information that I had requested. It consisted
of mostly propoganda about the quality of their lines, the NAMES of
all of their "plans" and SOME rates. Absolutely NO comparison, and NO
INDICATION that their plans and rates are better. It would take the
better part of a day, a good spreadsheet or statistical program, and
all the rates of other systems to figure out which is best.

In short, their "in writing" campaign is just so much smoke.


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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 21:47:07 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Sourcebook Info


In the TELECOM digest of 16 August, Patrick wrote:

> 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.

I called them today, and the lady taking my call indicated that she
would send me a catalog, but that the info in it was more oriented
toward business customers (I don't recall if she said that they
WOULDN'T sell to individuals) rather than residential.  For that, she
gave me another number to try for the residential catalog of products.
That number is 1-800-451-2100.


tom

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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 13:54:27 PDT
From: Dave Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?


At the time area codes were assigned, AT&Ts headquarters was at 195
Broadway in Manhattan not in New Jersey. If AT&T had wanted to be
first, Manhattan would have a different area code.

It would be interesting to know who did the initial area code
assigments.  If it were done by someone in Bell Labs (mostly in NJ)
then 201 might make some sense.

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 12:36 EDT
From: Len Rose <lsicom2![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tail Gunner Joe


Pat, give this guy a chance ... I had a long series of talks with him,
and told him initially that I was scared to talk given his previous
performance. However, he impressed me by admitting he was wrong and has
since learned alot more about the net in general. They are to be commended
for at least trying to correct past mistakes. I don't think we'll see
anymore yellow journalism from this person. (I came to this conclusion
before the article came out)

For what it's worth.


Len

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tail Gunner Joe
Date: 10 Sep 90 16:50:40 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (A Friend):

> [Moderator's Note: Who is this Tailgunner Joe person? I've seen a
> couple messages about him in news.admin but haven't paid attention.
> Will someone please explain it further?   PAT]

Just for the record, tailgunner joe was Senator Joe McCarthy of
Wisconsin who was known for his distortion of the facts in the '50s.

He was in the air force during the war and was reputed to have shot
off the tail of his own plane.  His enemies gave him that name from
that story.


| Leonard P. Levine                    e-mail [e-mail] |
| Professor, Computer Science             Office [phone] |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee       Home   [phone] |
| Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.              FAX    [phone] |

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

Subject: Re: Tail Gunner Joe
From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: 10 Sep 90 13:33:57 CDT (Mon)


No, the line is "publish and be damned".


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: And You Thought 900 Was a Ripoff!
Date: 10 Sep 90 07:08:48 GMT
Reply-To: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gordon
LETWIN) writes:

>Re: the discussion of how the Italian "God Calling Service" worked -
>please note that the {World Weekly News}, which published this story,
>routinely makes up their stories from whole cloth.  ...
>When standing in supermarket checkout lines I used to amuse myself by
>reading the headlines on these rags and trying to guess what the real,
>underlying story really was.  When I learned that they weren't just

Actually, I found that often there was not even a story inside the
paper for the most outrageous headlines on the front page, not just in
the WWN, but its sister rags likewise.

Some relevant questions to judge the credibility of the story about
the Italian "service": How did the perpetrators charge their victims?
Does Italy indeed have something similar to 976 or 900 service? If
not, how did they charge, considering that credit cards are still a
lot less common in Europe than in the US, particularly in southern
Europe, and especially among the segment of society falling for such a
scam (lonely old folks).


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]

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

From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
Date: 10 Sep 90 04:09:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, boulder!boulder![e-mail]
(Robert Kinne) writes:

> I also plan to contact appropriate federal officials to
> seek a total ban on telephone solicitation, which has grown to
> comprise at least 20% of the incoming phone calls at my home.  Others
> are encouraged to do the same.

I have been using an interesting technique with phone solicitors
lately.  I start asking THEM questions right away.  I ask for their
name, and of course they just give me their first name.  Then I ask
for their last name, and act like I am writing it down.  What really
puts the fear of God into them is when I ask for, and then demand,
their home phone number!  Of course, they wont give it to me, and I
ask them why it is so unreasonable for me to call them at home, since
they called me at home!

The call always degenerates into:

1. They wont give me their home phone number.
2. I wont talk to them unless I can return their call AT THEIR HOME.

So far, it's been a lot of fun!


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA  Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA   Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]

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

From: "P. Knoppers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Time Limits on Calls
Date: 10 Sep 90 11:17:51 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Knoppers <[e-mail]>
Organization: Delft University of Technology, Dep. of Electrotechnical
 Engineering.


In article <[e-mail]> ihlpf![e-mail] (Arnette P
Baker) writes:

>local calls, plus a forced time limit of 2 minutes on the same local
>calls.

>[Moderator's Note: It sounds likely they had a very dinky little
>switch with very few talk paths available. Two or three local
>conversations at once going on probably was all it could handle.  PAT]

My guess is that real metering equipment was too expensive for local
calls and the phone company elected to force you to make several calls
for long conversations. Back in 1973 (or there-about) I was in Kent
(England) and there the public phones also had a 2 minute limit on
local calls. I don't know if this also applied too private phones.

In the Netherlands local calls used to be unlimited in time (price was
one unit). Then it was discovered that some big offices used dialled
lines where they should have used rental lines. Combined with the
growth of long lasting computer calls (mostly at 300 baud) the phone
company decided that too much of their equipment was tied up without
making them any money. The first proposal was to impose a time-limit
on local calls (this was the cheapest option), but this was considered
too unfriendly. Therefore they decided to add the equipment to charge
for local calls dependent on duration of the call.

Nowadays one unit is charged when the call is answered, one additional
unit for every 5 or 10 minutes (depending on time-of-day). (In non-
local calls, the period is 47 or 94 seconds.) The first period may be
up to 1/6th shorter due of mechanical restrictions in the metering
equipment ... Yes, much of this is still mechanical, and it is
supposed to last up to 30 years ... BTW, one unit is about US $ 0.08.
Of course, there is also a monthly charge (about US $ 12.00 / month /
line).

Can you believe that calling the US from here is only about US$ 1.25 /
minute ? That is cheaper than a non-local call using a payphone in the
US (which cost me US $ 2.05 for the first minute). (Payphones in the
Netherlands cost about 50% more per unit than private phones.)


P. Knoppers, Delft Univ. of Technology, The Netherlands,
[e-mail]

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

From: Per Gotterup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe
Organization: Department Of Computer Science, University Of Copenhagen
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 12:11:07 GMT


[e-mail] (Roeber, Frederick) writes:

=> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (P.
=> Knoppers) writes...

=> >Well, it is true from the Netherlands. It is not possible to reach 800
=> >numbers from this country. Apparently they are blocked in the
=> >international exchanges of PTT telecom, the Dutch phone monopoly
=> >holder.

=> It's not possible from Switzerland, either.  I tried.  The attitude of
=> the Swiss PTT (like most other Swiss organizations..) is, "If we can't
=> make money off of it, you can't do it."

Neither from Denmark. Same policy - no profit, no do!

The Danish telecoms (KTAS, JTAS, FT, TeleSoenderjylland) are not individual
companies but just subsidiaries of the monopoly Telecom Denmark, which is
51% government owned.

Sad story...


| Per Gotterup
| Student, DIKU (Inst. of Comp. Sci.)
| University of Copenhagen, Denmark
| Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: JacobsD <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls
Date: 10 Sep 90 22:40:37 GMT
Reply-To: JacobsD <[e-mail]>
Organization: AT&T, Denver, CO


>[Moderator's Note: The same policy applies to Ameritech, the carrier I
>use. If a call is answered, then the charging is backdated to when you
>hit the send button. No answer, no charge for air time.   PAT]

Last time I roamed on the Chicago B system (about two months ago),
roamers were charged $.25 for each busy/not answered call.


Darryl Jacobs        Bell Laboratories, Denver
att!drutx!darryl || [e-mail]
Note: I won't even claim these views as mine.


[Moderator's Note: The main difference, I suppose, is that you were
roaming here, while I am a local subscriber of the B system.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #634
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03102;
          12 Sep 90 3:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03115;
          12 Sep 90 1:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21213;
          12 Sep 90 0:49 CDT
Date:     Wed, 12 Sep 90 0:22:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #635
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Sep 90 00:22:12 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 635

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Subodh Bapat]
    Name That Tone [Jeff DePolo]
    Re: SMDR's and Credit Card Calls [Kevin Blatter]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Benjamin Ellsworth]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Chris Johnson]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Dave Levenson]
    POETS Sets [Davie Brightbill]
    Re: Octothorpes [Davidson Corry]
    Need Info on In-House Phone Systems [Steve Friedl]
    Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Steve Elias]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Ted Powell]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Michael P. Deignan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 11:34:34 EDT


I seem to recall a request posted here a couple of months ago asking
whether there was any such beast as a call distribution device (for
the home) based on Distinctive Ringing Service offered by the LECs
(variously sold as RingMaster, SmartRing, RingMate around the country,
in which multiple numbers mapped to the same line generate different
ring patterns). Well, here are excerpts from a recent article
describing just such a device.

Begin quote....

Fone Filter is a hand-sized, circuit-filled plastic box that, when
connected to your telephone line, automatically routes voice calls to
your telephone, fax calls to your fax machine and computer calls to
your computer. A different ring pattern is assigned to each device.
When it hears a certain ring, Fone Filter connects the appropriate
device.

Fone Filter has other uses in connection with personalized rings.  By
hooking it up to your answering machine, it helps you block certain
calls while answering others.

Fone Filter is available from South Tech Instruments, Inc., at
800-999-3237.  It costs $79.95. It saves $30 a month in residential
line fees ($68 a month in business line fees) by utilizing a single
telephone line instead of three.  The only additional outlays are
about $10 a month for three personalized rings (about $17 a month for
businesses) and about $3 a month for call waiting, in case, for
example, you wanted to put someone on hold while you received a fax.

End quote....

(I have no affiliation with South Tech.)


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

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

From: Jeff DePolo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Name That Tone
Date: 10 Sep 90 20:38:57 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff DePolo <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


I've been receiving a periodic call on my home phone.  It happens
about every five minutes and is always the same thing.  It's a
periodic tone, single frequency, and repeats for about 20 seconds
before the ine disconnects.  By ear, it's about 500 Hz, 500 ms on, 1.5
seconds off.  It doesn't sound like any modem I've ever heard before.
I was thinking maybe FAX, but I've never listened to the start of a
FAX transmission, so I don't know.  Based on its periodic behavior and
it's frequent recalling, it must be computer-originated, but I can't
find out for sure.

I've tried *69 for return calling, but I get Bell of PA's recording
saying that it's out of my calling area.  Bell of PA's Annoyance
Calling Department just told me to leave the phone off the hook and if
it keeps up for more than a day to call them back.  Some help, but I
can see their reasoning.  Any ideas of what it is?  I'm more curious
than annoyed.


Jeff DePolo  N3HBZ             Twisted Pair: [phone]
[e-mail]    RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia)
University of Pennsylvania     Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 16:32:17 EDT
From: Kevin Blatter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SMDR's and Credit Card Calls
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> [e-mail] (Kevin L. Blatter) writes:

> > I wrote call
> > accounting systems which utilizes SMDR information for billing or
> > whatever and our standard practice was if we saw a calling card number
> > come through that we stripped the information out and classified the
> > call as a 'charge call' which meant that we would not rate the call.
> > However, we could have stored the information for who-knows-what
> > purpose.

> Of more concern to me is what happens to an SMDR printout AFTER the
> hotel (or who/whatever) is no longer interested in it.  Is it treated
> as the sensitive information it is (and shredded or incinerated), or
> do they just toss it into the dumpster and leave it waiting for the
> next pair of prying eyes to come along?  (I have this nasty feeling
> that the latter is all-too-common.)

Of course, this would be entirely up to the powers-that-be, but in my
case, there was no hard-copy (except in one case where the chinese
manager of a Waikiki Hotel who would manually verify the SMDR output
with the calls logged in the system, but that's another story...).
Anyway, with the system that I worked with, there was no option to
save the information.  The best that could be done would be to split
the RS-232 SMDR feed and have one line go to the system while the
other would be processed by the Call Accounting system.  In other
words, if we saw a billed-to-third-party call ie. calling card, we
simply ignored the 'Call Record'.

I do however, agree with Mr. Barts that hotel personnel tend to follow
the general attitude in society that a calling card number is somehow
not to be considered proprietary information and throw it in bins with
the rest of the garbaGarbage.  In fact, my opinion is that in general
people in this country are ignorant of the way the phone system works.
Recently, I had an acquaintance express to me that it didn't make a
difference which Long Distance carrier one had since all of the money
went to "Ma Bell" anyway!  She also couldn't figure out what all the
flap was about with the LD wars, using the above argument again.  Wow,
that's scary!


Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Labs
Lincroft, NJ

Disclaimer - AT&T probably has a policy on the above opinions, but these
opinions are my own.

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 10 Sep 90 21:52:13 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
writes:

>(For the record, I should state that I have a Panasonic Easa-Phone.
>Another thing I don't like about it is that it has a two-digit
>security code. Now, how hard would it be for some phone phreak to
>break into my phone machine and start listening to messages with a
>two-digit security code, fa' Pete's sake? Not hard at all.

    Awww. *My* answering machine only has a *one* digit security
code. Of course if some phreak were to do something like this,
wouldn't you be immediately aware of it?

>(Of course, the real challenge, once said phone phreak has broken into
>my phone machine and heard my messages, would be to remain awake.... )

    That's what Gary Hart said too, isn't it ? :^)


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 15:52:42 pdt
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls


> I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me,
> surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?"
> when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end.

> Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this?

I am not a switch guru, but a professor of mine (Dr. Burton at BYU)
was an ex-Bell Labs man, and he mentioned in passing that some work
had gone into the long distance switching network to temporally
displace the ring that the caller heard from the ring signal that the
callee heard.  This was done specifically to disrupt the "if it rings
twice, call me" type of signalling.


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

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 22:40:57 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 631, Message 5 of 7

>> I've been to, and used the phone system in, about 40 countries in the
>> last two years.

>> The Best:  USA, Hong Kong, Singapore
>> The Worst:  India, Vietnam, Indonesia

>> My biggest complaint with USA phone system right now is that it's very
>> hostile to outsiders.  The multitude of long distance companies is
>> confusing to someone used to the telephone monopolies of other
>> countries, and there is no provision for non-subscribers to pay for
>> phone calls.  AT&T won't give a credit card to someone who has no
>> phone.

Well, maybe you'd be in trouble on just any street corner, but in all
the traveling I've done in the last year or so, I've noticed that
there are credit card operated telephones in all the airports and most
major hotels.  These will take VISA/Mastercharge/American Express/etc.
etc. so at least if one has one major credit card, and are not stuck
in Podunk, Iowa, then you could probably make a toll call to just
about anywhere.

Of course, there is tremendous room for improvement for the average
private consumer of telephone service.  I doubt that any other country
provides the myriad of telephone options to businesses that are
available in the U.S.


   ...Chris Johnson          [e-mail]   ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris
 Com Squared Systems, Inc.   St. Paul, MN USA   [phone]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: 11 Sep 90 03:11:41 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I've been to, and used the phone system in, about 40 countries in the
> last two years.
 ...
> Here is an exercise for you Americans.  Imagine yourself standing on a
> street corner downtown in your city with nothing but lots of cash and
> a Visa card.  You do not have a "home phone" in this country.  You
> don't want to make the callee pay for the call. How would you make a
> long distance phone call?

I would look for a multi-carrier public phone, and insert that VISA
card, and dial away...

Seriously, several of the toll carriers accept VISA, MasterCard, and
American Express in payment for toll calls.


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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 1990 9:52:35 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: POETS Sets


I was just given a box of instruments which are labeled "POETS EK-18
TELEPHONE."  They do not work on a standard line.  Can anyone identify
the type of system tha these instruments were designed for?


Davie Brightbill

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 14:12:22 PDT
From: Davidson Corry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes


In article <[e-mail]> Jeremy Grodberg ([e-mail].
edu) writes:

>I have also heard (and continue to use) "hook" for ? and "hash" for #

"Hash" is, I believe, a corruption of "hatch": "to mark with lines,
esp. closely-set parallel lines" (American College Dictionary 1959 --
old but serviceable!).  I have seen # referred to as a "hatch mark".

I have also seen # as "thorn" or "thorne", but I believe this is a
mistake, either a misspelling "octothorne", or a misapplication of the
name of the Norse rune for the "th" sound, still used in Icelandic.  I
_think_ the rune is
                       \/
                       /
                          but maybe we have someone on the net from
Reykjavik who can help me out... <grin>


Davidson Corry  [e-mail]   uunet!icxn!dai

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

Subject: Need Info on In-House Phone Systems
Date: 10 Sep 90 21:43:03 PDT (Mon)
From: Steve Friedl <[e-mail]>


Hi Telecomsters,

     A year ago, our prayers were answered when we found the Proctor
phone demonstrator, which lets me do testing of our fax modem products
without having to get regular phone lines.  Up to four devices sit on
this box, and they can all dial each other.  It saved my sanity.

     The problem is that I now need more than this.  I would love some
kind of box that would let me use a intercom mode for internal
testing, plus provide bidirectional access to real outside lines.  I
have four or so fax modems hooked up here, plus a fax machine or two,
and it drives me nuts as I keep having to swap phone lines around to
make this or that talk to each other.  I really do not want to buy
real phone lines for everything.

     Has anybody got any ideas here?  I have heard people speak of the
low-end Panasonic phone systems (which might be just the ticket), but
I really don't know anything about them.


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 08:34:46 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


After reading Yet More Comments Against Divestiture from our Moderator
and a Canadian telecom monopoly supporter, I'll take this opportunity
to express support for divestiture and equal access to long distance
carriers.  I hope that divestiture continues and that ATT continues to
be stripped of ALL monopolistic advantages which it still enjoys.

Patrick, your continued ranting against divestiture and freedom of
competition in the telecom industry is getting OLD.  I doubt I'm the
only reader who feels this way.

Peace!

eli


[Moderator's Note: The problems associated with divestiture which were
needless and in any event should have been solved at least three years
ago are getting OLD also ... and I *know* I'm not the only person who
feels this way!  PAT]

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

From: Ted Powell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Reply-To: Ted Powell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Entropy Limited, Vancouver, BC
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 22:26:48 GMT


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

>For the sake of your associates/friends who call you over toll
>facilities, I would think it appropriate to have your OGM be as short
>as possible.

After confirming that it works on your make/model, tell your
associates and friends to press the * key as soon as they're sure they
have the right number, and they will get an immediate beep.

[e-mail]   ...!ubc-cs!van-bc!eslvcr!ted    (Ted Powell)

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 10 Sep 90 23:45:17 GMT
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917


motcid![e-mail] (Steven King) writes:

>Of course, if you're REALLY anti-social just record fast busy on your
>outgoing tape...

This reminds me of what I generally do the first time I get a new
number:  I call the number and record the "<beep> The number you have
reached ... <number> has been disconnected..." on a special outgoing
message tape, which I save for later use. Then, when the time comes
when the telemarketers are rabid (or it is primary season, where
candidates' staff members are calling you for your support) I leave
the "special" OGM tape in.


Michael P. Deignan, President     -- Small Business Systems, Inc.
Domain: [e-mail]       -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917
UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit:  [phone]
XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix  Index: ~/SOFTLIST

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #635
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04303;
          12 Sep 90 4:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00844;
          12 Sep 90 2:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03115;
          12 Sep 90 1:54 CDT
Date:     Wed, 12 Sep 90 1:01:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #636
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Sep 90 01:01:04 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 636

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    50th Anniversary of Data Communications! [Will Martin]
    Re: Washington State Running Low [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Washington State (Really 206) Running Low [Carl Moore]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Barrey Jewall]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Steve Lemke]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Robert M. Hamer]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Matt Simpson]
    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Dale Neiberg via John R. Covert]
    Re: What Kind of Switch is This? [Adam Denton]
    Re: Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Eric Smith]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Fred R. Goldstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 11:55:43 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: 50th Anniversary of Data Communications!


Just heard the following on the Voice of America's "Communications
World" program (the best airing of that for North American listeners
is at 2110 GMT Saturdays on 15410 and 15580 kHz):

Sunday, Sept. 9th, 1990 was the 50th Anniversary of Data
Communications.

On Sept. 9, 1940, Dr. George Stibbetts [sp? just heard it pronounced],
of Dartmouth University, at a meeting of two [unnamed] mathematical
societies at that campus, demonstrated the first recorded instance of
computer data transmission over telephone lines, from New Hampshire to
New York City. He entered, from Dartmouth, instructions to a computer
in NYC to divide two eight-digit numbers, and received the answer back
in 30 seconds. (No information was given in this item as to the nature
of the "computer" he was using in 1940, nor the terminal equipment,
nor the "modem" or equivalent, nor the communications protocol used.)

Dr. Stibbetts is still alive, a Professor Emeritus at Dartmouth, and
was briefly inverviewed regarding this event. He reported that the
attendees at his demo were not overly impressed with the feat, and
there was no inkling then of the future of datacomm as we know it
today.

Regards,

Will Martin

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 14:38:22 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State Running Low
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Randal
Schwartz) writes:

> I think this scam of using 1+ to indicate area codes instead of toll
> calls is actually good for the phone company in two ways ... they can
> sell more phone numbers (if it wasn't for PBX DID, we wouldn't be
> running out), and people can get stuck with toll calls without knowing
> it.  A scam.

First of all, are you sure that the new dialing rules will allow you
to dial intra-NPA long distance calls as NXX-XXXX?  We've undergone a
similar number shortage here in NC, and the new rules require
1-NXX-NXX-XXXX for *all* long distance calls, both intra- and
inter-NPA.  Eight-digit dialing for intra-NPA LD (1-NNX-XXXX) has been
eliminated.  Any number that can be dialed with only seven digits is
thus guaranteed to be local.

Of course, just because all seven-digit numbers are local does not
imply that all local calls are seven-digit!  Local calling zones
straddle an NPA boundary in many parts of the country, and a variety
of solutions have been used (seven-digit, ten-digit, eleven-digit).
But this has always been a problem and it shouldn't get any worse just
because your NPA starts using NXX prefixes.

Your characterization of the 1+ dialing rules as a "scam" by your
local telco doesn't really hold water anyway -- it's Bellcore that
sets the numbering rules and assigns area codes.  And the plans for
NXX prefixes and area codes are not exactly all that new; they've been
part of the North American Numbering Plan for many years now (although
the first NXX NPA isn't scheduled to debut for another four or five
years).


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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 10:38:40 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State (Really 206) Running Low


David Barts <[e-mail]> writes:

>if this story is indeed true (and it seems likely) then those of us
>who live in NPA 206 should write to US West and the Washington PUC to
>encourage 1+206 LD dialing be adopted in favor of seven-digit.
Try "instead of", not "in favor of".

Where did it say that 1-NPA-xxx-xxxx was preferred to xxx-xxxx for
toll calls within NPA?  (You may write me directly if it's too
repetitious for the Digest.)

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

From: Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 10 Sep 90 19:19:30 GMT
Reply-To: Barrey Jewall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] (Steven
King) writes:

>Then there's my friend's machine, which is really annoying the first
>time you call it.

>Hello? ... Yeah ...  Who is this? ... Uh-huh ... This is a machine.
>Leave a message.  *BEEP*"

Not to run this topic into the ground, here's a couple of my
favorites, which my roommates and I have used in the past:

(soft, sultry, female voice)

"You know what this is, and you know what to do, so do it at the beep."

*******

Same voice, a little louder:
(Sound of erotic moaning in background)

Uhh, we can't get the phone now, oooh!, but leave a number and we'll
(BEEP!)

*******

I think the best one was when a friend of ours who works in a
recording studio let us mess around one night:

"Hello, this is the rock doctor, you're on the air."

(Extremely wasted-sounding individual)

" Uhh, I'm going to the Ted Nugent concert, and , uhh, I'm going to
take some pot, and some Acid, and a quart of rum, and some uppers man,
and ,uhh, I was wondering if there was anything else I should take?"

"Yeah, an ambulance!"

Normal voice- "We can't get to the phone now, so leave a message."

We had to take these off our machines when we sent out resumes with
our numbers on 'em... 8-(


Another friend's machine answers:

"This is the Wichita National Weapons Laboratory, please leave a
message."


+ Barrey Jewall                 ++ "My opinions are my opinions" +
+ [e-mail]            ++ (rather self-evident, eh?)    +
+ Novell, Inc.- San Jose, Calif.++                 +

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

From: Steve Lemke <radius![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 10 Sep 90 20:09:19 GMT


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

>For the sake of your associates/friends who call you over toll
>facilities, I would think it appropriate to have your OGM be as short
>as possible.

Or, just get a machine that lets you punch in the "#" key to skip the
outgoing message altogether.  Many machines will do this (and
voicemail systems, too), even if the person who's machine it is
doesn't _realize_ that it can do this.  Try it next time you talk to
an answering machine.

In addition, date and time stamp is becoming quite popular these days,
and most people who call my machine now know that I have it and that
they no longer have to tell me what time they're calling.  And again,
most voicemail systems also time stamp incoming messages.

When I first got my present machine (the Panasonic one that someone
mentioned also functions as a room "bug"), my message said something
like "Hi, this is Steve.  Although my new machine will tell me what
day and time you called, it doesn't know your name or number so please
leave that at the tone."


Steve Lemke, Engineering Quality Assurance, Radius Inc., San Jose
Reply to: [e-mail]     (Note: NEW domain-style address!!)

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 13:36 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages


>[Moderator's Note: How about this one for a succinct, to-the-point
>announcement:  (text omitted)

Since the day I got my answering machine, its outgoing message has
been: "This is an answering machine.  Please leave your message.
Thank you."

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 11:05:27 EDT
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Organization: UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COMPUTING CENTER


The most succinct answering machine recording I have heard is: "You
have reached nnn-nnnn. Why?"

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 08:21:43 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  10-Sep-1990 1123" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug


 From: Dale Neiberg
      Washington, DC
      202 822 2402 (Work)

In TELECOM Digest, vol 10, issue 588, Tom Neff writes about his
experience with a Panasonic KX-T1470 answering machine:

>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!

>     [process of identifying the culprit deleted]

>Is everyone with a Panasonic answering machine bugging himself?

The following is reprinted from _Monitoring_Times_ for September 1990,
page 101:

"Check this one out.  According to a reader in California, there is a
way to tune in _wired_ telephones on your shortwave radio.  This
reader says that he was talking to a friend on his new AT&T model 612
programmable telephone when he happened to switch on his shortwave
receiver.  There, to his horror, was his voice -- loud and clear!

"The signals reappeared every few kilohertz from 4.5 to 8.8 MHz, but
was particularly strong in the 6 to 7 Hz [_sic_] range.  Apparently
his voice was modulating the time base oscillator of the
microprocessor in the telephone!

"Has Ma Bell inadvertently planted bugs in homes and offices around
the country?  Let us know if you have been hearing strange voices on
your radio!"

(End of excerpt)

Dale

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

Date: Tue, 10 Sep 90 14:52:32 EDT
From: Adam Denton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Kind of Switch is This?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Middletown, NJ


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

> [Dave Levenson is inquiring about a CO switch not delivering ring voltage]
> The access code is 516-234.  The customer's site is in Central
> Islip, New York (which is on Long Island).

> Has anybody ever heard of this failure mode?  Does anybody know the
> type of CO used by New York Telephone in those parts?

The switch is a 5ESS.  I don't know the generic.  You can get the
scoop on what exchanges it serves by calling 234-9901 (in area code
516).  Most of NYTel's COs can be inquired by dialing NNX-9901 (I
think).

One time when I was in Hauppauge (right next to Central Islip), and
just for fun, I tried 234-9902 (actually it may have been 582-9902).
Surprise!  I got the most bizarre tone I have ever heard on a phone
line.  I figured it was some kind of funky second dial tone, so I
dialed some more digits.  I waited, and someone came on the line and
said (in an annoyed voice):

   "You are dialing on the INTERCOM!  If you don't know what you are
    doing, PLEASE read the INSTRUCTIONS!!"

and then they hung up.  So I guess you can dial the CO intercom system
from outside the switch!  Maybe some day, I'll call up one day and
have a nice chat with some of the CO personnel.  Maybe...  :-)

Live and learn!!

Adam Denton
[e-mail]

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

From: Eric Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two Lines on One Four-Wire Cable
Date: 10 Sep 90 00:27:20 GMT
Organization: Frobozz Magic Widget Company


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom
Coradeschi) writes:

>   The phone on my desk and the PhoneNet drop into my office use two pair
>   from the same line. I've honestly never noticed ANY noise in the phone
>   line - and I spend a LOT of time on the phone - and never noticed any
>   AppleTalk problems due to the phone being in use. This goes for both
>   voice transmissions, as well as data, i.e. modem (remember, I don't get
>   two lines:-{).

That's because LocalTalk (the physical layer, AppleTalk is the
protocol stack) uses much higher (non-audible) frequencies.  Voice or
modem one the main pair and LocalTalk on the secondary pair may have
some coupling, but will not interfere with each other under normal
circumstances.

I have a Telebit Trailblazer+ and my voice line on two pairs on one
cable at home, and the coupling is very obvious to me, but people I
talk to claim not to hear it.  I plan to rewire using real twisted
pair in the near future.


Eric L. Smith      Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those
[e-mail]   of my employer, friends, family, computer, or even me!  :-)

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: 10 Sep 90 15:33:05 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


>[Moderator's Note: I liked our monopoly here in the United States
>also, and it appears, based on consumer organization polls that people
>here are finally beginning to wise up to the problems with
>divestiture. I have no problem with competition: let people use
>whatever service they want; but why was AT&T smashed to pieces in the
>process?  PAT]

Disregarding our eternal disagreement about my personal hero, Harold
Greene, competition is not a simple binary state {competition |
monopoly}.

Before Carterfone, AT&T's utter monopoly meant that you could only buy
their modems, $25/month for a 300-baud "Dataphone" clunker.  You could
only buy their PBXs, mechanical clunkers.  Technology was
intentionally slowed down to meet long depreciation schedules.
(Anybody remember what it cost to have an answering machine?  You
don't want to know.)

Competitive provision of terminal gear has been absolutely vital to
the development of telecom, computer and especially datacomm
technology.  While there's a lot of junk on the market, I'm beginning
to see a reaction; "real" metal-base ITT (Alcatel Cortelco) phones are
back in one large local store (You-Do-It), for instance, and the
one-piece junkers are less common.

Competitive provision of long distance hasn't changed the technology
as much, but it did force AT&T to go digital faster than they would
have.  And it led to MUCH lower rates for the private lines that
datacomm depends upon, the introduction of T1 and T3 services, etc.
In the old days rates were totally divorced from economic cost.
That's economically inefficient.  Look at Soviet supermarkets for an
extreme case of mis-pricing.

Naturally, the FCC went too far.  They allowed COCOTs, for example, to
rip us off, along with hotels.  That isn't true competition; it's
usually taking advantage of a local monopoly.

The divestiture rules were also not designed to help consumers.  The
theory is "market allocation" -- reserve much of the market for AT&T
Comms & those under their umbrella, by taking it away from the Bells.
That little scheme was cooked up by AT&T's top brass as a way around
an antitrust case based on WeCo equipment. We were screwed, but not by
the presence of competition; rather, we were screwed by the
prohibition of "competition" for some services by the Bells. (Greene
weakened the original deal; it could have been a lot worse.)

Still, it's a heck of a lot cheaper for everything _but_ POTS down
here, compared to Canada. There are ways to maintain subsidies
(needed) in a competitive market. I hope they don't throw out the baby
with the bathwater, but monopolization isn't the solution.


Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #636
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05158;
          12 Sep 90 5:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00819;
          12 Sep 90 4:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00844;
          12 Sep 90 2:58 CDT
Date:     Wed, 12 Sep 90 1:57:08 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #637
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Sep 90 01:56:58 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 637

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phantom Calls [Dale Neiburg via John R. Covert]
    Re: SMDR's and Credit Card Calls [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: SMDR's and Credit Card Calls [Jeffri H. Frontz]
    Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix [John Slater]
    Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Washington State (Really 206) Running Low [Tad Cook]
    Voice Mail Passwords [Dave Speed]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Shawn Wu]
    Re: The Meaning of COCOT [Shawn Wu]
    Re: Thoughts on 900 Service [Raymond Koverzin]
    IXO Protocol Information Needed [Gary Felix]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 08:20:56 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  10-Sep-1990 1123" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phantom Calls


Speaking of E911 service (well, _somebody_ must have been...), the
following is from the Elkins, W. Va., INTER-MOUNTAIN for 28 August
1990.  The article is repetitive and sometimes vague, but gives an
interesting picture of telecom life in the West Virginia hills:

PHANTOM CALLS

The Upshur County Communications Center is still having problems with
"phantom callers" as more than 1000 calls per month not intended for
the center are ringing in on the emergency 911 lines.

The chief dispatcher for the Upshur County Communications Center told
the county commission this week the ComCenter is still having trouble
with "phantom calls."

Officials from the C&P Telephone Company told the commissioners that
equipment changes in the Rock Cave area of the county are expected to
solve the problem but the new equipment will not be completely in
place until July of next year.

Meanwhile, more than 1000 calls per month not intended for the
ComCenter are ringing in on the emergency 911 lines.  Often, according
to Chief Dispatcher Cathy Collins, there is no one on the line.

Collins went on to tell the commissioners and the C&P officials that
dozens of calls from the same telephone line will ring into the
ComCenter -- which is located in the basement of the Upshur County
Courthouse -- in the middle of the night.

One Frenchton Road resident, Paul Southard, complained about a
different problem.  His complaints earlier this year prompted the
meeting between C&P and the county commissioners.  He said that almost
every time he places a long distance call, he ends up reaching the
ComCenter.  Then, in the middle of the long distance call the line
will go dead.  After that, it begins to ring again and the call will
be answered at the ComCenter.

Southard added that at other times, he will pick up his phone and
before he can even dial, he will hear ringing and the ComCenter
answers.

One of the C&P officials, Karen Saymansky, said that the problem
probably is in Southard's line and not at the central office.  Bill
Claggett, also of C&P, agreed with Saymansky and said that Southard's
wire was probably telling the central office that it is dialling 911.
[A talented wire!--DN]

Southard protested that he has had his lines into his house checked,
but Claggett explained that the problem is probably between the house
and the C&P main line.  According to Claggett, the line may have been
damaged during construction in the area and water in the line could be
causing the problem.

However, the telephone company officials admitted that considering the
variety of problems being experienced, several different causes may be
to blame.  They suggested that perhaps some mis-dialled calls are
being directed to the ComCenter.  Directory assistance calls may be
ringing in at the ComCenter if the caller is failing to dial a "1"
before he dials 411.

Also, the Rock Cave central office may be misdirecting some calls to
the ComCenter because of a feature of the older equipment.  The
central office is scheduled to be upgraded in June of next year and
that should solve the problem, the telephone officials said.

The remaining problems seem to be related to old or damaged lines and
moisture in the line that is simulating an actual call.  [Talented
moisture!--DN]

Collins told the C&P officials that, as far as she knows, there has
not been any problem with emergency calls not reaching the ComCenter.
Susan Lawson, manager of rates and tariffs for C&P told the
commissioners that there did not seem to be any problem with the
emergency 911 system itself.  Claggett added that it appeared it was
just a coincidence that the problems started after the Enhanced-911
system was installed.

Some of the problems have been cleared up by calling the phone
company's repair service, Collins said.  Lawson suggested that it
might be easier if the ComCenter appoint one person to handle the
telephone problems.  If a variety of situations are causing problems,
he added, it only confuses things if several different repair persons
try to track down solutions.

[The article concludes with discussion of delays in CO hardware upgrades.]


Dale Neiburg, Washington D.C.
Work: 202-822-2402


[Moderator's Note: They might want to also consider that some
children, phreaks and assorted other folks consider it quite a funny
joke to conference two unrelated parties via three-way calling, then
let them (the two called parties) squabble with each other while the
perpetrator goes spastic with laughter at his little prank.   PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SMDR's and Credit Card Calls
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 19:24:26 GMT


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

>Before you ask ... YES, I *do* ask the sales clerk for my credit-card
>carbons (or make sure she tears them up).

Why?  YOU aren't liable for any charges fraudulently made with your
card number.  Tearing up the carbons is for the Credit Card company's
benefit.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 10:59:44 EDT
From: Jeffri H Frontz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SMDR's and Credit Card Calls
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio


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

>Of more concern to me is what happens to an SMDR printout AFTER the
>hotel (or who/whatever) is no longer interested in it.  Is it treated
>as the sensitive information it is (and shredded or incinerated), or
>do they just toss it into the dumpster and leave it waiting for the
>next pair of prying eyes to come along?  (I have this nasty feeling
>that the latter is all-too-common.)

My sister works part-time as at the front desk of a local hotel.  A
few weeks ago, her manager was approached at work by someone claiming
to be a law enforcement agent who wanted to see the telephone log for
a particular room.  The manager was about to hand the info over to the
supposed cop (who produced neither a badge, ID card, nor search
warrant) when my sister interdicted and said that it was certainly
unethical and probably illegal to do so.  The supposed cop tried to
bully them into giving out the info ("We can go to the grand jury and
get a warrant" and "Don't you realize that the people in that room are
selling drugs to children?") but my sister was adamant (her manager is
apparently a bit slow ;-) and insisted that they would have to call
the corporate lawyers before doing so.

My sister is, I'm sure, rather unusual when it comes to desk clerks.
Thus, if you're concerned about a list of your calls falling into the
wrong hands, I'd suggest using a pay phone.


Jeff Frontz                    Work:  [phone]
AT&T-Bell Labs (CB 1C-356)     Cornet:       353-2797
att!jeff.frontz                [e-mail]

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix
Date: 11 Sep 90 10:41:17 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Scott Fybush) writes:

|> number!  Anyone know who belongs to 800-800?  And am I the first one
|> to notice NXX prefixes on 800?

In the UK our equivalent of 1-800 is the 0800 STD code (+ 6D).

No prizes for who bagged 0800 800 800 : British Telecom sales
enquiries.


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800-800 Now a Valid Prefix
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 10:14:49 EDT


 From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>

> And am I the first one to notice NXX prefixes on 800?

Several years ago (I'd guess five to seven) we had individually
diallable pagers at 1-800-212-XXXX.  This was shortly before the first
time I saw NXX exchanges in real application (Manhattan telephone
numbers in A.C. 212).


JBL

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

From: Tad Cook <hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State (Really 206) Running Low
Date: 11 Sep 90 06:02:50 GMT


Regarding the possible split of the 206 area code, it must be coming,
because we will run short on prefixes in a few years.  I get those
notices from Bellcore about the changes in dialing and the area code
splits, and I did some estimates awhile back when someone posted the
prefix per NPA counts this year and last.  I did a crude projection,
and we should be in the same area in a few years where 415 is now and
312 was a couple of years ago.  I called one of the gentlemen listed
on the Bellcore letter, and he was a great source of inside info on
area code splits.  He confirmed that 206 would need to split in a few
years, but of course there were many other NPAs ahead of us.

What I am wondering, is how they heck they would split 206?  The big
concentration of population in western Washington is right around
Seattle, with the major growth to the east, north and south.  It seems
like no matter where they draw the line, it would be painful.  I
suspect that they will end up drawing a circle around Seattle, and
leaving this as 206, and make the rest of western Washington some new
code.  They could draw an east/west line between Seattle and Tacoma,
but the bulk of the population and growth would then be on one side.
None of the current LATA lines make sense as NPA boundaries.

Anyone else familiar with 206 have any thoughts?


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544        Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad    or, [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Speed <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail Passwords
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 20:09:47 PDT


I had the pleasure of being lectured on voice mail today by a Pac Tel
employee.

She informed our group that we would need to choose a "password" for
our mail boxes and suggested that it would be easy if you used the PIN
from your bank ATM account. Thankfully most present didn't know what a
PIN was.

I brought the issue up that this was terrible security and that Bell
was courting disaster with recommending this activity. She didn't see
the problem.

On a similar note, our local <Sacramento, CA> grocery chain has
installed pseudo ATM's for banking from the checkout line. Perhaps I'm
paranoid, but I don't see any advantage (to *me*) in giving the
merchant my bank number and PIN. Am I being silly ?

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

From: Shawn Wu <seer![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Organization: Brad Lanam  Alamo, CA
Date: Tue Sep 11 02:37:29 1990


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

> AT&T won't give a credit card to someone who has no phone.

I don't know if they still are, but at one point, AT&T was issuing
cards to students without requiring a phone.  The reasoning was that a
student tends to move around a lot while going through school and his
or her phone number wouldn't necessarily be the same.  That's how I
got my card.  I even still have the "AT&T: The right choice" frisbee
they were giving away just to sign up.  And technically, I personally
don't have a phone.  (Living with parents is cheaper while going to
school. :) ) And every month, I get a bill in the mail from AT&T.


Shawn Wu
  [e-mail]
  ...!uunet!seeker!seer!swu

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

From: Shawn Wu <seer![e-mail]>
Date: Tue Sep 11 02:37:29 1990
Subject: Re: The Meaning of COCOT
Organization: Brad Lanam  Alamo, CA


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

[deleted body of post by [e-mail], why negative opinion of
COCOT?]

>[Moderator's Note: For starters, they typically charge rates much
>higher than payphones operated by telco. They rip you off on long
>distance calls; they disable the keypad after you connect to a number,
>making it impossible to use them when calling pagers, etc. They accept
>your AT&T card for calls, pretend to connect you to an AT&T operator,
>then send you an outrageous bill for the call.  PAT]

I had one that would disconnect if a key on the keypad was pressed
after a connection had been made, making it impossible for me to enter
my AT&T number.  I tried to have an operator charge the call to my
card, and the COCOT disconnected just as I was about to give her the
card number!  I didn't have any change at the time, which is why I had
to use my card in the first place.  Fortunately, someone was able to
direct me to a genuine PacTel payphone in a nearby restaurant.


Shawn Wu
   [e-mail]
   ...!uunet!seeker!seer!swu

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

From: Raymond Koverzin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on 900 Service
Date: 6 Sep 90 18:50:03 GMT
Organization: Northern Telecom, Mtn. View, CA


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

> [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."

> 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.

PACBELL does this.  Every service provider must first tell the caller
that: a) they must be over 18 years old or have permission to from
their parents to use the service, b) describe what the service is, c)
that the caller has up to 18 seconds, I think, to hang up before they
begin charging for the call.

Subcribers can have the charges removed from their bill ONCE if they
stated that they did not want or authorize calls to that service.
After that, they are expected to pay for the services.

Plus, service providers can only charge up to a maximum of $20 per
call.  It is up to the service provider to terminate the call if
caller exceeds that limit otherwise the caller will only be billed $20
while the service provider will be charged for the total line charges.

The reasoning, I guess, is that it limits the charges to the subcriber
but still allows the call to continue as an "800" number after the
maximum charges.  The application for this scheme is for the immediate
charging of customer support calls from clients.  Callers may be
charged $10 for the first minute and $0 afterwards to be able to talk
to a support person regarding a problem.  Therefore, the caller gets
dinged once but can stay on the line for as is necessary to solve
his/her problem.

However, IMHO, customer support calls should always be free.  8^).

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

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 19:18:07 EDT
From: Gary Felix <[e-mail]>
Subject: IXO Protocol Information Needed
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


I am attempting to emulate an AlphaMate paging terminal in software.
Does anyone have info on the IXO protocol which is used by paging
systems?  If anyone has already developed software to do this I would
appreciate any pointers.


Thanks.
Gary Felix,  Pedi. Cardiology, U of N. Med. Ctr.
POTS: 402-559-6738

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4
 [1:285/666@fidonet] CP/M, the virus-proof OS, Omaha  --
 --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
 [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #637
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26315;
          12 Sep 90 23:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06049;
          12 Sep 90 22:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22075;
          12 Sep 90 21:07 CDT
Date:     Wed, 12 Sep 90 21:05:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #638
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Sep 90 21:05:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 638

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Patrick Clay]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Tom Gray]
    Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [Henry Mensch]
    Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Gary Segal]
    Re: AT&T Sourcebook Info [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: POETS Telephones [Will Martin]
    Re: What Kind of Switch is This? [John Slater]
    Re: Octothorpes [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: Washington State Running Low [Carl Moore]
    Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market [Glenn R. Stone]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Jeff Carroll]
    Last Laugh! Re: The Meaning of COCOT [Steve Wolfson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Patrick Clay - 529-7760 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Reply-To: Patrick Clay - 529-7760 <[e-mail]>
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 12:45:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat
(Subodh Bapat) writes:

>I have a feeling that this may not always work the same way, depending
>on the CO switches in the circuit, especially long distance where
>multiple switches are involved. The reason is that the number of rings
>heard by the caller is not necessarily the number of rings generated
>on the called line.

>I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me,
>surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?"
>when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end.

>Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this?

The Moderator`s note below this (edited for space) was correct but
wasn't complete. Another reason that the rings are not synchronized is
to get around the problem described above -- people trying to outsmart
the phone system and not get charged for a phone call. Sometimes you
can tell people to "wait for two rings" then hang up before they
answer, but the vast majority of times the phone has rung at least
once and maybe twice before the caller hears anything. The ringing the
caller hears is simply another tone like "busy" or "reorder" and has
nothing whatsoever to do with the actual phone ringing at the other
end.


SBC TRI
clay@swbatl:   Patrick Clay - 529-7760

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 12 Sep 90 13:30:17 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Benjamin
Ellsworth) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 635, Message 5 of 13

>> I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me,
>> surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?"
>> when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end.

>> Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this?

>I am not a switch guru, but a professor of mine (Dr. Burton at BYU)
>was an ex-Bell Labs man, and he mentioned in passing that some work
>had gone into the long distance switching network to temporally
>displace the ring that the caller heard from the ring signal that the
>callee heard.  This was done specifically to disrupt the "if it rings
>twice, call me" type of signalling.

Switch design spec's include requirements for immediate rng - both
ringing current and audible ringing tone. However under conditions of
high traffic it may not be possible to immediately give one or the
other of these signals to the subscribers. Hence the possibility
described above of a call being answered before rnging current or
audible ringing is given.

I have seen no spec's that require an offset of the signals as
described above and I have read many switch spec's - and wiith
practice I have even been able to translate some of these spec's into
English. Indeed the spec with the best and most precise use of English
came from the Mexican telephone company.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 13:55:57 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe


 From: [e-mail]

Henry Mensch responds:

>>Nope ... people who have 800 numbers agree to pay for calls
>>originating from certain areas (and often the entire US and Canada).
>>they never agreed to pay for calls coming in from abroad.

>Incorrect!  The USA-Direct tariff specifically allows calls to 800
>numbers in the US *if* you are using an AT&T calling card.

Then maybe you AT&T types ought to consider telling this to your
operators.  One year ago (from Australia's gold coast, just south of
Brisbane) and in July (from Hong Kong) I was unable to place calls via
the USA Direct operator with billing to my calling card; they wanted a
POTS number both times.

Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 07:30:59 PDT
 From: "John R. Covert  07-Sep-1990 1020" <[e-mail]>

>I wish the people posting such authoritative statements as yours would
>check them first.  It might also behoove the Moderator to at least post
>a note stating that he had heard otherwise when false information is
>placed in the Digest, especially when the correct information has been
>posted earlier.

And the Moderator responded to John Covert:

>[Moderator's Note: It is impossible for me to remember every article
>which appears every day in the Digest; to go back through old issues
>looking for the 'correct' information on any given topic would take
>more time than I am able to spend here. I certainly am in no position
>to actually call the telcos and LD carriers to verify every statement
>made here prior to publication. That's why I keep your name on the
>mailing list, John: so you can read TELECOM Digest each day and give
>us Truthful and Correct Information when we err.  PAT]

The Moderator is right on the mark here ... John obviously knows more
than everyone, including the people who provide the service.  (It's
not clear how he knows that his experience in this matter is the
customary state of affairs, despite evidence to the contrary).


Henry Mensch    /   <[e-mail]>   /   E40-379 MIT,  Cambridge, MA
<[e-mail]-relay> / <[e-mail]> / <[e-mail]>
     via X.400: S=mensch; OU=informatik; P=tu-muenchen; A=dbp; C=de

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

From: "Roeber, Frederick" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling 800 Numbers From Europe
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: California Institute of Technology, on loan to CERN
Date: 11 SEP 90 02:36:42


[e-mail] (Per Gotterup), [e-mail]

(Frederick Roeber), and [e-mail] (P. Knoppers) tell us
that 800 numbers don't work from the Netherlands, Switzerland, or
Denmark (respectively), with the national PTTs often having the
attitude, "If we can't make money off of it, you can't do it."

I should point out also that I offered to pay for the call myself (I'm
the one in Switzerland), but the operator said it was totally
impossible.

I was trying to call Citibank VISA/MC, at the customer service number
they put on their bills.  Since they have now started printing on my
bills a 619 number, with instructions to call collect, I rather doubt
they wanted their 800 number restricted to NA.

On the other hand, information in the U.S. was free.

                    << Frederick G.M. Roeber >>
[e-mail] or | Bat. 864, 2-A18 | Disclaimer:  Are you kidding?  If
[e-mail] | CERN, SL Div.   | more people shared my opinions, the
  [phone]    | Geneva, Switz.  | world would be a much happier place!

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 11 Sep 90 15:01:22 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (Fubar) writes:

>I got the "in writing" information that I had requested. It consisted
>of mostly propoganda about the quality of their lines, the NAMES of
>all of their "plans" and SOME rates. Absolutely NO comparison, and NO
>INDICATION that their plans and rates are better. It would take the
>better part of a day, a good spreadsheet or statistical program, and
>all the rates of other systems to figure out which is best.

Now I'm curious ... has anyone ever asked AT&T to "put it in writing?"
If so, how does their propaganda compare to Sprint's (or MCI's for
that matter)?  AT&T has been making a lot of noise about getting it
"in writing" from thier competition, I'm surprised everyone seems to
be taking them at face value.

>In short, their "in writing" campaign is just so much smoke.

I'd be inclined to believe that AT&T is the one that started blowing
the smoke, and now Sprint is attempting to blow it back.


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: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcebook Info
Date: 11 Sep 90 12:43:18 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, Thomas Lapp <thomas%mvac23.uucp
writes:

> In the TELECOM digest of 16 August, Patrick wrote:

>> listed. To get your copy, call 1-800-635-8866.

> gave me another number to try for the residential catalog of products.
> That number is 1-800-451-2100.

The first number is their heavy duty LARGE customer catalog and
includes lots of DATA stuff, too.

The second number is really the SMALL business number.

There is yet a third number for consumer stuff that includes household
non telephone merchandise.

That one is 800.634.4343

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

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 8:59:32 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: POETS Telephones


>I was just given a box of instruments which are labeled "POETS EK-18
>TELEPHONE."  They do not work on a standard line.  Can anyone identify
>the type of system that these instruments were designed for?

You have to speak in rhyme when you talk over these...   :-)

:-)  :-)  :-)  :-)  Will

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Kind of Switch is This?
Date: 12 Sep 90 14:15:52 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Adam Denton)
writes:

|> One time when I was in Hauppauge (right next to Central Islip), and
|> just for fun, I tried 234-9902 (actually it may have been 582-9902).
|> Surprise!  I got the most bizarre tone I have ever heard on a phone
|> line.  I figured it was some kind of funky second dial tone, so I
|> dialed some more digits.  I waited, and someone came on the line and
|> said (in an annoyed voice):

|>    "You are dialing on the INTERCOM!  If you don't know what you are
|>     doing, PLEASE read the INSTRUCTIONS!!"

|> and then they hung up.  So I guess you can dial the CO intercom system
|> from outside the switch!  Maybe some day, I'll call up one day and
|> have a nice chat with some of the CO personnel.  Maybe...  :-)

The number is definitely 516-582-9902. After the above article, I
couldn't resist dialling, even at transatlantic rates. I got a
peculiar tone (a bit like UK ringing tone), then silence. I said
"Hello" a few times and heard nothing. I decided to hang on for a
while, intermittently humming to myself and saying "hello". After
about thirty seconds a *very* irritated voice came on the line and
said "What do you want?!".  Rather than irritate him further, I hung
up. I guess it's a fairly stupid idea to have a dial-in intercom
system in the first place, so my sympathy level is low.


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Date: 12 Sep 90 15:44:58 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Davidson Corry)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 635, Message 9 of 13

*>In article <[e-mail]> Jeremy Grodberg ([e-mail].
*>edu) writes:

*>I have also seen # as "thorn" or "thorne", but I believe this is a
*>mistake, either a misspelling "octothorne", or a misapplication of the
*>name of the Norse rune for the "th" sound, still used in Icelandic.  I
*>_think_ the rune is
*>                       \/
*>                       /

*>but maybe we have someone on the net from Reykjavik who can help
*>me out... <grin>

I'm not Icelandic (as you may have surmised from my name), but I've
done some reading on early English (Anglo-Saxon).

Our 'th sound', or thorn, was written at one time with a letter that,
as you show, indeed looked much like the modern y.  If you've ever
seen those cute little signs that say *Ye Olde Shoppe*, that's
actually a carryover from Old English.  Of couse, if you pronounce it
as you know it's really written, you get interviewed by polite
gentlemen in white coats.


Bob Zabloudil
DSAC-OLC

std.disclaimer claimed, of course

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

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 16:28:49 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State Running Low


Don't forget that in New Jersey, intra-NPA toll calls are dialed as
only 7D.  And 313 area in Michigan, according to this Digest, reduced
its intra-NPA toll calls to 7D as well.

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

From: "Glenn R. Stone" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market
Date: 11 Sep 90 18:22:44 GMT
Organization: Dead Poets Society


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Matthew
McGehrin) writes:

>...or if you like faster
>communications, use Reach Out America. The first hour is $8.70 (gone
>in one day), and additional hours are $6.60 which is an great rate;
>(about 11 cents) a minute after 10pm.

Ummm .... MCI Prime Time will beat that on two counts .... I currently
pay $7.50/6.50 (they didn't TELL me they were cutting their rates, but
they did, anyway; I'm not complaining :), and Prime Time coverage
starts at 5pm instead of 10 .... Switch, hell.  Why should I pay
Deathstarco more money for services I never use?

Just another satisfied MCI customer.


Glenn R. Stone
[e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 13 Sep 90 01:27:47 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com!browns
(BROWN, STAN) writes:

>Arrgh!  This sort of thing really ticks me off -- being INconvenienced
>is bad enough, but told that it's for my convenience goes beyond the
>pale!  Why not be honest and say "For MY convenience"!  Otherwise, I
>like this message.

>Thank you, I feel better now!

>Just for the record -- I am _not_ against answering machines.  All I
>am saying is, don't pretend that it's for someone else's convenience.


    If you were one of the people who has tried to reach me at
what we here at Boeing euphemistically describe as an "office", you
would understand what a convenience the answering machine on my home
line is.

    I admit that the answering machine is something of a
convenience to me, but I think that it's likely much more convenient
to the caller, who no longer has to try to track me down and/or guess
what time I will be home.

    Store-and-forward (or forward-and-store) messaging is quite a
concept. Until universal email comes along, the answering machine is
probably the nicest thing I can do for the unfortunate souls who have
to be able to find me.


    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

From: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! Re: The Meaning of COCOT
Date: 12 Sep 90 14:45:49 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


(C)ompletely (O)bnoxious (C)on (O)perated (T)ravesty :-)


Steve Wolfson     Motorola Cellular    uunet!motcid!wolfson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #638
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28518;
          13 Sep 90 2:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20528;
          13 Sep 90 0:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09120;
          12 Sep 90 23:13 CDT
Date:     Wed, 12 Sep 90 22:20:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #639
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Sep 90 22:19:59 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 639

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [John Higdon]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Jon Baker]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Jim Gottlieb]
    ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords [J. Philip Miller]
    Re: Voice Mail Passwords [John Higdon]
    Re: Tail Gunner Joe [J. Eric Townsend]
    Intra-NPA Long Distance (Was: Washington State) [Sander Rabinowitz]
    AT&T - How YOU Put it in Writing [Gil Kloepfer Jr.]
    Need Legal References to Cordboard Privacy Suit [John Boteler]
    Signal Routes [Timothy C. Wolfson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: 12 Sep 90 13:53:29 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dave Levenson <[e-mail]> writes:

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

> > Here is an exercise for you Americans.  Imagine yourself standing on a
> > street corner downtown in your city with nothing but lots of cash and
> > a Visa card.  You do not have a "home phone" in this country.  You
> > don't want to make the callee pay for the call. How would you make a
> > long distance phone call?

> I would look for a multi-carrier public phone, and insert that VISA
> card, and dial away...

Which reminds me of why many Americans don't experience such problems
in other countries. They carry a card which is accepted for telephone
calls around the world. It's called the AT&T Calling Card. It works
because AT&T established agreements with countless foreign telecom
agencies. It works from hotels, public phones -- U-name-it.

So before anyone starts bashing the US for having foreigner-unfriendly
phones, how 'bout asking your home telephone provider why they don't
issue a card that works in the US?

There's more than one side to this story...


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

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: 12 Sep 90 15:55:31 GMT
Organization: gte


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

>there is no provision for non-subscribers to pay for phone calls.

Sure there is -- get a huge bag full of quarters.

>on the order of $3 a minute.  That's 12 coins of the largest
>denomination accepted by a pay phone.

So bring back the SBA dollar, or put currency-eaters on pay phones.

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

> > Do away with coin-operated phones.  Replace them with phones that take
> > a smart card.

> This is an excellent idea that AT&T should have adopted before `ol
> Harry broke them up (that's Judge Harold "Equal Access" Greene to
> you!)

(sure that wasn't Judge Harry T. Stone?)

> But this is now impossible with the poliferation of the
> one-armed bandits ...errr ... COCOTS, and different Long Distance
> companies now.

Not at all impossible - if Judge Greene decrees, it shall be so.


Jon Baker

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: 12 Sep 90 14:49:52 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


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

[>> comments are those of John Higdon]

>> > In the best/worst voting, my opinions (based on experience) are:
>> > BEST:   Japan

>> Bzzzzt! Wrong -- but thanks for playing anyway.

>> * About one out of ten calls bomb (don't go through).

>Not on my observation.

I would say it may even be higher.  These bombed calls take two forms.
Either the call just sits there and does nothing, or you get a "The
number you have dialed is not in service" recording.  I verify that
this is not user error by using my last-number-redial to try again.
The second time is usually the charm.  Interestingly, I can't ever
recall reaching a wrong number.

>> * Long distance within Japan "sounds" like long distance.

>In my experience much less so than in the US.

Only if you use bogus carriers here in the U.S.  While Sprint's
network is 100% digital and AT&T's is 99% digital, NTT's is far less.
I read recently in the {Japan Times} that NTT has announced that they
plan to have their long-distance network all digital by the year 2000;
10 years ahead of their original schedule.

And consider the fact that the foreign exchange lines we have in our
office don't even use digital carrier for the CO-to-CO portion.  They
are run on metallic pairs all the way from the originating C.O. to our
office.  The quality is so bad they are barely usable.

>> * Outside plant is pathetic and inadequate.

>Not in my experience.

Definitely pathetic!  The cable they use is so thin that we have
serious crosstalk problems.  And cable is so inadequate that in most
places in Tokyo, if you want more than a few lines, you may have to
wait up to a year for service.  This problem is exacerbated by the
current labor shortage.  NTT claims they just don't have the manpower
to run all the new cable they need to.  And hiring foreign workers is
not socially acceptable (see soc.culture.japan).

>> * Even though the system is "privatized", it is run like a government
>>   bureaucracy.

>Whereas AT&T was a paragon of lean and mean private
>enterprise. Anyway, an irrelevant point.

The point is that NTT feels like the old Bell System, where no one
goes out of their way to make things better for the customer.

>> * You get to hear the "meter pulses" on many calls.

>I haven't noticed.

I'm not sure when it happens.  I almost never hear them on calls
within Tokyo, but listen to some of the people on our party lines or
some of the messages left on our voice personals services and every
five to eighteen seconds, you hear "ka-chink, ka-chunk".

>> Sources: close associates who live and work in Japan.

>So have I.

My source: Myself.  I live there.

>Jim Breen ($B%8%`(J)
            ^^^^^^^^
Ahh, but he has Japanese in his .signature.  That increases his
qualifications a bit.

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATM at Retailers  (was: Voice Mail Passwords)
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 11:00:59 GMT


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

>On a similar note, our local <Sacramento, CA> grocery chain has
>installed pseudo ATM's for banking from the checkout line. Perhaps I'm
>paranoid, but I don't see any advantage (to *me*) in giving the
>merchant my bank number and PIN. Am I being silly ?

Well, this gets a bit far from Telecom, but there are several potential
advantages to the consumer from this type of arrangement:

For certain types of checking accounts from some banks, this type of
transaction may be free, while writing a check is not.

Many retail stores (particularly grocery stores) require a special
"check cashing card" from that store to write a check.  Using your ATM
card to make the purchase reduces the number of cards you need (and in
many cases the number of PINs you need to recall).  This is even more
important if you are shopping outside of your normal area.

I don't really see that the security implications are much different
than giving a store your Visa card and they run it thru their card
reader.

Now to give it some Telecom relevance:

The proliferation of ATM terminals and retail stores using ATM type
cards seems to be particularly popular in urban areas, but seems to be
much less popular in small town America.  Now this may be because of
attitude differences, but I have assumed that much of it is also due
to the fact that connecting the terminal to necessary host equipment
is also considerably more expensive and thus the amount of traffic for
a particular location would need to be much higher for a rural
location than an urban one.  Can someone knowledgeable describe the
typical type of connections utilized by ATM equipment (both stand
alone and in conjunction with a point of sale terminal)?


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Passwords
Date: 12 Sep 90 14:12:28 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dave Speed <[e-mail]> writes:

> On a similar note, our local <Sacramento, CA> grocery chain has
> installed pseudo ATM's for banking from the checkout line. Perhaps I'm
> paranoid, but I don't see any advantage (to *me*) in giving the
> merchant my bank number and PIN. Am I being silly ?

I think so. ATM card-accepting merchants are quite common here. I
personally find it to be convenient and a more acceptable way to
transact business than cash, check, or credit card. Are you worried
that the merchant will drain all of your money out of your account
while you aren't looking? Do you think that he is capturing all those
PINs in the back room so that he can retire to Tahiti? I would lay
odds that the merchant does not record your PIN, which is normally
simply sent along with the rest of the encrypted transaction to the
banking center or network.

Get used to ATM-style transactions. It's a happening thing.


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

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

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 1:25:52 CDT
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tail Gunner Joe


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Townsend and I have discussed his idea of
genderless pronouns, as shown below. I do not care for them.  PAT]


I have attached another article from Joe Abernathy for the Digest.
This is the infamous "Internet Pornography Ring" article.  Credit for
the electronic copy goes to "Bitslicer".  Se typed it with hir own
little fingers -- please leave the credit at the top if you distribute
it.

With regards to the story's errors:  If it's an obvious spelling
or punctuation error, it's not the Chron's fault.  Style, format and
content problems *are* Abernathy's fault.  Almost-degreed journalist
that I am, I can not find it in my heart to be an apologist for
this particular story. :-)


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]    Bitnet: jet@UHOU    Skate UNIX(r)


[Moderator's Note: I've forwarded your article direct to the Telecom
Archives, where it resides as 'abernathy.internet.story' for anyone
interested.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 10:29 EST
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Intra-NPA Long Distance (Was: Washington State Running Low)


In the TELECOM Digest issue of 12 September 1990, Bob Goudreau of Data
General Corp.  <[e-mail]> writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Randal
>Schwartz) writes:

>> I think this scam of using 1+ to indicate area codes instead of toll
>> calls is actually good for the phone company in two ways ... they can
>> sell more phone numbers (if it wasn't for PBX DID, we wouldn't be
>> running out), and people can get stuck with toll calls without knowing
>> it.  A scam.

>First of all, are you sure that the new dialing rules will allow you
>to dial intra-NPA long distance calls as NXX-XXXX?  We've undergone a
>similar number shortage here in NC, and the new rules require
>1-NXX-NXX-XXXX for *all* long distance calls, both intra- and
>inter-NPA.  Eight-digit dialing for intra-NPA LD (1-NNX-XXXX) has been
>eliminated.  Any number that can be dialed with only seven digits is
>thus guaranteed to be local.

My own area (area code 313) is in a transition to 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX
dialing, such that both methods of dialing (as described above) are
presently allowed.  One interesting side effect (I suspect that it's
accidental) is that 10xxx long-distance carrier (LDC) access codes can
be used for all 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX, even if the call is _within_ the same
LATA!  I tried this experimentally for a couple of numbers, and it did
show up in the bill on a separate page for the LDC.

I suspect that this must be temporary, because I was under the
impression that LDC's could not handle intra-LATA calls.


Sander J. Rabinowitz -- [phone] -- [e-mail]
The University of Michigan-Dearborn (Graduating Senior)
Views are not necessarily those of the University.

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

From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T - How YOU Put it in Writing
Date: 13 Sep 90 00:53:50 GMT
Organization: Southwest Systems Development Labs, Houston, TX


After some billing disputes with AT&T and my ex-local phone company (I
recently moved to Texas), I now know the plus side to getting bills
from separate companies, as opposed to getting all phone bills from
all companies put on one generic TELEPHONE bill.

A representative from AT&T (who, after dealing with several less-than-
competent people, did give me "excellent service") gave me the address
that people can write to if they would like to see a service that AT&T
doesn't provide.  A suitable letter for the latest discussion might
mention how settling disputes in billing is easier when a separate
bill comes from each company.

For those who would like to write to AT&T to make suggestions about
this, or some other, topic, the person to write to is:

        Mr. D. Burgess
        AT&T Sales VP -- Consumer Operations
        5 Wood Hollow Rd., Room S07
        Parsippany, NJ  07054

I was told that Mr. Burgess has helped to effect many of the positive
changes that AT&T has provided.  I was encouraged to pass this
information along so that AT&T can provide the type of service that
people want.

As always, I have no affiliation with AT&T, I'm just a normally
satisfied customer who wasn't for a short time.


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.              [e-mail]   ...!ames!limbic!gil
Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS)   Houston, Texas

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

Subject: Need Legal References to Cordboard Privacy Suit
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 11:50:16 EDT
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


Please email responses to [e-mail]. Thanx.

I need references (rather quickly) to legal action, possibly a class
action suit, in the early part of this century regarding the
changeover from cordboard equipment to automatic switching equipment.

As I understood it, customers were angry about losing the information
of who was calling traditionally provided by the cordboard operators.
Sort of a reverse modern-day Caller ID concept.

If anyone has specific case references, please email them to me.
Thanx!


John Boteler   [e-mail]           {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703-241-BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling

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

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 21:31:36 -0400
From: Timothy C Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Signal Routes?


I am doing some research for a legal paper and would like to know if
anyone here can answer the following questions (or point me in the
right direction) :

1.) I use my telephone to make an intrastate call. Is there a
possibility that the signals, whether via wire or microwave, etc.,
will be routed over the state line?

2.) Same idea, but instead of a telephone, I send an email message to
another computer on a network.

Your help is much needed and will be deeply appreciated.


         Tim Wolfson      |  Internet: [e-mail]
         Pitt Law         |  CCNet   : tcwst@CISUNX
         PGH, PA 15260    |  UUCP    : [e-mail]
         [phone]   |  Bitnet  : [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yes it can happen, especially in metro areas
sitting on state boundary lines. But that is not considered
interstate. Interstate requires that a call originate in one state and
terminate in another. The fact that it may temporarily pass through a
different state for the convenience of the carrier does not count.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #639
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00682;
          13 Sep 90 4:01 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28057;
          13 Sep 90 2:24 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25496;
          13 Sep 90 1:20 CDT
Date:     Thu, 13 Sep 90 0:22:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #640
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 13 Sep 90 00:22:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 640

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Getting 64kb Loops NOW + 3002 on DDS II [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Fisher's Island, Long Island Calls [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    New Pentagon Telephone Dialing Procedures [Jeffrey M. Schweiger]
    Northern Telecom DV1/Meridian Help Needed [Bruce Altmann]
    Deregulation of Telecom in Australia [Anthony Lee]
    Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK [Leila Burrell-Davis]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990 [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Access Charge For Calling Card Calls? [Richard Stanton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting 64kb Loops NOW + 3002 on DDS II
Date: 11 Sep 90 17:28:10 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


With DDS II being quite widely available, and with DDS II rates often
being exactly the same for 2.4 or 56kb, and with 56kb with secondary
channel being common, and with 64kb clear channel being about to be
tarriffed in many places, what one wants to order for CSU/DSUs, and
from the phone company has changed.

Most vendors don't yet support 64kb in their DSU/CSU, and most LEC
don't offer it, BUT the 72kb line rate is IDENTICAL to what they
provide to give you 56kb with secondary channel. I don't need the
secondary channel, but DO object to losing 1/8th of each DS0 delivered
on a 56kb class local circuit.

If you can order 56kb with secondary channel under the new low priced
DDS II tarriffs, and get yourself CSU/DSUs that have the option of
going to 64kb (as well as traditional 2.4, 4.8, 9.6, 56, and the newer
19.2 and 38.4 all optionally with secondary channel), you have an
EXCELENT chance of doing 64kb TODAY, and at very worst, you crank the
knob back to 56 (with secondary - that you probably won't use) and
wait until it is tarriffed. At least you have the 'right' CSU/DSU that
won't be obsolete. (N.B. 64kb clear channel is WITHOUT any secondary
low speed async channel.)

Who make these? Well, I was totally dismayed to find VERY FEW
companies selling CSU/DSUs that do 64kb. One company that does, and
that does not seem to spend much time selling to end user datacomm
types is ADTRAN.

Their literature and documentation (all in BSP format) is clearly
aimed at the TELCOs themselves. They make the cards that plug into the
CO D4 channel banks to provision DDS. They make these cards and
customer end DSU/CSUs that have enough receive sensitivity to pick off
signals at -45db. Many competitive units stop at -34db. Telcos love
them. You will too.

The DSU/CSU in question is their # DSU II, and there is a version of
it called the DSU II TST that is designed for installers to carry with
them to test a new installed service. It has an LED that lights if the
loop loss is > 34db. Since it costs exactly the same, this is the one
to order for EVERYTHING.

Additionally, with local digital loops going DOWN, and analog loops
going UP there is another game to play. There are often times where
you have to install an analog circuit just to cater to some old 14.4
modem that has a six way TDM built in. You can't simply replace it with
a DDS ckt, because you would ALSO need a TDM, and probably there are
foreseeable future plans that might obsolete ALL this. Of course you
don't want to pay for analog now, and then for a reinstall later to
switch to DDS.

ADTRAN has this great little product clearly targeting TELCOs. It
extends the A/D conversion out to your wall where they hand off the 4
w 3002 type analog circuit to you. You get a zero length analog loop.
There are NO equalization issues at all! The loop to the CO is the
same as the 64kb or 56kb w/secondary as above. The TELCO normally
doesn't bother to tell you all this (and remember analog loops often
cost more now).

This unit is fully FCC blessed for YOU to install on the a DDS line
where you would normally have put your DSU/CSU. Don't be put off by
ADTRAN's pictures that show this unit BEFORE the analog DEMARK, they
are marketing to TELCOs. YOU simply stick it AFTER the digital DEMARK.

What I am saying is simply DON'T order more analog lines, get DDS II
ones, and if you really must (e.g. TDM built into analog modem makes
keeping it for a while practical) do the conversion to 3002 analog
yourself. These little gems are $380 in 'Wescom 400' form factor so
you can plug them into any spare slots in that type of shelf, or the
same card boxed standalone is $485.

You switch to full digital without involving the telco any time you
want.

ADTRAN is in Huntsville at 205.837.7800 - all good folks, but try for
a customer service engineer named Bill Salmon - most helpfull!

FWIW - I have no connection at all - I just like to find the 'right'
stuff when no one else seems to bother making it!

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

From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 90 18:40 EST
Subject: Re: Long Island / Fisher's Island calls


I just noticed that AT&T now handles all calls to Fisher's Island from
New York City and Nassau County. (212, 718, and Western 516). Haven't
tried Suffolk yet, though...

It used to be that if you dialed Fisher's Island with a calling card,
you would get the old, generic calling card system. IE, you would dial
516-788-xxxx, and just get a "boing", no "AT&T" or "Please dial your
card number ... etc" which NT Tel sometimes does. You also wouldn't get
"Thank you for using AT&T/NY Tel". Just "Thank you" like one would get
pre-divestiture.

So are all calls to Fisher's Island (Operator assist/calling card and
direct) handled by AT&T or another LD company? If so, wouldn't that
make Fisher's Island the smallest LATA in the country? One exchange!
(And not a very populated one at that!)

I've tried calling there from the South Shore of Connecticut, and AT&T
also serves Fisher's Island from there.

P.S. A while ago someone mentioned (in response to my post) that all calls
within the municipality of New York City were local, and there were no
surcharges based on distance. This is only true for non-coin service, as
there are PLENTY of instances where coin phone calls will cost more than
the standard $.25 for a local call coin calls within New York City. (Try
Little Neck to New York City from a coinbox, you'll see what I mean...)


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Pentagon Telephone Dialing procedures
Date: 11 Sep 90 17:04:03 GMT
Reply-To: "Jeffrey M. Schweiger" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


The following is taken from a recent DoD News Release:

NEW TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR PENTAGON

     Effective Oct. 1, 1990, the Department of Defense will be
affected by new telephone dialing procedures being implemented in the
Washington, D. C. area.

     As of that date, the C&P Telephone Companies, which service the
Pentagon and other DoD installations, will require callers to dial 10
digits when making a local call outside a particular area code.  For
example, a call from the Pentagon in Virginia to the Washington Navy
Yard in Washington, D.C. will be dialed 9 + 202 + the 7-digit local
number.  (In this example, the "9" is not a part of the telephone
number, but is used to reach an outside line.)  In addition, the area
code for the Pentagon building will change from 202 to 703, effective
Oct. 1, 1990.

     Long distance dialing will remain unchanged; callers will
continue to dial 9 + 1 + area code + the 7-digit number.

     As a result of this requirement, all 694-XXXX telephone numbers,
used by the DoD, will change to 614-XXXX, effective Oct. 1, as well.
This change is necessary because (703) 694-XXXX is already used in
Stuart, Va.


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

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

From: Bruce Altmann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Northern Telecom DV1/Meridian Help Needed
Date: 11 Sep 90 21:04:31 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University


Norhtern Telecom has donated a new Meridian SL1 and an older DV1
processor. We have undergrads who have worked with the SL1, but the
DV1 undergrad was mainly trained on hardware. Has anyone had more than
the ten cent tour of the DV1. I know it was not the marketing dream NT
imagined. I am looking for software and hardware setup help. NT seems
to be very busy, and I just wanted to try other sources. I am very
well versed in UNIX, telecom, and networking.


Thanks,

Bruce Altmann

INTERNET bruce\@foxfire 128.194.8.1               Bruce Altmann
     n357dd\@tamuts             Texas A&M Univ. Engineering Tech.\Telecom.
BITNET: bja1475\@TAMVENUS  Telecom undergrad. & Department Telecom Lab Designer
Phone: [phone] - Office                        GIG'EM

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

From: Anthony Lee <[e-mail]>
Subject: Deregulation of Telecom in Australia
Date: 12 Sep 90 02:49:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I don't if this a major item of news in the US but there is currently
a big debate between the Labour party (the political party currently
in government) on whether to privatise certain part of the
telecommunication industry in this country.  I wonder if anyone out
there got any thoughts on this subject.  Also I want to know why the
left wing of the Labour Party and some of the unions are so opposed to
the whole idea of competition.

Cheers,

Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor)
ACSnet:    [e-mail]    TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651
Internet: [e-mail]        +(61)-7-377-4139 (w)
SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia


[Moderator's Note: If you to discuss labor union philosophy and/or
liberal politics in Australia -- telecom content not withstanding!
 -- please correspond direct with Mr. Lee.    PAT]

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

From: Leila Burrell-Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK
Date: 12 Sep 90 11:44:56 GMT
Organization: Computing Service, University of Sussex, UK


A women's group that I belong to has received a number of complaints
from women about the way in which the police and British Telecom in
the UK handle reports of obscene or 'nuisance' calls - essentially the
charge is that unless you've been having calls threatening physical
violence for an extended period they're just not interested.

We plan to take this up with the authorities, but before we do I would
be very interested to know what it is technically possible for the
phone company to do to trace such calls. I have seen some discussion
in this group as regards the US but don't know to what extent it is
applicable to the UK.


Leila Burrell-Davis, Computing Service, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
Tel:   [phone]              Fax:   [phone]
Email: [e-mail]  (JANET: [e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Can any of our readers in the UK explain the laws
there on the topics of telephone harassment and call tracing?   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 22:39:54 CDT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (Was Re: Labor Day, 1990)


Mark reports:

>The best telephone system I've seen is in ... Botswana.

I believe it, Mark.  What most people cannot believe is that the
nations that had a poor, antiquated public network, tend to rebuild
with the latest and best when they do.  I recall putting the latest
generation TDM's running high-speed sync modems on lines in countries
Americans couldn't believe that of ... including Botswana.  (In fact,
life in Gaborones was so pleasant to me that I still think of retiring
there. Nice to know the phones are up to snuff now!)

Mark continues:

>whilst in Italy - I couldn't get through to Botswana...so I ended
>up dialling to my machine in South Africa...and back out to Botswana.

Later <in Digest vol10,iss628> Mark writes:

>Talk about routing...
>How many other non-USA countries use BT to do routing to Kuwait?

Probably most all, Mark.  The simple economic fact is that until or
unless the volume of traffic directly between two nations is
profitable, "transit calls" are run via a third country.  The practice
is very common, and has been for years.

>I wonder if this implies that any country that South Africa
>does not route directly to is routed via BT?

While BT probably gets the lion's share, others that have more direct
links to places of interest are likely as well.  Paris for francophone
countries or Madrid for Spanish lands are likely examples.

Sometimes, telecommunications transits are surprising. Here's one I
bet no one would ever expect: Sitting in the hotel room In Lusaka,
Zambia, waiting through the 8-hour delay quoted on calls to the US, my
phone finally rang, and I heard the Zambian operator on line saying,
"OK, Johannesburg, I have the party on line for ticket nnnnn now..go
ahead, party."  Just even try to mail a letter between Lusaka and
Jo'burg!

Telecomm may make stranger bedfellows than politics!  (If you want to
know more about details of international telephone routing, look into
special reports of the CCITT.  They detail trunk and transit liaisons,
minutes of traffic carried, and forecasts on both.  The CCITT "plan"
is what telephone people the world around work from ... another
function of the "standards body.")

Then in article <Digestv10,iss636> Dale Nieburg writes of 911 dialing
errors in rural West Virginia and the persistent "wall of denial"
answers of C&P Telephone.

This illustrates so well that despite supposed "jolts" of the breakup
that Telcos cry about, minds INSIDE local Telcos still have not
changed.  The "monopoly mentality" still prevails there.  C&P's
answer, "Just wait for the new switching machine," is best classed as
"Telephone Man's Stock Put-Off Number 54-B."

What amazes me, as Dale's notes in the quote point up, is HOW the
public continues to gobble such trash.

1.) WHY doesn't anyone ask them how the new machine is going to fix
the cable pairs C&P points to as the probable cause? (C&P must have
secretly developed "intelligent cable" somewhere in West Virginia;
cable pairs that can dial digits meaningfully...now, there MUST be a
marketplace opportunity in that somehow!) Cable that can dial digits
is Telephone Man's Stock Put-Off Number 13-C.

2.) WHY doesn't anybody ASK C&P just WHO is responsible for that piece
of cable they keep intimating is the subscriber's responsibility?
Denying responsibility for their own plant is Telephone Man's
Stock Put-Off Number 33-D.

3.) The marvelous twist of logic about assigning ONE person in the
user organization to track the trouble reports is yet another aspect
of the "monopoly mentality."  Within the confines of a single
sentence, the problem of multiple people inside the Telco gets thrown
back around into a management problem the customer is supposed to be
overseeing. Telling the customer they should keep track of a recurrent
case is Telephone Man's Stock Put-Off Number of 8-B.

The bottom line of all this is that while our Moderator thinks all the
problems of divestiture should have been solved three years ago, many
of the very causes of the Lynching of Ma Bell still circulate around
her corpse.  Don't blame our government for that, too, Dear Moderator!

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

Date: Tue, 11 Sep 90 22:20:00 PDT
From: Richard Stanton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Access Charge for Calling Card Calls?


To add to the hotel billing (mis)practice discussion, I just stayed at
a very expensive hotel which proceeded to charge me 75c for each
calling card call I placed from my room, claiming that "our phone
company charges us a 75c access charge for those calls".

If we ignore the fact that this is cheap, stingy behavior anyway, is
it possible that they were telling the truth?

Further, it was nowhere stated in my room that any such charge would
be levied. While I couldn't be bothered to make a huge fuss over about
$4.00, does a hotel not have to tell you if it's going to charge you
for things that ought to be free?


Richard Stanton
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #640
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25476;
          14 Sep 90 4:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09209;
          14 Sep 90 2:33 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29566;
          14 Sep 90 1:29 CDT
Date:     Fri, 14 Sep 90 1:06:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #641
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 14 Sep 90 01:06:27 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 641

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    History and Experience Concerning "Long Duration" Local Calls [L. Lippman]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: History and Experience Concerning "Long Duration" Local Calls
Date: 11 Sep 90 21:20:10 EDT (Tue)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

{can you time up a dial-up line all month?}

> An alarm distributor once told me that Sonitrol {sp} tried this. They
> offered an alarm system that triggered on loud noises inside the
> buildings at night. Then the alarm office could listen, mike by mike,
> to hear if it was an intruder, or a burping furnace.

> To do they, they used standard dialup lines, and kept them open all
> night, or all weekend. Ma took them up the court ladder, and won. I
> suspect the tariffs have some catchall phrase about "abnormal use" or
> such.

    I've not heard of the particular instance involving Sonitrol,
but I have heard of others.  In fact, some years ago I was personally
involved with this type of situation (details later in the article).

    This was indeed a matter of "concern" to the Bell System at
one time.  Most untimed (one-message-unit-per-call-regardless-of-length
or true flat rate) subscriber line service for businesses was
eliminated during the 1970's, resulting in businesses being charged
for the actual length of calls.

    Prior to such changes in tariffs, a local call could exist for
a virtually unlimited time, tying up CO apparatus and interoffice
trunks without any revenue being produced.  The Bell System was
"concerned" because such usage could deprive it of revenue which
should otherwise arise from leased line circuits for say, data, alarm
or OPX purposes.  Some of this "concern" on the part of the Bell
System was no doubt brought on by the (then) comparatively recent
offering of telephone network interconnection devices, opening up new
possibilities for customers to utilizes apparatus which might deprive
the Bell System of revenue from the sale of its traditional products
and services.

    With the introduction of local message timing, the effective
"rate" for a continuous call usually exceeded the rate for a leased
line.  Therefore, the telephone company was "happy" with either
subscribers who made long, continuous calls or who obtained leased
lines - because either event generated revenue.  Quite frankly, I
don't believe that potential degradation of service to other customers
was ever a *true* concern, although it was certainly THE *voiced*
concern.

    So, the point is, in earlier days the telephone company was
not concerned because CO apparatus and interoffice trunks were tied up
per se, but because they had neither tariffs nor apparatus to permit
billing for such usage.  As a result, the telephone company would
refer to tariff provisions prohibiting a subscriber from "use of
service or facilities that would injuriously effect the efficiency of
the Telephone Company's plant, property or service." [actual tariff
quote] The intent, of course, was to force such a subscriber into
obtaining an appropriate leased telephone circuit.

    Today, in general, the telephone company extracts its "pound
of flesh" from every minute of almost every local business call, and
could care less about how long individual calls exist.  As an example,
in my local calling area based upon business rates, a month-long call
would cost around $ 300.00 - which is generally more than the monthly
cost of any comparable leased circuit.

    As a personal aside, in 1970 I designed and prototyped a
product which was intended to exploit untimed business calls to create
tie lines and OPX's for use with a telephone company-provided cord
PBX.  This product, which was called "Econo-Tie", would have saved
customers money by eliminating the cost of leased lines.  Using
combinations of burst and continuous inband tone signaling at 500,
700, 1100 and 1600 Hz, the device created supervisory, dial and
ringing signals over a dialed-up telephone circuit.  One device was
required at each customer location.

Each pair of devices could be optioned to provide any one of the
following: OPX, manual ringdown tie line, automatic ringdown tie line,
and one-way dial repeating tie line.  The product was only intended
for use with cord PBX's, such as 551, 552, 555 and 608 - either as a
manual PBX or as a cord board in front of a 701, 710 or 740 SxS PABX.

The product was intended to mount next to the cord PBX, and all
connections were made using the PBX cords.  The device tied up one
cord circuit and one CO trunk jack of the PBX at all times to create
the CO line connection, with supervisory lamps indicating when the
connection was established, or whether it had failed and required
redialing.  The device provided both station and CO trunk jacks for
use with the cord board, and a jack for customer-provided 500-type
sets when used for OPX service.  In OPX mode, dialing to establish the
CO line circuit could only be accomplished at the PBX end.

    While the above device may sound complex, the control logic
and timing was actually simple (if taken step by step), and was
provided using only about ten DTL integrated circuits.  The most
expensive part of the product design was the -48 volt, 20 Hz ringing
and logic power supply modules.  Isolation from the telephone circuits
was maintained using transformers and relays.  Seven miniature AE
relays were used to provide: CO line CPC supervision, PBX cord
supervision sense, PBX cord supervision control, battery feed and loop
control, dial pulsing, PBX or station ringing control, and PBX or
station ring trip detect.  Two fabricated neon lamp optocouplers were
used for ringing detection.

Today's solid-state optoisolators would have vastly simplified circuit
design and reduced cost, but they were not as yet "in" in 1970.
Savings in cost could also have been achieved if the product were made
specific to each end of each operating mode, but the intention at the
time was to build one and one only physical product which was
"hermaphroditic" in nature and could be optioned as necessary.  The
product was admittedly overdesigned, but was intended to be as
reliable as possible and to sell for $ 1,600.00 per pair - which
represented a typical two year payback for its intended customers.
Implementation of the device would have not only eliminated tie line
IXC mileage and local CO loop charges, but would have eliminated PBX
charges for tie line termination apparatus.  In 1970, this was a
*very* attractive payback interval for, say, the retail store
industry.

    My original prototype versions had no amplification to
compensate for circuit loss (it was still quite usable under most
circumstances).  I had actually incorporated a Transcom negative
impedance repeater in the prototypes to provide about 3 dB of gain at
each end, but it was not stable at even this low of a gain setting
over the wide range of loop impedance conditions that were
encountered.  The repeater was therefore bypassed during field
testing.  Had there been a final design, it would have utilized a more
stable hybrid-type repeater.

    Another loophole exploited by this product was that there was
no permanent electrical connection to any telephone company apparatus,
so that it could be disconnected (and hidden :-) ) at a moment's
notice.  There was also no tariffed "interconnecting unit" to go
between a PBX cord and customer provided equipment, so this fell
through a crack with respect to interconnection "protection"
requirements.

    I ran two sets of prototypes for about three months with some
department stores.  Retail stores were notoriously *cheap* when it
came to telecommunications costs, would do almost anything to save
money, and were my primary target market.  During this test phase in
early 1971, I succeeded in capturing the undivided attention of New
York Telephone - as one might imagine :-).

    New York Telephone management was not amused at the prospect
of someone actually manufacturing and marketing this type of a
product.  Consequently, New York Telephone initiated a 3-pronged
attack to "dissuade" me from further pursuit of this product:

(1)    Threats and Intimidation ... "We will summarily disconnect the
    telephone service of any customers caught using this device.
    How would you, Mr. Engineer-turned-Entrepreneur, like to face
    the consequential liability for that?"

(2)    Impassioned Plea for Fairness ... New York Telephone was aware
    that at the time I worked as a consulting engineer who primarily
    handled engineering requirements of a stable of small independent
    operating telephone companies.  New York Telephone appealed to
    my sense of "fair play", in that I would be a "traitor" to the
    operating telephone company industry should I continue with plans
    to manufacture and market this device.

(3)    Changing Tariffs ... New York Telephone revealed various plans
    and proposed tariffs which would be effective within the next two
    years, with such actions resulting in introduction of message
    timing for all major cities in New York State.  The introduction
    of local message timing would make this product largely
    impracticable.

    Reason #3 (with a little help from Reason #1) persuaded me to
drop the project.  Reason #2 did indeed make me feel bad - for all of
thirty seconds. :-)

    Telecommunication "progress" was much slower twenty years ago.
The thought of marketing a product that would be unusable in as little
as two years (other issues notwithstanding) did not seem at the time
to make good business sense.

    As it turned out, the full implementation of New York
Telephone's local message timing plans for business service took more
like six years rather than the two years that they had represented.
Yes, they lied. :-) I have, on occasion, wondered what would have
happened had I proceeded with my original plans for this product and
tangled with "Ma" over the issue.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry

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

Date: Mon, 10 Sep 90 12:04 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (Was Re: Labor Day, 1990)


In article <digest v10,iss627>, one of our Canadian readers reports on
several good points of Bell Canada, and the perplexing horrors US
demonopolization and deregulation have caused. He says:

>I've seen and heard about the competition.  I like our monopoly.

To which, our Moderator replies:

>[Moderator's Note: I liked our monopoly here in the United States
>also, and it appears, based on consumer organization polls that people
>here are finally beginning to wise up to the problems with
>divestiture. I have no problem with competition: let people use
>whatever service they want; but why was AT&T smashed to pieces in the
>process?  PAT]                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Indeed?  WHY would the US take such a major step to literally
disembowel an institution like AT&T?  Especially one that operates
something as near and dear to the heart of every (US) American as "the
phone?"  It does seem to be beyond belief, doesn't it?

  I submit it was caused by utter corporate arrogance toward the
Federal government.

  I, for one, received the "word" my very FIRST day on the job at AT&T
Long Lines in 1962.  It was, in words I recall to be very direct,
something like, "Look, we have gotten so big and so indispensable to
America that the "regulation" story is a myth.  We decide what's good
for them and tell them how we have chosen to do it and how much they
are going to pay for it."

  THAT, dear readers, was 22 years BEFORE the Feds killed Ma Bell.
And the man who gave me that lecture was, I can assure you a fine
person ... but he already knew what had transpired.  He cited how AT&T
had made the Feds give up in 1958 by flooding them with paper;
indicating they would do it again if challenged.

  But, the "trade secret" of the buggy-whip technology called "the
phone" wasn't secure enough.  Lots of people began to figure out bits
and pieces of it.  And, one thing NOBODY dares is to get arrogant with
the Feds, not even AT&T. They may go away, but like the Indians in the
Western films, they will come back over that hill later.  And, the
Feds did.  By the Kennedy era, smart young folks were going to work
for the Federal Government, and they learned how to ask questions and
analyze the answers.  Their investigations uncovered an incredible
array of abuses of the 1913 monopoly; things that in large part
technology advances had already made possible, items for which the
public was being charged prices that were unconscionable.

  One item of thousands: the SAME wire pair between the SAME two
buildings might have a dozen prices on it, depending on what you used
it for.  And, a hospital paid far more than the press service to send
the SAME kind of electrical signals down that wire!  Bell's best
answer to questions like that was, "Because I'm the Mommy, that's why!
Go away!"

  Charles de Gaulle once said, "Regimes do not reform themselves," and
like to admit it or not, AT&T had indeed become a regime.

  When the Feds did come back over the hill, they were armed to the
teeth, and Ma Bell simply had no good answers.  Students of the detail
of the antitrust court case (including its back room negotiations)
know that AT&T's Chairman Charles Brown (in classic Bell style, how
could an American deny a name like that?) finally realized the risk of
further protraction was greater than suing for peace. One item of the
original attack was to divest AT&T's incredible vertical integration
of local phone companies, long distance, technology development and
manufacturing supply. Brown had to make some hard decisions about what
to keep and what to cut loose.

  Ma Bell, actually hoisted by her own petard of technology, committed
hari-kari.  But, like good sci-fi, she exploded into nine pieces that
live today.  A lot of her DNA still runs through their veins.  And,
even though the explosion should cause change, may of her bone
fragments impacted into the very firms she spawned as "competition,"
be it other long distance firms or cellular telephones or PBX
interconnects.  Hormones are tough to fight off.

  Old ways die hard, dear friends.  In the case of the Bell System,
life behind Ma Bell's skirts was very comfortable indeed ...
complacent workers, a complacent management and too much easy money
combined to create a pleasant daily and lifelong working elixir ..
one very few would ever give up willingly.

  Now, Dear Moderator, you yourself are a lifelong resident of one of
the more visibly nefarious children of Ma Bell ... Illinois Bell.  You
even print in here how they still are caught committing illegal acts
with the Illinois regulators.  Is your denial level really that high?
It must be, and I think that indicates how all of us with a memory of
that time were addicted, glossing over bad memories and still not
wanting to believe there is no genetic thread of them left today.

  If anything, I think our observers from other nations have been fed
a similar dose of Ma Bell's magic elixir, and the very thought of
going "cold turkey" scares them silly.

  Worse yet, your note quoted above shows a tendency to want the
elixir again, rather than face up to the larger world and become a
participant of it.  Are you falling off the wagon of telecomm
sobriety, Patrick?  Want someone else to become your co-dependent
again?

<Now stepping down off soapbox and putting on flameproof suit.  If
challenged, I can fill five or more Digests with abuses of the public
trust that only one*small*individual observed and even participated in
 ... but they never made an addict of me!>

  (Recovering addicts would do well to read a few books.  I note one
sociologist accuses us of having lost the "discipline to learn from
history."  It shows often in posts on here.  I suggest:

Garnet, Robert W., "The Telephone Enterprise," Johns Hopkins Press,
1985;

Tunstall, W. Brooke, "Disconnecting Parties," 1985, McGraw-Hill;

Numerous articles and reports in the trade press of 1984-86. Serious
reading will cure in the classic manner of curing addiction; "Are you
ready to look at what you DID.  Are you yet ready to say, " I will
NEVER do that to my mind and body AGAIN?'")

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #641
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26416;
          14 Sep 90 5:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04659;
          14 Sep 90 3:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09209;
          14 Sep 90 2:33 CDT
Date:     Fri, 14 Sep 90 2:07:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #642
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 14 Sep 90 02:07:18 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 642

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Autodialer Ruining My Life! [Polly Powledge]
    Telecom In Alaska [Lou Judice]
    NYNEX "Fast Track" Automated Directory Search [Will Martin]
    New Whizz-Bang Phone! [J. Philip Miller]
    Problems With Demon Dialer [Julian Macassey]
    Call History as Investigation Aid [Jeff Sicherman]
    Needed: Cable Plant DBMS Recommendations [Tony Dawson]
    Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site? [Paul Wilczynski]
    Dialing Procedures in 313 [Carl Moore, and reply from Sander Rabinowitz]
    Phones at Pennsylvania Turnpike Service Area [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hrmso![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 13:36 EDT
Subject: Autodialer Ruining My Life!


Greetings, net.denizens ... I've been having a problem with getting
hangups. I get them about ten times a week, both when I answer in
person and when I let my phone machine catch the message. There's
never any background noise to it, so I suspect this is an autodialer
I'm dealing with.

So I called up NJ Bell to complain, and they wanted to sell me
Caller*ID, Call*Tracing, and a bunch of other silly things that I
Don't*Need and Don't*Want. I understood those services to be
"convenience" services, rather than replacements for the Operating
Company's annoyance call bureau; and I certainly don't understand why
*I* should have to shell out money to debug someone else's UUCP file!

So ... exactly what are NJ Bell's obligations to me here? Anybody else
here deal with this? What happened?


Polly Powledge
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: NJ Bell's obligations to you are to provide you
with usable, *non-annoying* phone service. Call back and ask to speak
with the Annoyance Call Bureau. If the service rep answering your call
will not give you the number or put you through, then speak with the
manager of the office. If the Annoyance Call Bureau there operates
like Illinois Bell's, they will put a trap on the line and try (no
guarentees) to capture the number of the calling phone. They will only
do this if you are willing to press charges against the person causing
the annoyance if s/he is caught. They will not release the number of
the caller to you, but they will give it to the police as part of any
investigation going on. It may be someone's UUCP file or it may be a
FIDO site trying to send mail, etc. It may be a FAX machine in an
office set to send something during the night, or it may just be a
phreak who has a grudge against you.  But yes, NJB has to help.  An
easier, less formal self-help approach might be to go with Caller*ID,
then when the goofus has been identified, sue him for the expense you
had to go to in order to find him. PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 07:15:22 PDT
From: "Lou Judice, 908-562-4103  <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom In Alaska


I recently took a vacation in Alaska (mostly the interior areas), and
was fascinated by the question of how telecom services are provided
there.

For example, 60 miles north of the Artic Circle, in Coldfoot, AK, we
were able to make AT&T credit card calls on any of the two or three
phones located in this town/truckstop of 23 residents. The only
seemingly possible means of communication with the outside would be
satellite (there were crude downlinks in the town) or possibly sharing
the Alaska Pipeline microwave system? At any rate it was pretty
amazing to be WELL past the middle of nowhere and be able to make
phone calls to our heart's content.

In the cities (Fairbanks and Anchorage) it appeared as though the
local telcos were municipal utilties. One odd thing - the phone book
contained (in both cities) a two page set of instructions on what to
do in the event of a nuclear attack - something I can't remember
seeing in a while.

As a former RCA-er, I know that Alaskcom, the long distance carrier in
Alaska was formerly part of that great old company. I seem to recall
it being sold to a west coast power utility in the early 1980's.


Lou

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 10:21:52 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX "Fast Track" Automated Directory Search


The subject of automated phone-directory-search facilities, either via
dialup to a telco computer or via a distributed-data service, was
discussed on Telecom some time back. This is an example of such.

I circled a number on a bingo card from a law-enforcement magazine and
received a mailing from NYNEX about their "Fast Track" automated
directory-search service. It included a demo diskette and some flyers.
The demo doesn't allow the execution of any version of the real
software, but instead just displays a canned version of the screen
display and what some of the search capabilities are, with the viewer
paging thru by hitting the space bar. The demo displays include names,
addresses, and phone numbers -- I wonder if this is fabricated test
data or if this is real information extracted from the database?

This runs on a PC with a CD-ROM drive, and the prices for this service
range from $595 to $9,500, depending on what part of the NYNEX service
area you want (New England, Boston, Upstate or Downstate NY, or all
NYNEX), and how often you get update CD-ROMs (annual, semi-annual,
quarterly, or monthly).

The search criteria let the user get all the info for a record if any
part (name, address, phone #) of it is known, and has boolean search
to allow combinations of criteria.  The demo diskette display mentions
in passing, but the literature doesn't seem to explicitly state this,
that unlisted phone number data is not included.  While that is
certainly reasonable for the people with unlisted numbers, it makes
some of the examples given, like law enforcement agencies searching
for addresses and names when only the phone numbers are known, useless
to at least some degree.  I suppose they take the approach that some
info is better than none at all ... (There was no hint given that a
"full" version containing "unlisted" data was available to government
or law enforcement, but maybe there is such a deal that isn't
mentioned in the open literature.)

I dug thru the fine print in the license agreement.  I find it
interesting to note that they insist that all CD-ROMs containing old
data be mailed back to them within five days of receipt of a new
version, or upon termination of the contract.  The agreement also
specifies that the customer cannot make any copies (not even backup)
of the software diskette or of the database itself.  They can make
copies of the documentation for internal use only, but have to send
that back too if they terminate.

I wonder if the proliferation of this sort of thing will mean the end
of the old Polk and similar printed cross-reference directories? Maybe
they're already gone? (I haven't looked at one in the library in
years...) If the telcos are doing this stuff themselves, will that
mean the demise of some of the firms that composed and printed up such
directories? (The only advantage to them I can see is that they try to
get some of the "unlisted" info that the telco won't disclose.)


Regards,

Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Whizz-Bang Phone!
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis, MO
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 01:33:10 GMT


I just received a flyer (from Mobil) advertsing a phone with features
that I have not seen before.  Besides being a regular answering
machine with speed dialing, it has a voice pattern match dialing - you
speak a name (one of 50 prerecorded) and it then displays the number
on the LCD and dials it.  Other unique features include asking a
caller to key in their phone number and then recording it so either
you can dial it back or it can be used to call your display pager and
display the caller's number.  It also can display the time, date,
phone number and length of call for the last 100 calls.  Too bad it
also doesn't work with caller ID, but it can be yours for only $250!

[There is no manufacturer identified, the text calls the phone
"Voiceprint", the illustration shows the name "Voicephone".]


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problems With Demon Dialer
Date: 14 Sep 90 03:22:37 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


I have recently dragged my Demon Dialer out of the garage and pressed
it back into service after a rest of three years or so.

    I initialised the device with the #F#R#E#E# Command and
assumed all would be OK. It seems to store numbers OK, but has trouble
dialing both in the *1 redail mode and in Directory (#BOB#) dialing.
About 50% of the time the Demon Dialer does its thing and dials out.
The other 50% of the time after the *1 or #BOB# command it makes a
farting sound (100Hz Sq Wave?) and returns dialtone. If I try again
after the period of flatulence it returns a fast busy after the
Octothorpe.

    Ok, so I have a bad Demon Dialer you say. How about this, I
have a second Demon Dialer (Same model 176T) and second power supply.
When I change the power supply and dialer I get the same problem with
the other unit. I have tried the #F#R#E#E# command several times and
unplugged the units to discharge the super cap.

    Do I really have two bad units? They worked 100% before
resting in my garage and telecom warehouse.

    Any hints appreciated.

    The CO is a 5 ESS and the DTMF phone is a 2500 with a 4A
speakerphone.


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

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 05:02:30 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Call History As Investigation Aid


Does the phone company keep a record of ALL outgoing calls from a
phone, not just long distance/toll ? Is there any special procedure/
request required to obtain such? Sadly, this MIGHT give a better
estimate of earliest time of death for someone whose body wasn't
discovered for some time.


Jeff Sicherman
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It depends on the telco, and the equipment in use
in the central office, but yes, many do log everything, particularly
if the central office is ESS. Police investigators should probably
begin this process by speaking with the Business Office manager.  PAT]

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

From: Tony Dawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Needed: Cable Plant DBMS Recommendations
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 90 14:14:00 CDT


We need a PC or Mac based DBMS to manage our cable plant
documentation.  Wheaton College is over 130 years old and has
developed an extremely diverse and complex telephone wiring system
over the years.  We are in the process of organizing the plant and
want to carefully document our work.

Before we invest in the hardware, we would appreciate recommendations
regarding software.  Our technician is not a computer expert and,
therefore, a Mac might be preferable.  On the other hand we want a
comprehensive application and realize the IBM world may have more to
offer.

Many thanks,

Tony Dawson
Computing and Telephone Services

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 16:13 EST
From: Paul Wilczynski <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site?


I've never heard of the following service, but is it possible?  I'd
certainly pay for it:

Call Forwarding which could be changed from a remote site.  For
example: I leave my office, go someplace else, and modify the
forwarding on my office phone to go to where I am.


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell experimented *very briefly* with what
they called 'Distant Call Forwarding' (not to be confused with Remote
Call Forwarding, which is a tariffed service). You called a number in
your CO, entered your phone number followed by a PIN and the number to
which calls were to be forwarded. I do not know why they chose to
discontinue it after the test and not make it available. On the other
hand, Remote Call Forwarding is a phantom number in a CO of your
choice which, when dialed, simply forwards the incoming call to the
number of your choice. It is *not* user programmable, and requires a
business office work order whenever you want the number to be changed.
All calls are forwarded at direct dial rates in effect at the time.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 13:05:08 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing Procedures in 313


Sander J. Rabinowitz <[e-mail]> writes:

>My own area (area code 313) is in a transition to 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX
>dialing, such that both methods of dialing ... are presently allowed.
This refers to 1+7D and 1+NPA+7D.

But I wrote, without having seen Sander's note:

>... 313 area in Michigan, according to this Digest, reduced
>its intra-NPA toll calls to 7D ...

Since I am not from Michigan, I can't resolve this discrepancy.  But
in either case, 313 seems to be getting ready for N0X/N1X prefixes,
right?  (If any area is changing to accommodate the NXX area codes, as
opposed to N0X/N1X area codes, let me and/or the Digest know; however,
the NNX area codes are not projected to arrive till around 1995,
right?)

[Moderator's Note: Sander Rabinowitz replies to Carl...   PAT]

 Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 12:30 EST
 From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
 Subject: 313 Long Distance Correction

In the TELECOM Digest issue of 13 September 1990, I wrote the
following:

> My own area (area code 313) is in a transition to 1-NXX-NXX-dialing,
> such that both methods of dialing are allowed.  One interesting
> side effect is that long-distance carrier access codes can be used
> for all 1-NXX-NXX-XXXX, even if the call is _within_ the same LATA!

I don't know if anyone caught this [knowing the audience I'm writing
to, it may be ALL of you ;-) ], but when I wrote the original post, I
thought that area code 313 was exactly one LATA. It turns out there
are three -- the Detroit LATA (where I am), a second LATA from Ohio
that overlaps slightly into Michigan, and a third LATA covering
everywhere else.

And it appears I may have goofed in another way:

Carl Moore <[e-mail]> notes:

>But in either case, 313 seems to be getting ready for N0X/N1X
>prefixes, right?  (If any area is changing to accommodate the NXX
>area codes, as opposed to N0X/N1X area codes, let me and/or the
>Digest know; however, the NNX area codes are not projected to
>arrive till around 1995, right?)

My use of NXX was purely accidental.  Yes, I believe 313 is preparing
for N0X/N1X.  Also, I cannot say definitively whether Carl's earlier
statement is in conflict with mine, but rather than speculate, I will
leave that question to all other TELECOM Digest readers.

I apologize for any confusion my earlier message may have caused.


Sander J. Rabinowitz -- [phone] -- [e-mail]
The University of Michigan-Dearborn (Graduating Senior).

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 14:42:21 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phones at Pennsylvania Turnpike Service Area


Phones (all using 717-258 Carlisle prefix, and including charge-a-call
phones) in a service area on Pennsylvania Turnpike going east toward
the Carlisle exit have: "Owned & operated by Telecoin Communications
Ltd., Monroeville, Pa.".  Notice that Carlisle, the original eastern
end of that turnpike, is in western fringe of the Harrisburg area, and
that Monroeville is near Pittsburgh and thus is 2 area codes away!
But it also says on the phones: 1+ needed for Station to Station
outside (412) Area Code.

Also, "customer service and refunds: dial 211"

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #642
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17578;
          15 Sep 90 2:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18334;
          15 Sep 90 0:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28699;
          14 Sep 90 23:42 CDT
Date:     Fri, 14 Sep 90 23:36:20 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #643
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 14 Sep 90 23:35:23 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 643

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Jody Kravitz]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [John Higdon]
    Re: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market [John Higdon]
    Re: Washington State Running Low [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin  [Steve Elias]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Dave Lockwood]
    Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK [Martin Harriss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable
Date: 13 Sep 90 17:59:50 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom
Coradeschi) writes:

>The phone on my desk and the PhoneNet drop into my office use two pair
>from the same line. I've honestly never noticed ANY noise in the phone
>line - and I spend a LOT of time on the phone - and never noticed any
>AppleTalk problems due to the phone being in use.

>So, I guess what I'm wondering is - what's the problem? Is it possible
>that the problems others experience, or think they experience, are due
>to other factors? Poorly terminated lines, bad grounds, etc?

As others have pointed out, the problem in the particular case of the
guy who started the thread is that he probably wasn't using twisted
pair in his premises wiring. Just running four wires can cause all
kinds of undesirable electromagnetic coupling between wires that
aren't supposed to couple.

With all due respect to Mr. Higdon, however, it is quite possible for
crosstalk problems to arise in telco cabling. Two of the most likely
culprits that come to mind are

(a) improperly insulated cable (e.g., rural areas where
paper-insulated cable is still in service, and the insulation is
getting wet. I have been in a number of rural and semi-rural areas,
including until recently my home on the outskirts of Bellevue, WA,
where crosstalk gets worse as the weather gets wetter.)

and (b) misadjusted transmission levels, that is, cases in which a
signal is transmitted too loudly, such that the signal coupled to
adjacent pairs rises noticably above the thermal noise floor. Cables
in which pairs carrying modem signals are operated at the same
transmission levels as those carrying voice signals are liable to
exhibit crosstalk problems. Good design practice calls for setting
data lines at a lower transmission level than voice lines, precisely
in order to avoid crosstalk. These days, there are a lot of people
(myself included) who operate modems over voice lines, which may
explain some reports of crosstalk problems.

    This phenomenon can work both ways. There seems to be an
interoffice trunk somewhere along the most common path between the 641
exchange (south and east Bellevue) and the 525 exchange (University
district, Seattle) here in 206 on which the transmission level is set
so low that I had to resort to manually connecting my autodial modem
when dialing in from home, because the modem couldn't find the carrier
from the answering modem in Seattle.


    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable
Date: 13 Sep 90 08:15:34 GMT
Organization: The Foxtail Group, San Diego, CA


My house is wired with three-pair twisted pair wire.  Two are for
voice, and the third is for a Trailblazer.  I NEVER hear the
Trailblazer in either of the voice lines.  One of my phones is an old
2515BM (two-line WE, mechanical hold).  I made a very long modular
cord for it (over 30 feet).  There is appearant crosstalk now between
the two voice lines where there was none before.  The modular cord is
not twisted pair and appears to be a contributing factor.


Jody

Internet: foxtail![e-mail]
uucp:     ucsd!foxtail!kravitz

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 12 Sep 90 23:29:28 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]> writes:

> Now I'm curious ... has anyone ever asked AT&T to "put it in writing?"
> If so, how does their propaganda compare to Sprint's (or MCI's for
> that matter)?  AT&T has been making a lot of noise about getting it
> "in writing" from thier competition, I'm surprised everyone seems to
> be taking them at face value.

Point of order: AT&T didn't offer to "put it in writing"; Sprint did.
AT&T's ads don't promise anything except that if you have AT&T, then
you get AT&T service. It may be nebulous, but that's all they promise.
AT&T says that you should ask "the other guys", who are promising big
savings to put it in writing. What should AT&T put in writing? They
are not promising anything, except to say that they ARE AT&T. True by
definition.

Sprint, on the other hand says, "And we will put it in writing."
Apparently it is just a glib, empty response to AT&T's advertising.


        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: Call-Screening Device About to Hit the Market
Date: 12 Sep 90 23:49:24 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Glenn R. Stone" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Just another satisfied MCI customer.

Well, OK, since we have been whacking Sprint lately, thought I'd share
a little goodie:

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

         AT&T NEWS BRIEFS
         [All items are today's date unless otherwise noted]

         Wednesday, September 12, 1990

         SLAM DUNK -- ... Last spring, ... arthritic, 83-year-old widow
         [Margaret Olt] became another casualty of the long-distance
         industry's battle for customers.  A telemarketer called Mrs. Olt
         at home.  All he wanted, he said, was to save her some money on
         her long-distance phone calls by switching her service to MCI from
         AT&T.  Annoyed ... Mrs. Olt says she hung up on him.  But when her
         next phone bill arrived, ... it showed a $5 charge from "some
         outfit called the MCI."  In phone industry parlance, Mrs. Olt had
         just been "slammed."  She thus joined tens of thousands of
         telephone customers around the nation who claim their phone
         service has been switched without their consent. ... MCI denies
         that it would slam a customer and [contends] that ... it received
         oral approval for service from Mrs. Olt. ... Last year, in any
         case, at least 100,000 phone customers complained to their local
         phone companies that their long-distance carrier had been switched
         without authorization. ... AT&T says slamming is costing it
         millions of dollars, not only in lost revenues, but also for
         processing complaints from consumers who still think AT&T runs the
         nation's phone system. ... "It reached a crisis stage in 1989,"
         says Merrill Tutton, vp of consumer services at AT&T.  Mr. Tutton
         says the biggest culprits are ...  MCI and companies that help
         sell its service. ... In the current fiscal year, complaints to
         [the FCC] so far total:  MCI, 387; Sprint, 194, and AT&T, 22.  ...
         MCI says it is capturing about 100,000 AT&T customers a week.  But
         Mr. Tutton says that when AT&T asks its former customers why they
         left, more than 20 percent of those contacted say they didn't know
         that they had given up AT&T service. ... The FCC is reviewing a
         request from AT&T that would require written authorizations from
         customers before any service changes. ... Wall Street Journal, A1.

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

So how 'bout it? From all accounts MCI does seem to be the slamming
king. I have, on several occasions, had to "clean off" MCI as the
default carrier on some of my clients' trunks. Associates of mine
report the same. So while Sprint is exhorting potential customers to
switch from AT&T, MCI is doing it for them whether they like it or
not.

What a slimepit!


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

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Washington State Running Low
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 07:45:19 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, cmoore@brl (VLD/VMB) writes:

| Don't forget that in New Jersey, intra-NPA toll calls are dialed as
| only 7D.  And 313 area in Michigan, according to this Digest, reduced
| its intra-NPA toll calls to 7D as well.

Eeek.  My worst fears coming true! :-)

So, how do they program PBXs and COCOTs in those places?  Do they
maintain a list of valid non-toll exchanges?  Must be misery when a
new one comes out (for everyone except TPC).


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

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 11:05:16 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Leland F Derbenwick) writes:

> Would you mind posting a description of those "monopolistic advantages"
> that AT&T "still enjoys"?

The large inventory of switching equipment that ATT has and their
practice of giving it away in order to win contracts.  Isn't some of
this inventory leftover from the monopoly days?

ATT's enormous cash and capital reserve is a leftover from the
monopoly days and allows them to outspend their competition when it
comes to advertising and shmoozing cusomters, as well as allowing them
to give away equipment in order to win bids.  Note that the FCC and
Judgefolk decided that these things are not in violation of
divestiture.  My opinion obviously doesn't carry much weight on this
legal issue!  (Not the first time!)

> I'm aware that about 10% of the phone lines in the country aren't
> equal access yet, but that's because the local companies don't have
> (and can't afford) equipment to support it there.

No, but I don't consider that much of an unfair or monopolistic
advantage, although it does help ATT.  You can't change every
backwoods CO overnight.

> Other than that, the only "advantage" I know of is that we are under
> stricter regulation than our competitors.  Hardly an advantage!

ATT is so much larger than any of its competition that it should be
under much stricter regulation, in my opinion.  Isn't ATT 10 or 40
times the size of US Sprint?  How much bigger than MCI?

ATT could put MCI & Sprint out of business in a few months if it
weren't for some of these regulations.

Aside:  Have you noticed that just about all of ATTs advertising is
directed against US Sprint rather than MCI?  Why?  Isn't MCI bigger?

> The local phone companies are still monopolies; is that what you
> were thinking of?

Nah.  My gripe with the local telcos is their obnoxious instate long
distance rates.  luckily, these can usually be avoided by strategic
use of long distance carriers for in state long distance calls.  in
particular, a home 800 number from Sprint does nicely in avoiding
these charges.  From 9-12 weekdays, it's cheaper to call a
Massachusetts phone long distance from California than it is to call
long distance from within Massachusetts!  and it's often cheaper to
call via the Sprint 800 number than to pay instate toll charges from a
pay phone or from a friend's home phone.

NYNEX advertises their "instate 800 number" as a great bargain at 18
cents a minute.  this is pretty silly, since long distance 800 rates
off peak are closer to 10 cents a minute!


eli

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

From: Dave Lockwood <vision![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 13 Sep 90 14:15:28 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Lockwood <vision![e-mail]>
Organization: VisionWare Ltd., Leeds, UK


In various articles, various people write:

About answering the phone before it rang...

In the UK, before the advent of the digital switch, all the
electromechanical (Strowger and Crossbar) switches generated ring
current and tone by means of a rotating motor with a commutator pair.
Examining this device showed that the ring tone (to caller) and the
ring current (to callee) would be exactly "out of phase", ie the ring
current was sent in the gaps between the ring tones.

Incidentally, the same motor/commutator used to produce the busy
signal too.


Dave Lockwood   ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!vision!davel      [e-mail]
Technical Consultant ...!uunet!bulus3!bungia!vware!davel   [e-mail]
VisionWare Ltd,     [e-mail]    [e-mail]
57 Cardigan Lane,   D.LOCKWOOD@ICLX            [e-mail]
Leeds, LS4 2LE,     [phone]                [phone]
United Kingdom      [phone]                   "Hey, You!"

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

From: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK
Date: 13 Sep 90 16:19:39 GMT
Reply-To: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Leila
Burrell-Davis) writes:

    [ stuff about harassing phone calls deleted ]

>We plan to take this up with the authorities, but before we do I would
>be very interested to know what it is technically possible for the
>phone company to do to trace such calls.

I don't really know about the legal side of things, but as a former
employee of the UK telephone industry I do know something about the
technical side.  I'm afraid I have to make the following somewhat
cowardly statement about the technical feasability of call tracing:
"It all depends".

It depends mainly on what kind of switching equipment the call is
routed through.

In the newer, processor controlled switches, the capability is there
to trace the call.  Whether it's used or not is another matter, and
probably depends as much as anything on what BT feels like doing on a
particular day.  (I'm referring here specifically to the System X and
system Y switches.)

On the older equipment (there's still a lot of it around) it becomes
more complex.  (I'm referring here not only to Strowger exchanges, but
also crossbar (TXK1, TXK3) and the old electronic exchanges (TXE2,
TXE4)) It is possible to trace calls on these exchanges, but only with
considerable effort.  It requires engineering personel stationed at
the echange where the call is being received.  When the offending call
arrives, the call can be held, and a path traced back through the
switches.  This is, of course, tedious and time consuming.  Moreover,
the call can only be held within the exchange: if the call originated
outside the exchange the best you can do is determine which exchange
the call came in from, and maybe try and trace through the originating
exchange.  But if the caller always phoned from a different exchange,
this wouldn't do much good.

I wonder, however, if there may be a simpler solution for you.  BT has
a device called a printer meter, which can be attached to a phone line
and records dialled digits and meter pulses for that line.  Now I
wonder if, in the situations you are interested in, that you suspect
you know who is causing the harassing calls?  Maybe you could arrange
to have a printer meter placed on the suspects line.  It used to be
that since the printer meter only recorded dialled digits and meter
pulses, not the actual conversation, no warrant or court order was
required to connect it.

(An aside: the printer meter was originally designed to help solve
billing disputes, but it was found useful by the authorities for
detecting all sorts of nefarious activies.)

If you have specific questions, I may be able to help; email me.


Martin Harriss
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #643
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18897;
          15 Sep 90 3:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32124;
          15 Sep 90 1:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18334;
          15 Sep 90 0:45 CDT
Date:     Sat, 15 Sep 90 0:29:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #644
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 15 Sep 90 00:28:44 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 644

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [John Nagle]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Gary Korenek]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages (The Thread That Wouldn't Die) [J. Altzman]
    Re: POETS Sets [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment? [Arthur S. Kamlet]
    Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls [Monty Solomon]
    Re: Calling US Numbers Collect From Europe [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: Washington State Running Low [John R. Levine]
    Re: MCI Call Blocking [Steve Friedl]
    Re: 50th Anniversary of Data Communications! [Dave Levenson]
    Re: ATM at Retailers [Brian D. McMahon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug
Date: 13 Sep 90 16:24:49 GMT


      The whole area of consumer products with built-in bugging
potential is getting out of hand.  It might be worth raising this
issue with the FCC, which to a limited extent regulates telephone
instruments.  They could at least insist on a labelling requirement.

      So far, I know of the following devices which have bugging
potential:

    Baby monitors
    Cordless phones
    Some Rolm PBX phones
    Some AT&T ISDN phones

Any more?


John Nagle

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

From: [e-mail] (Gary Korenek)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gary Korenek)
Organization: Ferranti Int'l Controls
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 18:25:47 GMT


Every great once-in-a-while, I make a call, and the phone on the other
end is answered with "Hello".

I say "Hello, this Gary, (etc.).  Then I notice that there was no
pause on the other end while I said "Hello".  What I got was an
answering machine whose owner undeliberately left a OGM that fooled
me.

This happens to me maybe once or twice a year.  When it does, for a
brief moment I feel like a clod.  So on my own OGM, the first word is
something other than "Hello".  IMHO this is being cordial to whoever
is calling me.

When I first got my machine and recorded an OGM, my wife (girl friend
at the time) said my OGM was so long that she fell asleep when
listening to it.  I learned from that to make OGM's clear, short, and
sweet.  I think it's appreciated.


Gary Korenek ([e-mail])
Ferranti  International  Controls  Corp.
Sugar Land, Texas          [phone]

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

From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages (The Thread That Wouldn't Die)
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 19:44:33 GMT


>"You know what this is, and you know what to do, so do it at the
>beep."

Uh oh. Creative answering machine messages were what we spent our
copious free time doing at Columbia :-)

Our message (in my suite) for a while was me, in my best bass, saying:

"SPEAK!"  (I think that's pretty much to the point)

For those Talmudic scholars out there:

"Hello, this is the law offices of Hillel and Shammai. Please leave
your name, number and brief message at the beep. These are the words
of Hillel.  Shammai says, leave your message first, and then your name
and number, but both are the words of the living God."

(Hillel and Shammai were Rabbis who almost always disagreed.)

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!)

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: POETS Sets
Date: 13 Sep 90 12:51:39 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

>I was just given a box of instruments which are labeled "POETS EK-18

Are made by Walker Telecommunications Corp, 200 Oser Ave, Hauppauge,
NY 11788, +1.516.435.1100. These are a currently produced and sold
product.  There are several KSUs that these probably work with.  Check
"Telecom Gear" mag for folks selling used/new stuff to determine the
used price, and to locate a used KSU if you want to use them.

Telecom Gear subscriptions: 1.800.322.5156

(no connections to any of above)

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 17:22:21 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?


How about these for neighboring area codes?  301 (Maryland) and 302
(Delaware) are next to each other. And then I hear (in this Digest)
that 917 was not a good choice for the east bay area in California?
(That area, which borders 916, is going to be 510 after it's split
from 415.)

A Moderator's Note said 19 clicks (he used "pulls") for North
Carolina.  That only refers to the 919 area.  There are 21 clicks
needed for dialing area code 704.

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 15:03:56 EDT
From: Arthur S Kamlet <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Were Area Codes Scattered Around in Assignment?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio


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

> At the time area codes were assigned, AT&Ts headquarters was at 195
> Broadway in Manhattan not in New Jersey. If AT&T had wanted to be
> first, Manhattan would have a different area code.

AT&T's headquarters are still in Manhattan -- 550 Madison Avenue

> It would be interesting to know who did the initial area code
> assigments.  If it were done by someone in Bell Labs (mostly in NJ)
> then 201 might make some sense.

I suspect the work was done at West Street in Manhattan, but that's
just a guess.


Art Kamlet  [e-mail]  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 18:19:49 EDT
From: Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Air Time" Charges For Unanswered Cellular Calls


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Richard
B. August) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 606, Message 8 of 9

>Is there information available in the Archives or other repository
>which mentions a movement of cellular telephone users to lobby the PUC
>regarding the charging for "AIR TIME" in cellular systems?

I am assuming from your Subject: line that you are speaking about
charges for air time on an unanswered or busy call.  My cellular
company does NOT charge for uncompleted calls.  My air time charges
start at answer supervision time, not at call placement time.  The
same applies for incoming calls, I am not charged for calls that I
don't answer.  Just FYI, my supplier is Cellular One.

Cellular One told me today that they charge for air time on forwarded
calls even though these calls don't use the cell.


[Moderator's Note: And that has to be a sleazy tactic also. Ameritech
does not charge for calls forwarded which involve no air time.   PAT]

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

From: "Roeber, Frederick" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling US Numbers Collect From Europe
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: California Institute of Technology; on loan to CERN
Date: 13 SEP 90 15:07:24


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roeber,
Frederick) writes...

>I was trying to call Citibank VISA/MC, at the customer service number
>they put on their bills.  Since they have now started printing on my
>bills a 619 number, with instructions to call collect, I rather doubt
>they wanted their 800 number restricted to NA.

In the ongoing saga to contact Citibank from Switzerland:

One cannot call American numbers collect from Swiss pay telephones.
The operators said it was impossible.  This is particularly bad when
the place one works/stays at has a policy (as does CERN) of forbidding
private calls over institute phones.  Add to this the fact that when
dialling direct, it's hard to put in coins that fast..


Frederick Roeber/[e-mail]/[phone]/CERN, 1211 Geneva 23

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

Subject: Re: Washington State Running Low
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Date: 13 Sep 90 19:17:52 EDT (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>Don't forget that in New Jersey, intra-NPA toll calls are dialed as
>only 7D.

New Jersey has what one might call "almost strict" NANP dialing.  From
my parents' house in Princeton (AC 609) a seven digit call might be an
intra-LATA local call, an inter-LATA local call, an intra-LATA toll
call, or an inter-LATA toll call.  The 609 is two separate LATAs.
Also, local calls that happen to cross a LATA or area code boundary
can still be dialed with seven digits.  I expected them to require 11
digits on inter-lata local calls when they introduced the 908 area
code, but the current phone book that tells us all about 908
specifically says that local calls across the area code line are seven
digits.

I suppose that some people might prefer dial 1 for toll, but in the
presence of message units, optional extended dialing areas and LD
plans such as Reach Out, I don't really know what a toll call is any
more.

Regards,

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

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

Subject: Re: MCI Call Blocking
Date: 13 Sep 90 22:36:03 PDT (Thu)
From: Steve Friedl <[e-mail]>


> If AT&T were to say, "black people are more likely to commit fraud
> using credit cards, so if a the operator detects a black person using
> a card to call somewhere the credit card call should be declined"
> would you be outraged about that?

Hi Pat,

     Apparently, I have a different sense of outrage than you do.  I
believe that a company making an arbitrary decision such as you
mention is stupid, but I believe one of the freedoms we have in this
country is the freedom to be stupid.  If I as an employer or purchaser
decide to base my decisions on factors not germane to the matter at
hand, I am limiting my choice and imposing higher costs on myself.  I
may be stupid, but it should be my right.  I have a personal right not
to patronize Jewish business or never let an Iranian in my house, why
should businesses be any different?

     Still, I believe that AT&T's decisions for what I will call
"redlining" are probably entirely justified on business reasons
because I believe that they could be made utterly independent of any
racial issue.  I am sure that AT&T has extensive statistics on what
kinds of calling patterns are most closely associated with fraud, and
they do not take "redlining" lightly.  I believe they probably just
look at the numbers (independent of who is making the calls) and block
those calls that have the highest risk of loss to them.  They have an
*obligation* to their stockholders to act in a manner consistent with
a good return on investment.

     In this country we seem to have the notion that we are all
created equal, and that any hint of any inherent differences cannot
possibly be valid so the bringer-upper is a bigot.  This is
ridiculous.  If AT&T's statistics show that (say) blacks from a
certain part of town are more likely to commit fraud, people jump up
and down and call names.  These same people would probably try very
hard to avoid going into this "equal" part of town unless they had to.
Why would this be?

     In summary, (a) businesses should be able to choose those whom
they deal with the same as you or I can choose, (b) business should be
allowed to make stupid business decisions, and (c) that AT&T points
out this "bad neighborhood" condition doesn't mean that they are
causing the problem or even accusing anybody of anything.

     To make "redlining" illegal just means that I have to pay more,
and I would be resentful of this in a pretty big way.  To the extent
that one wishes to attach some value to what I will call "social
equality", they are welcome to purchase their phone services from
those companies who are less fussy about giving credit.  I just don't
want telling *my* long distance carrier who they should deal with it.
As they say, "vote with your pocketbook".


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

[Moderator's Note: Although my libertarian leanings cause me to agree
with you wholeheartedly, the fact remains that the law in the United
States today says the opposite, i.e. when you extend credit, you may
not discriminate based on certain unlawful factors, one being race,
another being ethnic origin. You say AT&T is not discriminating
against Iranians who use their phone credit card to call Iran, but
rather, they are refusing to extend credit to *anyone* -- regardless
of ethnic background making calls from a certain neighborhood.  When
it happens that a neighborhood is mostly made up of one group of
people, then the results are the same.  PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of Data Communications!
Date: 14 Sep 90 11:42:33 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> On Sept. 9, 1940, Dr. George Stibbetts [sp? just heard it pronounced],
> of Dartmouth University, at a meeting of two [unnamed] mathematical
> societies at that campus, demonstrated the first recorded instance of
> computer data transmission over telephone lines, from New Hampshire to
> New York City. He entered, from Dartmouth, instructions to a computer
> in NYC to divide two eight-digit numbers, and received the answer back
> in 30 seconds. (No information was given in this item as to the nature
> of the "computer" he was using in 1940, nor the terminal equipment,
> nor the "modem" or equivalent, nor the communications protocol used.)

There was no modem.  The line was a telegraph line.  The terminal was
a teletypewriter.  The cpu was constructed of telephone relays,
including several crossbar switch matrices, and was located at Bell
Laboratories, West Street, New York City.  Stibitz is quoted, in a
recent press release describing the event, that "one of the
representatives of Bell Laboratories emphasized the fact that there
would not be another computer made; he touught that no use would be
found outside of the Bell Laboratories.  I think we found he was in
some error."


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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 9:25:53 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers


J. Philip Miller <[e-mail]> writes:

>The proliferation of ATM terminals and retail stores using ATM type
>cards seems to be particularly popular in urban areas, but seems to be
>much less popular in small town America.  Now this may be because of
>attitude differences, but I have assumed that much of it is also due
>to the fact that connecting the terminal to necessary host equipment
>is also considerably more expensive and thus the amount of traffic for
>a particular location would need to be much higher for a rural
>location than an urban one.

It may also be that the need for point-of-sale systems is less
pressing in rural communities.  It's much easier to cash a check in
smaller towns.  Take Grinnell (pop. 9000) as an example.  Few of the
local merchants require identification even for out-of-town checks.
When I lived and worked in the Washington D.C. area, it was next to
IMPOSSIBLE to cash a check without producing an I.D. *and* a major
credit card.

Now, I did notice a POS machine at Iowa Book & Supply a while ago, but
that's in Iowa city.  You know, the big city.  :-) On the other hand,
Farm Service is installing one of their Fuel-24 (or whatever it's
called, the advertisment is at home) stations here, which are gas pump
that take a special credit card.  Open 24 hours, no need for an
attendant.  You just drive up, insert your card, and start pumping
gas.  This suggests that where the service meets local demand, it *is*
feasible to set up POS in smaller communities...


Brian McMahon  <[e-mail]> Grinnell College Computer Services
Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: [phone] / Fax:   [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #644
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19946;
          15 Sep 90 4:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31887;
          15 Sep 90 2:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac32124;
          15 Sep 90 1:48 CDT
Date:     Sat, 15 Sep 90 1:23:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Numbering Error: 644 is 645
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

You should have received three issues of TELECOM Digest during the
Friday night/Saturday morning hours. One was accidentally mislabled in
the envelope:

(True) issue 644 was labled V10 #644.

(True) issue 645 was incorrectly labled 644 also. Please put this in
your editor and correct the 644 to read 645. This would be the issue
dated 1:11 AM, Sept. 15.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20025;
          15 Sep 90 4:41 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31887;
          15 Sep 90 2:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32124;
          15 Sep 90 1:48 CDT
Date:     Sat, 15 Sep 90 1:11:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #644
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 15 Sep 90 01:11:14 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 645

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Bill Cerny]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Tad Cook]
    Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System [Matthew McGehrin]
    Re: Telecom in Alaska [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Voice Mail!!! Anyone?  Anyone? [Mike Lukacs]
    Re: Octothorpes [Dell H. Ellison]
    Re: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site [David Tamkin]
    Re: AT&T Sourcebook Info [John Nagle]
    Re: Info Needed on COLAN [Martin Schoffstall]
    Re: Intra-NPA Long Distance [Joel B. Levin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Date: 14 Sep 90 05:35:08 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: The problems associated with divestiture which were
>needless and in any event should have been solved at least three years
>ago are getting OLD also ... and I *know* I'm not the only person who
>feels this way!  PAT]

Do I perceive that familiar spiritual melody "Let My RBOCs Go"?  I
would like to see my RBOC provide video services that the local cable
franchise has proven themselves incapable of delivering.  But, on the
other hand, I must confess good old American parochialism in that I
don't want RBOCs to provide information services "content" (and you
thought only congresscritters looked after their constituent
interests? ;-)


Bill Cerny [e-mail] | attmail: !denwa!bill

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 14 Sep 90 05:58:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, barrey@ka (Barrey Jewall) writes:

> I think the best one was when a friend of ours who works in a
> recording studio let us mess around one night:

> "Hello, this is the rock doctor, you're on the air."

My pal Norm was doing a promotion on his afternoon show on KOMO AM,
which is a 50KW clear channel station in Seattle.  He was giving away
$5,000, and he kept saying on the air live and in commercials:

"FIVE thousand dollars CASH!"

During this time, I cajoled him (it wasn't easy!) to make a tape for
my answering machine, which I still have.  It says:

"Oooooooo this may be YOUR LUCKY DAY!  You may have WON FIVE THOUSAND
DOLLARS CASH!!  Just leave your credit card number and expiration
date, and we'll get right back to ya!  THANKS for the call!"

Reading it doesn't do it justice.  You have to hear it.  Maybe someday
I can arrange to put it on for a weekend, just so Digest readers can
call and hear it!


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544   Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System
Date: 15 Sep 90 04:56:35 GMT


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

First off, I feel sympathy for you. Rolm is a monster of a system. I have many
friends who attend colleges with Rolm systems installed and it is a pain in
the a** to use. It re-defines the word simplfy. I know people who before Rolm
to dial a operator you would dial '0' , but with rolm you may dial 678 then 0.

Also, I thought that 'non-Rolm' phones are not compatible with the network.


Pro-Graphics BBS  908/469-0049
 ....UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics![e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Telecom in Alaska
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 11:55:23 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Lou Judice, 908-562-4103) writes:

> For example, 60 miles north of the Arctic Circle, in Coldfoot, AK, we
> were able to make AT&T credit card calls on any of the two or three
> phones located in this town/truckstop of 23 residents. The only
> seemingly possible means of communication with the outside would be
> satellite (there were crude downlinks in the town) or possibly sharing
> the Alaska Pipeline microwave system?

Satellite, it is. During the heyday of oil wealth in Alaska, nearly
every village got a small earth station. I'd hesitate to call them
crude, as well. They are small-dish sites, but very capable. The state
distributes entertainment TV to the villages over them, as well as
telephone and datalink services. (before the oil crash, the state ran
2 seperate channels, one dedicated to education. budget cuts forced
one of the channels to be cut ... care to guess which one? :-( )

> In the cities (Fairbanks and Anchorage) it appeared as though the
> local telcos were municipal utilties.

I believe only Anchorage is municipally owned. There was a great big
stink last year when the Mayor tried to strongarm the city into
selling Anchorage Telephone Utility to Pacific Tel. The Mayor
claimed that selling the utility was a Good Thing, and that there
would be dozens of offers. When the bids closed, only one company had
bid at all (Pacific Tel), and they bid just over the minimum. The
Municipal Assembly forced a ballot initiative, and then ensued one of
the biggest PR whitewashes I have ever seen. Pacific Tel spent
over a million dollars in advertising and promotion to try and get the
sale approved.  They failed, but I'm sure the Mayor will try again.
(he sees selling the city's assets as a quick fix for their cash-flow
problems.)

> As a former RCA-er, I know that Alaskcom, the long distance carrier in
> Alaska was formerly part of that great old company. I seem to recall
> it being sold to a west coast power utility in the early 1980's.

'Twas 1978, and the buyer was Pacific Tel ... in fact, PT owns
something like 67% of the telephone service providers in Alaska,
including Alascom and Alaskanet. That was part of the concern over PT
obtaining ATU. It would have increased their control to over 80%.

Still, Alaska's telephone service is a far cry from what it was when I
first arrived there in 1970. Back then, all long-distance was carried
on the White Alice Communications System, which was run by the Army.
In the early 70's, WACS was sold to RCA and became RCA Alascom, but it
still operated over ancient Tropo Scatter microwave links. Satellite
links were placed in the major cities by about 1976, and the oil boom
extended the satellite coverage through the early 80's.


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  [e-mail]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK
Date: 14 Sep 90 16:38:42 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leila
Burrell-Davis) writes: >

> A women's group that I belong to has received a number of complaints
> from women about the way in which the police and British Telecom in
> the UK handle reports of obscene or 'nuisance' calls - essentially the
> charge is that unless you've been having calls threatening physical
> violence for an extended period they're just not interested.

> We plan to take this up with the authorities, but before we do I would
> be very interested to know what it is technically possible for the
> phone company to do to trace such calls. I have seen some discussion
> in this group as regards the US but don't know to what extent it is
> applicable to the UK.

    My sister who is a legal reptile practicing in the UK (Kent)
specialises is battered women. She could possibly explain what "Old
Bill" (The Fuzz) and BT will and can do legally. I could call her and
ask, but reptiles hate to give away information free that they can
charge money for. If this thread gets into it, I may call her. She
will suspect my motives though.

    I know that technically in the old days BT could trace a call
as long as they had an engineer or two standing around. I have heard
rumours and seen some stuff a few years ago in the {New Scientist}
about the capabilities for "supervisory loops" - eavesdropping to most
people - on the new System-X switches. I also recall an article in the
{New Scientist} claiming that the reason BT went with an Ericsson
AXE-10 switch for its overseas calls was its better snooping features.
But I digress.

    Simply put, telcos can trace calls, they are usually reluctant
to do it because most of the reported harassment calls are domestic in
nature. The cops traditionally do not like to be involved in domestic
disputes, even if violence is involved. There are many reasons for
this which I will not get into here. But if you persist, the cops and
telco will trace a call. Note that the more modern and sophisticated a
switch, the better the tracing capabilities. BT is introducing
itemised billing. If they can tell you who you called, they can also
run it back the other way. They may not want to do it, or admit they
can, but they can. They do this internally to trace trouble reports
and fix equipment.

    I have discussed obscene callers extensively with Pac-Bell
security people. The conversations covered tracing the calls and what
they did with the perpetrators. If there is any interest I can post
that info separately.

    There used to be a BT intercept service available when I last
lived in the UK. It was a long time ago - the 60s - so my memory is
slightly faded. I used to call a lot of politicians and others in the
news. I would often hit an intercept operator who would ask me who I
was calling and what my name was. If I was acceptable, my call would
be put through. The people I dealt with had the GPO (Old BT) provide
this service for a fee because of harassment. I had a politician
friend who had an intercept on his line, I always gave my name as
Harry Roberts. I was put through immediately. At that time a minor
hood called Harry Roberts had gunned down three cops and was the most
wanted man of the decade. His name and picture were in the press
daily. Never did anyone question the name or send a squad car around
to check.


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

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

From: Mike Lukacs 21341 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail!!! Anyone?  Anyone?
Date: 14 Sep 90 17:56:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bellcore - Digital Video Research


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Alex Cruz) writes:

|> The organization that I currently work for is considering the purchase
|> of a voice mail system.  I know nothing about voice mail systems.
|> Any advices?  I will post summary.

|> Incidentally, here is some pertinent info:

|>     - size of organization: 300 employees (likely to grow)
|>     - all in one building
|>     - will move to another building 1st qtr 91
|>     - do you need anything else? (I can't think of it!)

We have used the "Aspen" system here, manufactured by Octel
Communications Corp. for a couple of years.  It seems to work fairly
well and reliably.  Our only complaint is lack of a message waiting
light (stutter dial only works if you use your phone often outgoing
during the day) but I believe that is just cheapness on the part of my
own company.

DISCLAIMER: Bellcore, and it's employees are not allowed by law to
have any opinions; Therefore I officially have none and didn't even
say this.


M. E. Lukacs  NVC-3X-330      Bell Communications Research  (BELLCORE)
331 Newman Springs Road       Red Bank, New Jersey, USA  07701-7040
(201)or(908) 758-2876         FAX: [phone]  [e-mail]

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

From: "Dell H. Ellison" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Date: 14 Sep 90 21:01:40 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
> >I sometimes wonder if they should have just called those buttons A&B.

> Please, no!  Remember that the 2 buttom is already labeled with both
> an 'A' and a 'B' character.  Hopeless confusion would result in ...

Actually, from a software point of view, we did refer to the 0 (zero)
as an 'A', the * (asterisk) as a 'B', and the # (octothorpe - I prefer
to call it a pound sign, but let's not start that up again!)  as a
'C'!  (These were refered to this way because each button on the phone
had a number, but they were printed out as hexadecimal numbers.)

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Forwarding Set from a Remote Site
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 15:32:24 CDT


Paul Wilczynski asked in volume 10, issue 642:

| I've never heard of the following service, but is it possible?  I'd
| certainly pay for it:

| Call Forwarding which could be changed from a remote site.  For
| example: I leave my office, go someplace else, and modify the
| forwarding on my office phone to go to where I am.

Radio Shack sells a device intended to accomplish that; the 1990
catalog lists it for $99.95.

I do not know specifically how the Radio Shack product works, but in a
previous digest issue, another reader described one such animal's
modus operandi: when it detects an incoming call, it allows the call
to be forwarded as the owner programmed.  It then sends *73 or the
local equivalent to shut Call Forwarding off.  If no other call comes
within the next thirty seconds, it dials out to re-establish Call
Forwarding to the same destination number.

If another call does arrive within thirty seconds and you key in the
passcode in DTMF, you can instruct the box to reprogram Call
Forwarding to a new destination number, which it will do when you
finish the sequence and hang up.  I'm not sure exactly what happens if
someone else should happen to call in the thirty-second window;
perhaps that caller gets silence, but in any case for lack of entry of
the proper passcode, the box re-establishes Call Forwarding to the old
destination number.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Sourcebook Info
Date: 13 Sep 90 06:53:07 GMT


      There are a number of AT&T customer service numbers and
catalogs.  A complete list, for reference, would be useful.

      I recommend "A Technical History of the Bell System" (6 vols)",
which can be ordered from Bellcore for only $20 or so per volume.
"Switching Technology, 1925-1975" is probably of the most general
interest.  After reading it, I have a much better idea of how some of
the basic design decisions of the phone system were made.

Understanding how the network grew and how it was organized is
valuable for anyone involved with large data networks.


John Nagle

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

From: Martin Schoffstall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info Needed on COLAN
Reply-To: Martin Schoffstall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc.
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 13:36:52 GMT


Intecom at one point in time was also marketing this capability on
their PBX, as I remember there was a bandwidth limit <10Mbps on the
cable plant to the phone.  In addition an Ethernet Jam et al was
propogated to each "phone".  In general a real mess, this was circa
1986.

I'd be interested in hearing on some of the technical details of the
DAVID systems on the list.


Marty

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Intra-NPA Long Distance
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 17:20:12 EDT


 From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>:

>I suspect that this must be temporary, because I was under the
>impression that LDC's could not handle intra-LATA calls.

LDCs must handle all customer calls between two LATAs.  The BOCs are
not permitted to do this (exception: "corporate" calls between two BOC
offices in different LATAs can be handled by the BOC itself).

LDCs MAY handle intra-LATA calls at the discretion of the state's
regulatory agency.  In some states this is allowed; in some it is not.

JBL

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #645
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07407;
          16 Sep 90 0:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26408;
          15 Sep 90 22:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28512;
          15 Sep 90 21:55 CDT
Date:     Sat, 15 Sep 90 21:45:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #646
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 15 Sep 90 21:44:59 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 646

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Distinctive Ring Call Director [Jerry Durand]
    Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Correction Regarding USSR Notes [Carl Moore]
    Bay Area Sprint Report (Higdon Vindicated!) [Jeff Carroll]
    NPA Lines and Long Distance [Carl Moore]
    Cellular Phone Special Offer [Monty Solomon]
    Re: Deregulation of Telecom in Australia [[e-mail]]
    Short Answering Machine Security Codes [Gene Spafford]
    Re: Need Info on In-House Phone Systems [Tad Cook]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Mitch Wagner]
    Strange Intercept Message [Dan Birchall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Distinctive Ring Call Director
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 08:09:30 PDT


In <[e-mail]> mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]
(Subodh Bapat) writes:

>Fone Filter is available from South Tech Instruments, Inc., at
>800-999-3237.  It costs $79.95. It saves $30 a month in residential
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^

This number is for Weber BBQ Grills and 800-555-1212 has no listing
for South Tech Instruments.

Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., [e-mail], 408 356-3886


[Moderator's Note: Thanks also to Tad Cook for his message about this.
Maybe Mr. Bapat can tell us what the correct number should be.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 10:30 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Org:anization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony


 ..in a footnote <Digest vol10, iss637), our Moderator suggests,

> "... some children, phreaks and assorted other folks consider it
>quite a funny joke to conference two unrelated parties via
>three-way calling, then let them (the two called parties) squabble
>with each other while the perpetrator goes spastic with laughter
>at his little prank.   PAT]"

Well, it brings to mind three incidents that I guess can now be
told:

1.) The good old "testboard," of course, had the ability to
"conference in" several parties, while the person on the testboard
could cut off their own talk path, leaving the two parties talking to
each other. In an earlier, simpler DDD network, simply dialing an area
code plus 121 got the "Inward Operator." a.k.a "Assistance" to the
public's view for an entire area code. In a yet-to-be-divulged corner
of Long Lines, it was a favorite pastime to dial 809+121 (San Juan,
Puerto Rico) and 808+121 (Honolulu, Hawaii) and let two Ernestines of
the Lily Tomlin era argue about which had called which and what they
were supposed to do.  Meantime, gales of laughter could be heard
around the monitoring loudspeaker in a testroom thousands of miles
from either of them!

2.) In a similar fashion, happenstance listening found an FX between
two cities that got dialed up every morning and contained a day-long
dialog between two receptionists of the same company. One was named
"Rusty."  Rusty's nightly romantic exploits in a major seaside resort
city, if true, would provide years of material for one of today's
"Confessions" 900 numbers!  They were replete with details of Rusty's
specialized wardrobe and tools of her nighttime trade.  Needless to
say, the day shift had a monitor speaker plugged into THAT FX daily.
(I almost swallowed my chewing gum more than once!)  After a long
period <months> of unobtrusive listening, a testboardman <whose name
is yet to be divulged> began to pop in with comments that could be
heard only by Rusty and not her audience at the other end.

Rusty would respond, leaving her private audience puzzled at who Rusty
was talking to.  That would cause the discussion to turn to
suggestions of reporting eavesdroppers on the phone.  However, no
reports were ever filed when it got around to, "But what if they ask
what we were talking about?" (It would have been hilarious, anyway,
because the self-same room that was doing the listening was the place
the trouble reporting number was in ... in fact, the self-same
people!)

3.) The highest level of development of this art might be classified
as an early form of the "Talking to God" service recently purported to
have emerged in Italy.  This one was over on the 17B Board, where
thousands of DDD message trunks terminated in ports of the 4A toll
switching machine.  Each evening, as the network peaked with the 7 PM
rush for cheap rates, it wasn't difficult to find a circuit on which a
couple of good old Bible-toting down south mommas were commiserating
about their physical aches and heartaches over the foibles of their
"chilluns."  When one finally asked, as they always did, for the Lord
to intervene, an obliging testboardman would plug into the four-wire
transmit toward the requester and play God on the Telephone.
Invariably, the poor dear would literally swoon and shush the
questioning other, who couldn't hear God talking!  One can imagine the
testimony of miracles next Sunday morning at the country church!

But of course, NOBODY ever listens in on YOUR calls...why, the Company
would NEVER permit that!

Boy, I sure hope the Statute of Limitations has run out on this!


[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a
major violation of trust; and I'm sure you are aware that had the
employees involved in this little prank been caught and the
subscriber's involved elected to sue, telco would have had to pay
financially and the employees involved probably would have lost their
jobs.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 14:26:47 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction Regarding USSR Notes


The following excerpt from the USSR notes sent recently to this Digest
is repeated below, with bracketed remarks from me.  Is this also some
sort of number-length standardization?

>3) If an asterisk appears immediately after city name it means that,
>for 5 or 6 digit numbers you should add '2' or '22', respectively,
>before the number, i.e. 12345 -> 2212345 or 123456 -> 2123456.

[ apparently "'22' or '2'" was intended ]

>If there is NO asterisk you should put '0' or '00'
>i.e. 12345 -> 0012345 or 123456 -> 0123456

[ apparently "'00' or '0'" was intended ]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Bay Area Sprint Report (Higdon Vindicated!)
Date: 13 Sep 90 18:15:22 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services ATC, Seattle


    I took John Higdon's rantings about his Sprint service with a
grain of salt (considering the *excellent* S/N I get on Sprint calls
originating here in Seattle to most of the rest of the country) until
I placed a Sprint call yesterday to the 521 exchange in area 415. I
could barely understand the person on the other end (OK, I was in a
computer room with a big air conditioner, but that's not normally a
problem.)

    On the other hand, my mother-in-law has one line in (415)653
and the other in (415)655, and we never have any noise problems when
calling her or when she calls us (her default carrier is Sprint too).

    I'm not familiar with the exchange-to-geography mapping in 415.


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 17:50:05 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPA Lines and Long Distance


You wrote:

>[Moderator's Note: An example of that here was 414-396 / 312-396.
>Antioch, IL was 312-395. North Antioch, WI is 414-396, but was dialable
>from *Antioch only* as 396+4D. To reach the *real* 312-396 residents
>of the village of Antioch had to dial one plus. 414-396 is Illinois
>Bell's one incursion into the 414 area. Now, Antioch is 708, but so is
>Blue Island, IL where the 'real' 708-396 lives. I don't know what they
>do up there now.  PAT]

Yes, there are other examples where local calls across an area code
line are only seven digits.  But if I am calling long distance to the
above area on Ill.-Wisc. border, I should still have had to use 312
(now 708) for Antioch and 414 for North Antioch.  312-396 (now
708-396) would have gotten the 396 prefix in Blue Island.

But in that case at Omaha, there is a prefix which is reachable (long
distance) both in 402 and 712.  And in the DC area, incoming long
distance calls have been able to reach Md. and Va. suburbs (not just
DC) in area code 202.  (However, the new ten-digit scheme for local
calls across NPA borders in the DC area allows 202 area code only for
DC prefixes, and use of 202 for Md. and Va. suburbs has to end to
allow for previously-forbidden prefix duplication.)

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 18:10:01 EDT
From: Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Special Offer


Cellular One is offering me a special deal on a Uniden CP1200
cellular phone.

Is this a quality phone?  Any problems with it?

Thanks.

Monty

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

Date: Thu, 13 Sep 90 19:36:36 -0700
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Deregulation of Telecom in Australia


Isn't part of the issue the prospective involvement of foreign
companies in the telecommunications system as competition to the
domestic carrier?  The Bell Companies are very interested in the
deregulation of Australian telecom, especially since Bell Atlantic
bought out the New Zealand telecom carrier.

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

From: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Short Answering Machine Security Codes
Date: 14 Sep 90 05:00:56 GMT
Reply-To: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


Two comments on short security codes on answering machines.  But
first, the background story:

A few months ago, I started getting harassing phone calls from some
phreaks/crackers who evidently did not like my association with the
CERT (tenuous as it is).  So, at 3am, the phone would ring and it
would be these guys in a conference call making threats.  It really
got old quickly, and bothered the spousal unit something fierce
(especially when they started threatening her instead of me).

So, I pulled out my answering machine and set it up to answer the
phone, and then shut our phone off at 11pm every night.  Sure enough,
that night at 3am, they tried to finger-phreak the security code.  The
machine is one of the PhoneMate models that comes with a single-digit
code.  For some reason, they missed the code and spent the rest of
their call recording interesting vulgarities.

I called PhoneMate to see if there was a way to disable the remote
feature.  None.

I asked why the code was only one digit.  The reply?  They tried
longer codes once, but too many customers complained because they
couldn't remember the codes.  How long were the codes?  Three
digits...

For a small fee, I shipped the machine back to them and they modified
it so it takes a hand-held tone-key now to trigger the remote
features.  I dunno how many different keys they have, but I suspect
that not many people have them, and from the sounds of it, it has some
hairy harmonics in it that would prevent any simple spoofing.

If your machine has too short a security code, call the manufacturer
and see what they can offer.  PhoneMate told me if my machine was
still under warranty, the modification to the machine would be free,
and I'd only have to pay for the key.


Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida  Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet:  [e-mail]    uucp:    ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Need Info on In-House Phone Systems
Date: 14 Sep 90 05:43:40 GMT


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

>      A year ago, our prayers were answered when we found the Proctor
> phone demonstrator, which lets me do testing of our fax modem products
> without having to get regular phone lines.  Up to four devices sit on
> this box, and they can all dial each other.  It saved my sanity.

>      The problem is that I now need more than this.  I would love some
> kind of box that would let me use a intercom mode for internal
> testing, plus provide bidirectional access to real outside lines.  I

>      Has anybody got any ideas here?  I have heard people speak of the
> low-end Panasonic phone systems (which might be just the ticket), but
> I really don't know anything about them.

Yes, get a Panasonic KSU.  I am not familiar with the model numbers,
but they are low cost, and there is at least one model that allows
connection on the station side to either the Panasonic phone, or a
standard two-wire device.

The reason that Proctor did not make another model that is larger than
the 49200 Telephone Demonstrator is that an 8 or 12 line unit would be
trying to compete against low-cost offshore KSUs, which it cannot.
All of Proctor's products are assembled by hand in Redmond,
Washington, and so they go after niches that the Asian factories
don't.

Next month Proctor is coming out with a cheaper 2 line version,
the model 49250.


Tad Cook  Seattle, WA   Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA   Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544       Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad    or, [e-mail]

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

From: Mitch Wagner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 14 Sep 90 03:11:13 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY


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

# In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mitch Wagner)
# writes:

#>(For the record, I should state that I have a Panasonic Easa-Phone.
#>Another thing I don't like about it is that it has a two-digit
#>security code. Now, how hard would it be for some phone phreak to
#>break into my phone machine and start listening to messages with a
#>two-digit security code, fa' Pete's sake? Not hard at all.

# Awww. *My* answering machine only has a *one* digit security
# code. Of course if some phreak were to do something like this,
# wouldn't you be immediately aware of it?

Nope. I assume you mean that the unlistened-to-messages counter would
be reset to zero, and I'd hear a message next time I checked the tape
that I'd never heard before, even though the "message waiting" light
wasn't flashing.

But the Panasonic does not resent the counter to zero when you listen
to the messages over the phone.

#>(Of course, the real challenge, once said phone phreak has broken into
#>my phone machine and heard my messages, would be to remain awake.... )

#    That's what Gary Hart said too, isn't it ? :^)

Yes, but *I* have nothing to hide. Why, I *invite* you to follow me
around for a weekend while I hold... um... in-depth staff meetings
with my secretary in a secluded Washington townhouse....


Mitch Wagner

VOICE: 516/562-5758             GEnie: UNIX-TODAY
UUCP: [e-mail]         ...uunet!utoday!wagner

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 06:54:26 EDT
From: Daniel Birchall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Strange Intercept Message


A friend of mine was trying to call me about an hour ago, and instead
of dialing my number, she dialed my number but with her area code...
She got the Tri-tone, and then this message, which neither of us has
ever heard before:

"You are not authorized to dial that number.  Please hang up and dial a
 different number. Two A Y"

Is this the legendary number-no-one-should-ever-call?  Will the phone co
hunt her down?  Or is it just some PBX frob glitch? (She was originating
from within a college PBX.)

This has us both bewildered.


Dan Birchall (and Jen Kleiman)


[Moderator's Note: The writer actually included his phone number and
the same number with a different area code in his message. On testing
the one which caused the strange intercept message, I connected with a
real, live person who seemed annoyed at the intrusion. So, I've
deleted the numbers. The question can be answered theoretically
anyway, without actually testing it.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #646
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09508;
          16 Sep 90 2:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11376;
          16 Sep 90 1:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12149;
          15 Sep 90 23:58 CDT
Date:     Sat, 15 Sep 90 23:18:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #647
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 15 Sep 90 23:17:41 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 647

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Query on BBS Blocking by Long Distance Carriers [Jim Thomas]
    Re: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site [David G. Cantor]
    Re: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site [Steve Elias]
    900 Number Woes [Cincinnati Post via Larry Jones]
    Traps = Card Dropping (was: Autodialer Ruining My Life! [J. Eric Townsend]
    Knowing It's a Toll Call [[e-mail]]
    Cellular Phone Use on Aiport Runway [Monty Solomon]
    Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill! [Steve Elias]
    More 900 Abuse [Jeff Sicherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 03:23 CDT
From: jt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Query on BBS Blocking by Long Distance Carriers


Has anybody heard, or does anybody have evidence, of a long distance
carrier blocking BBS (or other numbers) with or without notifying the
calling or receiving parties? Teleconnect had this policy a few years
ago and there was a suit against them by a group in Iowa. Does anybody
know how that suit was resolved?  Have there been any recent instances
of litigation that anybody knows of?


Jim Thomas


[Moderator's Note: I think Telecom*USA still engages in this practice,
of blocking paid calls to numbers where they (Telecom*USA), in their
sole discretion don't like the nature of the conversation. The calling
party is notified of course by the recording that his 'call cannot be
completed as dialed' ... I am anticipating that a suit will be filed
soon against AT&T for their practice of refusing to honor their own
credit card if they don't like where you are calling from and/or where
you are calling to. Suits against telcos do not resolve easily. The
telcos have a huge amount of money and time to spend in litigation.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 07:49:35 -0700
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


Paul Wilczynski asks:

>I've never heard of the following service, but is it possible?
>I'd certainly pay for it:

>Call Forwarding which could be changed from a remote site.  For
>example:  I leave my office, go someplace else, and modify the
>forwarding on my office phone to go to where I am.

A number of companies sell devices to do just this.  Some require a
second line which is dialed to tell the device to change the
call forwarding on the first line.  Of course, a security code is
required.  Nowdays lines are so cheap that this is a viable method.
Of course the second line can be used for other purposes also.

Some don't require a second line.  These operate on the principle that
when a line which is being call-forwarded is dialed, it rings once as
it forwards.  The device detects the single ring and turns of
call-forwarding for a short period of time (e.g., 30 seconds).  During
this time it expects a call to tell it the new call-forwarding number.
Again, of course, a security code is also required.

The latter device has two shortcomings:

1.  It requires two calls to change the call forwarding number.
2.  Whenever the line is dialed, it is, in effect, disabled for about
    the next 30 seconds.


David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site?
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 11:24:28 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


I haven't seen a device that will do this, but it isn't that tough to
design.  You could program your Watson or other voice mail board to do
it for you.  The major problem is how do you dial into the device to
change the programming, if it's already forwarded and you only have
one phone line at home?

Answer: Have the thing unforward for a short period if it receives N
calls in quick succession.  I used to use this algorithm when I was
dialing home from California on my 800 number.  Usually, I just want
to pick up voice messages, so the forwarding to voice mail was fine.
But sometimes I wanted to talk to the Nice Person staying at my home.
In that case, I would just dial the 800 number three times in a row,
within a one minute period or so.  She would then unforward the phone
and I would get through to her on the third or fourth try.  The
downside was that it took a while to get a call through.  The cost for
the initial two or three calls was tiny, though.  One cent each for a
six second call on US Sprint Fonline 800.  (RAH RAH!)

So, if you have a voice mail type machine in your home, you could
program it to act like I described above.  It could unforward and
answer the phone after a few repeated calls, then you could enter in
the new number you want it forwarded to, and it could hang up and
reforward the line to the new number.

Is this too complicated for a usable product?  I don't know.  Maybe
Hello Direct or Patrick-Tronics or Lippman-Tronics ought to build a
small device that would do this...  "Call before midnight tonight!" :)


eli

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:05:45 EDT
From: Larry Jones <sdrc![e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Number Woes


The following appeared in the September 12 {Cincinnati Post}:

Dad Won't Pay $40,500 Phone Bill
--------------------------------

Martin Kohus plans to make a toll-free telephone call today to try to
persuade MCI Communications officials to let him out of his $40,500
long-distance bill.

Kohus, of College Hill, will argue that his 15-year-old son, Jeff,
made the calls in less than a month to a 900 number without realizing
the cost.

Each call on the MCI Communications network to the Ultimate Pleasure
Connection cost a minimum of $25.  Jeff made the calls between June 30
and and Aug. 22.  A call to the 900 number for the service allows
callers to talk to other callers.

Kohus, a building mechanic at Star Bank who earns substantially less
than $40,000 a year, is hoping MCI officials will forget about the
bill.  "I might pay them $50," Kohus said.

"I don't intend to willingly pay them.  The boy is only 15 years old.
He was not told how many times he was being charged and he was not
aware that he was being charged $25 a call.  And they never checked
him out.  They just let the bills run up.

"I don't feel I should pay for their mistake," he said.  "I believe
it's a scam, a legal scam apparently."

Kohus said that his wife, Susan, was even charged $25 for several
calls she made to the 900 number on her bill trying to find out what
was going on.

A citizens group, American Families Association, has offered to pay
any legal costs for fighting the telephone bill.

Bernard Goodrich, MCI's director of public relations, said he did not
know of the Kohus bill, but he said such large bills "have not been
that major a problem.  This size bill is very, very unusual."

He said that he doesn't know if the company has ever forgiven any
bills run up by teen-agers.  "I suspect at times some have been
negotiated," he said.

"The real responsibility lies with the information provider (the
company that rents phone lines for a 900 number).  We are a common
carrier and have to take anything that our lines are hired for,"
Goodrich said.

Jackie Williams, a spokeswoman for American Telephone & Telegraph Co.,
said the company has no general policy for handling such large bills
incurred on the 900 numbers.  Each case is handled according to its
individual circumstances.

"We ask them to contact our billing organization about the problem and
the organization works with them.  We try to be flexible," she said.

AT&T has received complaints about the 900 numbers, but she said the
company does not keep track of the number of complaints.

Local telephone companies can block any phone from dialing 900 number,
she said.

Cyndy Cantoni of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. said that all 900
charges are billed by the long-distance companies such as MCI, U.S.
Sprint and AT&T.  Local phone companies, she said, only collect the
charges for the other companies.

She also said that local phone companies in Ohio cannot disconnect a
family's phone for non-payment of a 900 bill.  "It's against Ohio
law," she said.

Cincinnati Bell charges nothing for putting a block on 900 numbers.
But Ms. Cantoni said that if the customer asks for removal of the
block, the charge is $11.80.

Needless to say, Martin Kohus contacted Cincinnati Bell after he
learned of his son's $40,500 telephone conversations and had the 900
numbers blocked from his phone.

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

The following follow-up appeared in the September 13 {Cincinnati
Post}:

Father appeals to FCC over '900' bill
-------------------------------------

Martin Kohus plans to go on the offensive this week and file a
complaint with the Federal Communications Commission against MCI
Communications for the $40,500 in telephone charges incurred by his
son.  Kohus said he will complain that MCI allowed 15-year-old Jeff
Kohus to run up the astronomical phone bill calling a 900 number for
the Ultimate Pleasure Connection between June 30 and Aug. 22.  The
pay-per-call service allows people throughout the country to meet and
talk to each other.

MCI should have verified Jeff's age, Kohus' complaint will say.  And
the phone company should not have allowed the teen-ager to run up such
a bill without checking on him.

Kohus said he placed three telephone calls to MCI public relations and
legal department officials in Chicago on Wednesday, and none of them
returned his calls.  The officials also did not return The Post's
telephone calls Wednesday.

"MCI is not cooperating with me," Kohus said, "I wanted to tell them
what I planned to do."

Kohus also plans to talk to an attorney this week.  He said that a
citizens group, American Families Association, has offered to pay his
legal expenses.  A national news organization is interested in Kohus'
story.

Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. has removed the 900 charges from Kohus'
bill.  He said that Cincinnati Bell sent the remaining bill of about
$39,200 to MCI to be collected.

Kohus, who earns substantially less than $40,000 a year as a building
mechanic at the Star Bank Center downtown, said Tuesday he hoped MCI
would forgive the bill.

But Bernard Goodrich, MCI director of public relations, said he
doesn't believe the company has ever forgiven a bill entirely.  He
said the company has negotiated some larger bills.

He said the collection responsibility really lies with the company
renting MCI communications lines for the 900 service.  He would not
divulge the name of the company that rents the 900 lines for the
Ultimate Pleasure Connection.

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 15:16:29 CDT
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Traps = Card Dropping (was: Autodialer Ruining My Life!
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics


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

>If the Annoyance Call Bureau there operates
>like Illinois Bell's, they will put a trap on the line and try (no
>guarentees) to capture the number of the calling phone.

In Houston during the mid 80s, there was a strong rumor in the phreak
community that SWBT regularly "dropped cards" on long-distance calls
from certain apartment complexes (complexi? :-) as well as on local
calls from certain "suspicious" numbers.

"Dropping a card" was described as making a physical log (printing on
a small card, thus the phrase) of the originating number, the number
called, the time/date of the call and the length of the call.

Is there anything (in Houston or elsewhere) that would substantiate
this sort of rumor?  Is this the equivalent of a trap?

Just curious...


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]   Bitnet: jet@UHOU    Skate UNIX(r)

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Knowing It's a Toll Call
Date: 14 Sep 90 15:58:51 +1000
Organization: The University of Melbourne


Significant comment seems to be generated by dialling rule changes in
the U.S.A along the lines of 'How will I know if I am dialling a toll
call, when the whole NPA is accessible by 7D dialling?"

When Subscriber Trunk Dialling was introduced into Australia, it was
made mandatory that any call which was charged by time, but which was
not placed through an operator would be preceeded by a series of short
pips (usually 5).  Charging does not start until after the last pip.

The STD pips are now entrenched in the Australian telephone users'
psyche, as a way to let both the calling and called party know that
the call is timed, and therefore will cost more than a single local
call unit, if it is long enough.

It does speed the search for someone who is wanted on the phone, if
the person who answers the phone knows that it is a toll call.

"Oh," I hear you cry, "but that denies us the right to call from out
of town and say we are just around the corner."  True, but Caller ID
gives much more information.

It is a possibility for a service to be introduced, even as an option,
so those who *are* worried can have their toll calls indicated to
them.

And now a question: Does any other country have such toll call pips?
I guess that only countries such as Canada New Zealand which, like Oz,
have a mix of timed and untimed calls, would have implemented this,
but I have never heard of them outside Australia.

One side effect is that we actually notice the absence of the pips
when making or receiving international calls.  I guess, we just have
to rely on the caller to say, "I'm ringing from..." to make us run to
find the wanted party :-)

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 15:58:59 EDT
From: Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway


An article in today's "Wall Street Journal" (9/14/90 p B1) states that
the FCC banned the use of cellular phones in planes on the ground
because they figured that people wouldn't hang up when the flight took
off.

The FCC claims that the cellular phones can't be used in the air
because they interfere with calls be earthbound cellular phone users.

The FCC is reconsidering permitting the use of cellular phones in
planes on the ground.  The FAA doesn't mind ground use of cellular
phones in planes.

How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the
ground?

It would seem reasonable to permit cellular phone use from the plane
once it lands.  Why did the FCC prohibit this as well?

Also, on the same page is an article 900 numbers entitled "Scams in
900 Numbers Spur Calls for Federal Regulation"

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

Subject: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 10:46:18 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


C'mon, folks.  Enough whining about Sprint "putting it in writing".
Save a few ATT bills, switch to Sprint, and compare the quality of
service as well as the price for your calls.  That should be plenty of
writing for you.  Use 10333 if you just want to try out Sprint's
standard rates.  If you make $8 of long distance per month, sign up
for Sprint Plus and you'll get night rates from 5pm on -- that's about
10 cents per minute anywhere in US.

A sincere long distance fiend,

eli

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 17:39:02 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: More 900 Abuse


  The {Orange County (California) Register} reported a story that a
couple claimed a $ 28.00 bill for 900- calls was caused by their dog.
The dog had been trained to dial 911 in case the smoke alarm went off
in their absence.  They came home one day to find the phone off the
hook with the dog nearby.  They paid no particular notice of the
incident until the bill came. The phone company refused to bite :-) on
the story. The couple said they would take the charges out of the
cocker spaniel's monthly $20.00 allowance.


Jeff Sicherman
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #647
******************************






DUE TO TRANSMISSION ERROR, 649 ARRIVED BEFORE 648. 648 WILL APPEAR
AFTER 649.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10821;
          16 Sep 90 3:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac17994;
          16 Sep 90 2:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac11376;
          16 Sep 90 1:01 CDT
Date:     Sun, 16 Sep 90 0:56:23 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #649
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 16 Sep 90 00:55:59 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 649

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Competitive Choice: How Bad *IS* It, FCC? [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Jeff DePolo]
    Dallas Awards Six Fiber Optic Franchises [[e-mail]]
    Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK [Julian Macassey]
    Information Needed About ARCnet [Luis S. Ferrer]
    MCI As Slamming King [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: Radio Shack Call Forwarding Device [David Tamkin]
    Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person [Bill Fischer]
    Re: Radio Shack Call Forwarding Device [Steve Elias]
    Re: Call Detail Recording, or Beating the SMDR [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 13:39 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Competitive Choice: How Bad *IS* It, FCC?
Organization: Telecomunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL  34695


        Several recurring threads of the Digest relate to abuses and
downright illegalities of denying consumers free choice of
alternatives in dialing a telephone call. Some are related to COCOTS,
hotel room dialing and Alternative Operator Services providers. It
appears that the FCC is responding by measuring the level of
non-compliance at some locations.  Here is a very short summary, as
republished by a promotional newsletter of Vector Software titled
"Queue Time" for September, 1990. It attributes the original source
as,"The Washington Connection," published by Valucom, Inc. of Vienna,
Virginia:

                 "OPERATOR SERVICES STILL NOT NICE

        "The FCC's recent audit of the operator-services market notes
that there are still significant FCC compliance problems. The FCC
audited 971 telephones at 351 different properties.

        Only 20 telephones complied fully with written notification
requirements.  Blocking of the user's carrier of choice occurred on 40
percent of the phones, blocking of 10XXX access occurred on 31
percent, and many telephones blocked 950 access.  On the bright side,
however, operator-services providers identified themselvs orally 87
percent of the time."

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

Looks like we can say, "You've still got a long way to go, Baby!"  to
our goal of a properly free market for dialed call competition.

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

From: Jeff DePolo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 15 Sep 90 19:03:12 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff DePolo <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


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

>Sprint, on the other hand says, "And we will put it in writing."
>Apparently it is just a glib, empty response to AT&T's advertising.

More like a reponse to AT&T empty advertising.  AT&T's audio quality
is no where near US Sprint's.  Their customer service isn't any better
than Sprint's either.  Back before the big breakup, I can see how
there would be an advantage to AT&T service, since they were closely
in touch with the local companies.  But this isn't the case any more.

Having been using US Sprint from home (while still having AT&T at
work) since before US Telecom and GTE Sprint merged, I can honestly
say that their fiber optic network is second to none.  If you make
long distance modem calls often, you can't beat US Sprint's quality.
It's nice to have zero retries no matter where you're calling.


Jeff DePolo  N3HBZ             Twisted Pair: [phone]
[e-mail]    RF: 146.685- 442.70+ 144.455s (Philadelphia)
University of Pennsylvania     Carrier Pigeon: 420 S. 42nd St. Phila PA 19104

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

Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 12:41:30 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Dallas Awards Six Fiber Optic Network Franchises


Quoted from the Sept. 14 _Dallas Morning News_, page 13D:

        DALLAS AWARDS SIX FIBER-OPTIC NETWORK FRANCHISES

  The city of Dallas has awarded franchises to six companies that want
to build private fiber-optic telecommunications networks in Dallas.

  The proposed networks would compete with Southwestern Bell Corp. and
offer virtually all telecommunications services approved by the
Federal Communications Commission except for cable television.

  Approved for franchises are Alta Telecom of Norcross, Ga.; DFW
Metrolink of Dallas; Merrill Lynch Teleport Technologies of New York;
Metropolitan Fiber Systems of Chicago; Optinet Corp. of Dallas; and
Westmark Communications, a subsidiary of Denver-based television cable
company Telecommunications.

  The companies have 30 days to sign formal franchise agreements with
the city.  The companies will be required to post a $1 million bond
and take out $15 million of liability insurance before they can begin
construction.

  The franchise agreement also requires the companies to ahve service
available within six months and at least five miles of fiber optic
cable laid within two years.

  The city will be paid four percent of the companies' gross receipts.

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK
Date: 15 Sep 90 13:32:07 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Leila
Burrell-Davis) writes:

> We plan to take this up with the authorities, but before we do I would
> be very interested to know what it is technically possible for the
> phone company to do to trace such calls.

    I just spoke to my sister who is a member of the world's
second oldest profession. She was professionally evasive - has anyone
ever got a straight answer from an ambulance chaser?

    Anyhow the gist of the conversation was: If you have a problem
with obscene, harassing, threatening calls, call the constables. You
may also call BT by dialling 1500 and asking for customer relations.
Much waffle about how tapping phones is illegal, so I had to explain
tracing calls and examining call records is not tapping.

    Now the technical stuff. Her local exchange (CO) which is a
TXE-4 (Reed relay job) now has itemised billing. So they obviously
have records of outgoing calls. I also recall a court case I sat in on
in Lambeth Magistrates court, this was in 1967. The prisoner was
accused of "Stealing electricity". His actual offence was calling the
emergency services - 999 (UK equiv of 911 that goes back to the
forties). But annoying the emergency services is on the cops home turf
and is more important to them than some poor soul being woken at one
in the morning to hear an anatomical inventory. Obviously if they
could trace calls then, they can trace calls now. In the old days,
special equipment had to be placed on lines in the CO to trace a call
and sometimes an engineer had to be present. But today with computers
and electronic switching, no one has to be around while the call is
going through.

    By the way the TXE-4 exchange will accept Touch Tone, but you
have to ask them to turn it on, for which there is no charge. Yup, the
UK has free Touch Tone.


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

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

From: FERRER S LUIS FDO <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed About ARCnet
Date: 15 Sep 90 22:12:56 GMT
Organization: Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey


To whom this may concern,

   We are in bad need of information concerning the ARCNET.  Mainly
we've had problems in finding concrete information on this net in
textbooks. What we are looking for are the most important parameters
that discribe it such as the medium types that may be used, the
topology, and the MAC. In short its protocols.

Thank you for your attention,

Luis Ferrer

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

Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 17:38 EST
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI As Slamming King


John Higdon of Green Hills and Cows <[e-mail]> quoted an
article regarding MCI's apparent practice of becoming the primary
long-distance carrier without the customer's consent.  He concluded
the article by saying:

>From all accounts MCI does seem to be the slamming king.  I have,
>on several occasions, had to "clean off" MCI as the default carrier
>on some of my clients' trunks.  Associates of mine report the same ...

I had a similar experience with MCI.  For a time, I was making a
number of long-distance calls from my parent's phone line, so I
established an account with MCI where my parents would continue to
have AT&T as their primary carrier, but 10222+ calls would be billed
to me directly (and NOT on my parent's bill).  One day I got a notice
saying they would start billing those calls through Michigan Bell
("For my convenience," it was claimed), and so I called their customer
service to explain my situation and to see if I could still get direct
billing.

Soon after that, my parent's bill showed a $5.00 charge for an MCI
switchover.  (They were NOT thrilled.)  I promptly called MCI, where
they immediately credited my account (without haggle) for $10, to cover
the original switchover, plus the switch back to AT&T.

Since then, I've had my own line installed, where AT&T is the primary
carrier.  (Note: That I was going to do anyway.)  But because I still
have an MCI Card account with them, I dial the 700-555-4141 test number
for BOTH lines on a weekly basis, to ensure that there aren't any
additional arbitrary switchovers.

Given John's latest account of MCI practices---

> What a slimepit!

 --- the extra caution is not without merit.


Sander J. Rabinowitz      | [e-mail]
Farmington Hills, Mich.   | [phone]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Call Forwarding Device
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 16:03:17 CDT


Steve Elias wrote to the Digest and to me, asking,

| Is the Radio Shack single line call forwarding device a new product?
| Last time I checked, their product required two phone lines...

I don't remember any mention of needing two phone lines in the blurb
in the catalog.  It rather baffles me what it would need two phone
lines for anyway, since as far as I know, *72 and *73 sequences to the
CO affect only the line from which they are dialed.  How can it seize
a different line from the one on which it is receiving the call and
then tell the CO to redirect Call Forwarding on the first line?

Now, perhaps one dials in on the second line to tell the box to
reprogram Call Forwarding for the first line, but if their box works
like the one previously described in the Digest, then there should be
no need for the thirty-second wait or canceling and re-establishing
Call Forwarding every time a call comes in.  The box described sounds
like something for a single line.

Again, the Radio Shack product may be different.


David Tamkin  Box 7002  Des Plaines IL  60018-7002  708 518 6769  312 693 0591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 73720,1570   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 14:26 CDT
From: Bill Fischer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person!


We have a plain vanilla phone line for use with a modem. A couple days
ago, I began to get a lot of static on the line, so much so that the
modem was rendered useless. So, I call 611, report the complaint and
am told a service man is on his way.

When this joker arrived, he was incredibly hostile! He said he had
been monitoring the line and every time he called, "some fax machine
or something" answered the line. So I tell him that it's a modem for
dial in and out of our little Xenix box. Now he's really hostile! "You
are using a standard dial tone line, what you get is what you get ... If
you want a data line, pay for it. You people abuse the system, but
it's gonna change..."

Now, I told this guy that the quality of the line was unacceptable
even as a voice line and he better get to work on that, which he
grudgingly did.  As I write this, there is still some garbage on the
line, but it *is* a lot better.

My question to the net at large is this:

What is this data line he refered to, how much does it cost and is it
really necessary to get one for modem use? Is there any way Bell can
determine if a line is used exclusively for data?

The whole deal kinda smells bad to me.


Bill Fischer                        | INTERNET  : [e-mail]
US Agent for Omega Electronics      | COMPUSERVE: 76257,1226
"Olympic Timekeepers Since 1936"    | MCIMAIL   : 3110885
          < The opinions expressed here are my own >


[Moderator's Note: A data line is a telephone line upon which the
telco guarentees a certain transmission quality making it suitable for
data transmission. They are a little more expensive, and seldom are
they needed. (I just use regular voice-grade lines here and get by
fine.) But it sounds to me like the fellow they sent out could use a
few lessons in diplomacy. If you are paying for the service, then you
are 'abusing' nothing.  PAT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Radio Shack Call Forwarding Device
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 10:55:16 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Is the Radio Shack single line call forwarding device a new product?
Last time I checked, their product required two phone lines...


eli

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording, or Beating the SMDR
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 10:55:58 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


Bob Halloran wrote:

|I used to be in software development for a company in Rochester NY who
|made SMDR units for the Bell System, pre-breakup.  I found soon after
|I started that there was a known bug in the unit's software that would
|reject any records that were not 7, 10 or 11 digits (1+ dialing was
|not so entrenched in '81).  If the people reading the reports weren't
|checking the exception log, calls with extra digits slipped through.
|Punching the last digit of your number a few extra times was a common
|practice in-house :-).

I've heard of an even better one....

When Ma offered TWX to compete with WU's TELEX she did so with a
dataset (modem to us folks) run by a telephone that resembed a 565.
You called up the far end with a special reserved area code and number
{example: [phone]}, listened in the handset for the tone, hit
the DATA button, and hung up the handset. Since there was no one to
talk to, the handset had a blank cap and no T-1 transmitter.

But as the years went by, Ma started having a hard time with people
complaining about being billed for TWX calls that they had never made,
or that had ended up in Fiji, instead of Fargo.  Rumor was this was
due to a vastly reduced maintenance budget for the switches, as she
was not making the returns she wanted. So some 'brain' decided that
rather than adjust a zillion wrong numbers/month, it was easier to put
exception code in the billing software to bit bucket all TWX--->POTS
calls. (This was an easy thing to impliment, as the TWX lines had
those xx0 area codes.) This greatly reduced the numbers of calls to be
manually voided.

But, as you can all guess, some smart user noted this, and installed a
T-1 on his TWX. Presto-free LD! I understand that despite the fact
that word of this spread like wildfire, it was YEARS before Ma figured
out she was getting had. I suspect she then tried to back-bill some
people, but that's locking the barn door after the cow is gone.


[e-mail]  (305) 255-RTFM  pob 570-335  33257-0335

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #649
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11103;
          16 Sep 90 3:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17994;
          16 Sep 90 2:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11376;
          16 Sep 90 1:01 CDT
Date:     Sun, 16 Sep 90 0:03:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #648
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 16 Sep 90 00:02:41 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 648

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Local Calling Numbers [Matthew McGehrin]
    AT&T Long Distance Pricing Logic [Matthew McGehrin]
    Re: POETS Sets [Tad Cook]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Dell H. Ellison]
    Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! [Jim Budler]
    Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful! [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [John Higdon]
    Re: Washington State Running Low [John Higdon]
    Re: Signal Routes? [William Degnan]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Rich Sims]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [David Appell]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Local Calling Numbers
Date: 15 Sep 90 04:56:33 GMT


With NJ Bell, you have the option of getting unlimited local calling,
which is an option I have on my phone. For about $9 a month, I have
unlimited calling to about 83 exchanges. What I would recommend for
people who have this service is set up a simple database.

Exchange     Town
-----------------
 xxx          Any Town

Have the computer sort it by the exchange, print it out, fold the
paper in halves (so that you can read both sides), and when you have a
question, look down your 'exchange' list; if it is a local call then
talk forever. If not, limit your conversation. Another good feature
available is Selective Calling.  Which allows you to have 20 hours of
calling to a exchange that is maybe a little out of your 'free
exchanges'. I use this option for a BBS which I call a lot, and the
rate is $2 for 20 hours of calls, at any hour. In the long run this
will save you maybe $10 to $15 per month.


matt


Pro-Graphics BBS  908/469-0049
 ....UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics![e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]


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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: ATT Long Distance Pricing Logic
Date: 15 Sep 90 04:56:37 GMT


Here is a good question of ATT logic. I live in a city close to NYC.
C. Actually, it is about 20 miles away. To call NYC using Reach Out
America, it is covered under the plan, but if I wanted to call a
friend in South Jersey (609), which is about 40 to 80 miles away from
house, it is not covered. Any ATT reps out there can explain why?


matt

Pro-Graphics BBS  908/469-0049
 ....UUCP: crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin
ARPA/DDN: pro-graphics![e-mail]
Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The reason is, Reach Out America is an *interstate*
calling plan. If you want to place long distance calls within your
state, and you feel a calling plan would save money, then you need to
get Reach Out New Jersey. The AT&T Reach Out (Instate) Plans may or
may not be worthwhile, depending on usage. For example, it is very
rare that I call anywhere in Illinois except for the Chicago area.
Thus the Reach Out Illinois plan is useless for me.  In your case, it
is not the mileage being considered, but the state boundary line.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: POETS Sets
Date: 14 Sep 90 05:31:30 GMT


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

> I was just given a box of instruments which are labeled "POETS EK-18
> TELEPHONE."  They do not work on a standard line.  Can anyone identify
> the type of system tha these instruments were designed for?

This is an electronic key system called the Walker Poet.  These are
four wire hybrid phones with analog on one pair and digital signalling
on the other.  The phones work only with the Walker Poet Key Service
Unit.


Tad Cook   Seattle, WA  Packet: KT7H @ N7HFZ.WA.USA.NA  Phone: [phone]
MCI Mail: 3288544        Telex: 6503288544 MCI UW
USENET:...uw-beaver!sumax!amc-gw!ssc!tad   or,  [e-mail]

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

From: "Dell H. Ellison" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 14 Sep 90 21:48:21 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]>, mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat
(Subodh Bapat) writes:

-> I have had occasions where people who called me have asked me,
-> surprised, "How come you answered even before the phone rang at all?"
-> when I had distinctly heard the phone ring twice at my end.

-> Any switch gurus care to shed any light on this?

What you hear (called 'ringback' in the telephony industry) does not
directly correspond to the ringing of the phone on the other end of
the line.

The ringback tone is just put there to let you know that the phone is
actually ringing on the other end.  When you hear a 'ring', it
probably is not at the same time that it is ringing on the other end.
I don't know how people supposedly send messages by letting the phone
ring a certain number of times.

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone!
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 06:03:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Philip
Miller) writes:

>I just received a flyer (from Mobil) advertsing a phone with features
>that I have not seen before.  Besides being a regular answering
>machine with speed dialing, it has a voice pattern match dialing - you
>speak a name (one of 50 prerecorded) and it then displays the number

[ deleted other "features" ]

>[There is no manufacturer identified, the text calls the phone
>"Voiceprint", the illustration shows the name "Voicephone".]

The *very* first thought I had was "will it work for both my wife and
I?". I can see those 50 reduced to 25 by double recordings.  Actually
some mix, she calls different people than I do, but also some of the
same people I do.

My second thought, given I'm sitting in a room with a phone and a
playing stereo and a hard disk drive, was how does it handle ambiant
voices/noise.

*I* don't believe the technology is here yet. I wouldn't mind
you proving me wrong.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6061
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086
Root@silvlis

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sierra Club Considered Harmful!
Date: 15 Sep 90 02:09:13 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> twinsun![e-mail] (Mike
Coleman) writes:

>>[Moderator's Note: I can't help but wonder if the Sierra Club was
>>doing this or if they had farmed it out to some telemarketing
>>organization. If the latter, you really should not take it out on the
>>Sierra Club until you are sure they are aware of, and approve of the
>>techniques being used. The organization may have not known how
>>obnoxious their agents were on the phone.   PAT]

>From the standpoint of the call recipient, it's completely irrelevant
>that the call is coming from an agent of the SC rather than then SC.
>If I were to receive the kind of treatment the original author
>describes, I might well cut them off forever with a letter describing
>the reason, and that would be more than fair.

    A couple of years ago I received a call at 3:30 AM from a
young lady who asked me if my refrigerator was running. Incredulous, I
replied something to the effect that it was none of her ****ing
business, and did she realize that it was three-thirty in the morning.
I asked her why the hell she would call people in the middle of the
night to ask them stupid questions.

    She seemed somewhat surprised that I was angry at having been
awakened at 3:30 to answer the phone. She claimed to be representing
General Electric, but gave me a local phone number and the name of her
supervisor, which name I still remember and could be persuaded to post
here should someone feel a strong need for justice to be done.

    The supervisor was conveniently away from the office (probably
at home in bed with the phone unplugged), but I summoned enough
presence of mind to remember that GE has a 24-hour toll-free number
for comprehensive customer service for the entire GE consumer product
line.  I have no idea where I pulled up the number (possibly from
1-800-555-1212), but I called GE and reported to the polite gentleman
who answered the phone that someone was waking people in the middle if
the night in Bellevue, WA, in the name of General Electric; and I gave
the name and phone number of the supervisor.

    I was going to call him myself, but the urgency had somehow
gone out of it by the next morning.


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think you were the victim of a joke. Typically,
when a child or very young person calls and asks 'is the refrigerator
running?' they are leading up to to an answer that (if you say yes,
and you nearly always will) goes, 'well then you better hurry and
catch it before it gets away.' Funny? Not very, except to young
children. Many of them assume you will be dim-witted enough to
actually go in the kitchen to find out and report back to them on the
phone, leading up to their response, mentioned above. Why this one
chose to elaborate, making reference to GE is a mystery. Chances are the
'supervisor' she mentioned was some other hapless soul. Had you called
that number, waking them up at 3:35 AM -- asking if they were 'the
supervisor for the phone solicitor who just called' -- then you would
have unwittingly perpetuated the prank, to the delight of the person
who called you first.  PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Date: 15 Sep 90 00:53:33 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Elias <[e-mail]> writes:

> Aside:  Have you noticed that just about all of ATTs advertising is
> directed against US Sprint rather than MCI?  Why?  Isn't MCI bigger?

Yes, but as a matter of fact most of the advertising seems to be quite
generic. It refers to "them".

The only direct competitor attack that I have noticed seems to be
against MCI in the use of the counters at the bottom of the screen
showing the "big savings". This is a direct takeoff on the old MCI
commercials.

Which ads go after Sprint specifically?


        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: Washington State Running Low
Date: 15 Sep 90 00:47:14 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]> writes:

> So, how do they program PBXs and COCOTs in those places?  Do they
> maintain a list of valid non-toll exchanges?  Must be misery when a
> new one comes out (for everyone except TPC).

A PBX administrator must keep on top of any new prefixes in the NPA to
make sure they are programmed for the right route. In this area, one
must keep on top of new prefixes in 408 AND 415, since there are
prefixes being added in 415 that are local to this part of 408 (and
visa versa). I get a quartarly listing of prefixes from PacBell.

In the case of COCOTs, as usual, the situation is pot luck. The
general rule is that the phone's programming is out of date, and when
you try to call someone with a brand new phone number, the phone won't
allow it.


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

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

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 11:26:31 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Signal Routes?


On <Sep 12 17:31> Timothy C Wolfson ([e-mail] )
writes:

TC> 1.) I use my telephone to make an intrastate call. Is there a
TC>possibility that the signals, whether via wire or microwave,
TC>etc., will be routed over the state line?

Sure. Happens all the time.

TC> 2.) Same idea, but instead of a telephone, I send an email
TC>message to another computer on a network.

Even more likely. If the email message depends on batched
transmissions over the PSTN, it often makes sense to send them to an
out-of-state hub and back in to take advantage of lower interstate
rates.

I wonder if any inferences may be taken from the trucking industry?

TC>[Moderator's Note: Yes it can happen, especially in metro areas
TC>sitting on state boundary lines. But that is not considered
TC>interstate. Interstate requires that a call originate in one
TC>state and terminate in another. The fact that it may temporarily pass
TC>through a different state for the convenience of the carrier does not
TC>count.  PAT]

Neither our Moderator nor I would be able to advise you as an attorney
on the finer points. It would, I believe, depend on the individual
case at hand.

I have believe I have seen Other Common Carriers (OCCs) taking what
would otherwise be intrastate traffic via an out-of-state Point of
Presence (POP) for the apparent purpose of providing service in states
were they had no other way of doing business. (Perhaps Don Kemp has
some comments on Petricca LD and their service to VT via MA?)


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]

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

Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 01:57:22 EDT
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!


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

> Now I'm curious ... has anyone ever asked AT&T to "put it in writing?"

I don't know if anyone has, but AT&T hasn't bought time on national TV
networks to make the offer, either... Sprint has!

> I'd be inclined to believe that AT&T is the one that started blowing
> the smoke, and now Sprint is attempting to blow it back.

I don't think so.  Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that both
companies engage in a serious amount of mud-slinging, Sprint's TV
spots made the flat and unambiguous claim that they would save you
money over AT&T's rates.

AT&T countered by advising people wishing to make the switch to get
that promise in writing.  Seems reasonable to me!  If I claim to be
able to do something, I'd expect to be called upon to prove it, sooner
or later, and the first step in such proof would have to be getting me
to spell out exactly what it is that I'm promising or claiming to be
able to do ... in writing!

If that sort of thing seems unnecessary or unreasonable to you, I've
got a wonderful business proposition I'd love to discuss with you.  :-)

For what it's worth, I tried Sprint ... it was more expensive than
AT&T and the number of connection failures was *significantly* higher.
Admittedly, the cost difference was probably caused by my calling
patterns from down here in the southeast corner of the country out to
the west coast.

BTW - Sprint's new ads say "We WILL put it in writing."  So far, no
one has mentioned being able to get them to do that little thing!

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

Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 10:25:37 EDT
From: David Appell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages


[e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>This reminds me of what I generally do the first time I get a new
>number:  I call the number and record the "<beep> The number you have
>reached ... <number> has been disconnected..." on a special outgoing
>message tape, which I save for later use. Then, when the time comes
>when the telemarketers are rabid (or it is primary season, where
>candidates' staff members are calling you for your support) I leave
>the "special" OGM tape in.

   My housemate did this once, and the confusion it caused among
callers, and their queries to the phone company, ultimately caused NJ
Bell to call him and tell him, "Hey, just cut it out, OK."


David Appell
 ...att!cbnewsh!david
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #648
******************************






DUE TO TRANSMISSION ERROR, ISSUE 649 ARRIVED BEFORE 648 AND IS AHEAD
OF IT HERE IN THE ARCHIVES. 650 IS THE NEXT (AND FINAL) ISSUE IN THIS
FILE.












Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28215;
          17 Sep 90 0:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31699;
          16 Sep 90 23:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01523;
          16 Sep 90 22:09 CDT
Date:     Sun, 16 Sep 90 21:38:24 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #650
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 16 Sep 90 21:38:07 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 650

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Intra-NPA Long Distance [David Tamkin]
    Re: Strange Intercept Message [Robert Michael Gutierrez]
    Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More [Steve Elias]
    Intrastate Calling and Sprint [Steve Elias]
    Re: Autodialer Ruining My Life! [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Wally Kramer]
    Looking for "The Phone Book" [Bob Izenberg]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [David Lemson]
    Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Serviceperson [Bruce Klopfenstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Intra-NPA Long Distance
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 17:04:46 CDT


Joel Levin wrote in volume 10, issue 645:

| From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>:

| >I suspect that this must be temporary, because I was under the
| >impression that LDC's could not handle intra-LATA calls.

| LDCs must handle all customer calls between two LATAs.  The BOCs are
| not permitted to do this (exception: "corporate" calls between two BOC
| offices in different LATAs can be handled by the BOC itself).

| LDCs MAY handle intra-LATA calls at the discretion of the state's
| regulatory agency.  In some states this is allowed; in some it is not.

{Note: zeroes in this article were intentionally typed as capital O's
so that those of you reading in fonts with slashed zeroes can easily
distinguish "seven hundred" from "seven zero eight."}

Even at that, long-distance carriers don't have to carry intra-LATA
calls if they don't wish to.  I can dial one of my lines from the
other via US Sprint or Telecom*USA, for example, but not via MCI nor
AT&T.  Telecom*USA even offers a shortcut for dialing intra-LATA,
intra-NPA calls via their lines: 1-7OO-NXX-XXXX is assumed to be a
call within your area code.  (Secondary customers, I imagine, can dial
1O835-1-7OO-NXX-XXXX or 1O835-1-NPA-NXX-XXXX.)  Intra-LATA, inter-NPA
calls require 1O835-1-NPA-NXX-XXXX, of course, or the local telco will
carry them.  For some parts of the old 312, Telecom*USA's night rates
are lower for me than my telco's rates, so the 1-7OO- was useful; now
those areas are in 7O8, so I have to use 1O835-1-7O8- to call them via
Telecom*USA.


David Tamkin  Box 7OO2  Des Plaines IL  6OO18-7OO2  7O8 518 6769  312 693 O591
MCI Mail: 426-1818  GEnie: D.W.TAMKIN  CIS: 7372O,157O   [e-mail]

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

From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Intercept Message
Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 07:04:10 GMT


[e-mail] (Daniel Birchall) writes:

|> A friend of mine was trying to call me about an hour ago, and instead
|> of dialing my number, she dialed my number but with her area code...
|> She got the Tri-tone, and then this message, which neither of us has
|> ever heard before:

|> "You are not authorized to dial that number.  Please hang up and dial a
|>  different number. Two A Y"

|> Is this the legendary number-no-one-should-ever-call?  Will the phone co
|> hunt her down?  Or is it just some PBX frob glitch? (She was originating
|> from within a college PBX.)

I love it!

I wanted to say that you reached a number in the Federal Government
telephone system that *nobody* should ever call, and that they would
hunt you down like rabid St. Bernards (remember "Cujo", the Stephen
King novel ???), but I degress, my professionalism won't let me...

"Two A Y" is an MCI switch number (written 2AY).  The recording was
for their old banded WATS customers who were attempting to dial out of
their assigned WATS band.  It is used by MCI now for their V-NET
customers who have specific area codes or numbers excluded from their
service (which can be requested by the customer).

|> This has us both bewildered.

Sorry, I couldn't stop laughing!

|> [Moderator's Note: The writer actually included his phone number and
|> the same number with a different area code in his message. On testing
|> the one which caused the strange intercept message, I connected with a
|> real, live person who seemed annoyed at the intrusion. So, I've
|> deleted the numbers. The question can be answered theoretically
|> anyway, without actually testing it.   PAT]

Pat, after my answer, it was obvious that it was dialled via MCI.  You
might try 10222+, but after asking if she wouldn't mind :-)


   Robert Michael Gutierrez
   Office of Space Science and Applications,
   NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center.
   Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 08:15:55 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Hi Rich et yall.

Could you please detail for me [us] your 'calling patterns' So I can
determine why you paid higher rates than ATT rates when you tried out
Sprint???  Which rate schedules did you compare?  (e.g. Sprint Plus
vs. Reach Out or normal rates?)

What exchanges were you calling from and to?

What was the disconnect rate?  When and how many calls?

(You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?)

Thanks.

BTW, if any of you other telecom cats encounter this type o problem
(or others) with Sprint, and it turns out to be a True Fact that
Sprint is at stonewalling or at fault, I'll try to harangue the answer
out of them!

(This doesn't include complaints in certain Bay Area exchanges; does
anyone have a list of the ownership and switch-type of different bay
area exchanges; or Boston area exchanges for that matter?  (Hello,
jsol?)

As for Mr. Higdon being "vindicated" ...  by GTE switch local telcos?
My guess is that John would rather vindicate the Bay Area *from* GTE
switches.


eli

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Intrastate Calling and Sprint
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 08:32:16 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


John Higdon wrote:

> Unfortunately, within California, while the quality of Sprint calls is
> nearly as good as AT&T, the rates are not really competitive. There
> seems to be a ~10% discrepancy in AT&T's favor that gets progressively
> greater as the length of the call progresses. ($0.11/min AT&T vs $0.14
> min Sprint)

Interstate rates are normally regulated by the PUC or DPU, aren't
they?  So much for "Equal Access" in California.

> But, as we have discussed before, all the outfits seemed focused on out
> of state traffic. There is NO accomodation for intrastate callers. This
> is more of a problem in the west, since for a given radius one crosses
> fewer state boundaries. For instance, I spend at least an hour a day on
> the phone talking to people >400 miles away--all within California. And
> the per minute rate is higher than the longest distance
> interstate call.

Are these people always at the same phone number, or one that doesn't
change that often?  Have you tried getting *them* to install a ATT or
US Sprint 800 number?  You could pay the bill for em if they're your
customers and it might save you $ overall on your own total bill.  800
rates have a different tariff schedule from the state, don't they?

> > A sincere long distance fiend,

> Same here. Thank heaven for 800...

You've tried 800 to that site, already?!  Are those in state rates a
legislated ripoff, too?


eli

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Autodialer Ruining My Life!
Date: 16 Sep 90 12:25:58 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Greetings, net.denizens ... I've been having a problem with getting
> hangups. I get them about ten times a week, both when I answer in
> person and when I let my phone machine catch the message. There's
> never any background noise to it, so I suspect this is an autodialer
> I'm dealing with.

> So I called up NJ Bell to complain, and they wanted to sell me
> Caller*ID, Call*Tracing, and a bunch of other silly things that I
> Don't*Need and Don't*Want. I understood those services to be
> "convenience" services, rather than replacements for the Operating
> Company's annoyance call bureau; and I certainly don't understand why
> *I* should have to shell out money to debug someone else's UUCP file!

The next time you get one of these calls, after you and it has hung
up, but before you place or receie another call, pick up your phone
and dial *57.  Listen carefully to the recording you should receive in
response to this.

Then call NJ Bell or the Police, and report the harrassing call, and
tell them that you invoked Call*Trace.

You will be charged $1.00 for doing this.  There's no other initial or
recurring charge.  Virtually all NJ Bell subscribers have this
service.  There's no initial sign-up or arrangement required.

Call*Trace records the last number which called you, and saves it
until you have had an opportunity to report the call to the
authorities.  The saved information is then made available to them,
but not to you.

The only limitation is that Call*Trace, for the present, only works if
the last incoming call was intra-LATA.  If the call came from outside
your LATA (NJ has three of them) then you'll probably want to pursue the
Annoyance Call Bureau.


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: steptech![e-mail]
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 90 22:21:50 PDT
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Wally Kramer)
Organization: Step Technology, Inc., Portland, Oregon


In Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 643, Message 1 of 8)  carroll@
beaver.cs.washington.edu (Jeff Carroll) writes:

> ....  Just running four wires can cause all kinds of undesirable
> electromagnetic coupling between wires that aren't supposed to couple.
 ...

I remember asking a telephone lineman when I was 10 years old or so,
why open wire (in rural areas) sometimes criss-crossed.  He said it
was to prevent crosstalk and went on to explain how crosstalk occurs.

At that time, it was a new concept for me, and I began to notice
crosstalk EVERYWHERE!  (Anyone remember how bad crosstalk was for, say
a 200-mile toll call in 1966?)


   Wally Kramer  Step Technology, Inc.  [phone]
 ...tektronix.tek.com!percy!steptech!wally

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

From: Bob Izenberg <halley![e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For "The Phone Book"
Date: 16 Sep 90 17:02:19 GMT
Reply-To: Bob Izenberg <halley![e-mail]>
Organization: Tandem Computers, Austin, TX


I read a book some number of years ago called "The Phone Book."  It
was written by an ex-Bell employee, with the assistance of some
co-workers who were also canned for researching the book (or so the
book claimed.)  Can anyone point me to it's author or publisher?  If
you've read it, what did you think of it?  Was it the work of
disgruntled employees, or dead on?  Both, probably.


            Bob Izenberg [ ] Tandem Computers, Inc.
           cs.utexas.edu!halley!bei [ ] 512 244 8837

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

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 17:19:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, monty@sunne (Monty Solomon - Temp
Consultant) writes:

| The FCC is reconsidering permitting the use of cellular phones in
| planes on the ground.  The FAA doesn't mind ground use of cellular
| phones in planes.

Well, not quite.  The PIC (pilot in command) on a part 91 flight (your
typical small plane operation) is responsible for approving the use of
nearly any onboard electronics *after* determining that such use will
not interfere with any of the avionics in use at the time.  I s'pose
that you probably aren't using your navigational radios on the ground
(one would hope!), but if it interferes with communications with
ground control or clearance delivery, the FAA would have a fit.

This doesn't exactly equal "doesn't mind" ... it's just that cell
phones probably don't really interfere.  (But my handheld cell phone
*does* mess up my cordless phone if it's too close, and given the aged
state of most private aircraft comm gear, I can imagine similar
interference.)

Speaking as an instrument-rated pilot *and* handheld cell phone user,


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

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

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 13:55:27 CDT
From: David Lemson <FREE0612@uiucvmd>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway


In a message of Fri, 14 Sep 90 15:58:59 EDT, Monty Solomon
<[e-mail]> writes:

>The FCC claims that the cellular phones can't be used in the air
>because they interfere with calls be earthbound cellular phone users.

>How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the
>ground?

     The entire premise of cellular service assumes that your cellular
unit transmits with a relatively low power, and has a fairly small
range.  This allows other cells in your general area to use the same
frequency as you are using, but on the other side of town.  If you are
in a plane, you are likely to receive several calls land-based calls
on your frequency at one time. (Ever notice how you can get FM
stations from 100 miles away when you're in a plane?)

     Another problem may be that if you are moving at 350 knots, you
will be switching cells every few seconds, putting a lot of load on
the computers that switch calls between cells.  When the entire
network goes to micro-cells, this will be an even bigger problem.

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Serviceperson
Date: 16 Sep 90 18:54:37 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Bill
Fischer):

> When this joker arrived, he was incredibly hostile! He said he had
> been monitoring the line and every time he called, "some fax machine
> or something" answered the line. So I tell him that it's a modem for
> dial in and out of our little Xenix box. Now he's really hostile! "You
> are using a standard dial tone line, what you get is what you get ... If
> you want a data line, pay for it. You people abuse the system, but
> it's gonna change..."

> [But it sounds to me like the fellow they sent out could use a
> few lessons in diplomacy. If you are paying for the service, then you
> are 'abusing' nothing.  PAT]

Well, if they keep this up, they'll lose what is their potentially
greatest advantage over the cable television industry: customer
service.  Cable operators generally have a horrible reputation for
customer service, and their record on this score may be a factor in
Congressional decision making as to whether or not to allow telco
entry into home video delivery systems.

If I were involved in the telco industry, I'd get the work out that
such service behavior should be avoided at all costs.  It is part of
the cable industry's Achilles' heel.


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]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #650
******************************