Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss651-700

Text File | 1990-09-30 | 849.8 KB | 21,206 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29025;
          17 Sep 90 1:45 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03449;
          17 Sep 90 0:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac31699;
          16 Sep 90 23:14 CDT
Date:     Sun, 16 Sep 90 23:01:57 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #651
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 16 Sep 90 23:01:29 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 651

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI As Slamming King [Dave Archer]
    Re: Sprint Puts It In Writing: On Your Bill! [Henry Mensch]
    Re: 50th Anniversary of Data Communications! [Peter G. Capek]
    Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Jim Breen]
    Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP! [Lance Ware]
    Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: What Kind of CO is This? [Dave Levenson]
    Can AT&T "Attack" a Specific Carrier? [J. Eric Townsend]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Archer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI As Slamming King
Date: 16 Sep 90 19:40:23 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sander J.
Rabinowitz) writes...

>>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've wondered if any of this has anything to do with telemarketers
hired by the LD companies imposing quotas on their employees.  Such
as, "if you don't get 10 people an hour to switch over, you're out of
a job".  This might explain alot.  And as far as MCI, it could just be
they don't keep as close a watch on their telemarketers as the other
companys do.

BTW, I've not had any problems with MCI bothering me.  In fact, the
only time I remember MCI calling me, I could barely understand the
person with all the static and buzzing and such.  Sounded more like
the call was coming from the moon during solar flare season.  Not
exactly very impressive.  This was several years ago however, I would
assume things are better, or at least hope that they don't call from
the moon anymore.  :)

(I have however, had two people from AAA drive over and insist that I
had ordered a membership while I very much recalled having told the
telemarketer a month earlier that I wasn't interested, although I
still have no idea how they knew my liscense plate number.)

Note: I do not represent my employer or school, & sometimes not even
myself.


  Dave Archer  |  Internet: [e-mail]
               |    Bitnet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 15:54:48 -0400
From: Henry Mensch <[e-mail]>
Organization: MIT Project Athena Network Services Evangelist
Subject: Sprint Puts It In Writing: On Your Bill!


They did, indeed ... for the WD40 promotion, it took four phone calls
to get them to apply the free hour credit that I 'won' in the promo,
and then four more phone calls to get two "non-recurring" $10 charges
stricken from my account ... not to mention that things stricken from
my account showed up on the next statement because (according to the
Sprint CSR) it may take up to 45 days to appear on the statement.

Right.

That's all the writing I needed to see ... I had hoped things would
have gotten better since I last used Sprint regularly, but I see they
haven't.


# 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

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

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 16:01:35 EDT
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 50th Anniversary of Data Communications!


In recent postings, Will Martin and Dave Levenson have commented on the
first use of telephone lines to transmit data.  If what is really
meant here is tranmission of digital data over voice phone lines, I
believe the "first" may be around 1953 or '54; I've been unable to
determine the exact date.  The SAGE project, a joint effort of IBM,
Lincoln Labs (an adjunct of MIT which was established for the purpose)
and the Air Force claims a number of "firsts", among them this one.  I
quote from "History of the Design of the SAGE Computer - the AN/FSQ - 7"
by Mort Astrahan, IBM Research Report RJ 3117, 1981:

   "Highlights of ...these innovations:

    Data communication over standard phone lines: The transmission of
    digital data over voice-grade lines at 1300 bits per second was
    pioneered by the Lincoln [Labs] people.  Jack Harrington's group
    of Division 2 designed the first modems to convert digital data to
    and from analogue waveforms that could be accommodated by
    voice-band channels.  The channels required special conditioning
    to minimize noise pickup and eliminate unequal phase shifts across
    the frequency spectrum.  The phase shifts were not noticeable in
    voice transmission but distorted the data waveforms."

By the way, Astrahan claims other "firsts" for SAGE: Light Pens (which
he calls Light Guns; this was a military system, after all :-) ),
time-sharing (which might better be thought of as multiprogramming),
I/O in parallel with computing, associative memory implemented using
drums, hot-standby duplexing, core memory in a production machine,
computer control of voltage margins, and components automatically
mounted on and soldered into circuit boards.


Peter Capek

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

Subject: Splitting Call Transmission Directions
Date: 16 Sep 90 10:54:09 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dolf
Grunbauer) writes:

> 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?

    Unless echo suppressors have become *much* more sophisticated
than those with which I was once familiar, I would be surprised if
such vastly different propagation paths could be used on the E-W and
W-E directions of a given intertoll circuit.

    Control of echo on intertoll circuits can be implemented by
simple attenuation in the trivial case, and voice-switched attenuation
through echo suppressors in the more common case.  The proper design
of intertoll circuits, including configuration of echo suppressors, is
governed by the Via Net Loss (VNL) concept.  VNL design requires
knowledge of propagation delay in milliseconds.  At the time I was
involved in the telephone industry, the VNL design with which I was
familiar imposed a maximum of 22.5 milliseconds propagation delay to a
DDD switching midpoint, with an maximum overall delay of 45
milliseconds on any given DDD circuit.  It was always a "given" that
VNL design required the same propagation delay in each direction.

    While I admit that I have no firsthand experience with
intertoll circuits involving satellites or transoceanic cable, I would
find it difficult to believe that any satisfactory transmission (and
echo) performance could be achieved with the E-W and W-E directions
that have widely *differing* propagation times.

    Obviously, satellite transmission by its very nature imposes
propagation delays which far exceed 45 milliseconds.  However, echo
suppressors and intertoll circuit design can be set up to deal with
such increased propagation delays - *provided* that the delay is equal
in each direction.

    Also, I can think of no valid reason to split E-W and W-E
routing between different transmission facilities.  *ALL* transmission
facilities used for intertoll circuits are, by their very nature,
bi-directional.  While I have seen all sorts of route diversity and
failure protection switching, I have never seen anything that split
transmission directions through different facilities.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Organization: Monash_University
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 90 00:09:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Gottlieb) writes in support of comments by John Higdon disagreeing
with my vote:

> >> > 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. ......

[etc.etc.etc.]

At this point I crawl back under my stone. I could try and argue point
by point, but anecdotal "evidence" isn't worth much anyway.  I suppose
I will just have to accept that I lead a charmed existence when in
Japan, whilst in the US I just happen to get more than my share of
lousy lines, rude operators, failed connections, international lines
with broken eco-suppression, etc. etc.

> >Jim Breen ($B%8%`(J)

> Ahh, but he has Japanese in his .signature.  That increases his
> qualifications a bit.

$B$"$"!"F|K\8l$,>e<j$@$h!#(J


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: "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ulta.rit.edu![e-mail]>
Subject: Annoying Cross Talk  Problem, HELP!
Date: 16 Sep 90 16:26:47 GMT
Organization: Information Systems and Computing @ RIT, Rochester, New York


I've got an annoying situation on my hands. All four of my incoming
phone lines suffer from intermittent cross talk. It seems to be worse
when it is wet outside, but that is definitely not always the case.

I have had the phone company out numerous times, and they say it is
inside the house (of course.) I have had the alarm/electricians out,
they say it is the phone company (of course.) And I myself have
checked out the connections at the entrance to my house (looks fine,
infinite resistance between all eight wires, with the incoming lines
and phones disconnected.) I have also looked in the phone company's
green box, which is about ten feet from where the lines come into my
house.

The only possibilites which I can think of are:

        The cables between the house and box are bad.
                (Unlikely though because they are < one year old.)

        One of my two line phones is causing the problem.
                (This is a possibility because when things really get
                 bad, and voice line #1 rings so does #2 even though
                 there is no call on that line. But my other lines,
                 FAX and modem still have x-talk and they are in no
                 way connected to the two voice lines.)

        The Telco's equipment is screwed up somewhere.
                (Good possibility.)

In my basement I have two punchdown blocks, where all telephone cables
come to; it is pretty tangled.  I have a network running over twisted
pair to a few rooms in the house, and one incoming line to an alarm
box far away and then comes back allowing the alarm to sieze the line.
All of the rooms in the have both voice lines, which I assume are all
wired in parallel because only to pairs are connected to each
incomming voice line, and one pair on each goes to a jack I installed.

This situation is getting annoying, and has cost me quite a bit for no
solution.  Does anyone have any suggestions on how to fix it?

How would I check my phones to see if they are the problem (besides
buying new ones)?

Is there a way I can check the internal wiring for shorts?

Any help, comments or suggestions are welcome.


Thanks in Advance,

*W .L. Ware                         LANCEWARE SYSTEMS*
*WLW2286%ritvax.cunyvm.cuny.edu     Value Added reseller*
*WLW2286%ultb.isc.rit.edu           Mac and IBM Access. *

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony
Date: 16 Sep 90 22:39:50 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


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

[description of telco employees listening in to
calls]

>But of course, NOBODY ever listens in on YOUR calls...why, the Company
>would NEVER permit that!

>[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a
>major violation of trust;

I always laugh when I hear telephone company spokespeople make the
(expected) claim that their employees would never ever listen in to
calls.  Everyone I know who has ever worked in a central office has
great stories about the calls they listened in to.

The employees in the central offices serving Beverly Hills, for
example, often liked to put famous people's lines up on the C.O.
loudspeakers.  I hear Lucille Ball's were pretty fun to listen to.

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

From: Dave Levenson <westmark![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Kind of CO is This?
Date: 16 Sep 90 23:08:34 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In an article posted last week, I described a CO line failure in which
inbound calls did not ring the called line, even though the calling
party was given audible ring tone, and even though the called party
could answer the call and converse with the caller, if he/she knew
there was in incoming call.

Three times this was reported to NY Tel, and two times the promised
repair-by date passed with no apparent change in the situation.  On
the third call, the repair-service agent took all of the details
again, asked when somebody would be at the customer location (it's
attended around the clock, seven days per week) and promised that
somebody would be there the next day.  I advised the agent that I was
reporting a CO trouble, and that it would probably not be necessary to
dispatch anybody to the customer site.

Next day, I got a call from a NY Tel craftsperson at the customer
site.  He wanted me to tell him what was wrong ... said he got dial
tone on the line.  I told him to try calling the line from another
line, and listen for ringing.  He did, and then told me, in a rather
astonished manner, that there was no ringing -- that the number
assignment must be wrong.  I suggested that he try answering the line
that wasn't ringing.  He did, and discovered as much as I then knew
about the situation.  He then told me that I was wasting my time with
him; that it was a CO trouble.  I told him that I'd already given that
much information to the repair-service agent.

An hour later, the trouble was cleared.

Thanks to all who replied.  I gather that the CO is an AT&T 5ESS, and
that Larry Lippman was probably right - that the line circuit pack was
probably defective.


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


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

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 19:30:37 CDT
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can AT&T "Attack" a Specific Carrier?


In a propaganda class the other day, we were watching an episode of
Nightline.  It was full of Sprint's "Lighten up, AT&T" series of
adverts.

My question is this: Could AT&T, if it wanted, decide to attack
carrier X?  ie: "Carrier X says they give you better prices, but it's
not true.  AT&T is much cheaper."  Or are they somehow legally
required to say: "Some other carriers say they give you better prices,
but it's not true."?


J. Eric Townsend -- University of Houston Dept. of Mathematics [phone]
Internet: [e-mail]    Bitnet: jet@UHOU   Skate UNIX(r)


[Moderator's Note: Although most successful advertising consists of
positive statements about one's own products rather than negative
comments directed to one's competition, there is no law they cannot
advertise their competitor's shortcomings if they wish to do so,
naming those shortcomings specifically; libelous and slanderous
statements excluded, of course. Please note also the courts have ruled
there is a big difference between 'free speech' when citizens speak
it, and 'commercial speech'.  Some fine points of law might apply.
Inquire in misc.legal.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #651
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00314;
          17 Sep 90 2:47 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08907;
          17 Sep 90 1:20 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03449;
          17 Sep 90 0:17 CDT
Date:     Mon, 17 Sep 90 0:10:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #652
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 17 Sep 90 00:10:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 652

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Leland F. Derbenwick]
    ANI and CO Call Data Recording [Larry Lippman]
    Caller ID Technical Intros Sought [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 17:33 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL 34695
Subject: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines (was: Hostile Service Person!)


Fischer writes <in Digest v10, Iss 649>:

> ... he was incredibly hostile! He said every time he called,
>"some fax machine or something" answered the line. 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..."

Sounds like you met one of the remaining "telco gents of the Olde
School," Bill. One of those types who really cares FAR less for making
the customer happy than pushing his weight around. (Of course, he's
probably a pretty responsible guy with a family who has been made that
way by HIS bosses, but that's beside the point.  I just wanted to make
the point that he is a type, and not all that unusual.)  His
_modus_operandi_ runs along a classic line.

The problem is that line contains a lie that he uses to avoid doing
his job, and if he can get you to swallow it, not only will he get rid
of the problem of having to do some work, he'll even get you to pay
extra to get the work done.  (WHEN are Americans EVER going to learn
about these petty flim-flams they get subjected to daily?)

Fortunately, you clung to some reason he could not deny, so you were
able to make him do his job.  Lo and behold: A plain old POTS line
good enough to talk on is good enough for your modem. Amazing fact!
(You rotten abuser of the "telephone network, you!)

>What is this data line he referred 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 flim-flam here is one that local Telcos have even gotten the
imprimateur of regulatory approval for; more's the pity.  I don't know
which one started it, but in their classic style of ripping the people
state by state, keeping the general public in the dark that it's going
nationwide, they file tariffs to "add" some "special conditioning" or
"special treatment" to your old POTS line for a price that ranges from
about $2.50 to $8.00 a month, depending on which Telco is your local
rip-off agent. Oh, you'd pay the usual $50 or so worth of service
order and "installation" charges, too.

The real rip-off behind it is that what you get is a guarantee that
the noise level, frequency response and envelope delay of the piece of
cable from your premises to the Telco exchange meets the very same
limits it is supposed to meet before they EVER use that cable for POTS
service!  That's right: Pay them extra to get them to meet their own
limits for every dial-up phone line they ever put in!  How's that,
Telecomm sports fans?  (For those into jargon, the numeric limits are
the SAME as those for "acceptance testing" new subscriber cable; the
tests they were supposed to do when they put the cable into service.)

You proved to yourself you don't need that extra cost to make a
modem work, and the tariff they sell it under has NOTHING to do with
the volume of traffic or the nature of your messages.  It merely
guarantees they will do the job they are supposed to do.  Why does
your modem work OK? Simply because those self-same numeric limits
they are supposed to meet for a POTS line are what the Telco
industry tells modem makers their lines ALWAYS meet ... whether you
paid extra or not.

So, no you don't need it, unless you cave into letting them snow you
into buying something they should have done in the base price;
something they tell the modem makers (and indeed the PUC) they do for
EVERY line.

There are a number of ways they MIGHT find you use it exclusively for
data, but all involve making the effort to "snoop" about what you are
doing ... guessing from the length of your calls or investigating to
find the number you dial is a computer; actual eavesdropping at length
to hear nothing but tones every call you make, or calling the number
themselves as did the cretin Illinois Bell sent to you.

But, the BIG point is, they can't REQUIRE you to buy it. You can, as
you did, stand on some rights to get them to do what they are always
supposed to do and assume for yourself the responsibility that your
modem will then work ... which it was in fact designed at their advice
to do.

>The whole deal kinda smells bad to me.

You're absolutely right.  It stinks to high heaven, and I hope you
have the time and gumption to sit down and write a complaint letter in
detail to the Illinois PUC, detailing not only the actions of the
employee, but also the fact that you have an FCC-registered device
that has been certified to operate properly on an ORDINARY line (RTFM
and quote its applicable passages, which it is certain to have), and
tell the PUC that they should be investigating WHY Illinois Bell
charges extra for something they should be maintaining for ALL lines.

Big Brother is really too slothful to mark your record card, but you
can bet such a letter will get you about a hundred phone calls from
all sorts of insects in the woodwork who will want to be your friend
from now on, giving you their secret phone number and telling you to
please call them directly for ANY future trouble you have.  Your
investment at this point to let them know you are a tough cookie will
lead to a long period of excellent telephone service.

You'll be a "special person" to all of them!

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

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 21:12:52 EDT
From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

(In reply to and quoting some email I sent him.  Since he's made it
public, I feel I should reply in public.  These are my own personal
comments, as I am in no position to speak for AT&T on this -- I'm
not even involved with the long-distance side of the business.)

> [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?

I most sincerely hope not.  It costs big bucks to store and pay the
interest on investments in non-productive inventory.  And end-user
equipment from the days when the IBM XT was a _really good_ PC is
hardly going to be worth much these days, anyhow.

> 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!)

Our capital reserve is essentially all invested in our network, our
factories, and our offices, and I don't know of any huge cash reserve.
(If we had one, I doubt if we'd have cut our workforce from about
400,000 employees at divestiture to somewhere around 270,000 today.)

And I may just not have kept up with the news, but I haven't heard
about any great giveaways.  Sorry.

How about a fact or two, rather than unsubstantiated accusations about
huge hoards left over from more than six years ago?

Speaking strictly for myself,

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

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

Subject: ANI and CO Call Data Recording
Date: 16 Sep 90 10:42:53 EDT (Sun)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (funky
chicken) writes:

> In the process of recording information for billing, are there any
> times when the originating or destination number is not recorded?

    It depends upon the type of central office, the type of
message accounting apparatus (if not an ESS CO), and the policy of the
operating telephone company for a particular CO or CO region.  Nothing
like a *specific* answer, huh? :-) Unfortunately, as far as I know,
this situation really varies all over the map.

> 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.

    Hey, you've been around! :-) Tone identification was only used
in ANI-B; the later and far more common ANI-C and ANI-D all used 340
volt 200 microsecond pulses instead of the tone.

> 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?

    From what I have seen of ANI-C and ANI-D, there were two
schools of thought that were *both* implemented: (1) send the actual
line number and let revenue accounting sort it out; and (2) wire the
ANI number network cards to send only a pilot billing number.  When
anyone ever asked my opinion, I always recommended (1) since it always
provided more data in the event that troubleshooting was required.

> 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.

    Many operating telephone companies, including the RBOC's,
record *all* of the call data in an ESS CO and keep it around for as
long as six months on mag tape - although they might not publicly
admit such a practice. This situation represents the ultimate in
traffic usage recording and analysis.  It's also pretty cheap
insurance for billing dispute and toll fraud matters.

    This is really not that much data, and it's easy to sort out
on a "straight line" basis for actual revenue accounting purposes.
Consider that as a typical example, a 10,000 line CO making 20 calls
per day per line (quite a bit of traffic, btw) will only generate
between 10 and 15 megabytes of raw accounting data per day.  That's
for full, raw call data collection of even incompleted calls.  One
6250 bpi mag tape reel can readily store 10 days or more data.

> Hmmm.  I suppose that it is, unfortunately, improper to refer to SxS
> in the past tense.

    There's still a lot of SxS around in the boonies - even in
RBOC territory!


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry

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

From: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Technical Intros Sought
Date: 17 Sep 90 04:11:30 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I am interested in learning about the basic technology of Caller ID.
I am not an engineer, and need to start with a fairly simple overview.
I also would like to continue to more technical readings once I get my
feet wet.

I would like to get perhaps trade press cites of articles on the
technology of Caller ID.  Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

Bruce C. Klopfenstein          |  [e-mail]
Radio-TV-Film Department       |  [e-mail]
318 West Hall                  |  [e-mail]
Bowling Green State University |  [phone]; 372-8690
Bowling Green, OH  43403       |  fax [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 17:33 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony


Summarizing the story thus far:

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]"

This writer responded in an article in Digest V10, Issue 646,
describing three incidents of internal phreaking that occurred in the
monolithic era.  They included connecting two inward operators in
Puerto Rico and Hawaii to each other; listening in and engaging some
lewd conversation on an intercity FX, and interposing as God on DDD
trunks.

Our Moderator was rightfully irate about such abuses, saying:

>[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a
>major violation of trust ...

No doubt about it, Dear Moderator.  The point in exposing this to
you was to show just how widespread such abuses were in the "good
old days."   As to the employees getting caught, my recent comments
about a benign, complacent environment of employees and managers
didn't seem to be understood.

In the cases cited here, supervisors and managers would as often be
part of it as not.  The ONLY case of an employee who ever got caught
was one who was feeding horse race results from the telegraph channels
to the bookies.  He only got caught because the FBI caught the bookies
and traced it back to him.  Despite his being clearly identified and
his part of it making national press, he merely got transferred off
the telegraph board over to the toolroom 50 feet away, and enjoyed the
rest of his admittedly promotionless career to retirement on the phone
in the toolroom.

I never saw him walk back to the telegraph board to read the race
results.  By the time I came on that scene, he was running a sales
operation for bridal hope chests and kitchenware from that phone..of
course, on the public's "expense" for operating the monolithic "phone
company." ... just another form of violation of the public trust.

You've queried in one place why we would EVER have broken up AT&T and
caused ourselves all the problems we now have.  The purpose was to
give you some evidence of just how far from the public trust the
monopoly establishment had wandered ... and in a myriad of ways the
anti-trust court case never even got to. None of these stories was
unique.  The people in that office weren't the first.  Such "tricks"
were going on all over the country.  If you want a whole book full of
them, I can supply them.

Just square the issue for our less sophisticated readers' paranoia,
rest assured that today, a combination of (digital) technology and
reduced profit margins makes it far, FAR less likely that such things
continue.  It's just not so easy to get into a digital timeslot, and
there aren't enough idle employees hanging around any more to engage
such games.

Why, indeed, should we ever have broken up the Bell monolith?  How is
it we have so many unforeseen problems to solve?  Why, indeed, do we
find so many scammy practices and people involved?

The answer is simple; Rot had penetrated far deeper than anyone on the
"outside" might imagine.

And last point: Why on earth would they be so quick to recognize
misuse of the network?  What's the old conundrum ... it takes one to
know one?  Pin them down to how much personal practice they have had
at doing it.  I doubt there's a former local exchange switchman in
this nation (and most countries) who hasn't engaged in some
international calling "phreaking!"  Diogenes' lantern would have
failed inside the monolithic Telco, too.  Why do you think I left
them? Why do you think I bring these tales up now decades later?
Simple ... I still feel a sense of outrage at informing you of them.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #652
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25499;
          18 Sep 90 3:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19046;
          18 Sep 90 1:28 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13039;
          18 Sep 90 0:25 CDT
Date:     Tue, 18 Sep 90 0:13:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #653
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 18 Sep 90 00:13:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 653

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Larry Lippman]
    Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Tony Davis]
    Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [David Schanen]
    Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [John Debert]
    Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Telecom In Alaska [Brian Crawford]
    Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK [Martin Harriss]
    Re: Annoying Cross Talk  Problem, HELP! [John Higdon]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Jeffrey C. Halle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"
Date: 17 Sep 90 23:31:41 EDT (Mon)
From: Larry Lippman <kitty![e-mail]>


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

> Well, it brings to mind three incidents that I guess can now be
> told:

  [recollections of sheenanigans by Long Lines personnel deleted]

> [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]

    Humor is a very subjective concept.  Almost every industry,
profession and vocation has inside humor and humorous escapades which
would be abhorrent to the general public if disclosed.

    I cannot justify or particularly defend the actions of such
Long Lines craftspersons as related in the previous article.  However,
I can state from experience in the industry that such antics have
indeed occurred in the past, are occurring at the present, and will
continue to occur in the future.  Such antics will always occur
because of *human* nature.

    I have to admit that *I* found humor in the previous article.
I must also admit that as a one time member of a secret fraternity
known as The Telephone Company :-), I, too, have participated in
similar antics.  While I am not inclined to disclose details of my own
sheenanigans in this forum, I suppose that I owe Telecom readers
*some* kind of story from my past, so here goes:

    Once upon a time there was a young engineer supervising the
installation of an expansion to an existing SxS CO which served a
small city in the middle-of-nowhere.  Said engineer and a solitary
Western Electric installer were bored to tears after being in said
small city for the better half of a month.  Since it was common
knowledge [there were two people in the city who didn't wear cowboy
boots at all times :-)] that the CO was being upgraded to include such
newfangled features as direct distance dialing without having to give
the operator your calling number :-), we figured that we could have
some fun by causing some temporary, but "creative" wiring "errors".
Aided by couple of 106-type loudspeakers, we decided to monitor the
results of some connector terminal assignment errors.  Like crossing
the numbers of a small meat packing-freezer plant with the major
undertaking establishment in the city.


Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
     {boulder||decvax||rutgers||watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!kitty!larry
VOICE: 716/688-1231 || FAX: [phone]  {utzoo||uunet}!/      \aerion!larry


[Moderator's Note: Isn't that marvelous! So there has been a death in
someone's family; it is a time of grief; they call to make funeral
arrangements and wind up getting the meat processing plant. You must
have really split your pants open with laughter at that one.    PAT]

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

From: Tony Davis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony
Date: 17 Sep 90 08:32:30 GMT
Reply-To: Tony Davis <[e-mail]>
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science


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

 [Deleted discussion of abuse during Ma Bell's monopoly.]

>Such "tricks" were going on all over the country.  If you want a
>whole book full of them, I can supply them.

Please post some of them.

I'd like to hear both your story and our Moderator's.  What are the
arguments for and against the breakup of AT&T?


Tony Davis
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The fact that some employees of AT&T in the past
acted like jerks is not a sufficient reason to have broken them up,
that's for sure.  PAT]

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

From: David Schanen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony
Date: 17 Sep 90 08:43:03 GMT
Organization: Independent Study of Art, Music, Video, Computing


>.....  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!

>[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a
>major violation of trust....  PAT]

    This reminds me of the time I worked for a company that had a ten
button set at the receptionist's desk with a broken mechanism allowing
you to push several lines at once.  Every now and then I would hit all
ten lines and call 800 directory assistance.  :)


Dave

Internet: [e-mail]  *  UUNET: ...uunet!uw-beaver!u!mtv


[Moderator's Note: Did you think it was funny at the time? Do you
still think it is funny?  PAT]

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

From: John Debert <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony
Date: 17 Sep 90 08:32:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Donald E. Kimberlin):

> Just square the issue for our less sophisticated readers' paranoia,
> rest assured that today, a combination of (digital) technology and
> reduced profit margins makes it far, FAR less likely that such things
> continue.  It's just not so easy to get into a digital timeslot, and
> there aren't enough idle employees hanging around any more to engage
> such games.

What's to keep the folks at the SCC's from eavesdropping? The SCC's
are staffed around the clock and have the power to listen in on all
calls in the Bell network as well as the power to kill dialtone and
battery. (I once received a call from someone who told me to "stop
doing it" and afterward I was without dialtone for an hour or so. I
later found out that someone at the Richmond (CA) SCC had done it but
I never found out why.) The frames may no longer have anyone in them
but there is always someone "in the network".


jd
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I had a guy in the Chicago-Wabash CO rip me off
once many years ago (1974). He ran my bill up several hundred units
two or three months in a row before I caught on, making calls by going
on my line in the frames. I guess he figured because my number ended
in /00/ (WEbster 9-4600) it was a large company and I would never
notice the difference.   PAT]

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System
Date: 17 Sep 90 16:17:37 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Matthew McGehrin) writes...

>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.

To be fair, Rolm systems are not "monsters"; they are, however,
moderately difficult to program and use.  Thus if they are not
carefully installed by somebody sympathetic to human factors, they can
be a bear.

A "single line" analog interface on a Rolm is reasonably compatible
with any standard telephone.  Only the proprietary Rolmphone and ETS
interfaces aren't.  I've attached lots of ordinary things (answering
machines, speakerphones, 1A2 key, etc.) to Rolm lines.  No sweat.

What makes Rolms tricky is that they use a human interface model
that's optimized to allow the fully-priv'd business phone user, even
with a 2500 set, to have more features than any other set's 2500 set.
It's a 'two call' model, totally non-standard.  Once you learn it, you
can do a lot.  But hardly anybody ever seems to learn it.  The
engineers who designed it in 1974 enjoyed it, probably for its hack
value.  The Rolmphones with lots of buttons are easier to use,
thankfully, but of course you then need a second (analog) line for
your answering machine, modem, etc., just as with any fancy PBX.


Fred R. Goldstein [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom In Alaska
Date: 17 Sep 90 19:53:01 GMT
Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lou
Judice) writes:

> I recently took a vacation in Alaska (mostly the interior areas), and
> was fascinated by the question of how telecom services are provided
> there.

Just happened to go there myself: Attended High School in Wasilla
during the late 70's / early 80's.

> 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.

Don't suppose the Anchorage Telephone Utility is still charging ten
cents for a pay phone call, are they?  They were still that low long
before the 'lower 48' went to 25 cents in most places!

If I remember correctly, my CO, Matanuska Telephone, was considered
<ahem> a "Non-Profit Organization"

> 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.

Yep.  PP&L bought them out in 1980.  Recently, Gencom (or something
else, I can't remember the exact name) took Alaskcom to court over
getting the right to offer long distance service per equal access and
won.

Phone service up there was always a little unique and was somewhat
different than the Bell System before the diversture.

They leased an entire RCA F# satellite back then.  First it was F1 I
think just after RCA F2 was first launched.  It's been a long time.
One benefit to Alaskans of this was all U of Alaska campuses and
community colleges had email ties to each other for student use way
back then, before these networks really hit it big.


Brian

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

From: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK
Date: 17 Sep 90 21:33:40 GMT
Reply-To: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Julian Macassey)
writes:

>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.

999 (and for that matter 100, for the operator) is a special case -
it's not like a normal call.  When an operator answers, the circuit is
held all the way back to the calling phone.  Even if the call is
coming from another exchange, special equipment will hold the call
over the junction (operator calls often use a different set of
circuits than normal calls).  The only way to release the circuit is
for the operator to pull the plug or throw the release key.

This 'Manual Hold', as it is known, has been BT/PO/GPO's way of doing
busness for many years.  I suspect what was happening in the case
cited here was that the accused was continually calling 999.  Someone
got fed up with it, and held the call while the engineering staff
traced it back.  Even if the calls were made in the middle of the
night, the circuit could be held indefinitely, such as until the
engineering staff comes to work the next day.

Incidentally, ANI, and hence itemised billing is not native to TXE4's
 - it's an after-market add-on unit.  Touch tone, though, is a standard
option.


Martin Harriss
[e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP!
Date: 17 Sep 90 00:21:03 PDT (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 16 at 23:01, "W.L. Ware" <ccicpg!cci632!ritcsh!ulta.rit.
edu![e-mail]> writes:

> I've got an annoying situation on my hands. All four of my incoming
> phone lines suffer from intermittent cross talk. It seems to be worse
> when it is wet outside, but that is definitely not always the case.

First, disconnect the telco circuits at the point of demark. Using a
buttset or telephone with clip leads dial up a silent line on one of
the lines (or call someone and tell them to be very quiet), then make
a call on another with your modem (such that it connects with another)
and listen for crosstalk. Do this with all appropriate combinations of
lines.

If you hear no crosstalk, then you may have to rewire your home with
twisted pair. The fact that you measure infinite resistance between
conductors points to inductive or capacitive coupling between
circuits, which is what twisted pair is designed to prevent. Cleaning
up your "terminal" might help also, although the rat's nest in my
garage has never caused any trouble.

If you hear crosstalk on the naked telco circuits then get MA back out
and demonstrate. If that doesn't work, you may be forced to use my
patented "Ultimate Solution". Order four new lines. When they are in
and working, have the old ones disconnected. Update numbers as
desired.  I have had to use this approach twice in the last thirty
years.


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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 12:24:33 EDT
From: Jeffrey C Halle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Jeff DePolo):

> 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

You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T?  Virtually all
noise in a line is due to the CO and the drop, i.e. the copper from
the CO to the network interface at the building.  The noise difference
between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home
is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences.
(I've heard U of PA phones; they're lousy even for local calls.)


> 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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #653
******************************






IN ERROR ISSUE 655 WAS TRANSMITTED BEFORE 654. 654 WILL FOLLOW AFTER
655 HERE, THEN 656 WILL FOLLOW THAT, ETC.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21135;
          19 Sep 90 4:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23445;
          19 Sep 90 2:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29613;
          19 Sep 90 1:33 CDT
Date:     Wed, 19 Sep 90 1:01:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #655
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Sep 90 01:00:55 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 655

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    NJ Bell Business Office Problems! [Lou Judice]
    1+313 Needed Within 313 [Carl Moore]
    Call-Me Card [Mark Brader]
    N.J. Bell Directory Bug [George L. Sicherman]
    Bell Canada Restricts 976 [Mark Brader]
    N0X/N1X Prefixes [Carl Moore]
    West Virginia -- School and Calling Area [Carl Moore]
    That AT&T Fiji Commercial [Tom Lowe]
    How do PBXs & COCOTs Spot 7D Toll Calls? [Carl Moore]
    Sprint and Writing [Michael Gammal]
    Sprint Select, Sprint Express, and Sprint Crediting [Carol Springs]
    Sprint Whining (Was: Make Sprint Put it in Writing) [Kevin Blatter]
    Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM [Nigel Allen]
    Building Local Area Networks [Michael Andrews)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 07:07:02 PDT
From: "Lou Judice, 908-562-4103  17-Sep-1990 1000" <[e-mail]>
Subject: NJ Bell Business Office Problems!


Egads! Last Wednesday, I tried to call the local NJ Bell Business
Office serving my local exchange (Peapack, NJ). Whether dialing the
800-number, or the direct number, you received the following:

        Ring, Ring, Ring.
        Click.
        Ring.
        Human Voice: New Jersey Bell
        Click.
        Recorded Voice: Please wait for the next available
                operator.
        Hangup.



I tried this several times on Wednesday. On Thursday I called the NJ
Bell Operator. The operator, then her supervisor tried for over 15
minutes to connect. No luck. The supervisor then said she would call
repair service.  I mentioned that in my humble opinion, it seemed like
the call director at the business office was mis-programmed.

On Friday - Same Problem. I called the operator again - still NO luck.

Today is Monday. Same problem!!!!!!!!!!

I envision a room of service representatives at the business office
wondering why no one has called for the past four days.


Louis J. Judice
Digital Equipment Corp.
Piscataway, NJ
908.562.4103
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 10:49:21 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1+313 Needed Within 313


"1 + 313" does appear for within-313-area toll calls in the Flint,
Michigan directory this year.

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call-Me Card
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 1990 11:02:07 -0400


An insert in the current Bell Canada phone bill introduces a new
restricted Calling Card, called the Call-Me Card.  Calls made on the
Call-Me Card can be made to one number only, to which (I presume) the
calls are then billed.  In other words, it's automatic collect
calling, but processed like Calling Card calls.  The charge for use is
the same as for Calling Card calls, thus cheaper than collect calls.
It can be used for calls from Canada and the U.S. and "many Caribbean
islands" and through Canada Direct.  Obtaining the card is free.

The examples given of who might want to use this card refer to family
members.  The subtext, not quite stated, is: family members who
couldn't be trusted not to run up your long-distance bill if you gave
them your Calling Card number.


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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 11:11:05 EDT
From: George L Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: N.J. Bell directory bug
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


We recently got our 1990-1991 N. J. Bell directories at home (late, by
mail).  A N. J. Bell directory consists of white pages for a county or
comparable area, and yellow pages and general information for a
portion of that county.  Our white pages are for Monmouth County, and
they come with yellow pages for Asbury Park, Freehold, or Red Bank.

The local calling information is supposed to match the yellow pages.
We're in the Asbury Park yellow-pages district, so the local calling
information in the front of our directory should cover the exchanges
in the Asbury Park area.  Last year it did.  This year it covers the
exchanges in the Red Bank area!  Our exchange is absent.

Has this problem been seen with other 1990-1991 N. J. Bell
directories?


Col. G. L. Sicherman [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada Restricts 976
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 1990 10:50:22 -0400


An insert in the current Bell Canada phone bill reads in part:

#  Effective August 24, 1990 Bell Canada customers will be able
#  to reach only Bell 976 Service programs within their area code.
#  Long distance calls to Bell 976 Service programs elsewhere
#  within Bell Canada territory -- for example, Ottawa to Montreal
#  -- will automatically be blocked.
#
#  ... Bell filed the proposal to block long distance calls to 976
#  Service programs as a result of customer complaints over unauth-
#  orized calls.  This restriction is meant to protect them from
#  unexpected long distance charge for 976 Service.

Now, all of Bell Canada territory still has the rule that dialing only
seven digits is equivalent to the call being local and therefore free.
Long distance calls within the area code are dialed as 1+ seven
digits, except in 416 where they are 1-416 + seven digits.  Local
calls to another area code are dialed as seven digits.  So it is not
possible here to dial a long distance call by accident here.

Now, to be fair, I should note that because 976-number calls are not
free, Bell Canada introduced the rule that dialing a 976-number within
your area code is done like dialing a long-distance call within your
area code, even though there may not actually be a long-distance
charge in addition to the 976 charge.  (I don't know if there ever is
one.)  So there may be some room for confusion about charging for 976.
But blocking all long-distance calls to 976-numbers, just because some
people weren't aware of the charging structure, strikes me as
unreasonable.

(This is not to say that I am in favor of the existence of 976-
numbers in the first place, but that's another story.)


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

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 12:45:28 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: N0X/N1X Prefixes


Joel B. Levin <[e-mail]> writes:

>The first time I saw NXX exchanges in real application (Manhattan
>telephone numbers in A.C. 212)"

Apparently he did not have occasion to look up or call the U.S. west
coast?  Area 213 had N0X/N1X prefixes (starting in 1973) before area
212, which until 1984 covered all of New York City.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 12:54:46 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: West Virginia -- School and Calling Area


I was in West Virginia myself recently, and heard of a case where a
local calling area was expanded because of a problem involving a
school.  The Philip Barbour High School is on U.S. 250 between
Belington (304-823) and Philippi (304-457).  Calls between these 2
prefixes used to be toll (that is beyond my memory), and the school
had a Philippi number, resulting in a long distance call for students
from areas served by Belington exchange.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 14:09 EDT
Subject: That AT&T Fiji Commercial


I just found out what is said in the much talked about AT&T FIJI
commercial ... If it has been mentioned before, sorry.

They say "Baku vinaka, beach side".  Baku vinaka means "hello" in Figian.

Tom Lowe

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 17:04:58 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do PBXs & COCOTs spot 7D toll calls?


I don't know the answer to this question (see subject header),
nor do I know how local calls requiring 1+NPA+7D are spotted.

To review: more-than-7-digit local calls appear in the DC area (from
301-621 etc. to 301-569, plus those extended-area calls from Va.
suburbs to Prince William area--these should reduce to 7 digits after
the dust settles from NPA+7D scheme for inter- NPA local calls in DC
area) and also in local calls from Pa. to Del., and in local calls
across NPA lines in San Francisco and Los Angeles areas
(California).

Toll calls within a New Jersey NPA are 7 digits.

(But I now stand corrected on toll calls within 313: those are
1+313+7D instead of 7D.)

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

From: Michael Gammal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Won't Service Canadian Phones
Organization: None
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 22:04:19 GMT




I found this to be bothersome.


I reside in both Canada and the US from time to time, and wanted to
subscribe to Sprint.  I dialed 1-800-877-4000 and asked to subscribe.
They put me on hold for a moment then asked me for information (name,
phone, address...etc).  I gave them both my American and Canadian
numbers, and as soon as the representative heard the Canadian number,
he said "that's a Canadian number right?". So I said "yes" and then
they became rude saying you can't sign up, you can't make calls from
canada, and then hung up on me.

Crazy service - trying to discourage me from signing up!

This makes no sense at all.  Don't they need customers?!

 - Annoyed to say the least -


Michael Gammal        Concordia University        [e-mail]

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

From: Carol Springs <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Select, Sprint Express, and Sprint crediting
Date: 17 Sep 90 23:23:45 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


The insert in my Sprint bill this month contains a couple of items of
interest.  To quote from the first:

     Beginning October 1, US Sprint will offer Sprint Select
     Interstate Evening/Night/Weekend, a custom plan that
     charges a flat $8.10 a month for the first hour of
     interstate calling from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. and on
     weekends.  Additional hours within that period are
     billed at $6.50 per hour, prorated per minute used.

     And with Sprint Select Interstate Evening/Night/Weekend,
     you'll receive a 10 percent discount off the regular
     Dial 1 service rates for your interstate daytime long-
     distance calling.  Plus, you'll receive 5 percent off
     all direct-dial intrastate and international, as well as
     interstate FONCARD, calls....

     [I don't think this deal sounds like a win for me over
     Sprint Plus.  My Sprint Plus rates are already in this
     price range, and it appears that I'd lose the volume
     discounts on my evening/night/weekend interstate Dial 1
     calls.]

And also beginning October 1, we'll have a special option for our
California customers called Sprint Select Intrastate
Evening/Night/Weekend.  You can select a plan that lets you pay a flat
monthly rate of $7.90 for your first hour of in-state US
Sprint-carried calls.  National calls cost $6.50 an hour, prorated per
minute used, and you can receive the same discounts for daytime Dial 1
service and other direct dial calls as you do with Sprint Select
Interstate.

The other item I found interesting was about Sprint Express, Sprint's
answer to AT&T's USA Direct.  "You can charge your calls [from the six
enumerated countries] to your FONCARD, call collect, or charge calls
on your local telephone company calling card."  Presumably this means
that non-Sprint customers can use their AT&T cards, uh, local
telephone company cards, with Sprint Express.  A Sprint operator
completes the call.  The access numbers are as follows:

     Argentina             001-800-777-1111
     Australia             0014-881-877
                             *
     France                19  0087
     Japan                 0039-131
     Singapore             800-0877
     United Kingdom        0800-89-0877

     *
      Wait for tone


Incidentally, I called Sprint customer service this evening to request
credit for both a long distance directory assistance call and a
one-minute call to the number D.A. had erroneously given me, which was
not the number of the party I'd asked for.  The Sprint rep said she
could credit me for the one-minute call, but not for the call to
directory assistance.  When I asked why, she said that it was because
directory assistance is handled by the local phone companies and that
therefore I'd have to go through the company responsible to get the
credit [fat chance].  Now, I can understand this denial of direct
responsibility, but it makes me wonder:  Does AT&T likewise refuse
credit for directory assistance calls in these cases?  How about MCI?

Funny thing is, the Sprint rep said she was crediting me with both the
75-cent surcharge for the FONcard call and "78 cents for the first
minute of your call."  Now, I'd given her the number I'd reached, the
call to which had cost only 87 cents including the surcharge.  And
I've made no daytime calls in the last couple of months for her to
have mixed up with the cheapie call.  Can you say "pacification"?
(This was before I'd even asked about the reason for the "no D.A.
credit" policy, and I never acted irritated during our conversation.)
Or maybe she couldn't quickly find the call in question, and just took
the daytime rate as a default.

One final thing I noticed in both my bill insert and the bill itself:
"Effective July 1, 1990, US Sprint discontinued monthly complimentary
credits for interstate directory assistance."  Thanks, folks.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 12:46:32 EDT
From: Kevin Blatter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Whining (Was: Make Sprint Put it in Writing)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The other night while I was watching "Nightline" I observed Sprint's
"Rebuttal" to AT&T's get "them" to put it in writing.  This was the
commercial which closes with "Lighten up AT&T".

At first I thought, "what an interesting way to close a commercial?".
AT&T has made fun of Sprints "so quite you can hear a pin drop" bit
before, but I never thought we (as if I have anything to do with
AT&T's advertising!!) were pointing the finger at Sprint with the new
ad campaign.

Anyway, I guess that Sprint feels as though AT&T is trying to capitalize on
Sprint's recent misfortunes with making money (ie. record 2nd quarter losses).
If this *is* the case, it is quite interesting since wasn't it Sprint who took
the cheapshots last January with the "Only LD carrier never to have had a
major outage" ad campaign.


Kevin L. Blatter
AT&T - Bell Laboratories
Lincroft, NJ

P.S. AT&T pays me to write software, not to write advertisements nor
to share opinions in this forum.  These opinions are my own.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 18:39 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


Someone has already made posted an article here discussing Nynex's
CD-ROMs containing telephone directory information for Nynex's
operating companies, New York Telephone and New England Telephone.

Nynex has produced a demonstration floppy disk to show off the
capabilities of the Fast Trask CD-ROM. If you would like a free copy
of the demo disk, call toll-free 1-800-338-0646, or write to:

 NYNEX Information Resources Company
 Attention: Fast Track
 P.O. Box 3518
 New York, N.Y. 10277
 Specify whether you want a 5.25" or 3.5" disk.

Nigel Allen    telephone [phone]
52 Manchester Avenue    fax [phone]
Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3
Canada

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 13:32 CDT
From: "Michael P. Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Building Local Area Networks


New item submission by mikea@ddsw1 for conference comp.dcom.telecom.

Response to item 4047\nThere's a chart in "Building Local Area
Networks with Novell's Netware" by Patrick H. Corrigan and Aisling
Guy. M&T Books, publisher. ISBN 1-55851-010- 9.  The chart on page 236
gives standard 25 pair and 50 pair connector numbers, wire color
codes, and match-ups to standard 2-pair, 3-pair, and 4-pair RJ-??\
harmonicas.

If you're using Netware, I recommend the book highly for that information
also.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #655
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11164;
          19 Sep 90 23:43 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28921;
          19 Sep 90 21:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19492;
          19 Sep 90 20:43 CDT
Date:     Wed, 19 Sep 90 20:31:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #654
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 18 Sep 90 23:55:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 654

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telephone Humor at the Moderator's Expense [Christopher Ambler]
    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Mike Olson]
    Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Ihor J. Kinal]
    Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Tom Gray]
    Re: Voice Mail Passwords [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing [Jeff DePolo]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Subject: Telephone Humour at the Moderator's Expense
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 8:8:37 GMT


Our Moderator recently said...

>>[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a
>>major violation of trust....  PAT]

>[Moderator's Note: Did you think it was funny at the time? Do you
>still think it is funny?  PAT]

Come on, Pat, lighten up. It's going to happen. It happens in ALL
areas.  Some of the computer labs I have worked in DELIGHTED in
sending messages to novice users' screens. Similarly to the phone
incidents, there were times when we'd throw two terminals into ntalk
with each other and watch the totally unaware users type at each
other.

Perhaps what is irking your squid is a bit more serious than this, but
like I said, IT HAPPENS. It *IS* funny. Roll with it.

Or another point ... is it funny when a subscriber pulls pranks on the
phone company? How about the subscriber that records SIT tones and the
"this number..." recording on a digital answering machine and drives
an operator nutty? What about the hours of work tracing down the
trouble in a perfectly working line?

I guess my point is, do you expect this industry to be free from this
sort of behaviour? I don't.


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

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

From: Mike Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 07:53:08 PDT


In <[e-mail]>, kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
writes:

>     Humor is a very subjective concept.  Almost every industry,
> profession and vocation has inside humor and humorous escapades which
> would be abhorrent to the general public if disclosed.

Perhaps, but the law is far from subjective on this point.  The
activities you describe are illegal.  If you listen in on a private
communication for any other reason than verifying that line quality is
acceptable, you are breaking the law.

> ...  Such antics will always occur because of *human* nature.

So what's the point?  Does that excuse the blatant disregard for
privacy?

> I have to admit that *I* found humor in the previous article.
> I must also admit that as a one time member of a secret fraternity
> known as The Telephone Company :-), I, too, have participated in
> similar antics.

About the nicest thing I can think of to say here is that you must
have been pretty immature to find it amusing to play practical jokes
on people bereaved by the death of a loved one.  The fact that you're
willing to boast about it now indicates that you haven't made a lot of
progress since then.


Mike Olson

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

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 10:06:57 EDT
From: Ihor J Kinal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Larry Lippman wrote:

> Also, I can think of no valid reason to split E-W and W-E
> routing between different transmission facilities.  *ALL* transmission
> facilities used for intertoll circuits are, by their very nature,
> bi-directional.  While I have seen all sorts of route diversity and
> failure protection switching, I have never seen anything that split
> transmission directions through different facilities.

The way I remember this, the reason that a split was put into effect
was excessive delay on satellite calls.  Remember that the satellites
are at approx 22,000 miles up.  Double that, and it means that we need
approx a quarter of a second to traverse in ONE direction. [Speed of
light = 186,000 m.p.s.].

If both sides went over satellite, that would mean a half-second of
extra delay from when one person stopped talking, until the next
person could possibly reply.  This much delay would then then cause
the original person to start talking again, to see if the distant
party was still there, leading to great confusion.


Ihor Kinal
att!cbnewsh!ijk

[Include standard disclaimers and although I work at Bell Labs, I
never did any work satellite communications - I'm just a software
person anyway.]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions
Date: 18 Sep 90 16:51:43 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!halligan![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry
Lippman) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 651, Message 4 of 9

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dolf
>Grunbauer) writes:

>> 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?

>Unless echo suppressors have become *much* more sophisticated
>than those with which I was once familiar, I would be surprised if
>such vastly different propagation paths could be used on the E-W and
>W-E directions of a given intertoll circuit.

Echo suppressors have been succeeded by echo cancellers and differing
W-E and E-W paths are used in the network.

>Control of echo on intertoll circuits can be implemented by
>simple attenuation in the trivial case, and voice-switched attenuation
>through echo suppressors in the more common case.  The proper design
>of intertoll circuits, including configuration of echo suppressors, is
>governed by the Via Net Loss (VNL) concept.  VNL design requires
>knowledge of propagation delay in milliseconds.  At the time I was
>involved in the telephone industry, the VNL design with which I was
>familiar imposed a maximum of 22.5 milliseconds propagation delay to a
>DDD switching midpoint, with an maximum overall delay of 45
>milliseconds on any given DDD circuit.  It was always a "given" that
>VNL design required the same propagation delay in each direction.

The control of echo is given by the requirement of the echo path delay
which is the ROUND TRIP delay of a connection. For echo it doesn't
matter if one path has longer dealy than the other only the total
delay is important. The delay ind thus loss for different frequencies
is of course different and thus a measure called the Weighted Echo
Path Loss is generated.

WEPL = -20log (1/3200 Integral 200 to 3400 (10**-EPL(f)/20) df

 From this measure the required loss around the loop may be derived
from curves of subjective measurements.  This may be partitioned in
any manner on transmit and receive paths with no effect on the
perception of echo.

The VNL plan has been superseded in the digital network by the fixed
loss plan since the VNL assumed losses in trunks that do not occur in
digital trunks. Rather than place digital pads in the network (and
ruin transmission) appropriate analog pads are used at the end points.

>While I admit that I have no firsthand experience with
>intertoll circuits involving satellites or transoceanic cable, I would
>find it difficult to believe that any satisfactory transmission (and
>echo) performance could be achieved with the E-W and W-E directions
>that have widely *differing* propagation times.

Separating the transmit and receive paths between terrestrial and
satellite paths lowers the echo path delay (round trip delay) and
lowers the requirements on the echo cancellers. Such split path trunks
are used.

>Obviously, satellite transmission by its very nature imposes
>propagation delays which far exceed 45 milliseconds.  However, echo
>suppressors and intertoll circuit design can be set up to deal with
>such increased propagation delays - *provided* that the delay is equal
>in each direction.

The allocation of delay to tranmit and receive paths is unimportant
Only the round trip (echo path) delay is perceptible to the user.

>I have never seen anything that split transmission directions
>through different facilities.

Such facilities do exist.

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail Passwords
Date: 17 Sep 90 21:28:02 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

(Advocacy of POS terminal transactions)

>Get used to ATM-style transactions. It's a happening thing.

    Another concern about POS terminals and ATMs which is related
to security is the question of whether the ATM card constitutes the
Mark of the Beast. :^)

    Followups to talk.religion.misc (or alt.flame).

    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords)
Date: 17 Sep 90 21:22:54 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Philip
Miller) writes:

>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?

    I asked myself the same question the other night when I bought
gas at an Arco station in a fairly unsavory part of town (not far from
my office :^) ). Since the POS terminal asks you whether you want a
receipt, I pushed "yes" and walked into the station, as directed by
the machine. The rather harried clerk looked at me, surmised since I
was standing outside the turnstile that I was a POS customer waiting
for a receipt, and then took a *long* piece of cash register tape into
his hand. In addition to gas receipts from the POS terminal, this tape
was printing receipts for every Pepsi and Hostess Twinkie passing
through the cash register. After a few seconds of puzzling over the
tape, the clerk asked me which pump I used, and more puzzling ensued
until the printer started growling again. Clerk: "Oh, here it is.".

    He ripped the tape from the printer, removed the piece of the
tape containing my receipt, and (presumably) threw the rest away. I
checked the tape - it did not contain my PIN.

    I've concluded that if the PIN *does* find its way into
Atlantic Richfield's network, it's not likely to do so in such a form
as to become archived anywhere. What legal purpose could be served by
such a database?

>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.

    Or, in this case, writing a check is impossible (would be free
if the gas station accepted checks), and this type of transaction is
not (Arco charges $0.10 transaction fee). To me the advantage is
merely not having to stand in line behind a bunch of people buying
cigarettes, pseudo-hot dogs, and Ho-Hos.

(stuff excised)

>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)?

    I would assume that the functional differences between an ATM
and a POS terminal would be embedded in the terminals themselves.

    Both use plain ole asynchronous modems (usually hidden where
you can't see them, but sometimes where you can see them but can't get
at them. The usual scheme (I believe) is that the ATM dials up a
central site which multiplexes several signals and connects to the
network's central mainframe (often via satellite link).

    It may not be cost effective to run ATMs in locations that are
far removed from the central site of a bank/retailer which uses land
lines, but even in remote localities it would be easy for large
retailers who already have satellite networks in place (e.g., Safeway,
which distributes its own background music via satellite to a downlink
in each store, at least in this part of the country) to have ATMs and
POS terminals.

    The parts of "small-town America" which I frequent are well
populated with them.

    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff DePolo <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 18 Sep 90 13:50:11 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff DePolo <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey C
Halle) writes:

> From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
>(Jeff DePolo):

>> 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

>You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T?  Virtually all
>noise in a line is due to the CO and the drop, i.e. the copper from
>the CO to the network interface at the building.  The noise difference
>between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home
>is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences.
>(I've heard U of PA phones; they're lousy even for local calls.)

I strongly disagree.  If I use my USS calling card from the office,
noise is greatly reduced.  Some of the other LD carriers heavily rely
on satellites (MCI purchased Satellite Business Systems, owners of
"Skyline").  These, I admit, are worse than AT&T.  I remember having
Skyline before they were bought by MCI and echoing was a problem.
Also, at times, the connection was half duplex - you couldn't
interrupt the person on the other end while they were talking.  But
still, anything other than fiber optic for a long haul will typically
have a lower S/N ratio, in reality.  Theoretically, if all of the
microwave links/ hard wire/satellite equipment was up to spec, there
shouldn't be much difference between fo and the old mediums.  But this
isn't the case.

BTW, all of U of P is on its own campus-wide system known as Penntrex,
and isn't maintained, wired, or supported by Bell of PA.

A second BTW, I lived on campus for two years and never had local line
noise problems when using USS.

Basically the argument boils down to this: overall, all of the LD
carriers still have to use Ma Bell local lines at the ends of the
connection, so whoever has the highest quality _between_ regions wins
the prize.  Local telco noise is common to everyone, so it has nothing
to do with the argument regarding which service has the cleanest
audio.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #654
******************************






IN ERROR ISSUE 655 WAS TRANSMITTED BEFORE 654 AND APPEARS BEFORE 654
IN THIS ARCHIVES. 656 FOLLOWS NEXT HERE.





Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12022;
          20 Sep 90 0:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11628;
          19 Sep 90 22:50 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28921;
          19 Sep 90 21:47 CDT
Date:     Wed, 19 Sep 90 21:40:32 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #656
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Sep 90 21:40:16 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 656

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 900 Number Woes [Donald E. Kimberlin
    Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Gregory G. Woodbury]
    Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Jon Baker]
    Re: Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP! [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! [Dan Ross]
    Re: Octothorpes [Dave Archer]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [David Tamkin]
    Re: MCI As Slamming King [Jon Baker]
    Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Jon Baker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 17:33 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: 900 Number Woes


In article <Digest v10,Iss647>, Larry quoted an interesting report
from the {Cincinnati Post} about how a 15-year-old boy ran up a
$40,500 bill between June 30 and August 22 on an MCI 900 number.

While I favor no "free speech rights" for purveyors of slime by
telephone, there was something that just seemed strange in the
numbers:

The time period described is 54 days long.  If the calls were $25
minimum each, that amount would have bought 1,620 calls.  In 54 days,
it would have taken 30 calls EACH day, 7 days a week to run up that
bill.

Again, while I hold no excelsior banner for MCI or Cincinnati Bell,
that amount of usage by a teenager seems to me it should have raised
parental interest.

I think there's more to this story than was printed and we do have an
issue of parental responsibility to investigate before jumping to
conclusions.

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

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines (was: Hostile Service Person!)
Date: 18 Sep 90 14:02:08 GMT
Reply-To: Rolf Meier <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


>Sounds like you met one of the remaining "telco gents of the Olde
>School," Bill. One of those types who really cares FAR less for making
>the customer happy than pushing his weight around. (Of course, he's
>probably a pretty responsible guy with a family who has been made that
>way by HIS bosses, but that's beside the point.  I just wanted to make
>the point that he is a type, and not all that unusual.)  His
>_modus_operandi_ runs along a classic line.

>The problem is that line contains a lie that he uses to avoid doing
>about these petty flim-flams they get subjected to daily?)

>(You rotten abuser of the "telephone network, you!)

Look, the real reason the telephone companies don't like you using a
"voice" line for "data" is the different traffic characteristics.

Why do you think a data line is a ripoff?  A typical data call lasts a
lot longer than voice calls.  This means that the Telco has to supply
more call paths in order to maintain the same grade of service.  This
costs them money.  It is only fair that the users of data lines pay
the extra.

You can argue that "but MY data calls are ALWAYS short, and I talk for
HOURS"; unfortunately the rates are not figured like that right now.
In the future, when you will be paying for bandwidth x connect time,
you may be satisfied that the rates are "fair".


Rolf Meier                    Mitel Corporation

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

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX and Usenet node
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 14:31:03 GMT


In <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
writes:

>Like crossing the numbers of a small meat packing-freezer plant
>with the major undertaking establishment in the city.

>[Moderator's Note: Isn't that marvelous! So there has been a death in
>someone's family; it is a time of grief; they call to make funeral
>arrangements and wind up getting the meat processing plant. You must
>have really split your pants open with laughter at that one.    PAT]

Oh get off it Pat.  Your holier than thou attitude in relation to the
telco antics issue is getting old.  Just because you didn't think of
it or get a chance to do it is no reason to be a puritan and deny
others their own enjoyment of a situation.  I am willing to bet that
you are not spotlessly clean in terms of abusive humor.


Gregory G. Woodbury @ The Wolves Den UNIX, Durham NC
UUCP: ...dukcds!wolves!ggw   ...mcnc!wolves!ggw      [use the maps!]
Domain: [e-mail]     [e-mail]
<standard disclaimers apply>

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Date: 18 Sep 90 17:07:53 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> My gripe with the local telcos is their obnoxious instate long
> distance rates.

Perhaps a technical nitpick, but it's 'intra-lata', not 'intra-state'.
In smaller eastern states, it may be the case that lata=state, but
this is not the case in the west.  e.g. a Phoenix-Tucson call is not
handled by USWest.

> luckily, these can usually be avoided by strategic use of long
> distance carriers for in state long distance calls.

I've found that only AT&T is diligent about blocking intra-lata calls.
Using LD carriers for intra-lata (although they're not supposed to do
this) is good method of obtaining better quality transmission or
better rates (depending on the carrier, quality of trunks from US West
to the carrier, etc.).


JB

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Cross Talk Problem, HELP!
Date: 18 Sep 90 17:48:06 GMT
Reply-To: claris!netcom![e-mail]
Organization: UESPA


I'm no telecom expert, but I've experience with a cause of crosstalk
that nobody seems to have thought of.  It affected a bunch of
residential lines that had just been installed.  Turned out (according
to the guy who finally fixed it) that all the affected phone lines hat
been connected to various cable wires (go ahead and flame me, I'd like
to know the correct terminology) without reference to which twisted
pair each individual wire belonged to.

Incidentally, this was pre-breakup, and the battle between the
California PUC and Pacific Telephone (90% owned by AT&T) was still
going strong.  I was told that the reason for the initial problem was
inadequate training/apprenticship for the workers who made the initial
mistake and failed to diagnose the problem (or couldn't even find my
house!).  It seems likely to me now that the PUC's rate policy was
determined more by an anti-big business mentality than realistic
economics.  I'm no lover of big business (especially AT&T!) myself,
but this experience raised my kneejerk reflex threshold somewhat.


[e-mail]            Isaac Rabinovitch
{apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo    Silicon Valley, CA

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

From: Dan Ross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone!
Date: 18 Sep 90 20:58:22 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


There is a similar phone (voice-activated dialing of pre-entered
numbers) in the "Damark" catalog of technological wonders.  I gave my
catalog away, so I don't have the info, but I remember it had an LCD
display, and was available for "substantially below list price".


Dan Ross            [e-mail]    ..!uwvax!dross

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

From: Dave Archer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Date: 19 Sep 90 00:43:23 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(William Lewis) writes...

>the other buttons? On a related question, is there any "standard" for
>what the * and # buttons do on pulse-dial phones? Mute and redial are
>(respectively) fairly common in my experience, how widespread is this?
>Maybe sending 11 and 12 pulses would be more consistent, if less
>useful =8)

I've got a pulse/tone switchable phone that uses * for mute and # for
redial.  It does mute/redial regardless of whether you're in pulse or
tone mode, which of course means, you can't send a * or # in tone.
What bothers me about it is that they still have the buttons labeled
as * and #.

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 14:11:48 CDT


John Higdon wrote in volume 10, issue 643:

| 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.

Last autumn I regaled the Digest's readership with the story of how
MCI slammed my parents and tried to slam me.  I opened a 10XXX-only
account with them and put my two lines and their two lines on it.
Some overeager clerk decided to code it for 1+ service and they kept
trying to switch us.  [For details, consult Digests in volume 9.]

My parents' telco is Illinois Bell; they dutifully obeyed MCI's order
("Yes, it was MCI who told us, not you, but they wouldn't lie.") and
switched my parents' 1+ to MCI and charged them $5.00 per line for the
honor.  Central Telephone, on the other hand, called me to confirm
(and called again when MCI told them again) and I said no, no way, I'm
sticking with Telecom*USA, and I'll be the one to say so if there are
to be any changes.  IBT got earfuls from my mother and from me and
switched my parents' lines back to AT&T, credited them for the fee for
the first switch to MCI, and didn't charge for returning them to AT&T.
Centel told me they fully understood my position and that that was why
they had a policy of checking with the customer rather than acting on
a third party's greed, so they never had to make any changes, undo any
changes already made, or bill and credit any charges.

In our case it was the IEC's own sleaziness; frequently, an IEC hires
some marketing firm, who dutifully report that 100% of all customers
called are eager, eager, eager to switch, and no one at the IEC, since
they have the marketer's report to get them out of trouble ("We didn't
lie to your telco!  It was the marketer who lied to us, see?"), is
willing to admit that the results are a bit hard to believe.  The IEC
then cheerily repeats the marketer's lies to the telqi.

The telqi could learn not to listen to the IEC's but only to the
customers, and that would instantly end slamming, though I feel that
it's the IEC's who should be held responsible when it occurs.  Still,
I notice the difference between the two telqi: the BOC decides that a
colleague in the industry knows what is best for the customer, but the
independent is interested in what the customer wants.

On the other hand, the sales rep at Cable & Wireless told me that if I
decide to switch, she will three-way with me and Central Telephone at
C&W's expense so that all three parties will know that the transaction
is on the up-and-up.  I wonder whether they learned from other IECs'
experiences or their own.  (One of C&W's requirements is that at least
one number on the account have them as primary carrier, so the policy
might also stem from their own interest in seeing that the customer
follows through on a promise to notify the telco to switch the line.)

On another note, in volume 10, issue 644 (the real one), Jerry Altzman
quoted an old OGM of his:

| "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.)

That doesn't sit right.  Shammai would never say to leave your message
first and then your name, making the recipient rely on the hope of
recognizing your voice to know how to interpret the message (the same
words, such as references to children and spouses and employers, will
mean different things from different people).

No, Shammai would have said to leave your name first, then your number
to complete the frame of reference and background information, and
then your message.  Hillel would have said, since messages are easier
to remember than telephone numbers, leave your name first, then your
message, and then a number at which you can be reached LAST so that it
will be freshest in the listener's memory, unobscured by surprises in
the message, in case the listener wishes to dial right away or cannot
write it down.  But this is valid, and that is valid.

Follow-ups on the Hillel/Shammai answering machine debate to soc.-
culture.jewish, but wait until Chol Hammo`ed Sukkoth so that people
will be in a Simchat Torah mood.  Shnat brakhah v'hatzlachah.


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]


Moderator's Note: Holiday greetings to you, David, and our other
Jewish participants on the net.  PAT]

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI As Slamming King
Date: 18 Sep 90 17:20:46 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> I've wondered if any of this has anything to do with telemarketers
> hired by the LD companies imposing quotas on their employees.  Such
> as, "if you don't get 10 people an hour to switch over, you're out of
> a job".  This might explain alot.  And as far as MCI, it could just be
> they don't keep as close a watch on their telemarketers as the other
> companys do.

According to the WSJ report, MCI was not using outside telemarketers;
the agents were employees of MCI.  Quotas were imposed by MCI HQ.
Unfortunately, the persons responsible for monitoring the marketers
and reporting such behavior were working for the same management
responsible for the quotas.

The tactic was directed primarily at the elderly, hard-of-hearing, and
non-english speaking victims.  Although MCI led the pack in slamming
complaints (both to FCC, and to local telops), Sprint was not far
behind, and a few complaints were registered against AT&T as well.
The practice is growing to epidemic proportions, and is becoming a
major concern for the telops.  It costs them time/money to deal with
the flood of customer complaint, of a problem which they can legally
do nothing to stop.  It would also be expensive if all default-carrier
conversions were accompanied by paperwork which had to be processed by
the telop.  They seem to be stuck in a no-win situation.  Perhaps
AT&T's lawsuit will deter the practice in the future.  MCI HQ claims
to be making management and policy changes, and increased efforts to
monitor/stop slamming by their telemarketers.


JB

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony
Date: 18 Sep 90 22:23:27 GMT
Organization: gte


> [Moderator's Note: The fact that some employees of AT&T in the past
> acted like jerks is not a sufficient reason to have broken them up,
> that's for sure.  PAT]

Sure it is.  Such behavior is the lowest-level manifestation of what
'the company' had become.  Directly or indirectly, this activity was
representative of the company's attitude and philosophy - the overall
AT&T gestalt, if you will.


[Moderator's Note: Then we disagree on the extent of the 'jerk-ism',
and its prevalence in the old Bell System. My experience was that the
fools there were only a very small percentage of the total work force.
Most of the people were hard workers, dedicated to the welfare of the
customers. As my former neighbor here in Rogers Park, Charlie Brown,
former Chairman of AT&T, once said, (speaking of MCI) "When's the last
time *they* had a couple of their men working working in the mountains
of Montana in January accidentally fall off a cliff and kill
themselves in the line of duty while trying to restore phone service
to a community which had lost all its links in a severe storm the day
before?"  And *that* to me is what the old Bell System was about:
people who cared, and got the job done right.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #656
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12898;
          20 Sep 90 1:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15987;
          19 Sep 90 23:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11628;
          19 Sep 90 22:51 CDT
Date:     Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:21:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #657
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:20:54 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 657

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [David Lesher]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Barton F. Bruce]
    Answering Machine Messages and SIT [Amanda Walker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19-SEP-1990 03:33:09.46
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages


Pat-

While I agree with you that making use of a Telco recording MAY
rightfully get you in trouble with said Telco due to false
representation, I find it hard to believe that the tariff(s) which
specify degradation of service were intended towards callers leaving
"confusing" outgoing messages.

For example, what if I had an Outgoing Message (OGM) on my machine
that said: "We're sorry, the number you have reached is being checked
for trouble. Please try your call again later. Thank you. 508-221."
Now this may SOUND like a NETel recording, yet nowhere is NETel
mentioned, and NO reference is made to the phone company at all.
Simply because something SOUNDS similar doesn't mean it is the same
thing, and in this case the entire OGM can be quite "legitimate" (ie,
everything said in there is true, as I may be checking the phone for
trouble and using the machine for my own purposes to see if I can call
in or not, and I don't want anyone else to call.) It may very well
sound a LOT like a NETel recording, but as long as I don't mention
"NETel" or the "phone company" etc., ie, I don't try to pass my number
off as one of theirs, then I doubt they can legally do anything about
it.

If you insist that they CAN do something about a message like this,
then where do we draw the line? Must I put a disclaimer in ANY message
which sounds SOMEWHAT similar to the Telco's saying "This is not XXX
Bell Co., but my own message!"?  That is to say, if I had a carphone
set *71 (no answer transfer) to my answering machine, and the OGM
said: "The mobile customer you have reached is not in the vehicle.
Please call 702-741-7626. Thank you. 415-3E.", can the telco tell me
to get rid of that message? If your argument is followed to its
conclusion, the answer seems to be "yes, they can." For example,
someone calls my car number, hears that I am not in, and then calls
702-741-7626.  The caller gets a dial tone (from the ROAM port). The
caller hangs up, and dials again. Same thing. After 10 calls, the
caller calls Directory Assistance in 702 and asks for me. No listing.
The caller then calls the operator, who if she isn't aware that "7626"
is a Roam port and/or it doesn't show on her screen (which HAS
happened - I've managed to make COLLECT call attempts to Roam ports a
few years ago!), will keep trying to get a non-dial tone answer, may
talk to her supervisor, and may then put in a trouble report.

Clearly, a LOT of time is taken up. And one could argue that I SHOULD
have said "Hi, I'm not around now ... if you are calling my mobile #,
try calling me at the Reno Roam port, 702-741-7626. Thanks. 415-3E.".

Yet what if that one answering machine served a group of mobile
phones, and we all wanted the same generic OGM? Then what? Do we have
to structure OUR OGM so that it is acceptable to the phone company?
How innocuous does a message have to get before no "disclaimer" is
necessary? I can think of numerous other OGMs that would cause similar
trouble. How about my brother, who sometimes has 30 seconds of a
guitar solo on his OGM? Too confusing? Too many people will call
operators asking "Why am I getting KZAP-FM on my phone line?".

Or how about some of my old college roomates, who were too busy to
leave a message and just left the OGM blank, and had an answering
machine that picked up so quickly sometimes you wouldn't even hear a
ring? What if someone called and claimed "I called 346-9999 and no one
answered and nothing happened at all." Should the Telco then call my
roomates and say "Look, we don't like your answering machine because
it picks up too quickly, and for that matter, we don't like the lack
of a message on your machine - put one on there or we will bother
you."

And while I'm at it, what if my phone line is used as a data line for
five days out of a week? Now lots of people try to call me during the
week, but they keep getting this busy signal. So one guy who thinks he
is particularly clever calls the operator and asks for a
"Verification" (which is free in my area.)  The op. tests the line,
says "It's in use", and hangs up. But the guy is very curious, so he
does this every day until he can get through - AND, he goes to
payphones each time so that the telco never knows it is really the
same person calling. Should the telco be able to tell me: "Hey, this
guy keeps calling you, and your line is always busy, and he is
bothering our operators,so we don't want you using the phone line so
much so that he can get through!"? Of course not! I am using my phone
for a legitimate purpose, and although the telco derives no revenue
from my usage (let's say it's a local call), it is certainly not my
fault that someone keeps calling the operators for a verification
every day.

Moreover, this is analogous to the answering machine situation: I have
a message which creates some confusion, so people call the operators
all the time, and this takes up the operators' time.  SO WHAT? The
Telco is getting revenue from the calls to my machine, and I am in
good faith leaving messages which *I* like to leave and which in no
way represent myself as an agent of the Telco. I am not trying to hurt
the telco, and I am using my phone line in the way which I see fit,
which doesn't actively cause trouble for anyone.

Although the tariff may indeed have implications for customers who
cause harm to the network (such as using line current to charge
batteries! :-)), I doubt that it was the intent of those who drafted
the tariff to prevent customers from leaving ambiguous or confusing
messages. Although an OGM may cause a higher degree of use of telco
faclities than would have otherwise been necessary, this is one of the
costs of being in the phone business, the same way that not EVERY
phone will be answered when it is called, wasting Telco (and possibly
LD) facilities on the attempt.

The intent of the tariff more probably lies in efforts to reduce the
use of non-Bell or non FCC certified equipment which the telco
previously feared would damage the network, to reduce the amount of
fraud committed by use of Telco facilites, to prevent customers from
using their lines to annoy other customers or to make it impossible or
more difficult for other customers to use their line(s) (as in a prty
line), etc.

Rather than put the burden of having an "acceptable" message on the
customer, it seems more realistic to expect the Telco to have people
well qualified enough to realize that they are getting a machine, and
can thus inform the customer. Simply because some customers are too
stupid to try to figure it out for themselves, or some operators too
lazy to listen to see what happens at the end of the message (or
whatever else..these are only examples) doesn't validate the phone
company in trying to prevent me from leaving whatever message I
choose, as long as I don't pass myself off as being their agent.

As noted above, there are so many other examples of instances where
the Telco's time is "wasted", that singling out answering machines and
allowing the telco to control the content of my OGM defies logic. If
they can't tell me to stop using my phone/keeping the line busy, why
should they be able to tell me that they don't like my message and I
have to remove it? Both circumstances may cause the Telco a lot of
trouble, yet simply ecuase it is the EASIEST thing for the telco to do
doesn't mean it is the right thing, and pesonally, I don't like the
idea of the Telco being able to censor or control the content of my
messages when it only tangentally may affect them.

Thus, I would say that since the message "<ALERT TONES> The number you
have reached XXX-XXXX is not in service." is not specific to the Bells
(Bell Canada uses it, as well as other telcos around the world, BT for
example...), one could have such a message on their line and not
violate any specific tariffs.  As long as the Alert Tones and the
message were not copies of a Bell recording (ie, you made them up
yourself or something) I can't see how Bell could get you on the
tariffs issue ... they may be able to on "impersonating the telco", but
that's a different story...! :-)


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Here is an example of how someone can send an 8000 +
byte message to rationalize the use of a misleading OGM for the
purpose of doing what they are apparently unable to do in person: Say
NO to a telemarketer and replace the reciever graciously.  Even if
your peculiar traffic patterns as described above were in fact real --
and I doubt *anyone* could have such bizzare requirements as you note
in your message -- there would still be no legitimate reason to add the
identification code on the end.  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 23:40:25 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


|Michael P. Deignan tells of his "special" answering machine tape that
|sounds like
|
|    "<beep> The number you have reached ...
|     <number> has been disconnected..."
|

I guess it is time to tell the best telco_tale I have ever heard. I
hope Mr. Moderator will keep his flames in check. First, it's not MY
story, and secondly, it comes from his Pax Belliphonis era, i.e.
recorded history.

A long long time ago, in a CO far, far away ... A friend of mine named
Phil opened a service business. Since, at that time, he lived with his
mother, he needed a second line for the enterprise. The only problem
was that the LAST sub on that assignment was a woman who led, shall we
say, an active social life. Men (LOTS of MEN) called at ALL hours of
the day and night. Some implied that they were paying for the phone,
and her apartment, and ... They tended to be upset with Phil's mother
(much less Phil!) when she answered the phone. They got very abusive
and DEMANDED to talk to Jane, who it seems, had left town in a manner
imitated years later by the Baltimore Colts.

Now Phil knew that his mother would not tolerate much of this. But
short of getting a new assignment, and reprinting all his cards and
stationary, AND telling all his customers, what could he do? Clearly
an answering machine was the solution. The only problem was: In those
pre-Carterphone days, you could not buy such. (After all, it was
FOREIGN EQUIPMENT.) So Phil called up his friends in the {deleted}
stockroom (guess where he worked BEFORE he opened his business) and he
soon had a used (oops -- remanufactured) 1B answering machine at home.

The only problem was: Only those folks willing to rent one were
supposed to have same. So Phil recorded the standard panel office
message "I'm sorry, the number you have reached is not a working
number" as an OGM. He also futzed with the box (more like a M1 tank,
really -- have you ever seen a 1B?) so that it answered with a flash
of supervision, then played the message, the way the CO did. (Alas, it
did NOT cut through to an intercept operator afterwards -- the way a
real disconnected number did.) All was fine for months. Most of the
men gave up on Jane, and Phil's customers all knew enough to talk to
the box. Besides, if you called from a coin slot, you got your nickel
back!

Then the machine started to take LOTS of calls. No messages, but there
were many click-click-click sounds in the background, along with some
words later heard on tapes made in the Oval Office. This kept up for
about a week. One day, Phil got back in a little early (1900) and sat
down to do paperwork. The phone went crazy. Ring, "I'm sorry.." Click.
Ring "I'm", click, etc. After about 20 rounds of this, Phil reached
over and answered the phone: "Hello?"

    "Oh my god, mister ... whatever you do, don't hang up," the
voice said.

    "Oh, why is that?"  Phil asked.

    "This is the telephone company, and you have REAL PROBLEMS
    on your phone."

Then the poor switchman went on to explain what had happened. It seems
that Ma had botched his bill, and claimed that he was three months
behind on his local service. So the business office called to chew him
out. But ... "the number you have reached" ... So of course the
Business Office asked Accounting why THEY were still billing this guy
whose line was not in service. They, of course, said it WAS in
service.  This filtered on down to the CO, where they checked his
pair. Nope, it is NOT tied to intercept at the frame. "Ring, I'm
sorry" ... But IT MUST BE! So they traced the pair out through the
cable vault. "Ring, I'm sorry" still came through.

So The Boss told Joe Frame to "CLEAR THIS TROUBLE before you leave
today" and that's what Joe was doing. At first, Joe thought it must be
crossed with another pair in the switch. So he unplugged the old
intercept announcment machine. "Ring, I'm sorry" ... So Joe's NEXT
thought was that the pair was SOMEHOW crossed with one ending up in
another CO. So, one after another, Joe was calling the night man at
the other CO's, having each one unplug HIS announcer, and trying
again.  Even in those days, that was a lot of CO's -- hence a lot of
calls. Joe had worked his way through about 60% of the list when Phil
answered.

Joe asked Phil's indulgence, and said he would call back.  Phil
answered, but as he said years later: "I really should have let it
ring through ONE more time." Joe proclaimed the trouble cleared, and
went home. Phil disconnected the 1B, and got a friend to help him move
it to the basement.

Oh, BTW. Phil got a refund for three months service. He would have
sent it back, but HOW could he explain it?


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM
pob 570-335    33257-0335

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 19 Sep 90 03:06:30 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


PAT said:

> And since most subscribers would reasonably
> associate the tones and message text with telco, telco could claim
> that the person making such an announcement over the phone was
> falsely claiming to represent, or speak for the company.    PAT]

I always thought any random SIT tones were a great idea to thwart
telemarketers. The really good ones are using predictive dialers that
use DSP chips to monitor the call and can switch to an idle agent
(assuming one is free) so fast that MOST of your "Hello" will be
heard.  Who you are, etc. also pops up on the agent's screen at the
same time.  The trunk to agent ratios can be 1.5:1 or higher. They
DON'T want idle agents.

That same DSP chip also listens for things other than human voice, and
SIT tones immediately indicate the called party is NOT going to be
answering, or so they think.

If telco complains, say you will stop using SIT tones when they
provide free telemarketer blocking for your phone. If you are a
regular at DPU hearings, and send a few letters a week to various
legislators about Telecom issues, I doubt telco would find cutting you
off worth while, even though they would like to.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 16:38:14 EDT
From: Amanda Walker <visix![e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine Messages and SIT


I've been wondering how useful (or conversely, confusing) it would be
to have an answering machine message which started with an SIT and
then went on into a "normal" announcement.  This would avoid problems
with people who don't realize that they are not talking to a human,
and with any luck it would fool telemarketing autodialers :-).  Since
the message itself would describe how to leave a message, I wouldn't
think that it would "fool" anyone into thinking it was a telco
message -- it would just alert them to the fact that they aren't going
to be able to talk to the person they think will answer the phone.


Amanda Walker
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #657
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12948;
          20 Sep 90 1:30 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15987;
          19 Sep 90 23:56 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac11628;
          19 Sep 90 22:51 CDT
Date:     Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:46:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #658
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Sep 90 22:45:49 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 658

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: May AT&T Attack a Specific Carrier? [David Tamkin]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site? [David Lesher]
    Re: Local Calling Numbers [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Mark Wilkins]
    Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable [Jay Libove]
    Re: Sprint Won't Service Canadian Phones [Carol Springs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: May AT&T Attack a Specific Carrier?
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 14:03:44 CDT


J. Eric Townsend wrote in volume 10, issue 651:

| In a propaganda class the other day, we were watching an episode of
| Nightline.  It was full of Sprint's "Lighten up, AT&T" series of
| adverts.

| My question is this: Could AT&T, if it wanted, decide to attack
| carrier X?  ie: "Carrier X says they give you better prices, but
| it's not true.  AT&T is much cheaper."  Or are they somehow legally
| required to say: "Some other carriers say they give you better prices,
| but it's not true."?

Law, schmaw; it's standard advertising practice.  The company [that is
or believes it is] in the #1 position *never* names the competition in
its commercials or ads; competitors, however, figure everyone has
heard of #1 anyway and that they must go directly after the leader's
customers, so they don't worry that mentioning #1's name will be free
publicity for #1.  But the leader will just reassert how wonderful it
is and give no reminder of competitors' names; at the most, #1 will
tell you that it is "best".

Royal Crown tells you their cola tastes better than Pepsi or Coke and
that people will go out of their way for it; Pepsi tells you people
prefer Pepsi to Coke but never mentions RC; Coke tells you that they
are an unassailable component of the American tradition and never even
hint that other colas, other soft drinks (even Coke's own products),
or any other beverages exist; the alternative to drinking Coca-Cola is
purportedly death by thirst.

The long-distance telephony industry is just as full of gas as
carbonated beverages are.


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: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway
Date: 19 Sep 90 01:30:10 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the
> ground?

The cellular telephone system depends upon spatial diversity.  The
channel you're using is also in use at numerous other cell sites, far
enough from your location that others may use them without
interference.  A cellular phone in a plane, being approximately
equi-distant from numerous cell sites, occupies a channel
simultaneously throughout the cellular system.  This may impose a
heavy switching load on the cellular switch, which may continually try
to hand the call off among the numerous cell sites, each of which
thinks it's got a close location to the mobile unit.  It may also
cause interference with other calls on the same frequency.

It is also possible that the cellular phone's transmitter, aboard the
aircraft, would cause interference with the navigation or
communication radio equipment aboard the same plane.  When the plane's
autopilot, having been misguided by the interfering signal on a
coupled approach, attempts to land the plane somewhere _near_ the
airport rather than on it, people on the ground may get hurt (not to
mention the danger to people on the plane).  This is why the operation
of most portable electronic devices is prohibited in flight.

> It would seem reasonable to permit cellular phone use from the plane
> once it lands.  Why did the FCC prohibit this as well?

As the original article described, it would be difficult to ensure
that the use ends as the plane takes off.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            Internet: [e-mail]
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 19 Sep 90 01:40:49 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail] (Dell
H. Ellison) writes:

> 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.

What you say is certainly true today, in most electronic switches.  It
was not always true.  In the #5 Crossbar and most earlier
electromechanical switches, the ringback tone is synchronized with the
actual ringing applied to the calling party's line.  These stories are
probably history from a few years to a couple of decades ago.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900 Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            Internet: [e-mail]
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Forwarding Set From a Remote Site?
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 22:05:27 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


|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've looked at another method (call it Hal), but have not spent much
time on it.

Don't use call-forwarding. Rather, use 3-way calling.

Set up autoanswer with TT decoder driving Hal driving TT encoder.  You
call it up. Hal answers. You feed it a password, and a desired number.
It flashes the line, grabs the 2nd {logical, not physical} 'pair',
dials the number, flashes again. You hear ringing, answer, talk, etc.

Problems we've thought of so far:

Supervision/timeout: How do you assure that Hal will not get hung?
Possible solutions: CTCSS (a subaudible tone encode/decode scheme used
in the two way radio business.  Also called PL -- the Galvin Mfg.
trademark. While frequencies around 100 hz. are used there, something
above 3000 might be more usable in this application.  When Hal hears
no tone for 1 minute, he goes back on hook until rerung. If a ring
counter reaches 15 rings, hardware counter reboots Hal.

Security: Write the software so he CANNOT dial anything other than
seven digits. (Unit is to be located in a state with a PUC-mandated
"if it's toll, it's gotta have a '1' first rule" so any call would be
local. Flat rate service is the norm. Thus, if the software is intact,
no abuser, even with passwords, could do anything but tie up Hal.
Note the the incoming call has NO way to directly dial the outgoing
number -- Hal must. (Oh, yes, 976 blocking is there, too ;-])  Be
extra-sure: order the line with no default carrier.

Sequence: Will that CO allow the second flash (to tie the ends
together) before getting supervision from the call Hal dialed? (Some
do, others don't) If not, how do you identify that the far end has
answered, was busy, etc? Even if you do, how do you convince the
called party to hang on until you get connected? (i.e. "Please stand
by for an important call.")

One important advantage to this method is that Hal could automatically
forward 'incoming' calls with no touchtones (within x seconds) to the
'control' house. This gives you automatic incoming service from the
distant town, too.

Net-comments?


[e-mail]   (305) 255-RTFM
pob 570-335   33257-0335

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Calling Numbers
Date: 19 Sep 90 01:37:33 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Matthew McGehrin) writes:

> 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.

Note that NJ Bell offers untimed local calling only to residential
customers.  Businesses are charged message units for calls within the
local calling area, and intra-state toll for all other calls.  A
message unit elapses every five minutes, and costs about 5.5 cents.
You get 50 message units per month before you get charged for them.
The 50 applies to the account, not per line.

> ... a suggestion about making a list of local exchanges ...

They did that for you.  Look in the preface of your NJ Bell directory.
They publish a list of the prefixes in your local calling area.

> ...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'.

This, too, is only available to residence subscribers in NJ.  It is
offered only to points which would otherwise be a ten of fifteen cent
call for the initial period, and only intra-LATA.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            Internet: [e-mail]
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

From: Mark Wilkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug
Date: 18 Sep 90 05:54:28 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711


This is a little different than the problem being dealt with in the
earlier thread, but an associate had a very strange experience and I
was curious if anyone had any idea how it could come about.

This individual, who wants to remain anonymous for obvious reasons,
received an extremely odd call on her answering machine at home.  A
rather mercenary discussion between two college students was recorded,
in which they described such matters as exchanging various social
favors in return for finding each other jobs.

In particular, one of them said something like "She told me I couldn't
have another part-time job at the same time if I wanted this one.  I
was thinking I could recommend you..."

  "Great,"  said the other.

  "If I do it," said the first, "will you buy me clothes, and take me
out to dinner?"

  At first, she just assumed this was crosstalk of some particularly
nasty kind, although the voices were much more clear than they often
are when crosstalk is a problem.

  However, the next day a person she'd been interviewing for a job
came in and said that he was unavailable, but he knew the perfect
person.  Instantly, everything clicked.  He had been the one whose
conversation was recorded on the phone.  Apparently he had a
sophistcated auto-dial speaker phone, either with more than one line
or with three-way calling.

  The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone
inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a three-way
call?  Or did this have to be intentional?  Ignore, for the moment,
the possibility of a strange switching error.  Specifically, do many
types of production phone equipment have bugs which could cause this
sort of thing?

  As it turns out, the position was not funded by higher-ups and
therefore nobody got the job.  However, it is good to know that things
like this can happen, I think, because such accidents could cause
significant damage.


Mark Wilkins
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 10:11:04 -0400
From: Jay Libove <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Crosstalk on Two lines on One Four-Wire Cable


In article <[e-mail]> sherpa![e-mail] (Roger
Cornelius) writes:

>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.

Interesting. I was told that if I wanted not only the amazingly huge
and complex (put in a wall plate, yeah right, could've done it myself
EXCEPT that my apartment complex didn't want to let me f*** with THEIR
wires) but also wanted to actually make them do work and install
another whole wire, I'd pay for all of the time (well, at least I'd
have gotten a little more for my money) and equipment involved. Given
that the network interface box on the building was a good hundred or
more feet from where the wire would have to enter my apartment, I took
my chances on sharing the existing four-wire line for two phone lines,
rather than pay even more. Now I'm sorry about it, since I do get
crosstalk.

It just seem stupid that, now that we "own" the wires between the
network interface unit and our phones, the phone company gets off
providing unacceptable service just because that's typical. If I want
another phone line, I should get another phone _line_ - the standard
shouldn't be to mix and match signals in a known unclean electronic
fashion.


Jay Libove                         [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corporation      decwrl!libove.det.dec.com!libove
Detroit ACT/Ultrix Resource Center Opinions? They're mine, mine, all mine!
Farmington Hills, Michigan         and D.E.C. Can't have 'em!

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

From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Won't Service Canadian Phones
Organization: The World
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 11:54:52 GMT


In Volume 10, Issue 655, Michael Gammal writes:

>I reside in both Canada and the US from time to time, and wanted to
>subscribe to Sprint.  I dialed 1-800-877-4000 and asked to subscribe.
>They put me on hold for a moment then asked me for information (name,
>phone, address...etc).  I gave them both my American and Canadian
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>numbers, and as soon as the representative heard the Canadian number,
 ^^^^^^^
>he said "that's a Canadian number right?". So I said "yes" and then
>they became rude saying you can't sign up, you can't make calls from
>canada, and then hung up on me.

Well, it took me a second reading of this paragraph to notice that
you'd given them a U.S. number as well.  Presumably they went into
"Canadian" mode when they heard the second number, and ignored all
previous evidence that they were dealing with a customer who had a
U.S. phone.  Of course, their terminating the conversation in such a
rude fashion, without giving you a chance to explain your
circumstances, was inexcusable.

Anyhow, the "You can't make calls from Canada" contradicts Sprint's
own literature.  According to their September bill insert, "You can
 ...[use] your FONCARD for calls from Canada to the U.S.  Simply dial
1-800-877-8000 and complete the call as you usually do with your
FONCARD."


Carol Springs        [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #658
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14090;
          20 Sep 90 2:34 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28257;
          20 Sep 90 1:00 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac15987;
          19 Sep 90 23:57 CDT
Date:     Wed, 19 Sep 90 23:26:25 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #659
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Sep 90 23:25:44 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 659

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Vicraj T. Thomas]
    Re: Best and Worst (Was Re: Labor Day, 1990) [Laird Heal]
    Re: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More [Rich Sims]
    Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person! [Brian Litzinger]
    Re: Bay Area Sprint Report (Higdon Vindicated!) [Carl Moore]
    Re: MCI As Slamming King [Tom Ohmer]
    MCI Slams Me Again [Chris Johnson]
    Help For a Telecom Illiterate [Mike Jezierski]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Vicraj T. Thomas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: 19 Sep 90 17:10:23 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson


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

> 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.

        I was in the transit lounge of the Tokyo airport this summer
and wanted to call somebody in the city.  I didn't have any yen with
me but I did have my AT&T calling card.  There were two kinds of
phones in the lounge -- regular KDD (did I get the name right?) phones
that took coins and the KDD debit card and a USADirect phone.  I
talked to a KDD operator using the USADirect phone but she said I
couldn't use my AT&T calling card or my Visa to make a local call.  I
got the same answer from the regular KDD phone.  So Mr. Higdon, the
AT&T card is not as "universal" as you might think. It is however a
great card to have for calling the US from almost anywhere in the
world, including India which was a runner-up for this newsgroups
"Worst Telecom Network in the World" award.

If I was going to be in Japan for longer than the hour and a half at
the airport, I could have easily bought a KDD debit card and made all
the local calls I wanted.  Try getting a calling card in the USA
without a "permanent" address.


[e-mail]              Dept. of Computer Science
 ..!{uunet|noao}!arizona!vic     University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

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

From: Laird Heal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (Was Re: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 22:54:56 GMT


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

>In article <digest v10,iss627>, one of our Canadian readers reports on

>To which, our Moderator replies:

>>whatever service they want; but why was AT&T smashed to pieces in the
>>process?  PAT]                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[accord with emphasized text omitted]

> I submit it was caused by utter corporate arrogance toward the
>Federal government.

Um, have your telephone bills gone DOWN since divestiture?  The
breakup allowed the now-independent subsidiaries to enter and compete
in other fields of business.  Where did the monies used to invest in
those other business activities come from?  Were the shareholders'
dividends reduced?

>  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

IBM fought off their case.  Ma may have reached out and touched more
of the citizens, but they both have high thrones.

>  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,

Once she found out what Uncle Sam was doing, she discovered she liked
it.  While the Bell system might have held onto long-distance primacy
more creatively, as you point out local lines are still locked up as
tight as a drum.

>  Now, Dear Moderator, you yourself are a lifelong resident of one of
>the more visibly nefarious children of Ma Bell ... Illinois Bell.  You

I spent last year living in Cook County with Ameritech's service.
Each call carries a charge, even if only $.03.  Finding out how much a
call will cost or did cost is painful when possible.  Service was
reasonable but, for instance, my nickel call to Tymnet was fraught
with static.  I could make a long-distance call to South Bend Indiana
at 14.4Kbps while the five-mile one-hop link could not maintain 1200
bps.

Here in New Hampshire things are much better, although the line costs
a little more.  The 'local' calling area runs about 15 miles each way.
I also, to consternate the LATA-holics, am listed in a Massachusetts
phone book and dial at least a dozen 508 exchanges in seven digits
from 603.

><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!>

Don't send them to this Digest - write a book, then get a lawyer to
edit the unprintables out, get a ghostwriter to add some drama and a
comic artist for comic relief, and call it "Ma Bell on the Half
Shell".


Laird Heal    [e-mail]
(Salem, NH)    [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 18:52:11 EDT
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More


[e-mail] wrote:

> (You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?)

Nope, but I'll try and answer the questions anyway.

> 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?)

I thought I did that!  I live in South Florida, just north of Miami,
and the majority of my calls were to California, specifically the area
around San Diego.  Apparently the Sprint rates were distance-based,
while the AT&T rates were strictly time based.  The calls were also
(as much as possible) made at the lowest (night) rates for both
companies.

The comparison I made was between AT&T's ROA plan and Sprint's regular
plan.  I don't think it was called Sprint Plus, but I'm not sure.
This was a couple of years ago.

> What exchanges were you calling from and to?

Ouch!  Don't have the bills any more.  All outbound calls were from
the 305-431 exchange.

> What was the disconnect rate?  When and how many calls?

I didn't mention any "disconnects". The phrase I used was "failed
connections".  Sorry if that was ambiguous.  I meant a failure to
reach the number I was calling in the first place.  At this point, I
couldn't possibly supply numbers, dates, or times.  There were several
times I was unable to get the dialled number at all, although this was
the least of the problems.  The main problem was an excessively long
time between placing the call and the connection being made
(apparently), or "busy circuits".

Since the vast majority of the calls were computer-originated, via
modem, the computer would usually give up trying.  Apparently, my
computer has even less tolerance for bad telephone service than I do! :-)

In all fairness, I have to admit that when I managed to place a call
and get a connection, the line quality was usually good for the voice
calls.  I don't know if I could have "heard a pin drop", but I wasn't
particularly listening for that sound.  Data connections were no more
than "so-so", but this may not have been a problem with Sprint's
equipment/lines.

For what it's worth, I also tried the same test sometime later, but
using "casual caller" access to Sprint's service, following receipt of
a fairly large volume of Sprint's propaganda.  The results were even
worse.

It's entirely possible, I suppose, that Sprint has *now* gotten their
act together and is the finest LD company in the world (but I doubt
it).  At this point, however, I'll stick with AT&T, simply because
I've *never* had any problems with them, and it's not worth all the
hassles just to try and save a small amount of money, which never
happened in the first place.

BTW - In comparison to many of the readers of this group, I'm
extremely "unworldly" in matters telephonic.  I just want to be able
to have the silly thing do what I expect ... which it does with AT&T
and did not with Sprint.

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

From: Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person!
Organization: APT Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 90 19:00:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bill Fischer)
writes:

>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..."

I ran through this exact same gambit with Pac*Bell in California.

The answer was:

Pac*Bell gaurentees a certain set of specifications for voice lines
and "data lines".  I'm guessing that the specs are different for the
two kinds of line.

Our story is:

Our Telebit trailblazer began having very slow transmission rates.  We
called Pac*Bell and complained that the line was faulty.  They asked
us what we used it for and we explained about the modem.  At they
point the pitch about misusing the phone system started and that we
should get a "data line" if we expected the modem to work.  I
explained that our modem was specially designed to operate in the same
bands as the human voice and that we didn't need a "data line".  They
didn't buy my argument, but were willing to send someone out to look
at the line.

When the service person showed up we watched him test our voice line.
Inside the lid of his test box were two charts with the specifications
that the line had to meet.  One for data lines and one for voice
lines.  On the third test the box reported that the line failed to
meet the specifications for a voice line.

So off went the service person, and the Pac*Bell performed some
central office magic, and lo-and-behold our trailblazer was back up to
speed.

The moral is:

At least at Pac*Bell, they guarentee a certain set of specifications
with each type of service.  If your modem will operate within the
specs of a standard voice line, then that is all you need, all you
have to pay for, and all your using.

Also, I believe the reason the phone companies become hostile is
because they believe you are stealing service when you run data over a
voice line.  They mistakenly think you are using more than you are
paying for.

Disclaimer:

State Laws and Regulations vary. So will your mileage.

<>  Brian Litzinger @ APT Technology Inc., San Jose, CA
<>  [e-mail]      {apple,sun,pyramid}!daver!apt!brian
<>  Disclaimer: Above are my opinions and probably wrong.

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

Date:  Wed, 19 Sep 90 10:27:05 EDT
From:  Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bay Area Sprint Report (Higdon Vindicated!)


Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]> mentions three
bay-area prefixes, so I looked them up.  (Area code 415, but to move
to 510 later.)

521 is Alameda.
653, 655 are both Oakland.

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

From: Tom Ohmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI As Slamming King
Date: 19 Sep 90 16:45:41 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


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

< I had a similar experience with MCI.  For a time, I was making a

So did I.  My apartment-mate got involved in that pyramid company from
Michigan ;-).  They had a `deal' of some kind for him to use MCI.  I
found out about it by accident (apartment-mate never mentioned that he
was changing the LD carrier on *MY* phone.).

I was calling Florida collect and got an answering machine, so I told
the operator "never mind."  She said "Thanks for using MCI."  No big
surprise here, I figured MCI was the called party's carrier, since the
call was collect.  Then I called back direct to leave a message on the
machine and got another MCI thank you.  Wait a minute!  This isn't
right.

I called MCI Customer `Service' and they told me I had requested the
switch.  "No, I did not."  "Aren't you <so-and-so>?"  "No."
Apartment-mate even used own name when changing my service.  Anyway,
after several calls to Ohio Bell, AT&T, and MCI, everything is better
now.  I haven't said anything to apartment-mate and likewise.  I'm
waiting to see. ;-)

< they immediately credited my account (without haggle) for $10, to cover
< the original switchover, plus the switch back to AT&T.

Pleasantly surprisingly did the same for me.  Do they do this so often
that it is handled so casually?

< Given John's latest account of MCI practices---

<< What a slimepit!

<  --- the extra caution is not without merit.

Oh, yeah, I had OBT put a flag on my account allowing future changes
in my service to be made by me in writing ONLY.


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

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

From: Chris Johnson <plains!com50.c2s.mn.org![e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Slams Me Again
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 20:00:22 GMT


Well, they did it again!

A few years ago, MCI changed my dial 1+ long distance service from
AT&T (my selection) to themselves, against my wishes.  After some
wrangling, and about a year or so, they finally credited my local
phone co. account (U.S. West) with the change order service fees.

The other day, I received a letter in the mail from MCI saying welcome
to MCI's 1+ service.  Wait, I thought, didn't I speak to an MCI
telemarketer a month or so ago, asked to speak with their supervisor,
and explicitly told him NOT TO CHANGE ONE THING?  Yes, in fact I did.

So I dialed the 700-555-4141 number to see who my long distance
carrier really was, and lo-and-behold, it said MCI.

Those jerks told U.S. West to change my service from AT&T to MCI
again, without my permission.  Can you tell that I'm annoyed?

I'm writing MCI a nasty letter, and I'd like to send copies of it to
U.S. West, AT&T and oh, say the attorney general, too.  I can get
addresses for the former and latter easily enough, but which address
for AT&T would be the right one for maximum attention and effectivity?
Maybe I need to send it to several places.

I don't have time for screwing around like this, and I don't like
having to pay someone for something I didn't want.  I want to get
MCI's attention once and for all.  I'd appreciate any suggestions.


   ...Chris Johnson          [e-mail]   ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris
 Com Squared Systems, Inc.   St. Paul, MN USA   [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 09:46 EST
From: The VAX Commander <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help For a Telecom Illiterate


Patrick:

I, being a new reader of TELECOM Digest would like some basic
definitions so I could figure out some of what you guys are talking
about...

What are COCOTS?  and what is this NXX/NOX for dialing thing??? Is
this a new type of phone number we're supposed to get? Help!


Mike Jezierski    Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis
[e-mail]    standard disclaimer


[Moderator's Note: Once again, COCOT = <C>ustomer <O>wned, <C>oin
<O>perated <T>elephone.  NXX is simply a way of abbreviating the three
digit area code or local prefix. Some good files in the Telecom
Archives to assist you are the glossaries. To view the archives, and
pull files of your choice, use the ftp command: ftp lcs.mit.edu. You
would then use anonymous login, with your [e-mail] for a
password. Then, 'cd telecom-archives'.  Enjoy your visit there!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #659
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15384;
          20 Sep 90 3:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20858;
          20 Sep 90 2:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28257;
          20 Sep 90 1:00 CDT
Date:     Thu, 20 Sep 90 0:17:31 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #660
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 20 Sep 90 00:17:09 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 660

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Paul Frommeyer]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Craig Jackson]
    Re: Name That Tone [Walter Kemmerer]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Tad Cook]
    Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill! [Tad Cook]
    Re: Telecom in Alaska [Mike Jezierski]
    CLASSPLUS Services [William Degnan]
    Feedback on Books [Mary J. Leugers]
    Looking For Call Pattern Analysis Service [C. David Covington]
    Canadian Call-Me Card [Ed Greenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Paul Frommeyer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Date: 19 Sep 90 17:59:39 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.


[various complaints about divestiture from our Moderator]

[various praises of divestiture and complaints about our Moderator]

My .02, for what it's worth:

I'm afraid my views on divestiture parallel those of our esteemed
Moderator.  I think the divestiture thing looked good on paper, but
has proven to be less than great in practice.

The whole intent of divestiture, as I remember it from Judge Greene,
was to break up the AT&T monopoly. This may have succeeded in part
with the long distance carriers; it certainly went nowhere with the
local telco, which at least for me is the area that affects my phone
service the most.

I want to have a choice of subscriber loop carriers; If I don't like
Pac Bell, I want to be able to get dial tone from Bob's Fone Company
if I so choose.  Until that free market choice exists, the One Big
Monopoly of AT&T has simply been replaced with Several Small
Monopolies.

If phone service is in fact a "public utility", then why break up AT&T
in the first place? If it is not, and should simply be yet another
service provided in a free market economy, then why do the RBOC's
still have a monopoly on phone service?

A lot of good has come of divestiture, but I think even more good
would arise if our friends in Congress and the FCC would dispense with
what I see as half-measures aimed at perpetuating the monopoly of the
local telco. The place divestiture would benefit subscribers most is
at the level of the local telco, not only through market-driven
pricing, but also through market-driven services, such as data and
video, to name two.

Anticipating complaints about an "unfair advantage" had by the RBOCs
in the event of their deregulation, I raise a point made in a previous
posting in the Digest, namely that there is ready-made competition for
the telcos in the form of the local cable television company.

Of course, that would require that the CATV carriers not be
monopolies...!

OK, now you can all flame away! :-)


Paul "Corwin" Frommeyer    Network Sorcerer and Telecomm Hacker
   Apple Computer Incorporated   Internet: [e-mail]
      Disclaimer: "My opinion, not Apple's","No comment"

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

From: Craig Jackson drilex1 <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 19 Sep 90 18:51:58 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


About the difference between the timing of ring-back and the actual
rings, I think there are several things going on here:

1.  I believe that at one time, ring-back really was the sound of the
ring voltage to the other phone.  (Correct me if I am wrong; I'm
talking about the early part of the century here.)

2.  In the days of mechanical ring-back generation, the ring voltage
and the ring-back voltage came from the same generator and
interrupter, so there really was no reason why they couldn't be
synchronized.

3.  Today, ring-back certainly comes from an oscillator somewhere; the
ring voltage may still be mechanically generated.  But they aren't
related closely.

4.  There always have been exceptions; for example, key sets used to
sense the ring voltage, and then ring the phones using a
locally-generated ring signal.  These were nearly always 1/2 ring
out-of-sync.

5.  With modern PBXs, I would expect that the CO doesn't generate any
"ring voltage" at all, but rather some sort of digital signal that
says "there's a call coming in on trunk 3 for extension 4567".  In
this case, the ring voltage comes from the PBX, rather than the CO.  I
don't know for sure, but I would expect that the ring-back signal
still comes from the CO.

I'm sure there are a number of errors in the above, but John Higdon
will correct them.  :-) I'm pretty sure I've got the general
information right.

Note that it is in the interest of the Telco to give you ringback,
approximately at the same rate as a normal phone rings.  It allows you
to make a more informed judgement as to whether your party is there,
and probably allows you to do so sooner, thus freeing up common
equipment sooner.


Craig Jackson
[e-mail]
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}

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

From: Walter Kemmerer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Name That Tone
Date: 19 Sep 90 18:13:00 GMT
Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston


Jeff, there sure seems to be a lot of us with this problem these days!
I just completed surviving a round of these kind of calls on a four to
five minute interval for about eight hours.  Like you, it seemed to be
a comm device at the other end, but it sure didn't like my modem and
Procomm.  The local telephone company (go for a supervisor to get
something done) was quite nice about all this, and put a trap on the
line to track down the call.

It was coming from another local telephone company, and they got
together and managed to contact the owner of the originating number.
They didn't know what could be causing it, but when the other
telephone company cut the service off at that number, the calls
disappeared!

This fixed it for that day, but darn if it didn't come back the next
day at noon!  Went through the rounds again (this was a Saturday), and
the local telehone company actually contacted the supervisor I had
been working with at home.  He in turn contacted the other telephone
company office and just happened to catch the same technician that he
had worked with the previous day.  They went after it again, and this
time isolated the problem; seems the customer at the other telephone
company had a home burgular alarm that had been fried in a storm that
came through the night that the phone calls first started.  So it had
been calling (my home number) for assistance...

What bothers me about the problem is that if I wasn't a lurker here, I
wouldn't have known what to ask to get the darned problem to go away!

What bothers me even more is that the folks at the point of
origination never noticed that their alarm system was dead!

Good luck ... the first folks I talked to just told me to take the
telephone off hook, too!


Walt Kemmerer
Sugar Land, TX

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway
Date: 18 Sep 90 05:14:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon) writes:

> 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.

> How does cellular phone use in the air interfere with users on the
> ground?

Because it hogs a frequency used by many users in different cells.
The great thing about cellular phone systems is that they are very
efficient in terms of spectrum usage.  This is because as you move
from cell to cell, you are shifted by the cell site to different
frequencies.  Two adjacent cells never use the same frequencies, but
the frequency that you are on may be used by another user two or three
cells away.  The system depends on everyone being on the ground and
running low power.  Otherwise it cannot function.

When you use a cellular phone from a plane, many cell sites can hear
your signal, so you end up hogging that frequency throughout the
entire system.  A few cellular callers in the air could cause major
problems.

> It would seem reasonable to permit cellular phone use from the plane
> once it lands.  Why did the FCC prohibit this as well?

Because they were afraid the users would not stop talking once the
plane took off.  I also have a feeling that they may have been nervous
about possible interference with the plane's various electronic
systems for navigation and communications.


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]
Subject: Re: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!
Date: 18 Sep 90 05:24:28 GMT


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

> 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.

I agree with Eli!  Enough bashing of carriers because they are not
AT&T!  I have two lines at home, one uses MCI, the other Sprint as the
default carriers.  I have had nothing but great service from each.

At work we use AT&T.  They have been getting better, but for a long
time Sprint's audio quality was FAR SUPERIOR to AT&T.  This varied
with the location called, but Sprint was always better.  Now as AT&T
gradually upgrades it's massive embedded plant, they are getting
better too.

Now unlike John Higdon, I don't run Trailblazers or HSTs at 9600 bps,
but my various 2400bps modems have had no problems with Sprint (or
MCI).

During the time when we had to choose a default carrier, I ran some
rough tests by ear, using the 10XXX access.  For most places, MCI and
Sprint sounded superior.  At one time before MCI retired their older
microwave gear, calls from Seattle to the east coast didn't sound so
hot, but now they are fine.

Was Sprint the first carrier to offer SS7?


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: Tue, 18 Sep 90 09:23 EST
From: "Mike Jezierski....The VAX Commander!" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom in Alaska


The Alaskans use a RCA satellite all to themselves. It's Called Aurora
F5 (or it could also be called SATCOM F5). It can only be seen in the
Western US because it's so far West so it could be picked up in
Alaska.

Mike Jezierski   [e-mail]   [e-mail]
         Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis

This is my view because this this place won't pay me enough for my opinions

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

Date: Mon, 17 Sep 90 11:37:14 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLASSPLUS Services
Organization: Communications Network Solutions, Austin, TX


A recent update from Northern Telecom reports that three new flavors
of enhanced services will be available to the operating companies over
the next three upcomng Batch Change Supplements.

Calling Name Delivery  NTXE52AA

Anonymous Caller Rejection NTXP12AA

   "The party you dialed does not accept anonymous calls. Please hang
up and call back with your caller identification unblocked."

And this one (which _I_ expect will be interesting):

Call Waiting Display   NTCN97AA

You get to see the caller ID of a camped-on call so you can decide if
it is worth interrupting your call in progress.


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: Tue, 18 Sep 1990 13:17:08 EDT
From: "Mary J. Leugers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Feedback on Books


In an attempt to further my knowledge of data communications, I made a
trip to my neighborhood computer bookstore and looked at several
books.  I was wondering if anyone could give me feedback for use in
deciding what book(s) might be best.

The titles are:

    Basic Data Communications by William Beyda
    Data Communications, Networks and Systems published by SAMS w/
        Thomas Bartee as Editor
    Handbook of Computer Communications Standards; Vols. 1 through 3
        by William Stallings
    Data Communication Technology by James Martin

Thanks!

           Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications

             Mary Leugers                   1971 Neil Avenue
      Graduate Research Associate           210 Baker Systems
                                            Columbus, OH 43210-1271
               E-mail:                      Phone:  [phone]
   [e-mail]        Fax:    [phone]
                                            Home:   [phone]

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

From: "C. David Covington" <eleg![e-mail]>
Subject: Looking For Call Pattern Analysis Service
Date: 19 Sep 90 14:02:19 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville


    I need to send someone my call detail or at least my calling
pattern and have them tell me how much it is going to cost me if I
select AT&T, MCI, Sprint, or Brand X as my default carrier.  I will
provide as much information as necessary in order to obtain an
accurate estimate of my costs.

    I assume the company would receive a copy of my bill in paper form
or possibly on mag tape and return to me an analysis of the bottom
line using the various carriers available.  Anyone can do crude
estimates, but it would take a company or individual with a full-time
commitment to maintaining the latest tariff information in their data
base to be effective in this kind of task.

    Is this kind of service available?  How much does it typically
cost?  What kind of information do I need to provide for the analysis?


C. David Covington (WA5TGF)  [e-mail]     501-575-6583
Asst Prof, Elec Eng          Univ of Arkansas        Fayetteville, AR 72701
also Strategic Telecommunications, Inc.               501-521-0375


[Moderator's Note: One consulting organization doing precisely the
sort of thing you want which comes to mind is a firm called "Telco
Research", in (I think) Nashville, TN. They've been around for years,
and I think they may have been bought out recently by one of the
BOC's, but I am not sure which one.  I think some of the readers here
are also in this line of work, and perhaps you will receive some
direct correspondence from folks who can help you.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 08:39 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Canadian Call Me Card


Mark Brader <[e-mail]> describes the Bell Canada 'Call Me Card.'

The US version of this card has been available from AT&T for quite
some time now, but experimentation described in this Digest about a
year ago revealed that Call-Me cards could be used to call anywhere on
most non-AT&T long distance services.

Dangerous,

edg

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #660
******************************






ISSUES 661-662 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 662 APPEARS NEXT, THEN 661.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11503;
          21 Sep 90 3:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab03462;
          21 Sep 90 2:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19020;
          21 Sep 90 1:10 CDT
Date:     Fri, 21 Sep 90 0:44:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #662
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Sep 90 00:43:40 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 662

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [John Higdon]
    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [John Higdon]
    Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK [Tim Oldham]
    Re: Call-Me Card [Leland F. Derbenwick]
    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Tom Gray]
    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Lee Chen]
    Re: Call-Me Card [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person! [Norman Soley]
    Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Hui Lin Lim]
    Re: Divestiture - Keep on Truckin [Jeff Sicherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines
Date: 20 Sep 90 00:30:22 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 19 at 21:40, Rolf Meier <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
writes:

> Look, the real reason the telephone companies don't like you using a
> "voice" line for "data" is the different traffic characteristics.

Before we go around with this again, let me share with you a comment
by a "deep throat" within Pac*Bell. The reason telcos want to charge
you extra for "data" dialups is "revenue enhancement" -- no more, no
less. It has nothing to do with traffic patterns (business usage is
metered and charged anyway, and residential use occurs off-peak) or
bandwidth considerations. It is just another in a long line of
"extras" that the telco has managed to convince the PUC it has
justification for grabbing more. Like voice usage, data usage is all
over the map in terms of network usage.

So please, let's not go making up a lot of garbage justifications for
extra charges for lines used for data.

> Why do you think a data line is a ripoff?  A typical data call lasts a
> lot longer than voice calls.  This means that the Telco has to supply
> more call paths in order to maintain the same grade of service.  This
> costs them money.  It is only fair that the users of data lines pay
> the extra.

Local calls are charged for and timed. Isn't one charge enough? Or is
data something "magic" that costs telco extra? What costs the telco
more: a twenty-minute news delivery from my news feed, or a two-hour
converstation by my neighbor's teen-aged daughter? See? Forget the
authoritative declaration from a Pac*Bell "informant" -- the logic of
the position fails as well.


        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: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Date: 20 Sep 90 01:59:46 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 20 at  0:17, Craig Jackson writes:

> 1.  I believe that at one time, ring-back really was the sound of the
> ring voltage to the other phone.  (Correct me if I am wrong; I'm
> talking about the early part of the century here.)

Sort of. The ring voltage generated by the old rotary ring generators
was rich in harmonics. A high-pass version (with the 20 Hz filtered
out) was sent back to the caller.

> 3.  Today, ring-back certainly comes from an oscillator somewhere; the
> ring voltage may still be mechanically generated.  But they aren't
> related closely.

In electronic switches, the ring voltage is generated electronically.
The cadence of the actual ring and the ringback tone is the same in
normal cases, but may be "out of phase".

> 4.  There always have been exceptions; for example, key sets used to
> sense the ring voltage, and then ring the phones using a
> locally-generated ring signal.  These were nearly always 1/2 ring
> out-of-sync.

Not only out of sync, but the cadence is different in a standard 1A2
key system than that of a standard CO. In that case, the ringing of a
key phone common audible bears little relation to the ringback that
the caller is hearing.

> 5.  With modern PBXs, I would expect that the CO doesn't generate any
> "ring voltage" at all, but rather some sort of digital signal that
> says "there's a call coming in on trunk 3 for extension 4567".  In
> this case, the ring voltage comes from the PBX, rather than the CO.  I
> don't know for sure, but I would expect that the ring-back signal
> still comes from the CO.

What you describe is DID (direct inward dialing). In that case, the
call is delivered to the PBX as if it was the end office. Ring voltage
comes from the PBX and the ringback tone, busy (if appropriate), or
even any intercept recording is supplied by the PBX. When a DID call
is answered, the PBX even supplies answer supervision (usually via
battery reversal on the trunk) back to the telco CO.


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

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

From: Tim Oldham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tracing Obscene/Nuisance Calls in the UK
Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 09:02:03 GMT


BT has set up a trial "Nuisance Call Bureau" in Canterbury, Kent. I'm
not involved in this area of work, or any part of the telecom network,
but I believe it's intended to help victims in whatever way it can,
presumably including tracing and location mapping. My back copies of
internal magazines show that there is a `BT Task Force examining the
problem'.

All I can say is ask your local BT office for advice and more on this
bureau.  The cops should be involved.

Standard disclaimer applies. I speak for myself, not BT.


Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. [e-mail] or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 08:16:39 EDT
From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Me Card
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> The examples given of who might want to use this card refer to family
> members.  The subtext, not quite stated, is: family members who
> couldn't be trusted not to run up your long-distance bill if you gave
> them your Calling Card number.

Or ones whose roommates can't be trusted not to steal a peek and give
copies to their friends, etc., etc., etc.

This has been available in the U.S. (from AT&T, at least) for a few
years.  (I would imagine that all the long-distance carriers have it
by now.)

  Speaking strictly for myself,

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

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"
Date: 20 Sep 90 12:47:24 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!halligan![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


I would ask the Moderator to use his perogative to end the thread on
these "jokes". Perhaps you could refer those interested to the
alt.moron or the alt.two_year_old.


[Moderator's Note: I have to agree that the 'answering machine
messages' and 'inside humor' threads are getting to be sort of tiring.
There are too many other things to talk about.    PAT]

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

From: Talking Head <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug
Date: 20 Sep 90 17:26:35 GMT
Organization: New York University


[e-mail] (Mark Wilkins) writes:

>This individual, who wants to remain anonymous for obvious reasons,
>received an extremely odd call on her answering machine at home.

I get these on my office answering machines quite often.

The conversations that I overhear usually concern me or my data
centers.  Eighty percent of the time its interesting in a negative
sort of way.

>The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone
>inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a three-way
>call?  Or did this have to be intentional?  Ignore, for the moment,
>the possibility of a strange switching error.  Specifically, do many
>types of production phone equipment have bugs which could cause this
>sort of thing?

Sure, quite a few people who call me use either a) antiquated AT&T
PBXs with three-way calling or b) brand new systems that are set to
the wrong PBX selector.  When they call me with three-way, i.e. when
they're talking to someone and want to bridge me in, my answering
machine will answer and normally they will either hang up or leave a
message and then hang up.  The trick is this: with the old AT&T PBX
the flash is signalled by going onhook then offhook in a short
interval; this causes the PBX to hang up the third call and lets the
primary continue hir call with the original called party. (with the
new switches, the flash will not work properly if the PBX selector is
set incorrectly) Sometimes, the PBX will not hang up the call and you
will continue to talk to the third party...

Next time you initiate a third way call and get an answering machine,
be sure your third party is properly disconnected, else hir answering
machine may confer your conversation at a later time.

>As it turns out, the position was not funded by higher-ups and
>therefore nobody got the job.  However, it is good to know that things
>like this can happen, I think, because such accidents could cause
>significant damage.

Damage?  That depends on to whom.  I'm usually quite entertained when
individuals who work for me call and say they can't do something or be
somewhere then promptly inform someone that I am a gullible fool.  A
better example: someone was trying to sell me a very expensive car; he
called me and left a message stating that he couldn't do better than
$NNN,NNN; then he goes on to tell some lady (turns out to be his
ex-wife) that the car was as good as sold and that I would never try
to negotiate a price that would even get near the $NN,NNN that they
paid for it two years hence.  Well, you can imagine that I didn't
quite pay what HE was asking and instead negotiated with HER and got a
Big Cash Savings.  The Bell System at work.  You just have to make it
work for you.

Forgive me if I've rambled.  I'm a bit surprised people haven't caught
on to this neat little phenom yet.  I "use" it all the time.


Lee Chen
[e-mail]

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Me Card
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 18:48:41 GMT


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

>An insert in the current Bell Canada phone bill introduces a new
>restricted Calling Card, called the Call-Me Card.

>The examples given of who might want to use this card refer to family
>members.  The subtext, not quite stated, is: family members who
>couldn't be trusted not to run up your long-distance bill if you gave
>them your Calling Card number.

AT&T has been issuing these for a while; several of my friends with
kids at college have been giving these to their kids; it's
colloquially referred to at an "E.T." card (after the little guy who
needed to "phone home").


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

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

From: Norman Soley <oracle!oracle.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person!
Reply-To: Norman Soley <oracle![e-mail]>
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 19:55:49 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian
Litzinger) writes:

>Also, I believe the reason the phone companies become hostile is
>because they believe you are stealing service when you run data over a
>voice line.  They mistakenly think you are using more than you are
>paying for.

Once upon a time someone told me that the reason a data line costs
more was because a voice call used less bandwidth when it was
multiplexed with other calls on a trunk than a data call did
(accompanied with a rather hokey explanation about voice having lots
of silent parts but data was always "noisy") at the time I bought it
(hey, give me a break I was in High School) but now I have all this
fancy technical education which tells me I was probably slid a line.
Well was I?


   Norman Soley - Systems Administrator - Oracle Corporation Canada
  155 University Ave. Suite 400 Toronto, Ontario (416)-362-7953 X646
  [e-mail]               uunet!torsqnt!cnseq1!nsoley
           "These opinions are mine, not the company's"

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

From: Hui Lin Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor
Date: 13 Sep 90 05:08:55 GMT
Organization: HP Singapore


> 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
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided?  Does it
require an ISDN switch etc?

Thanks,

HuiLin Lim      HP Singapore     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 12:24:22 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin


> The whole intent of divestiture, as I remember it from Judge Greene,
> was to break up the AT&T monopoly. This may have succeeded in part
> with the long distance carriers; it certainly went nowhere with the
> local telco, which at least for me is the area that affects my phone
> service the most.

  The divestiture was forced by AT&T's abuse of its monopoly power and
position, namely cross-subsidization that was expressly to avoid and
ruin competition. Existing monopolies are not expressily forbidden,
though they may be regulated, the formation of new ones may be
blocked.

> I want to have a choice of subscriber loop carriers; If I don't like
> Pac Bell, I want to be able to get dial tone from Bob's Fone Company
> if I so choose.  Until that free market choice exists, the One Big
> Monopoly of AT&T has simply been replaced with Several Small
> Monopolies.

If local telco's engage in the same practices as they divesify, they
may be subject to the same accusations and actions.

> If phone service is in fact a "public utility", then why break up AT&T
> in the first place? If it is not, and should simply be yet another
> service provided in a free market economy, then why do the RBOC's
> still have a monopoly on phone service?

Not being a lawyer or sematicist, I'm not sure what you mean by a
"public utility", but it's not a publicly owned utility, in the sense
that some cities or counties have municipaly owned power, gas, etc.
As a private corporation, it has a fudiciary duty to serve the
interests of it's stockholders, not the public at large. It has some
moral and civic duty for the latter, but it's the responsibility of
the regulators to define and decide what those are, not the company.

> A lot of good has come of divestiture, but I think even more good
> would arise if our friends in Congress and the FCC would dispense with
> what I see as half-measures aimed at perpetuating the monopoly of the
> local telco. The place divestiture would benefit subscribers most is
> at the level of the local telco, not only through market-driven
> pricing, but also through market-driven services, such as data and
> video, to name two.

It's not within the traditions or constitution to 'nationalize' (or
staticize, or whatever the equivalent would be) private companies.
They can be restricted in operation and penalized for violations, but
that is not the same thing as just breaking them up. The violations
must be pervasive and intentional before that remedy is permitted.

> Anticipating complaints about an "unfair advantage" had by the RBOCs
> in the event of their deregulation, I raise a point made in a previous
> posting in the Digest, namely that there is ready-made competition for
> the telcos in the form of the local cable television company.

> Of course, that would require that the CATV carriers not be
> monopolies...!

With regard to this and Bob's Fone Company, if the means of
distribution, namely the wires, cables, etc. were municipaly installed
and owned, like water, sewers (and some gas and electric), then your
competition for dial tone would be practical. Unfortunately, until
some community somewhere takes such an approach or it becomes a state
law, don't hold your breath.

Then, of course, since history repeats itself, we can look forward to
"slamming" (e.g. MCI thread) by local tone providers :-)


Jeff Sicherman
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #662
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11668;
          21 Sep 90 4:06 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03462;
          21 Sep 90 2:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19020;
          21 Sep 90 1:10 CDT
Date:     Fri, 21 Sep 90 0:11:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #661
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Sep 90 00:10:49 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 661

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Ross Miller via M. Solomon]
    ATM Handling of PINS [David Barts]
    Need Telex Numbers in England [Mathew Zank]
    Sleazy 900 Numbers [Robert M. Hamer]
    Re: Call Detail Recording, or Beating the SMDR [Donald Kimberlin]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing [Tad Cook]
    Intro to Telecom University Course: Help Sought [Bruce Klopfenstein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 05:19:46 EDT
From: Monty Solomon - Temp Consultant <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Solomon kindly passed along this message which
appeared recently in misc.consumers.   PAT]

  From: miller@mali (Ross M. Miller)
  Newsgroups: misc.consumers
  Subject: AT&T Universal Card is not two cards in one
  Date: 17 Sep 90 21:19:57 GMT
  Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ross M. Miller)
  Organization: General Electric R&D Center

In case any of you are under the impression (created by AT&T) that the
AT&T Universal Card is both a bankcard and AT&T Credit/Calling Card in
one, I have an interesting story for you.  On a recent trip, I tried
to use my new Universal Card in an AT&T credit card payphone by
inserting it into the credit card slot.  The payphone immediately
rejected it as not being an AT&T credit card.  Upon returning from my
trip I calling AT&T and asked why the card would not work in their
payphone and learned an interesting fact about the AT&T Universal
Card.

The fact: The AT&T Universal Card is simply a bankcard (VISA or
Mastercard) with an AT&T credit card number embossed onto it.  The
magnetic stripe on the back of the card indicates that the card is
only a bankcard and contains no information about the AT&T credit
card.  Hence, when run though a payphone (or any other device that
reads the stripe), it is treated as a bankcard.

This "feature" has two "gotchas":

1.  As noted, standard AT&T credit card payphones will not read it.
To charge calls you need to enter your credit card number manually.

2.  In payphones that accept multiple types of cards, the card is
treated as a bankcard, not an AT&T credit card.  According to what
AT&T told me this means that the 10% discount DOES NOT APPLY to calls
made in this manner.

Apparently, modern credit card technology cannot yet deal with
magnetic stripes that contain "dual" identities, and so, some of the
potential convenience of a combined bankcard/phonecard is, for now,
lost.


Ross Miller
GE R&D Center
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 12:09:14 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATM Handling of PINS


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> 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...

Precisely.  If the ATM terminals found in stores are anything like the
ATMs in banks, it just encrypts the number on the card and the PIN and
sends them off to the bank computer for verification.  The merchant
has no business knowing what your PIN is -- that is confidential
information between you and your bank.  The only information that the
merchant needs to know is that (a) the PIN you entered is valid, (b)
there are sufficient funds in your account to pay for the purchase,
and (c) that funds have been successfully transferred to pay for the
purchase.  If anything, this represents an increase in security over
credit cards (with which the merchant gets a slip with your complete
credit card number and signature on it -- all the information needed
to commit fraud).

The major issue with these devices (and also with virtually any other
non-cash method of payment) is what happens to the record of your
purchases after the bills have been settled.  The technology already
exists so that a laser-scan cash register, ATM terminal, and mainframe
database could be tied together to keep a detailed record of every
item you purchase.  (I don't know if it is being done anywhere, but it
certainly COULD be.)  Who gets access to this information, and what is
it used for?  Targeting junk-mail advertising (a minor annoyance)?
Targeting junk phone calls (a major annoyance)?

Paranoia aside :-), I have never used any of these new ATM's because
all the ones in the Seattle area seem to stick you with a surcharge.
Paying with a bank card may be more convenient, but only marginally so
and the tiny amount of convenience isn't worth the fee for me.


David Barts            Pacer Corporation, Bothell, WA
[e-mail]        ...!uunet!pilchuck!pacer!davidb

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

From: Mathew Zank <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Need Telex Numbers in England
Date: 19 Sep 90 23:05:17 GMT
Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


I need to get some Telex or FAX numbers in England (U.K.) I do not
feel like buying those $100 telex number books. Can anyone help me?


Matthew Zank - Eau Claire, Wi
netcom![e-mail] -or- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: In some cases the Western Union manual assistance
(operator) position can obtain *single* numbers for you if it is your
intent to send the telex message at that time. Check your dialing
instructions for how to reach the Western Union operator, but I think
you dial '17' if you are on a WUTCO circuit. But if they are as
understaffed and overloaded as in the past, you'll decide your time is
worth money and buy the directory!  The last time I had occassion to
use WUTCO operator assistance (on a Saturday morning about 10 AM) I
waited ten minutes on hold, with only the message 'All positions are
busy, MOM ... MOM' flashing on my terminal screen every thirty seconds
or so. (In telex parlance, MOM = 'One Moment Please').  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 08:22 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sleazy 900 Numbers


Not to revisit the sleazy-900-number topic too often (Patrick, should
we perhaps have a separate Digest on that?  Just kidding) a
30-year-old, IQ presumable > 100, or 120 or something like that,
graduate student of mine showed me today a postcard she received.  One
side was blank, except for "URGENT NOTICE.  PLEASE RESPOND
IMMEDIATELY" printed diagnonally in _large_ block print across the
card.

The other was a jumble of print, with "FINAL ATTEMPT" in large letters
prominently displayed, under which it said, "Dear C. A. Fortner, We
are trying to reach you.  _Your $5000 credit limit has been approved._
Call 1-900-230-2600* __Now__.

(The __Now__ represents that it was double underlined.  The asterisk
by the phone number referred to _small_ type at the bottom of the card
that said, "*1.95 per minute".

Various other phrases were scattered across the "busy" face of the
card such as "CREDIT APPROVED FOR" above her address, etc.  (Except
for the print on the first-class-postage-paid notice itself, the price
of the phone call was the smallest print on the credit card.  The
organization was United Productions, Inc., 2300 West Sahara #820/Box
18, Las Vegas, Nevada 89102.

Now, this intelligent, post-master's graduate student did not realize
that the 900-number was one of the call-and-we-charge-as-much-as-we-
want numbers.  She brought the card to me just because she got a kick
out of the pre-approval of a credit limit for which she hadn't
applied, considering she is a poor graduate student.

I don't know.  As I said before, even being basically a libertarian at
heart, I am beginning to think some sort of control is warrented.
This card was designed deliberately to mislead, similarly to cards
that in the past have come to elderly people in envelopes that looked
like the envelopes that Social Security stuff comes in, and containing
"bills" for "insurance" that the elderly hadn't requested.  I am
beginning to harden my position that the only thing that should be
allowed to appear on a phone bill is the cost/charge of the phone call
itself.  Having an RBOC or similar monoply act as the billing agent
for anyone it wants to seems to be inappropriate somehow.  I suppose
it might be problematic to define the "cost of the call itself," but
some sort of solution could be worked out.

Pat -- of course this sort of stuff is a result of the breakup.  One
thing I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion of the merits of the
breakup of ATT lately is the fact that in many ways, ATT was behind
the breakup.  They wanted to get into computer/hardware/software/data/
data service etc. sales, and under their tariffs at the time were
severely restricted.  When they pushed to get the restrictions removed
they were basically told they couldn't because they were a monopoly.
So they solved that.  They agreed to divest themselves of the monopoly
portion of their business -- the RBOCs.  They started out with some
restrictions on what they could do, but my understanding is that some
of those restrictions were "sunsetted" and some have been phased out
according to a schedule and some are being phased out currently.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 0:15:15 CDT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL  34695
Subject: Re: Call Detail Recording, or Beating the SMDR


David writes <inDigest V10,Iss649>:

>When Ma offered TWX ... she did so with a dataset (modem to us folks)
>run by a telephone that resembed a 565. You called up ... with a
>special reserved area code...{example: (710)...},listened ... hit
>the DATA button, and hung up the handset.

>But as the years went by, Ma started having ... people complaining
>about being billed for TWX calls that they had never made ...

>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 {areacode} calls. (This was
>easy ... as the TWX lines had those xx0 area codes.)

In fact they were only 510, 610, 710, 810 and 910, David ...trash
anything else.

>But ... some smart user noted this, and installed a {transmitter
>element in the phone associated with} ... his TWX. Presto-free LD!
> I understand ... 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.

In fact, your tale is largely true. Ma had a plan to get every TWX
over onto a "special exchange" in each major city called a WADS
exchange (Wide Area Data Service -- Rule Number 14 is NEVER make the
name something people can figure out; don't simply say it is the TWX
exchange. In fact, WADS was a compartmented piece of a crossbar
office. Yes, Virginia, they could compartment an "old" crossbar! It
was all just good old "class-marking" the lines for a different rate
treatment.)

But herein lies some understanding of the slothfulness of the old
monolith. The local exchange people were just slaveys of AT&T, and TWX
was an AT&T product, not a local Telco product. The whole grand plan
was organized and run from AT&T.  The local slaveys only did as
instructed, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. Billing problems were
AT&T's problems.  So, it was a clever patch to avoid all the hassle by
just scrapping obviously wrong numbers.  The reasoning ran like:
"Well, the locals probably have a lot of digit errors in what they are
handling; we'll be getting a better handle on this mess when we get
all the subscribers in WADS offices; there's NO way they could defraud
the company from a TWX machine, because I don't know how to or our
trusty installers out there will bust them in the field anyway; and
the overhead for losing all those calls is less than the overhead we
incur to try to take all those complaints.  Just charge it off to
operating expense.  We'll get it back in the next rate case when we
show how our expense is increasing."

THAT, Dear Readers is another example of what can best be called the
"Bell-Shaped Head."  It is one of thousands of things that got Ma Bell
lynched; the result of a 1913 "cost-plus contract with the public"
that went so very wrong. It exemplifies why we are going through the
throes of today. Many of those attitudes STILL pervade the minds of
local Telco people, like to hear it or not.

<Now crouching in foxhole with flameproof gear on, 'cause I KNOW the
bees buzz when they get flushed out!>


[Moderator's Note: Didn't they also have 410 as an area code, serving
the New England area?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 20 Sep 90 16:46:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeffrey C
Halle) writes:

>  From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
> (Jeff DePolo):

> > 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.

> You mean the fiber network that they lease from AT&T?  Virtually all
> noise in a line is due to the CO and the drop, i.e. the copper from
> the CO to the network interface at the building.  The noise difference
> between the AT&T line at your office and the Sprint line at your home
> is due to Bell of PA equipment differences, not IEC differences.

This is BALONEY!  I have compared the two carriers with 10XXX access
from the same location, and Sprint has much better transmission
quality.

So if Sprint leases their fiber circuits from AT&T (?!), how come AT&T
can't get as good transmission quality as Sprint?

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rich
Sims) writes:

> 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.

WHAT?  How can this be?  Granted, the rate differences between toll
carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint?
Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package
against Sprint's regular rates?


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: Bruce Klopfenstein <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Intro to Telecom University Course: Help Sought
Date: 19 Sep 90 16:20:53 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


We are revising our curriculum at Bowling Green State University to
reflect the changes in the electronic media industries.  In this
light, I am working on redesigning our introduction to broadcasting
course to become an introduction to telecommunication course.  A key
portion of this course will be a technical overview of various
telecommunication transmission systems in both broad- casting and
telephony.

I am seeking example syllabi, course descriptions, textbook citations,
and any other useful input from colleagues in both industry and
academia.  Suggestions for continuing education workshops and other
telecommunication tutorials that would help individuals with a
non-technical background would also be appreciated (cost *is* a
factor).

Please send email to me directly.

Thanks, in advance, for your assistance.


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 #661
******************************






ISSUES 661 AND 662 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 662 CAME BEFORE 661.
ISSUE 663 IS NEXT IN THIS ARCHIVE.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12367;
          21 Sep 90 4:55 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29203;
          21 Sep 90 3:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac03462;
          21 Sep 90 2:19 CDT
Date:     Fri, 21 Sep 90 1:54:48 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #663
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Sep 90 01:54:25 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 663

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Can AT&T "Attack" A Specific Carrier? [Charles H. Mingo]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Dan Flak]
    Re: Alternate Call Forwarding [David Lemson]
    Re: Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990) [Mark Steiger]
    Last Laugh! Re: Answering Machine Messages [Gene Spafford]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can AT&T "Attack" a Specific Carrier?
Date: 21 Sep 90 01:03:52 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


The Moderator writes:

>[Moderator's Note: Although most successful advertising consists of
>positive statements about one's own products rather than negative
>comments directed to one's competition, there is no law they cannot
>advertise their competitor's shortcomings if they wish to do so,
>naming those shortcomings specifically; libelous and slanderous
>statements excluded, of course.

Actually, making misleading claims about the competition is considered
"unfair competition" and is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission.

It's not necessary that your claim be false, and the burden of proving
truth is on the advertiser.  Hence the reluctance to make
generalizations about anything hard to document (such as line quality
or operator service).  Price is about the only thing they can easily
prove.

This sort of negative advertising is very common where generic goods
are being sold (such as Tylenol, Anacin, etc.), and there isn't much
to compare.  The FTC has been chasing those giys for years.


Charlie Mingo            Internet: [e-mail]
2209 Washington Circle #2    CI$:  71340,2152
Washington, DC  20037        AT&T:  202/785-2089

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

From: Dan Flak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway
Date: 20 Sep 90 19:18:24 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc, Seattle, Wa


In article <[e-mail]> Randal Schwartz <[e-mail].
com> writes:

>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.

Not quite! The pilot checks navigation radios on the ground. You
wouldn't want to have your flight taxi back in because of an erroneous
"bad check" of the instruments. I suspect that the "right" type of
transmission would even "spoof" an INS which gets no electronic data
from the outside world. Also RMI isn't just limited to navigation /
communications equipment. Nearly everything on a modern jet transport
is electronically reported.  There are transducers of every
description to measure engine power, airspeed (OK, not the actual
airspeed itself, but the Central AIr Data Computer), pitch trim ...

(Which, by the way, is one reason why MIL-SPEC coffee pots cost $700.
This still doesn't explain the toilet seats).

The relatively short wavelengths used by cellular makes it a good
candidate for producing RMI. I, as a Pilot in Command would be
hesitant to allow its use during any phase of flight.


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 18:02:37 CDT
From: David Lemson <FREE0612@uiucvmd>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug


In a message of 18 Sep 90 05:54:28, Mark Wilkins <wilkins@jarthur.
claremont.edu> writes:

>In particular, one of them said something like "She told me I couldn't
>have another part-time job at the same time if I wanted this one.  I
>was thinking I could recommend you..."

 [Details of conversation deleted]

> The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone
>inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a three-way
>call?  Or did this have to be intentional?

>Ignore, for the moment, the possibility of a strange switching error.
>Specifically, do many types of production phone equipment have bugs
>which could cause this sort of thing?

Here's my scenario for how this happened:

For simplicity, your friend is person A.  Person A is the person with
the answering machine.  The guy who knew your friend and knew there
was a job opening is person B.  Person B has three-way calling, maybe
doesn't even know it.  Regardless, he isn't an expert in its use (as
are most people who have it).  Person C is person B's friend, who is
about to be sold a job.

Person B called your friend to find out some details about the job.
He reached Person A's answering machine.  Dismayed, he clicked the
receiver down for a millisecond, and dialed up Person C at the dial
tone.  What he didn't hear was that when he clicked down the receiver,
he merely flashed and got the dit-dit-dit-duuuuh of a three-way
calling alternate dial tone.  He called person C, connected, spoke for
a minute, and ... here's where it gets iffy. Person B must have
accidentally either hit the "flash" button or the switchhook for a
second, because he clicked over to three-way calling.  Before he did
this, Person A's answering machine could not hear the conversation
between men, but after this second click, all three were linked
together.  The rest is on cassette.

The moral of the story is: Don't ever use "Flash" to hang up, unless
you really mean to!  You might have three-way calling even if you
don't know about it!  If you hang up, count to five, and then dial,
you should be safe.

One other thing: The guy must have dialed his friend really fast.
Because, unless your friend's answering machine is really old, it
should have timed out when it didn't hear anyone on the line for more
than ten seconds or so. (While the guy was in the alternate dial tone
dialing up his friend, your friend's answering machine should have
heard silence)


David Lemson  [e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM
Date: 20 Sep 90 19:01:50 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Someone has already made posted an article here discussing Nynex's
> CD-ROMs containing telephone directory information for Nynex's
> operating companies, New York Telephone and New England Telephone.

Having the phone book on CD-ROM is a tremendous idea, but what NYNEX is
doing just seems so horribly WRONG.

I see this as the non-regulated NYNEX taking advantage of their
position and really ripping off the customers of their regulated
operating companies NYTel and NET&T. The Feds recently fined NYNEX for
other abuses, and MA and NY need to get them for the same violations.

The phone company provides a pile of local books free for every phone,
and in large companies that get the annual directory delivery by truck
load, you probably can't find ANYONE with a recent directory. Why? The
building super is no fool. He knows if they get delivered, he will
have mountains of old books to cart to the dumpster. Its much simpler
to take the NEW pallet load directly to the dumpster. Sure, he saves a
few for 'special' people. CD-ROMS could come by mail.

Here in Boston, you MUST know whether you need central, north, south
or west book for the 411 folks to find anyone, and heaven help you if
your lost friend moved one town farther west than the west book
covers. Their service and attitude is very poor. The most frustrating
thing was knowing that the CD-ROM existed last year when we had a long
phone strike and 411 took many minutes to answer. If NET&T offered me
a choice of CD-ROM or paper books, I would grab the CD-ROM and run. 411
would seldom if ever get called.

Many obvious uses include keeping older directories for reference
later to see who lived where 'back then'. Many libraries have very old
phone books. CD-ROM would also be good for archiving of this sort, but
NYNEX MAKES YOU return old CD-ROMS!

Many people have problems reading the fine print in directories, and a
simple PC based solution would solve this problem, too. Imagine a
payphone with a built in CD-ROM based directory.

There are ethical issues of sawing down forests to make phone books
when a very inexpensive CD-ROM would be a much better solution.
Making the CD-ROM master costs about $1500, and, even in modest
quantities (under 100), copies with their silk-screened label, a black
and white simple label insert and the plastic snap open jewel case,
cost maybe $1.85 each. The raw 'stamp another disc' cost is about 26
cents.

If the local telco were to offer you a choice of a CD-ROM, or the
normal pile of white pages, would that seem a fair and reasonable
option? Maybe a CD-ROM in place of 10 , or 20, sets for a business
would make sense. Maybe extras should cost $5.00 or even an outrageous
$10. Maybe monthly phone line charges for subscribers taking one
CD-ROM rather than twenty sets of books should be LOWER!

When I first heard on NYNEX's service it was about $10,000, and that
was ONLY for a single workstation and could not be networked! The
network version cost even MORE!

Something smells rotten.

So what is the problem? The old issue of who 'owns' the phone number
list, and who can print phone books comes up. The phone industry needs
its wings clipped, and though I don't seriously want more government
agencies, I would suggest that if the phone companies think they 'own'
our phone number list, maybe someone would suggest a government agency
that would license you to use phone numbers (you would take your
license to which ever dialtone provider you chose...) and this same
agency would provide to anyone the master list in some machine
readable form for a reasonable processing fee.  Of course we don't
want this to happen, BUT use the idea as a club to ensure that the
telcos don't get too greedy providing lists.

If your local telco is trying to get 411 made chargable, try to get
the local regulators to only allow it when the telco gives you at
least a LATA wide CD-ROM as an optional phone book for the same price
they charge you for the current book(s).

Nynex claims there is all sorts of proprietary software and database
compression involved in that CD-ROM. I don't doubt it. But it won't
take long for public domain software to fill the gap, and if
regulatory mandates required every LEC to provide users a CD-ROM or
paper book free choice, I am sure MANY software houses would gladly
provide ALL NECESSARY SOFTWARE at a per copy royalty so low (pennies)
that, with even a $1.85 cdrom, the TOTAL cost would be drastically
less than the phone books are now.

The NYNEX CD-ROM doesn't include Soundex lookup, either, so there is
VAST room for improvement by somebody.

Of course a combined white/yellow CD-ROM book that also had PC
software ON THE CD-ROM that would let you search for a local hardware
store that sold metric screws with lefthand threads and automatically
dial into each hardware store's computer to check inventory and
offered pricing, and even could let you place an electronic order,
would need WIDE FREE distribution that the advertisers would gleefully
pay for if it was competitively (NOT NYNEX style) priced. Well, next
year, maybe...

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Re: Best and Worst (was: Labor Day, 1990)
Date: 20 Sep 90 12:16:24 GMT


I was over in Russia about a month ago.  I think they had the worst phone
system.  Local calls sounded worse than when I called home!!  Go figure...


Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo  218/262-3142     300/1200/2400 baud

ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo               America Online: Goalie5
UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin         MCI Mail......: MSteiger
Internet:[e-mail]
ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo![e-mail]

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

From: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! Re: Answering Machine Messages
Date: 20 Sep 90 23:23:09 GMT
Reply-To: Gene Spafford <[e-mail]>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University


This has always been a topic of interest to netters.  From my
archives:

   From: [e-mail]@iUCP (Gene Spafford)
   Newsgroups: net.followup,net.humor
   Subject: Re: Boring answering-machine recordings
   Date: Sun, 20-May-84 19:46:11 EDT
   Posted: Sun May 20 19:46:11 1984

Well, I try to keep mine from getting too boring.  The following
recordings seem to have been enjoyed by most of our callers.  Fun
recordings just take a little imagination and a little time.  Anybody
else got any good ones they'd like to share? (BTW, Dave is my roommate,
and Waldo is our cat.)

"Hi, this is Gene.  Neither Dave, Waldo, nor I can come to the phone
right now.  We're being detained by the authorities due to a
misunderstanding about some underage sheep.  If you'll leave your name,
phone number, and the time of your call after the tone, we'll get back
to you just as soon as we can post bail.  Baaah-baaahh."

"Hi, this is Gene.  Dave, Waldo and I are currently on Neptune helping
to thwart an invasion by the evil lizard men and their sinister
companions, the brain moles.  If you'll leave your name and number
after the tone, we'll get back to you as soon as we return
victorious....or as soon as the drugs wear off and reality reasserts
itself."

"Hi, this is Gene.  Dave, Waldo and I aren't exactly here exactly now.
We're out testing a new time machine.  If you'll leave your name and
number after the tone, we'll get back to your as soon as we return.  In
fact, if the test is successful, we may even call you before we leave!"

"Hi, this is Gene.  Dave, Waldo and I are on a secret mission with the
galactic patrol and we can't answer the phone.  Since call forwarding
doesn't extend outside the solar system, we've set up this little
miracle of modern electronics.  Just recite your name, phone number,
and planet of origin after the 'beep', and we'll call you back upon our
return."

At Christmas:

"Ho, ho, ho!  This is Santa.  Dave, Gene, and Waldo can't come to the
phone right now because they're out practising pulling my sleigh.
It seems those new elves I hired were actually fairies, and all my
reindeer are down with AIDS.  The boys have agreed to pull my sleigh in
return for my not releasing the photos which illustrate why they're not
getting anything but coal in their stockings this year.  Leave your
name and number after the tone, and I'll unhitch them and have them
call.  Merry Christmas!"

And for the next few weeks:

"Hi, this is Gene.  Dave, Waldo and I can't come to the phone right
now, because we're taking a hypnotism lesson.  But you don't mind,
because you're feeling so relaxed.  Your eyelids are feeling heavy and
you are getting very drowsy.  You're asleep.  After you hear the tone,
you'll leave your name and telephone number.  Then you'll hang up and
mail us all your money.  Then you'll dress up in a rubber chicken suit
and gather twigs to build a nest in your front lawn.  After that, we'll
either return your call or visit you in the home."


Not at all a well duck,

                (long ago, when this message was written)

   Off the Wall of Gene Spafford
   The Clouds Project, School of ICS, Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332
   CSNet:    Spaf @ GATech        ARPA:    Spaf%GATech @ CSNet-Relay
   uucp:    ...!{akgua,allegra,ihnp4,masscomp,ut-ngp}!gatech!spaf
       ...!{rlgvax,sb1,uf-cgrl,unmvax,ut-sally}!gatech!spaf


                (at present, fall, 1990)

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #663
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08044;
          22 Sep 90 5:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17605;
          22 Sep 90 3:47 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11869;
          22 Sep 90 2:42 CDT
Date:     Sat, 22 Sep 90 1:43:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #664
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Sep 90 01:42:16 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 664

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You [Bob Clements]
    Toll Denial/Control [Carl Moore]
    AT&T Card (was: Best and Worst) [Carl Moore]
    T1 Dial Backup Options? [Tom Hampton]
    Coin Calls From Narita [Dan Hepner]
    Re: ATM at Retailers (Was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Steve Friedl]
    Seven-Digit Toll Calls and Rate Information [Joe Konstan]
    Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! [Tom Adams]
    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Dave Levenson]
    The Number of Clicks [Carl Moore]
    Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Awhile Back AT&T Didn't Put it in Writing [Alec]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 12:14:18 -0400
From: [e-mail]


I just got a couple of AT&T's Reach Out offers in the mail, for two of
my home phone lines (individually billed).

This offer is the one that says (paraphrasing) "We aren't sending this
offer to just anyone.  We're sending it to you because we've analyzed
your phone bill and you can save money by buying Reach Out, etc."

One of the lines is used only for local calls (mostly data) and has
not had more than one or two long distance calls in a year.  I'd sure
like to know how Reach Out is gonna save me money with a monthly fee
and no usage.  Unfortunately there's no phone number to call and ask
them to put their analysis in writing.


Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 11:26:20 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Toll Denial/Control


 From June 1990 Waynesboro (Va.) phone book (CFW Telephone, where CFW
stands for Clifton Forge-Waynesboro):

Toll Denial blocks all 1+ and 0+ (note that all local calls in this
     call guide are 7D).

Toll Denial 700/900: blocks 700, 900, or both.

Toll Control:  Long distance can only be made by dialing personally-
     assigned access code.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 11:48:13 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Card (was: Best and Worst)


Apparently the AT&T card can only be used (outside the USA) to call
the USA.  It cannot be used for calls within a foreign country (I was
in the UK early this year).  Also, it cannot be used for calls between
foreign countries.


[Moderator's Note: You are partly wrong. The AT&T card can be used
between two countries other than the USA in the case of Japan. And in
fact, I think in the case of Japan to somewhere (other than USA) you
don't even use the '1M' international number ... just the regular
calling card number and PIN.  PAT]

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

From: tom hampton <[e-mail]>
Subject: T1 Dial Backup Options?
Date: 20 Sep 90 21:24:32 GMT
Reply-To: tom hampton <[e-mail]>
Organization: Litle & Co.


We are looking for a way of backing up our T1 line with dial backup
modems.  We are running all TCP/IP traffic over the link, which
terminates with two Wellfleet bridges.

Any ideas?

 Tom Hampton, Mgr. New Technology, Litle & Co. | POB A218, Hanover, NH 03755
 603 643 1832

[e-mail]  [e-mail]  {backbone}!dartvax.dartmouth.edu!litle!tom

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 16:55:38 pdt
From: Dan Hepner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Coin Calls From Narita


 From: [e-mail] (Vicraj T. Thomas)

>I was in the transit lounge of the Tokyo airport this summer
>and wanted to call somebody in the city.  I didn't have any yen with
>me but I did have my AT&T calling card. [...]

Here's a story from Narita (Tokyo International).

I changed flights from a direct from Seoul to San Francisco, to a
flight with a stopover in Narita, and a different arrival time.  I was
being met on arrival, and had to phone the modified arrival time home.

There were pay phones all around, at least one of which was labeled
with an "international" designation.  Right above it was the dialing
sequence for some 900# to get weather in New York, so you could tell
what digits to dial.

I _knew_ that calls from Japan were expensive, so I got $10 worth of
Yen (1200 then) and prepared to spend it all on a quick call home.
After getting to the phone, I started to put one Y100 coin (88c) into
the slot, but a Japanese person nearby pointed to the sign suggesting
that it took only Y10 to use the phone.  Well, I went ahead and put in
my Y100 coin in, dialed as suggested, it rang ... normal 45 second
conversation ... hangup, all the time waiting for a demand for another
Y1000 or so.  It never happened.  The whole call cost 88c.

Now what happened there?  Do coin calls from Japan really only cost
Y100?  Did I somehow rip them off?  For all I know, I should have
listened to the local and only used Y10.


Dan Hepner
[e-mail]

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

From: Steve Friedl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords)
Date: 20 Sep 90 14:16:01 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


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

> I've concluded that if the PIN *does* find its way into
> Atlantic Richfield's network, it's not likely to do so in such a form
> as to become archived anywhere. What legal purpose could be served by
> such a database?

ARCO does not keep this information at all.  The in-store computers
have no way of getting the information from the network, and the
financial software that does the mini-market accounting does not use
it at all either [runs on a 3B15].  The franchisees don't get the $.10
either, ARCO does and probably helps pay for the network.


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 17:21:17 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seven-Digit Toll Calls and Rate Information


Repeatedly in the Digest there are people bemoaning the loss of 1+
dialing for non-local intra-NPA calls.  I happen to prqefer 1+ solely
for "ten digits follow" and seven digit calling otherwise (with all
intra-NPA calls being seven digits allowed) because I tend to program
dialers (including the one on my Casio watch) that will move around.
Recently, I had an idea that would solve most of the problems:

1.  As for dialing patterns, 1+ indicates 10 digits, seven digits
indicates within NPA, ten digits can include local calls within NPA
(with 1+NPA removed).

2.  099+[10xxx]+[1+NPA]+nxx-xxxx gives automatic rate readback.
Minimum suggested level is voice indicating cost for first n minutes
and per additional m minutes.  Additional features could be provided
(especially by long distance carriers) to indicate costs at different
hours, under different calling plans, etc.  Pay phones would indicate
(where appropriate) the coin cost and the default cost (including
service charge) for a credit card call.

3.  098+nxx-xxxx is a toll restrictor.  It places the call only if it
is "local" as defined by the local phone company (free, single message
unit, whatever is currently desired by the 1+7D crowd) and returns a
non-local number recording otherwise.

The big advantages are that nobody has to dial extra digits if they
choose not to, and people who want to be protected from toll calls can
be.

900 numbers could also be handled through this (easy solution).
Operators would not be bogged down with rate questions.

The biggest problem is convincing the carriers (and the PUCs) to go
for it (and I see all the telcos opposing it since they all have
business they stand to lose if people were aware of the cheapest way
to place each call.


Joe Konstan

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

From: Tom Adams - 235-7459 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone!
Organization: Southwestern Bell Advanced Technology Laboratory
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 90 15:25:08 GMT


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

>>[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.

The Voicephone *does* work well, with a wide variety of speakers.  I
don't know about ambient noise, though I can bring one into the
computer room if someone *really* cares.  The Voicephone is sometimes
folled by similar names, but does a good job of distinguishing
distinctive sounds spoken by different people.


uunet!swbatl!adams or [e-mail]
Tom Adams: 314-235-7459: Southwestern Bell
Telephone Advanced Technology Lab

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug
Date: 21 Sep 90 03:51:31 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> This individual, who wants to remain anonymous for obvious reasons,
> received an extremely odd call on her answering machine at home.  A
> rather mercenary discussion between two college students was recorded,
> in which they described such matters as exchanging various social
> favors in return for finding each other jobs.

[What followed was a description of an answering machine's having
recorded a conversation between two parties, neither of whom was the
owner of the answering machine, but they conversed about the owner.]

I think I can explain how the recording came to be made.  One of the
parties had called the owner of the answering machine, and reached the
machine.  The caller, having decided not to leave a message, hung up
for a moment, and then called the other party.  The caller, however,
was calling from a line with three-way calling, or from behind a PBX
with three-way calling.  The hang-up was not long enough to disconnect
the call, but resulted in a transfer dialtone.  The caller then dialed
the other party.  At this point, we have a consultation call.  The
caller is conversing with the second party, while the answering
machine is on hold.  The caller, perhaps thinking it was taking too
long to connect with the called party, hangs up again, picks up to
re-dial, but hears the far end answer.  At this point, we have a
conference call involving the two parties and the answering machine.
By now, the machine has finished its announcement, and is recording a
message -- the conversation between the other parties.

I have come upon this scenario before, while attempting to debug what
was originally reported as a faulty voice-mail system.


Dave Levenson            Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            Internet: [e-mail]
[The Man in the Mooney]        AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:59:06 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: The Number of Clicks

   4 clicks used by 211.
   5 clicks used by 212, 311.
   6 clicks used by 213, 312, 411.
   7 clicks used by 214, 313, 412, 511.
   8 clicks used by 215, 314, 413, 512, 611.
   9 clicks used by 216, 315, 414, 513, 612, 711.
  10 clicks used by 217, 316, 415, 514, 613, 712, 811.
  11 clicks used by 218, 317, 416, 515, 614, 713, 812, 911.
  12 clicks used by 219, 318, 417, 516, 615, 714, 813, 912.
  13 clicks used by 201, 210, 319, 418, 517, 616, 715, 814, 913.
  14 clicks used by 202, 301, 310, 419, 518, 617, 716, 815, 914.
  15 clicks used by 203, 302, 401, 410, 519, 618, 717, 816, 915.
  16 clicks used by 204, 303, 402, 501, 510, 619, 718, 817, 916.
  17 clicks used by 205, 304, 403, 502, 601, 610, 719, 818, 917.
  18 clicks used by 206, 305, 404, 503, 602, 701, 710, 819, 918.
  19 clicks used by 207, 306, 405, 504, 603, 702, 801, 810, 919.
  20 clicks used by 208, 307, 406, 505, 604, 703, 802, 901, 910.
  21 clicks used by 209, 308, 407, 506, 605, 704, 803, 902.
  22 clicks used by 200, 309, 408, 507, 606, 705, 804, 903.
  23 clicks used by 300, 409, 508, 607, 706, 805, 904.
  24 clicks used by 400, 509, 608, 707, 806, 905.
  25 clicks used by 500, 609, 708, 807, 906.
  26 clicks used by 600, 709, 808, 907.
  27 clicks used by 700, 809, 908.
  28 clicks used by 800, 909.
  29 clicks used by 900.


[Moderator's Note: Thank you Carl, for a particularly delightful item!
I hope other readers enjoy it as much as I did.   PAT]

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

Date: 20-SEP-1990 23:45:46.53
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine


In response to the Moderator's addition to my earlier posting:

Pat- I thought it was obvious from my posting, but after reading your
comments allow me to make myself clearer:

I couldn't care less about blocking Telemarketers or whoever from
calling, and am not trying to rationalize any specific message using
"8000+ bytes of bandwidth" or whatver.

The point is this: The message is mine, as is the machine and the
phone line.  As long as I don't represent myself as the Telco, I have
the right to express myself in whatever manner I choose for whatever
reason, and this is beyond the scope of the Telco's inquiry or
authority.

I am not disputing that there are very limited circumstances when one
would forseeably place a SIT tone or whatever on their machines, yet
that's the customer's business. The point which I was attempting to
make is that this is not within the realm of the Telco's control, and
your claim that the Telco has a 'right' to tell customers to alter or
eliminate a non-fraudulent Outgoing Message is seemingly baseless and
rationally unsound.

I briefly checked Westlaw the other day before my initial posting, and
found no recent cases to support Pat's contention. (Doubtful many of
them would get to Westlaw, granted...)

Perhaps this message is short enough so that I won't hear any
bandwidth complaints and find out *exactly* what right was granted to
the Telcos which allows them to censor what they consider to be
offensive messages and the basis by which is applied.


Doug
(return address removed to conserve even more bandwidth! ;-) )

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:24 EDT
From: Alec <[e-mail]>
Subject: Awhile Back AT&T Didn't Put it in Writing


Long before AT&T's "put it in writing" commercial, they (or a
telemarketer representing them) called me, saying that I could save
money by subscribing to the Reach Out America plan.  I told them I was
extremely interested, could they please send me a pamphlet or
something in writing?  Dead silence...

No kidding, this is a true story.  (I still use AT&T though...)


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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 00:12:17 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA


This thread (and the {Wall Street Journal}, and other publications)
has mentioned a general prohibition against cellular telephone use in
aircraft.  I have searched the FCC regulations for this prohibition
(to find out its details), but I cannot find it.

Does anyone know what regulation prohibits cellular calls from
aircraft?  (I know that you need the permission of the pilot and/or
the airline, but that is supposedly not good enough in this case.)


[Moderator's Note: It is not so much cellular phones as it is radio
equipment in general. All radios -- even those which 'only' receive
i.e. scanners, AM/FM broadcast receivers -- also radiate at least a
little via what is called the IF, or intermediate frequency. Try
holding two little pocket radios back to back, both turned on, and
listen to them fight with each other; squealing, etc. Even that tiny
amount of RF could adversely affect the aircraft's electronics.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #664
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08069;
          22 Sep 90 5:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17605;
          22 Sep 90 3:49 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11869;
          22 Sep 90 2:42 CDT
Date:     Sat, 22 Sep 90 2:11:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #665
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Sep 90 02:11:16 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 665

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Jim Budler]
    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Jim Budler]
    Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Hui Lin Lim]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Rich Zellich]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [James Watcher]
    Re: Call-Me Card [David Tamkin]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [John Higdon]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [David Tamkin]
    A Nice Christmas Gift For a Child [Steve Wolfson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines (was: Hostile Service Person!)
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 07:28:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Rolf Meier <mitel!healey!meier@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

>Look, the real reason the telephone companies don't like you using a
>"voice" line for "data" is the different traffic characteristics.

>Why do you think a data line is a ripoff?  A typical data call lasts a
>lot longer than voice calls.  This means that the Telco has to supply
>more call paths in order to maintain the same grade of service.  This
>costs them money.  It is only fair that the users of data lines pay
>the extra.

Uh, this has been argued many, many times. But I have to ask you again
why phone companies offer discounts for teen lines, and ask premiums
for data lines?

Teen calls last longer than typical adult voice calls. I admit they
are comparable to interactive data calls.

Teen calls last longer than the typical data call I see at work.
During the average hour I have four one minute data calls, and one
five minute data call.

I spent two hours on the phone to a company employee requiring
technical assistance from the field. This was a voice call, and it
happened to be at home. Many of our voice calls are long, really long.
Trying to type on a keyboard 12,000 miles away, or read a crash
traceback over the phone can take a long time.

Obligatory Humorous Illustrative Example:

Person supporting by phone says:

"Type cd space slash U S R slash L I B"

Three hours later they determine the person on the other end typed:

cdspaceslashusrslashlib

Back to the subject. I disagree that data calls are by definition
longer than voice calls. In fact I believe that data calls are on
average *shorter* than voice calls.

Why?

As I mentioned, I average four one-minute calls per hour, one
five-minute call per hour. These are the automated mail and news
exchange calls. They are data calls.

I average ten interactive (i.e. people) dialins per day. Most are about
twenty-minutes, some are a couple hours. On average it breaks down to
something like 8x20-minutes, 1x1-hour, 1x3-hour.

Let's figure this out:

4 calls per hour * 1 minute  * 24 hour     =  96 minutes per day
1 calls per hour * 5 minutes * 24 hour     = 120 minutes per day
8 calls per day * 20 minutes               = 160 minutes per day
1 call per day * 180 minutes               = 180 minutes per day
96 times + 24 times + 8 times + 1 time       556 minutes

556 minutes / 129 calls = 4.31 minutes per call

Are you really going to try to say that the average voice call is less
than this?

This is all over voice grade lines.

Why do you insist I pay for a data grade line because usage exceeds
voice usage? I don't have comparable numbers for our voice usage. But
I do believe that excluding only two catagories, wrong numbers and
"He's not in, do you want to leave a message", where they don't leave
a message, our average voice phone call exceeds five minutes.

'nuff said. I disagree with your argument.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6115
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 07:59:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory G.
Woodbury) writes:

>In <[e-mail]> kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman)
>writes:

>>Like crossing the numbers of a small meat packing-freezer plant
>>with the major undertaking establishment in the city.

>>[Moderator's Note: Isn't that marvelous! So there has been a death in
>>someone's family; it is a time of grief; they call to make funeral
>>arrangements and wind up getting the meat processing plant. You must
>>have really split your pants open with laughter at that one.    PAT]

>Oh get off it Pat.  Your holier than thou attitude in relation to the
>telco antics issue is getting old.  Just because you didn't think of
>it or get a chance to do it is no reason to be a puritan and deny
>others their own enjoyment of a situation.  I am willing to bet that
>you are not spotlessly clean in terms of abusive humor.

Oh get off it Greg. Ethically Pat is absolutely correct. This *is*
abuse of trust. And yes, my thesaurus shows "ethically" as synonymous
with "carping". Shows our attitude towards ethical behaviour doesn't
my thesaurus?

"Everybody does it" is *not* an excuse for doing something wrong.

If your children want to smoke pot because "All my friends do and I'll
look like a (something) if I don't" would you accept that?  I hope
not.

It's a major problem in our society.

Everybody:
    lies on their tax return
    drives 45 in a 35 zone
    makes personal calls on their company phone

It doesn't make it right.

Practical jokes are fun. Yes. Everyone laughs. Yes. Therefore anyone
who has ever laughed at a "Practical Joke" is guilty of enjoying
abusive humor.

That doesn't make it right. And the example given was in extreme poor
taste, and an extreme case of abusive humor. And it *is* a good
example of abuse of trust.

Pat is correct to find it bad.

My $0.02 worth.

Goodnight, sweet dreams.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6115
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

From: Hui Lin Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor
Date: 13 Sep 90 05:08:55 GMT
Organization: HP Singapore


> 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.

Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided?  Does it
require an ISDN switch etc?

Thanks,

HuiLin Lim
HP Singapore
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 7:58:53 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!


Tad Cook writes:

> WHAT?  How can this be?  Granted, the rate differences between toll
> carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint?
> Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount
> package against Sprint's regular rates?

Well, the last two times I compared *regular* rates (because I don't
do enough long-distance calling for the discount packages to be cost-
effective for me), the Sprint rates were cheaper than AT&T's only for
the first one (or three) minute(s), after which AT&T's were cheaper.
And the difference on that first increment is only a couple of cents.

Given my calling patterns - a few calls of multi-minute duration each
 - it generally works out that AT&T will be cheaper.

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

From: watcher <nstar![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 02:09:22 EST
Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd.
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages


I had a friend that used MacRecorder and SoundEdit to digitize several
of PcaBell's "the number you have called..." recordings and then patch
them together into an OGM that, while resembling the telco's
recordings, could not possibly have been same; this was done with
reverb and echo effects.  Unfortunately, when most people hear the
tri-tones, they fear the worst and hang up; hence the next revision of
this message was preceded by him saying "WAIT! don't hang up...", then
the tri-tones, etc. thus it is obviously NOT the telco's message, even
though it is made up of the same component parts. Could this really be
considered copyright infringement, much the same way copying records
or CD's or photocopying copyright protected books at the library is
considered infringement (as per the statement in most books about
unauthorized reproduction, etc) ?

I was thinking (as I sometimes do) that a neato-keen OGM would be the
tri-tones, followed by "the person you have reached <name> is
currently out of service. Please hang up and try again later, or leave
a message for their convenience." This way people's OGMs would follow
the same general format, making the interface "standard". Perhaps this
is silly.  My message? Right now it's "we're sorry, we have lost the
picture portion of our picture-mission, however we will continue with
the sound..." I'm sure somebody out there in netland will be able to
guess where I got that little snippet of audio ... (there isn't a
newsgroup for that stuff, is there?)


James Watcher (yes, that's what it says on my driver's license)
nstar![e-mail] (fast)
PO Box 875  Notre Dame, IN 46556 (slow)

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Me Card
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 13:35:26 CDT


Mark Brader wrote in volume 10, issue 655:

| The examples given of who might want to use this card refer to family
| members.  The subtext, not quite stated, is: family members who
| couldn't be trusted not to run up your long-distance bill if you gave
| them your Calling Card number.

The subtext I gather is this: the Call-Me Card (I've also heard it
named a "Call Home Card" and simply a "restricted calling card") was
implemented for businesses to issue to employees who couldn't be
trusted not to make personal calls on a company telephone credit card;
with the restricted card, the employee could dial only to the
designated receiving number.

With the software in place, there was no overhead other than the
advertising to encourage its use for additional calls home by college
students and the like and thus additional IEC or LEC revenue.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!
Date: 21 Sep 90 11:32:45 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 21 at  0:11, [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> This is BALONEY!  I have compared the two carriers with 10XXX access
> from the same location, and Sprint has much better transmission
> quality.

In the Seattle area this may be true. Sprint was the first to provide
any decent sounding transmission to the Pacific Northwest. I remember
specifically using it to call friends that live in Tacoma. From here
and perhaps other parts of the country, that is not true. While they
are very close, AT&T has the quality nod.

> WHAT?  How can this be?  Granted, the rate differences between toll
> carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint?
> Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package
> against Sprint's regular rates?

Sorry, but my latest rate comparisons (I do this for a living) show
AT&T to be somewhat cheaper for casual calling inter-LATA but
intra-state. The most glaring example is a call from San Francisco to
LA.  Night rate: AT&T, $0.14 first minute, $0.11 each additional.
Sprint, $0.14 each minute, no reduction for additional minutes. The
cheapest intra-state rates for dialup are AT&T's 800 service which is
half that of Sprint for the same setup.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but those ARE the quotes.


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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 14:13:06 CDT


Tom Ohmer [O] and Chris Johnson [J] wrote in volume 10, issue 659:

O> My apartment-mate got involved in that pyramid company from
O> Michigan.  They had a `deal' of some kind for him to use MCI.  I
O> found out about it by accident (apartment-mate never mentioned that
O> he was changing the LD carrier on *MY* phone.).

O> I called MCI Customer `Service' and they told me I had requested
O> the switch.  "No, I did not."  "Aren't you <so-and-so>?"  "No."
O> Apartment-mate even used own name when changing my service.  Anyway,
O> after several calls to Ohio Bell, AT&T, and MCI, everything is better
O> now.  I haven't said anything to apartment-mate and likewise.  I'm
O> waiting to see. ;-)

Robert Michael Gutierrez is the local expert on these matters, but
I'll venture a theory: Tom's apartment-mate wanted MCI 1+ on his own
line but 10222 access to his own MCI account if he should need to
place a long-distance call from Tom's line, so he gave MCI both phone
numbers with explicit instructions that his was to get primary service
but Tom's was to get secondary service.  However, once Tom's number
gets listed on an account where at least one number has 1+ service,
MCI's conveniently poor customer service software thinks all numbers
whose MCI accesses are on that account should have MCI as primary
carrier.

That was one of the explanations given me about their slamming my
parents and attempting to slam me; however, Tom Ohmer's apartment-mate
really *did* want MCI 1+ on his own line.  Neither my parents nor I
wanted MCI as primary carrier, but some overeager MCI rep decided to
score points by coding my account that way.  Result: points possibly
scored by rep with bosses, many points lost by MCI with me.  When
Telecom*USA loses its autonomy and I get MCI service instead, they'll
lose me as a 1+ customer.

J> A few years ago, MCI changed my dial 1+ long distance service from
J> AT&T (my selection) to themselves, against my wishes.  After some
J> wrangling, and about a year or so, they finally credited my local
J> phone co. account (U.S. West) with the change order service fees.

J> The other day, I received a letter in the mail from MCI saying welcome
J> to MCI's 1+ service.  Wait, I thought, didn't I speak to an MCI
J> telemarketer a month or so ago, asked to speak with their supervisor,
J> and explicitly told him NOT TO CHANGE ONE THING?  Yes, in fact I did.

J> So I dialed the 700-555-4141 number to see who my long distance
J> carrier really was, and lo-and-behold, it said MCI.

J> Those jerks told U.S. West to change my service from AT&T to MCI
J> again, without my permission.  Can you tell that I'm annoyed?

Ohio Bell accepts MCI's slam on Tom Ohmer, US West Communications
accepts it on Chris Johnson, Illinois Bell accepts it on my parents,
NJ Bell and Pac*Bell let IEC's slam other readers and their acquain-
tances: as I said before, BOC's believe a comrade-in-arms knows what's
best for the customer and accept a slammer's word, but independent
telqi can grasp the concept that customers have some intelligence of
their own and can make their own decisions.  It's enough to make me
pity the Illinois Bell customers I see out my window.


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: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: A Nice Christmas Gift For A Child
Date: 19 Sep 90 13:26:59 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


They look, like Motorola Portable Phones, but on close examination
they have the AT&T Logo.  But they are not Cellular Phones, for only
$12.99 the little yuppie in your house can have fun playing Stock
Broker, Take-Over Artist, or even CEO. with his or her own AT&T
cellular phone style walkie-talkie.


Steve Wolfson -- Motorola Cellular, Arlington Heights, IL --

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #665
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26820;
          23 Sep 90 1:24 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16657;
          22 Sep 90 23:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03225;
          22 Sep 90 22:53 CDT
Date:     Sat, 22 Sep 90 22:07:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #666
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Sep 90 22:06:58 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 666

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CLASSPLUS Service [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Octothorpes [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Norman R. Tiedemann]
    Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person [W. Randolph Franklin]
    Re: Bell Canada Restricts 976 [Pete Smith]
    Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Sleazy 900 Numbers [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: MCI Slams Me Again [John Nagle]
    MCI Wins One by Default [Bruce E. Howells]
    What is This World Coming To? [Lou Judice]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22-SEP-1990 01:09:38.63
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLASSPLUS Service


Hi-

I saw that William Degnan in his post on new "CLASSPLUS" services
mentioned that one of these new services would allow customers with
Call-Waiting to get a display of a third party calling via
Call-Waiting. This is indeed interesting, but a bit troublesome.

I thought that the data for Caller*ID was sent between the first and
second rings, ie, before the phone is picked up. How is it possible
then to send the Caller*ID signal while a call is allready in
progress? I am presently working on a few devices which utilize
Caller*ID, so it would be a real pain if Call-Waiting type Caller*ID
is not compatible with the "standard" type of Caller*ID (ie, the kind
Bellcore describes in their literature.)

Do they verebally tell you the calling number after the Call-Waiting
beep, as in: <BEEP> (or CLICK <BEEP> CLICK for older machines) You
have a call from 555-1212. Flash once to answer." Nah ... would take
too long ... oh well, sounds interesting to me, nevertheless.


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Octothorpes
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 06:03:58 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Archer) writes:

>I've got a pulse/tone switchable phone that uses * for mute and # for
>redial.  It does mute/redial regardless of whether you're in pulse or
>tone mode, which of course means, you can't send a * or # in tone.

Here in Australia, Telecom introduced pulse only push button phones in
about 1970. Some years later they became tone/pulse switchable with 9
memories (*1 thru *9) and last number redial (#) in both pulse & tone
mode. To get a * or # in tone mode you had to push ** or ##.


David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 14:38:50 EDT
From: Norman R Tiedemann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

>This individual received an extremely odd call on her answering
>machine at home. At first, she just assumed this was crosstalk of
>some particularly nasty kind, although the voices were much clearer
>than when crosstalk is a problem.

>However, the next day a person she'd been interviewing for a job came in.
>Instantly, everything clicked.  He had been the one whose conversation was
>recorded on the phone.  Apparently he had a sophistcated auto-dial speaker
>phone, either with more than one line or with three-way callbing.

>The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone
>inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a
>three-way call? Or did this have to be intentional?

This is not that odd, I have gotten this on my machine a couple of
times and I now know exactly what causes it here. The person who was
recorded just has to have three way calling on his line and it is a very
easy thing to do completely ACCIDENTALLY!

He calls you, (to schedule the appointment or whatever), gets your
machine and decides he doesn't want to leave a message. He taps the
switch hook, which instead of hanging up, gives him the second line,
the CO on your end doesn't even detect the disconnect and keeps your
machine connected (and recording). He now has a threeway setup between
your machine, himself and the next person he called. Everything is
recorded and unless your machine has a beep or time limit or something
on it, he never knows. (I guess he would really get confused if he
tried to three way again.)

So it is fairly easy for an inexperienced "phone user" to do this and
not have a clue about what is going on.


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

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Complaint to Telco Brings Hostile Service Person!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 21 Sep 90 19:43:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Norman Soley <oracle!nsoley@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

>Once upon a time someone told me that the reason a data line costs
>more was because a voice call used less bandwidth when it was
>multiplexed with other calls on a trunk than a data call did.

At least in the past on transatlantic lines, a form of time division
multiplexing was used where you had a line only when talking.  The
result was that 1/20 second of so was clipped of the start of every
phrase while the system was allocating you a new circuit.  Therefore
they had to make the first tone longer when transmitting a number.

Is this still used, and where?


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

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

Date: 22 Sep 90 09:35:40 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Bell Canada Restricts 976
Organization: School of Computer Science, Univ. of Windsor, Ontario, Canada


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

> An insert in the current Bell Canada phone bill reads in part:

> #  Effective August 24, 1990 Bell Canada customers will be able
> #  to reach only Bell 976 Service programs within their area code.
> #  Long distance calls to Bell 976 Service programs elsewhere
> #  within Bell Canada territory -- for example, Ottawa to Montreal
> #  -- will automatically be blocked.

> #  ... Bell filed the proposal to block long distance calls to 976
> #  Service programs as a result of customer complaints over unauth-
> #  orized calls.  This restriction is meant to protect them from
> #  unexpected long distance charge for 976 Service.

Right. The unmentioned reason is that BC's customers don't make any
money from calls out of your Area Code ... such calls are only charged
the LD rates, NOT the maximum $3 per call for a maximum 4 minute
recorded msg.

With service providers losing out on, for instance, calls to their 416
numbers by 519 dialers, instead of to the 519 numbers, BC had to
appease their REAL customers somehow. Thus the "restriction".

In almost all cases, the "unexpected long distance charge" works out
to about half the cost of an "unexpected local 976 charge".

Service providers for Ontario 976 numbers are required to rent a
minimum of 30 phone lines, with equipment in specific locations
(closer to certain CO's, the cheaper the line rentals). I can
understand why they want to make as much money as they can; but BC's
"meant to protect" smoke is just annoying.

Ah well, at least we don't have to worry about 900 numbers; the only
ones we have access to here are the automated voting lines; the most
popular one is used on the national Movie Channel to pick a new
release to be shown early.


Pete Smith

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines
Date: 22 Sep 90 11:45:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Local calls are charged for and timed. Isn't one charge enough? Or is
> data something "magic" that costs telco extra? What costs the telco
> more: a twenty-minute news delivery from my news feed, or a two-hour
> converstation by my neighbor's teen-aged daughter? See? Forget the
> authoritative declaration from a Pac*Bell "informant" -- the logic of
> the position fails as well.

John is quite correct.  Using today's technology, and using timed
billing, data calls cost the telco what voice calls do, and they
produce the same revenue that voice calls do.  Extra charges for data
calling are not justified.

This may not always be true, however.  Future trends go toward
allocating only the bandwidth required to every connection.  Rather
than assign 64kbit/second of bandwidth to every conversation, whether
or not it needs it, the future network will only assign the bandwidth
actually required by the message channel being carried.  Speech
compression and coding technology has advanced a long way since the
first digital telephony standards were written.

An example of this trend is the use, in the coming digital cellular
telephony networks, of speech carried at 8 or 16 kbit/second with
sophisticated digital signal processing being used to remove virtually
all redundancy from the channel.  It's like running batched netnews
feeds through compress(1).  These channels don't work with wideband
data.  The amound of information is greater, and the amount of
compression that can be realized is less.  The minimum required
bandwidth is greater.  The cost is higher.  At some point, we should
expect the price to be higher.

There is technology under development that will characterize
individual calls as voice or data.  Data calls will be further
characterized by the amount of compression possible (i.e. the minimum
required bandwidth).  I predict that at some point, we'll not only
find timed local billing, but bandwidth-dependent timed billing.  It
will probably work out that the cost of sending 100,000 bytes of data
will be essentially the same, whether we use 1200 bps modems, 9600 bps
modems, or ISDN digital channels without modems.  The high-speed links
will take less time, but the price per minute will be higher, to
reflect the increased bandwidth requirements.

What I don't know is how long it will be before such things become
common.  I do know that the call-characterization technology is under
development for the RBOCs today.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sleazy 900 Numbers
Date: 22 Sep 90 11:29:22 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

[A description of yet another sleazy 900 number practice.]

>Pat -- of course this sort of stuff is a result of the breakup.

I didn't realize that 900 number sleaze was the result of divestiture!
Could somebody please explain this one?

There are many effects of divestuture, some are good, and some are
bad.  There are also many changes in telecommunications technology and
in its application.  Some are good; some (like 900 sleaze, IMHO) are
bad.  I don't believe, however, that retention of AT&T's monopoly
status would have prevented this sort of application of their services
by their customers.


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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 12:48:24 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor


> 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.

I called my LEC (Pactel) and was informed by the representative that
they do not provide this service, at least in this area (Anaheim,
Orange County, California). She did say that GTE did support it,
however.

I would appreciate any information to the contrary, i.e. how to
educate the reps to exactly what I'm talking about.


Jeff Sicherman
[e-mail]

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Slams Me Again
Date: 22 Sep 90 06:05:57 GMT


     How about not paying MCI's bill?

                    John Nagle

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 21:12:21 -0400
From: "Bruce E. Howells" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Wins One by Default


About two months ago, I wrote an article for TELECOM Digest outlining
my "slamming" my (now old) residential service, and how a smiling MCI
rep promised me that the billing would end immediately, that I'd be
credited immediately for that month's billing on MCI, and would I
please accept their apology.

Well, since then:

I recieved my September NJ Bell bill.  Not only wasn't the promised
refund there, but ANOTHER month's billing.

Immmediate call to the person at MCI who so kindly fixed this a
month ago.

Call 1 - Sorry, but she's not working at the moment. May I
take your name and have her return your call?
Call 2 - same.
Call 3 - "I've gotten this story twice now, when is she working?"
Given schedule.
Call 4 during appropriate time - Sorry, she's on another call, may I
put you on hold?   Certainly.   10 minutes later, dialtone.
Call 5 - same
Call 6 - I'm sorry you've gone through all this Mr. Howells, I'll
leave a message for her and her supervisor to call tomorrow.
Call 7 - 9 - same.

Well, MCI, you've won one by default.  To keep NJ Bell happy, I've
paid your bill (MCI billed me via NJB), and since I've now moved to
Boston, and am being kept quite busy by my studies here, I'm not going
to pursue this any further.  However, you might want to consider the
public relations damage, at least locally - this story has travelled
across USENet, as well as throughout the group of people here in
Boston and New Jersey whom I know ... Maybe it's not a large
customer-base, but there are a few people out there quite thoroughly
polarized against MCI, and from what I understand, I'm not the only
person to be "slammed" in this manner ... It's not really that big a
thing, when you come down to it - but I'll never do business with you
again, nor will any phone line I have contact with.  My roommate was
quite interested to hear why I so strenously did not want MCI as our
Dial-1 carrier.

Oh, by the way - I notice that you've somehow managed to be assigned
to my new residence number here as the Dial-1 carrier, even after all
the service requests had "NO DIAL-1, BY SUBSCRIBER REQUEST" on them.


Bruce Howells,  [e-mail]  |   engnbsc@buacca (BITNet)

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

From: Lou Judice <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 05:42:33 PDT
Subject: What Is This World Coming To?


I don't understand several of the recent postings in Telecom ... What
is the point of putting bizzare messages on your answering machine to
mislead some hapless telemarketing representative, when as Patrick
states, A POLITE NO THANK YOU WILL DO!

And exactly why would you want to even RISK interference with air
traffic communications by using your cellular phone while taxiing to
the gate on an airliner? Remember, an accident here may result in
severe damage to your portable cellular phone (not to mention you).

What exactly is this world coming to when we can no longer talk to
strangers, and/or can't wait two minutes to get to make a darned
telephone call?

Sorry, I just don't get it!

ljj


[Moderator's Note: Sometimes, Lou, neither do I. And there you have
issue 666 of the Digest. I wonder if the Devil made me do it.  :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #666
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00908;
          23 Sep 90 13:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17265;
          23 Sep 90 2:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab23679;
          23 Sep 90 0:58 CDT
Date:     Sun, 23 Sep 90 0:21:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #667
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 23 Sep 90 00:20:59 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 667

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Bill Cerny]
    Re: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [James Watcher]
    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Kevin Mitchell]
    Re: POETS Sets [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Bob Yasi]
    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Mark Kerr]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers  (was: Voice Mail Passwords)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 15:54:43 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 ?

You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant.  The PIN is
encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by
a chip that is in the PIN pad itself.  The plaintext PIN never sees
the light of day.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Toto uucp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions
Date: 21 Sep 90 04:14:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ihor J Kinal)
writes:

>If both sides went over satellite, that would mean a half-second of
>extra delay from when one person stopped talking...

Would any reader care to confirm or deny the rumor I heard that in the
late 1970's AT&T used "satellite avoidance codes" for its inbound WATS
(now called "800 Service") customers receiving data calls?  As I
recall, certain 800-NNX codes were guaranteed a terrestial routing;
e.g., 800-223 (NYC Broadway 24) was an avoidance code, but its sister,
800-221, might catch a satellite hop on a transcontinental call.


Bill Cerny
[e-mail]   |   attmail: !denwa!bill

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calling Examples Needed Showing Sprint Costs More
Date: 21 Sep 90 02:10:16 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

>(You didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?)


    NO ONE expects the SPANISH INQUISITION !!!!!


    (Sorry, couldn't resist. Aren't there any other Monty Python
fans out there?)

>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.

    The point I was trying to make is that there *are* some places
in 415 where the S/N gets pretty bad between the local CO and Sprint.
I can imagine a variety of reasons for this, some of which would be
the local telco's fault rather than Sprint's.


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

From: watcher <nstar![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 02:27:42 EST
Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd.
Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding


Some years ago I heard of an automatic call fowarding device (this was
before call forwarding was offered as an option by the telcos; it was,
in fact, pre-divestiture) that worked like this: you had two lines;
the first one rings (your "real" number); device dials out on the
second line; then conferences the lines together. Sure, you would have
to have two lines, but if you already have an extra one for the
dial-out modem, this wouldn't be a problem.

Such a device would be simpler and more straightforward, and with the
addition of some intelligence (say, a 6502? :-) could be reprogrammed
remotely, have pin numbers, etc, as well as other interesting
features, such as the ability to forward a number only during certain
hours, otherwise leaving it unanswered or diverting it to an answering
machine.

It could forward to different numbers based on the time of day, or the
day of the week. It could keep a log of when calls were forwarded,
where, and for how long. If it knew how much it cost, it could keep
tabs on that. If the volume of calls was not too terribly high, it
could even forward both directions, i.e.  calls on line A get
forwarded to number C through line B, while calls to line B get
forwarded to number D through line A. Better yet: have three-way
calling on the outgoing line that could then be used remotely; even
better still, have TWO outgoing lines with three-way calling that
could be conferenced together WITH the incoming line, making it
possible to set up small conferences by dialing in. Of course, the
more complicated, the more engineering headaches and programming
nightmares, but such a thing is definitely feasible, and probably not
very expensive. I could probably even design the controller and
write the software!  Unfortunately, I'm just not an analog person.


James Watcher (yes, that's what it says on my driver's license)
nstar![e-mail] (fast)
PO Box 875  Notre Dame, IN 46556 (slow)

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug
Date: 22 Sep 90 05:40:44 GMT
Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago


We have had similar problems with a voice mail system we were
evaluating here at Datalogics.

We have over 100 phones on Centrex, with some third party call
direction equipment for the receptionist, and a setup that connects
you to the paging loudspeakers if you dial 8 from any phone.

People would try to make intraoffice calls. After four rings, they
would figure the person wasn't at his desk, so they'd flash the
switchhook, dial 8, and announce "XYZ please call 3NNN" or somesuch.
Immediately afterward, the voicemail system would ask the entire
company if they would want to leave a message via the loudspeakers.

You see, the "dial 8" is just another extension, and the switchhook
flash had the effect of transferring the voicemail system to the
paging extension.  When the paging system "answered," the voicemail
would announce. After about a month of listening to this, we decided
against the voicemail system.  It turns out that people would rather
leave computer mail instead.

Now, we only have to smirk at the occasional accidental connection of
the operator to the paging system.


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

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

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 90 17:33 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: POETS Sets


Tad writes <in Digest Vol10,Iss648>:

>This is an electronic key system called the Walker Poet.

Didn't ANYBODY recognize the product marketing failure a "clever" name
like POETS put in the mind of every office worker, the expectation it
only worked on Friday: "P... On Everything; Tomorrow's Saturday!"  Oh,
how much I heard that and it burned into the buyers' minds.  Small
wonder Walker didn't get rich on that one!

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 14:13:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> 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!

Digitize it and send it in to Pat. I'm sure he'd LOVE to ship binaries
with TELECOM Digest.

Actually, now that I think of it, an FTP site for answering-machine
messages might not be a bad idea. They're certainly more *useful* than
the dirty pictures group.


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 17:35:42 GMT


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

>This thread (and the {Wall Street Journal}, and other publications)
>has mentioned a general prohibition against cellular telephone use in
>aircraft.  I have searched the FCC regulations for this prohibition
>(to find out its details), but I cannot find it.

It is certainly too recent to have found itself printed in CFR47 (the
FCC rules and regulations).  In any event, the cabin crew announcement
these days is exceedingly explicit in disallowing operation of ANY
radio equipment (transmitters or receivers) at any time.  US Air also
requested that we turn off laptop computers and video games during
takeoff and landing.

All of the above is, I believe, related to the FARs proscribing
interference to navigational equipment.  The airborne cellular
(specifically) prohibition has be discussed here before, and relates
to cell overloading.  Maybe someone can look it up in the cellular
rules.

I wouldn't be surprised to find the laptop prohibition on takeoff and
landing to be an attempt to prevent injury from flying objects in the
event of an accident.

Sometimes there may be MORE THAN ONE reason for a rule.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 12:46:47 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine


  I'm not a lawyer or a regulatory expert, but it seems to me that
requesting and being granted telephone service creates at least an
implied contract between the subscriber and the supplier which
includes an obligation to follow all regulations and rules whose
purpose is to maintain the reliability and efficiency of the phone
network and which do not unreasonably interfere with the customers use
of it.

  It seems to me that aping signalling tones could, under some
circumstances interfere with its operation, if only by confusing
humans whose job it is to troubleshoot and repair. And their use seems
like mostly a game to those using them, not a necessary use.

  Like the highway system or any other shared media or conveyance, the
phone system works because there are limits on its use to maximize its
benefits for all (even the stockholders), not merely for those who
want to maximize their own satisfaction or amusement.


Jeff Sicherman
[e-mail]

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

From: Bob Yasi <mtxinu!algol.la.locus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"
Date: 21 Sep 90 19:50:36 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA


I was pretty surprised that our Moderator posted the so-called joke
about crossing the lines of the meat packing plant with the funeral
home -- unless the purpose was to let people that these things
actually DO occur and to get some comments.  Well, here are my
comments.

Perhaps the perpetrators have not yet experienced much grief at the
death of a loved one, or have not comforted a loved one going through
such grief themselves.  Well, I hope you do, and soon, and that
someone does something awful to make it worse and that you think of
this when it happens.

Then laugh.  Ha Ha Ha.

These jerks have my utter condemnation -- and I haven't even addressed
the privacy issue!


Bob Yazz


[Moderator's Note: You saw the messages because I try to avoid
censoring on the basis of content, provided there is at least some
telecom relationship in the message. Sometimes when there are *so
many* replies all saying the same thing I have to cut out a few, but I
avoid censoring merely because I don't like the content.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 12:47:46 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"


   I wonder how some of the apologists for the shenanigans being
passed off as inside humor would react if the Postal Service did the
following to their mail:

  - randomly opened it and made copies to pass around the
    office and to other parties
  - intentionally routed it to the wrong party occasionally

  I don't see any difference between these and the activities of the
insiders, other than the media and the employer, and that doesn't
change the ethics of the situation.


Jeff Sicherman
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 08:16:24 EDT
From: Mark Kerr <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"


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

>Oh get off it Pat,  Your holier than thou attitude in relation to the
>telco antics issue is getting old.  Just because you didn't think of
>it or get a chance to do it is no reason to be a puritan and deny
>others their own enjoyment of a situation.  I am willing to bet that
>you are not spotlessly clean in terms of abusive humor.

That's probably true ... someone should ask Pat about the things he
used to do with some BBS software that a branch of the Chicago Public
Library used to run.  Something about "back doors".

I'm sure none of us are perfect.  Heck, I still remember getting my
wrists slapped in college over using the state tie line to call
friends at other campuses.  Hey, the tie line was programmed and
available from my dorm phone!

Mark Kerr

UUCP:  ....!crash!pro-charlotte!markke
ARPA:  crash!pro-charlotte![e-mail]
INET:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The Chicago Public Library used to run a BBS for
book and movie reviews, plus social issues discussion. This was in the
period 1981-83. It ran on an Apple II computer donated by Friends of
the Chicago Public Library. It originally used the ABBS program. Three
of us donated money to buy the People's Message System (PMS) software
which had recently been written by Bill Blue. The same three of us
installed it. I was the volunteer Sysop for several months in 1982-83,
and maintained the board from home most of the time.  The library
staff was supposed to turn on the machine on at 9 PM each night when
the library closed, and turned it off in the morning.  Library patrons
used the computer and a variety of software during the day. I never
knew what I would find from one night to the next or if in fact they
would remember to turn on the BBS before closing for the night.  The
only trap door I knew of in the PMS software was the one the author
put there and documented in the manual: a certain command permitted
the Sysop or super-user to exit to DOS for maintainence work on the
board, followed by a PR#6 to bring it back up again, although frankly
there were so many people getting involved there what you say about
additional trap doors -- if there were any -- doesn't surprise me.

I finally resigned in May, 1983 when my own BBS was about to go on
line. There were various differences of opinion between the
supervising librarian and myself about how the library BBS should and
should not be operating. One such difference centered on the lack of
security on the BBS. In the early eighties, only a few of us were
demanding verifiable user information before issuing passwords. Most
BBS', including the library, ran wide open in those days. The attitude
of the supervising librarian was that 'it had to be open to all users
since it (the library) was a public, tax-supported institution.'
Needless to say, the message base was a mess much of the time and
apparently the software got that way also.

It made better sense to spend my energy on my own board instead,
although I still do volunteer work for the Chicago Public Library, as
I have since 1981. Now I produce programs for the visually handicapped
in the library's Radio Information Service which are broadcast over
closed-circuit SCA (Subscriber Carrier Access) radios throughout
northern Illinois. If you are interested, our signal travels with
WBEZ, the Chicago Board of Education radio station.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #667
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00922;
          23 Sep 90 13:09 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17265;
          23 Sep 90 2:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad23679;
          23 Sep 90 0:58 CDT
Date:     Sun, 23 Sep 90 0:51:46 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #668
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 23 Sep 90 00:51:28 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 668

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Payphone Message Service Trial Ending [David Leibold]
    Teleconferencing Symposium in Toronto [David Leibold]
    COCOTery [John Higdon]
    Multiple "Zones" in One Cell Service Area [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message? [Dave Levenson]
    False Telco Trouble Reports [Dave Levenson]
    Sprint Wars (was: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!) [Todd Inch]
    Crosstalk in Nontwisted Cable [Alec]
    Two-way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface [Tad Cook]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Payphone message service trial ending
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:09:51 EDT

 From the Bell (Canada) News, it seems that the Payphone Messenger
trial that has been going on in Ottawa is something of a success. This
is the service for payphones that allows one to leave a voice message
should a called number be busy or unanswered. If the caller wants to
leave a message, the '#' button is pressed and the caller leave a
message. The called number will ring every fifteen minutes until
answered or until two hours have passed. Leaving a message costs the
coin deposit (25c); the caller can also hang up on the busy or
no-answer and get the deposit back.

The Ottawa trial will end on 1st October, and the service will stop,
at least until the service is offered commercially next year, as a
feature of the new Millenium payphones. The Marketing and Development
groups of Bell Canada involved in the trial won an award for the
project.

89% of Payphone Messenger users who tried the service were satisfied
with it. On the receiving end, three-quarters of those receiving a
payphone message considered it a "major improvement" in payphone
service. (The figures were based on those interviewed with respect to
the message service).

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Teleconferencing Symposium in Toronto
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:16:45 EDT


Telecom Canada presents a Teleconferencing Symposium

15-16 October 1990, Downtown Holiday Inn, Chestnut St, Toronto

Highlights:

* Keynote speaker F.G. "Buck" Rodgers, author of "The IBM Way"
* Professor Jerry White, author of "Intrapreneuring, The Secrets of
  Corporate Success in Canada"
* Dr. Robert Johansen, President of the Institute for the Future

Costs: 2 days, meals + workshops incl - $495
       1 day, meals + workshops incl - $325
       trade show postion only - two days - $25

To register, send cheque or money order (payable to the 1990
Teleconferencing Symposium) to Debbie Smith, Corporate Business
Development, Rm 740, 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa Canada.

More info: Cathy Thompson [phone]

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

Subject: COCOTery
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: 20 Sep 90 23:22:48 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


An informal cruise of COCOTs in the "Post PUC Reform Era", reveals
that little if anything has changed. Every (read that EVERY) COCOT
that I have fiddled with since that fateful day in August when all was
supposed to be made right has at least one significant PUC violation.
Some are still charging $0.25 for local calls. Some restrict 950. Most
restrict 811. A few don't allow end-to-end DTMF signaling. None allow
10XXX dialing. None post rates or instructions on how to access
different carriers.

So what is the point of regulation? COCOT owners will do what they
please, anyway they please. No one will enforce anything in this
arena.  I have reported many of the more flagrant violators by phone
and in writing, using a Pac*Bell form designed expressly for the
purpose. Not one reported phone has yet cleaned up its act.

So what is to be done about these things? Personally, I replaced my GE
Mini cellular phone with a Motorola flip phone so that I could always
carry it with me. I'd rather pay a few cents more to a cellular
provider than to COCOT scum. The principle of COCOTs has got to be
near the top of the list of "bad things" to come out of divestiture.

To those of you who have groused about the impracticality of making
international calls from payphones, I have a comment: It will only get
worse. To the degree that COCOTs take over and displace Utility
payphones, casual public use of this country's telephone network will
disappear. Not only is it impractical to call Fiji, it is also
impossible to call across town to retrieve voice mail messages.
Instead of becoming more useful, the public telephone has become
practically useLESS.

COCOTs have certainly played a part in the roaring success of cellular
communications. You don't suppose...


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

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

Date: 21-SEP-1990 04:20:38.88
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Multiple "Zones" in One Cell Service Area


Hi-

I was going over my Roam charges for Cell One/San Francisco, and
noticed that not only was I billed the $2 daily charge for the SF
area, but they also billed me $2 for going to Santa Cruz and Santa
Rosa, both of which are "part" of the Cell One/SF system.

When I first called Cell One/SF in June, I asked "What is the extent
of your coverage area?", and after that, "Could you please tell me
your system ID code so that I can set it in my phone so the "ROAM"
light will come on when I leave you area..." (and not have to pay Roam
charges for temporarily calling from another system)? They (VERY
politely, with NO hesitation!) told me "Oh, sure, it's 00041, and as
long as you don't see the ROAM light come on, you'll definitely be in
our area...".

Now when I was down in Santa Cruz, or up in Petaluma (in the Santa
Rosa "Zone"), my "ROAM" light didn't show up, yet Cell One/SF insists
that both the Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa systems have different System
ID numbers.  I was told Santa Cruz was something like 30041 and Santa
Rosa was 50041.  (Can't recall exactly.) If this is the case, why
didn't my phone show ROAM while I was in those areas? Is the first
digit (ie, the 3 or 5 in this case) insignificant, ie, do cell phones
ignore it for purposes of comparison with the "home" Sys. ID code in
the phone?

A friend of mine who has Cell One/SF as her "home" system says that
when she goes down to Santa Cruz her "ROAM" light doesn't go on, and
she isn't billed anything extra or at higher airtime rates.

So is this just some way to rip-off Roamers unsuspectingly? (Which in
my experience with Cell One would be quite atypical). I try to make
every effort not to incur lots of daily charges, including programming
my phone so I can tell when I'm in a new system, but if I can't tell
when I am "roaming" by the "ROAM" indicator, how can I tell?? The
amount in question was only $18, so it's more the principle of the
thing that concerns me.

Anyone else notice this?

(I am on GTE so this is the first time I noticed this myself...)

Just wondering.

Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message?
Date: 21 Sep 90 15:06:36 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


A friend in Morristown, NJ went away for a couple of weeks.  His
number was 267-1234 (actual number changed to protect...).  He didn't
want a ring-no-answer situation for two weeks, and didn't happen to
have an answering machine at the time.  He used call- forwarding.

He forwarded his calls to 263-1234 (note the similarity to his own
number) in nearby Boonton, NJ.  That number was not in service at the
time.

Callers who dialed 267-1234 got a SIT followed by "The number you have
dialed, 263-1234, is not in service."  This probably gave many callers
the impression that they had mis-dialed the third digit.  Someone
called NJ Bell repair service.  They investigated, and then canceled
call-forwarding on my friend's line.  When he returned home and found
that callers were reaching ring-no-answer, he complained to NJ Bell.

In the end, they wrote him a letter appologizing for having cancelled
his call-forwarding, and promising never to do it again!  They never
claimed that he was not within his rights in forwarding his calls to a
non-working number.  He has since forwarded his calls to
permanently-busy test numbers on such occasions.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: False Telco Trouble Reports
Date: 21 Sep 90 15:15:05 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Here at Westmark, the number on the second line in the hunt-group that
serves our modem pool was assigned to us about three months after its
former subscriber had requested a number-change to unlisted.

While I was installing the modems, it began to ring.  I answered from
the butt set, and explained to the caller that the Schwartz family no
longer had that number.  This happened several times during the first
hour.  I called NJ Bell and advised them that the number they had just
assigned was perhaps not yet "ripe for reassignment" and asked them
for another.  Because it is the second line in a hunt group, we don't
care what its number is, and nobody else needs to know.  NJ Bell
replied that they'd charge us $50 for a number-change.  I replied that
in that case, I'd keep the number and let them deal with the resulting
confusion.

Repair service has called four times in the past year, apparently when
a caller complained to them that they were trying to call Mr. Schwartz
and got a loud tone (modem answer tone) on the line.  On each
occasion, I explained to the repair agent that the line had been
re-assigned, no-longer belongs to anybody named Schwartz, and is now
part of a group of data lines.

I'm still willing to let them change the number if they're willing to
do it gratis, but they aren't.  I haven't heard from repair service
lately, so perhaps the callers have finally learned.


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

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Wars  (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!)
Organization: Global Tech International Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 21:11:06 GMT


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

>C'mon, folks.  Enough whining about Sprint "putting it in writing".

I don't think so.  I wish I HAD it in writing before I did switch to
Sprint, it might have saved a lot of time and some money.

Both on their TV ads and on the phone to both myself and my wife,
their sales staff promised that I would save money switching to
Sprint.  LIE!!!

I found out about their lie when AT&T "slammed" me after my wife
called for information.  I was infuriated that I had been slammed and
demanded GTE change me back and refund the difference I would have
saved if I had been on Sprint, as was my desire.

The nice service rep at GTE called back and told me I would have paid
$8.50 MORE if I had Sprint for the (typical, for me) calls on my bill.
She called each carrier and got their costs for those calls and
compared them for me.  That worked out to about 10% of that bill.

Yes, all my LD calls are normally intRA-state, inter-LATA (206 to 509)
but Sprint never EVER mentioned intER-state call savings, or
intRA-state exceptions, or "average calling patterns" or anything like
that.

>10 cents per minute anywhere in US.
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a continuation of the BIG LIE.  It means "anywhere except
within your own state."  But, who would ever dial long distance inside
their own state?  (sarcastic smiley here)

And you want to talk about Customer Service?  Took six calls, with
LOTS of auto-attendant menus and "on-hold" time to get Sprint to
credit me for the difference between them and AT&T and the $12 dial-1
LD changeover fee.

While I'm ranting, let's talk about those 100% digital calls.  Yes,
CALLS is what they've told me, not NETWORK.  Lie #2, especially if
you're in the west half of the United States.  How many miles of
analog lines does your call travel through to get to their digital
network?

I don't know, maybe it does help if you're calling cross-country, but
I just can't get past the notion of your quality is only as good as
the weakest link.  Is this as opposed to a satellite-based network?
Maybe that is the weakest link for the other guys.

Well, I haven't thrown out the 800-service literature from Sprint yet,
and I did give the lady an hour of my time to discuss the company's LD
plans, so I'm not totally predjudice about Sprint, they just don't
help me at home and I don't like sales jer ... uh, people, lying to
me.

Can anyone comment on the modem-connection quality via Sprint from/to
the Seattle area?  Sounds controversional in central CA, anyway.

I also don't like being slammed, but that did show me true costs, and
they (AT&T) paid for the changeover themselves.  I also give them a
little leeway since my wife did said she was interested, but didn't
explicitly ask for or authorize the switchover.

Interesting note here, GTE swears the LD carrier cannot authorize a
changeover (maybe local policy?), that the subscriber has to call it
in himself, but obviously it can happen here.


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 23:18 EDT
From: Alec <[e-mail]>
Subject: Crosstalk in Nontwisted Cable


For some reason, my house was wired with six pair nontwisted cable.
When I got a second line and hooked it up to a second pair, the
crosstalk was so bad as to make both lines unuseable.  At the time I
had one of those cheap phones that when the ringer is turned on and
you pulse dial on that line it chirps.  Well, from that phone (with it
on hook!) you could listen to this side of the conversation on the
*OTHER* line!  I ended up running quad (I had some) separately for the
second line.

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Two-way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface
Date: 21 Sep 90 18:19:59 GMT


I am looking for a device that can go between the telco line side of a
key telephone system and a two-way radio system.  The operator of the
device pushes the line button on the key telephone associated with
this device, and audio from the radio system is patched into the
telephone.  The operator can then press a footswitch to key the
push-to-talk circuit of the radio, and talk over the radio using an
operator's headset that is part of the telephone.

I thought of using a ringdown circuit between a line position on the
key system and one of those simplex autopatches, but there must be a
simpler solution that does not require the ringing voltage from the
ringdown circuit, and provides it's own battery feed to the phone
system.  I also would not need the sampling that the simplex patch
provides which allows a mobile unit to access the phone system.  This
is a very simple patch that would be under control of the operator.

Is there a stand-alone unit that would do this?  I know that Plant
Equipment has a card (the 3134 KTU Radio Access) that does this, but
only as part of their whole key system.

If anyone has some thoughts on this and cannot reach me via email, you
can call me from 7:40am to 3:50pm Pacific Time weekdays at
800-824-9719 or 206-881-7000, and ask for PAUL COOK.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #668
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07953;
          23 Sep 90 20:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26316;
          23 Sep 90 19:10 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10863;
          23 Sep 90 18:07 CDT
Date:     Sun, 23 Sep 90 17:39:03 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #669
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 23 Sep 90 17:39:04 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 669

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI as Slamming King [Robert Michael Gutierrez]
    Re: What Is This World Coming To? [John Higdon]
    Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing) [John Higdon]
    Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing! [Rich Sims]
    Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Steven King]
    Stealing ATM PINS [Isaac Rabinovitch]
    The Phone Book [David Leibold]
    Finding Your Own Phone Number [Patrick Tufts]
    References Wanted on Toll Fraud [David Appell]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 05:54:01 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center


[e-mail] (David Tamkin) writes:

|> Tom Ohmer [O] and Chris Johnson [J] wrote in volume 10, issue 659:

|> O> My apartment-mate got involved in that pyramid company from
|> O> Michigan.  They had a `deal' of some kind for him to use MCI.  I
|> O> found out about it by accident...

|> O> I called MCI Customer `Service' and they told me I had requested
|> O> the switch.  "No, I did not."  "Aren't you <so-and-so>?"  "No."

|> Robert Michael Gutierrez is the local expert on these matters, but
|> I'll venture a theory: Tom's apartment-mate wanted MCI 1+ on his own
|> line but 10222 access to his own MCI account if he should need to
|> place a long-distance call from Tom's line,....

I agree with this theory, but unfortunately, there are a number of
customer service reps who don't know how to implement this theory.

All customer service reps are trained in a two week class, and in that
two week class, about one semester's worth of Telecomm 101 is shoved
down their throat, and three days is left to use the CICS-VS system
MCI uses on their IBM 3090's.  (The specific CICS system was named
OCIS [On-Line Customer Information System]).  Even for me, coming from
a totally different computing environment and never having used an IBM
3270 terminal, it was difficult (I caught on the telecomm part real
easily).

Let's face it, customer service is there for one purpose only in any
industry, to hold people's hands.  Comprehensive training to use the
equipment is secondary.  Most of the customer service new-hires always
end up getting trained by their next-door cubicle neighbors, not in
the training class.  And the new-hire, with 30+ calls on hold, isn't
going to go run off to find his/her manager or "group leader" for
something he or she does not understand.  He or she is going to take a
guess.

Personally, I'd ask the rep how long they have been working there.
Over three months would be a minimum.  Six months to one year is
preferable.  Over one year is considered an "old-timer", and is rare
in their Customer Service Department.

|> J> A few years ago, MCI changed my dial 1+ long distance service from
|> J> AT&T (my selection) to themselves, against my wishes....

|> J> The other day, I received a letter in the mail from MCI saying welcome
|> J> to MCI's 1+ service.  Wait, I thought, didn't I speak to an MCI
|> J> telemarketer a month or so ago, asked to speak with their supervisor,
|> J> and explicitly told him NOT TO CHANGE ONE THING?  Yes, in fact I did.

|> J> Those jerks told U.S. West to change my service from AT&T to MCI
|> J> again, without my permission.  Can you tell that I'm annoyed?

|> Ohio Bell accepts MCI's slam on Tom Ohmer, US West Communications
|> accepts it on Chris Johnson, Illinois Bell accepts it on my parents,
|> NJ Bell and Pac*Bell let IEC's slam other readers and their acquain-
|> tances:.... [etc]

All done on mag tape.  Nameless and faceless.

No amount of "tag my LEC account *never* to accept changes from an IEC
(L.D.  Company) concerning my PIC (Primary Interexchange Carrier, or
L.D. company)" wil ever help anybody in the U.S. of A.  All that is
done is a "note" is entered on your account ... three whole lines that
a rep can enter into your account ... anything can be entered (like
"Customer is a 5150"* [see note below]) etc ... but the computer could
care less about those notes.  It still will merrily process the PIC
change off the mag tape.

Computers out of control:

This should be a comp.risks issue, really.  A telemarketer sets off a
chain of computer events that is vurtually unstoppable.  Only the
hapless customers get to clear the aftermath ... or at least try.


   Robert Michael Gutierrez
   Office of Space Science and Applications,
   NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center.
   Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.

(Footnote: "5150" is the Welfare and Institutions code that gives the
State of California power to incarcerate anybody found to "mentally
unstable", and is the official California Highway Patrol code for
"Mental Case". "5150" designations were used liberally at MCI at one
period in time until they got nervous about it.)

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Is This World Coming To?
Date: 23 Sep 90 00:09:00 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 22 at 22:07, Lou Judice <[e-mail]> writes:

> What exactly is this world coming to when we can no longer talk to
> strangers, and/or can't wait two minutes to get to make a darned
> telephone call?

I would agree, but there was one time that I couldn't take it anymore
and whipped out the phone anyway. To set the scene, you have to know
something about the San Jose airport. Picture a sign that reads "San
Jose Municipal Airport" and the "Municipal" is scratched out and the
word "International" is scrawled above it. That describes the
pretentions.

OK, on with the story. I was scheduled to fly to Burbank (a minor
flight) and the delays were mounting. "Ladies and Gentlemen, we regret
to inform you [of another excuse for the flight being delayed]". So I
went to the nearest Pac*Bell payphone to call my customer and announce
my delay. It seems that all of the phones in the San Jose Cattle
Airport are on some screwy carrier back to the CO on 95 Almaden Ave.
And at that time, it was out of whack. Apparently the DTMF was being
distorted to the point of unrecognition. It took several attempts to
dial the call, and it was impossible to enter the calling card. The
operator could barely understand me (from any payphone -- they were
all the same) and so I gave up.

On board the plane, we hit more delays and were informed that it would
be at least twenty minutes before we would be in position to take off.
That did it. Out came the cellular phone and a quick and easy call was
made to my customer. Being fully aware of the RF ramifications, it was
the least I could do to an airline that had really blown it. However,
since we did eventually take off and arrive safely in Burbank, it
apparently did them no harm.

> Sorry, I just don't get it!

Sometimes one can't help it.


        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: Sprint Wars  (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!)
Date: 23 Sep 90 02:36:06 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 23 at  0:51, Todd Inch writes:

> Yes, all my LD calls are normally intRA-state, inter-LATA (206 to 509)
> but Sprint never EVER mentioned intER-state call savings, or
> intRA-state exceptions, or "average calling patterns" or anything like
> that.

> >10 cents per minute anywhere in US.
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is a continuation of the BIG LIE.  It means "anywhere except
> within your own state."  But, who would ever dial long distance inside
> their own state?  (sarcastic smiley here)

This is a point that should probably get more than a mention,
particularly for those who live in the western United States.
Intrastate rates, not being regulated by the FCC, are usually a
ripoff.  And ALL advertising by the IXCs involves interstate calling.
That's just fine for folks who live in the tiny (areawise) eastern
states and make lots of calls across state lines.

But a lot of us out here find that virtually all of our calling is
within the state. In fact, many businesses find that the majority of
calling is within the LATA. A frequent converstation I find myself
having is with LD salescritters who can't understand that it doesn't
make any difference what carrier my client uses -- it won't affect the
amount spent on telephone calls one bit. Ninety-nine percent of the
toll calls are carried by Pac*Bell anyway.

A number of well-meaning readers advised me a while back to check out
this plan or that plan involving long distance. Unfortunately, no IXCs
currently offer any calling discounts for traffic within California.
Since I make about two calls outside the state per month, no IXCs
interstate rates or packages interest me in any way.

Periodically, I do review my calling within the state and look for the
best bargain. Right now, it's AT&T, particularly their WATS service.
Recently, I checked the various rates and found Sprint intrastate
INWATS to be nearly twice the AT&T rate. When the Sprint rep proudly
quoted me the rate, I mentioned that I would stick with AT&T. He asked
why and I told him that he had just quoted an amount that was double
AT&T's. He insisted that I was mistaken and then went into a spiel
about how when I actually got the bill, I would find that I had been
"misled" by AT&T. Then I told him that I was looking at my bill. He
told me that he needed to check it out and would call me back.

Still waiting.

Moral of the story: Be very careful when shopping for intrastate
rates.  Don't just assume that everyone is cheaper than AT&T. In fact,
don't assume anything!


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

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 06:09:52 EDT
From: Rich Sims <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Make Sprint Put it in Writing!


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

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rich
> Sims) writes:

>> For what it's worth, I tried Sprint ... it was more expensive than
>> AT&T and the number of connection failures was *significantly* higher.

> WHAT?  How can this be?  Granted, the rate differences between toll
> carriers these days are mighty small, but AT&T cheaper than Sprint?
> Maybe he is comparing apples and oranges ... some AT&T discount package
> against Sprint's regular rates?

I dunno ... ask Sprint "how it can be"!  As I've already said, the
rates compared were Sprint's best rates (at least, the best ones they
told me about) and AT&T's ROA plan.

Are you trying to say that the comparison is only valid if Sprint's
best rate is better than AT&T's worst rate?  I can save you lots of
money on all your daytime L/D calls myself, and no hassles with
changing your current L/D carrier, either.  Just start making the
calls at night!  Send me the $5 signup fee and 10% of your monthly
savings, please.  :-)

I hereby extend my previously stated offer to discuss a "wonderful
business opportunity" to you, also!

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords)
Date: 23 Sep 90 16:49:02 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc T.
Kaufman) writes:

>You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant.  The PIN is
>encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by
>a chip that is in the PIN pad itself.  The plaintext PIN never sees
>the light of day.

A one way algorithm?  Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you?
A gigantic lookup table?

I really am curious about this, the sarcasm is just a side-effect.  :-)


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

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

From: Isaac Rabinovitch <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Stealing ATM PINS
Date: 23 Sep 90 15:43:32 GMT
Reply-To: claris!netcom![e-mail]
Organization: UESPA


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

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

>> 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...

>Precisely.  If the ATM terminals found in stores are anything like the
>ATMs in banks, it just encrypts the number on the card and the PIN and
>sends them off to the bank computer for verification.

You're assuming that the terminal is functioning the way it was meant
to.  An obvious way to steal PINs would be to modify the terminal so
that it records each PIN before transmitting it.  True, this would be
too sophisticated a fraud to be managed by your typical dishonest
merchant (the kind that pads his credit-card transactions).  But it
occurs to me that somebody who knows your PIN can authorize a lot of
heavy-duty funds transfers.


[e-mail]            Isaac Rabinovitch
{apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!ergo    Silicon Valley, CA

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Phone Book
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 0:30:24 EDT


Someone wanted some details on a publication called "The Phone Book"
written by an ex-Bell employee.

The Phone Book - What the Telephone Company Would Rather You Not Know
by J. Edward Hyde (a nom de plume)

The copyright on it was 1976
Publisher: Henry Regnery Company of Chicago
(Canadian publication by Beaverbooks in Pickering Ontario)

Library of Congress Catalog Card #: 76-6275
ISBN: 0-8092-8008-6

Indeed, it is something of an inside scoop of the old Bell monopoly;
it is now something of a historical reference what with the
divestiture and other technological changes ... however, some rather
shady stuff, and some rather humorous stuff, gets an airing.

More details can be provided if there is interest.


[Moderator's Note: Why not! It is an old book, and somewhat out of
date as a result of divestiture, but if you would care to quote a few
of the juicier tales I imagine some readers would enjoy it.  PAT]

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

From: Patrick Tufts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Date: 21 Sep 90 19:17:49 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept


How can you find out the number of a given phone?  I seem to recall
that linesmen dial the operator and ask for a ringback.

What do you have to say to an operator to get the number of the line
you're calling on?  Are there any numbers you can call that will tell
you your own number (like how [phone] tells you your LD
carrier)?


Pat


[Moderator's Note: In nearly every telephone exchange there is some
number which will read back the number of the phone placing the call.
There is no standardization to this; the numbers are different
everywhere, and change frequently. They are always non-pub, of course.
I suppose you could always make a collect call from the phone in
question to a number you control, then examine your phone bill when it
arrives the next month to see whose call you agreed to pay for. The
linemen can call the test board, but there has to be some reasonable
excuse, such as a pending work order. It also helps if the test board
recognizes your name/voice. The most honest way to go about it would
be to ask the person who owns the phone, "what number is this?"  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 10:59:00 EDT
From: David Appell <[e-mail]>
Subject: References Wanted on Toll Fraud


   I'd appreciate any references to books or journal articles on the
history and current state of fraud on telephone networks.  Thanks.


    David Appell
     ...att!hou2d!appell

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #669
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08818;
          23 Sep 90 21:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25412;
          23 Sep 90 20:14 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26316;
          23 Sep 90 19:11 CDT
Date:     Sun, 23 Sep 90 18:57:39 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #670
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 23 Sep 90 18:57:22 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 670

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture [via Steve Elias]
    Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony [Craig Jackson]
    Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Equal Access on College Campus [James Watcher]
    Itemised Bills - An Australian Followup [David E. A. Wilson]
    Burglar Alarm Problems [Nigel Allen]
    AMI on T1 Lines [Roger Fajman]
    AT&T USAdirect Service News: New Regions; Slightly Better Rates [W. Uhrig]
    MCI Around Town Surcharge and [phone] [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 90 16:12:59 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Patrick -- here are some edited email messages from my Sprint friend.
I've cleaned up the grammar and stuff (I guess Telemail has a fairly
hokey editor.)

Comments from a person who works for Sprint.
He is writing his own opinions, not the official company line:

            ----------
About 800 from intrastate, there is nothing illegal about it from an
OCC standpoint.  I don't know what the deal is about ATT having a
different 800 # for intrastate but I think it goes back to the days of
band 5 wats type stuff.  I will check this.

Again, the ATT guy was right [I was wrong -- eli]; It's not that ATT
is giving switching stuff away, it's giving away PBX and telephone
equipment and services.  I will get back into this when I get a chance
to give a more in-depth reply.

One other thing: ATT was extremely inefficient prior to divestiture,
going from 400k employees to 240k wasn't because they needed the
money, it was to cut out fat.  Also, when you are digital, you need
less manpower to maintain.

            ----------

 Subj: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin

The guy has a few points, he's not quite right on all of them.  But he
did point out a few flaws in your [Eli's] argument.  I can't go into
them all right now but I will mention a few things.

1) Most important: ATT can combine long distance and equipment.
NOBODY ELSE CAN to that extent because nobody else owned a company
like Western Electric.  For large customers looking for all in one
vendors (ie: tariff 12) this is where it makes a huge difference and
where the free "pops" in the equipment arena hurts (this is illegal by
the way, but is under the table).  The thing that stops MCI and Sprint
is that it's impossible for us to do that unless say, we get Northern
Telecom to throw in some free stuff to subsidize our contracts -- not
likely. You get the idea, one side of the company subsidizes the other
(in the ATT world which is a luxury OCCs don't have.)

2) The residential market is NOT relatively unprofitable; it's
extremely profitable because overhead is much less than in say, the
WATS area of the business.  Also, the big argument about price
ceilings and floors in the FCC had to do with ATT lowering rates for
tariff 12 type large customers to lock them in and subsidizing this by
raising residential rates.  To some extent this is exactly what has
been done.

3) Don't let anyone kid you, ATT was at one time the largest company
in the world.  Even today, in an unregulated environment, they could
blow anybody away.  It isn't in their best interest to do that now
because, then, they would be right back where they started and the
feds would crank down harder.  The idea is, to gain as much market as
possible but make sure a few of the OCCs get some crumbs to keep the
'competitive market' alive.

            ----------

 Subject: Monopolies (was: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin)

ATT is probably about 10-15 times our size; closer to 10 I think.
Also, you forgot to mention 800.  ATT has major control over that
market: about 90%.  There are also only a limited # of exchanges
available to OCCs.  Also, there isn't yet portability of 800 numbers
so pretty much when you have a good number or want a specific number,
it depends who has the exchange.  Again, ATT has 90%.

            ----------

The deal of the consent decree (the deal of the century) ended up with
ATT taking the most profitable parts of Ma Bell (Long Lines and
equipment) and dropping the least profitable (RBOCs).  The original
goal of Justice in the whole antitrust suit was to separate Western
Electric from ATT.  This fight goes back to Eisenhower (I think) in
1954.  Read _The Deal of the Century_ by Stephen Cole.

[all previous text written by the US Sprint person, edited by Steve
Elias.]

Peace.

eli


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for sending this along, but I again ask why
it is your friend at Sprint feels it is necessary to remain anonymous.
No one else does that here, and we have had many far more controversial
messages than your friend has sent along.  PAT]

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

From: Craig Jackson drilex1 <drilex![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phreaks of the Monolithic Era of Telephony
Date: 22 Sep 90 16:03:05 GMT
Organization: DRI/McGraw-Hill, Lexington, MA


In article <[e-mail]> asuvax!mothra![e-mail]
(Jon Baker) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: The fact that some employees of AT&T in the past
>> acted like jerks is not a sufficient reason to have broken them up,
>> that's for sure.  PAT]

>Sure it is.  Such behavior is the lowest-level manifestation of what
>'the company' had become.  Directly or indirectly, this activity was
>representative of the company's attitude and philosophy - the overall
>AT&T gestalt, if you will.

>[Moderator's Note: Then we disagree on the extent of the 'jerk-ism',
>and its prevalence in the old Bell System. My experience was that the
>fools there were only a very small percentage of the total work force.
>Most of the people were hard workers, dedicated to the welfare of the
>customers.

I agree that really serious forms of jerk-ism, like breaking into
people's calls from the frame, was uncommon before, and is probably
uncommon today.  I suspect that milder forms of jerk-ism, like
listening to those calls, was as common as idle time in the frame.
The breakup seems to have reduced that idle time, judging from telco
employment statistics.  Electronic exchanges have also contributed to
this -- by eliminating most needs for monitoring personnel, less
people are standing around the frame, busy or not.

Pre-breakup telco personnel were dedicated professionals, at least
when they weren't on strike.  But there probably were too many of
them, and the subset of them who worked in the business office all too
often were not interested in serving the customer, but rather the
company.

About the breakup, I don't think it was morally necessary.  I do think
that it was necessary to remove all monopolies, local and
long-distance.  (The fact that the local monopolies have not been
eliminated does not change my opinion.)  I also think that given the
political clout of the higher echelons of AT&T, something like the
breakup would have been necessary to get through to them that things
were supposed to change.


Craig Jackson
[e-mail]
{bbn,axiom,redsox,atexnet,ka3ovk}!drilex!{dricej,dricejb}

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:43:56 CDT
From: Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin


John writes <in Digest V10, Iss 648:

>The only direct competitor attack that {referring here to AT&T}
>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?

It probably is a regional thing, John.  The nets and local buys allow
smart advertisers <and AT&T is certainly a smart advertiser> to vary
campaigns by areas. Here, we get a mixture of the slams on MCI with
counters, but also an equal proportion of panning the "Sprint
Pin-Drop."

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

From: watcher <nstar![e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 19:38:05 EST
Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd.
Subject: Equal Access on College Campus?


Here at Notre Dame (I don't go to school here, just visit), all the
telephone service in dormitories is handled by CTI (meaning
CTI-installed switches and CTI-provided 1+ long distance). Apparently
students can't get AT&T (or other) long distance provided via 1+; they
have to place operator-assisted calls (and pay rates for same). Is
this strictly legal? I haven't checked to see whether 10XXX dialing is
permitted, but I would gather that it is not, given the state of
affairs. Can anything be done about this, considering that it is
indeed a campus, and as such the facilities are either privately owned
or in some other sort of legal grey area which exempts them from
having to provide Equal Access?


James Watcher (yes, that's what it says on my driver's license!)
nstar![e-mail] (fast)
PO Box 875  Notre Dame, IN 46556 (slow)


[Moderator's Note: Not long ago a thread here in the Digest discussed
blocking of 10xxx from privately owned switches. I maintained it was
not legal to block access (after all, the court order called for it to
work that way), and a couple special issues of the Digest were devoted
to rebuttals from folks saying they should have the right to run their
switches the way they wanted. That's where it seems to stand at this
point. A university would seem to be a re-seller of long distance
service (except for its own administrative calls) and probably would
be in a different category than a business in which all the long
distance calls placed were presumably administrative, or business
related.  PAT]

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Itemised Bills - An Australian Followup
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 90 08:47:34 GMT


A few months ago I mentioned that Telecom/OTC were now providing IDD
itemised bills to customers on new exchanges. My quarterly phone bill
arrived with my first itemised IDD call:

Date    Time    Place        Number        Min:Sec    $
19 Jul    11:06pm    USA Rhode Is    1401863xxxx    1:59    2.42    [my xxxx's]

So on a sample of one I guess OTC at least decodes the country and
area code to get the place.

As for Trunk call itemisation, metropolitan residential customers will
start getting it in November, 1990 and all should have it by 1994.
Country residential customers should have it by 1997. This should give
us one of the most missed features of the US phone system.

We don't have COCOTs - although businesses can rent Telecom Gold
Phones and get the difference between the 22c charged to subscribers
and the 30c charged to pay phone users (per call unit).

Telecom are going to introduce pre-purchase phone cards (looks similar
to the Japanese variety - punches a hole to show the remaining value
of the card).  They hope this will reduce vandalism by reducing the
coins held in the phone.


David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Burglar Alarm Problems
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 06:45:21 GMT


Walter Kemmerer describes receiving strange calls at five-minute
intervals that turned out to originate from a fried alarm system.

It is probably a bad idea to rely upon an alarm system that calls 911
itself. In Toronto, the police will not respond to computer-generated
emergency calls because if the large number of false alarms.

If you want a burglar alarm system, you should probably consider
having one installed by a reputable contractor and monitored by a
reputable security company. When an alarm comes in, the security
company calls 911.

Security is more than just alarms, of course. Your local police
department can offer advice on making your house less attractive to
burglars (good locks everywhere, lights above all entrance-ways,
Neighborhood Watch programs, etc.).  If you run a BBS and ask new
users to request validation in writing or to send you a financial
contribution, consider using a post office box so that your address is
not widely known.

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90  13:06:28 EDT
Subject: AMI on T1 Lines

I would appreciate a short definition of exactly how AMI works on T1
lines.  I took a short course from Datatech Institute recently on
T1/T3 technology.  (I liked the course, by the way.)  Now I would like
to compare AMI to B8ZS for meeting one's density requirements on our
clear channel T1s, but can find only the definition of B8ZS in the
course notes.  AMI is mentioned as being less preferable, but is not
defined.

A reference to look it up in would be helpful too, especially if it's
a publication likely to be found in a computer-oriented library.

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 1990 5:43:50 CDT
From: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T USAdirect Service News: New Regions; Slightly Better Rates


***** for an updated free wallet card, call 1-800-874-4000 ext. 374 *****

I just received ATT's International TraveLer Newsletter in which they
announce USAdirect service availability in some new regions and better
rates in some others (as follows):

  a) The initial rate period is reduced from three to one minute
     (additional minutes rate is effective after first minute.)

  b) The rate for "additional minutes" stays the same, but the
     "initial minute" is slightly cheaper.


    NEW regions (and their access numbers) are:

Anguilla                1-800-872-2881
Antigua Boatphone Marine        872
Bermuda                    1-800-872-2881
Egypt                    356-0200
El Salvador                190
Haiti                    001-800-872-2881
Honduras                123
Malaysia                800-0011
Montserat                1-800-872-2881
Zimbabwe                110-899



    Examples of (new) RATES for some countries:

<country>        <first>        <additional>    [rates per minute]

Australia        $3.10        $1.25    [first minute seems unusual]
Bahamas            $1.20        $.78
Bermuda            $1.27        $.85
Brazil            $2.50        $1.04
France            $1.71        $1.06
Germany            $1.77        $1.09
Japan            $3.36        $1.24
Korea            $3.10        $1.37
Netherlands        $1.70        $1.05
UK            $1.20        $.94


        Applicable Service Charges: (per call)

AT&T Calling Card        $2.50
Collect                $5.75
Person-to-Person        $6.00

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Around Town Surcharge and [phone]
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 23 Sep 90 18:45:48 GMT


I read in this group that Around Town calls are no longer free of
surcharge, but cost 25c per call surcharge.  I asked an MCI
representative if that is the case, and she confirmed it.

I recently listened to the information available on MCI's information
line ([phone]) ....

        "The unique money saving feature ... is called
        Around Town. ...can save you up to 80c on every
        card call. ...Around Town savings means that
        your calls are free of normal..."

I had kept replaying the message to get the actual wording.  After
awhile, the computer must have tired of talking to me and handed me
off to a live person (:-D).  I asked her why the message claimed there
was no surcharge for Aound Town, and she said that AROUND TOWN IS
STILL FREE OF SURCHARGE IF YOU CALL FROM WITHIN A FEW FEET of your own
house.  Does anybody know if this is really the case?  Can MCI
distinguish actual distances within a single prefix?  I guess I'll
have to watch my phone bill closely.

(I use the feature even from my own home to avoid outrageously high
PacBell intra-lata long distance charges.  I can't dial 10xxx because
PacBell blocks that for intra-lata calls.  The absense of a surcharge
on the 950-1022 calls was a convenient work-around.)


Tim

[Moderator's Note: Did she say 'from within a few feet' or was that a
typographical error on your part? From within a few feet would entitle
one to use their cordless phone in the backyard, I guess. When I
called the recording just now, it made reference to 'within your local
calling area', which I assume means your toll-free area. Why don't you
call again and ask a live human-being there for more specifics.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #670
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09835;
          23 Sep 90 22:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07096;
          23 Sep 90 21:18 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae25412;
          23 Sep 90 20:14 CDT
Date:     Sun, 23 Sep 90 20:09:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #671
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 23 Sep 90 20:09:04 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 671

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ATM at Retailer's (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Randal Schwartz]
    Re: Signal Routes [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [Brandon S. Allbery]
    Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines [Peter da Silva]
    Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Ken Stox]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Canadian Cellular Users [Ken Jongsma]
    Audible Ringback (was: Leaving Brief Messages) [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    1-900-963-3333 [Peter da Silva]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [David E.A. Wilson]
    TCA Social Studies [Bill Cerny]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords)
Reply-To: Randal Schwartz <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 00:14:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid!king@uunet (Steven King)
writes:

| >You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant.  The PIN is
| >encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by
| >a chip that is in the PIN pad itself.  The plaintext PIN never sees
| >the light of day.

| A one way algorithm?  Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you?
| A gigantic lookup table?

| I really am curious about this, the sarcasm is just a side-effect.  :-)

One algorithm is a query-response ... Bank sends QUERY (a random
number) to merchant box.  Merchant box sends QUERY to keypad.  You
enter PIN into keypad.  Chip in keypad computes oneway (QUERY,PIN) as
RESPONSE, sends that to merchant box.  Merchant box sends RESPONSE to
bank.  Bank computes oneway (QUERY,PIN), compares it with RESPONSE, and
says yay or nay.

See... the PIN is both at the bank, and in the keypad, but nowhere
else.  And recording the traffic for later replay won't help.

(Yes, there are *other* ways.)

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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:49:18 CDT
From: Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: Signal Routes?


William carries a thread <in Digest V10, Iss 648>:

>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?

WD> Sure. Happens all the time.

In fact, the principle is worldwide.  You may have noticed recent
posts on here that a reader in South Africa found calls to Kuwait were
going via England.  It's a very common principle, much like mail or
freight, "Not your concern how we get it there, so long as we deliver
it undamaged." <Damage is a different story, though! What do you
expect?  Do you know WHAT we have to do to get it there for you?">

>TC> 2.) Same idea, but instead of a telephone, I send an email
>TC> message to another computer on a network.

WD> Even more likely. If the email message depends on batched
WD> transmissions over the PSTN, it often makes sense to send them to an
WD> out-of-state hub and back in to take advantage of lower interstate
WD> rates.

Adding to Bill's remarks, it is even more likely yet on an
international basis.  Many underdeveloped nations do not even
physically have a hub, so everything for the nation is done in a
partition of a larger nation's machine.  This principle extends at
least as far back as Telex, in which some notable cases were: Iran
Telex subscribers actually getting their Telex "dial tone" from New
York, about 9300 miles away; lesser cases for Trinidad getting theirs
from Montreal and Martinique getting theirs from Paris.

Makes for interesting routing table work in international public
networks.

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

From: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug
Reply-To: "Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 19:10:11 GMT


As quoted from <[e-mail]> by Norman R Tiedemann
<[e-mail]>:

| In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
| (Mark Wilkins) writes:

| >The question I have is this: Does anyone know of a way that someone
| >inexperienced with such matters could accidentally set up a
| >three-way call? Or did this have to be intentional?

| He calls you, (to schedule the appointment or whatever), gets your
| machine and decides he doesn't want to leave a message. He taps the
| switch hook, which instead of hanging up, gives him the second line,
| the CO on your end doesn't even detect the disconnect and keeps your
| machine connected (and recording). He now has a threeway setup between
| your machine, himself and the next person he called. Everything is

I had the younger brother to this problem for a while.  When I moved
into the apartment I currently live in, the local CO had an older
version of the custom calling package; for example, they had call
waiting but no way to turn it off.  Until they upgraded, I could not
simply flash the switch-hook to hang up, despite the fact that I had
*only* call waiting, none of the other features.  I got into the habit
of holding the switch-hook down for a count of five before dialing
another number.  I think the problem is gone now, since the CO has
upgraded to support *70 (1170), etc., but since I still use the count-
of-five approach, I don't know for certain.  I also got into the habit
of making sure I had dial tone before doing anything else.

Until I got wise and changed my ways, a caller (or callee) might have
gotten a bit of a surprise just after I supposedly hung up.  (Not that
this happened often; much more often was that I'd continue to get the
busy signal I'd gotten the first time I tried to dial out.)


Me: Brandon S. Allbery                VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440
Internet: [e-mail]            Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN
America OnLine: KB8JRR                AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery    Delphi: ALLBERY

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 17:12:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> nstar![e-mail]
(watcher) writes:

>Some years ago I heard of an automatic call fowarding device (this was
>before call forwarding was offered as an option by the telcos; it was,
>in fact, pre-divestiture) that worked like this: you had two lines;
>the first one rings (your "real" number); device dials out on the
>second line; then conferences the lines together. Sure, you would have
>to have two lines, but if you already have an extra one for the
>dial-out modem, this wouldn't be a problem.

When I took the public tour of the FBI building, the agent giving the
tour described these devices as "cheese boxes", typically used by
bookies to keep simple call traces from finding them.  The agent said
that now, bookies just use the call forwarding feature of the line to
do the job.

I told here that was dumb, because the forwarding number was in the
telco data base ... and got a very strange look in response.  I got
the impression that they were deliberately trying to encourage
would-be bookies to use the call forwarding method.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: "Data Quality" Local Dial Lines
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 21:30:27 GMT


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

> It will probably work out that the cost of sending 100,000 bytes of data
> will be essentially the same, whether we use 1200 bps modems, 9600 bps
> modems, or ISDN digital channels without modems.

I doubt it. As soon as modems come into the picture the *real*
bandwidth costs go way up. If ISDN isn't way cheaper than modems it'll
be purely for political reasons.


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

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

From: Ken Stox <[e-mail]>
Subject: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Organization: BALR Corporation
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 15:16:18 GMT


Recently, we have been seeing a bit of discussion of the cost (to the
operating company) of a data call versus a voice call. All the
statements I have seen, so far, seem to agree that a data call costs
the operating company the same as a voice call. TTBOMK (To The Best Of
My Knowledge), this is not true for the following reasons:

    First of all, I should state this is the case for a DIGITAL
phone system. If everything were still analog, many would be false. In
fact, this is where the problem lies! It seems that everyone is using
the analog case.

    1) Although your connection is analog in nature, it will only
be that way until it reaches the C.O.

    2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your
phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through
the phone network.

    3) Human speech contains a great deal of dead air/silence.
When you are pausing in a word/sentence/etc., you are no longer
sending data. The phone company can now send more packets of data over
that trunk line while you are pausing between word/sentences/etc.

    4) Modems don't pause, they will use every available packet
for that data path. In other words, a modem conversation will not
allow any other packets through.

    So, we can now understand why the RBOC's get so blustered
about data traffic. The service that they expected you to use 50% of,
you are using 100% of. I am sure we all feel a great deal of pity for
that poor accountant, who, at this very moment is writhing in agony
over uncollected potential revenue.  No doubt, in the not so distant
future, the RBOC's will figure out how to bill you on a packet by
packet basis. This may be the beginning of a much more equitable
method of billing ( right, when hell freezes over :-> ) by which the
customer purchases X number of packets at a given routing grade. Well,
someday, maybe ISDN.


Ken Stox                          internet: [e-mail]
BALR Corporation                  uucp: {uunet|att|attmail}!balr!stox
600 Enterprise Drive              voice: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:53:36 CDT
From: Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages


The story so far (in Digest v10, Iss648>:

>[e-mail] (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>>...l record the "<beep> The number you have >reached ... <number>
>>has been disconnected..."  which I save for later use.  Then, when
>>the time comes ...  I leave >the "special" OGM tape in.

David responded:

>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."

Gee, I'm surprised some minion of NJ Bell didn't swoop down with
intimidation that threatened disconnecting the phone for real, because
you were "violating the LAW" by transmitting a false message!  (They
really would be right, you know.)  Anyhow, must have been one of the
"new heads" in the business.  Refreshing in that regard.  Maybe we are
making some progress toward humanized relations in the public
telecommunications sector.

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

Subject: Canadian Cellular Users
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:52:19 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Some interesting factoids on Cellular Service in Canada:

   o Canada accounts for 500,000 of the worlds 6 million users
   o Toronto has the most concentrated urban network
   o 95% of Canadian users are male
   o 70% of corporate users are small businesses

(Facts from an article in this week's {Insight Magazine})


Ken Jongsma                   [e-mail]
Smiths Industries             [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan        ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 16:39:56 CDT
From: Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL
Subject: Audible Ringback (was: Leaving Brief Messages...)


Dell writes <in Digest V10, Iss648>:

>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.

In fact, its "slang name" among many local telco people is "pacifier
ring."

>The ringback tone is just put there to let you know that the phone is
>actually ringing on the other end.

Correction: I'd like to say it means that there is a presumption that
the phone on the other end is ringing.  If the instrument on the
receiving end is dead or optioned off; if the line is open, or if,
indeed there is a ringing relay in the office out of adjustment, you
get the "pacifier," but nothing notifies the party you are calling.
This IS a major weakness of the analog plant that ISDN will cure ...
someday.

Incidence of maladjusted ringing relays in mechanical plant is FAR
higher than anyone would ever admit, as well.  I found one town of
about 10,000 people in New Jersey where a full 60% of incoming long
trunk calls from other exchanges were not ringing through!  Saddest of
all, this condition was known and permitted to continue for months,
even by the telco plant management of the entire area.  Such
situations were not unusual in the days of the telco monolith, and
probably still exist in some corners.  THESE are the sorts of
"problems" that the stock answer of, "Just wait for the new exchange"
are meant for ... but in the meantime, just do the maintenance job you
are being paid for?  Nah.

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: 1-900-963-3333
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 21:34:48 GMT


While sitting here reading TELECOM Digest, I was just interrupted by
one of those call-back-at-a-900-number scams. Any way of finding out
who's at the other end of a 900 number without calling the 900 line?


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 00:04:09 GMT


[e-mail] (Robert Michael Gutierrez) writes:

>Computers out of control:
>This should be a comp.risks issue, really.  A telemarketer sets off a
>chain of computer events that is vurtually unstoppable.  Only the
>hapless customers get to clear the aftermath ... or at least try.

This is beginning to sound like John Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider"
where with a single call a malicious person could stop your phone
service (and your credit) until you somehow managed to get the
tapeworm killed.

David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: TCA Social Studies
Date: 23 Sep 90 22:22:18 GMT


For those visiting America's Finest City for TCA, there will be a
couple of evening forums hosted by the San Diego Chapter of AC*ID
(Abolish Caller*ID) and Mothers Against COCOTs.  On Tuesday evening,
the venue is the Bayou Bar & Grill, 329 Market (corner of Fourth), a
short walk from the Convention Center/Marriott.  The concluding
session will be held at the Princess of Wales Pub, 1665 India (quite a
hike from the Convention Center; take the trolley).  The jaws start
flapping around six both evenings.  Look for the brown 2500 set on the
bar.

For additional info, call Bill Cerny on [phone] (locals: AC*ID
is conducting a membership drive!  No annual dues, and a different bar
each month!)

%^)

Bill Cerny
[e-mail]   |   attmail: !denwa!bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #671
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20144;
          24 Sep 90 10:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14735;
          24 Sep 90 8:26 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12522;
          24 Sep 90 7:21 CDT
Date:     Mon, 24 Sep 90 6:48:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #672
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Sep 90 06:47:52 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 672

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Hui Lin Lim]
    Moderator = Chaotic Evil (was: Telephone Humour) [Talking Head]
    Re: Answering Machine Messages and SIT [Tad Cook]
    Dynamic Bidding For Cheapest LD Service [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: The Phone Book [Christopher Ambler]
    USEnet PC Access [John Stanley]
    Re: ATM at Retailers [David Lemson]
    A Description of 976 Numbers (was: Bell Canada Restricts 976) [Mark Brader]
    Re: Stealing ATM PINS [John Higdon]
    Re: AMI on T1 Lines [Dave O'leary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Hui Lin Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor
Date: 23 Sep 90 05:08:55 GMT
Organization: HP Singapore


> (variously sold as RingMaster, SmartRing, RingMate around the country,
> in which multiple numbers mapped to the same line generate different
> ring patterns).

Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided?  Does it
require an ISDN switch etc?

Thanks,

HuiLin Lim    HP Singapore    [e-mail]

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

From: Talking Head <[e-mail]>
Subject: Moderator = Chaotic Evil (Was: Telephone Humour)
Date: 23 Sep 90 17:40:54 GMT
Organization: New York University


[e-mail] (Fubar) writes:

>Our Moderator recently said...

>>>[Moderator's Note: I still don't think it is funny. I regard it as a
>>>major violation of trust....  PAT]
>>[Moderator's Note: Did you think it was funny at the time? Do you
>>still think it is funny?  PAT]

>Come on, Pat, lighten up. It's going to happen. It happens in ALL
>areas.  Some of the computer labs I have worked in DELIGHTED in
>sending messages to novice users' screens. Similarly to the phone

>I guess my point is, do you expect this industry to be free from this
>sort of behaviour? I don't.

Hmmm, I can only hope our Moderator is not one of those outspoken,
righteous No-Can-Do-Wrongs who society later uncovers as having an
unspeakable miasma of heretical beliefs and a past full of unameable
criminal acts against nature and the law.  8^o

What sort of chaotic little secrets do you hide that the net can't yet
see... ?  ;-)

Lee(); --- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Oh, plenty of them, I'm sure. Take your pick: mass
murderer; drug dealer; you name it. I'll be whatever you'd like. Today
being my birthday, I was particularly pleased to receive your note
since it does everyone good to be abused occasionally.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Messages and SIT
Date: 23 Sep 90 22:12:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, visix![e-mail] (Amanda
Walker) writes:

> I've been wondering how useful (or conversely, confusing) it would be
> to have an answering machine message which started with an SIT and
> then went on into a "normal" announcement.

John Higdon claimed in a telephone coversation earlier this year that
recording SIT on an answering machine outgoing message tape will fool
many COCOTs into refunding money.  He claimed that this was very
useful on a personal voice mailbox, as one could walk up to any COCOT
and retrieve messages for free!


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: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dynamic Bidding For Cheapest LD Service
Date: 23 Sep 90 21:55:53 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


I wonder if LECs could get into the LD brokering business in the
following way: I would be perfectly happy if they got a reasonable and
VERY small commission to perform the following service for me.

If there were some way the IXCs could dynamically on a minute by
minute basis advertise their willingness to accept traffic at
substantially lower than normal rate probably in some predefined
steps, the LEC could connect me to the current bargain of the minute
carrier. Perhaps some SS7 message could carry the bid pricing.
Perhaps the 10000 code is unassigned it could be the flag that I was
requesting optimised routing to brokered cutrate service.

Perhaps this optimised routing should be for some flat monthly service
charge rather than a call by call charge.

This could lead to some very interesting off hours pricing, and if the
'big boys' didn't want to bid, maybe some resellers of BIG-BOY's
services would bid, probably forcing everyone to.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Subject: Re: The Phone Book
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 3:0:53 GMT


[e-mail] (woody) recently informed us:

>The Phone Book - What the Telephone Company Would Rather You Not Know
>by J. Edward Hyde (a nom de plume)

A quick jaunt down to the Cal Poly library found this book on the
shelf, so I checked it out and read it the other night. I agree, it's
interesting, but quite dated. Pre-breakup, pre-ESS (well, not really,
it's mentioned, but in the vein of "here we have this new thing that
will make it all better")...

Very biased. The author does NOT like the phone company.

I suppose my favourite part is where the author lists the rates for DX
calling in 1976, and muses on what they will be 10 years hence. Heh.

He also lists some possible future scenarios, like vidphone, call
forwarding, call tracing (hints at ANI) and other things. He mentions
that all of these things "can be done today, but because of [blah blah
I-hate-the-phone-co] you won't see them for years." As of this time,
he's about 50% on the mark.

All in all, interesting, but I'm sure there's better...


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

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

Date: 23 Sep 90 22:47:14 EDT
From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Subject: USEnet PC Access


  Help. I am looking for a cheap PC package that does UUCP mail and
news.  I have a free one that does mail, but no news. Vortex has a
$335 package that does both, but fails the cheap condition. I am
getting really tired of Compuserve time charges, but want NEWS!

  I already have set up contact with a UUCP source (cheap, mail to
[e-mail]), now I need the receiving end. Any ideas/names?

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 21:16:24 CDT
From: David Lemson <FREE0612@uiucvmd>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers


In a message of 23 Sep 90 16:49:02 GMT, Steven King <motcid!king@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc T.
>Kaufman) writes:

>>You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant.  The PIN is
>>encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by
>>a chip that is in the PIN pad itself.  The plaintext PIN never sees
>>the light of day.

>A one way algorithm?  Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you?
>A gigantic lookup table?

     The bank doesn't need to "decode" it.  The bank's computer knows
what your PIN is supposed to be.  So, it codes it with the same
trap-door algorithm as the keypad did, and compares the two.  FYI,
this is the same way that the Unix operating system encrypts passwords
with a one-way coding scheme, and stores them encoded.  My guess is
that your bank's computer stores your PIN encoded, so it simply
compares the encoded incoming message with the encoded number stored
in the machine.


David Lemson  [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Description of 976 Numbers (was: Bell Canada Restricts 976)
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 1990 20:33:30 -0400


I received a response from Australia to my recent posting relating to
Bell Canada's new restriction on 976-numbers:

> Could you please tell me what a 976 number is, and what do you have
> against them?  Perhaps you could post the answer to the digest for
> the benefit of other non-N.American readers.

Okay, for the benefit of non-North-American readers:

976-numbers are operated by businesses that you do business with
simply by calling their phone number.  When you connect to a 976
number, a fee (payable to the business operating the number) is
automatically charged on your phone bill.  This is in addition to any
regular phone company charges for reaching the number.

976-numbers look like ordinary (7-digit) phone numbers that just
happen to begin with the three digits 976: for example, 976-1234.  The
reason for the use of those particular numbers, like other "why that
number?" questions in North America, seems to go back to the days when
phone numbers began with letters, using the equivalence 2=ABC 3=DEF
4=GHI 5=JKL 6=MNO 7=PRS 8=TUV 9=WXY.  Not a lot of words start with
the letter combinations for 97, so those numbers were generally
available.

(I don't know if there were ever, say, WRight numbers, or if 97 was
always reserved.  Anyone know?  I might ask the same question about
55, which is similarly reserved for special purposes.  In movies and
TV shows, 555-numbers are often used so as to not coincide with any
real numbers, and the scriptwriters noted long ago that KLondike was
55; were there ever any real KLondikes?)

Now, in some parts of North America, there is a clear distinction
between local calls (which are free or cheap) and long-distance calls
(which cost more), and this distinction does not follow area code
boundaries.  In some areas they are dialed in different ways so that
you can't incur a long-distance charge by accident.  (This distinction
in dialing is doomed over the coming years, for reasons related to the
exhaustion of available numbers.)

In the Bell Canada service area (i.e. most of Ontario and Quebec plus
some of the Northwest Terrritories), there is such a distinction in
dialing, and calls to 976-numbers are always dialed as long distance.
This remains true even though actual long-distance calls to
976-numbers are now to be blocked.

There is a second flavor of number that works the same way; these are
900-numbers.  They are dialable from a wider area than 976-numbers,
and in this case the 900 replaces the area code, e.g., 900-333-1234.

The world, or at least North America, got by just fine until a few
years ago without these numbers; their creation seems to have merely
opened up a new niche for sleazy businesses, in particular, the sort
who want to trick people into paying their charges.  (All you have to
do is make a phone call, right?)  The advertisements that I see around
here for them tend to be pathetic come-ons for dating and "talk"
services.  Another thing I've heard of them being used for, although
not locally, is information-by-telephone services that formerly were
free.  It is for these reasons that I find myself feeling that we
would be better off without these numbers at all.

I understand that several other countries have the same concept, for
example, Britain's 0898-numbers are similar to our 900's, but I've
never heard of a simple name for it.  Is there one?  Do other
countries have two flavors like our 976 (local) and 900 (callable from
wide area)?


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stealing ATM PINS
Date: 23 Sep 90 19:20:39 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 23 at 17:39, Isaac Rabinovitch writes:

> But it
> occurs to me that somebody who knows your PIN can authorize a lot of
> heavy-duty funds transfers.

Only if there are heavy-duty funds to transfer. Also, I know of no
place an ATM card (BTW, where does someone who has your PIN get a
duplicate card?) can transact large amounts in one transaction. CASH
ATMs have a small limit, and how much gas CAN you pump into your
RoadHogster. As far as "transfering" money goes, it can only be done
between accounts under the control of the card holder. And if it goes
into a merchant account, how much trouble would it take to figure out
who was up to something?

Sorry, I don't consider this a real problem. Has it ever happened?
I've never heard of a case.


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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 22:44:06 EDT
From: dave o'leary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AMI on T1 Lines


Roger Fajman wrote:

>I would appreciate a short definition of exactly how AMI works on T1
>lines.  I took a short course from Datatech Institute recently on
>T1/T3 technology.  (I liked the course, by the way.)  Now I would like
>to compare AMI to B8ZS for meeting one's density requirements on our
>clear channel T1s, but can find only the definition of B8ZS in the
>course notes.  AMI is mentioned as being less preferable, but is not
>defined.

AMI is Alternate Mark Inversion.  Basically it means that each ones
bit is opposite in polarity from the ones bit proceeding it - this is
used to deal with capacitive effects, etc.  If two consecutive ones
bits are received on the line with the same polarity, it is called a
bipolar violation.  These could be due to noise or a bunch of other
factors.

One's density is defined in different ways, with a certain number of
ones bits necessary to maintain line energy and keep the repeaters in
sync.  FCC Part 68 and the AT&T 62411 specs disagree on what ones
density means.  I can provide more details if anyone cares.

AMI does nothing to meet one's density requirements by itself - it
just takes a synchronous bit stream and flips the ones bits.  B8ZS is
a technique used to maintain ones density - when the bit stream
contains 8 consecutive zeroes, the "Binary 8 Zero Substitution" code
is inserted in place of the 8 zeroes.  This code intentionally
contains a bipolar violation.  This is why you have to work it out
with the telco when you want to run B8ZS - their repeaters have to
pass the bipolar violations (BPV's) rather than "fixing" them.

Another technique for meeting ones density is called bit stuffing,
i.e. you simply clock the DTE slower than 1.536 Mb/s and but a one bit
into each byte, which is stripped out at the other end.  When you work
out the arithmetic it comes out to a DTE bit rate of 1.344 M/s, your
ones density is insured, and AMI works as usual.  The bit stuffing is
not standardized between CSU's :-( so if you want different CSU
manufacturer's equipment to talk to each other on different ends of
the T1 (and not lose the extra bandwidth) then you need to run B8ZS.
However, not all phone company equipment does B8ZS, although this
seems to be getting a lot better.  I guess this is why they say that
B8ZS is preferable.  Our C&P sales guy told us that B8ZS costs more
and that we need to run ESF to use it (which I didn't understand...if
anyone can explain that one I'd appreciate it).

So basically you are always kind of running AMI, its just that B8ZS
allows the special BPV's to get through.

>A reference to look it up in would be helpful too, especially if it's
>a publication likely to be found in a computer-oriented library.

I've seen a bunch of books on the digital hierarchy around - however
the ones I've purchased aren't with me right now.  Two that I would
recommend are a book by Bernard Keisler, which I can't remember the
title of (something like Digital Transmission Systems, it is yellow
with black lettering) and another book called something like "Megabit
Communications Systems", I can't remember the author (it is orange and
black).  The Keisler book is older and is more technical/mathematical.
The other book is new, from this year I think, and covers a wider
range of material.  I should have these books back by later this week,
let me know if you can't find them.  I saw the "Megabit.." book at the
Maryland Book Exchange and at Reiter's downtown today.

Good luck...drop me a line or give me a call if you have other
questions...

dave o'leary        [e-mail]
SURAnet NOC Mgr.    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #672
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21338;
          24 Sep 90 11:04 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29543;
          24 Sep 90 9:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14735;
          24 Sep 90 8:26 CDT
Date:     Mon, 24 Sep 90 7:24:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #673
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 24 Sep 90 07:23:57 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 673

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Data Lines cs. Voice Lines [Dave O'leary]
    Re: A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture [John Higdon]
    Re: Call-Me Card [Jim Riddle]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [David Tamkin]
    Re: CO's Split Across AC's [David Tamkin]
    Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For a Child [Mark Steiger]
    16 Buttons Not 12? [John Clayton Webster]
    Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI? [Jim Riddle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 02:50:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] (Steven
King) writes:

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

->You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant.  The PIN is
->encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by
->a chip that is in the PIN pad itself.  The plaintext PIN never sees
->the light of day.

>A one way algorithm?  Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you?
>A gigantic lookup table?

No, the bank stores the encrypted PIN and does a straight match.  The
technique was invented by John Atalla, one of the early Fairchild
people.  Most of the bank PIN pads I have seen have been made by
Atalla Technovations.  The chip performs a one-way (e.g. many-to-one)
encryption of an arbitrary number of key presses.  It is sufficiently
slow (deliberately) so that even if you got one of them it would take
a VERY long time to try to find a sequence that gives you a particular
output word.

Since you really don't have access to the data link side of the
system, you can't spoof it there.  The link between an ATM (or
merchant system) and the bank is encrypted also, so picking up the
pair outside the building won't work either.  By far the easiest way
to learn a person's PIN is to look over his shoulder while he is
typing it in (or hold him up at gunpoint).


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 23:21:08 EDT
From: dave o'leary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines cs. Voice Lines


[e-mail] (Ken Stox) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 671, Message 6 of 12

>Recently, we have been seeing a bit of discussion of the cost (to the
>operating company) of a data call versus a voice call. All the
>statements I have seen, so far, seem to agree that a data call costs
>the operating company the same as a voice call. TTBOMK (To The Best Of
>My Knowledge), this is not true for the following reasons:

>    First of all, I should state this is the case for a DIGITAL
>phone system. If everything were still analog, many would be false. In
>fact, this is where the problem lies! It seems that everyone is using
>the analog case.

>    1) Although your connection is analog in nature, it will only
>be that way until it reaches the C.O.

To the best of My knowledge, your connection is indeed analog to the
CO in the general case, however....

>    2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your
>phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through
>the phone network.

If the CO's are packetizing and integrating data and voice through the
public network in the general case then I'd really like to hear about
the details.  These techniques will probably be common in the future
(this is what ATM switching is all about) but I think there are only a
couple of beta tests going on.

>    3) Human speech contains a great deal of dead air/silence.
>When you are pausing in a word/sentence/etc., you are no longer
>sending data. The phone company can now send more packets of data over
>that trunk line while you are pausing between word/sentences/etc.

Byte interleaved multiplexing is done after the digitization - each
analog signal gets a 64kb slot, times 24 slots plus framing bits
yields the 1.544 Mb/s of a T1 line.  Four T1's multiplexes to a T2,
Seven T2's multiplex to a T3 (44.something Mb/s - this is how the
signal generally travels over the inter-CO fiber and to the IXC POPs.)
A modem's analog signal digitizes to the 64kb DS0 channel, just like a
voice digitizes to a 64 kb DS0 channel.  Sometimes compression is
performed on the signals after digitization so more circuits can use a
single DS0, I don't know how common this is, but the techniques are
multiplexing rather than packet switching.

>    4) Modems don't pause, they will use every available packet
>for that data path. In other words, a modem conversation will not
>allow any other packets through.

The bits (either digitized voice or digitized data) are sent through
the network in a 64kb virtual circuit.  This 64kb is allocated for
that particular call for the length of the call - nobody else's bits,
either data or voice, are packet switched onto the virtual circuit.

>    So, we can now understand why the RBOC's get so blustered
>about data traffic. The service that they expected you to use 50% of,
>you are using 100% of. I am sure we all feel a great deal of pity for
>that poor accountant, who, at this very moment is writhing in agony
>over uncollected potential revenue.  No doubt, in the not so distant
>future, the RBOC's will figure out how to bill you on a packet by
>packet basis. This may be the beginning of a much more equitable
>method of billing ( right, when hell freezes over :-> ) by which the
>customer purchases X number of packets at a given routing grade. Well,
>someday, maybe ISDN.

Well, there are a slew of acronyms for technologies and services that
if/when they are implemented or available all the stuff typed in above
will change.  ATM, "Fast Packet", SMDS, Frame Relay, BISDN ... etc.
Lots of fun.

Of course, what Ken said earlier in his message about a digital
network and integrated voice and data packetizing may apply to a
private network.  If such private networks do exist in practice, I'd
be interested in hearing about them.  From what I understand, however,
the situation described does not exist in the present public network.


dave o'leary        [e-mail]
SURAnet NOC Mgr.    [phone]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture
Date: 23 Sep 90 20:41:33 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 23 at 18:57, Steve Elias quotes "Deep Throat":

> The deal of the consent decree (the deal of the century) ended up with
> ATT taking the most profitable parts of Ma Bell (Long Lines and
> equipment) and dropping the least profitable (RBOCs).

And now the post divestiture RBOCs are racking up profits that are
postively embarassing. Take a look at Pacific Telesis' quarterly
report sometime. And if that wasn't enough, the MFJ (assuming the
above) tilted the playing field in favor of the RBOCs. No competition
in LATA calls, "FCC Mandated Access Charge (money for nothing; chicks
for free)", the ability to charge extra for nearly every aspect of
providing exchange service, etc., etc., are now the give-away perks of
a guaranteed rate of return. And as the final (what on earth could be
next?) stroke, the attitude that RBOCs no longer need any supervision.
State PUCs are saying, "Now just be good and play by the rules (that
you made up), and we will stop looking over your shoulder."

If AT&T could have pulled all of this off when they were the phone
company, there really would have been an new world order.


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

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 13:58:26 EDT
From: Jim Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Me Card


The Call-Me Card has been available in the States for some time.  I
have four of them, one for each of my children who is old enough to
use the phone.  Not only is it usable ONLY to call home, it also
ensures that they won't forget the number to call home (I know that
sounds almost trivial, but there are situations in which anyone can
forget anything).

I told my daughter at college and my daughter on her own miles away
just to respect the hours of billing and try to call daytime as little
as possible.  Since we are almost always around, they can get us
without having to do a collect call or call and call back.

Moreover, the advantage over collect is that we do get Reach Out
America on these calls, as I have ROA applied to my calling card.
Yeah, I could PROBABLY save $7 a month by doing collect calls and
direct-dial backs, and even more if I used a free-message collect call
(see other mail in the journal area) which I personally refuse to do,
but I also find that my kids are more willing to call with the Call
Me.  Remembering how hard it was for my folks to get hold of me at
these ages, I appreciate how much my kids DO call home.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4
[1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0)

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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 23:18:42 CDT


Robert Michael Gutierrez wrote in volume 10, issue 669:

| All [PIC change orders are] done on mag tape.  Nameless and faceless.

| No amount of "tag my LEC account *never* to accept changes from an IEC
| concerning my PIC" will ever help anybody in the U.S. of A.  All that is
| done is a "note" is entered on your account ... three whole lines that
| a rep can enter into your account ... anything can be entered, ... but
| the computer could [not] care less about those notes.  It still will
| merrily process the PIC change off the mag tape.

But there are telqi who will accept with blind faith the mag tapes
that the IECs send them, input them, and slam away, and there are
telqi who will examine the data on those tapes and check records first
to see if they have received such a request from the customer.  No, it
shouldn't be necessary for telqi to protect customers from slamming
IECs, but it says a lot about a telco to find out whose side it is on
and whose word it takes over whose.  It appears so far that one good
indicator is the answer to this question: "Who was your corporate
parent at the close of business on Friday, December 30, 1983?"


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: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CO's Split Across AC's
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 0:31:27 CDT


Jack Winslade wrote in volume 10, issue 619:

| 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.

| [There] were cases where there are communities right on or near the
| Nebraska - South Dakota border.  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.

Ah, how different rural life is from urban life!  Here in Chicago the
prefixes dialable as either 312 or 708 are in CO's whose area coverage
is not split, and prefixes in CO's whose coverage areas *are* split
are dialable only as one area code or the other, not as both, and
require eleven digits to be reached from the other side of the line
and the correct area code to be reached from the rest of the world.

For examples, (708) 591 [choke prefix], (708) 796 [customer name and
address], and (708) 976 all are aliases for their area code 312
namesakes and are switched in the Canal East office.  I believe that
anyone outside area code 708 must dial these as 312; inside 708
dialing 1312+7D to reach them is forbidden, and only 7D will work.
<(708) 950 might similarly be an alias for (312) 950, but it might be
separate; one would never dial another area code's 950 anyway.>

On the other hand, (708) 825 and (312) 825 are both wired from the
Park Ridge CO, but neither is an alias for the other as a dialing
convenience; they are two separate prefixes.  I wouldn't be at all
surprised if some larger customers had identical numbers on (708) 825
and (312) 825 assigned to them, but both must be wired in or one must
be forwarded to the other if they are to ring in the same place.  And
yes, to call between the two 825's one has to dial eleven digits.

I imagine that rural CO's straddle an area code boundary only when
they spread across a state line; an intrastate area code boundary in a
rural area just about never would divide a CO's territory.


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] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For A Child
Date: 24 Sep 90 11:16:03 GMT


That gift idea is a little too scary for me.


 [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo  218/262-3142     300/1200/2400 baud]

ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo          America Online: Goalie5
UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin    MCI Mail......: MSteiger
Internet:[e-mail]  ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Would you like to tell us why? It seems innocuous
enough to me. How do you see the situation?   PAT]

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

From: John Clayton Webster <[e-mail]>
Subject: 16 Buttons -- Not 12?
Date: 24 Sep 90 07:37:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


An odd thought sprang upon me recently while talking to a friend.  Do
telephones actually use sixteen tones rather than just twelve normally
available?  I apologise if this has been brought up before, I just
found this group.

Clay Webster


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the topic has come up frequently. Yes,
telephones have sixteen tone combinations available. The four you do
not normally see on your dial are frequently known as A,B,C, and D.
They have a very limited application at this time. Perhaps some
readers will be so kind as to send you recent messages from the Digest
discussing these tones and their application.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 13:56:07 EDT
From: Jim Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Make AT&T Put it in Writing? Why Not MCI?


AT&T has never specifically claimed that their plans are lower cost
than Sprint; their commercials are quite cleverly worded.  They
suggest that if someone else alleges to have a lower-cost plan, that
you should get that in writing, but at the same time don't offer that
their plan IS less.

As a personal point, I believe that my AT&T ROA plan IS less than
Sprint would be.

Anyway, AT&T will gladly put in writing the whole summary of plan
names and costs for you and will NOT compare it with anyone else.  I
prefer that approach as it offers a product on its merit and costs and
leaves the comparison to the consumer.  How often does a Honda
dealer's claim sway your feelings about a Toyota anyway?

Everyone in the echo is talking about AT&T and Sprint.  Well, how
about recognizing that the point of AT&T's ads MAY have been MCI who
keep calling me at ridiculous hours and rant and rave about how much
they're going to save me?  MCI won't put ANYTHING in writing or even
bother to advertise on TV any more; I conclude that that is because
they don't want to get caught.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4
[1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0)

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #673
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11878;
          25 Sep 90 4:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20897;
          25 Sep 90 2:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac02709;
          25 Sep 90 1:37 CDT
Date:     Tue, 25 Sep 90 1:12:40 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #674
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 25 Sep 90 01:12:24 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 674

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message? [David Tamkin]
    Re: MCI Around Town Surcharge [David Tamkin]
    McDonalds 900 Scam [Jeremy Grodberg]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [James Watcher]
    Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Tad Cook]
    Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions [Mark Harris]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Ed Benyukhis]
    Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runways [John R. Covert]
    Re: Data vs Voice [Tom Olin]
    Script Files for Sys 85 [Mike Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message?
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 11:15:06 CDT


Dave Levenson wrote in Volume 10, Issue 668:

| A friend in Morristown, NJ went away for a couple of weeks.  His
| number was 267-1234.

| He forwarded his calls to 263-1234  in nearby Boonton, NJ.  That number
| was not in service at the time.

| Callers who dialed 267-1234 got a SIT followed by "The number you have
| dialed, 263-1234, is not in service."  Someone
| called NJ Bell repair service.  They investigated, and then canceled
| call-forwarding on my friend's line.

| In the end, they wrote him a letter appologizing for having cancelled
| his call-forwarding, and promising never to do it again!

To say that NJ Bell "canceled" your friend's call forwarding is
ambiguous.  Dave, do you mean that they did a 73# equivalent on his
line to shut Call Forwarding off or do you mean that they removed the
Call Forwarding feature from his account?

I'm not trying to be picky here; I want to know just how far the telco
went in stepping on a customer's own decisions.


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: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Surcharge
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 90 22:58:56 CDT


A surnameless Tim from Caltech wrote in volume 10, issue 670:

| (I use [Around Town] even from my own home to avoid outrageously high
| PacBell intra-lata long distance charges.  I can't dial 10xxx because
| PacBell blocks that for intra-lata calls.  The absence of a surcharge
| on the 950-1022 calls was a convenient work-around.)

It might not be Pac*Bell blocking your attempts at intra-LATA 10XXX
dialing.  It might be MCI rejecting them.  I can dial one of my lines
from the other with 10XXX via US Sprint or Telecom*USA, but not via
AT&T nor MCI.  If my telco were setting the policy, then either all
four carriers would connect the call or none would.  As long as there
is no surcharge, though, 950-1022 will do; too bad AT&T has no such
alternative dial-up.

I've also heard that MCI's Around Town (for 25c, not for free, but
still not 80c) applies only for intra-LATA calls now; originally, at
least so I _thought_, it was for any calls placed from near your home
base, regardless of where in North America the call terminated.  One
of the other things I dislike about MCI Long Distance (in addition to
slamming and to their promising to make corrections and updates and
then never putting them in) is getting five conflicting answers from
every three customer service reps to a straightforward question.


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: Jeremy Grodberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: McDonalds 900 Scam
Date: 23 Sep 90 05:41:09 GMT
Reply-To: Jeremy Grodberg <biosys!lia.com![e-mail]>


I went into McDonalds today for dinner (or breakfast, depending you
how you look at it), and found more sleaze than usual there.  It seems
that McDonalds has figured out how to legally run a sweepstakes for
profit, and once again 900 telephone service is the key.

You can get a "McMillions on NBC" sweepstakes ticket for free, no
purchase necessary, at any participating McDonalds.  Then you watch
for the winning number on NBC during a specified time.  Although the
number on my ticket is nine digits, I suspect that there are only a
few numbers actually given out for a given time period.  Anyway, they
don't tell you what you have won, and to claim your prize you have to
call a 900 number (75 cents per call) within about 20 hours.  There is
no way to claim your prize other than to call this 900 number.  There
is another 900 number (also 75 cents per call) which you can call to
find out what the winning number is.

The scummiest part of this scam is that having the winning number does
not even mean that you have won *anything* but rather that you are a
*potential winner*.  As far as I am concerned, that makes this setup a
clearly illegal gambling enterprise, where for 75 cents you might win
a prize.  However, I am not a lawyer, and I am sure McDonalds has
checked with their lawyers and decided it was legal, so I wouldn't be
surprised to find that they have found a valid loophole in the law.

To me, this kind of thing is much more offensive than porn-by-phone,
and is further evidence that the 900 services should be eliminated
because they provide much more opportunity for abuse than the benefit
they provide is worth.

Major Disclaimer: I haven't read the official rules posted inside
McDonalds, only the rules on the ticket, and have, of course, made
some guesses about what is going on.  Maybe there will be only one
ticket with the winning number, the prize will be announced along with
the number, and you will definitely win it if you call the 900 number
within the time period specified, and they are saying you are a
*potential* winner when the prize number is announced becuase you
won't win the prize if you don't call.  Still, if that is the case,
they shouldn't make prize winners pay to claim their prizes, and I
would suspect that they are only doing it so that a) they can get
names and addresses to mail people "Free soft drink" coupons (and
later other advertizing), or b) cash in on all the people who get
confused by the rules (e.g. have a prize number for Monday's drawing,
which loses, but wins a millon dollars on Tuesday).

Any way you slice it, I think it is scummy for prize winners to have
to pay to claim their prize, and I doubt that McDonalds would be doing
it unless they were going to make money on it (or at least cover all
their promotional and administrative costs for the sweepstakes, which
means they'll get sweepstakes junkies, who are typically from the
lower income brackets, to give McDonalds millions in free advertising).


Jeremy Grodberg
[e-mail]

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

From: watcher <nstar![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 02:37:08 EST
Organization: Northern Star Communications, Ltd.
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number


This brings to mind a funny story. I lived with two roommates, and we had
two phone lines (voice/data, just like anybody :-). Somebody needed the
number of the data line to update our newsfeed, since it was wasting lots fo
time not being able to get through. As it so happened, I knew what the
number was, but I happened not to be home at the time. Both numbers were
unlisted. so, my roommate called the Pac*Tel operator and told them who he
was (side note: for purposes of dealing with the phone company, we  would
all simply use the name on the bill, that of the third roommate, whether we
were him or not ... once I was home when the installer came, and when he
called the CO, he said "for all intents and purposes, I have Phil here..."
anyway) and that he wanted to know the (unlisted) phone number.

After being bounced up a couple levels of incompetence ("you'll have
to talk to my manager about that..."), he was told that they would
call him back to get his permission to give him his phone number.
(They wondered why he didn't have any of the old bills laying around,
but of course they'd all been tossed after being paid, not too
bright.) Half an hour later, they called him back to get his
permission. About forty minutes later, they call and tell him that
they can't give him his own phone number, even though he is the
customer, because it's UNLISTED! Shortly thereafter I arrived home,
and peals of laughter could be heard as the story was related. I could
not believe it. Anyway, I told him the number, and he told the admin
of our newsfeed, and life was happy again since we could read the
Digest :)

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor
Date: 24 Sep 90 17:23:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hui Lin
Lim) writes:

> > 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
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided?  Does it
> require an ISDN switch etc?

Nope.  They do it on a standard digital switch.  I can get it on a
5ESS in my area.  What they do is assign two or more telephone numbers
to one line ... and each number produces a distinctive ringing signal
(like a double-ring for line two) when someone dials it.

Actually, in an older form it is available on really old SXS switches
from 40 years ago.  It's called Party Line ringing.

These call distribution devices for the home (like the AutoLine Plus
from ITI in Endicott, NY at 800-333-0802) are typically used as a way
of routing calls to a fax machine without the added expense of a
second line.


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

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

From: Mark Harris <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Splitting Call Transmission Directions
Date: 23 Sep 90 00:38:05 GMT
Organization: Omhftre BBS


kitty![e-mail] (Larry Lippman) writes:

> Unless echo suppressors have become *much* more sophisticated
> than those with which I was once familiar, I would be surprised if
> such vastly different propagation paths could be used on the E-W and
> W-E directions of a given intertoll circuit.

I recently took a course in telephony taught by a person with many
years experience working for Bell Canada, ATT, and BNR.  He stated
that, in general, overseas calls try to avoid using a satellite path
for both E-W and W-E directions.  The reason he gave was to avoid a
long delay between, say, a question and a response.


Mark Harris
UUCP: ...!uunet!mjbtn!raider!omhftre!harrism
Domain: [e-mail]

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

From: Ed Benyukhis <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Date: 24 Sep 90 14:34:20 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

 >     2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your
 > phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through
 > the phone network.

Digitization of speach does not imply packet switching.

 >     3) Human speech contains a great deal of dead air/silence.
 > When you are pausing in a word/sentence/etc., you are no longer
 > sending data. The phone company can now send more packets of data over
 > that trunk line while you are pausing between word/sentences/etc.

Speech interpolation techniques are not prevelent in the land networks
yet.


Edward Benyukhis

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor
Date: 24 Sep 90 14:50:57 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hui Lin
Lim) writes:

> > (variously sold as RingMaster, SmartRing, RingMate around the country,
> > in which multiple numbers mapped to the same line generate different
> > ring patterns).

> Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided?  Does it
> require an ISDN switch etc?

No, it doesn't require anything more than a plain, ordinary analog
space-division switch such as the 1A-ESS, when it's offered here in
NJ.  It only requires that the telco equip its switch with a generic
that provides the service, and that they tariff it or whatever is
required by your state before a new service may be offered.

Nothing special is required at the customer end.  Just an ordinary
telephone set equipped with a ringer.  Different ring cadences are
used to identify which of several phone numbers was dialed, when they
all ring the same line.

Just make sure that your tel set ringer is powered directly from the
tel line, not by a key system, PBX, or other device which generates
its own cadence.  Also, watch out for answering machines that count
rings.  It may count the individual signaling elements of a
short-long-short ring cadence as three rings.


Dave Levenson            Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 08:08:39 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  24-Sep-1990 1105" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runways


It is my understanding of the FARs that use of electronic equipment is
prohibited from the time the aircraft begins to move under its own
power until the cancellation of the VFR flight plan.

I turn my phone off at push-back (since I can't necessarily tell for
sure whether we're being pushed back by a tractor or under the craft's
own power -- sure I can, but why bother) and turn the phone on after
the aircraft has completed its braking and moved off the active
runway.

This is what airline pilots have told me is acceptable.  Other airline
employees have (on one occasion) grumbled about the phone after
landing, but I tend to believe pilots rather than flight attendants.

In Germany, you won't even be allowed on an aircraft with a cellular
phone.  On my last flight within Germany (with a cellular phone rented
from Budget), I was not allowed to board the aircraft until the phone
was placed within my luggage.  The airline would not sell me insurance
to cover the cost of the phone, and made me sign a document absolving
them of financial responsibility for it.


john

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 11:11:22 EST
From: Tom Olin <adiron![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data vs Voice


Please pardon my ignorance.  I don't work in the telecom industry and
I don't know many of the technical details.

Several contributors to c.d.t. have discussed the method of
transmission of data calls vs voice calls over the network.  They have
pointed out the higher bandwidth utilized by data calls and the
problems of multiplexing such calls.

I would like to better understand the nature of this multiplexing.
Suppose that we have enough simultaneous voice calls to saturate the
capacity of some portion of the network.  As the other writers have
mentioned, these voice calls are assumed to have a duty cycle of less
than 100% - let's say 50%.

What happens if all those callers simultaneously break into song or in
some other way push their duty cycles up to 100%?  Do they start
losing parts of their conversations?  Or do pieces merely get delayed?
Or does something else happen?


Tom Olin    ...!uunet!adiron!tro    [phone], Ext 638
PAR Technology Corp, 220 Seneca Tpke, New Hartford NY 13413

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 12:12 EST
From: Mike Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Script Files For Sys 85


I want to write a script file for our Definity G2 that will do a
station directory.  While I know how to write a script file, the thing
that puzzles me is how do you print the output of the script file to
the printer or a file while the script is running.  Unlike the System
75, the 85 can't do a station directory.  I want to read the database
in the switch and print the results on a file or printer.


Thanks,

Mike Miller  St. James Hospital & Health Centers [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #674
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12870;
          25 Sep 90 5:26 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07275;
          25 Sep 90 3:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20897;
          25 Sep 90 2:42 CDT
Date:     Tue, 25 Sep 90 1:46:16 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #675
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 25 Sep 90 01:45:46 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 675

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: One Way Algorithm (was: ATM at Retailers) [Joe Konstan]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Ronald T. Crocker]
    Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! [George D. Nincehelser]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [Larry W. Seals]
    Re: A Sprint Employee Comments on ATT and Divestiture [Jack Dominey]
    Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Len Rose]
    Re: Equal Access on College Campus? [Eric Dittman]
    Re: COCOTery [Dave Platt]
    Re: Last Laugh! Re: Answering Machine Messages [Brent Capps]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 16:04:34 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: One Way Algorithm (was: ATM at Retailers)


In Telecom Digest #669 Steven King writes:

> A one way algorithm?  Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you?

Just like Unix does.  Many (perhaps most) bank ATM systems do not
store your PIN but instead only store the encrypted version of your
PIN (the encryption scheme is designed to prevent many-to-one
mappings).

I recall that BayBanks in Boston had a problem when I was in college
where only the first four digits of the PIN (which could be four to
eight digits) were being used in the encrytion scheme.  I don't know
if they ever fixed it.

For better information on these schemes in general, consult a
reference on Unix passords, as this is a bit far out of Telecom
territory.

Joe Konstan

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

From: "Ronald T. Crocker" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Date: 24 Sep 90 16:13:30 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

>    3) Human speech contains a great deal of dead air/silence.
>When you are pausing in a word/sentence/etc., you are no longer
>sending data. The phone company can now send more packets of data over
>that trunk line while you are pausing between word/sentences/etc.

>    4) Modems don't pause, they will use every available packet
>for that data path. In other words, a modem conversation will not
>allow any other packets through.

 From my experience (former Bell Labs), the type of multiplexing that
you describe above (item 3) is not typical of any switches (digital or
analog) that I am familiar with.  Most telephony connections are
"circuit-switched", i.e. equivalent to hooking a pair of wires between
the two parties.  The only "packet-switched" connections that I know
of are those for ISDN packet data (B or D channel), and these are
handled as "special cases," at least in the 5E.

Voice is not packet data.  It is not treated in a packet manner.
Whatever happens to be on the voice channel is digitized (PCM),
transmitted across digital carrier facilities (T1) to another switch,
decoded to the equivalent analog signal, and played out of the
receiver in the handset.  No where in this loop is anything trying to
figure out if the digitized voice signal represents "quiet".  T1 is
simply a multiplexed digital version of 24 analog trunks.  Voice-grade
lines are 64Kbps, T1 channels are [nominally] 64Kbps.  Maybe if there
were some compression done the case would be different, but I don't
know of any of that either.


Ron Crocker

Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group, Cellular Infrastructure Division
[phone] [FAX: [phone]]
 ...!uunet!motcid!crocker

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

From: "George D. Nincehelser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone!
Reply-To: "George D. Nincehelser" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Advanced Technology Laboratory - Southwestern Bell Telephone
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 16:16:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom Adams)
writes:

>The Voicephone *does* work well, with a wide variety of speakers.  I
>don't know about ambient noise, though I can bring one into the
>computer room if someone *really* cares.  The Voicephone is sometimes
>folled by similar names, but does a good job of distinguishing
>distinctive sounds spoken by different people.

The Origin Voicephone 200 that I have doesn't seem to like changes in
ambient noise levels.  After I programmed the phone the first time, a
Summa Four Switch was installed in the general area the Voicephone was
located (the Summa Four sounds a lot like one of those noisy
computers).  The noise caused all kinds of problems.  I re-programmed
the phone from scratch (with the new background noise) and then things
worked OK.  Noise from people watching me demo the phone can also
cause errors.  (Our lab has poor acoustics.)

BTW, it seems to work very well when people use the names that *I*
train the system with.  Other trainers don't have as much luck.  Maybe
I just have a generic voice.

P.S. Tom - Don't you dare take my Voicephone ;-)


George D. Nincehelser           \  uunet!swbatl!george
Southwestern Bell Telephone     \  Phone: [phone]
Advanced Technology Laboratory  \  Fax:  [phone]
1010 Pine, St. Louis, MO 63101  \  de asini umbra disceptare

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

From: "Larry W. Seals" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 18:16:32 GMT


An MCI rep called my missus while I was out and about and asked if we
were interested in switching to their service to which she replied
with an emphatic NO!  The rep continued with my wife getting more
irate by the second.  She finally told this person that we had AT&T
and were more than happy with the service (we do very little out of
state calling, even less in-state LD) and got off the line.  Upon
arriving home she told me the story and I related to her the info I
have gleaned here (thank you very much :-) ) about slamming.  We
called AT&T (glory be! They had a live person manning the 800 number
at 8:30pm EST) and explained the situation.

The AT&T rep verified that MCI could change our LD carrier without our
consent and that we should contact our local telco.  We called
Southern Bell the next morning and had our account flagged so that no
changes could be made without written permission.

Nuff said.  Or so I thought.  When September's bill came in, it
appeared that MCI had somehow beaten us to the punch :-( but AT&T (or
Southern Bell) had switched us back (credit issued for a 6 day period
in August) and had covered the switch back charge.

So, whatever anyone else says, I'm sticking to AT&T for no other
reason than the quality of the service (their rep even apologized for
the MCI phone call!) and the promptness of their staff.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Sep 24 14:02:45 EDT 1990
Subject: Re: A Sprint Employee Comments About AT&T and Divestiture


In V10#670, Steve Elias <[e-mail]> relays a message from a
friend who works for Sprint.

                        ----------

>I don't know what the deal is about ATT (sic) having a different 800
># for intrastate but I think it goes back to the days of band 5 wats
>type stuff.

It does indeed go back to pre-divestiture days.  Apparently our
original tariffs didn't provide for the same 800 number covering in
and out-of-state, but we started fixing that several years ago with an
arrangement called Single Number Service.  You still had to have
different lines for each service.  Later, when we introduced our
Readyline service (800-on-a-POTS-line), we got the state Public
Utility Commissions to allow intra-state service along with it.  This
year we've introduced MasterLine, which does the same thing with
dedicated lines.  There are still some companies using the older
services, with separate 800 numbers.

And yes, most of our competitors had similar services available well
before AT&T did.

>Again, the ATT guy was right [I was wrong -- eli]; It's not that ATT is
>giving switching stuff away, it's giving away PBX and telephone equipment and
>services.

>1) Most important: ATT can combine long distance and equipment.
>NOBODY ELSE CAN to that extent because nobody else owned a company
>like Western Electric.  For large customers looking for all in one
>vendors (ie: tariff 12) this is where it makes a huge difference and
>where the free "pops" in the equipment arena hurts (this is illegal by
>the way, but is under the table).

No wonder Mr. Elias' friend prefers to remain anonymous.  This is an
*extremely* serious accusation, and if the FCC believes it, AT&T will
get slam-dunked quickly.  Some people would probably go to jail.

I work in the low end of the business market, where T1's are rare, and
Tariff 12 is unimaginable.  At this level, network services and
equipment have separate salesforces.  We can and do coordinate our
sales efforts, but there is no way for us to create a "package deal"
of any kind.  The equipment folks have some discretion in their
pricing, but it's independent of what we network people do.  And our
network prices are all in the tariffs - we can't write new ones for
every $50,000/year customer.

I'm not saying that the alleged bundling can't possibly occur.  There
are unscrupulous people in any large organization, AT&T included.  But
it is against the law, and it is against company policy, and I have
honestly never heard even a rumour of such an arragement.

>Also, the big argument about price ceilings and floors in the FCC had to do
>with ATT lowering rates for tariff 12 type large customers to lock them in
>and subsidizing this by raising residential rates. To some extent this is
>exactly what has been done.

To what extent?  Our last price hike was for WATS services - didn't
affect residental customers at all.  (BTW, MCI and Sprint made raised
their WATS-type prices within a month of our announcement.)


Jack Dominey - AT&T Commercial Marketing - [phone] - AT&TMail !jdominey
These are my opinions, and not necessarily AT&T's.

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

From: Len Rose <lsicom2![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Date: 24 Sep 90 18:40:56 GMT
Organization: LSI Communications


This isn't specifically telecom related,but it does relate to
divestiture et al.

I am extremely happy about one aspect of divestiture. Because of it,
Unix System V was more easily obtained and AT&T 3B2 systems were made
available to customers outside of AT&T. Perhaps we would all be using
BSD if it never happened ... And maybe some aspects of my life would
be different too :-)


Len


[Moderator's Note: The current issue of Computer Underground Digest
has an article about Len Rose, and his difficulty in finding gainful
employment due to his current legal difficulties. If you can help him
out with this, contact him at the address shown above. For more
information on his case, read the issue of CUD distributed Monday. For
a subscription to CUD, write the Moderators: [e-mail].  PAT]

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

From: Eric Dittman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Equal Access on College Campus?
Date: 24 Sep 90 14:41:03 CDT
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility


> Here at Notre Dame (I don't go to school here, just visit), all the
> telephone service in dormitories is handled by CTI (meaning
> CTI-installed switches and CTI-provided 1+ long distance). Apparently
> students can't get AT&T (or other) long distance provided via 1+; they
> have to place operator-assisted calls (and pay rates for same). Is
> this strictly legal? I haven't checked to see whether 10XXX dialing is
> permitted, but I would gather that it is not, given the state of
> affairs. Can anything be done about this, considering that it is
> indeed a campus, and as such the facilities are either privately owned
> or in some other sort of legal grey area which exempts them from
> having to provide Equal Access?

My brother attends the University of Alabama and they have MCI.  To
save money he usually calls my parents collect, but when he calls me,
he calls direct unless there's an emergency, because I don't accept
any non-emergency calls from MCI or Sprint.  If he does call direct, I
just get the number he's at and call him back.  He's tried 10XXX
before without success.


Eric Dittman    Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility
[e-mail]    [e-mail]

Disclaimer:  I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test
             Facility.  I don't even speak for myself.


[Moderator's Note: A couple times I have inadvertently accepted
collect calls which arrived via Sprint or MCI. Talk about a ripoff!
The bill was unbelievable. When you get a collect call, *always*
before accepting ask the operator 'who are you', and request time and
charges afterward.  Avoid surprises later on!   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 10:11:10 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: COCOTery
Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA


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

> An informal cruise of COCOTs in the "Post PUC Reform Era", reveals
> that little if anything has changed. Every (read that EVERY) COCOT
> that I have fiddled with since that fateful day in August when all was
> supposed to be made right has at least one significant PUC violation.
> Some are still charging $0.25 for local calls. Some restrict 950. Most
> restrict 811. A few don't allow end-to-end DTMF signaling. None allow
> 10XXX dialing. None post rates or instructions on how to access
> different carriers.

> So what is the point of regulation? COCOT owners will do what they
> please, anyway they please. No one will enforce anything in this
> arena.  I have reported many of the more flagrant violators by phone
> and in writing, using a Pac*Bell form designed expressly for the
> purpose. Not one reported phone has yet cleaned up its act.

Well, I've had somewhat better luck, in the one case I've dealt with.
I ran into a COCOT in Palo Alto (Liddicoats, on University Avenue)
which was in violation of most of the new regs: $.25 for a local call,
950 restricted, 1-800 restricted, 10xxx restricted, no instructions or
rates.

I called the operator and reported the problem (the PacBell operator
tranferred me to her supervisor, who took the actual report).  A
couple of days later, the phone was still in violation ... so I stuck a
laserprinted "Out of order, programming violation" sticker over the
coin-slot and checked off all of the violation categories.

The next week, most of the violations had been corrected ... $.20 for
a local call, 950 works, 1-800 works, and the tonepad wasn't disabled
after connection to 950.  10xxx still didn't work.  I spoke with the
folks at PacBell, and they said they'd need to give the COCOT owners a
couple of weeks to reprogram the phone and get someone out to post
instructions and rates.  I don't think this has happened yet; I may
call in a new complaint later this week if the phone is still not
quite up to snuff.

The two COCOTs outside the Long's in Mountain View seem to have been
brought fully into compliance ... the rates are right, there seem to be
no invalid dialing restrictions, and the necessary information is
posted.

So ... things are getting better ... but we aren't there yet.


Dave Platt                                             VOICE: [phone]
  UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt   DOMAIN: [e-mail]
  INTERNET:       coherent![e-mail],  [e-mail]
  USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc.  3350 West Bayshore #205  Palo Alto CA 94303

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 09:16:27 PDT
From: Brent Capps <kentrox!ktxc5![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! Re: Answering Machine Messages


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Gene Spafford)
writes:

> It seems those new elves I hired were actually fairies, and all my
> reindeer are down with AIDS.

I suggest that further comments of this nature are better suited to
alt.bigot, alt.tasteless, or perhaps alt.jerk.


Brent Capps
Kentrox Ind, Inc. Portland, OR      "Insert standard disclaimer here"
[phone] x325                  uunet: ...!kentrox!ktxc5!brent


[Moderator's Note: Thank you.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #675
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05268;
          26 Sep 90 2:37 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14227;
          26 Sep 90 0:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22484;
          25 Sep 90 23:50 CDT
Date:     Tue, 25 Sep 90 23:41:36 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #676
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 25 Sep 90 23:41:01 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 676

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Alana Shoars' Battle With Epson [Information Week, via Thomas Lapp]
    Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface [Dave Johnston]
    Dialing From 215-377 [Carl Moore]
    AS/400 <-> X.400 ? [Daniel R. Kegel]
    AT&T --> Michigan Bell Billing Mix-up [Daniel Wynalda]
    Call Quality to Japan: AT&T vs. MCI [Nobuya Higashiyama]
    Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude [Jeff Johnson]
    Re: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 17:29:40 EDT
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alana Shoars' Battle With Epson


This is a summary/paraphrase of an article which appeared in
{Information Week} in the 18 June 90 issue.  It was the cover article
in the magazine that week.

Abstract:  A question of privacy:  Alana Shoars says she was
           fired from Epson when she questioned management
           about its reading of electronic messages between
           employees.  She has filed suit.  The case may be
           the first legal test of electronic mail privacy
           and it raises issues that have wide ramifications
           for corporate E-mail use.
           (From the front cover of the magazine).

Alana Shoars, who was the electronic mail administrator for Epson
America Inc., was fired from Epson for wanting to know why her
supervisor was printing out employees' electronic mail messages.  But
the way it was done, and what happened as a result are the interesting
parts.

In March 1989, Shoars was hired on (for $36,000/year) as an office
systems programmer and analyst.  In her job, she was responsible for
in-house electronic mail and their link to MCI Mail.  However, in
October, she came to believe that her supervisor was reading other
employees' messages.  When she questioned her supervisor about it, she
was told that "it is none of your business" (despite the fact that
e-mail administration *was* her business).  Soon after asking him
about it, she claims that Robert Hillseth, Epson's data communications
manager, began to monitor *her* messages.

According to the article, she was fired soon after an incident in
which she sent an e-mail message to a colleague, Dick Flanagan, asking
how to get a personal MCI Mail account so that she could work from
home.  Apparently, she had already asked this of Hillseth, who had
denied her request.  A few days later, on January 25, 1990, she was
fired for "gross misconduct and insubordination".  She was led out of
the building by armed guards, and local police were waiting for her to
frisk her for what they were told was an employee with a gun.

The article leads off with the transcript of a call placed to the
Torrance, CA police from an Epson mailroom employee:

"Dispacher:  Do you know what she was being terminated for?
 Stone: It is speculation... absenteeism and speculation of
        theft..."
 Dispacher: Okay.
 Stone: ...and erratic behavior.  She said that she has a gun and
        that she was going to come back and wipe everybody out.
 Dispacher: Okay.  All right.  I'll send a unit out there."

No gun was found, and Shoars was not charged (Epson won't discuss the
police call incident).  Shoars says that the bit with the police was
meant to intimidate her.  When others in the company heard about this,
they were upset as well.  Dick Flanagan, who was communications
software manager in Santa Clara, quit in protest.  He said that he was
under the impression that e-mail was being monitored in Torrance, and
they were in the process of resolving the issue when Alana was fired.

Shoars challenged Epson to claim unemployment benefits and a judge
ruled in her favor.  "Her actions cannot be considered misconduct,"
according to the judge.

Experts are saying that what she did next will be the first legal test
of e-mail privacy.  Shoars has filed wrongful discharge and invasion
of privacy action against Epson, but Epson says that the charges are
without merit and not related to the issue of e-mail privacy.
According to Hillseth, he was checking the systems audit and error
logs in order to track down a problem with message addressing.  Alana
responded that it is not necessary to read messages to do that.

Michael Cavanagh, executive director of the Electronic Mail
Association in Arlington, VA, comments, "What is the level of privacy
that should be expected in the corporate environment?"  His belief is
that privacy laws about corporate paper mail and telephone
conversations should extend to e-mail as well.

Epson refuses comment on the situation while it is in litigation, but
said that they have a policy to not monitor e-mail.  They claim to
only look at messages which are mis-directed or at the request of an
employee (who might be out of the office, for example).

Lee Cheaney, the former director of quality leadership within Epson
(he was laid off in a corporate downsizing which removed 150 Epson
employees), says that the company is trying to save their corporate
a**, but that Shoars is in the right on this one.

Shoars, however, has a long road ahead on this case.  The privacy of
e-mail has not been tested before, and most people just assume that
monitoring of e-mail is just Not Done.  Shoars believes that no one
has the right to monitor e-mail messages.  The problem, according to
Walter Ulrich (a founding member of the Electronic Mail Association),
is that monitoring of e-mail is so easy and so risk free.  He feels
that companies with good employee relations would not monitor e-mail
any more than they would rifle through someone's desk.  Those people
who would are small-minded and cowardly, he says.  Most experts agree
with Ulrich on this point.

Contrary to the picture that Epson painted, Alana Shoars is not a
gun-toting crazy.  She is 32 years old, has associate degrees in
mathematics and chemistry as well as law enforcement and a B.S. in
geology from Cleveland State University (1985).  According to John
Blank (of Cleveland State, and Alana's boss for a year after her
graduation), she was very trustworthy.  She had keys to his office and
desk.  She was also aware of the privacy of the PROFS system which ran
at the university.

At her next job, with a management consulting firm in L.A., the same
thing applied: e-mail was private.  Same with her next job at Cal
State Long Beach, where she was an e-mail administrator.

Her job at Epson included responsibility for supporting and training
over 700 people on H-P's DeskManager messaging software and to learn
how to access the newly installed MCImail gateway.  While at Epson,
e-mail usage nearly doubled from 48% to 80% use (due to the popularity
of the MCI Mail link).

Alana claims that e-mail is not the only type of communication that
Epson tampers with.  With the help of some others, she had several
hundred buttons with the slogan "Bring Alana Back" made up and sent
them to Epson employees by first class mail.  However, they never made
it past the Epson mail room, she claims.  Flanagan (who was assisting
Shoars) claims that Gary Le Monte (an Epson employee relations
manager) had all of the envelopes intercepted in the mailroom,
collected, picked up and destroyed.  The Shoars suit also names Le
Monte as a co-defendant.

The final part of the article goes into some discussion of the law in
the case of e-mail privacy.  HR 2168 (the Consumers and Workers
Privacy Act -- pending in committee) has been submitted to try to
address this issue.  But it is more intended for addressing monitoring
of telephone conversations rather than e-mail.  But legal experts say
that it shouldn't matter the medium.  So far only the telephone medium
has been tested and the results were that monitoring is okay if there
are legitimate business reasons, but as soon as it can be determined
that the conversation is personal in nature, they are supposed to hand
up immediately.

The question is whether or not this can be done electronically.  How
do you "hang up" on an e-mail note?  Some say it cannot be done,
although others say it is very easy to do.  An example was a case
where a company's president thought that there might be abuse of the
e-mail system.  The MIS director was asked to investigate.  So a
program was written which extracted only the subject line and didn't
collect info on author or destination.

The consensus of many of the views expressed in the article was that
regardless of the situation with Epson, companies should have their
MIS departments come up with a corporate policy -- which is explictly
stated -- in place *before* some problem comes up.


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: 24 Sep 90 08:30 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface


In <TELECOM Digest V10 #668>, Tad Cook <[e-mail]> wrote:

>I am looking for a device that can go between the telco line side of a
>key telephone system and a two-way radio system.  The operator of the

I've had experience with a product from Selectone.  This name should
be familiar to anyone in the Two-Way world.  They're a manufacturer of
tone encoding and decoding products.

I had a customer install one and its worked great.  If need be I can
get the model number etc.

Basically, it just looked like a CO line to the key system.  It is VOX
operated with a delay so there is no need for footswitches etc.  The
user just picks up the phone and talks.  It also can ring the phone.
Its selectable to allow three microphone clicks, DTMF, or PL (Private
Line for all you non-radio people ... a Motorola name for CTCSS sub-
audible tone encoding) to trigger the unit to ring the phone.

I highly recommend it.  The customer is a radio station and they
certainly put it through it's paces.  Its been in service for several
months without a hitch.


Dave Johnston                                  [e-mail]
Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom                  Santa Rosa Junior College
Phone:  [phone]                1501 Mendocino Ave, S.R., CA  95401

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 14:18:53 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing From 215-377


Yesterday, I was able to get to a pay phone in Lehighton, Pa.
(215-377), where the Jim Thorpe exchange (717-325) is a local call.
325 (this is NOT 325-xxxx) got "cannot be completed as dialed".
717-325-xxxx got message that it was now necessary to dial 1+717+
     number; no change in billing.
1-717-325-xxxx -- message about 25 cent deposit.

The bottom line is that yes, this local call from 215 area to 717 area
does require 1+areacode.  (Also required on local calls from 215 to NJ
and to Delaware.)

I also tried the following:

656-xxxx -- must dial a 1 in front of this call (I chose this because
     there is, barring very recent change, no 215-656, but 302-656 has
     been around for more than 30 years)
1-656-xxxx -- "cannot be completed as dialed".

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

From: "Daniel R. Kegel" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AS/400 <-> X.400 ?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 17:59:52 GMT


My friend works on an AS/400 system in Stuttgart and would like to
exchange E-mail with the world.  The system has internal E-mail and a
DATEX-P link (which they use to log in to remote AS/400 systems).
Does anybody know how to get the AS/400 to send/receive E-mail to/from
the outside world over a DATEX-P link?

Please reply to [e-mail].

Thanks!

p.s. Ich kann deutsch lesen, traue mich aber nicht, so etwas
Technisches auf deutsch zu schreiben...

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

Subject: AT&T --> Michigan Bell Billing Mix-up
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 11:49:51 EDT
From: Daniel Wynalda <[e-mail]>


I smell a rat!

Recently I got a notice in the mail from ATT that they will begin
billing their long distance directly, rather than sending the billing
through Michigan Bell.  This seemed like a fair thing to me, so no
problem.

Last week I received my billing for the month of August.  We normally
run up a bill of $1200-1500.  My Michigan Bell bill appeared normal -
all calls for AT&T were summarized with appropriate discounts etc.
Even the "cheap days" were discounted as well.

Two days later I got a formal apology letter in the mail from Michigan
Bell.  They accidentally kept some of my AT&T calls in the billing
system and it was "Michigan Bell's computer" that was in error.  They
requested I NOT pay the AT&T portion of the bill, and I should pay the
AT&T bill I would get soon.

Today I received my AT&T bill - Call for call the two bills are
identical.  Times are identical and I can trace the lines more easily.
The Michigan calls are separated from the Interstate calls on the AT&T
bill, but here's the rub.

The AT&T bill is $100 HIGHER than the Michigan Bell AT&T summary.  I
called and questioned WHY THE BILLS DIFFER.  Here's AT&T's
explanation.

1.  I am on the PRO WATS and PRO MICHIGAN plan.  These plans are not
eligible for the "reduced rate days" because I already get a discount.
My first question is WHY NOT?

2.  Each call cost SLIGHTLY MORE on the AT&T bill than on the Michigan
Bell bill.  Here explanation for this was "between the time my
Michigan Bell bill was issued and the AT&T bill was issued the rates
were increased by 2%".

My question is -- why shouldn't I be billed for the rates that were in
effect WHEN I PLACED THE CALL?

Anyone who'd like to enlighten me and the Digest would do me a great favor.

I am still awaiting a return call from AT&T regarding getting NOTICE
OF CHANGES IN RATES.  Let's see if they will put it in writing.


Daniel Wynalda       | [phone] X22 Ham:N8KUD Net:[e-mail]
Wynalda Litho Inc.   | 8221 Graphic Industrial Pk. | Rockford, MI  49341

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

From: Nobuya Higashiyama <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Quality to Japan: AT&T vs. MCI
Date: 24 Sep 90 20:16:54 GMT
Reply-To: meaddata![e-mail]
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH


I found that there's a significant difference in call quality when
calling Japan from Dayton, OH between AT&T and MCI.  I used to use
MCI, and I had to put up with frequent dropouts, noise, etc.  This
seemed to happen on just about every call I made.  I switched to AT&T,
and the dropouts disappeared completely and the noise is now quite
tolerable.  I'd like to know if anyone else has had the same
experience, or if mine is an isolated case.


Nobuya "Higgy" Higashiyama
Mead Data Central, Dayton, OH
meaddata![e-mail] (temporary) or
[e-mail] or uunet!meaddata!nxh

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

Subject: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 08:54:35 PDT
From: Jeff Johnson <[e-mail]>


Excerpted from the 9/21/90 {San Jose Mercury-News}:

PHONE BILL'S WRONG NUMBER:  $8.7 MILLION

Chicago (AP) -- Cori Ward's mother got a little defensive when she
received a phone bill for three weeks' service -- $8.7 million.

"She says, 'I only called my sister,'" said Ward, who handles her
elderly mother's bills.

The bill from Illinois Bell should have read $87.98, not $8,709,800.33.

Ward said she had a hard time explaining the mistake to the phone
company.

The error occurred when someone incorrectly typed a "correction" into
the computer system, said Larry Cose, a Bell spokesman.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 16:24 EDT
From: Alec <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You


>This offer is the one that says (paraphrasing) "We aren't sending this
>offer to just anyone.  We're sending it to you because we've analyzed
>your phone bill and you can save money by buying Reach Out, etc."

If they wanted us to "save money" they would just lower their rates
rather than trying to sell us a "money saving plan."


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #676
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06543;
          26 Sep 90 3:38 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18986;
          26 Sep 90 1:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14227;
          26 Sep 90 0:54 CDT
Date:     Wed, 26 Sep 90 0:13:04 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #677
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 26 Sep 90 00:11:54 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 677

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ATM at Retailers [Jim Budler]
    Re: What Is This World Coming To? [Tom Ace]
    Re: Slamming [Don Lynn]
    Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing) [Joe Konstan]
    Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: AMI on T1 Lines [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: MCI Around Town Surcharge [Joe Konstan]
    Re: A Description of 976 Numbers [David E.A. Wilson]
    Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For a Child [Benjamin Ellsworth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 18:26:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> FREE0612@uiucvmd (David Lemson)
writes:

>In a message of 23 Sep 90 16:49:02 GMT, Steven King <motcid!king@
>uunet.uu.net> writes:

>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc T.
>>Kaufman) writes:

>>>You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant.  The PIN is
>>>encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by
>>>a chip that is in the PIN pad itself.  The plaintext PIN never sees
>>>the light of day.

>>A one way algorithm?  Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you?
>>A gigantic lookup table?

>     The bank doesn't need to "decode" it.  The bank's computer knows
>what your PIN is supposed to be.  So, it codes it with the same
>trap-door algorithm as the keypad did, and compares the two.  FYI,
>this is the same way that the Unix operating system encrypts passwords
>with a one-way coding scheme, and stores them encoded.  My guess is
>that your bank's computer stores your PIN encoded, so it simply
>compares the encoded incoming message with the encoded number stored
>in the machine.

I'm not even positive the bank always has your PIN in the first place.

Last year I was one of the lucky people to receive a letter telling me
that my Versateller card was being shut down, and that I would receive
a new one in a few days. Concurrently my HomeBanking stopped also.

This shutdown occurred because some people at one of the system
providers broke their trust and obtained a significant block of
records containing names, ATM numbers and PINs. By system providers I
mean the companies like Plus System, or Star, who connect to the
retail merchants and route request from the retail merchants to the
bank ATM computer. The service providers are not necessarily banks,
they are potentially just a wholesale transaction merchant.  They do
their thing for the $1 - $2 per transaction that they get paid for
facilitating the transaction.

So in the past some "merchant's employees", not a merchant, and
actually not the retail merchant did exactly what was feared at the
start of this thread.

It took three seperate mailings to get my Versatel card back in
action.

1. The notice of the action and its cause.

2. The new Versatel account number and card.

3. A form on which I selected a new PIN to replace my old one. My old
PIN was time bombed so I was forced to select a new one.

Now back to the encryption algorythm. There actually was a
transposition pad on the form, so I encrypted my PIN, and sent the
encrypted PIN, not the PIN itself back to the Bank.

In addition, the PIN could now be variable length, and the length was
not reflected in the encrypted PIN I sent back to the bank.

So I'm not sure the bank ever has ny unencrypted PIN.

Who knows, though? Only the bank, for sure.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6115
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 11:01:58 PDT
From: Tom Ace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Is This World Coming To?


In TELECOM Digest issue 666, [e-mail] (Lou Judice)
writes:

>   ...  What
>is the point of putting bizzare messages on your answering machine to
>mislead some hapless telemarketing representative, when as Patrick
>states, A POLITE NO THANK YOU WILL DO!

Hapless telemarketing executive?  No one is forced to take such a job.
Telemarketers know they are calling people they don't know, who might
be asleep, ill, eating, or otherwise occupied and who would rather
only be receiving calls from people they want to hear from.

>What exactly is this world coming to when we can no longer talk to
>strangers...?

The same place it has come to where telemarketers have lost a sense of
what is courteous.  It is the rare telemarketer who has asked me a
question like "is this a good time to talk?".  If someone wants to
sell me something, they can send me mail which I can peruse at leisure
and give all the attention I determine it deserves.

Also, the general topic of "talking to strangers" has little to do
with the vast majority of unsolicited phone calls.  Strangers call me
to sell me things, to take surveys, to solicit donations, and (about
once a month) to ask me to subscribe to the {San Francisco Chronicle}.
Only once has a stranger ever called me for the purpose of initiating
a friendly personal conversation -- and even though he called at 1 A.M.,
I talked to him for two hours.


Tom Ace
{sun,pyramid}!hoptoad!lever!ace

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 1990 15:16:33 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Slamming


Just so everyone doesn't get the idea that MCI is the only bad guy and
AT&T is the good guy, I have to tell you my story...

A few years ago, when my area first got a choice of long distance
carrier on 1+ dialing, I signed up for Allnet.  I have been reasonably
happy with them since.  However, AT&T apparently decided that all
those people who left when given the choice couldn't still be happy,
and so it appears that AT&T called all such people in my area some
months after the choice was first given.  They invited me back into
the AT&T fold.  I said, No Way (though I occasionally use them with
10ATT), and guess who slammed me.  At least AT&T had the courtesy to
send me a nice little note how happy they were to have me back just
before getting Pac Tel (local carrier) to switch me.  They got a nasty
note back from me and they soon straightened it out without cost to
me, but they (or their hired telemarketers) had slammed me.

I have bad-experience stories on MCI, Allnet, General Tel, and Pac Tel
too, but at least none of those slammed me.


Don Lynn

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 15:58:55 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!)


In TELECOM Digest #669, John Higdon writes:

> A number of well-meaning readers advised me a while back to check out
> this plan or that plan involving long distance. Unfortunately, no IXCs
> currently offer any calling discounts for traffic within California.
> Since I make about two calls outside the state per month, no IXCs
> interstate rates or packages interest me in any way.

That is not presently true.  While AT&T does not offer a "Reach Out
California" plan (and I keep getting told by their reps that the PUC
will approve it any month -- this has been for over two years), MCI's
PrimeTime Plus *does* include in-state long distance calls in its
10.whatever cents per minute (one hour min) rate.  An additional
benefit is that this rate starts at 5pm weekdays.

MCI is missing a bunch of other features (no calling card integration)
and has the annoying habit of not allowing calls that would have been
cheaper to be deselected from the bulk plan (except by 10XXX with some
other carrier) but it is a pretty good savings for me (as my Wife has
family in Sacramento and San Diego).

Joe Konstan


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

Date: 24-SEP-1990 18:25:23.62
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SIT Tones on an Answering Machine


Hi-

After reading Jeff's <[e-mail]> posting about SIT tones, I
am beginning to wonder if they are actually used for anything, as in
the case of signalling within the telephone network.

The only time that I've noticed this myself is on COCOTs, as John
Higdon (sp?) noted earlier. I still haven't managed to get a free call
to my answering machine/voicemail, however, as once the COCOT hears
the SIT tones it turns off the mouthpiece and the touch tone keypad.
More commonly, at least in my area, the COCOTs just don't seem to
care, and if you hang on the line for too long (maybe anything greater
than 30 seconds) the COCOT will swallow the coin anyhow. (NOT that I
make it a point to actually USE the things...!) But there are so many
flavors of COCOT that I'm sure just about anything is possible with
them.

I've noticed that many Telco's (like independents and SNET) don't use
the SIT tones at all on their recordings. SNET has even *eliminated*
the SIT tones from their AIS (?- correct term) messages. (Isn't AIS
what you hear after the SIT, ie, "The number you have reached, 5 5 5 -
1 2 1 2, is not in service. Please check the number, and dial your
call again."). For a while, I think Illinois Bell was doing this as
well, since I called O'Hare Airport a few times, (312-686 from what I
recall), and got the AIS message w/o the SIT tones. Now, however, they
seem to have gone back to using the SIT tones on AIS recordings.

If the SIT tones have no function with the Telcos, then I don't see
why the Telco would object to it being used, as per se, it does not do
anything to their equipment. (Compared to leaving 2600Hz or MF tones
or something which, assuming the answering machine could duplicate
faithfully, may affect signalling equipment, etc. [Hmmm ... would it?])
If the SIT tones DO in fact cause Telco equipment to become "confused"
or in some way hinder their operation, then perhaps the Telco would
have a right to object.

As an aside, Jeff mentioned that service with the Telco may be
considered in contractual terms. I've always thought that it was more
like "implied consent", ie, by using the service you agree to certain
pre-arranged terms, which presumably are set forth by an
administrative body, usually the state Public Utilities Commission.
("implied consent" is the same thing that states use to get
out-of-state motorists to comply with their driving regulations, such
as submission to DWI tests, etc.) I've never had to deal with this
aspect of a Telco service "contract", but it is an interesting (albeit
admittedly esoteric) question. Anyone ever have to deal with this area
of the Telco service "contract"?  (I'll summarize if anyone's
interested ... and sorry to make this sound like misc.legal! :-) )


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AMI on T1 Lines
Date: 24 Sep 90 18:58:35 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> I would appreciate a short definition of exactly how AMI works on T1
> lines.  I took a short course from Datatech Institute recently on
> T1/T3 technology.  (I liked the course, by the way.)  Now I would like
> to compare AMI to B8ZS for meeting one's density requirements on our
> clear channel T1s, but can find only the definition of B8ZS in the

AMI simply means Alternate Mark Inversion, and translated to english
means that each one bit will have the opposite polarity of the
preceeding one regardless of how many zero bits are in between. In
fact if a plus follows a plus or a minus follows a minus, that is a
bipolar violation and is an error in a pure AMI system. The dumb
repeaters need to see some ones to keep their clock in step, so long
strings of zeroes are to be avoided.

All B8ZS does is replace a string of zeroes with a recognisable
pattern providing some needed ones that could not be normal data, and
that is itself balanced around zero (same number of plus 1s as minus
1s so there is no net DC component). This recognisable pattern is
simply replaced with the equivalent number of zeroes at the far end of
the span, but the repeaters see the ones they need to keep their
clocks in sync.

The special pattern B8ZS uses has two bipolar violations. There will
be a plus followed by a plus and a minus followed by a minus. The B8ZS
notes you found probably show that special string being substituted
for eight zeroes.  If you simply DON'T do that substitution, you have
a vanilla AMI line.

A vanilla AMI line can't guarantee ones density if all bits are to be
available for your random use. If you rob a bit fron each DS0 you get
your 56kb rate rather than the 64 you should have.

Some T 1/2 fractional services provided by a LEC may give you clear
channel on 'your' 12 DS0s, but they can simply ram ones on in 'their'
12 DS0s. Theirs will be every other time slot. You get the odd and
they get the even, or vice-versa. That way there can NEVER be long
strings of zeroes no matter what you send, and they can use most of
their OLD hardware to provide you the service. YUK.

Clear as mud, right?

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 16:58:50 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Around Town Surcharge


I received yet another story about this.  First, I spent time wading
through the training system to hear the "no surcharge" message.  Then,
unable to find an escape to a real person, called up a customer
service person who said that:

1)  The feature now costs 25 cents (I knew that)
2)  The message should have been changed (wow!)
3)  The local calling area is your home city (I know that isn't true, here in
    the San Francisco area it is approximately the free local calling area).
4)  There is no surcharge IF you make a local call from within your local
    calling area!!!!

This is the one I want to check out!  I've often called home via MCI
from BART stations (pre 25 cent surcharge) since the cost was 8-12
cents instead of 20.  I stopped when the surcharge came in, but will
try again and let the Digest know if this too turns out to be false.

By the way, is this a legal thing for them to provide (and I imagine
even promote)?  Can long distance carriers provide alternative local
service at discount rates through 950-xxxx???


Joe Konstan

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Description of 976 Numbers (was: Bell Canada Restricts 976)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 00:29:16 GMT


[e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:

>I understand that several other countries have the same concept, for
>example, Britain's 0898-numbers are similar to our 900's, but I've
>never heard of a simple name for it.  Is there one?  Do other
>countries have two flavors like our 976 (local) and 900 (callable from
>wide area)?

Here in Australia we have three flavours which all go under the name
"0055 - Information on the Double" or "Recorded Information Services".

The three types are:
                        Cost per minute
                        Day    Night    Economy
Metrowide (capital cities only)    0055 x9xxx    33c    22c    13c
Statewide (intrastate only)    0055 x5xxx    39c    26c    15c
Austwide             0055 xyxxx    57c    38c    23c
                y = 0-4,8

Provided you are on a modern exchange, 0055 calls will be a separate
item on your bill.

In addition, Dial-it Services (usually numbers of the form 11xxx) are
charged at normal local call rates or STD rates if you dial another
area code to get them.


David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 18:18:40 pdt
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For A Child


Mark Steiger wrote:

> That gift idea is a little too scary for me.

> [Moderator's Note: Would you like to tell us why? It seems innocuous
> enough to me. How do you see the situation?   PAT]

Remember that the original posting said it was for

> ... the little yuppie in your house ...

Isn't that scary enough for you Pat?  Or, do you want all of your
children to grow up to be self absorbed icons of conspicuous
consumption?!  ;-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #677
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07407;
          26 Sep 90 4:36 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26963;
          26 Sep 90 3:01 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad18986;
          26 Sep 90 1:58 CDT
Date:     Wed, 26 Sep 90 1:33:09 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #678
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 26 Sep 90 01:32:49 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 678

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls [Joe Pace]
    Re: Local Calling Numbers [Matthew McGehrin]
    Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Tom Gray]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Michael Coleman]
    Re: Burglar Alarm Problems [Paul Colley]
    Re: AMI on T1 Lines [Jon Baker]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Chris Johnson]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Matthew McGehrin]
    Re: Itemised Bills -  An Australian Followup [[e-mail]]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number - In Australia [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Pace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Leaving Brief Messages With Free Collect Calls
Organization: US Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 00:27:41 GMT


A friend and I came up with a method for letting the other know that
he was on a local pay phone, and what the number was, by using a
collect call with an odd name.  It has worked very well, and now we
have an easy way to refer to particular phones.

Since all the numers in our area begin with 75, only the last five
digits are important -- the goal is to form a name like:

   Paris H. Bulb

Where the first and last letter of the first name and last name and
the middle initial are significant.  So, the number is encoded as
"PSHBB" using the mapping:

    1-9 -> A-I
    1-9 -> J-T

    U-Z are left out...

So, this name maps to 756-9822. The trick is to figure out a good name
for your pay-phone, one that will be easy for the operator to repeat
and will make sense if it's a little mispronounced.


Joe Pace
US Army Corps of Engineers                                     [e-mail]
Sacramento District                                     [e-mail]
650 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA  95814         [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Re: Local Calling Numbers
Date: 25 Sep 90 00:56:22 GMT


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

Dave,

        You made a comment about 'the list of local exchanges'. No, I
did that myself. I typed in all the 'exchanges' they listed for me, I
then had the computer sort it by 'exchange' that way, i say for
instance, look thru the list for exchange '647' if 647 is not on my
list, then it is not local?

        Do you get it?

matt

    Arpa / DDN   : pro-graphics![e-mail]
      UUCP       : crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin
    Internet     : [e-mail]

 From : [phone], Free Access, 24 hours a day
       300/1200/2400 baud, 'Pro-Graphics'

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor
Date: 25 Sep 90 09:10:52 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!halligan![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hui Lin
Lim) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 665, Message 3 of 9

>> 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.

>Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided?  Does it
>require an ISDN switch etc?

This is just dressed up party line service. Different ringing codes
are supplied for different directory number assigned to the same loop.
The easiest switch to implement this service would be a step by step -
just cross connect the connector outputs for the various directory
numbers on the MDF. An ISDN switch requires an amazing amount of
software to do the same function - ie assign multiple DN's to the same
line circuit. Any switch sold in North America in the last 60 years
will have the capability of providing party line service and this new
new ultra-modern Distinctive Ringing Service (an extra cost item).

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

From: Michael Coleman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Date: 25 Sep 90 06:38:20 GMT


[e-mail] (Ken Stox) writes:

>    4) Modems don't pause, they will use every available packet
>for that data path. In other words, a modem conversation will not
>allow any other packets through.

This may be kind of a dumb solution, but why can't the phone company detect
dead modem carrier and compress it the way they do with silence.  I realize
that modem silence isn't as simple as people silence, but there must be some
way to do this.  How about it?

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Colley)
Subject: Re: Burglar Alarm Problems
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 20:13:55 GMT


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

>Walter Kemmerer describes receiving strange calls at five-minute
>intervals that turned out to originate from a fried alarm system.

>It is probably a bad idea to rely upon an alarm system that calls 911
>itself. In Toronto, the police will not respond to computer-generated
>emergency calls because of the large number of false alarms.

As I recall the announcement a couple of years ago, they announced
that they would stop responding after a certain number of false
alarms, something like two in a one-year interval, not that they
wouldn't respond at all.


Paul
  [e-mail] or .ca


[Moderator's Note: In Chicago, the Fire Department continues to
respond to each automatic fire alarm -- false or not. However they
send bills to companies which generate 'frequent' false alarms, to the
tune of $550-575 per thirty minutes of service: responding,
investigating and returning to Quarters. An expensive lesson, eh?
Likewise, the police respond to automatic alarms. Our city officials
said they have no intention of jeopardizing a citizen actually in
distress because of a history of malfunctioning alarms at the same
location. Instead, the offending alarm owner is sued or fined by the
city after the second or third time around.  PAT]

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AMI on T1 Lines
Date: 24 Sep 90 22:34:17 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roger Fajman)
writes:

>I would appreciate a short definition of exactly how AMI works on T1
>lines.  Now I would like
>to compare AMI to B8ZS for meeting one's density requirements on our
>clear channel T1s, but can find only the definition of B8ZS in the
>course notes.  AMI is mentioned as being less preferable, but is not
>defined.

 From ANSI T1.403-1989, Carrier-To-Customer Installation -
 DS1 Metallic Interface :

    AMI, Alternate Mark Inversion:  A pseudoternary signal, conveying
    bindary digits, in which successive "ones" (marks, pulses) are of
    alternating, positive (+) and negative (-) polarity, equal in
    amplitude, and in which a "zero" (space, no pulse) is of zero
    amplitude.

In AMI, one's density is maintained by converting a zero sample (i.e.
eight consecutive zero-bits) into a '2'.  Thus, clear-channel is not
possible.  This method of maintaining one's density is called Zero
Code Suppression (ZCS).

    B8ZS: Bipolar with 8-Zero Substitution.
    A code in which eight consecutive "zeros" are replaced with the
    sequence 000+-0-+ if the preceding pulse was +, and with the
    sequence 000-+0+- if the preceding pulse was -, where +
    represents a positive pulse, - represents a negative pulse,
    and 0 represents no pulse.

B8ZS basically inserts deliberate bi-polar violations when
transmitting a zero; the far-end is expected to detect the deliberate
BPV's and unencode them into the zero-sample without reporting an
actual BPV.


JB

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

From: Chris Johnson <plains!com50.c2s.mn.org![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 19:27:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon - Temp Consultant) writes:

>The fact: The AT&T Universal Card is simply a bankcard (VISA or
>Mastercard) with an AT&T credit card number embossed onto it.  The
>magnetic stripe on the back of the card indicates that the card is
>only a bankcard and contains no information about the AT&T credit
>card.  Hence, when run though a payphone (or any other device that
>reads the stripe), it is treated as a bankcard.

>Apparently, modern credit card technology cannot yet deal with
>magnetic stripes that contain "dual" identities, and so, some of the
>potential convenience of a combined bankcard/phonecard is, for now,
>lost.

Well, that seems like an awfully easy thing to rectify with no new
technology whatsoever: just put two magnetic stripes on the back of
the card, one with the bankcard data and one with the phonecard data.
Then in all those glossy brochures they send to holders of the
Universal Card (like me), they need only instruct the users to insert
the card one way to use the VISA/MC capabilities, and the other way to
use the AT&T phone card capabilities.

I'm amazed that this incredibly simple and inexpensive solution
escaped the designers of the card.  Is there some other reason they
didn't make the card completely dual purpose, I wonder?  Does the
ordinary AT&T phonecard give you a 10% discount on calls?


   ...Chris Johnson          [e-mail]   ..uunet!bungia!com50!chris
 Com Squared Systems, Inc.   St. Paul, MN USA   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Date: 25 Sep 90 00:56:11 GMT


Another thought came to mind about the 'AT&T Universal Card': Just
think, if you use the 'card' to charge purchases, your 'phone number
with four-digit code', along with the 'ATT Credit card number' goes on
the same slip (since its one huge carbon) ... Reach Out and Touch
someone's life, since you have their credit card number, (their bank
since ATT uses only one bank), their phone number with a 'universal'
calling card ... not bad huh??


matt

    Arpa / DDN   : pro-graphics![e-mail]
      UUCP       : crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin
    Internet     : [e-mail]

 From : [phone], Free Access, 24 hours a day
        300/1200/2400 baud, 'Pro-Graphics'

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills - An Australian Followup
Date: 25 Sep 90 16:33:22 +1000
Organization: The University of Melbourne


In article <[e-mail]>, munnari!cs.uow.edu.au!david@
uunet.uu.net (David E A Wilson) writes:

> A few months ago I mentioned that Telecom/OTC were now providing IDD
> itemised bills to customers on new exchanges. My quarterly phone bill
> arrived with my first itemised IDD call:

> Date    Time    Place        Number        Min:Sec    $
> 19 Jul    11:06pm    USA Rhode Is    1401863xxxx    1:59    2.42 [my xx's]

> So on a sample of one I guess OTC at least decodes the country and
> area code to get the place.

OTC is kind enough to give the state or province for calls to North
America, but calls to London (4471+7D) are listed as 'United Kingdom',
just the same as calls to Glasgow (4441+7D).  I don't think it would
have been much effort to add major UK cities with area codes of the
form (0N1), but they did not bother.  Odd, considering that the UK is
in the top three destinations for Australian international calls.

It should be noted that while automatic itemisation of IDD calls is
now provided to everyone, it was available on request to many
subscribers before this.

> As for Trunk call itemisation, metropolitan residential customers will
> start getting it in November, 1990 and all should have it by 1994.
> Country residential customers should have it by 1997. This should give
> us one of the most missed features of the US phone system.

LD itemisation is also a feature available on request, depending on
the local exchange (CO) equipment.  The new AXE exchanges and the
older ARE and ARF switches can itemise, but the old SxS monsters
can't.

I am on an AXE exchange and I have had LD itemisation for 18 months.
My only beef is that TA (Telecom Australia) charges 6c per call for
the itemisation, to a maximum of $5.00 per quarter.

1994 is the target for fully digital service in metropolitan
Australia.

TA seems to have a policy of witholding services from everyone if not
everyone can have it.  For example, Call Forwarding costs $480 /year
for a rack mounted device to be installed, so that subscribers on SxS
exchanges can also use it, Call Forwarding on an AXE exchange would
cost TA nothing, but they still charge the $480.

At least they allow me to have call waiting, conference and a crippled
call forwarding.

My call forwarding is crippled because I can only forward to exchanges
in the same group as my own, ie I can't use an intergroup trunk for
the forwarded call.  At least I only pay $17 a year and no call
charges for the forwarded calls.

> We don't have COCOTs - although businesses can rent Telecom Gold
> Phones and get the difference between the 22c charged to subscribers
> and the 30c charged to pay phone users (per call unit).

Correction needed here.  A Gold Phone *is* a COCOT, but a regulated
one.  The old Redphone was leased from TA, but the replacement
GoldPhone was available by purchase only from its introduction in
1983.  Back then it cost $1300.  Probably $2000 now.  The owner of the
GoldPhone has no say in the charge for using the phone.

TA has also released a Bluephone COCOT which is a small low security
phone for use in restaurants etc.

> Telecom are going to introduce pre-purchase phone cards (looks similar
> to the Japanese variety - punches a hole to show the remaining value
> of the card).  They hope this will reduce vandalism by reducing the
> coins held in the phone.

These are currently on trial in Geelong, Victoria.  They claim that
they are better than the European variety, but I could not get any
real evidence out of the rep to back the claim.

There are also EFTPOS telephones which accept ATM cards, and debit
your savings account.  These were developed as a joint venture with
ANZ bank, and they are connected directly to that bank's computer,
even for cards issued by other banks.


Danny

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number (In Australia)
Date: 25 Sep 90 16:58:14 +1000
Organization: The University of Melbourne


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Patrick Tufts) writes:

> How can you find out the number of a given phone?  I seem to recall
> that linesmen dial the operator and ask for a ringback.

> What do you have to say to an operator to get the number of the line
> you're calling on?  Are there any numbers you can call that will tell
> you your own number (like how [phone] tells you your LD
> carrier)?

> [Moderator's Note: In nearly every telephone exchange there is some
> number which will read back the number of the phone placing the call.
> There is no standardization to this; the numbers are different
> everywhere, and change frequently. They are always non-pub, of course.

In Australia the number to ring is 19123.  This works from most
private phones.  Payphones give the message "No information to
identify telephone number", while mobile phones give a seemingly
endless string of 9's and 0's in no apparent order.  Even COCOTS give
the "No info" message, unless they are connected to the same line as
the shop's own phone (a not uncommon practice in Oz).

Dialling (0xx)19123, to a different area from the caller may give the
correct number, or the congestion tone.  I guess that it depends on
whether the area you are calling has a digital link with the area you
are calling from.


Danny

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #678
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08117;
          26 Sep 90 5:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23578;
          26 Sep 90 4:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac26963;
          26 Sep 90 3:01 CDT
Date:     Wed, 26 Sep 90 2:17:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #679
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 26 Sep 90 02:17:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 679

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Andrew Boardman]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [William Clare Stewart]
    Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System [Andrew Boardman]
    Telephone Ortsnetzkennzahlen [John R. Covert]
    Networked Scheduling System [Jeffery R. Wisnom]
    Information on Technical Training Needed [David M. Meyer]
    Phone Book Publishers [Samuel W. Ho]
    What Do You Do With a Worn-out Intercontiental Cable? [Donald Kimberlin]
    MCI VisaPhone [Joe Konstan]
    Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1 [David Gurevich]
    Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin [Paul Mooney]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 19:48:32 EDT
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number


>The most honest way to go about it would be to ask the person who owns
>the phone, "what number is this?"  PAT]

The easiest, at least in NYNEX and Atlantic Bell land, is to call the
operator and ask "what number is this?"  I've never had the request
refused.

(BTW, in the wake of recent talk about the book "The Phone Book," I
wandered over to the business library and gave it a read.  It was
somewhat interesting, but extraordinarily anti-Bell biased.  Its
attitude was matched only by the extraordinary pro-Bell attitude of
its shelf-mate, titled "The Rape of Ma Bell.")

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 21:00:06 EDT
From: William Clare Stewart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs Random Organization Name Generator


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Patrick Tufts) writes:

> How can you find out the number of a given phone?  I seem to recall
> that linesmen dial the operator and ask for a ringback.

> What do you have to say to an operator to get the number of the line
> you're calling on?  Are there any numbers you can call that will tell
> you your own number (like how [phone] tells you your LD

I have to do this periodically when we've been reshuffling modems in
our lab.  The phrase "Telephone repair - what number am I calling from?"
seems to work 99% of the time, assuming I can get the right code for
the local operator (0, or 9-0, or *9-0, depending on whether the
line is direct, or one of the Centrexes - haven't tried 00.)

Thanks,

Bill Stewart 908-949-0705 erebus.att.com!wcs AT&T Bell Labs 4M-312 Holmdel NJ

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

From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 90 20:02:52 EDT
Subject: Help Needed With Panasonic KX-T2355 on Rolm System


>A "single line" analog interface on a Rolm is reasonably compatible
>with any standard telephone.  Only the proprietary Rolmphone and ETS
>interfaces aren't.  I've attached lots of ordinary things (answering
>machines, speakerphones, 1A2 key, etc.) to Rolm lines.  No sweat.

At least on the 9751, the standard interface for the proprietary sets
is indeed standard; for POTS devices the interface card is a costly
add-on.

>What makes Rolms tricky is that they use a human interface model
>that's optimized to allow the fully-priv'd business phone user

This is what makes it massively inappropriate (IMHO) for the frequent
university setting.  The student users enjoy none of the privs with
all of the hassles.  An illuminating paraphrase from Columbia
University administration after their recent installation: "This
system is perfect for our use.  We realize that it raises manifold
problems for the student population, but you guys are only here for
four or five years; we *work* here."  Makes me wonder who these
universities are for, anyway...

>but of course you then need a second (analog) line for your answering
>machine, modem, etc., just as with any fancy PBX.

Analog phones: the moden-day undergrad dream...


Andrew Boardman
[e-mail]

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

From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Ortsnetzkennzahlen
Date: 25 Sep 90 03:10:48 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


OK, so if the DBP has (as reported in soc.culture.german) officially
announced that the postal codes will be D-Wxxxx and D-Oxxxx until a
complete reorganization in 1992, have they announced what is happening
with the telephone system?

One option is to just decide that Germany is fortunate to have two
country codes and continue to use both.

Another option would be to move all of East Germany's codes into the
combined system by prefixing all of them with "3" (e.g. Dresden is now
-51 and would become -351; Berlin might, like London, have two codes,
-30 for the western part and -31 or -32 for the eastern part).  This
is possible because +49 currently only has -30 assigned, and no +37
codes begin with -0.  East Berlin is currently -2.

This would only work if there are no eight digit numbers in Dresden
(and corresponding restrictions on other cities), since the CCITT
recommends a maximum of twelve digits for an entire phone number
counting the country code but not the international access code.


john

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 8:49:17 CET
From: "Jeffery R. Wisnom" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Networked Scheduling System


I would like to submit the following for comment by the Digest's
readers. It is telecom related though it applies more to local Area
networking communications.

        Our office is planning to install a campus-wide network
scheduling system system (appointment calendar) for 200 users
connected by an IBM Token Ring LAN. The individual micros are MS-DOS
Zenith 286 machines.  We have a UNISYS (Sperry) 5000/80 minicomputer
running unix with an Eicon gateway to the Token Ring. I see three
possible ways to implement this calendar system:

    (1) install the system on the unix machine and have users access it
 from the LAN through the gateway.

    (2) install the system on the 7 Token Ring LAN servers.

    (3) install the system on each PC and let organization-wide updates be
transmitted over the LAN.

    Because I have had virtually no experience in selecting or
installing networked scheduling systems for a whole organization I am
not sure which of the above alternatives is even feasible.  Some
technical advice on the best way to implement such a system would be
appreciated.  As far as specific products, I have asked for
information from the following vendors concerning PC/MS-DOS products
with network compatibility:

    a. "TimeWise"  sold by APC Technology Group
    b. "Who-What-When Enterprise"  sold by Chronos Software Inc.
    c. "Office Works" sold by Data Access Corp.

    If anyone has good/bad/indifferent experience with these products
or any additional products to suggest I would greatly appreciate it.
Please post your comments to the Digest as I read it daily.


Thanks in advance,

Jeff Wisnom

[e-mail]

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

From: "David M. Meyer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Informaton on Technical Training Needed
Organization: Deptartment of University Computing, University of Oregon,
Date: 25 Sep 90 09:05:26


I'm looking for information on technical telephony training seminars,
conferences, etc. I'd like to find training on topics like T1 (or high
speed serial networks in general). Does anyone have any experience or
recomendations?

Thanks,

David M. Meyer            Voice:     503/346-4394
Network Systems Analyst        Internet:  [e-mail]
Office of University Computing    Bitnet:    meyer@oregon
University of Oregon        UUCP:       ...!uoregon!meyer
1225 Kincaid            FAX:       [phone]
Eugene, OR 97403

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 11:15:46 CDT
From: Samuel W Ho <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Book Publishers


I'm sure that many readers have noticed the proliferation of telephone
books in recent years.  I believe that it's not directly related to
the Breakup, just that the LEC's are happily selling white pages
information to whoever wants to pay 40c/listing or so.  Anyhow, most
major cities have at least a couple of third-party phone books.

In Seattle, I noticed US West (the LEC), GTE (the other LEC; GTE buys
some US West listings), the American Directory Company, Great
Northwest Publishers, and assorted "neighborhood" directories.  That
all made sense, even if it did make for a lot of excess phone books
for the recycle bin.

In Champaign, Illinois, I notice that there is the Ameritech Pages
Plus, which has the shape and thickness of an LEC book, and an Illini
Country phone book from Old Heritage publishers, which has the
letter-size shape and thinness characteristic of a third-party book.

So far so good.  But then, I notice that the Ameritech Pages Plus is
published by Donnelly Directory, and Old Heritage, of Ballwin, MO, is
a subsidiary of Ameritech.  What's going on?  Did Ameritech contract
out their phone book, and then create some competition for their
contractor?  Is Ameritech trying to have its cake and eat it, too?
Did Ameritech and Donnelly get into a fight?  It's peculiar.

Incidentally, Old Heritage's ad in their own Yellow pages claims
advertising coverage in a dozen states, about half of which are in
Ameritech country.  Each of Donnelly and Old Heritage has a big ad in
its own yellow pages and a tiny ad in the other's, all under
"Advertising, Directory and Guide", for the curious.  Our Chicago
friends and Moderator might look around in the half-dozen phone books
that they probably have lying around for any other Ameritech
surprises.

Insights on the soap-opera lives of telephone book publishers welcome.


Sam Ho ([e-mail])

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 14:08 EST
From:  Donald E. Kimberlin <[e-mail]>
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL 34695
Subject: What Do You Do With a Worn-Out Intercontinental Cable?


The following news release from AT&T didn't seem to make any visible
general press.  It may however have some interest for readers of the
Digest:

     AT&T and Kokusai Denshin Denwa Ltd. (KDD), of Japan, will donate
to the U.S. and Japanese scientific community a portion of
TransPacific Cable-1, the first undersea cable system to span the
Pacific.

     The 26-year-old cable, which carried up to 138 simultaneous
telephone conversations, was replaced in April, 1989 by a fiber-optic
cable with a capacity of 40,000 simultaneous calls.  It continued to
function as a backup system until last month.

     The retired copper cable will be given to the Earthquake Research
Institute of the University of Tokyo and the Incorporated Research
Institute for Seismology (IRIS) in the U.S. on November 1.

     The two groups will use the 2,656-kilometer cable system the
backbone of an undersea observation system to monitor acoustical
waves, geomagnetism, water pressure and temperature, speed of water
current, and other seismological factors.  The cable had formerly been
used to handle telephone traffic between Japan and Guam.

     The system will make it possible for scientists to study the sea
bed between the Philippine Plate and the Pacific Plate, where
earthquakes occur frequently.  It is expected to increase the accuracy
of earthquake and tidal wave forecasting and to advance understanding
of the inner structure of the earth.

     AT&T Bell Laboratories scientists, who developed the cable,
predict that the vacuum tubes in the system's underwater amplifiers
will, after 25 years of telecommunications life, now have a scientific
lifetime of 50 or even hundreds of years.

     "This cable, which has served to bring the cultures and economies
of the U.S. and Far East closer together, will continue to serve
scientists in their search for fuller understanding of the scope and
implications of the natural mysteries of our planet," said James
Barrett, Deputy Director, AT&T International Communications Services.

     At its retirement last month, TransPacific Cable-1,
state-of-the-art technology in 1964, was still functioning reliably as
part of an overall system from California to Japan.  Its replacement
digital optical system was built by AT&T and KDD for their
international information service needs as well as those of a
consortium of 20 additional owners.

                           # # #

Not too shabby for a bunch of researchers to have their own private
group of 138 voice channels between Guam and Japan, eh?  I wonder if
they will interconnect one so computer bulletin boards in Japan and
Guam will be a local call from each other? (Forget that I even
suggested the notion!)

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 13:13:59 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI VisaPhone


I just got off the phone with the MCI VisaPhone people and here is the
scoop:

1.  While they say you just use your Visa Card, you actually end up
getting a card from them with your VISA number plus a four-digit PIN
(I'm glad, more secure).

2.  I don't have dialing instructions yet, but it seems to be a
typical 950 access.

3.  Charges appear on your Visa Bill--sign up now (1-800-627-3119) and
receive a $5.00 credit on your second month's bill after usage starts.

4.  Rates are milage insensitive:  18 cents per minute weekday
                                   13 cents per minute evening
                                   10 cents per minute night/weekend

5.  Service charge is 70 cents per call.

My analysis:

    It makes sense only when:

    1.  You are not home, and
    2.  You are calling an "expensive" area (cross country or
            intrastate long distance), and either
    3a. You are not within an "Around Town" area, or
        3b. You expect a long enough call (about 7-8 mins) to cover
            the 45 cent higher fees.

Other Notes:

    Cannot be combined with travel award or other programs.
    Does not count towards volume discounts

Open Questions:

    I don't have information about rates for international dialing (if
        it is available).  If anyone wants this, or other information, I can
        find out, or some other Digest reader probably already knows.

What I did:

        I signed up for the service (only plan to use it outside local area)
        predominantly for the $5.00 credit.  I'll probably have my wife sign
        up too, just for good measure!


Joe Konstan

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

From: David Gurevich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1
Date: 25 Sep 90 21:59:32 GMT
Reply-To: David Gurevich <[e-mail]>
Organization: DHL Systems, Inc., San Mateo, CA


It talks about the host-to-switch interfaces. Host being some computer
system, switch - a PBX, CO Switch, etc.

It seems that ANSII T1S1 subcommettee is trying to define a set of
specs called the Switch - to - Computer API (SCAI). SCAI would provide
common ground for any host to communicate to with any switch.

This means that all kinds of applications may be developed on the host
computer that would be able to add to the switch capability/
functionality.  A sophisticated development environment, rich in
labor-saving tools could be provided for this application development.
Data network interfaces could be easily added.

Is there a large market for this kind of a product?

What would be common applications?

Who would buy it?

What are the potential regulatory problems?

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

From: Paul Mooney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Divestiture -- Keep on Truckin
Date: 24 Sep 90 15:10:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara, CA


> It's not within the traditions or constitution to 'nationalize' (or
> staticize, or whatever the equivalent would be) private companies.

Last constitution of U.S.A. I read said that nationalization with
compensation was allowed.

Just thought I'd mention it.


Paul Mooney


[Moderator's Note: Unfortunatly, you are correct. Something very scary
here in Chicago right now are the local politicians talking about
stealing (only they prefer to call it 'municipalizing') the property of
Commonwealth Edison, and taking over the electrical power system here
as an agency of city government. I guess they need another patronage
hive. Imagine! The people who brought us the Chicago schools, the
Chicago Housing Authority and the Chicago Transit Authority -- now
they want to take over the nuke plants. It is really bad news.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #679
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04111;
          27 Sep 90 3:56 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27416;
          27 Sep 90 2:15 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00241;
          27 Sep 90 1:10 CDT
Date:     Thu, 27 Sep 90 0:12:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #680
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Sep 90 00:11:59 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 680

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Barrey Jewall]
    Re: McDonalds 900 Scam [Sanjay Hiranandani]
    Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway [[e-mail]]
    Re: Equal Access on College Campus? [S. M. Krieger]
    Re: McDonalds 900 Scam [Roy Smith]
    Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Kevin P. Kleinfelter]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Ed Benyukhis]
    Re: Data vs Voice [Tim Oldham]
    Re: COCOTery [Tom Perrine]
    Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! (Info on One From Damark) [Dan Ross]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"
Date: 25 Sep 90 07:33:42 GMT
Reply-To: Barrey Jewall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


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


>   I wonder how some of the apologists for the shenanigans being
>passed off as inside humor would react if the Postal Service did the
>following to their mail:

>  - randomly opened it and made copies to pass around the
>    office and to other parties
>  - intentionally routed it to the wrong party occasionally

>  I don't see any difference between these and the activities of the
>insiders, other than the media and the employer, and that doesn't
>change the ethics of the situation.

What you apparently don't recognize, is that this DOES occur within
the hallowed halls of the US Post Office (I refuse to call it a Postal
Service!)

Carriers have time and again been caught with BAGS of opened and
unopened mail, usually when another carrier drops by to check on a
carrier who hasn't called in sick, but didn't show up either...

Carriers have also been known to destroy mail, rather than bother
delivering it.

Anyway, the telco folk who did this, as are the mail carriers, are
merely a small subset of the hardworking main force. If they all went
home tomorrow, what would happen???


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

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

From: Sanjay Hiranandani <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: McDonalds 900 Scam
Date: 25 Sep 90 13:41:50 GMT
Reply-To: Sanjay Hiranandani <[e-mail]>
Organization: SUNY-Binghamton Computer Center


In article <[e-mail]> Jeremy Grodberg <biosys!lia.com!
[e-mail]> writes:

>You can get a "McMillions on NBC" sweepstakes ticket for free, no
>purchase necessary, at any participating McDonalds.  Then you watch
>for the winning number on NBC during a specified time.  Although the
>number on my ticket is nine digits, I suspect that there are only a
>few numbers actually given out for a given time period.  Anyway, they
>don't tell you what you have won, and to claim your prize you have to
>call a 900 number (75 cents per call) within about 20 hours.  There is
>no way to claim your prize other than to call this 900 number.  There
>is another 900 number (also 75 cents per call) which you can call to
>find out what the winning number is.

What's even scummier is that the ticket said that the numbers would be
announced between 8-8:30pm EDT on NBC. However my local TV station
that carries NBC didn't showit till 11:30. When I turned on my TV at
8, I didn't see anything about it till 8:15 ... when I saw a
commercial that said it would be announced at 11:00 pm. At 11 pm
nothing happened except the 11 pm WICZ 40 newscast.  between 11 and
11:30 nothing was even mentioned about it during the commercial
breaks.  At 11:30, they briefly announced the number.

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Use on Airport Runway
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 09:45:55 -0400
From: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

>Does anyone know what regulation prohibits cellular calls from aircraft?

(The Moderator appended a note pointing out the potential risks from
IF-leakage interfering with the aircraft's avionics.)

I see that I wasn't quite clear in my question.  There are two distinct
problems arising from cellular use in aircraft:

1. Interference with the aircraft avionics, due to IF leakage.
(this is an *aviation* problem).

2. Overloading the cellular radio network, by accessing multiple cells.
(this is a *telecom* problem).

The first problem is addressed by FAA regulation 91.21 (formerly
91.19), which prohibits the operation of most portable electronic
equipment on commercial flights, unless the airline has determined
that the equipment will not interfere with the aircraft avionics.

The second problem is what I was asking about.

Suppose someone is flying high over Los Angeles, in circumstances
where FAR 91.21 does not apply.  If he uses his cellular phone, it
might activate hundreds of cells and confuse the network.  It would be
impolite for him to make a cellular call from there, but would it be
illegal?  If so, how?

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 10:02:21 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Equal Access on College Campus?
Organization: Summit NJ


> Here at Notre Dame (I don't go to school here, just visit), all the
> telephone service in dormitories is handled by CTI (meaning
> CTI-installed switches and CTI-provided 1+ long distance). Apparently
> students can't get AT&T (or other) long distance provided via 1+; they
> have to place operator-assisted calls (and pay rates for same).

At West Chester University, where my daughter is enrolled, there is
also no 1+ calling allowed.  The phone system does support 10XXX LD
carrier selection (i.e., after "9" to get an outside line, 10XXX can
be dialed before the "0"; I have verified that it ends up going to the
selected LD company).

What I did to help ease the cost is to sign up for Reach Out America
and paid the extra $2.00 for the calling card option.  As I understand
the way it works, the time we can make the cheapest interstate calls
is pushed back to 10 pm, and any interstate calling card call made
during the plan's hours do not include the 80 cents surcharge.  All I
asked my daughter to do was to find out if her friends' parents won't
mind their phones ringing at 10:10 pm.

(Disclaimer: what I am posting about Reach Out America is based
solely on my being an AT&T customer.  Although I am an employee of
AT&T, my work is entirely with UNIX System V development and does
not involve any of the company's long distance telephone business).


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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 13:46:28 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: McDonalds 900 Scam
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


Jeremy Grodberg writes:

> It seems that McDonalds has figured out how to legally run a sweepstakes
> for profit, and once again 900 telephone service is the key. [...]
> Any way you slice it, I think it is scummy for prize winners to have
> to pay to claim their prize, and I doubt that McDonalds would be doing
> it unless they were going to make money on it [...]

    I have no love of 900 numbers either, and I agree that
charging $0.75 for the phone call to see if you've won is pretty low,
but Jeremy isn't being entirely fair in his condemnation.  My ticket
back goes on to say: "net proceeds, if any, donated to Ronald McDonald
Children's Charities (registered trademark)".  It's still pretty low,
but at least they aren't just pocketing the money.  Then again, if
they are soliciting money for their charity fund, why be so
underhanded about it?  Maybe that's not 100% fair either, since they
do have plainly marked donation boxes on every counter, but I digress.

    The thing that gets me is the "if any" part.  Obviously they
are charging back against net profits some sort of costs.  The cost of
running the phone line?  Printing the tickets?  Advertising costs?


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

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

From: "Kevin P. Kleinfelter" <msa3b![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords)
Date: 25 Sep 90 16:27:43 GMT
Organization: Management Science America, Inc., Atlanta, GA


motcid![e-mail] (Steven King) writes:


>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc T.
>Kaufman) writes:

>>You are not giving your PIN number to the merchant.  The PIN is
>>encrypted (mixed with your bank card number) in a ONE WAY algorithm by
>>a chip that is in the PIN pad itself.  The plaintext PIN never sees
>>the light of day.

>A one way algorithm?  Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you?
>A gigantic lookup table?

One way encryption is very common.  You store the encrypted PIN on the
card.  Then when the user enters his PIN, it is encrypted using the
same algorithm.  If the two encrypted PINs match, the original PINs
were the same.


Kevin Kleinfelter @ Dun and Bradstreet Software, Inc [phone]
{emory,gatech}!nanovx!msa3b!kevin

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

From: Ed Benyukhis <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Date: 25 Sep 90 17:39:20 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(Ronald T. Crocker) writes:

>  From my experience (former Bell Labs), the type of multiplexing that
> you describe above (item 3) is not typical of any switches (digital or
> analog) that I am familiar with.  Most telephony connections are
> "circuit-switched", i.e. equivalent to hooking a pair of wires between
> the two parties.  The only "packet-switched" connections that I know
> of are those for ISDN packet data (B or D channel), and these are
> handled as "special cases," at least in the 5E.
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree that most connections are circuit-switched and that most calls
are POTS type calls. But what is so special about B/D channel packet
switching???

> Voice is not packet data.  It is not treated in a packet manner.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It could be.  VSCS (FAA) at Bell Labs is implementing just that i.e.
Packatizing voice for air traffic controllers communications.  Voice
packatezation perhaps warrants some discussion/explanation by someone
more familiar with the process.  How about it Pat????

> Whatever happens to be on the voice channel is digitized (PCM),
> transmitted across digital carrier facilities (T1) to another switch,
> decoded to the equivalent analog signal, and played out of the
> receiver in the handset.  No where in this loop is anything trying to
> figure out if the digitized voice signal represents "quiet".  T1 is
> simply a multiplexed digital version of 24 analog trunks.  Voice-grade
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
> lines are 64Kbps, T1 channels are [nominally] 64Kbps.  Maybe if there
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
When you say Voice Grade Lines, are you referring to th subscriber
loops??  And if you are, than, how about BRI connection piping 144Kbps
over a wire pair.  And even this can be increased by playing tricks
with the loading coils.  Also, depending on the Super Frame format,
you might not even get a 64Kbps clear channel on the T1 either.

In general, these are long and, at times, complex subject matters.


Regards,

Ed Benyukhis, Motorola, CID.
[phone]

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

From: Tim Oldham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data vs Voice
Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 16:35:14 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> adiron![e-mail] (Tom Olin)
writes:

>What happens if all those callers simultaneously break into song or in
>some other way push their duty cycles up to 100%?  Do they start
>losing parts of their conversations?  Or do pieces merely get delayed?
>Or does something else happen?

As another contributor has said, the technique of zero compression
isn't prevalent on land nets. It is, I believe, prevalent on satellite
links; certainly sometimes I get completely dead patches on a noisy
phone line, which I have always contributed to zero compression.

So, am I correct in this assumption? If I'm right, what happens when
satellite virtual-circuits *do* start using more bandwidth. For
example,

Take a satellite which has 64Kbps bandwidth (it's a pretty crap
satellite :-):

time t: I'm on the line to the US from the UK, and it I'm on a
        zero-compressed satellite link. I'm put on hold, and keep my
    mouth shut. No bandwidth being used.

time t+1: Another person decides to call the US. Whatever-it-is decides
    that statistically (assuming a 50% zero compression winnitude),
    and currently actually, there is sufficient bandwidth to route
    the call via the satellite. It does so, and the 2 parties are
    connected. They start talking. No problem; plenty of bandwidth,
    as I'm still not saying anything.

time t+2: All four parties start screaming blue murder at each other. We
    need 128Kbps bandwidth. Which the satellite can't deliver.

What happens? Is it just a case of the designers allowing for
statistically very low data loss, given that the numbers are very much
bigger for a typical satellite? If not, what techniques are used?

Yeah, I work for a telecomms company, but I'm not directly involved in
telecomms. Just interested.


Tim Oldham, BT Applied Systems. [e-mail] or ...uunet!ukc!its!tjo
Living in interesting times.

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

From: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTery
Date: 25 Sep 90 20:13:23 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Perrine <[e-mail]>
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 675, Message 8 of 9

>Well, I've had somewhat better luck, in the one case I've dealt with.
>I ran into a COCOT in Palo Alto (Liddicoats, on University Avenue)
>which was in violation of most of the new regs: $.25 for a local call,
>950 restricted, 1-800 restricted, 10xxx restricted, no instructions or
>rates.

>I called the operator and reported the problem (the PacBell operator
>tranferred me to her supervisor, who took the actual report).  A
>couple of days later, the phone was still in violation ... so I stuck a
>laserprinted "Out of order, programming violation" sticker over the
>coin-slot and checked off all of the violation categories.

Perhaps our fearless Moderator can persuade Dave to post the text (or
Postscript?) for the "Out of Order" signs? What are the possible
violation categories?

I have run into many COCOTS that are missing local-call cost and LD
carrier info here in the San Diego area, and I would like to leave an
appropriate sign behind, to protect the TELECOM-impaired :-)


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]


[Moderator's Note: I hope the original poster will share his program
with us here for printing up those labels. Then, let's get busy using
them as needed.   PAT]

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

From: Dan Ross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Whizz-Bang Phone! (Info on One From Damark)
Date: 25 Sep 90 20:24:38 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


somebody writes:

>>>[There is no manufacturer identified, the text calls the phone
>>>"Voiceprint", the illustration shows the name "Voicephone".]

I posted earlier, and went and checked my [given-away] Damark catalog.

The phone in the Damark catalog (which is NOT necessarily the one
originally mentioned) did NOT have an answering machine.  It was a
Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone.  It was $49.95, which is a bunch less
than the Mobil catalog price (especially for just the "fun" part of
the phone).


Dan Ross            [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #680
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04251;
          27 Sep 90 4:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27416;
          27 Sep 90 2:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00241;
          27 Sep 90 1:10 CDT
Date:     Thu, 27 Sep 90 0:36:10 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #681
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Sep 90 00:36:01 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 681

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 976 Numbers [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: USEnet PC Access [Gary Becker]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [Nickolas Landsberg]
    Re: Data vs Voice [Jerry Durand]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [Jon Baker]
    Re: AMI on T1 Lines [Jon Baker]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Chris Sowden]
    Re: Call-Me Card [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing) [Greg Onufer]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [John Nagle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 14:22:19 edt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 976 Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


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

> The world, or at least North America, got by just fine until a few
> years ago without these numbers; their creation seems to have merely
> opened up a new niche for sleazy businesses, in particular, the sort
> who want to trick people into paying their charges.

And for thousands of years, the world, or at least North America, got
by just fine without telephones either.  Their invention opened the
way for many abuses: obscene calls, boiler-room scams, costly long
distance calls made by houseguests, etc.  Should we do away with the
telephone because of these problems?

900 and 976 numbers do in fact serve a useful purpose.  The fact that
they continue to thrive should be some indication that many consumers
*want* the ability to connect to information and specialty services.
You and I may both think that it's silly to pay good money to vote for
a video on MTV, or get your fortune read, or engage in erotic
conversation with a phone-sex service -- but it's not *our* money at
stake.  People are also free to "waste" their money on _People_ or
_Playboy_ magazines, or on a state lottery ticket, or by attending a
football game or a concert -- but it's *their* money in all cases, and
for them to decide whether the expenditure was worthwhile.  That's
freedom.  With it comes the responsibility for one's own actions.

> Another thing I've heard of them being used for, although
> not locally, is information-by-telephone services that formerly were
> free.  It is for these reasons that I find myself feeling that we
> would be better off without these numbers at all.

Just because some information providers (e.g., newspaper sports lines,
etc.) were generous enough in the past to provide information at no
charge does not mean that they should be required to forever forgo
charging a fee.

Now, switching gears completely and referring to an earlier part of
the article:

> Now, in some parts of North America, there is a clear distinction
> between local calls (which are free or cheap) and long-distance calls
> (which cost more), and this distinction does not follow area code
> boundaries.  In some areas they are dialed in different ways so that
> you can't incur a long-distance charge by accident.  (This distinction
> in dialing is doomed over the coming years, for reasons related to the
> exhaustion of available numbers.)

> In the Bell Canada service area (i.e. most of Ontario and Quebec plus
> some of the Northwest Terrritories), there is such a distinction in
> dialing, and calls to 976-numbers are always dialed as long distance.
> This remains true even though actual long-distance calls to
> 976-numbers are now to be blocked.

What I would ideally like to see (not that this has a snowball's
chance of ever happening :-)) is a completely different approach to
the dialing of toll-free and extra-cost calls.  Currently, the NANP
just reserves various area codes and prefixes (800, 900, 976, and so
on) for these purposes.  But what if the "flavor" of a call could be
indicated by a special prefix, similar to the way that non-default LD
carriers can be selected with 10XXX?

Here's how it would work:

First, we need to invent a new class of prefixes.  Anything will do,
as long as it's not already in use.  How about 110?  Anyone know of
any custom-calling features that already use this?

Next, we define two of these prefixes:

1108:    means that the call is to be billed to the callee (similar to
    800 numbers now)

1109:    means that the call will be billed to the caller, and at a
    special rate above and beyond the charges that would normally
    apply to calls to this number (similar to 900 and 976 numbers
    now)

Under this scheme, I could do several things with my existing number:

1)  Keep my line as is.  To reach me, you dial 248-6231, or
    1-919-248-6231, or [phone], depending on where you're
    calling from.  You pay the charges, if any.

2)  Set up a toll-free number.  You can still reach me as above (and
    pay for the call yourself), but in part or all of the NANP
    (whatever regions I sign up for), you can dial 1108-1-919-248-6231
    and get *me* to pay for the call.  (Local callers could also dial
    1108-248-6231.)  Note that since the "real" telephone number
    is embedded in the toll-free number, international callers won't
    have any trouble finding out my number, although they must pay for
    the call themselves.

3)  Set up a pay-service number.  If you try to reach me at either of
    the two numbers above, you'll receive a rejection method.  The
    only way to reach me is 1109-1-919-248-6231 (or locally,
    1109-248-6231).  You pay (big!) for the call.

In essence, there would be three ways to dial any number: normal
charges (no prefix), toll-free (1108 prefix), and premium service
(1109 prefix).  I could tell the telco which combination of these
methods should be enabled (though of course I'd be foolish to enable
normal or toll-free if I had premium turned on).

Any thoughts on the practicality of this wild daydream?


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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 17:28:16 EDT
From: Gary Becker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USEnet PC Access


John,

Read the comp.sys.ibm.pc and comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest newsgroups.  An
article describing USEnet PC Access is posted or requested every few
weeks.  I seem to recall articles that said public domain USEnet PC
software is available from SIMTEL.  Please ask on that newsgroup about
access to SIMTEL.  I've not personally retrieved software from the
SIMTEL archives, and so am not the best person to go to for advice on
it.

If you find cheap, but not public domain, uucp software I'd be
interested in the source.  My employer has a policy, to prevent
viruses, of no use of public domain software on company PC's.

Gary Becker

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 17:33:23 EDT
From: Nickolas Landsberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Regarding the slamming situation: Whenever I get called by <name your
least favorite here>, I reply that I am an AT&T employee.  It gets
them off the line FAST, and I've never been slammed (yet).  Of course,
in my case it's the truth.

Your mileage may vary.

Cheers,

Nick Landsberg

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Data vs Voice
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 12:38:56 PDT


In Message-ID: <[e-mail]> adiron![e-mail] (Tom
Olin) writes:

>Please pardon my ignorance.  I don't work in the telecom industry and
>I don't know many of the technical details.
I work in the industry and still don't know a lot of the details. 8-)

>They have pointed out the higher bandwidth utilized by data calls
>and the problems of multiplexing such calls.

>What happens if all those callers simultaneously break into song or in
>some other way push their duty cycles up to 100%?

It just occurred to me that all of us people sitting on hold all day
should have the lowest duty cycle except for the constant
music-on-hold that raises our duty cycle up to that of the dreaded
modems.  Does that mean there should be higher rates for companies
that put people on hold for a large percentage of their calls?  8-)


Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., [e-mail], 408 356-3886

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Date: 25 Sep 90 15:58:21 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> But there are telqi who will accept with blind faith the mag tapes
> that the IECs send them, input them, and slam away, and there are
> telqi who will examine the data on those tapes and check records first
> to see if they have received such a request from the customer.

Name one.  From everything I've read/heard/experienced, no telco
verifies the allegedly-required written record except in cases of
customer complaint.  And, MCI rarely produces the written record,
claiming that they 'sent the card out to the customer for signature,
but never got it back'.

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

From: Jon Baker <asuvax!mothra![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AMI on T1 Lines
Date: 25 Sep 90 15:48:01 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (dave o'leary)
writes:

> However, not all phone company equipment does B8ZS, although this
> seems to be getting a lot better.  I guess this is why they say that

It should gradually become more widespread.  B8ZS is the preferred
long-term method of providing Clear Channel.

> B8ZS is preferable.  Our C&P sales guy told us that B8ZS costs more
> and that we need to run ESF to use it (which I didn't understand...if
> anyone can explain that one I'd appreciate it).

Of course B8ZS will cost more, because it requires special equipment
to handle it.  There is no particular reason why B8ZS can not be used
in an SF format T1.  If they only support B8ZS on ESF, it is due to
limitations particular to the equipment they are using, or due to
their own (marketing?) restrictions.


JB

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

From: Chris Sowden <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 20:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines


There is a CCITT recommendation describing Digital Circuit
Multiplication Equipment (DCME) which improves the efficiency of
international trunks.

DCME works by encoding the speech data from 64kbit/s down to a lower
rate such as 32kbit/s (ADPCM) and by only connecting the speech
channel to a trunk when it is carrying a burst of speech (Digital
Speech Interpolation).  DCME, while not quite fitting the packet
model, does allow a number of 64kbit/s speech channels to be carried
on a smaller number of transmission channels.

Voice band data, OTOH, is not suitable for compression by DSI.  Also,
ADPCM can cause problems with high speed voice band data.  Digital
data (ISDN) requires a whole channel to itself.

DCME can only be cost effective where the circuit costs are high (long
trunks).  If DCME is used, data calls will require more bandwidth on
these trunks than voice calls.  Therefore, data calls will cost the
operator more to carry.


Chris Sowden

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call-Me Card
Date: 25 Sep 90 23:41:40 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> The Call-Me Card has been available in the States for some time.  I
> have four of them, one for each of my children who is old enough to
> use the phone.  Not only is it usable ONLY to call home, it also
> ensures that they won't forget the number to call home (I know that
> sounds almost trivial, but there are situations in which anyone can
> forget anything).

Be careful with the assumptions here ... The call-me card is only
restricted if they happen to call via AT&T.  The AT&T card is accepted
by numerous other LD carriers, but they impose no restrictions on its
use, and it can be used to call anywhere.


Dave Levenson            Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: But my assumption is if you received a bill from
some OCC -- probably as part of your regular telco bill -- you would
just automatically refuse payment for that portion, citing the
restricted nature of the media used for billing, and the failure of
the OCC to verify it before accepting it.  PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine OGM = Telco Message?
Date: 26 Sep 90 01:32:41 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Dave Levenson wrote in Volume 10, Issue 668:

[ regarding my friend in Morristown NJ who forwarded his calls to a
telco-provided SIT and recording ]

> To say that NJ Bell "canceled" your friend's call forwarding is
> ambiguous.  Dave, do you mean that they did a 73# equivalent on his
> line to shut Call Forwarding off or do you mean that they removed the
> Call Forwarding feature from his account?

Sorry!  I didn't mean to be ambiguous here.  NJ Bell performed the 73#
equivalent, and un-forwarded my friend's line until he was able to
return home.  Call forwarding service was never removed from his
account.


Dave Levenson            Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: Greg Onufer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing: On Your Bill!)
Organization: Cheers Bar & Grill
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 01:30:27 GMT


[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

>A number of well-meaning readers advised me a while back to check out
>this plan or that plan involving long distance. Unfortunately, no IXCs
>currently offer any calling discounts for traffic within California.
>Since I make about two calls outside the state per month, no IXCs
>interstate rates or packages interest me in any way.

>Moral of the story: Be very careful when shopping for intrastate
>rates.  Don't just assume that everyone is cheaper than AT&T. In fact,
>don't assume anything!

I just called AT&T because they sent me a little insert in my bill
stating that, after routine examination of my bill, they have
determined that I would save money with Reach Out America (or
whatever).  Seeing how 99% of my calls are intrastate (209->408/415),
Reach Out America plans do not really apply.  The interesting comment
the sales critter made was that a new intrastate plan was going to
come into existence at the end of the year and that information would
be sent to me then.  There may be hope in California after all.
Apparently the plan already exists on the East coast (at least in some
areas) --- anybody know about it?


Cheers!greg

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Date: 26 Sep 90 17:17:06 GMT


     It's time to lobby for some standardized way to find out your own
phone number.  With Caller ID, the other end can find out; it's
annoying that you can't.  It would be especially valuable if it were
available in machine-readable form, probably as Touch-Tone signals or
in the same format used for Caller ID, so that devices like answering
machines and computers could locate themselves automatically upon
installation.  This would be really valuable when you plug a laptop
into a strange outlet, and it needs basic location info so it can dial
the appropriate local access numbers.


John Nagle

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #681
******************************






ISSUES 682 AND 683 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 683 COMES NEXT, THEN 682.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05327;
          27 Sep 90 5:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10902;
          27 Sep 90 3:25 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad27416;
          27 Sep 90 2:19 CDT
Date:     Thu, 27 Sep 90 1:55:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #683
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Sep 90 01:55:24 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 683

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Steve Lemke]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Eduardo Krell]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Jim Budler]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Ron Newman]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Dave Levenson]
    Re: AT&T Card (was: Best and Worst) [Jim Gottlieb]
    ATT Universal Card (Dual Card) [Lauren Weinstein]
    Re: Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1 [Vance Shipley]
    Re: 16 Buttons -- Not 12? [Brent Capps]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Roger Cornelius]
    Re: Itemised Bills - An Australian Followup [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Lemke <radius![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Date: 26 Sep 90 22:33:31 GMT


[e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin) writes:

>Another thought came to mind about the 'AT&T Universal Card': Just
>think, if you use the 'card' to charge purchases, your 'phone number
>with four-digit code', along with the 'ATT Credit card number' goes on
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the same slip (since its one huge carbon) ... Reach Out and Touch
>someone's life, since you have their credit card number, (their bank
>since ATT uses only one bank), their phone number with a 'universal'
>calling card ... not bad huh??

Perhaps someone has already corrected you on this, but in case not:

My AT&T MasterCard contains a MasterCard number, and an AT&T Long
Distance Calling Card number, but the four digit PIN is _NOT_ there.
In addition, as has been previously discussed (I think), the AT&T LD #
is NOT my home phone number.  It is a completely different ten-digit
number.

However, I _do_ agree with another poster who mentioned that if you
stick this card into a card reader, it looks like an ordinary
MasterCard.  I found this out when I stuck it into a GTE Airphone
which was supposed to recognize AT&T Calling Cards.  The bill for the
phone call came through on my AT&T Monthly statement, but it appeared
under the MasterCard section, rather than the long distance calling
section, meaning I did NOT get my 10% discount on the call.  It was
instead treated like any other credit purchase.  (On the other hand,
it therefore fell into the category of things that is NOT required to
be paid off every month, but instead could be rolled over.  However,
the entire bill was so small that I paid the whole thing at once
anyway.)


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 19:40:31 EDT


>Another thought came to mind about the 'AT&T Universal Card': Just
>think, if you use the 'card' to charge purchases, your 'phone number
>with four-digit code', along with the 'ATT Credit card number' goes on
>the same slip (since its one huge carbon) ...

What do you mean by this?. The number on the Universal Card is not
your phone number and is missing the four-digit PIN. They would still
have to guess your PIN. How different is this from the current system
that uses your home phone number (which I can get from the phone book
or directory service)?


Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Reply-To: Jim Budler <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silvar-Lisco,Inc. Sunnyvale Ca.
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 23:47:20 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Matthew McGehrin) writes:

>Another thought came to mind about the 'AT&T Universal Card': Just
>think, if you use the 'card' to charge purchases, your 'phone number
>with four-digit code', along with the 'ATT Credit card number' goes on
>the same slip (since its one huge carbon)

Nope.

The calling card number bears no relation to my phone number, and the
PIN portion is not embossed on the card. It arrives by seperate post
after the card arrives. While a binary search of the 10,000
possibilities is not an impossibility, I would hope the security
system would invalidate any calling card number if sufficient probes
against it occured.

With any credit card the issuing bank information is contained within
the credit card number. So what? It isn't the bank where I have any of
my other accounts. This statement is true both of the AT&T Universal
card I hold, and of the Visa card I acquired from the same bank at
which I *do* have my checking and savings account.  This is because
although my bank accepted my Visa application, the card itself was
issued by a regional clearing house.


Jim Budler          [e-mail]       +1.408.991.6115
Silvar-Lisco, Inc. 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086

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

From: Ron Newman  <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Organization: Lotus Development Corp.
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 00:29:08 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by matt_mcgehrin@pro-graphics
.cts.com (Matthew McGehrin):

[Moderator's Note: Matt's quote eliminated to save space. Read it in
prior messages if necessary.  PAT]

An AT&T Universal card does NOT have a real phone number embossed on
it.  Instead, it has a 10-digit made-up 'Calling Card number' that is
not a phone number and does NOT have the four-digit code at the end of
it.  (My card has 508-096-xxxx which is unlikely to ever become a real
phone number.)  The user of the AT&T Universal card must remember the
four-digit code him/herself.


Ron Newman

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Date: 27 Sep 90 02:22:42 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, plains!com50.c2s.mn.org!
[e-mail] (Chris Johnson) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
> Solomon - Temp Consultant) writes:

> >The fact: The AT&T Universal Card is simply a bankcard (VISA or
> >Mastercard) with an AT&T credit card number embossed onto it.  The

> Well, that seems like an awfully easy thing to rectify with no new
> technology whatsoever: just put two magnetic stripes on the back of
> the card, one with the bankcard data and one with the phonecard data.
> Then in all those glossy brochures they send to holders of the
> Universal Card (like me), they need only instruct the users to insert
> the card one way to use the VISA/MC capabilities, and the other way to
> use the AT&T phone card capabilities.

The AT&T card-caller public phones around here are not like those
where you can insert the card two different ways.  They have a slot
into which you insert the card, more like an ATM, except that it
doesn't have the capability that ATM's have of keeping the card once
you've inserted it.

The phones with the less expensive readers where the user sweeps the
card through a stationary reader on the phone might be able to use the
design proposed by Chris, but how many 'card-carrying members' of the
public would understand such instructions?


Dave Levenson            Internet: [e-mail]
Westmark, Inc.            UUCP: {uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
Warren, NJ, USA            AT&T Mail: !westmark!dave
[The Man in the Mooney]        Voice: 908 647 0900  Fax: [phone]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Card (was: Best and Worst)
Date: 26 Sep 90 19:03:10 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]>:

>[Moderator's Note: You are partly wrong. The AT&T card can be used
>between two countries other than the USA in the case of Japan. And in
>fact, I think in the case of Japan to somewhere (other than USA) you
>don't even use the '1M' international number ... just the regular
>calling card number and PIN.  PAT]

Ahh.  So this explains KDD's claims that their "Hello Card" number can
be used to make calls within the U.S. too.  The sample number in the
picture on their brochure sure did look like a normal BOC 14-digit
calling card number.  I guess some kind of agreement was worked out.
Maybe fictitious RAO codes for Japan?  I'll have to apply for one and
try it out.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 10:23:31 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT Universal Card (dual card)


I haven't looked at the ANSI specs recently, but I suspect that trying
to set up a card that had more than one stripe would violate the ANSI
requirements for card striping, which are very precise in terms of
defining "top" and "bottom" of card, etc.  Also, I can think of few
things with more potential for confusion by a typical card user than
trying to figure out which way to feed in the card for different
situations.  Even now people have problems since some readers want the
card right-side-up, others want them upside-down, some face-up, some
face-down, etc.  It would be a human factors nightmare to have a dual
stripe that was card position dependent.

As for the calling card number aspect of the Universal card, the
number does not include the necessary PIN, which is mailed to the
customer separately.  One can argue the insufficiency of four digit
PINS in the general case, but that's pretty much an industry standard,
and at least it's not on the card.


Lauren


[Moderator's Note: Welcome back to the Digest, Lauren! We haven't had
a posting from you in YEARS. For the new readers among us, Lauren was
a regular Digest contributor several years ago.   PAT]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 01:29:19 GMT


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

>It seems that ANSII T1S1 subcommettee is trying to define a set of
>specs called the Switch - to - Computer API (SCAI). SCAI would provide
>common ground for any host to communicate to with any switch.

Nothern Telecom have an interface of this type now; Meridian Link.
AT&T, Mitel and others have them too.  All are incompatable.

>This means that all kinds of applications may be developed on the host
>computer that would be able to add to the switch capability/
>functionality.  A sophisticated development environment, rich in
>labor-saving tools could be provided for this application development.
>Data network interfaces could be easily added.

IBM have a tool box called CIT (Computer Integrated Telephony) for the
AS/400.  DEC have a similiar offering.

>Is there a large market for this kind of a product?

I think there is.  Today the best way to sell a switch, PBX or CO, is
to be able to fit neatly into the customers business environment.
This usually involves multi-vendor scenarios.  With this new enabling
technology it is possible to do things never before possible.  When a
customer presents a need for a feature that does not exist in the
current switch software it may be possible to implement it on an AP
(Auxiliary or Adjunct Proccessor).  The AP might be a Unix PC or mini
dedicated to the switch or an application running on the corporate
mainframe.

  Five years ago many in this industry were trying to convince us that
the PBX would be the office computer of tomorrow, doing both switching
and business computing!  Consumers were not, and are not, interested
in this.  What they want is equipment that does it's intended function
reliably, economically and integrates with equipment from other
vendors performing their functions.  An AS/400 and a Meridian 1 make a
better platform for office automation than a new ALLINONE by StartUp, Inc.

  The key of course is seamless integration, hopefully on an open
interface (non-proprietary).

>What would be common applications?

  The most often cited application is one in which incoming calls are
routed to ACD (Automatic Call Distribution) agents while customer
profiles are extracted from the computer and sent to the agents
computer screen.  This is based on the availability of the calling
party number, an ISDN feature.  Subsequent transfers to other agents
would cause the computer to forward the customers account to the next
agent's screen.

  Some more inventive applications include:

    - Database query from an LCD equipped phone (look up part number,etc.)
    - Display incurred call charges in real time on LCD display
    - E-Mail retreival from LCD phone
    - Enhanced call waiting information (Persons Name)

>Who would buy it?

No one without applications.

>What are the potential regulatory problems?

Sorry that's not my problem :-)


Vance Shipley

SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
180 Columbia Street West   Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3L3
CANADA  [phone]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 11:01:51 PDT
From: Brent Capps <kentrox!ktxc5![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 16 Buttons -- Not 12?

> An odd thought sprang upon me recently while talking to a friend.  Do
> telephones actually use sixteen tones rather than just twelve normally
> available?

The extra tones are used in the AUTOVON/SCOPEDIAL system for
precedence dialling.  The only phone I've ever seen that uses them is
a very peculiar device known as a "4-wire set".  A 4W set is
essentially a trunk-line combination that consists of a trunk with a
special phone set terminating one end, and is used by the military to
run direct connections from AUTOVON COs out to missle silos in the
middle of God-knows-where.  4W sets use all 16 keys.  The numeric keys
and the * key are the same as on a 2500 set, but the # key is called
A, and the right-hand row of keys are called (top to bottom) FO, F, I,
and P.

These keys are used for precedence dialling: A stands for Automatic
(lowest), P for Priority, I for Immediate, F for Flash, and FO for
Flash Override (the highest precedence level).  The highest allowed
precedence level associated with a particular set is datafilled at the
CO; there are only a handful of FO 4W sets in the country.  4W sets
are extremely strange beasts; their charms include off-hook ringing
(the phone can physically ring while you are off-hook talking to
someone else).  This can be somewhat disconcerting to the uninitiated.

4W sets are a pain to design CO software for, mainly because of their
hybrid nature (ever try to apply staggered dialtone to a trunk?  It's
not easy) and since there is little that a 4W set can do that a normal
2W set cannot, the CO mfgs have been pushing the military to phase
them out.


Brent Capps

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

From: Roger Cornelius <sherpa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Date: 26 Sep 90 20:10:19 GMT
Organization: Personal System Computing,  St. Petersburg, FL


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Patrick Tufts) writes:

>How can you find out the number of a given phone?  I seem to recall
>that linesmen dial the operator and ask for a ringback.

In Florida (St. Pete. area), dialing 118 will get a recorded message
telling you the number you're dialing from.  I've never tried this
from anywhere else so it may be just a local convenience for the
repair guys.


Roger A. Cornelius          [e-mail]         uunet!sherpa!rac

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 13:34:23 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Itemised Bills - An Australian Followup


This reply is to a message from [e-mail]:

You write of "withholding services from everyone if not everyone can
have it".  In the U.S., direct-dialed international calling was (is?)
not available everywhere, and if you cannot dial direct because of
your exchange not being equipped for international dialing, you still
get the direct-dial rate unless your call requires any other operator
assistance.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #683
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05367;
          27 Sep 90 5:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10902;
          27 Sep 90 3:22 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac27416;
          27 Sep 90 2:19 CDT
Date:     Thu, 27 Sep 90 1:20:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #682
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Sep 90 01:19:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 682

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: COCOTery [Barrey Jewall]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [Nigel Allen]
    Re: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You [John Higdon]
    Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing) [Carol Springs]
    Re: Two-way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface [Mike Wilson]
    Re: AT&T Universal Cad is Not Two Cards in One [Andrew Boardman]
    Re: Alana Shoars' Battle With Epson [Carl Moore]
    Re: Automatic Call Forwarding [Piet van Oostrum]
    Re: ATM at Retailers [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: A Description of 976 Numbers [John Slater]
    Re: Putting it in Writing [Nigel Allen]
    Re: 1-900-963-3333 [Mark Steiger]
    Re: A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture [L. Derbenwick]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Barrey Jewall <barrey@ka>
Subject: Re: COCOTery
Date: 26 Sep 90 05:43:21 GMT
Reply-To: Barrey Jewall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Novell, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


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

>> {Much useful info about a COCOT search deleted for brevity}

>I ran into a COCOT in Palo Alto (Liddicoats, on University Avenue)
>which was in violation of most of the new regs: $.25 for a local call,
>950 restricted, 1-800 restricted, 10xxx restricted, no instructions or
>rates.

>I called the operator and reported the problem (the PacBell operator
>tranferred me to her supervisor, who took the actual report).  A
>couple of days later, the phone was still in violation ... so I stuck a
>laserprinted "Out of order, programming violation" sticker over the
>coin-slot and checked off all of the violation categories.

>So ... things are getting better ... but we aren't there yet.

Perhaps if you were able to distribute copies of say, the PostScript
file for that little label, and a few hundred or dare I say, thousand
of TELECOM Digest's readers were to stick these on whatever COCOT's
were found to be in violation, we might see a bit more compliance with
the rules and regulations.

I suggest distributng a file for the reason that we are a lazy lot
here, and if we can just download it and print it out, we are more
likely to do so thna if we had to create our own labels. Besides, if
they all look the same, the net effect is much better!!

I am just assuming PostScript because that is what I use, if another
format is more universal, let's go with it....

Anyone else think this is a good idea???


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


[Moderator's Note: Well, I think it is a good idea! If he will send
along a script, preferably in 'c', I will post it here, or in a
special edition, depending on the size.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 19:23 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


Some months ago, I received a call from a telemarketing company trying
to sell me an "affinity" MasterCard, endorsed by and bearing the logo
and colours of a a good cause that I support.  I decided to get the
card, and at the end of the application processor, the telemarketing
person passed me on to a woman he identified as his supervisor, who
confirmed that I indeed wanted the affinity MasterCard, and made sure
I understood how it worked.

Perhaps the "slamming" abuses people have described here would not
happen so often if MCI and its telemarketing contractors were required
to have requests to make MCI the 1+ carrier verified by a second
person who was paid a flat hourly or weekly wage which does not have
anything to do with sales results. This would go a long way towards
keeping telemarketers honest.


Nigel Allen                    telephone [phone]
52 Manchester Avenue           fax [phone]
Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3       Canada

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You
Date: 26 Sep 90 02:27:26 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 25 at 23:41, Alec <[e-mail]> writes:

> If they wanted us to "save money" they would just lower their rates
> rather than trying to sell us a "money saving plan."

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to realize the
absurdity of "calling plans". An associate of mine refers to this as
"charging for a discount". AT&T, Sprint, MCI, and all the other IXCs
aren't the only ones who play this game, but the LECs do it as well.

A Pac*Bell person explained that, "calling plans are not designed to
save anyone money. They are designed to guarantee a level of revenue
and to create the impression that the customer maximizes his savings
the more he uses the service. He tends to make more calls to take the
greatest benefit of that special plan that he is paying for."

If you think about it, why "WATS" or "ProWATS" or "ROA" or any of that
stuff? Why not just have a sliding scale where the rate gets cheaper
as usage increases? The "special" plans are nothing more than theater
to convince the customer that he is getting something "special".

Also, "plans" make it necessary for the customer to continually
re-evaluate his service to make sure that he has the right "plan".
What the service provider hopes all the while is that the customer
will forget about it and will end up paying for a plan that is
useless. A customer of mine paid AT&T hundreds of dollars over the
course of a couple of years for a LD plan and Sprint was the
customer's carrier!


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

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

From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Wars (Was: Sprint Puts it in Writing)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 12:36:15 GMT


Joe Konstan writes in Vol. 10, issue 677:

>In TELECOM Digest #669, John Higdon writes:

>> A number of well-meaning readers advised me a while back to check
>> out this plan or that plan involving long distance.
>> Unfortunately, no IXCs currently offer any calling discounts for
>> traffic within California.

>That is not presently true....  MCI's
>PrimeTime Plus *does* include in-state long distance calls in its
>10.whatever cents per minute (one hour min) rate.  An additional
>benefit is that this rate starts at 5pm weekdays.

Starting October 1, Sprint will institute a California plan called
Sprint Select Intrastate Evening/Night/Weekend.  The first hour of
in-California calls made after 5 p.m. or on weekends is billed at
$7.90, and additional hours are $6.50 (prorated per minute).  There
are extra five to ten per cent discounts on daytime direct dial calls
and (I think) on interstate and international direct dial calls
regardless of time of day.  Perhaps someone with more hard facts can
post about the discounts and about how Sprint's Intrastate and
Interstate Sprint Select plans work together if a Californian signs up
for both.


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

From: Mike Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two-way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface
Organization: NASA - Ames Research Center
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 13:34:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

>Is there a stand-alone unit that would do this?  I know that Plant
>Equipment has a card (the 3134 KTU Radio Access) that does this, but
>only as part of their whole key system.

I have used the Plant Equipment 3134 KTU in generic 1A2 Key Systems
with no problems.  It was the perfect solution.


Mike Wilson  Phone: [phone]   [e-mail]

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

From: Andrew Boardman <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 09:56:13 EDT
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Cad is Not Two Cards in One


Chris Johnson writes:

>Well, that seems like an awfully easy thing to rectify with no new
>technology whatsoever: just put two magnetic stripes on the back of
>the card, one with the bankcard data and one with the phonecard data.
>Then in all those glossy brochures they send to holders of the
>Universal Card (like me), they need only instruct the users to insert
>the card one way to use the VISA/MC capabilities, and the other way to
>use the AT&T phone card capabilities.

This occcured to me also when I read the original note, but...

-What about instruction for the POS clerk who runs the card through
    backwards, gets a "bad card" report, and cuts your card in two?

-What about instruction for the relatively unsophisticated users who
    might foul it up as well?  In an ATM style machine, it's not always
    obvious where the stripe should go, and many such machines actually
    look at the way the raised type is oriented and go by that, i.e.,
    the one in Penn Station, Baltimore...

-Do you *really* want more glossy brochures from the Universal Card
    people?  My collection is at 1.5 shoeboxes already...  :-)

Why not just get a separate phone card with the same number?  (Or
maybe make your own, with your own account on it?  Where can magstrip
readers/writers be had, anyway?)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 11:15:21 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alana Shoars' Battle With Epson


Without further comment here, please be reminded that in the U.S.
mail, there are guidelines as to what can be opened.  (E.g., the rules
of the dead letter office.)

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding
Date: 26 Sep 90 14:41:55 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


In article <[e-mail]>, nstar![e-mail]
(JW) writes:

JW> Some years ago I heard of an automatic call fowarding device (this was
JW> before call forwarding was offered as an option by the telcos; it was,
JW> in fact, pre-divestiture) that worked like this: you had two lines;
JW> the first one rings (your "real" number); device dials out on the
JW> second line; then conferences the lines together. Sure, you would have
JW> to have two lines, but if you already have an extra one for the
JW> dial-out modem, this wouldn't be a problem.

I know somebody (a vet) who uses such a device to redirect calls to
his cellular phone when he is not at home. Call forwarding is a new
thing here, and not many people have even heard of it.


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')

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 08:46 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers


Jim Budler <[e-mail]> writes:

>Last year I was one of the lucky people to receive a letter telling me
>that my Versateller card was being shut down, and that I would receive
>a new one in a few days. Concurrently my HomeBanking stopped also.

>This shutdown occurred because some people at one of the system
>providers broke their trust and obtained a significant block of
>records containing names, ATM numbers and PINs. By system providers I
>mean the companies like Plus System, or Star, who connect to the

John Higdon's gonna love this one...

The Bank of America customer group that had their Versatel cards
invalidated were that subset that had used an ATM in Safeway
Supermarket.  Safeway ATM's are provided by an organization called
GTEL, a service of -- you guessed it -- GTE!

The scope of the breach was not known, but everybody who had a GTEL
transaction in a particular time period was uncerimoniously dumped
from the Versatel system and then sent the mailings that Jim Budler
described.  Since Versatel numbers are used to log into Homebanking,
that service was lost as well, even though Homebanking passcodes are
not the same as the Versatel PIN.

It was inconvenient, to say the least, although no money was ever
stolen using the purloined information, and _the_bank_says_ that the
perps were apprehended.


edg

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Description of 976 Numbers
Date: 26 Sep 90 16:24:57 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM


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

|> I understand that several other countries have the same concept, for
|> example, Britain's 0898-numbers are similar to our 900's, but I've
|> never heard of a simple name for it.  Is there one?

Yes. BT now call these "Callstream" services. I think this name is
relatively new. I presume their marketing people decided it would be a
good idea to have a name to sell.

Everyone else calls them "0898 numbers". Can't think why.  :-)

BTW, they carry a fixed charge of 44p/minute peak, 33p off-peak,
unlike 900 numbers where the charge is variable (to say the least).


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: Putting it in Writing
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 07:38:15 GMT


A number of people have described their attempts to get a
telecommunications carrier to "put it in writing".

You might have more luck if you ask for a copy of the relevant tariff
pages.  Carriers are normally required to make their tariffs available
for public inspection, and to furnish copies of the tariffs for a fee
(although the agency that regulates the carrier may require it to
waive the normal charges if a customer only wants a few pages).

I believe that the FCC no longer requires "non-dominant" carriers to
file tariffs, and every long distance company other than AT&T is
considered "non-dominant". However, perhaps MCI and Sprint continue to
have conventional printed tariffs that can be furnished to cranky
customers (such as TELECOM Digest readers!) who insist on reading
them.

Local exchange carriers, such as the individual Bell operating
companies, still publish tariffs, and you can confuse first-level
telephone company managers by wandering into a public office and
asking to see the individual exchange tariff for Grover's Mill, or
whatever.

* Disclaimer: This is all terribly second-hand, since I live in Canada.


Nigel Allen               telephone [phone]
52 Manchester Avenue        fax [phone]
Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V3    Canada

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Re: 1-900-963-3333
Date: 26 Sep 90 10:36:25 GMT


Try calling 1-900-555-1212.  There you get a recordeing of all active
900 numbers and who owns them.  It is toll free even.  :)


 [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo  218/262-3142     300/1200/2400 baud]

ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo                America Online: Goalie5
UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin          MCI Mail......: MSteiger
Internet:[e-mail]
ARPA....:crash!gnh-igloo![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Actually, 900-555-1212 is *far* from being a
complete list of 900 numbers. It is a partial list with only a small
percentage of the numers listed.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 17:25:58 EDT
From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Sprint Employee Comments About ATT and Divestiture
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Comments from a person who works for Sprint.

> 1) Most important: ATT can combine long distance and equipment.
> NOBODY ELSE CAN to that extent because nobody else owned a company
> like Western Electric.  [ ... ]

Does the "person who works for Sprint" not remember "GTE Sprint"?

It's quite true, of course, that Sprint never owned a company that
manufactured switching equipment and such, or that had a monopoly on
local telephone service anywhere.

They were owned _by_ one, instead.

Speaking strictly for myself,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #682
******************************






ISSUES 682 AND 683 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 683 CAME BEFORE 682. 684
COMES NEXT.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06423;
          27 Sep 90 6:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02907;
          27 Sep 90 4:29 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac10902;
          27 Sep 90 3:25 CDT
Date:     Thu, 27 Sep 90 2:30:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #684
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Sep 90 02:30:13 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 684

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Laird Heal]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Stealing ATM PINS [Jack Winslade]
    Re: ATM at Retailers [Martin Harriss]
    Re: Coin Calls From Narita [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: COCOTery [Paul Fuqua]
    Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug [[e-mail]]
    Re: Local Calling Numbers [Carl Moore]
    Re: Burglar Alarm Problems [Carl Moore]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Spyros C. Bartsocas]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Organization: dis
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: 26 Sep 90 14:37:19 EDT (Wed)
From: Laird Heal <[e-mail]>


>Recently, we have been seeing a bit of discussion of the cost (to the
>operating company) of a data call versus a voice call.

>    1) Although your connection is analog in nature, it will only
>be that way until it reaches the C.O.

Forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me that with mature technology
the voice call should be more costly than a data call.

This is because of the simple nature of the modem tones as compared to
the less predictable modulations of human voices.  Furthermore,
correct me if I am mistaken but the back-channel of the current
listener still sends any background noise, from breathing to, in the
case of U. S.  Sprint, pins dropping.  The exception listed was for
cable transmission where the number of circuits was strictly limited:
so that's what the modem 'guard tones' are for?

A modem's tones should be much more predictable than a human's voice,
and generally any compression algorithm or sampling could clock much
lower for data transmission.  The most preferable from the Telephone
Company's standpoint would be direct digital transmission
point-to-point because they could bypass analog devices, and measure
data throughput.

It does seem another case of paying the utility more for service that
costs them less; can someone prove to me that touch-tone service
actually does cost the phone company more today than ol' reliable?


Laird Heal  [e-mail]   (Salem, NH)    [phone]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Date: 26 Sep 90 18:10:01 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


> This may be kind of a dumb solution, but why can't the phone company detect
> dead modem carrier and compress it the way they do with silence.  I realize
> that modem silence isn't as simple as people silence, but there must be some
> way to do this.  How about it?

CCITT Study Group XV is currently leading a study (along with Study
Groups VIII and XVII) on compression of fax and modem traffic on
digital trunks.  It would involve demodulation of the signal,
transmission of the original bits, and remodulation when the signal
reaches the other end.  This way, instead of wasting an entire 64kHz
DS0, the network can use only 2.4KHz for a V.22bis connection, 9.6KHz
for V.32, etc -- and pack them into DS0s to save bandwidth.

In the case of fax, the half-duplex nature of the link allows the
network to insert this mechanism at any line turnaround.  Also, the
fax T.30 handshake always indicates what kind of modulation scheme is
going to be used next, so the demodulator/remodulators can track the
protocol and keep the fax machines happy, without introducing any
appreciable delay.  With data, it's a bit trickier, because you don't
know for sure what the modulation scheme is going to be, and in the
case of full-duplex modems there's no natural place (like a
line-turnaround) where the network can switch in this mechanism.

It's an interesting project.


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

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Date: 26 Sep 90 21:56:48 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

>    2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your
>phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through
>the phone network.

This has been explained in some detail in earlier posts but I think a
quick recap is in order.  While what Mr. Stox says might be true (to
some degree) sometime in the not too distant future, it is NOT true
today.  As far as I know, there are no telco owned switches in service
today that use packet switching for voice.  At the present time, a
path through a digital switch used for voice grade communications is
not pre-emptable.  Time division multiplexing is NOT the same as
packet switching.  A voice grade call gets a "full time" channel
regardless of what is transported, voice, data or even silence.


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

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 22:16:42 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stealing ATM PINS
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <24 Sep 90 02:20:38>, John Higdon () writes:

 >Sorry, I don't consider this a real problem. Has it ever happened?
 >I've never heard of a case.

Yes, it has, as is widely (??) known in this bit of Omaha/hacker
trivia:

A couple who lived not too far from where we live was arrested a
couple of years ago for conspiring to rip off many kilobucks, a few
hundred at a time, from ATM machines.  The guy worked for a company
that developed ATM software and happened to come across a 'live' list
of cards and PINs.  They made a crude but usable machine to write the
data on surplus mag tape and then glued (or taped, I forget) the
strips to cardboard cards.

They planned to rip off a whole slew of ATMs somewhere in California
over one holiday weekend.  They needed some help, since the scam would
obviously work once and only once, so they recruited some <ahem>
trusted friends and relatives.  One of them snitched and they were
caught with their pants down, but not before they had tested their
goodies and had proven that they worked.

I have the entire story somewhere, but I can't find it right now.  It
was written up in the Omaha Weird-Herald shortly after they were
arrested and hit the national wire.  If/when I can find it, I will key
it in and send it along.

Good Day!       JSW


[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)
 --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
[e-mail]

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

From: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers
Date: 26 Sep 90 19:11:58 GMT
Reply-To: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <cellar![e-mail]>
Organization: Bellcore


I thought that Digest readers may be interested in the following "hard
evidence" about banks and ATM PINS.

About six months ago I opened a new account at a nearby bank.  I also
requested an ATM card to go with the new account.  The ATM card
arrived a few days later and with it was a note saying I could stop by
the bank to select a PIN and have the card activated.

So I went to the bank, and they got out this machine, punched a PIN in
while the bank employee wasn't looking, then she punched my account
number in and then ran my card through the machine.  Presto - a
working ATM card.

Now I, like many others, had always assumed that the machine encrypted
some combination of the PIN and the account number and stored that on
the card.  I don't remember seeing any external connection on this
machine, such as a data link to the bank's computer, but at the time I
probably wasn't looking for one.  As I remember, the card worked
immediately - I went straight to the ATM after activation to check it
out.  In other words, I believed all the information needed to use the
card was encoded on the card itself, and needed no information about
the PIN at the central computer. I thought.

Now it so happens that this bank was acquired by another bank, and
with the takeover they sent me a new card.  Fine, I thought; I really
don't care who's logo is on the card as long as it works.  With the
new card was a note telling me that a new PIN would be sent to me in a
few days.  (It seems to be quite common that banks select a PIN for
you and mail it in those envelopes with the carbon on the inside, so
you can't see the PIN until you open it.)

Well, I was a little upset about this because I rather liked the PIN
that I had - I had been using it at this and another bank for some
years; in an odd sort of way it was, in fact, telecom related.
Anyway, my new PIN arrived yesterday.  You guessed it - it was the
same as the old one.

I attribute this to one of three scenarios:

1. Coincidence. (not likely.)

2. They decoded my PIN.  (also, I suspect, unlikely.)

3. They knew my PIN all along.

I strongly suspect number 3.  When I opened the envelope I was
somewhat surprised, even shocked, that they knew it, but know it they
do.

Comments, anyone?

Martin Harriss
[e-mail]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Coin Calls From Narita
Date: 26 Sep 90 19:11:05 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


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

>Here's a story from Narita (Tokyo International).

>it rang ... normal 45 second
>conversation ... hangup, all the time waiting for a demand for another
>Y1000 or so.  It never happened.  The whole call cost 88c.

>Now what happened there?  Do coin calls from Japan really only cost
>Y100?

Unlike the ridiculous $9.75 for the first three minutes that is
demanded from AT&T-served public phones, NTT's will charge you 100 yen
per X seconds where X varies due to time of day, location, and the
overseas carrier you select.

So yes, it is very possible that a 45 second call would cost you only
100 yen.  Sometimes I'm able to check my Los Angeles voice mail for
only 100 smackeroos.

>For all I know, I should have
>listened to the local and only used Y10.

No.  An international call will not complete unless there is at least
100 yen in the hopper or at least ten units left on an inserted
telephone card.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90  13:53:34 CDT
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOTery


     I had my first encounter with a COCOT a few weeks ago.  (I live a
telephonically sheltered life -- all the payphones at work and in my
neighborhood are SWBell phones.)

     A few miles east of Opelousas, Louisiana, I found a payphone with
no identifying marks, in the same awful housing as the GTE phones at
DFW airport (metal chiclet buttons in supposedly-fingertip-shaped
sockets).

     Following the directions on the phone, I tried to place a
calling-card call with 0+504+XXX-XXXX.  The phone turned out to be
pulse, not tone, but if I pressed any digit after the first, it
spouted weird tones in my ear.

     When I gave up and just dialed 0 for the operator, the phone
pulse-dialed a seven-digit number, at which point I gave up and drove
to the next town, where I found comprehensible South Central Bell
phones.


Paul Fuqua                     [e-mail], ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Answering Machine as Room Bug
Date: 27 Sep 90 10:12:11 +1000
Organization: The University of Melbourne


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

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

>>However, the next day a person she'd been interviewing for a job came in.
>>Instantly, everything clicked.  He had been the one whose conversation was
>>recorded on the phone.  Apparently he had a sophistcated auto-dial speaker
>>phone, either with more than one line or with three-way callbing.

> He calls you, (to schedule the appointment or whatever), gets your
> machine and decides he doesn't want to leave a message. He taps the
> switch hook, which instead of hanging up, gives him the second line,
> the CO on your end doesn't even detect the disconnect and keeps your
> machine connected (and recording). He now has a threeway setup between
> your machine, himself and the next person he called. Everything is

In Australia three-way calling and enquiry call are the same function.
To make a call while in the middle of another, you <Flash> and dial.
You are then connected to that party in an enquiry call.  If you hang
up, your phone will ring with the person you left on hold, or, you can
initiate three-way conversation with <flash>3.  Every 15 seconds a
beep will let all parties know that there are three people connected,
to avoid eavesdropping, supposedly.

It is possible to use <flash>2 repeatedly to flip between calls
without connecting them, or to separate them after three-way has been
initiated, and <flash>1 is used to hang up on the person you last
spoke to and connect you with whoever is left.

 From my reading of Norman's comments, three way calling in the USA is
initiated by the CO after answer supervision of the second dialled
number.  Is this the way things *do* work?  Can you have enquiry
without conference?

Curious...

Danny

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 13:25:44 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Calling Numbers


If, say, 647 (201 area now, later to be in 908 area) is not on "local"
list, it could be:

  a) a toll call
  b) so new that some equipment doesn't yet recognize it as a valid
     prefix (201-647 has been around for years, so it can't be new)

I had a case where I could not place a self-service 0+ call to
301-850, apparently brand new at the time; and someone I knew could
not call 202-994.  (These were both toll calls.)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 13:28:30 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Burglar Alarm Problems


Moderator writes:

>Our [Chicago] city officials
>said they have no intention of jeopardizing a citizen actually in
>distress because of a history of malfunctioning alarms at the same
>location. Instead, the offending alarm owner is sued or fined by the
>city after the second or third time around.

So no redlining here?  Apparently, in areas which are redlined for a
history of phone (credit card?) abuse, it is harder to identify who is
committing the fraud.


[Moderator's Note: You are correct. No redlining by the City of
Chicago where false alarms are concerned. *Nor should AT&T be
permitted to do it.* Maybe they will get sued to make them stop
redlining. Instead of punishing the whole community, punish the guilty
persons. Imagine the confusion AT&T's policy must cause for the
unsophisticated but legitimate user of their 'Universal Card' --
universal that is except for calls to several countries from several
neighborhoods they (AT&T) don't like doing business in.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 14:44:30 -0400
From: "Spyros C. Bartsocas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number


>The easiest, at least in NYNEX and Atlantic Bell land, is to call the
>operator and ask "what number is this?"  I've never had the request

The easiest at NYNEX land (according to older postings and
experimentation) is to call 200-222-2222.  For pay phones the number
is 200-2222.  This does not work for pay phones that do not have
incoming service.


Spyros Bartsocas
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #684
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27787;
          28 Sep 90 1:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14843;
          27 Sep 90 23:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10213;
          27 Sep 90 22:34 CDT
Date:     Thu, 27 Sep 90 22:18:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #685
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Sep 90 22:18:37 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 685

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    215 to Join the N0X/N1X World [Scott D. Green]
    A Search For COCOT Tariffs [Roy Smith]
    Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed [Dan Birchall]
    Continuing Saga With MCI Around Town [Joe Konstan]
    List For Italy [Carl Moore]
    Debit Cards (was: Re: Best and Worst) [Jerry B. Altzman]
    New TDD Relay Centers; Other AT&T Promotions [Jeff Jonas]
    Industry Ethics (Was: Telecom Humour) [Alan Millar]
    More on Suspected AOS Story [Roy Smith]
    Need Help With Plantronics Headset [Roger Clark Swann]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 10:17 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 215 to Join the N0X/N1X World


The {Philadelphia Daily News} reports on Sept. 18 (and Bell of PA's
Newsline confirms today) that 1+ will be prohibited within 215 after
May 20, 1991.  You all know the rest of the story - running out of
prefixes, needing to use prefixes that look like area codes,
forestalling the introduction of a new area code.  And, of course,
after 5/20/91 we won't know if we're making a toll call within 215 or
not.

The Consumer Advocate's Office has no plans to fight the switch, since
it's been in effect in 412 (Pittsburgh area) for more than a year, and
the state PUC hasn't gotten any complaints said a PUC spokesman.

Just to review, local calls are and will remain 7 digits.  Toll calls
within 215 are 1+7 digits.  They will be 7 digits.  Outside 215, 1+10
digits now and later.  Operator calls within 215 are 0+7 digits.  They
will be 0+10 digits.  DA is now 1+555-1212.  After 5/20/91, 555-1212.

The optional period (where you may use the new or the old dialling
schemes) will be 1/1/91 through 5/20/91.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 12:19:50 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Search For COCOT Tariffs


    After reading about COCOTs for quite a while on this group, it
eventually occurred to me that various people seem to know a lot about
the details of what COCOTs are and aren't allowed to do, but I was
basically in the dark.  What to do?  I opened my phone book and
started leafing through the front pages, looking for COCOT info, but
none was to be found.

    Next, I dialed the operator and asked for the tariff on
Customer Owned Coin Operated Telephones.  She gave me to directory
assistance, who gave me the number for the coin phone business office,
who gave me an 800 number (she thought it was NYNEX, but wasn't sure,
I think it ended up being NYTel).  At some point in this chain, to one
of the people who sounded like they weren't sure where to send me, I
suggested (in a helpful sounding way), "Is the Public Utilities
Commission the right place to ask?", but this seemed to get her
flustered.  I guess PUC is a dirty word to telco folks.  Anyway, the
800 folks told me (after going off-line for a minute) that I could
either see the tariff at the library, or I could write away for it, no
charge.  I figured other people might find the address useful
(probably just for NYTel-land?), so here it is:

    CCMI/McGraw Hill (anybody know what CCMI stands for?)
    50 South Franklyn Turnpike
    Ramsey, NJ  07446

P.S. I did find something funny and/or interesting in the phone book, under
the heading "About Telephone Sales Calls".  It says:

    Many people enjoy receiving telephone calls at home from
companies [yes, it really says that! RHS] offering them information
about products or services that they may need or want.  When you
receive a telephone sales call:

    1) Find out who is calling.

    2) If you think you may be interested but want to know more,
ask the caller to mail information about the offer.

    3) If you are not interested, just cut in and say so.

    4) If you don't want to get another call from that company,
ask the person to take your name off the company's list.

    If you want to reduce the number of your at-home telephone
solicitations calls from national companies, write to:

    Telephone Preference Service
    Direct Marketing Association
    6 East 43rd St.
    New York, NY 10017

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

    Of the list above, number three seems to be the one people
have the most trouble with.  What's so hard about a polite "No thank
you, we're not interested" and hanging up?

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 13:01:30 EDT
From: "D. Birchall" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed


Due to my tendency to incur huge dialin-related bills, my family has
become increasingly interested in finding new and novel ways to extend
our calling ability.  Our NXX is not local to, and cannot (in theory)
'scope' to the nearest dialin.  The _next_ NXX, however, is totally
local (no 'scope' needed) to it.

Since a 'scope' would only give me 20 hours a month for the flat rate,
which is far less time than I spend on line, we were considering
getting the data line (line two, as we call it) moved to the next NXX,
in a manner of speaking.  (The only modifications needed would be in
the telco's own computers).

My mother contacted the telco, and was told that yes, they would do
that, and that it would only cost us $400, PLUS mileage. (About nine
miles from one CO to the other).

$400+ a month is more than the bills that we are trying to cut down
on.  $400+ a month is enough to LIVE (with a phone) in the next NXX.

Is it just me, or does the telco here have a couple screws loose?  Can
someone familiar with NJ Bell explain the reasoning behind this, or
(better yet) suggest some kind of possible alternative, for someone
who spends about 80-100 hours per month on the computer and would like
to do it for less than $300?


Dan

[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: My experience with FX, or Foreign Exchange lines,
which is what you want to accomplish, is that it is very rare they
ever pay off from casual use. Large businesses can keep their FX and
other special circuits loaded all the time. You probably can't. If
you were to use Line 2, (configured for the next town away) for maybe
12-15 hours per day, one call after another, preferably lots and lots
of one and two minute calls and very few longer than that, then you
would probably break even or profit slightly from an FX. But without
the call volume -- in terms of lots of very short calls, one after
another -- you are better off simply placing regular toll calls and
paying for them.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 12:56:22 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Continuing Saga With MCI Around Town


After waiting ten minutes for customer service (my first wait of more
than one minute with MCI), I have the next round of customer service
info from MCI:

1) MCI cannot guarantee service or _RATES_ on local calls.  (Not
surprising, but exactly opposite what I had been told yesterday).

2)  Around Town is 25 cents whenever it applies.

This is where it got interesting.  I mentioned the recording and the
customer service rep asked me to hold on.  She came back to ask what
sequence of keys I hit to get the message, and she went away again fro
five minutes (those messages are hard to navigate and are slow).  When
she came back, she told me that the message was wrong, but she would
refund the 25 cents on all of the Around Town calls I made.  They only
have current bills, so I will have to send her older bills, but this
could amount to $20-30 as a refund!!!!!

I'm impressed that they would do this.  I asked if the recording would
be changed and they said it would.


Joe Konstan

PS: I'm going to call next to get info on MCI VisaPhone and will send
the details to the Digest when I get them.

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 16:17:04 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: List For Italy


Recently, a note from Paolo Bellutta ([e-mail]) explained
Italian city codes, which he referred to as "the area codes (called
prefix)".  Phone books I have seen in the U.S. refer to these as city
codes, with the "area code" term being used only for U.S./Canada/
Caribbean area (country code 1).  Anyway, I combined that note with
earlier information I had for Italy (country code 39), trimmed off the
leading zeroes (used only on calls within Italy?), and came up with
this list (using anglicized names like Venice, Rome, etc.):

39  Italy

    1xx is north west
    10  Genoa
    11  Turin
    2   Milan
    3xx is Lombardia
    4xx is north east
    41  Venice
    45  Verona
    461 Trent (Trento)
    5xx is central
    51  Bologna
    541 San Marino (independent country, to change to +295)
    55  Florence
    6   Rome (includes Vatican City, independent country,
              whose country code is given as "39 66982")
    7xx is south west
    8xx is south east
    80  Bari
    81  Naples
    9xx is the islands
    91  Palermo

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

From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Debit Cards (was: Re: Best and Worst)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 21:44:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vicraj T.
Thomas) writes:

>If I was going to be in Japan for longer than the hour and a half at
>the airport, I could have easily bought a KDD debit card and made all
>the local calls I wanted.

Are these anything like the cards that you can buy for the Belgian
PTT?  When I was in Benelux a few years ago (thank you USAF) I bought
two of these beauties (one for 200BF, one for 1000BF) and used them to
call my parents and my girlfriend (no messages in collect call names
for me from Belgium :-) They were the greatest things -- no need to
plug coins into the machines, reusable up to the total amount of the
call, and to the US they (I think) gave a slight discount (I talked
for 12 minutes Belgian daytime to my (then) girlfriend for about 90%
of the 1000BF card).

The Belgian PTT is good, but not great. In 1987, when I visited a
satellite station somewhere (I don't remember the town name, and my
notes from the trip are at home) they were moving *up* to IBM 308*
systems from what appeared to be very old blinkenlights technology.

Next week: Why I love and hate Bezeq (Israeli BellTel)


jerry b. altzman          212 854 8058
[e-mail]       jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)    ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 04:49:30 -0400
From: synsys![e-mail]
Subject: New TDD Relay Centers; Other AT&T Promotions


AT&T Reach Out World to Canada is being lowered 10% starting Oct 5,
pending FCC approval (5PM-8AM Mon-Fri, all day weekends).  There's a
two day promotion October 7 & 8 for Canadian Thanksgiving Day from six
major U.S.  cities (NY, LA, SF, Washington DC, Philadelphia, Miami).
For info, call [phone]

TDD Relay centers is being expanded to
Nashville, Tennesee:
    TDD   [phone]
    voice [phone]
Wayne, Pennsylvania:
    tdd   [phone]
    voice [phone]

(This makes six centers: California, New York, Alabama and Illinois)
(Virginia and Deleware centers are scheduled to open early next year.)


Jeff Jonas
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Industry Ethics (Was: Telecom Humour)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 00:06:46 PDT


In <recent messages>, <recent posters> write:

> <recent items about inside pranks>

Which lead to:

>Come on, Pat, lighten up. It's going to happen. It happens in ALL
>areas.  Some of the computer labs I have worked in DELIGHTED in
>sending messages to novice users' screens. Similarly to the phone

>I guess my point is, do you expect this industry to be free from this
>sort of behaviour? I don't.

And the topper:

>Hmmm, I can only hope our Moderator is not one of those outspoken,
>righteous No-Can-Do-Wrongs who society later uncovers as having an
>unspeakable miasma of heretical beliefs and a past full of unameable
>criminal acts against nature and the law.  8^o

>What sort of chaotic little secrets do you hide that the net can't yet
>see... ?  ;-)

Now, anyone who posts a controversial view is open to flamage,
including Pat (and me for this message).  And responsibility is always
controversial.  But I congratulate Pat for taking a stand, and not
sitting by siliently.

Yes, it is probably true that we can expect these things to happen.
But no way should we condone them!

We should all lighten up when it comes to fraud or perhaps incest
because these things too are just GOING to happen, right?  But wait,
those are serious, and we're only talking about harmless pranks.
Calling a person of a particular ethnic background a derogatory name
is all in good fun; can't they take a joke?

"It's going to happen anyways" is a cop-out.  If you don't take a
stand against unethical behaviour, then you are supporting it BY
DEFAULT.


Alan Millar    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 11:22:30 EDT
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on Suspected AOS Story


    A few weeks ago, I told a story about what I had to go through
to place an AT&T calling card call from a phone in a Manhattan (area
code 212) hospital room to Mt. Sinai on Long Island (516).  Various
people suggested I was silly to use the calling card at all, since
that forced me to pay Long Distance rates on what many people
suspected was really an intra-LATA call.

    Anyway, I got my Universal Card bill yesterday.  There's the
call; placed to Port Jefferson (next town over from Mt. Sinai, so
that's OK) at the right time and date.  The kicker is where the call
was placed from: Orange, NJ (201)!  I called the customer service 800
number to enquire about this, and got no good explanation as to why
the call originated from the NJ number.  What was really interesting,
was she suggested that it actually came out cheaper that way, since
you only get the 10% discount (rounded up, BTW, $0.20 on a $1.95 call)
on calls between area codes.  I pointed out that Manhattan and Port
Jeff are not the same area code, and requested the rate to Port
Jefferson, NY from both Manhattan, NY and Orange, NJ.  She said they
were exactly the same.

    Now I'm really confused.  Two questions.  Is it reasonable
that the rates from Manhattan and Orange, NJ are really identical?
And (more interesting) why is the call shown as originating in New
Jersey at all?

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 08:23:28 pdt
From: Roger Clark Swann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Need Help With Plantronics Headset


I need some help with this headset that I found today at the surplus
store.  It is a Platronics StarSet (R) Supra (TM) with the numbers
HS0552-1 on the back of the connector. This is the type that uses an
_adapter_ to connect to the phone instrument. The connector is the
PJ327 flavor, (two 1/4 inch phone plugs side by side on one end of
small box).  I looked in the ATT source book and the unit is listed
there for $130 and the adapter for hookup to a 1A or single line set
an additional $130.

Question: What is in the adapter box other than an on/off switch and a
push switch for flashing the line?

Followup question: Can I make an adapter to hook this headset into a
phone?

Yes, the little adapter box looks nice, but not a $130 nice.

I assume that the network interface in the phone set is used just as
it is with the regular handset and that the _adapter_ is wired so as
to provide hookswitch control and connects the headset in place of the
regular handset. If this is true, I should be able to roll my own
adapter. The only other thing I need to know is; Which plug on the
headset is the mic circuit and which is the earphone circuit?

All help is greatly appreciated!


    Roger Swann               |    uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @                    |
The Boeing Company            |

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #685
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00226;
          28 Sep 90 3:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31360;
          28 Sep 90 0:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14843;
          27 Sep 90 23:39 CDT
Date:     Thu, 27 Sep 90 23:28:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #686
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 27 Sep 90 23:28:35 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 686

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Oh My Stars, I Have Seven Fooncards! [David Tamkin]
    Speaker Phones and the Courts [Jeff Dalton]
    Another "Award" Call [Carl Moore]
    Now ... The AOS's Slam the COCOT's! [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Interactive Voice Response Systems [Kenny J. Hart]
    Charges For Changing Numbers [Jim Riddle]
    CuD Survey - Please Participate [CuD Moderators]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Oh My Stars, I Have Seven Fooncards!
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 18:04:31 CDT


{I don't know how the practice of calling US Sprint's FONcard a
"FO(O)Ncard" got started, but what the heck.}

Until the beginning of 1989 US Sprint was my 1+ carrier.  There were
three active fooncardz on my account.  Then United Telecommunobfusca-
tion pulled its trickery with the PC Pursuit rate increase and I
switched to Teleconnect, who became Telecom*USA, who got eaten by MCI,
but that's another story.

Just in case I ever wanted to use US Sprint again, I didn't cancel the
account.  I stopped using it very suddenly, but it remained open.  I
had never even told them that they were no longer my primary carrier;
as long as my phone numbers were in their records to be recognized
when I dialed 10333, that was enough.

My telco here is Central Telephone Company, a subsidiary of Centel
Corporation.  Centel started its own IEC called Centel Net, actually a
reseller of US Sprint connections as they freely admitted.  CentelNet
mailed an offering of its services to Central Telephone customers, and
I thought, ah, what the heck.

Centel Net didn't do any billing on its own, only through telqi; they
issued me a calling card for each of my numbers as I requested,
insisting that they had to mail them to the exact address that
appeared on Central Telephone's records, and before the cards came I
made a couple test calls by dialing 10721-1-NPA-NXX-XXXX.  They never
did put their own ID recording out; if you dialed 10721-1-700-555-4141
from service with a telco that billed for them, you got Sprint's
recording, same one as at 10333-1-700-555-4141.  If you tried that
from service with a telco that had no agreement with Centel Net, the
call was refused by the IEC.  I kept my 1+ service on both lines with
Telecom*USA and never used the Centel Net calling cards.

Eventually I came to hear advertising for AT&T's Reach Out plans while
I'd be on hold with Central Telephone, so I asked, gee, shouldn't you
be promoting Centel Net?  "They've closed."  Huh?  Well, they had
closed all right, and calls to both their customer service number and
their access number were intercepted with referrals to US Sprint's
customer service number.  (Now both are simply not in service with no
referral any more.)  When I said that Centel Net should have notified
their customers, the Central Telephone rep told me that as she
understood, they did notify 1+ customers but not calling card carriers
like me.  (The secondary service on 10721 was automatic for any
customer of a telco that did billing for Centel Net.)  Hmmm.  Attempts
to dial 10721-1-700-555-4141 were intercepted after the third 5.

Meanwhile, I had not used US Sprint in a year and a half.  Not
recognizing my name at my home address in Chicago as belonging to the
same person as the same name at my post office box in Des Plaines (it
would fill a Digest issue to detail what happened once before, just
because even at the same address, US Sprint decided David Tamkin and
David W. Tamkin had to be two different people), US Sprint sent me an
offer of a fooncard with thirty minutes free.  I phoned the number and
was told well, the offer does say it's for new customers only, but
I've been gone so long that what the hey, but they had to open a new
account for me to get the credit.  So I said fine and asked for two
fooncardz on it (so that I could share it with my parents).

One day about three weeks later I left for the day's activities.
First I checked my post office box, and amid my mail in it was an
envelope from US Sprint with a new account number and two fooncardz.
Joy, delight, pleasure, gratification, fulfillment, ecstasy ...

Late that afternoon I returned home, and since mail to my building had
been delivered by then, I checked my mailbox in the lobby.  There were
two envelopes from US Sprint, each with a new account number and a
fooncard inside.  Just too much happiness to bear!  I noted that the
form of my address was identical to that used by Central Telephone
when I had first ordered the Centel Net calling cards.

OK, onto the phone with US Sprint customer service we go, tra la.
Yes, account three and four were indeed maggots spawned in the rotting
corpse of Centel Net.  Darn, marketing forgot to put the credit for
the upcoming thirty free minutes onto account two.  I'll have to call
the same number that was on the offer to get them to fix that.
Marketing is closed; I must call them the next morning.

The next morning marketing confirmed that account two was entitled to
the thirty-minute (actually $3.90) credit, but I have to ask customer
service to post it.  Fortunately, they connected me to C.S. instead of
my having to wait again.

The marketing folk had told me the code number for the promotion, so
when I repeated it to the c.s. person, she posted the credit to
account zero (account one had been put out of its misery in 1987).
She told me she could either cancel the extra three accounts or
consolidate them into account zero; the only difference would be that
cancellation would invalidate the new fooncardz and consolidation
would link them to account zero instead.  I thought, well, I like some
of these numbers; let's consolidate and I'll decide later which
fooncardz I want to keep.  We finally got everything straightened out:
account one was indeed dead beyond resuscitation; the spelling of my
name on account zero was fixed; accounts two, three, and four were
merged into account zero, fooncardz and all; and they knew they were not
my primary carrier any more.  [I wanted to be sure that they didn't
think they were supposed to be and wouldn't try to slam me, though in
all fairness US Sprint never has attempted it yet, not even to my
parents, whose numbers were on the account only for 10333 all the time
that my numbers really and later supposedly were on it for 1+.  MCI
thinks it has a God-given right to slam all numbers with 10222 service
on any account where at least one number has 1+ service.]

So now account zero has my parents' and my 10333 service, my name
listed properly, a $3.90 credit balance, its original three fooncardz,
two fooncardz from account two, and one each from accounts three and
four.  I wish I'd known about consolidation back in 1987, when the rep
who finally gave account one euthanasia omitted that one possibility;
perhaps US Sprint couldn't do it at that time.  See, I had this
fooncard on account one whose number I really loved.  Now I have seven
that I merely like.  It's just not the same, you know?


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]


[Moderator's Gasp: Whew! Readers, did you get all that straight? I'll
wait while you go back and read it again. Wouldn't you love to be a
CSR for Sprint handling the billing cycle David is in and get into
these commotions with him month after month about something or another?  PAT]

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

From: Jeff Dalton <esl![e-mail]>
Subject: Speaker Phones and the Courts
Date: 26 Sep 90 17:26:09 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Dalton <esl!bambam![e-mail]>
Organization: ESL Inc., Sunnyvale, CA


I'm guessing that a tape recording of a phone conversation cannot be
used as evidence in court unless both parties are aware they're
being recorded. But what if one end of the conversation is on a
speaker phone with witnesses listening.  I would guess that the
witness could testify about the content of the conversation and the
person on the other end of the phone wouldn't have to know someone
else is listening.

Does anyone know anything about this?

Jeff Dalton, ESL Inc.
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 15:15:19 EDT
From:  Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another "Award" Call


Does anyone know where 904-492 is?  (Yes, I know it's somewhere in
northern Florida.)  I just got, on my office phone, a so-called award
notification call, was given (in a RECORDED message) a two-character
"claim number", and was told to call 904-492-0001 during the next 24
hours.  Supposedly, "they" were trying to reach me and were having
problems.  How would "they" get my office number?  That's on 301-278
and I do not think 301-278 has any residences on it.

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 20:37 EST
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Now ... The AOS's Slam the COCOT's!
Organization: Telecommunications Network Architects, Safety Harbor, FL  34695


And Now Ladies and Gentlemen -- COCOT/AOS Slamming!

Yep, you got it: That fine group of citizens that sell AOS services
have gotten into the slamming act, too.  Here's an excerpt from AT&T's
summary of recent news about how New Jersey COCOTs are getting THEIR
Long Distance access slammed:

"PAY PHONE -- ... Responding to reports of ... inconsistencies [in pay
phone charges], the [N.J.] State Board of Public Utilities said it
would take a closer look at the practices of alternative operator
companies that provide long-distance services to thousands of pay
phones ... across the state. ... All six telephones in the Hudson
County Administration Building lobby, for example, contain cards
indicating that long-distance calls are handled by AT&T.
Notwithstanding that, one of the phones, until recently, was serviced
by an alternative operator. ... Apparently, [said one county
official], a salesman for an AOS company had simply called the number
of a payphone and asked whoever answered for authorization to provide
the company's services. ... New York Times, p. 1, N.J. sec., 9/23."

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

Truly, truly, Alexander Graham Bell must be filling Telephone Heaven
with tears ... to see the slimy mess of a marketplace his proud
invention has become.


[Moderator's Note: Alex got out of the phone business almost as soon
as he got in ... after the first couple years, he lost all interest in
the business and ceased to have any management role. He of course
remained a major stockholder in Bell Telephone, a/k/a AT&T until his
death, and his wife Mabel remained a major stockholder until her death
several years later.  PAT]

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

From: "Kenny J. Hart" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interactive Voice Response Systems
Date: 27 Sep 90 23:08:11 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


Is anyone out there using Periphonics IVR systems?????  I am very
interested in your relationship with the company.  We have quite a few
of their machines and would like to know how you deal with their
hardware and software problems.  Also, anyone else using a IVR vendor,
let me know the pros and cons of them, too!!


Kenny Hart
{att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!pbhya!kjhar

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 22:33:49 EDT
From: Jim Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charges For Changing Numbers
Reply-to: [e-mail]


The Digest related the story of someone's second line being the
Schwartz's old number and the four calls to repair service about the
loud tone and the insistence of the telco that they wanted to charge
$50 to change it.  A similar anecdote may contain your answer.

A friend in college, female, had HER number listed under the listing of
Dewey, Stickum and Howe, Attys at law, in the new directory.  Her number
was also, correctly, listed under her name.  She called the phone company
and was told that it would cost $50 or whatever to change.  Dewey, et al,
couldn't get an intercept or changed to her number without ... well, you
get the idea.  No one was going to do anything.  Until ...

Ring ... hello ... Mr. Jones?  I'm sorry, he's in the backroom with
his secretary and won't be available until a half hour from now.

Ring ... hello ... Mr. Stickum?  I'm sorry, he's down at the school
molesting little girls ...

It took two days and no cost.


Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.11 r.4
[1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0)

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

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

Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 21:57 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: CuD Survey


                   Computer Underground Digest Survey

     This following is the survey described in CuD 2.04.  We are
attempt- ing to estimate the demographics of the network readers as a
means of improving the quality and range of the articles.  The results
will be confidential and summarized in a future CuD issue.

The easiest way to complete an e-mail survey is to use a full screen
editor, fill in the blanks, and hit "reply" when done.  Or, you can
just type each answer on a separate line, preferably with the question
number included, and when finished, hit "reply"

The survey should take less than three minutes to complete, and can be
sent via reply or returned to either:

             [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                Thank you for your time and cooperation.

[Moderator's Note: Please DO NOT return these to me!! Thanks.  PAT]

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

 1. Your age: ____
 2. Sex: ___
 3. Highest Degree held:___________________
 4. Your ethnic background: _____________
 5. Your occupation: __________________________
 6. Have you read/subscribe to the following: ______________
     a. Computers and Security
     b. Computer Fraud and Security Bulletin
     c. Computer Law and Security Report
     d. Computer Security Digest
     e  LOD/H Technical Journal
     f. Phrack Magazine
     g. 2600 Magazine
 7. How would you rate your view of the computer underground has been
    formed (1-4, with 1 being major influence and 4 lease influence):
     _ a. media reports (ie. television, newspaper, general periodicals)
     _ b. technical reports (ie. security related periodicals, papers)
     _ c. computer underground articles (ie. Phrack, LOD/H, text files)
     _ d. actual contact with individuals of the computer underground
 8. What definition do you associate with the word "hacker"
    (1-8, with 1-best definition, 8-worst definition):
     _ a. Someone who makes furniture with an axe
     _ b. A person who enjoys learning the details of programming
          systems and how to stretch their capabilities.
     _ c. One who programs enthusiastically, or who enjoys programming
          rather than just theorizing about programming.
     _ d. A person capable of appreciating hack value.
     _ e. A person who is good at programming quickly.
     _ f. An expert at a particular program, or one who frequently does
          work using it or on it.
     _ g. A malicious or inquisitive meddler who tries to discover
          information by poking around.
     _ h. A dangerous individual that obtains information or uses
          computer resources illegally or for illegal purposes.
 9. Which best describes your view of computer hackers
    _ a. Opposed
    _ b. Ambivalent
    _ c. Sympathetic
    _ d. Strongly Opposed
10. Do you own a computer (Yes or No): ___
11. Do you own a modem (Yes or No)   : ___
12. Do you call computer bulletin board systems
    _ a. Usually daily
    _ b. Occasionally
    _ c. Rarely
    _ d. Never
13. Have you ever read any types of science fiction stories that
    are classified as Cyberpunk? (Yes or No): ___
14. Would you be willing to participate in another survey concerning
    the Computer Underground (Yes or No): ___


[Moderator's Note: This is being run here to assist CuD. It is their
questionaire -- not mine. Return answers ONLY to the addresses shown
within the questionaire.  Thanks.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #686
******************************











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00818;
          28 Sep 90 4:22 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09542;
          28 Sep 90 1:58 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31360;
          28 Sep 90 0:48 CDT
Date:     Fri, 28 Sep 90 0:14:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #687
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Sep 90 00:14:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 687

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins [Joe St. Sauver]
    Cellular Phones on Trains [David Leibold]
    CCITT and Plenary Sessions/Books Summary [David Leibold]
    Dial-a-Social Change? [John Higdon]
    Another Air Cellular Question [Dan Bloch]
    "110" Code (was Re: 976 Numbers) [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Dave Platt
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Dave Levenson]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Ethan Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins
Date: 27 Sep 90 09:44:53 PDT
Organization: University of Oregon


We've been experiencing a severe problem with noise on our dialins
which began, coincidentally, immediately after we got a new in-house
phone system here at the University of Oregon.  :-)

In talking with an E.E. friend and describing the symptoms (phantom
curly right braces and other characters typed "player-piano" style
with no keyboard assistance from the user required!), he suggested
that we are experiencing "slippage."

Because we run full-duplex, we've been able to determine that
sometimes the noise is introduced "inbound" (i.e., the phantom
characters appearing on the user's screen are also seen by the system
they've dialed into), while other times the noise is introduced
"outbound" only (i.e., the phantom characters appear on the user's
screen, but are never received by the remote minicomputer -- the
garbage disappears when the user forces a screen refresh).

The phenomena is stochastic, and apparently uncorrelated with anything
else we've been able to monitor (weather, system load, time of day,
type of modem user has, modem speed, particular modem dialed-in-to,
etc.).

Since this is driving our users crazy, we'd really like to resolve
this problem.

Can anyone provide me with a citation to some technical references on
slippage?  Has anyone come up with a fix for this sort of problem?
(I'd love to hear, "Well, if you just put an xxpF filter capacitor on
each of the modem lines...")

Thank you,

Joe St Sauver ([e-mail] or JOE@OREGON)
Statistical Programmer and Consultant
University of Oregon Computing Center

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phones on Trains
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 23:55:26 EDT


Some VIA Rail trains running in the Ontario-Quebec corridor have had a
Cantel cellular card-reading phone installed. Cards accepted would
include the Visa or MC.

Calls cost $1.95 per minute plus any long distance charges. Thus,
local and 800 numbers would get the $1.95/min charge only. Calls to
'0' (actually, Cantel's customer service centre, where you might be on
hold for a while), '411', '911' (for emergency purposes) and long
distance directory assistance are free to call, as likely are the
special '*xxx' services that radio stations use for trouble reporting,
etc.

The Cantel phone needs to have your credit card before it will start
doing anything, even for free calls. It does seem to spend a fair bit
of time verifying the card, before allowing dialing. Nevertheless, it
seems to be a good item to have on board the train, and many consider
Cantel service to be better than the competitor, Bell Cellular.

However, one conversation with the Cantel customer service "operator"
suggested that VIA Rail is taking in a nice profit from the deal. The
rep mentioned something in passing about a 50c/min airtime charge,
plus whatever markup that the owner was putting on. Shades of COCOT
fever here???  (It should be said that passenger rail service in
Canada is struggling, and VIA is trying to hold on to every nickel and
dime it can get its hands on.)

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: CCITT and Plenary Sessions/Books summary
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 23:58:06 EDT



Summary of Plenary Assemblies of the International Telegraph and
Telephone Consultative Committee (CCITT):

Every four years, CCITT holds a session to update international
telephone and telecommunication standards. The next one is due in
1992. Here are the locations dates of the sessions to date, along with
the colour of the books that resulted from each session (the latest is
the Blue Book series from 1988's session).

Session  Location               Dates              Book Colour
-------  ---------------------- -------------      -----------
  I      Geneva                 10-20 Dec '56      Red
  II     New Delhi              8-16 Dec '60       Red
  III    Geneva                 15-27 Jun '64      Blue
  IV     Mar del Plata          23 Sep-25 Oct '68  White
  V      Geneva                 4-15 Dec '72       Green
  VI     Geneva                 27 Sep-8 Oct '76   Orange
  VII    Geneva                 10-21 Nov '80      Yellow
  VIII   Molaga-Torremolinos    8-19 Oct '84       Red
  IX     Melbourne              14-25 Nov '88      Blue

It appears that the book colours are forming a cycle. If so, the books
coming out of the '92 conference, wherever that will be, will be
white.

The announcement for the '92 conference will likely show up in an
edition of the ITU's _Telecommunication_Journal_ at some point.

Various study groups are formed to tackle various questions of
standards and policies. To be studies in 1989-92 are 16/I (public
international directory services) or 34/I (international
telecommunication credit card service). One of the first volumes of
the Blue Book series should have some details on that.

On a side note, it is interesting to note that the CCITT has developed
standards for a programming language called CHILL (CCITT High Level
Language). I don't know if this is actually in use anywhere, or if
there have been any CHILL compilers/interpreters developed. It's an
interesting language, what with various set operators developed, and
the typical 'if', 'for' and 'while' looping mechanisms.

The preceding was distilled from a recent quick run into Ottawa; this
information is subject to spelling or errors of reading things too
quickly.  Any corrections or additional information would be
appreciated.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial-a-Social Change?
Date: 27 Sep 90 13:31:55 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Mail Brochure:

"SOMETHING WONDERFUL IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN TO YOUR PHONE LINE.

"Now there's a fiber optic long-distance service that helps you save
forests, animals, rivers and children -- just by talking on the
telephone.

"The wonderful thing is that you won't pay a penny more.

[inside]

"WHAT MUST WE DO TO MAKE OUR WORLD A SAFER, CLEANER, MORE CARING
PLACE?

"At the very least, we must give to the Earth as much as we take.

"That's why Working Assets is proud to offer the first long-distance
phone service that works for peace, human rights, economic justice and
a safer environment -- at no cost to you.

"Here's how it works: Every time you call long-distance, we give one
percent of your charges to non-profit groups working to clean up toxic
wastes, preserve rainforests, feed the hungry and more. The more you
talk, the more we give. (See back page for groups we've funded in the
past.)

"Why does Working Assets do this? Because we know that time is short.
That unless citizens and businesses act now, irreparable harm will be
done and countless living beings will be lost.

"We also do this because we're innovators. Four years ago we
introduced the Working Assets Visa Card--the only credit card that
works for peace, human rights and the environment every time it's
used. Since 1986, Working Assets cardholders and long-distance users
have generated over $700,000 for non-profit groups like Amnesty
International, Earth Day 1990, Rainforest Action Network and Oxfam
America.

"Now we're turning your telephone line into another convenient,
cost-free tool for change.

"HOW OUR LONG DISTANCE SERVICE WORKS

"Working Assets uses the all-new fiber-optic network of US Sprint -- and
adds our own unique commitment to the future of our world.

"That means you get the same low rates and high quality service all US
Sprint customers get. Including 24-hour operator services and the
pin-drop quality sound US Sprint is famous for.

"It also means that if you switch from AT&T's basic residential
service, you'll save money on every interstate call.

"To get you started, we'll give you a credit equal to 30 free minutes,
and a free calling card. (See back page for details.)

"NOW, MAKING A DIFFERENCE IS NOT ONLY COST-FREE, IT'S ABSURDLY EASY.

"There's absolutely nothing to lose. And signing up couldn't be
simpler. Just fill out the card below or dial 1-800-669-8585. That's
all.

"We'll hook you up with no intrusion or interruption. Then, every time
you call long distance, you'll help save a species or two.

"Possibly even our own."


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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 1990 18:59:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Another Air Cellular Question


The recent discussion reminds me of a question I've been wondering
about for a while.  How do the pay phones on airplanes work?  I assume
they must be some kind of cellular with a very large cell.  How many
cells are there nationwide?  What wavelengths do they use?  What
capacity does the system have and how much use does it get?  Who runs
them?  And, for that matter, why don't they interfere with the pilots'
radio communication?

Answers to these questions, or any others I may have forgotten to ask,
will be appreciated.


Dan Bloch
[e-mail]

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

Date: 27-SEP-1990 03:46:05.65
From: "DOUGLAS SCOTT REUBEN)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "110" Code (was Re: 976 Numbers)


In response to Bob Goudreau's posting about a special code for "976"
like numbers (sorry for the terrible oversimplification of your
posting...):

Just in case anyone cares, I think 110 is used to call back an
operator on an operator assist call IF you have three way-calling.

See, let's say I make a operator assist call, and after the call is
over, I want to talk to the operator again (perhaps for "time and
charges"). If I have Three-Way calling, any FLASH that I generate with
the hookswitch or whatever will usually cause me to get a three-way
dial tone, and no matter what I won't be able to flash the operator on
the initial leg of my call.

SO, some Bell Co.s (or psuedo-Bell Co.s) use the code "110" to flash
an operator. You basically get the three way tone, dial "110", and
then you are dropped back to the initial call and an operator will
come on the line shortly. (It is similar to dialing *70 [Call Waiting
Block] using three-way calling, after you dial *70 your calls are
blocked and you are dropped back down to your initial call. )

I've noticed that DMS offices don't seem to support this, but older
1/1A ESS offices seem to have it. (I've never had the opportunity to
try it on a 5ESS ... anyone know if it works there?)


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 17:57:50 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA


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

> Another thought came to mind about the 'AT&T Universal Card': Just
> think, if you use the 'card' to charge purchases, your 'phone number
> with four-digit code', along with the 'ATT Credit card number' goes on
> the same slip (since its one huge carbon) ... Reach Out and Touch
> someone's life, since you have their credit card number, (their bank
> since ATT uses only one bank), their phone number with a 'universal'
> calling card ... not bad huh??

Nope.  They aren't stupid enough to do it that way.

The four-digit PIN is not included on the card.  It'd better not be...
the same PIN is used both for the phonecard authorization, and as the
auto-teller-machine PIN which enables you to get a cash advance
against your card.  There's no way AT&T would put it on the card ...
if they did, they'd almost certainly end up being held liable for any
cash withdrawls made via a card that was reported stolen.

They send you the PIN under separate cover, and warn you not to write
it down on the card or keep it in your wallet.

Nor is your [home or business] phone number included on the card.  The
phonecard number is a made-up number which isn't in the correct format
for a real phone number (mine starts out 507 00x, and there are no 00x
phone exchanges to the best of my knowledge).  I understand that this
is done deliberately, to ensure that AT&T is the only carrier which
will honor the number (this is a feature, not a bug).

In these respects, the Universal Card is slightly more secure than,
say, a Pacific Bell or MCI calling card, both of which have the real
phone number _and_ the PIN embossed on the card.  For the benefit of
those with short memories, I suppose.


Dave Platt VOICE:                           [phone]
  UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt   DOMAIN: [e-mail]
  INTERNET:       coherent![e-mail],  [e-mail]
  USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc.  3350 West Bayshore #205  Palo Alto CA 94303

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Date: 27 Sep 90 02:24:43 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Matthew McGehrin) writes:

> Another thought came to mind about the 'AT&T Universal Card': Just
> think, if you use the 'card' to charge purchases, your 'phone number
> with four-digit code', along with the 'ATT Credit card number' goes on
> the same slip (since its one huge carbon) ... Reach Out and Touch
> someone's life, since you have their credit card number, (their bank
> since ATT uses only one bank), their phone number with a 'universal'
> calling card ... not bad huh??

The PIN is not embossed, or even printed, on the AT&T universal card.
It is mailed in a separate envelope, a week or so after the card is
mailed, to the account holder.

Apparently, Matthew, somebody thought of that!


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

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 02:04:57 PDT
From: ethan miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Organization: Berkeley--Shaken, not Stirred


Two comments about the AT&T Universal Card:

First, there isn't enough room for two stripes on the back of the
card.  There's got to be enough space to sign the card as well.  Even
if there were room, what happens when someone comes up to a credit
card/phone card telephone in an airport and swipes the card the wrong
way?  They'll be charged the credit card rates, not the AT&T phonecard
rates.  It's easier just to type in the calling card number.

To the person afraid of calling card numbers on carbons, don't worry.
The front of the card has only the equivalent of the phone number
portion of the calling card number -- the four digit security code
isn't there.  Incidentally, the number I have is an illegal phone
number, though the area code is valid.  The exchange number starts
with a 0, however, so the number is (under the current system) a
disallowed phone number.  Is there any system AT&T is using to assign
these "phony" calling card phone numbers?


ethan miller--cs grad student   [e-mail]
#include <std/disclaimer.h>     {...}!ucbvax!sprite!elm

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #687
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01517;
          28 Sep 90 5:21 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02177;
          28 Sep 90 3:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09542;
          28 Sep 90 1:59 CDT
Date:     Fri, 28 Sep 90 1:00:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #688
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Sep 90 01:00:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 688

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sprint Wars - AT&T Did it Better For Us [Andrew R. D'Uva]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1 [David Gurevich]
    Re: 16 Buttons -- Not 12? [Bill Cerny]
    Re: The Phone Book [David Leibold]
    Re: ATM at Retailers (Was: Voice Mail Passwords [Michael P. Deignan]
    Re: 976 Numbers [Christopher Ambler]
    Re: Description of 976 Numbers (was: Bell Canada) [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Data Lines -- Burglar Alarm Problems [[e-mail]]
    Re: ATT Universal Card (Dual Card) [Bill Huttig]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Andrew R. D'Uva" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Wars - AT&T Did it Better For Us
Date: 26 Sep 90 17:38:50 GMT
Organization: InteleCom Data Systems, East Greenwich, RI


In article <[e-mail]>, gtisqr![e-mail].
washington.edu (Todd Inch) writes:

> And you want to talk about Customer Service?  Took six calls, with
> LOTS of auto-attendant menus and "on-hold" time to.....

    The customer service aspect is a real problem for Sprint.  We
had just about gotten fed up with them when they initiated a "Premier
Accounts" group (our usage was running $700-800/mo) with a different
number.  Service was MUCH better on that basis.  There were other
problems.

> I also don't like being slammed, but that did show me true costs, and
> they (AT&T) paid for the changeover themselves.

    I've found that AT&T is often more than willing to pay
associated switchover charges or startup fees, usually by LD
certificates.  In our case, this added up to several hundred dollars
saved.  You definitely should not be afraid to ask for a "deal," after
all, they DO want your business.  Sprint does not seem to want that
business.  When I had almost decided to switch back to AT&T (their
rates were cheaper ... more on that later) I called Sprint and asked
them if our business was really important to them (i.e., how could
they match rates, offer premiums, etc) and received nothing but
Sprint's much praised "can even hear a pin drop silence."  They just
didn't want to be flexible.

> Interesting note here, GTE swears the LD carrier cannot authorize a
> changeover (maybe local policy?), that the subscriber has to call it
> in himself, but obviously it can happen here.

    In our case, the local company in one area (Bell South)
switched over primary access without EVER contacting me.  This was in
line with my wishes, but I never even spoke to them ... just AT&T.
New England Tell (NYNEX), on the other hand, practically demanded
everything in writing before they would do anything ... (And, as it
turned out, they flubbed the service order even after I had put it in
writing!)  I guess that the RBOCs vary in policy application.

Now about AT&T and their rather novel approach:

    AT&T came to us, analyzed our calling patterns and told us
that they could not, in fact, save us money over Sprint WATS.

BUT>>> What they could do was enroll us with a reseller of their
service.  All customer service and billing would be handled through
AT&T, but we would incur a small monthly fee ($25) from the reseller.
If I agreed to this, I could "buy" AT&T service as part of a large
group of people in my area (I don't even know who they are) at rates
significantly lower than Sprint's.  Technically I have PRO-WATS, but
the people at AT&T Pro-Wats can't figure out (I called them) where the
additional discounts are coming from.  My AT&T representative claims
that this is a convenient way for AT&T to avoid what she called
"restrictive regulation."  Worked out quite well, too.


Andrew D'Uva
[e-mail] <== Internet  ((Add your favorite 3K signature file))

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Date: 27 Sep 90 18:15:23 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail] (Ed
Benyukhis) writes...

>> Voice is not packet data.  It is not treated in a packet manner.
                ^^^^^^^^^^^
>It could be.  VSCS (FAA) at Bell Labs is implementing just that i.e.
>Packatizing voice for air traffic controllers communications.  Voice
>packatezation perhaps warrants some discussion/explanation by someone
>more familiar with the process.  How about it Pat????

[Moderator's Note: Fred Goldstein comes to mind.  PAT]

This discussion sounds like a rerun of one we had last year, around
TASI, but I'll jump in anyway.  I've even sent a contribution to ANSI
T1Y1 for their next meeeting explaining why Digital voted NO on a
proposed packet voice standard (syntactic and checksum matters), but
that's beyond the scope of this thread.

Packet voice does occur on the public switched telephone network, but
it's not common.  Old-fashioned Time Assignment Speech Interpolation
using analog gear has gone the way of the FDM open wire carrier.  But
newer digital interpolation gear does exist, mostly in private nets
and in international calls.  It's not worth the effort for domestic
calls, since raw transmission is cheap enough and any packetization
adds delay, making echo cancellation (not so cheap) necessary.

AT&T uses a device of their own manufacture called IACS (Integrated
Access & Cross-Connect Switch, if I recall) to compress international
telephone calls.  (Undersea cables aren't cheap!)  An effect of the
fax explosion, which they reported at a T1S1 meeting, was that they've
had to reduce the number of derived channels from each physical pipe,
since there are no gaps in fax modem tones.  So yes, modems do add a
little to the cost of calls, but only overseas.

IACS uses a technique called Embedded Adaptive Delta Pulse Code
Modulation.  This is like ADPCM except that the low-order three bits
of a five-bit sample are not used for predicting the next sample.  So if
the network is particularly busy, it can throw away the lowest-order
bit or two from each speech sample, by truncating the last 32 bytes in
a frame which carries speech samples arranged by bit significance.
Thus the tail end of the frame is all low-order bits.  On average you
may get 30 kbps or so, but during the busy hour it may drop and still
sound okay (just not quite as good) and at real off-hours you may get
over 32 kbps and sound better than normal.

BTW, the ISDN service definitions for "telephony" and "3.1 kHz audio"
differ in that the former permits the use of speech processing, TASI,
etc., while the latter requires that the network listen for the 2100 Hz
disable tone that modem calls begin with.  ISDN interworks with the
analog network using the 3.1 kHz audio service.

But again, for the bulk of domestic toll and essentially all intra-LATA
and local calling, you get raw circuit mode and the network doesn't
care one whit about whether you have a modem or microphone.

Fred R. Goldstein   [e-mail]
                 or [e-mail]
                    voice:  [phone]
opinions are mine alone; sharing requires permission

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

From: David Gurevich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Host-to-Switch Interfaces, ANSI T1S1
Date: 27 Sep 90 21:00:09 GMT
Reply-To: David Gurevich <dhlmis![e-mail]>
Organization: DHL Systems, Inc., San Mateo, CA


In article <[e-mail]> David Gurevich <dgurevic@dhlmis.
dhl> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 679, Message 10 of 11

>It talks about the host-to-switch interfaces. Host being some computer
>system, switch - a PBX, CO Switch, etc.

The beginning of my original posting got cut off somehow.  I was
talking about an article in the September 1990 issue of Data
Communications title: "Host, Switches Announce Engagement, Plan
Nuptials".

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: 16 Buttons -- Not 12?
Date: 27 Sep 90 19:20:31 GMT


In article kentrox!ktxc5![e-mail] (Brent Capps) writes:

>and since there is little that a 4W set can do that a normal
>2W set cannot, the CO mfgs have been pushing the military to phase
>them out.

The base operator also has plug access to AUTOVON (now DSN?) trunks
grouped by precedence.  If you tire of reaching reorder when dialing
'8' for routine AUTOVON, you call the operator and provide the
authorization code for the precedence (P, I, F) and destination
(CONUS, Overseas), to which she usually replies, "I'm sorry sir, there
are no circuits available at this time."  :-(

In San Diego, things are a little better now.  The old 1ESS AUTOVON
switch is now a 5ESS, and all the Navy base step switches have been
replaced by AT&T Sys 75 and 85 PBX's (are any slated for upgrade to
Definity Generic 1 or 2?).  Apparently, the 4-wire desk sets have been
replaced by regular 2500 (or 74xx, or STU III) sets.  You select
AUTOVON precedence with the trunk code (80 for routine, 81 for
priority); provided your station has the class of service mark to
access that precedence (otherwise it's back to authorization codes and
the operator).  I accessed a routine AUTOVON trunk from a peon
station, and pressed 'P', to which the AUTOVON switch announced "You
may not access that precedence..."

The AT&T PBX provides the proper ringing for incoming AUTOVON calls:
routine precedence gives the normal double ring for "outside call",
while priority (and above) gives a triple ring for "priority call."


Bill Cerny [e-mail] | attmail: !denwa!bill

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Phone Book
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 0:14:43 EDT


Here are a few items contained in J Edward Hyde's _The_Phone_Book_, a
tome that exposes pre-MFJ, pre-divestiture Bell System:

* billing punch cards: in the good old days when punch cards were sent
with the phone bills, there was some creative carving done to those cards.
In one case, a customer cut a few holes in one of those cards. The result
was free phone service indefinitely. However, someone else did a few
slices to the card, only to wind up paying for 387 red phones instead of
a single black one.

* The story of T.O. Gravitt, a Southwestern Bell Texas Operations
Chief who decided not to play by the rules of the big boys and started
on a reform program. Unfortunately, Gravitt found himself persecuted
and eventually committed suicide. Much of the information on this
section of the book came from James Ashley, from a 1975 interview. In
Gravitt's suicide note contained the words "Watergate is a gnat
compared to the Bell System."

* {Ramparts Magazine} printed instructions on how to build a "mute
box" (something to suppress call supervision on incoming long distance
calls).  While Ramparts was in rather illegal territory with that
article, the actions Ma Bell took were probably the issue here. Bell
agents were ordered to find all extant copies of the offending
{Ramparts Magazine}, trying to get the subscription lists, going after
newsstand dealers, threatening any radio stations that mentioned the
action, etc.

* A group of Miami students set up phone service under the name S.E.
Bass; meetings were scheduled with the Bell reps at the end of a pier
and at Marineland when the question of the bill's non-payment came up
(the intent was to meet this fictitious "S.E. Bass"). Several months
later, Bell discovered that the previous residence was the Gulf Stream
and the occupation: a mantelpiece.

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords)
Date: 26 Sep 90 21:35:30 GMT
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917


motcid![e-mail] (Steven King) writes:

>A one way algorithm?  Pray, how does the bank decode it to verify you?
>A gigantic lookup table?

They don't decode it, they encode the PIN you provide and then compare
the encrypted value of the PIN you entered against the encrypted PIN
on the magstripe.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Fubar)
Subject: Re: 976 Numbers
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 5:53:43 GMT


Only once have I been prompted to say, "Now THERE is a good use for a
900 number!" : Call 1-900-xxx-xxxx for a transcript of this show.
Leave your address, and you will be billed $4 to your phone bill, and
the transcript will be mailed to you.

This justifies it for me. Not that I like the sleaze and talk-lines
that charge upwards of $180/hour, but you have to take the good with
the bad...


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


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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 22:04:52 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Description of 976 Numbers (was: Bell Canada)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <23 Sep 90 16:33:30>, Mark Brader writes:

>(I don't know if there were ever, say, WRight numbers, or if 97 was
>always reserved.  Anyone know?  I might ask the same question about
>55, which is similarly reserved for special purposes.  In movies and
>TV shows, 555-numbers are often used so as to not coincide with any
>real numbers, and the scriptwriters noted long ago that KLondike was
>55; were there ever any real KLondikes?)

Nope.  97x prefixes are definitely not reserved as we have both 977
and 978 here in Omaha.  Interestingly enough, the 'official' prefix
list in the Phone Book <tm> lists 976, 977, and 978 as Omaha prefixes.

Also, one of the midtown Omaha offices has all of the 55x prefixes
except for 555 and 550.  (I think those are the only ones not in
there.)  The office serves a rather large irregular geographic area
which extends well into what is called 'North Omaha' as well as
crossing the historical city-line into what was once the town of South
Omaha.  My office phone is on 559.

Good Day!        JSW

[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha (1:285/666)
 --- Through FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
[e-mail]

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

From: 99700000 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines -- Burglar Alarm Problems
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 10:31:54 PDT


The juxtaposition of subjects in a recent Digest triggered some old
memories.

    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Michael Coleman]
    Re: Burglar Alarm Problems [Paul Colley]

There used to be several guys in the northern suburbs of Chicago who
had their own private telephone exchange.  The switch was a Navy
surplus SxS machine that had been used on a ship, I think.  To connect
their homes to the switch they had private lines leased from Illinois
Bell.  Private voice lines are pretty expensive; but they discovered
that under the tariffs of the day they could get burglar alarm lines
at a much lower rate, and they worked just fine for voice.

Supposedly someone at the phone company discovered what was going on
and had two microfarad capacitors installed in the central office
shunting the lines.  This rendered them practically useless for voice,
but still serviceable for burglar alarm purposes.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATT Universal Card (Dual Card)
Date: 27 Sep 90 18:51:14 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Why can't the program the calling card database with the Visa number
instead of a different calling card .  MCI kind of does this with visa
phone ... some card numbers are 13 digits others 16 (+4 PIN) so why does
AT&T have to have 10 + 4 digit cards they could accept 16 + 4 digits?

The first three digits of their MC/Visa card is not the same as the
first three digits of any vaid phone # or any vaid NPA.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #688
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04635;
          28 Sep 90 9:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28462;
          28 Sep 90 4:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02177;
          28 Sep 90 3:13 CDT
Date:     Fri, 28 Sep 90 2:02:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #689
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 28 Sep 90 02:02:23 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 689

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI as Slamming King [Steve Friedl]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [David Tamkin]
    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor" [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Gordon D. Woods]
    Re: 16 Buttons -- Not 12? [Mark Cloutier]
    Re: Data vs. Voice [Vance Shipley]
    Re: 900 Numbers [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You [Joel B. Levin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Friedl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Date: 28 Sep 90 05:42:27 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


Nickolas Landsberg (an AT&T employee) writes:

> Regarding the slamming situation: Whenever I get called by <name your
> least favorite here>, I reply that I am an AT&T employee.

I have found this to be an excellent way to disarm most telemarketers.
I used to flame at them (MCI especially) but eventually got tired of
being so confrontational.  Now, when I get a call from some phone
company or newspaper, I just politely say that I work for the
competition.  The caller always thanks me for my time with a bit of a
chuckle and it makes for a very fast exchange.

If this catches on it could make for some fun meetings at Sprint
telemarketing HQ: "Dammit, 50% of the people we call work for AT&T.
How can this happen?"

It is also funny to think about MCI calling John Higdon and having him
tell them he works for Sprint :-)


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 12:12:58 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King


>Some months ago, I received a call from a telemarketing company trying
>to sell me an "affinity" MasterCard, endorsed by and bearing the logo
>and colours of a a good cause that I support.  I decided to get the
>card, and at the end of the application processor, the telemarketing
>person passed me on to a woman he identified as his supervisor, who
>confirmed that I indeed wanted the affinity MasterCard, and made sure
>I understood how it worked.

>Perhaps the "slamming" abuses people have described here would not
>happen so often if MCI and its telemarketing contractors were required
>to have requests to make MCI the 1+ carrier verified by a second
>person who was paid a flat hourly or weekly wage which does not have
>anything to do with sales results. This would go a long way towards
>keeping telemarketers honest.

  I suspect this scenario has more to do with the laws regulating
credit cards, the banks liability for fraudulent use or misissuance,
and the consequent liabilities that may be passed on to the marketers
by them. The costs, losses, and laws regulating the phone industry may
not make it worthwhile (in fact the opposite, apparently) or
necessary.

  If everyone is so incensed at what is purported to be widespread
slamming by MCI, why hasn't someone considered a class-action suit.
There obviously wouldn't be much money in compensatory damages but
there might be something in punitive damages (don't challenge me on
legalities - I admit ignorance). More important, just the rumor
(properly leaked) of such a thought, solicitation, or evidence
gathering might get their attention, the attention of the press, or
the regulatory agencies. Bad publicity is worth a million complaints.

  Just out of curiosity (and to show I have no personal interest in
this), how come I have never been slammed, given that I live in what
is claimed to be the telemarketing fraud captial of the U.S. - Orange
County, California.


Jeff Sicherman     [e-mail]

P.S.  I am NOT volunteering to coordinate such an activity, I will
      ignore all material sent to me on the matter. I am merely
      stirring the pot and accept no responsibility for it boiling
      over or spilling.

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 12:36:59 CDT


After I had previously written this:

DT> But there are telqi who will accept with blind faith the mag tapes
DT> that the IECs send them, input them, and slam away, and there are
DT> telqi who will examine the data on those tapes and check records first
DT> to see if they have received such a request from the customer.

Jon Baker challenged me in volume 10, issue 681:

JB> Name one.  From everything I've read/heard/experienced, no telco
JB> verifies the allegedly-required written record except in cases of
JB> customer complaint.  And, MCI rarely produces the written record,
JB> claiming that they 'sent the card out to the customer for signature,
JB> but never got it back'.

In a tale I've told many times here, MCI tried several times to slam
my parents' Illinois Bell service and my Central Telephone service.
Central Telephone never honored MCI's mag tape but phoned me for
confirmation both times.  Both times, of course, I denied it, and on
neither occasion did they make the switch.

So you want me to name one?  Central Telephone Company, 2004 Miner
Street, Des Plaines, Illinois 60016; [phone].  In every
slamming complaint posted to this Digest that named the obeying telco,
said compliant local utility was a Bell company.  No one has yet, as
far as I've noticed, submitted "my independent telco let a long-
distance carrier slam me" nor "my Bell telco stymied a slamming
attempt on me."


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: Thu, 27 Sep 90 12:12:06 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"


In a reply to my reply to ... (by [e-mail])

>>   I wonder how some of the apologists for the shenanigans being
>>passed off as inside humor would react if the Postal Service did the
>>following to their mail:

>>  - randomly opened it and made copies to pass around the
>>    office and to other parties
>>  - intentionally routed it to the wrong party occasionally

>>  I don't see any difference between these and the activities of the
>>insiders, other than the media and the employer, and that doesn't
>>change the ethics of the situation.

>What you apparently don't recognize, is that this DOES occur within
>the hallowed halls of the US Post Office (I refuse to call it a Postal
>Service!)

   What's your point ? That there are (almost) always bad apples in
any organization? Of course. My response was directed at apologists
for the behavior that said "lighten up", not a condemnation of the
organizations. You're not suggesting we should accept or tolerate it
because it happens else/every-where, are you ?


Jeff Sicherman     [e-mail]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company "Inside Humor"
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 16:21:03 EDT


 From: Bob Yasi <mtxinu!algol.la.locus.com![e-mail]>

>Perhaps the perpetrators have not yet experienced much grief at the
>death of a loved one, or have not comforted a loved one going through
>such grief themselves.  Well, I hope you do, and soon, and that
>someone does something awful to make it worse and that you think of
>this when it happens.

This sounds like an incredibly cruel joke to play, if it happened that
way, but I find it hard to believe.  I think the perpetrators must
have cross connected so that the butcher's customers were connected to
the funeral home, not the other way around.

The horror is now merely bad taste.  I am amazed that everyone who has
posted so far assumed that the bereaved must have been connected to a
butcher's shop.


JBL


[Moderator's Note: I don't think it was a butcher shop; I think he
said it was a beef (or other meat) processing plant. In any event,
this thread has gone way past its normal life expectancy, as has the
thread on ATM operations and the handling of PINS. Maybe we can close
it out in the next couple issues, please.   PAT]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude
Date: 27 Sep 90 18:22:44 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> Chicago (AP) -- Cori Ward's mother got a little defensive when she
> received a phone bill for three weeks' service -- $8.7 million.

> "She says, 'I only called my sister,'" said Ward, who handles her
> elderly mother's bills.

> The bill from Illinois Bell should have read $87.98, not $8,709,800.33.

Uh, doesn't the phone company's accounting software have some sanity
checks in it?  Do they regularly send out residential service bills
that require seven digits left of the decimal point?

> Ward said she had a hard time explaining the mistake to the phone
> company.

Whoever Ward talked to in customer service, then, needs replacement
with a non-robodroid.  If I were in customer service, and someone
called up with a $8x10^6 phone bill for three weeks of residential
service, this would be immediate evidence of serious billing SNAFUs --
I wouldn't need an explanation at all.


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


[Moderator's Note: Very few customers of Illinois Bell get seven-digit
phone bills each month: City of Chicago; University of Chicago;
General Services Administration (billing for all federal agencies
here); Cook County government; State of Illinois government;
University of Illinois at Chicago; Amoco/Standard Oil; and probably
the Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, to name a few. Every
one of them have a customer service representative for their exclusive
use: someone who does nothing but attend to that customer's
requirements eight hours per day, five days per week. There are plenty
of six-digit monthly billings: Chicago Board of Education, including
the City Colleges; Transit Authority; and Commonwealth Edison.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 08:38:43 EDT
From: Gordon D Woods <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Andrew Boardman):

>>The most honest way to go about it would be to ask the person who owns
>>the phone, "what number is this?"  PAT]

> The easiest, at least in NYNEX and Atlantic Bell land, is to call the
> operator and ask "what number is this?"  I've never had the request
> refused.

I think this thread has gone on so long because many people share my
experience: I have called the operator many times and the request has
been universally refused. In these days of customer provided station
sets, people don't put their number on the phone and there is no way
to find out what it is if you want someone to call back.


[Moderator's Note: If they want you to call back, you'll be given the
number to call.  PAT]

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

From: Mark Cloutier <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 16 Buttons -- Not 12?
Date: 27 Sep 90 15:23:57 GMT
Reply-To: Mark Cloutier <mitel!cloutier![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> kentrox!ktxc5![e-mail]
(Brent Capps) writes:

>> An odd thought sprang upon me recently while talking to a friend.  Do
>> telephones actually use sixteen tones rather than just twelve normally
>> available?

These 4*4 phones are more popular in Europe, the application I heard
of was to use the extra four keys as speed dial keys. This was in a PBX
environment.

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data vs Voice
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 01:20:50 GMT


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

>links; certainly sometimes I get completely dead patches on a noisy
>phone line, which I have always contributed to zero compression.

>So, am I correct in this assumption? If I'm right, what happens when

I doubt it.  I would bet it was a case of squelch.  when the talking
stops they suppress the background noise.  It's meant to help but many
find it disconcerting.  The Toshiba Strata key systems used to do this
(some) on CO calls.  People would hang up thinking they'd been
disconnected!


vance

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

Date: Wed, 26 Sep 90 23:56:08 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: 900 Numbers


  With apologies to Marshall McCluhan (sp?), the medium is not the
message.

  All the complaining about how 900 numbers are the scourge of
telephony are a little misplaced. You could make similar claims about
TV, magazines, newspapers, etc. when material is presented that
offends somebody somewhere.  However, the complaints are even weaker
with 900 numbers - nobody HAS to dial them ! As with demands for
censorship of other media, I am more worried about the potential for
damage in the power gained by the censors than anything that can
happen from the presentation of the material.

  However, I do agree that more control is in order to prevent
misleading (read the small print FAST) and abusive use. If the
telephone companies are going to route them through a special area
code I see no reason (being as ignorant as I am of telephone
electonics) why each call coundn't be intercepted by the switching
network and prefixed with a computer generated message which would
announce (this information MUST be in a database already, although I
expect it's only used at billing time now, just make it active and
on-line):

   1. The cost/rate of the call
   2. A classification (subject matter) of the response
   3. An identification (code, account number) of the service provider
      and the phone company itself

  A time allowance would then be announced and given during which the
caller would have the opportunity to hang up without incurring any of
the announced charges. I would be willing to let the call (toll)
charges stand, if any. If complaints were in order, identification
would be available.

  The classification could also be used for selective blocking of
subject matter, instead of just all 900/976, though I realize this
would probably require a much more robust calling protocol than is
currently envisioned or in place.


Jeff Sicherman      [e-mail]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I'm AT&T and I'm Writing to Help You
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 16:57:19 EDT


 From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>

>I was wondering how long it would take for someone to realize the
>absurdity of "calling plans". An associate of mine refers to this as
>"charging for a discount". AT&T, Sprint, MCI, and all the other IXCs
>aren't the only ones who play this game, but the LECs do it as well.

I agree with all your comments.  Such evaluation is why I use Sprint
Plus over AT&T's ROA.  The reasons are: most calls are short distance,
NH to MA, so the fixed per-minute rate of ROA represents small
savings; and a lot of the calls are during the day, when ROA diesn't
help.  The savings would have to exceed the monthly fee before I could
break even.  Sprint Plus has no "cover charge," only a "minimum" of
$8/month (my phone bills almost always exceed $50), and even during
the day there is some small discount; so there is no question of
breaking even; I always do better than straight Sprint or AT&T without
ROA.

On the other hand, for calling card calling, I always choose AT&T
because of the straight 10% discount across the board for using my
Universal card.

When each LD company comes out with a new plan, I have to look at it
carefully and decide if maybe it's time to switch.  So far I think I
am doing as well as I can.


JBL

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #689
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20837;
          29 Sep 90 4:08 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30098;
          29 Sep 90 2:39 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19996;
          29 Sep 90 1:35 CDT
Date:     Sat, 29 Sep 90 0:53:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #690
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Sep 90 00:53:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 690

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Changes in the Digest - Other Administrivia [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Rop Gonggrijp]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: Sprint Wars - AT&T Did it Better For Us [Jack Dominey]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Tom Gray]
    Re: Data vs Voice [Adam J. Ashby]
    Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed [Wolfgang Rupprecht]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 0:19:44 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Changes in the Digest - Other Administrivia


A special issue this weekend is entitled "ISDN Introduction". It was
prepared by Jody Kravitz from interesting excerpts found elsewhere.
This special issue will probably be distributed Saturday evening.

A new addition to the Telecom Archives is a file donated by U.K. Tony
entitled, 'modem.access.in.uk'. This lengthy file is a comprehensive
list of dialup numbers in the UK. It will be available sometime over
the weekend in the archives.  To access the Telecom Archives, use ftp:

            ftp lcs.mit.edu
            login anonymous    password: [e-mail]
            cd telecom-archives


CHANGES IN HANDLING OF MESSAGES TO THE DIGEST, EFFECTIVE 10-1-90:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

As you *must* know, traffic here has increased dramatically in the
past few months, and the past couple weeks have been exceptionally
heavy. I remember two years ago when almost every message received
here was published ... then we went to about half ... now it is down
to less than that.

Even so, I have tried to return articles to their senders with an
explanation when they were unusable in the Digest. This is taking
quite a bit of time, in view of the fact that on four occassions in
the past two weeks alone there have been <seven> issues in one day.

(Do any old timers remember when we had one issue per day *most days*,
and on the rare occassion of an overflow I would mention 'this is part
one of two parts today'?)

Starting October 1, there will be no attempt made to return unusable
submissions. Your only acknowlegement from me will be the auto reply
message. Either you will see your message in the Digest within three
or four days of that point, or you may assume it was not used, for
whatever reason.

Priority will be given to messages which require *little or no editing
work*. Priority will be given to *short* messages, and messages which
*paraphrase* earlier writers rather than quote them at length.

Make the 'Re' subject header match the original topic identically.
Keep signatures to four lines or less of *essential* information. No
quotes, jokes, political statements, etc. All will be disgarded.

REplies to messages must now be limited to the first dozen or so
received within a few days of the original article. We cannot keep
rehashing things over and over for several weeks. There just is not
room and time to do that and run new, original articles as well.

These changes are not so much because I want them as they are because
I am rapidly getting buried in messages here and time-consuming work
in the editing and production of the Digest.

Thanks for your understanding. Remember, ** most messages will neither
be used in the Digest or returned starting Monday, October 1. **


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 16:26:08 EDT


>From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hui Lin
>Lim) writes:

>> Could anyone elaborate on how this service is provided?  Does it
>> require an ISDN switch etc?

>Nope.  They do it on a standard digital switch.  I can get it on a
>5ESS in my area.  ...

Of course, AT&T does ISDN on 5ESS, too.


JBL

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 14:36:17 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Distinctive-Ring Based Call Distributor


> 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.

The latest issue of the Hello Direct catalog I just received (winter
1990) has a "Ring Director" box advertised on page 38.  $99.95 qty
1-2. As usual for them, no manufacturer given.


Jeff Sicherman   [e-mail]

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

From: Rop Gonggrijp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Date: 28 Sep 90 12:03:06 GMT
Organization: uvabick


[e-mail] (Gordon D Woods) writes:

>>>The most honest way to go about it would be to ask the person who owns
>>>the phone, "what number is this?"  PAT]

You can also call 1-800-666-6258. This gives you a lot of advertising
bla-bla AND your phone no. (much of the advertising can be skipped by
pressing a Touch-Tone (tm) digit).


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]) is also editor of  Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.)
Postbus 22953    (in DUTCH) | 1100 DL  AMSTERDAM   tel: [phone]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 16:23:57 EDT


>[Moderator's Note: ...

>I suppose you could always make a collect call from the phone in
>question to a number you control, then examine your phone bill when it
>arrives the next month to see whose call you agreed to pay for. ...  PAT]

As has been pointed out, you might get an accounting number for a
group of lines rather than the number of the actual line used.


JBL

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Sep 28 15:27:43 EDT 1990
Subject: Re: Sprint Wars - AT&T Did it Better For US


In V10 Issue 688, "Andrew R. D'Uva" <[e-mail]> writes:

>        AT&T came to us, analyzed our calling patterns and told us
>that they could not, in fact, save us money over Sprint WATS.

>BUT>>> What they could do was enroll us with a reseller of their
>service.  All customer service and billing would be handled through
>AT&T, but we would incur a small monthly fee ($25) from the reseller.
>If I agreed to this, I could "buy" AT&T service as part of a large
>group of people in my area (I don't even know who they are) at rates
>significantly lower than Sprint's.  Technically I have PRO-WATS, but
>the people at AT&T Pro-Wats can't figure out (I called them) where the
>additional discounts are coming from.  My AT&T representative claims
>that this is a convenient way for AT&T to avoid what she called
>"restrictive regulation."  Worked out quite well, too.

A couple of notes about AT&T's reseller policy (as it has been
explained to me).  The situation that Mr. D'Uva describes is pretty
common, with one exception.  Your salesperson should NEVER enroll you
under a reseller/ aggregator's program.  Those organizations are NOT
part of AT&T, and other than the agreements and tariffs under which
they buy our services, there is no connection between us.  There are
some co-marketing agreements, but these are limited.  We AT&T
salesfolk are not supposed to even give the appearance of endorsing
their services.

If a customer asks me about an aggregator, I tell him/her as much
about aggregators and resellers as I can.  I try to avoid mentioning
any of them by name.  When faced with losing a customer to the
competition because of a price difference, I would tell them what
aggregators can do.  I could provide - verbally - the names and
numbers of some aggregators.  Policy says I don't give the list in
writing - could be construed as an endorsement.

Now it is good for you, the customer, to get our service at a
discount.  And it's certainly better for AT&T than having you stay
with the competition.  But aggregators and resellers vastly complicate
the vendor/customer relationship.  And some of those guys engage in
really marginal business practices - e.g.  claiming over the phone to
be part of AT&T, vastly overstating the savings available, even
switching service to another LD carrier without notifying the
customer.

Mr. D'Uva's sales rep was also wrong to imply that our tariffs (the
Multi- Location WATS plan, Customer-Specific Term Plan, Revenue Volume
Pricing Plan, and even Software Defined Network) are some kind of
cheesy way to get around the FCC.  We set them up to give discounts to
customers who promise to deliver a high level of usage.  The
aggregator phenomenon is a side effect, and one AT&T is not entirely
happy with.


Jack Dominey|AT&T Commercial Marketing|800-241-4285|AT&TMail !dominey
My own opinions:  Not to be confused with an official statement.

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Date: 28 Sep 90 11:54:34 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!smithd![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> Ken Abrams <pallas!kabra437@uunet.
uu.net> writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 684, Message 3 of 11

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

>>    2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your
>>phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through
>>the phone network.

>quick recap is in order.  While what Mr. Stox says might be true (to
>some degree) sometime in the not too distant future, it is NOT true
>today.  As far as I know, there are no telco owned switches in service
>today that use packet switching for voice.  At the present time, a

The ATT IACS (Integrated Access and Control) system uses compression
to carry voice data. It is a fast packet system using 384kbit chunks
of T1 channels. A whole industry of networking companies is selling
compression equipment for private networks - ATT sells its IACS to
industry to lower their networking costs.

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

From: "Adam J. Ashby" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data vs Voice
Date: 28 Sep 90 13:27:23 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

>In Message-ID: <[e-mail]> adiron![e-mail] (Tom
>Olin) writes:

>>What happens if all those callers simultaneously break into song or in
>>some other way push their duty cycles up to 100%?

>It just occurred to me that all of us people sitting on hold all day
>should have the lowest duty cycle except for the constant
>music-on-hold that raises our duty cycle up to that of the dreaded
>modems.  Does that mean there should be higher rates for companies
>that put people on hold for a large percentage of their calls?  8-)
>Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., [e-mail], 408 356-3886

Not necessarily, BUT there should be a HUGE, financially crippling
charge for those companies that employ the usual muzak-on-hold, even
if they don't keep people on hold that often or for that long.  10
seconds of the usual dross is enough to make me hang up.


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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 10:24:23 PDT
From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: References/Fixes Needed For "Slippage" on Dialins


When you get "twinklies", consisting of characters having a lot of
bits on (especially high order bits) like }, you are probably seeing
your modem attempting to resynchronize.  (1200 bps 212 modems use
synchronous transmission between each other even though you are using
async to talk to them.)

My experience is that the A-#1 cause of this is a defective or
misconfigured interface card on one or both ends of one or more of the
circuits that connect your university's phone switch to the local
telco's digital switch.

What happens is that the a/d and d/a conversions at opposite ends of
the trunk occasionally drop a little data.  In other words, one or
more of the 8k/sec samples was damaged and was discarded at the
receiving end.  This has NO measureable effect on voice - completely
inaudible - but it makes the modems lose sync and they blow 1's bits
at each other until they resync, so you see lots of twinklies.
Sometimes they switches are misclocked so that they drop one sample
out of every N, so you see a periodic burst of twinklies every M
seconds.

This is always repairable, but it will probably take a transmission
specialist to bring his special test equipment and check for it as the
normal telco voice quality measurement stuff won't show the problem.

We had this problem big-time here at UCSD when the main campus was on
one machine and the student housing on another in the same telco
office - the two switches in the same building couldn't talk to each
other without sync slips.  The DMS-100 switch was famous for this - I
heard they had a production run of line cards that came from the
factory misconfigured slightly so that they worked ok for voice but
got lots of slips.  I understand they had to pull every single card
out of the switch to check the jumpers or some equally boring task.

Now that PacBell has fixed that problem with our local switch, we see
sync slip storms only once or so a year - typically when they've just
upgraded one of the central office switches in some other part of
town.  A quick call to their technical people handling the campus gets
it fixed right fast.  I get the impression we find out about it before
they do, sometimes.  (We've got over 200 dialup lines and about 8,000
students and faculty using them 24 hours a day, so we have a large
window of opportunity.)

My experience parallels others in this regard - once you get high
enough in the telco to find someone who can understand what you're
saying, they'll get it fixed.  If you're not in a position to bang on
them from an official campus position, try to talk to whoever runs the
switchroom in your campus phone facility and explain to them what's
going on.  They can get to the right people in the telco, eventually.


Brian

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

From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wsrcc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed
Organization: Wolfgang S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Washington DC.
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 18:06:23 GMT


[e-mail] (D. Birchall) writes:

>Due to my tendency to incur huge dialin-related bills, my family has
>become increasingly interested in finding new and novel ways to extend
>our calling ability.  Our NXX is not local to, and cannot (in theory)
>'scope' to the nearest dialin.  The _next_ NXX, however, is totally
>local (no 'scope' needed) to it.

How about finding some kind soul that has local calling to both areas
(Eg. is half way to your desired destination).  Arrange for them to
get a second line and have it set up to always forward to the desired
number.

Is there a rule against this sort of thing or is this a legal low-cost
alternative to a leased line?


Wolfgang Rupprecht    uunet!{nancy,usaos,media!ka3ovk}!wsrcc!wolfgang
Snail Mail Address:   Box 6524, Alexandria, VA 22306-0524

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #690
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21687;
          29 Sep 90 5:07 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08578;
          29 Sep 90 3:43 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30098;
          29 Sep 90 2:40 CDT
Date:     Sat, 29 Sep 90 1:44:00 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #691
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Sep 90 01:43:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 691

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Changes in Digest Effective October 1 [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed [Bob Lee]
    Re: USEnet PC Access [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Re: Automatic Call Forwarding in Sweden [Dan Sahlin]
    Re: 215 to Join the N0X/N1X World [Carl Moore]
    Re: Now ... The AOS's Slam the COCOT's! [[e-mail]]
    Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude [Carl Moore]
    Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude [Herman Silbiger]
    Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude [Robert Michael Gutierrez]
    Re: Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface [John Nagle]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [C. Harald Koch]
    Re: Industry Ethics (Was: Telecom Humour) [Major Panic]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 1:17:44 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Changes in Digest Effective October 1


Due to the increasing volume of traffic in the Digest, some changes
are required if I am to keep my head above water with the constant,
nagging backlog of messages waiting to go out ....

1. Messages not used will no longer be returned. Your only
acknowlegement from me will be the autoreply message you (usually)
receive.

2. Messages which require a lot of editing work will not be used.

3. Messages in REply to an earlier topic will be severely curtailed.
We will have REplies for a couple days only ... maybe a dozen or so in
all per original article.

4. Excess signature information is presently being trimmed out. If you
cannot get your address in a couple lines at most, then your message
will not likely be used.

5. Make the REply subject header match the original article. I have to
spend a lot of time going back and forth to look these up for you.


Thank you.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Lee)
Subject: Re: Inexpensive Way to Increase Calling Area Needed
Reply-To: lee@gnu (Bob Lee)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 05:57:58 GMT


If you could find a friend in an area whose calling area is local to
you and to the area you want to call, they could get a line installed
there with call forwarding which they could program for you.  They
could even just get call forwarding on their own line and when you
want to make a call, you call them to have them program in the number.
You wait a few seconds, call them back and get forwarded to the number
you want.  They then cancel the forwarding so they get their calls
(the forwarded call in progress isn't affected).  One could get real
clever and program a micro- processor + modem with built in tone
decoder do do it all automatically.

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

Subject: Re: USEnet PC Access
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 20:18:21 CDT
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


[e-mail] (Gary Becker) writes:

> If you find cheap, but not public domain, uucp software I'd be
> interested in the source.  My employer has a policy, to prevent
> viruses, of no use of public domain software on company PC's.

I have written to the original poster, but it appears this may have
some general interest.

Waffle is a PC (and Unix) netmail/netnews/UUCP package. I use it for
my node, and find it quite robust. Source is available, as well. (I
think it's about $120 for PC source) It's shareware, not public
domain.

The shareware executable distribution is available on SIMTEL as
PD2:<MSDOS2.BBS>WAF163.ZIP.

One caveat: if you want to take 16-bit compressed batches of news,
you'll need a different version of compress than the one supplied.

OB disclaimer ... I didn't write it (Tom Dell did, and a fine job it
is!), I just use it and like it.


Roy M. Silvernail |+|  [e-mail]

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

From: Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Automatic Call Forwarding in Sweden
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 12:48:06 GMT


In Sweden the call forwarding facility is available at all modern
(AXE) exchanges. They are rapidly replacing the old exchanges, so it
seems that most cities now have this service.

The service is available automatically for everybody, without asking
the telephone company for anything.  There is no charge for invoking
call forwarding.  The only thing you pay is the cost of the call from
your telephone number at to the phone number that you are forwarding
to.  The caller will not pay for this, but rather the subscriber who
has call forwarding.

The code for invoking call forwarding is  *21*telephone number#.  The
code disabling call forwarding is #21#.

What is the pricing for these services in other countries?  Are the
same codes used for invoking the service?


Dan

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 10:08:18 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 to Join the N0X/N1X World


Local calls WITHIN 215 are and will remain seven digits.  Local calls
from 215 to outside of 215 are 1+NPA+7D and will stay that way.
(Someone -- was it JSol? -- sent me a note about trying a local call
from Pa. to Del. leaving off the 1+ and just using 302+7D in, this
case, the 215-255 exchange at Kemblesville, Chester County; won't this
have to be "cleaned up"? and the 1+ required?)

Didn't you see my message about the local service from Lehighton
(215-377) to Jim Thorpe (717-325)?  That's 1+717-325-xxxx.

Years ago, I noticed no 1+ in the calling instructions for Pittsburgh
(i.e. all calls within 412 were 7D, with NPA+7D for calls outside of
412, with Pittsburgh being too far from NPA line to have local service
to another NPA).  Is 412 now short of empty prefixes?

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 11:50:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Now ... The AOS's Slam the COCOT's!


AT&T has run advertisments for quite a while now in NYC urging
payphone owners to check their carrier, with a special number to call
to reports changes.  It's not just COCOTs, but regular Bell phones,
that have been getting slammed.  On a similar note, in Grand Central
station, in which all of the phones were a year ago changed to have as
their default carrier "Sprint PublicFON Service", enough rail riders
have complained that they are now going back to AT&T.  At least they
aren't COCOTS yet.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 10:00:14 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude


I had a case where I was managing a small outside computer account at
a university, and received a large bill for supposed usage.  It was
off by some order of magnitude (I don't recall what), and I called the
computing center there, and found out someone had already "flagged" my
account because she had figured out I didn't spend that kind of money
on that account.  (Error got fixed.)

In other words, the above case had an internal "sanity" check.  Does
somebody do something like that at the phone company office, at or
before the customer calls?

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 21:10:35 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Uh, doesn't the phone company's accounting software have some sanity
> checks in it?  Do they regularly send out residential service bills
> that require seven digits left of the decimal point?

Most billing software does not seem to have any sanity checks.  For
the third time, my mortgage bank send me first and overdue notice, and
then a penalty notice, for a $ 0.01 (that's right, one US dollar cent)
underpayment.

This underpayment sometimes occurs because my softwarer calculates the
payment to be be one cent less than the bank's software.  I also pay
most of my checks by EFT (CheckFree).  Thus, unless I remember to
manually correct the amount, it goes out wrong.  When I call the bank,
they fix it, and I send them one extra penny the next time.

It costs them 50 cents in postage, plus paper etc. to notify me.
Since one notification costs $ 0.25, it would make sense to accept any
payment that was not more than 25 cents too small, and just add it to
the next month's statement.  That kind of sanity is apparently not
possessed by the designers of accounting and billing programs.


Herman Silbiger

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

From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 02:00:24 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center


optilink![e-mail] (Clayton Cramer) writes:

|> [e-mail] (Jeff Johnson) writes:

|> > Chicago (AP) -- Cori Ward's mother got a little defensive when she
|> > received a phone bill for three weeks' service -- $8.7 million.

[etc]

|> Uh, doesn't the phone company's accounting software have some sanity
|> checks in it?  Do they regularly send out residential service bills
|> that require seven digits left of the decimal point?

No.  Billing centers only have one purpose in life, to bill as fast as
they can, and their thinking is that even a simple subroutine to check
for excessive zeros will slow then down.  The same subroutine would
also bring the accuracy statistics down, something they don't like at
all.  It's better if the mistake was discovered by the customer, then
that inaccurate billing is not added to the company's accuracy stats.

|> > Ward said she had a hard time explaining the mistake to the phone
|> > company.

|> Whoever Ward talked to in customer service, then, needs replacement
|> with a non-robodroid.  If I were in customer service, and someone
|> called up with a $8x10^6 phone bill for three weeks of residential
|> service, this would be immediate evidence of serious billing SNAFUs --
|> I wouldn't need an explanation at all.

This I agree on.  MCI had problems with so-called "stuck clocks," or
billed calls that were extremely excessive (like 600 - 2000 minutes).
These were calls to end offices (CO's) that didn't return supervision,
and the MCI switch had to depend on voice patterns on the line to
determine when to start supervision.  Unfortunately, they sometimes
didn't stop supervision when the call stopped, and it would continue
to clock the call until billing-dump time on the switch, when it
routined the trunk to see it's usage, and discovered that it was not
in use, and "end" that call-record.  The switch merrily dumped that
call onto the mag tape, and the billing center merrily billed it on
the customers bill.

Well, MCI had a standing policy to take the excessive charge off the
bill, *without question*.  Since it was impossible to determine how
long the customer talked for (unless they volunteered), the call was
written off.  Everybody in customer service knew this.  The only thing
that was needed was a copy of the bill which the call appeared on
(this being before MCI had on-line call detail).

If somebody called me at MCI with an $8.7 mil. bill on a *residental*
account, I would *NOT* be arguing with them ... I'd instead give them
my direct address at MCI, and save the bill as a souvenier instead
after the mess was straightned out.


   Robert Michael Gutierrez
   Office of Space Science and Applications,
   NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center.
   Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two-Way Radio/Telephone Dispatch Interface
Date: 28 Sep 90 15:45:32 GMT


>In <TELECOM Digest V10 #668>, Tad Cook <[e-mail]> wrote:

>>I am looking for a device that can go between the telco line side of
>>a key telephone system and a two-way radio system.

     This is how it all started.  Remember Carterfone?

John Nagle

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 12:17:47 EDT
From: "C. Harald Koch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Monty
Solomon - Temp Consultant) writes:

> Well, that seems like an awfully easy thing to rectify with no new
> technology whatsoever: just put two magnetic stripes on the back of
> the card, one with the bankcard data and one with the phonecard data.

There is an ANSI standard describing the magnetic stripe on the back
of the card. I dont have it in front of me, but from what I remember:

The stripe contains four tracks. The first three are the same, while
the fourth is a larger, 'high-density' track. The third track is used
by financial institutions for encoding Visa and Mastercard, bank
cards, etc, and there is an ANSI standard describing this track
separately.

It seems to me, therefore, that the easiest solution (and the one that
should have been used in the first place) is to put the Calling Card
information on one of the other tracks. Then there is no ambiguity;
the card is both optically and magnetically a credit card and a phone
card.

But of course, they never asked me... :-)


C. Harald Koch  VE3TLA                Alias Research, Inc., Toronto ON Canada
[e-mail]      [e-mail]      [e-mail]

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

From: Major Panic <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Industry Ethics (Was: Telecom Humour)
Date: 28 Sep 90 18:07:42 GMT
Organization: New York University


[e-mail] writes:

>Now, anyone who posts a controversial view is open to flamage,
>including Pat (and me for this message).  And responsibility is always
>controversial.  But I congratulate Pat for taking a stand, and not
>sitting by siliently.

I submit that "responsibility" is not controversial.  Its when an
individual clearly takes a stand that needn't be taken that questions
about that person arise. (In some cases you may read "controversial"
as "confrontational".)

>Yes, it is probably true that we can expect these things to happen.
>But no way should we condone them!

This is a forum of supposedly intelligent people discussing points of
interest.  Society dictates what is and is not acceptable.  It is
clear to me that everyone here understands the essential difference
between right and wrong.  Preaching about it in this forum SHOULD
invite scrutiny.  Do you take us all for fools?

>We should all lighten up when it comes to fraud or perhaps incest
>because these things too are just GOING to happen, right?  But wait,
>those are serious, and we're only talking about harmless pranks.
>Calling a person of a particular ethnic background a derogatory name
>is all in good fun; can't they take a joke?

Not "WE should all...", YOU should.  Its quite plain that such
behaviour is looked down upon and often illegal.  Why must you bring
it up?

>"It's going to happen anyways" is a cop-out.  If you don't take a
>stand against unethical behaviour, then you are supporting it BY
>DEFAULT.

Sorry, I don't agree with you there.  I believe that the Usenet
community as a whole to be quite intelligent and it would be contrary
to that belief to say "oh, there goes a bad joke, quick: remind
everyone its wrong to espouse genocide, kill people randomly, ad
nauseum..."

I guess when places like Portal let just anybody post, this should
have been expected :-) Does this mean that every time someone posts
anything even slightly "bad", they'd better have a copious amount of
disclaimer or law-abiding verse to accompany???

sheesh, 'nuff said.

Lee-bo()

p.s. Note that my questions were rhetorical in nature - let's see if
     someone out there just can't let this rest.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #691
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21744;
          29 Sep 90 5:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08578;
          29 Sep 90 3:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac30098;
          29 Sep 90 2:40 CDT
Date:     Sat, 29 Sep 90 2:07:12 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #692
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Sep 90 02:07:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 692

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: List For Italy [Dik T. Winter]
    Re: Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM [John Lister]
    Re: CCITT and Plenary Sessions/Books Summary [Herman Silbiger]
    Re: Another Award Call [David Lemson]
    Re: The Phone Book [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Another Air Cellular Question [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dik T. Winter" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: List For Italy
Date: 28 Sep 90 20:19:14 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> Recently, a note from Paolo Bellutta ([e-mail]) explained
> Italian city codes, which he referred to as "the area codes (called
> prefix)".  Phone books I have seen in the U.S. refer to these as city
> codes, with the "area code" term being used only for U.S./Canada/
> Caribbean area (country code 1).

I would certainly refer to them as area codes; not city codes.  My
feeling with the expression city code is that it serves a particular
city only; this is not true in most countries.  In general a code
serves a large area with multiple cities/villages etc.

> Anyway, I combined that note with
> earlier information I had for Italy (country code 39), trimmed off the
> leading zeroes (used only on calls within Italy?), and came up with
> this list (using anglicized names like Venice, Rome, etc.):

At the end of this note I include a much longer list which was (I
believe) complete a few years ago; it may have been changed of course.
On remark though on this short list:

>541 San Marino (independent country, to change to +295)

This is only partly true; 541 does not only serve San Marino, but also
some neighbouring parts of Italy: Rimini (thus indeed: area code).

Another note: I did not include Vatican City: that is only a single
extension in the Rome area, and a did not Angliciza the Italian names,
for some I would not even know what the English name was if there is
any!  And finally: all typing errors are mine!

Enjoy,

dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
[e-mail]

Area code list for Italy:

10  Genova        435 Pieve di Cadore    66  Civitavecchia
11  Torino        436 Cortina d'Ampezzo    771 Gaeta
121 Pinerolo        437 Belluno        773 Latina
122 Susa        438 Conegliano        774 Tivoli
123 Ceres        439 Feltre        775 Frosinone
124 Pont Canavese    442 Cerca        776 Arpino
125 Ivrea        444 Vicenza        781 Iglesias
131 Alessandria        445 Thiene        782 Tortoli
141 Asti        45  Verona        783 Oristano
142 Casale Monferrato    461 Trento        784 Nuoro
143 Novi Ligure        462 Predazzo        785 Abbasanta
144 \`Acqui Terme    463 Male        789 Olbia
15  Biella        464 Rovereto        79  Sassari
161 Vercelli        465 Pinzolo        80  Bari
163 Borgosesia        471 Bolzano        81  Napoli
165 Aosta        472 Bressanone        823 Santa Maria Capua Vetere
166 Chatillon        473 Merano        824 Benevento
171 Cuneo        474 Dobbiasco        825 Avellino
172 Bra            481 Gorizia        827 Calitri
173 Alba        49  Padova        828 Battipaglia
174 Mondovi        50  Pisa        831 Brindisi
175 Saluzzo        51  Bologna        832 Lecce
182 Albenga        521 Parma        833 Casarano
183 Imperia        522 Reggio nell'Emilia    835 Matera
184 San Remo        523 Piacenza        836 Otranto
185 Rapallo        524 Fidenza        85  Pescara
187 La Spezia        525 Borgo Val di Taro    861 Teramo
19  Savona        532 Ferrara        862 L'Aquila
2   Milano        533 Mesola        863 Avezzano
30  Brescia        534 Porretta Terme    864 Pr\`atola Peligna
31  Como        535 Mirandola        865 Is\`ernia
321 Novara        536 Pavullo nel        871 Chieti
                  Frignano
322 Borgomanero        541 Rimini/San Marino    872 Atessa
323 Omegna        542 Imola        873 Vasto
324 Domodossola        543 Forli        874 Campobasso
331 Busto Arsizio    544 Ravenna        875 T\`ermoli
332 Varese        545 Lugo        881 Foggia
341 Lecco        546 Brisignella        882 San Severo
342 Sondrio        547 Cesena        883 Andria/Barletta
343 Chiavenna        55  Firenze        884 Manfredonia
344 Porlezza        564 Grosseto        885 Cerignola
345 Zogno        565 Piombino        89  Salerno
346 Clusone        566 Gavorrano        90  Messina
35  Bergamo        571 San Miniato Citta    91  Palermo
362 Seregno        572 Pescia        921 Cefalu
363 Caravaggio        573 Pistoia        922 Agrigento
364 Pisogne        574 Prato        923 Trapani
365 Bagolino        575 Arezzo        924 Alcamo
371 Sante Angelo    577 Siena        925 Sciacca
      Lodigiano
372 Cremona        578 Montepulciano    931 Siracusa
373 Crema        583 Lucca        932 Ragusa
374 Soresina        584 Viareggio        933 Gela
375 Viadana        585 Carrara/Massa    934 Caltanissetta
376 Mantova        586 Livorno        935 Enna
377 Casalpusterlengo    587 Pontedera        941 Tortorici
381 Vigevano        588 Volterra        942 Taormina
382 Pavia        59  Modena        95  Catania
383 Voghera        6   Roma        961 Catanzaro
384 Mortara        70  Cagliari        962 Crotone
385 Stradella        71  Ancona        963 Vibo Valentia
386 Ostiglia        721 Pesaro        964 Locri
39  Monza        722 Urbino        965 Reggio di Calabria
40  Trieste        731 Iesi        966 Palmi Calabro
41  Venezia        732 Sassoferrato    967 Chiaravalle Centrale
421 Eraclea        733 Macerata        968 Nicastro
422 Treviso        734 Fermo        971 Acerenza/Potenza
423 Montebelluna    735 San Benedetto del    972 Rionero in Vulture
                  Tronto
424 Asiago        736 Ascoli Piceno    973 Lauria
425 Rovigo        737 Camerino        974 Agropoli
426 \`Adria/Porte Tolle    742 Foligno        975 Sala Colsilina
427 Maniago        743 Spoleto        976 Muro Lucano
428 Tarvisio        744 Terni        981 Castrovillari
429 Montagnana        746 Rieti        982 Paola
431 Grado        75  Perugia        983 Rossano Calabro
432 Udine        761 Viterbo        984 Cosenza
433 Ampezzo        763 Orvieto        985 Verbicaro
434 Pordenone        765 Fara in Sabina    99  Taranto


dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
[e-mail]

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

From: John Lister <slhisc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Nynex Fast Track: Phone Directories on CD-ROM
Organization: Shearson Lehman Brother, Inc.
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 20:32:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barton F.
Bruce) writes:

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

>> Someone has already made posted an article here discussing Nynex's
>> CD-ROMs containing telephone directory information for Nynex's
>> operating companies, New York Telephone and New England Telephone.

>Having the phone book on CD-ROM is a tremendous idea, but what NYNEX is
>doing just seems so horribly WRONG.

>I see this as the non-regulated NYNEX taking advantage of their
>position and really ripping off the customers of their regulated
>operating companies NYTel and NET&T. The Feds recently fined NYNEX for
>other abuses, and MA and NY need to get them for the same violations.

>The phone company provides a pile of local books free for every phone,

The problem is (as I understand it) is that the advertising pays for
much of the cost of printing the phone book.  However, the solution is
not really the CD-ROM (though think of what the junk mail people could
do if they got hold of just about all the households in a given area
conveniently packaged...)  rather, it is to provide online access,
which is what the French have done.  They have given away a (cheap)
terminal to everyone with a phone for (I think) free directory
lookups.

A side-effect of this is that the terminal can be used for lots of
other access.  I have heard that Bank at home, and Prodigy-like
services are making a pile of money.


John Lister

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 20:58:09 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: CCITT and Plenary Sessions/Books summary
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> It appears that the book colours are forming a cycle. If so, the books
> coming out of the '92 conference, wherever that will be, will be
> white.

A decision has been made by Dr. Theo Irmer, the Director of the CCITT,
that color books will no longer be published.  Instead,
Recommendations will be published when approved.  This approval no
longer needs to wait until a Plenary Assembly.  The 1988 Melbourne
Plenary Assembly approved. among othrt things, Resolution No.2.  This
resolution empowers each Study Group to approve a Recommenadtion at
any time by going through a defined process.  Once the Recommendtion
is approved it will be issued and published by the CCITT.

At the recent September meeting of Study Group VIII (Telematic
Terminals, i.e.  facsimile, Teletex, videotex, document transfer) two
revised Recommendations, one new Recommendation, and amendments to 5
other recommendations were approved for these Res. 2 procedures.

>The announcement for the '92 conference will likely show up in an
>edition of the ITU's _Telecommunication_Journal_ at some point.
>On a side note, it is interesting to note that the CCITT has developed
>standards for a programming language called CHILL (CCITT High Level
>Language). I don't know if this is actually in use anywhere, or if
>there have been any CHILL compilers/interpreters developed. It's an
>interesting language, what with various set operators developed, and
>the typical 'if', 'for' and 'while' looping mechanisms.

Yes CHILL is used, mainly in the electronic switching system environment.


Herman Silbiger

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 22:17:04 CDT
From: David Lemson <FREE0612@uiucvmd>
Subject: Re: Another Award Call


In a message of Wed, 26 Sep 90, Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
writes:

>Does anyone know where 904-492 is?  (Yes, I know it's somewhere in
>northern Florida.)  I just got, on my office phone, a so-called award
>notification call, was given (in a RECORDED message) a two-character
>"claim number", and was told to call 904-492-0001 during the next 24
>hours.  Supposedly, "they" were trying to reach me and were having
>problems.  How would "they" get my office number?  That's on 301-278
>and I do not think 301-278 has any residences on it.

Here's my story about these schemes.  I almost got into one a while back.

About three years ago while living in Sacramento, CA, I read an ad in
the local newspaper (the Bee, I believe) for "Make money with your
computer" with an 800 number.  I called, and waded through an
auto-attendant to learn that as their employee, I would earn $400 per
week for only "1-2 hours of system maintenance per day."  I gave my
name and address, and received an application in a few days.  I also
gave the number to a good friend of mine who also had a PC.  The
application asked for information about my PC, including hard disk
size and if I had a modem.  One notable place on the application
indicated that if I was selected to be an employee, I would receive
equipment and software valued at $1500.  "Would I be averse to sending
them a fully refundable $600 deposit?"  I answered absolutely YES.  My
friend that "maybe" he would send the deposit if asked.  Well, you
guessed it, I was denied and he was approved.

The scheme on this one was that they sent him a Watson Voicemail board
(from Natural Microsystems) and several megabytes of recorded
information.  He had to type in phone numbers from the phone book each
night.  During the day, the computer would dial each number, wait
until it heard a voice, and deliver the message.  It was a quiz about
entertainment trivia that anyone over the age of 10 could get all
correct.  Once a person called by the Watson answered about 3
questions right, the machine would give you a "special code number"
that was only good for 30 minutes.  You had to call a number somewhere
on the east coast, give them the special code number, and you would be
given another quiz.  This was supposedly much harder, and if you got
all of those right, you would win $50.  Of course, before you got to
hear those questions, you had to listen to a spiel about whatever it
was that they were selling.  BTW, the code number was always the same,
of course.

(Another aside: I don't know why they said the equipment was worth
$1500..a Watson board costs $200 and the software from them might add
up to $500...)

They told my friend to try not to dial businesses, and definitely
especially to avoid programming government and LAWYER's offices!  Hmm,
wonder why.  Well, my friend worked for him for a few weeks, and got
his security deposit back.  (I forgot to mention, as you all guessed,
they did make him send it in after he got the Watson board) However,
he received no more pay checks after the initial refund of the
deposit.  He was in touch with the company and they kept saying that
they were having "financial troubles" and the employees would
definitely receive the back pay.

The employees stopped working when they received letters from the US
Postmaster General.  The mastermind of this scheme was being indicted in
hundreds of counts of interstate mail and wire fraud.  It seems the guy had
started several of these types of schemes before.

The outcome?  Another company came by about a year later and offered
to employ all of the employees in a new, supposedly legitimate plan to
do the same thing.  The employees never were asked to return the
Watson boards or the VMS software (a piece of software for Watson
valued at a few hundred dollars).  So, my friend has a Watson to show
for 2 months of fairly boring work.

Just a bit of an insight as to how these companies that call you get their
slaves ...er ... employees.

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Phone Book
Date: 28 Sep 90 22:16:39 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> * {Ramparts Magazine} printed instructions on how to build a "mute
> box" (something to suppress call supervision on incoming long distance
> calls).  While Ramparts was in rather illegal territory with that
> article, the actions Ma Bell took were probably the issue here. Bell
> agents were ordered to find all extant copies of the offending
> {Ramparts Magazine}, trying to get the subscription lists, going after
> newsstand dealers, threatening any radio stations that mentioned the
> action, etc.

My mother was working for Los Angeles County Library at the time the
Ramparts article appeared; orders came down from the top to cut out
the offending article and destroy it.  But she made a copy first and
brought it home.  (Not that we ever did anything with it -- she just
felt uncomfortable having stuff disappear into "the memory hole").


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Air Cellular Question
Date: 28 Sep 90 11:54:55 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 28 at  0:14, [e-mail] writes:

> The recent discussion reminds me of a question I've been wondering
> about for a while.  How do the pay phones on airplanes work?  I assume
> they must be some kind of cellular with a very large cell.

Correct.

> What wavelengths do they use?

They operate around 950 MHz. This is a thorn in the side of
broadcasters, since every service and his brother seems to be trying
to cut a piece out of this frequency region. Radio broadcasters use
the band from 944 to 951 MHz to relay program material from studio
locations to transmitter sites. Mention "AirPhone" in the presence of
a broadcast engineer and see what kind of reaction you get.

> capacity does the system have and how much use does it get?  Who runs
> them?  And, for that matter, why don't they interfere with the pilots'
> radio communication?

Don't know the lastest figures on how successful "AirPhone" is these
days. Last time I even thought about it, GTE was trying to get its
"experimental" license extended (it did manage to do that). They don't
interfere with pilots' radio communication because the frequencies are
different. Also, and more importantly, the units are designed and
installed as an intregal part of the aircraft's communication system.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #692
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07309;
          29 Sep 90 21:23 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25976;
          29 Sep 90 19:54 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19346;
          29 Sep 90 18:50 CDT
Date:     Sat, 29 Sep 90 18:46:15 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: ISDN Introduction
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Sep 90 18:45:00 CDT    Special: ISDN Introduction

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News [Excerpted by Jody Kravitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jody Kravitz <foxtail![e-mail]>
Subject: An Introduction to ISDN From the CERFnet News
Date: Sat 29 Sep 90 18:00:00 CDT


The most recent issue of the CERFnet news contained a long and useful
article on ISDN.  I've excerpted the article from the newsletter:

CERFnet News
California Education and Research Federation Network
August-September 1990
Volume 2, Number 5

    <introduction and 5 articles deleted>


AN INTRODUCTION TO ISDN
by Dory Leifer


Motivated by the ever increasing public need to send digital
information in the form of voice, data or image, national governments
along with private corporations have developed a scheme called
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN). Although this concept
dates back to the early 1970s, only recently have standards been
developed. The standardization of ISDN has resulted in an emerging
market of ISDN equipment and service plans. This technology will have
widespread impact on both suppliers and users of network equipment and
services.

    In the United States, all seven regional Bell operating
companies have initiated limited testing and deployment of ISDN.
General deployment is expected during the mid to late 1990s. Our
European and Japanese counterparts are committed to the nationwide
implementation of ISDN.

    This article introduces the basic concepts of telephone
networks and ISDN and explores possible applications of ISDN
technology.

The telephone network

    In order to understand why ISDN evolved, let's look at the
current telephone network. The basic telephone is an analog instrument
connected to a pair of wires. The pair of wires from a subscriber's
premises, a private home for example, is connected over approximately
a mile of cable to a local telephone company's central office. This
pair of wires is commonly called the "last mile" or local loop.

    Inside the central office, the pair is attached to a device
called a switch. The switch converts the analog signal to digital by
sampling it thousands of times a second. The switch also routes the
call by examining the telephone number called. If the call is
long-distance, it is routed by the local telephone company, Michigan
Bell, for example, to an Interexchange Carrier (IEC) such as AT&T,
MCI, or US Sprint. The IEC routes the call to the local telephone
company at the destination, still preserving the digital nature of the
signal.

    This conversion between analog and digital seems reasonable
for voice since humans (even programmers) cannot hear or speak
digitally. But what if we intend to exchange digital information by
connecting two computers together? In that case, we must convert
digital information from our computers into analog signals using a
modem.

    When these signals reach the central office, they are
converted back to digital. The reverse process is used at the
destination switch to convert the digital signal back to analog and
pass it to the destination modem which finally turns it back for the
last time to a computer bit stream.

    This process is not only redundant, it is inefficient. When
voice is converted from analog to digital, a bit rate of 56,000
bits-per-second (bps) is typically dedicated to carrying it. This rate
is required to make sure that the voice will sound natural when it is
converted back to analog. Since the telephone network treats modems
the same way, a rate of 56,000 bps is also required to convey modem
signals. However, most modems send and receive at or under 2400 bps.
The rest of the capacity is wasted.

    Modems serve another purpose apart from digital transmission.
Most modern modems incorporate automatic dialing and answer functions.
We say that an autodial modem exchanges signalling information with
the telephone network.  The modem can be instructed to place a call
and report its progress: examples of what it can report back are
"ringing", "busy", and "no circuits available".

    Again in this case, because the telephone network is designed
for voice, computer equipment is disadvantaged. The modem requires
special hardware to detect (actually to listen and guess) the sound of
a busy signal, ring, or call incomplete message (usually preceded by
three tones). This type of signalling is not only analog but it is in
band: that is, signals and real transmitted information use the same
channel. Sharing a single circuit to convey both transmission and
signalling information imposes serious limitations.

    ISDN relieves the limitations of both in-band signaling and
analog transmission. The next section describes a standard ISDN
interface which provides end-to-end digital transmission and separates
the signaling functions from the transmission functions. ISDN basic
rate interface.

    The ISDN basic rate interface is the standard interface to
connect subscribers to the ISDN. This interface uses the existing
telephone wire pair.  Instead of using this pair for analog signaling
and transmission, only digital information is conveyed. On this wire,
three channels or digital paths exist.  The channels are multiplexed
by giving each a time slice on the wire. Since ISDN channels are half
duplex or uni-directional, a "ping-pong" method is used so that when
one end transmits, the other listens. The ping pong happens with every
tick of some central clock so the link appears to be bidirectional.

    Each ISDN circuit includes three channels:

      *  2 B or Bearer channels for data or voice (each
       64,000 bps)
      *  1 D or Data channel for signaling or packet
       data (16,000 bps)

These channels provide both signaling and transmission. Notice that
there is no distinction between voice and data on the B-channel. The
ISDN treats both as a stream of bits. The bits have significance only
to the terminating equipment such as a telephone for voice or a
computer for data. When a subscriber wishes to place a call, the
terminating equipment sends a packet on the D-channel containing the
information needed by the network in order to establish the call.
Assuming that the call succeeds, the subscriber may then send either
voice or data on a B-channel. To end the call, a take-down packet is
sent. This is analogous to hanging up.

Bearer channel transmission

    The B-channel is referred to as a clear channel because of its
ability to pass an arbitrary bit stream transparently. In reality,
arbitrary bit patterns have limited uses since the B-channel must
adhere to the disciplines of existing voice and data networks. Sending
voice using some non-standard encoding would preclude placing calls
between the ISDN and the existing telephone network. A standard Pulse
Code Modulation (PCM) scheme has been standardized for digitized voice
because it is compatible with the existing voice network.

    Correspondingly, a data protocol must be employed on the
B-channel if the subscriber is to reach hosts on the existing packet
services which are not yet on the ISDN. Even if the host is on the
ISDN, the network provides no guarantee that the data will be
transmitted without errors. This is not a serious problem with
terminal sessions (we live with error-prone modems), but for computer
to computer connections (for example, performing a file transfer) an
error-correction protocol may be required.

    The B-channel itself provides services that comply with layer
one of the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Reference model (the
physical layer).  That is, it offers a medium through which bits may
pass.

    If a subscriber uses the ISDN to call another computer
directly, a minimum of a layer-two protocol is involved for error
correction and flow control. In many cases, the subscriber will wish
to access a host on a packet network like Telenet. In this case, both
a link layer (OSI layer two) and network layer (layer three) are
required. The subscriber then uses the X.25 protocol between the ISDN
and his or her machine. An interworking unit acts as a gateway between
the ISDN and the packet network, using the X.75 protocol.

    A somewhat similar service could be deployed by Merit in the
future to provide Internet access for ISDN subscribers. Off-campus
users could place an ISDN call to an Internet gateway. They could then
access TCP/IP applications like file transfer, remote terminal, and
mail. ISDN provides added support in this case: since the ISDN would
report the caller's address, a unique Internet address could be
associated with a particular calling address. Other services which
require authentication of the caller would also be facilitated by this
feature.

The data channel

    The Data or D-Channel was originally specified by the CCITT
for signaling but later was re-specified to include both signaling and
transmission of packet data. Unlike its sister B-channel, the
D-channel is not designed to carry an arbitrary bit stream. The
D-channel uses both a link layer, Link Access Protocol-D (LAPD),
similar to HDLC, and a network layer, Q.931, similar to X.25.

    The D-channel may be used for packet data when data throughput
is not of high priority. No call set-up or take-down is required when
using the D-channel to interface in packet mode.

    The signaling protocol on the D-channel is based on the set of
signaling messages needed to establish and release a simple 64,000 bps
B-channel voice or data connection. Included in call set-up are:

  *     Flexible addressing compatible with many standard
    network
  *     Required data rate
  *    IEC (long distance carrier) selection
    if applicable
  *     Notification if line forwarded to
    another address
  *     User information text

Signaling information is exchanged between a subscriber and the ISDN.
But this information must also be passed within the ISDN to assure
timely circuit establishment, efficient allocation of resources, and
accurate billing and accounting between various service providers. A
protocol called Common Channel Signaling Number Seven (CCS7) performs
these functions. CCS7 was designed by AT&T and is based on the
international standard CCITT Signaling System Seven (SS7). CCS7 is
already used on a wide scale for signaling in the non-ISDN world but
will be essential to support ISDN.

Equipment

    Compatibility with existing equipment is extremely important
to most of the users who will migrate from switched and private
networks to ISDN.  Therefore, most of the early ISDN equipment which
users will purchase will be adapters for non-ISDN devices such as
asynchronous terminals with RS-232 interfaces, 3270 style terminals
with IBM SDLC and coax interfaces, and various LANs. An interface to
connect common analog telephones will surely be a hot seller.

    Many of these devices are quite complex because they have to
support both signalling and transmission. For example, an adapter
which allows RS-232 attachment for terminals needs to interface with
both the B- and D- channels.

    Under development by several manufacturers are integrated
terminals that combine voice, data, and signaling into a compact
desktop package.  Initially, these terminals will function as
expensive desktop space savers, replacing a separate phone and
terminal, but later they will provide access to truly integrated
services.

What is an integrated service?

    An integrated service is one that is capable of providing a
wide assortment of information well organized into a single package.
This information may be, for example, in the form of voice, computer
data, video, or facsimile.

    Initially, services available on ISDN will not be integrated.
Voice and data, although they may be accessed together on an
integrated terminal, have little to do with one another. Voice calls
will involve only voice and data calls only data. We speak of this
relationship as Service Coexistence.

    The second generation of ISDN services will be integrated. For
example, consider a future bank credit card service. A card holder who
disputes an entry in the credit card bill places an ISDN call to the
bank. At the bank, a customer representative equipped with an ISDN
terminal answers the call. The bank representative immediately has
access to the caller's name and records since the ISDN passes the
customer's originating address. The bank uses this address as a key
into its customer database. The representative can address the
customer by name when answering the phone. When the customer explains
the nature of the problem, the bank representative retrieves the
previous month's bill, which appears simultaneously on both screens.
If the statement is in error, the balance can be recomputed before the
customer's eyes.  Integrated services can also facilitate research
collaboration via multi-media voice, image, and control functions
between scientists.

    Applications which require exchange of only short, infrequent
messages can use services offered by the D- channel. Applications such
as burglary alerting, energy control, credit card verification, cable
TV requests for service, and home shopping can be accomplished using
the D-channel packet facilities.

Advantages of circuit switching

    Although the data rate of 64,000 bps may be too slow for
bandwidth-intensive applications like real-time high definition
imaging, ISDN's circuit-switched capabilities do offer several
advantages to the research community over packet-switched networks
like Merit, NSFNET or ARPANET. Certain real-time applications which
require cross-country connectivity can be run over ISDN. Although the
individual circuits which comprise modern packet networks may be much
faster than 64,000 bps, the overhead involved in packet switching and
queueing is far in excess of similar circuit switching functions on an
established call.

    Packet networks try to optimize aggregate performance across
the entire network. Real-time applications are usually interested not
in averages but rather in worst cases. If you get a 64,000 bps ISDN
circuit, you will be guaranteed 64,000 bps service for the duration of
the connection. Throughput on a packet network might average 150,000
bps, for example, but might fall below 64,000 bps 10% of the time,
causing serious problems for a real-time system.

    Another advantage ISDN has over packet networks is its
potential ability to interface to a wide variety of digital laboratory
equipment. The ISDN B-channel offers clear channel transmission. There
is no protocol overhead involved in order to exchange information.
This bit pipe can be used, for example, between detector/collector
paired devices without the complication and expense of packet protocol
gateway machines at each end of the connection. ISDN interfaces will
eventually be readily available in VLSI, which will allow them to work
with a wide variety of equipment at minimal additional cost.


High speed (broadband) ISDN

    Many argue that 64,000 bps, based on the transmission capacity
of the existing telephone system, is too slow to provide a wide
assortment of integrated services. High-definition television,
computer-aided design, medical imaging, and high-quality audio all
require far more bandwidth than available in the current ISDN. An
evolving standard for broadband ISDN (B-ISDN) may include 150
Megabit-per-second subscriber lines over fiber optic local loops.

Conclusion

    ISDN will extend the capabilities of today's telephone
networks, thus providing a market for new services. Most introductory
services will apply service co-existence; services will be described
as "running over" ISDN.  ISDN will do for data networks what the
Communications Act of 1934 did for voice -- provide a ubiquitous
method for public transmission. Pioneer users of this technology will
have both the opportunity and the challenge of helping to shape the
future of telecommunications. *

(Dory Leifer is a programmer for the Merit Computer Network, located
in Michigan. This article was originally published in the Merit
Network News, Vol 3 # 3, October, 1988).

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

CERFNET NEWS AVAILABLE IN HARD COPY

Send a request to [e-mail] if you would like to be added to the
hard copy distribution of CERFnet News. Postscript versions are also
available via anonymous ftp to NIC.CERF.NET in the subdirectory
cerfnet_news.

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special: ISDN Introduction
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08324;
          29 Sep 90 22:25 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28636;
          29 Sep 90 20:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25976;
          29 Sep 90 19:54 CDT
Date:     Sat, 29 Sep 90 19:20:51 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #693
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 29 Sep 90 19:20:42 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 693

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Packetized Voice (was: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines) [Vance Shipley]
    New Caller-ID Variation [Jeff Sicherman]
    ATM Card PIN Security [Lauren Weinstein]
    Direct Dialing From Saudia Arabia [Jeff Sicherman]
    Sprint Billing Screwup [Steve Elias]
    FCC Changes Wiring Rules [Telephony Magazine via Roger Clark Swann]
    COCOT Woes [Marc C. Poulin]
    The End of Sleaze? [AT&T News Briefs via John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Packetized Voice (was: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 01:10:19 GMT


This thread has taken us into a discussion of Voice Packetization.
One of my favourite subjects in telecom!

As has been noted, virtually ALL voice traffic is carried over circuit
switched channels with fixed, dedicated, bandwidths.  No extra traffic
capacity is realized when breaks in the conversations take place.  By
packetizing the voice traffic, and using common circuits to route it,
utilization would be optimized.

I'm sure the Digest will hear many reasons why this is not currently
done, why it shouldn't be done on public networks etc., but I wish to
put forward an ideal application for transmission of voice information
by packet technology.

VOICE MAIL NETWORKING!

Many voice mail systems on the market have networking capabilities;
Meridian Mail, Octel and others.  The way they "network" is by
allowing users to compose messages locally and then the system batches
many messages for later transmission.  One call is placed to the
remote system and the messages are played back along with the
necessary DTMF commands.  Now remember that these same voice messages
were digitized and compressed for storage on the system when they were
recorded.  Now they are uncompressed and turned back into analog for
transmission and put back on disk at the receiving end!  Now this may
be neccesary in a multi-vendor public network but what about the
corporate ISDN network?

  The way it should work is this; a user calls another user at another
location and he is forwarded to voice mail.  He hears the outgoing
message of the other user but is connected to the local voice mail
system, for composition of a message, automatically.  The expensive,
circuit switched, long distance connection is dropped.  Once the
message is digitized, compressed and stored it is ready for
transmission.  A connection is established to the far end voice mail
system again, but this time it is a packet connection.  In the ideal
situation it is over the D-channel of the TIE lines to this location
using what would otherwise be unused bandwith (in ISDN PRA the
D-channel is allocated 64K which is far more than it needs for most
applications).

  This scheme takes advantage of the compression techniques inherent
in voice mail systems, the lack of a real time delivery need and the
unused bandwith of existing facilities.  Should be a winner don't you
think?

Any comments?

Vance Shipley    SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Waterloo, Ontario   [phone]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 12:13:43 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: New Caller-ID Variation


   I'm not really opening up the Caller-ID discussion here, just a
thought for a related service, called maybe CALLER CLASS BLOCKING or
something.

  There ought to be something like a NO SOLICITORS sign for phone
lines. Telemarketers (which we may define to be businesses, agencies,
or charities making unsolicited calls that are not part of any
on-going transaction or relationship with the callee), would have a
code transmitted with their number that identified the call/caller as
such. The recipeint could elect to have such calls blocked or perhaps
Caller-ID equipment could reject/block them directly (e.g.  don't
interrupt me during dinner with this junk). The CO blocking option
would be like the service now that let's you (try to) get off various
mailing lists to cut down on junk mail. Failure to use the
telemarketer signature or identify the lines use as such when
obtaining it would be cause for termination of service and fines and
other legal action.

  Please no peppering with the technical difficulties. I make no claim
to the practicality.


Jeff Sicherman      [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 10:54:49 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATM Card PIN Security


There are two different scenarios for ATM PIN validation.  Up until a
relatively few years ago, most of the systems did all their validation
within the ATM terminal itself, using the match between the encrypted
form of the PIN on the card and the user's entry after being run
through the same algorithm.  These were usually four digit PIN
systems.

While some banks (particularly small ones not connected to external
banking networks) may still be using this technique, I believe that
most of the major banks, or most banks associated with the large ATM
networks (e.g. STAR, etc.) no longer use this technique.

Instead, the encrypted PIN is stored on the card, but is fed along
with other user data to a regional or central network where the
validation is performed.  This is generally required by the interbank
networks for a variety of reasons.  In addition to PIN encoding, many
of the ATM to network lines use higher level (e.g. DES) encryption
these days.

Under this system, when you take your card into a bank for a new PIN,
they run the card through a machine that writes the encrypted PIN on
the card, and that same machine calls a central computer and feeds the
information into the main system.  At Wells Fargo you can watch this
all happen, since it all occurs in realtime while you sit there.

Under systems that used the older "in-ATM" validation, you would find
that your PIN was accepted as soon as you finished entering it.  Under
the newer systems, the PIN won't be accepted until there has been
validation from the regional/central system.  Since this introduces a
delay of some seconds in most cases, the instructions on these ATMs
usually tell you to go ahead and start entering your transaction
without waiting after you've entered the PIN.  They store up the
additional data and as soon as the PIN verification is complete the
transaction goes through.

Most of this change was driven by the rise of the interbank ATM
networks which let you walk up to tens of thousands of ATMs around the
country and withdraw money from any of them (for an additional fee, of
course).

   --Lauren--

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 01:14:24 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Direct Dialing From Saudia Arabia


  According to a news article, U.S. forces in Saudia Arabia will be
able to use USADirect service as of October 3 to call home.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Billing Screwup
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 07:40:51 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Every time I move, Sprint seems to do some new random thing to my
Sprint accounts.  Yesterday I got a bill for $100 of Sprint Plus dial
1 calls, from a number in upstate New York.  I called and convinced
the service rep that something was indeed wrong when they were billing
me in Massachusetts for calls made from a 1+ account in the 716 area
code.

Some time over the last month, an errant customer service rep added
this 716 number to my account.  Supposedly everything is straightened
out now.  I'll believe that when I see my next bill!  Just for yuks, I
called the dude with the 716 number a little while later.  He told me
that Sprint had just called him, too, in order to straighten out the
billing mess.

The best part of this fiasco was when the customer service rep started
insisting that I had sent in a $300 payment the previous month.  My
long distance bills are large, but not that large!  I told her that if
they wanted to credit my account with $300, I wouldn't complain.  It
sure would have beat that silly WD-40 promo...


eli

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 15:00:32 pdt
From: Roger Clark Swann <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC Changes Wiring Rules


 From TELEPHONY / AUGUST 20, 1990

New FCC Wiring Rules Take Effect
Charles Mason, Washington Editor


The Federal Communications Commission rejected petitions to delay the
implementation of new inside wiring rules last week, allowing the
agency's revisions to take effect on schedule.

  Those revisions liberalize how customers may connect inside wiring
and how far inside a customer's premises a telco may set the point of
demarcation between its wiring and the subscriber's.

  The Bell regional holding companies, the U.S. Telephone Association
and others had asked for a delay of the rules to work out several
issues. The petitioners argued that they could not comply with the new
regulations by the Aug. 13 implementation date and that rule revisions
could end up harming the network.

   In rejecting these arguments, the FCC's Common Carrier Bureau said
there was no evidence of danger to the network and that there were
provisions for making a transition to the new rules. Telcos, for
example, would not have to immediately notify customers of the changes
but could do so over a period of time as part of their "ongoing
consumer education efforts," the bureau said.

   A major provision of the revised rules requires that the
demarcation point between the telco side of the wiring and the
customer's side be no more than 12 inches from where the wiring enters
the property. The FCC found that the demarcation point sometimes was
well inside a customer's premises, frustrat- ing consumer's ability to
efficiently connect inside wiring since they are not allowed to
connect wiring on the telco side.

   However, the FCC order did not end the controversy.  Nynex, filed a
petition asking for further clarification on the 12 inch rule and
requested that the FCC take a second look at other areas.  It is still
unclear how telcos are supposed to deal with the demarcation issue in
conplex wiring arrangements, Nynex said.

   Also, last week, the FCC approved a New York Telephone tariff for
discounts on digital data and high-capacity services, rebuffing
attempts by Metropolitan Fiber Systems and Teleport Communications
Group to have the proposal rejected. New York Tel plans to offer
discounted rates for voice-grade and provate-line service. Both MFS
and Teleport complete with New York Tel to provide access services to
large customers in New York City.

  **** end of article ****

    Roger Swann               |    uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @                    |
The Boeing Company            |

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

From: "Marc C. Poulin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: COCOT Woes
Date: 28 Sep 90 23:12:02 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo, Biophysics Dept.


My very first experience with a COCOT today was indeed an interesting
one.

I wanted to call my bank, which is an 800 number.  I dialed the
number, waited a bit, and then an operator came on the line and asked
me for the number I was calling from.  No problem, I thought.  Wrong.
There was no number on the phone at all.  I told the operator this,
and she said she couldn't connect me without it, and suggested I dial
0.

Instead, I dialed 877-4000, which was the number printed on the phone
to call for service.  The person who answered there told me that she
didn't have the information available.  Fine.

I dialed 0, waited for the operator, explained the situation to him,
and asked him to give me the number of the phone I was calling from.
He told me he was "not authorized to give out that information."  I
took a shot in the dark and told him that since there was no possible
way for me to connect to an 800 number, this phone was in violation of
state law.  I was immediately transferred to a supervisor.  I
explained the situation to him, and he told me that since the phone in
question didn't have incoming service, they didn't need to post a
number on it.  I asked him how I could reach an 800 number, and he
didn't give me an answer.  After mentioning the illegality of this to
him, he took my name and number and told me someone from their legal
department would get back to me.

Other relevant info:
       The phone is owned by Buffalo Coin Phone
       Their carrier is ITI.
       The missing number on the phone was definitely NOT caused by
           vandalism.  It was simply blank where the number should be. Later,
           I noticed the same thing on another phone on the premises.

My questions:
       Was my claim that 800 access must be provided true?
       If so, could someone point me to relevant sections of NYS law
         so that I have firmer legal footing.
       How about those Out-of-Order stickers mentioned recently?
       If this isn't resolved, what is my next step?

Thanks very much for any relevant information.  It's four hours later,
and I'm still incensed that I couldn't make my damn call!!!


   Marc C. Poulin        (I speak for myself only)
U: ...!{uunet!decuac|kddlab|mcnc|ucsd|watmath}!acsu.buffalo.edu!poulin
I: poulin@{acsu.buffalo.edu|softvax.radc.af.mil} [e-mail]
B: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: *Usually* the operator does not have to ask your
number when you call an 800 number ... my assumption is there may have
been a temporary equipment failure and the equipment failed to capture
your number. Try the call again from the same phone, and also from
regular payphones to see.  Payphones *are* supposed to have the number
displayed on them -- this is required by tariff. So you might want to
invest a couple dollars in a roll of adhesive labels that you can
write on. Print the message "OUT OF ORDER - PROGRAMMING/TARIFF VIOLATIONS"
on the stickers and place them on the phone(s) so they cover the coin
slot and prevent money from being inserted accidentally by someone
else. Do it to each phone which responds in the same way, and continue
doing it frequently (the company which owns the COCOTS will no doubt
tear the sticker off) until the changes required by law are effected. PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: The End of Sleaze?
Date: 28 Sep 90 23:40:21 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


         AT&T NEWS BRIEFS
         Friday, September 28, 1990

900 SERVICES -- Sleaze merchants and con artists threaten to turn 900
number dial-in services into the Times Square of the phone industry
unless tough national standards are adopted, Congress was told
Thursday. ... The hearing before the House Energy and Commerce
subcommittee on telecommunications and finance was held to consider a
bill by Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., that would impose federal
restrictions on the phone audiotext industry.  Among other things, the
bill would require free blocking of 900 numbers; free introductory
messages describing the service; clearly stated charges and billing
procedures; and a one-time opportunity to stop charges incurred
through misunderstandings or unauthorized use.  The FCC would be given
oversight of the audiotext industry.  Industry representatives opposed
the bill. ... San Jose Mercury News, 19E.

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

So the federal agency that has declared that nothing not suitable for
an eight-year-old child may EVER be aired on broadcast television will
now police information providing services? This ought to be good. But
then if IPs put programming on that is attractive to (and suitable
for) children, then the screams will rise about how IPs are conning
kids.

I have no argument with the proposed safeguards described above, but
then the FCC seems to go overboard in its enforcement sometimes (just
ask any broadcaster). To bad it can't be so aggressive towards COCOTs.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #693
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23536;
          30 Sep 90 12:31 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16881;
          30 Sep 90 11:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15685;
          30 Sep 90 9:58 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Sep 90 9:26:43 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #694
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Sep 90 09:26:26 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 694

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Is a Foreign Exchange Worth the Cost? [Carl Moore]
    800 Recording Question [Will Martin]
    AUTOVON Precedence Dialling (was: Re: 16 Buttons -- Not 12?) [Brent Capps]
    My New 1AESS Generic - Some Missing Features [Steve Rhoades]
    Calling Card Questions [Lawrence M. Geary]
    Which Came First? [John Parsons]
    Yellow Pages Revenues [Marc Kwiatkowski]
    ComSystems Long Distance [John L. Shelton]
    Vanity Phone Numbers [Scott Coleman]
    REPOSITORY at Your Organization? Anyone? [M. Hemmat]
    Telecom Library BBS Available [David Leibold]
    NPA/NXX Listings Available [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 11:55:51 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is a Foreign Exchange Worth the Cost?


A former neighbor of my parents (residence is in the Wilmington, Del.
exchange) had so many calls to/from the Chester/Marcus Hook/Woodlyn
area in Pa. that they used Holly Oak as a foreign exchange.  Holly Oak
(a nonpostal name in Delaware) is local to those Pa. points, but
Wilmington is not.  You should be welcome to examine the FX rates, but
there may be quite a large volume of calls required to make it
worthwhile compared to using normal long-distance.

Along Foulk Road (state route 261 in Delaware & Pennsylvania), there
is a case where points maybe only 3 miles apart are long distance.
Just south of Silverside Road in Delaware, you are in 302-478, a
Wilmington exchange.  But just over the Pa. line, you are in 215-485
Marcus Hook.  Then if you keep going north on Pa. 261 to U.S. 322, you
are in 215-459 Chester Heights, a local call from Wilmington.

(Between 302-478 and the Pa. border on Foulk Road, you are in 302-475
Holly Oak, which is local to both 215-459 and 215-485.)


[Moderator's Note: Typically, an FX line only pays off if you keep the
line loaded at least 12-15 hours per day. You are starting out with a
charge of several dollars per month which has to be amortized during
the month by the savings from toll charges to the desired place. At
rates of only a few cents per call to nearby points, it takes a long
time to use up the difference. And if all you do is use it up and do
not actually come out ahead, why have the aggravation of maintaining
an FX, with all the telco coordination involved, etc.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 12:47:53 CDT
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Recording Question


When I call 1-800-726-3914, which is the number listed on the
literature given out by "Towne & Kountry Markets" (AKA "HJM Marketing"
of Thornton, CO), a firm that arranged flea markets at various
locations, including here in St. Louis, and which seems to have gone
out of business, I get a recording that says this:

"Your call cannot be completed as entered.  Please check the number and try
again or call customer service for assistance.  Forty-four one-twenty"

(Note -- the "one-twenty" is in a slightly different voice, and "steps on
the tail" of the recorded voice that recites the preceeding data.)

What I am somewhat resentful of, and do not understand, is that this
recording is worded in such a way that it makes the caller the "guilty"
party, like we are too dumb to hit the right numbers. If the recording
had said, "The number you have called has been disconnected," or "is no
longer in service," I would have thought nothing of it. But this
particular wording sticks in my mind and in my craw. Also, how am I supposed
to know who they mean by "customer service"? Is that 800-555-1212? If so,
why doesn't the recording say that?

Does this recording really just mean "the number has been disconnected"?
Or does the particular wording indicate something else?

I don't know what company has the "726" 800 exchange; there is a list of
these in the Telecom archives, but not in a separate file (that I could
determine) [I've asked the Moderator to put those in such a file when he
could], and I don't know what to search for (more specific than "800")
to wade thru the megabytes of past traffic to find it. I hope it isn't
AT&T; I would think they would know better than to use such
inappropriate phrasing.

Regards, Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The file is in the Telecom Archives as 'npa.800' in
the main directory. It shows who owns which 800 prefix. I tried your
example just now, and got the same recording except for the switch ID
on the end: forty-four, five-oh-three. You are correct that the
suggestion to call 'customer service' is very misleading: Which
Customer Service? Your carrier? The operator? 555-1212? Today's Dumb
Award goes to that recording.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 11:57:24 PDT
From: Brent Capps <kentrox!ktxc5![e-mail]>
Subject: AUTOVON precedence dialling (was: Re: 16 Buttons -- Not 12?)


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
writes:

> If you tire of reaching reorder when dialing
> '8' for routine AUTOVON, you call the operator and provide the
> authorization code for the precedence (P, I, F) and destination
> (CONUS, Overseas), to which she usually replies, "I'm sorry sir, there
> are no circuits available at this time."  :-(

I would be a little suspicious that I was being fed a line if an
operator at a batphone (a.k.a. attendent console) told me all circuits
were busy when I placed a call at flash precedence.  That's a pretty
high precedence level, and should preempt anything and everything that
gets in its way -- trunks, 2W or 4W sets, 3- or 6-port conference
bridges, you name it.  The only thing it won't preempt is another call
at flash or flash override precedence.

> Apparently, the 4-wire desk sets have been
> replaced by regular 2500 (or 74xx, or STU III) sets.  You select
> AUTOVON precedence with the trunk code (80 for routine, 81 for
> priority); provided your station has the class of service mark to
> access that precedence (otherwise it's back to authorization codes and
> the operator).

The availability of the precedence code 80, 81, etc, on 2W sets is why
the 4W sets aren't needed anymore.  Remember, 4W sets are trunks --
therefore, they have to be able to directly generate the extra DTMF
tones associated with the precedence level.  This is why they have to
have 16 keys, whereas a 2W set doesn't; the CO intercepts the
precedence code and inserts the precedence digit when dialling on a
trunk.  The only remaining advantage to a 4W set is the comparitively
long distance that the set can be located from the CO.  I don't know
about AT&T, but the NT SL-100s at Vandeland and Wright Pitiful AFB
still have a few 4W sets, or did as of 1988.


Brent Capps               "insert standard disclaimer here"
Kentrox Ind., Inc.         uunet: ...!kentrox!brent
Portland, OR               [phone] x325

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 11:06:55 PDT
From: Steve Rhoades <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: My New 1AESS Generic - Some Missing Features


The good folks at Pacific*Bell have decided to bless me with a new ESS
generic.  I am sorry I don't know the number.

There were several nice bugs (features ?) in the old generic that I'll
miss.

Most notably:

Let's say you had call-forwarding on your phone (call this phone A).
So does a friend of yours who happens to be served by the same C.O.
(Phone B).  Let's say your friend had his call-forwarding enabled.
You REALLY wanted to reach him and you knew he was at home.

In the old generic, Phone A could dial 72# + Phone B and literally
"break thru" phone B's call forwarding.  It wouldn't cancel the
forward, it would just allow you to break through.

No more.  Phone A will forward to phone B which, if forwarding is
enabled, will forward normally.  It should also be noted that I've
tried this from a line that has a CO based "Home-Centrex" (Premier,
Commstarr 2, whatever it's called this week.)  I've tried using *72
(to get the forwarding dial tone), *0X (which is used by CommStarr as
a special prefix, then the last four.  This works if Phone B isn't
forwarding.  If Phone B is, I get a re-order.

Also with Commstarr, through a complex series of events, I was able to
keep adding on calls.  i.e. I didn't just have three-way calling, we
called it N-way.  Through adding on calls, I once had 20 people
conferenced at once.

No more.  Now, when trying this, if I dial anything other than a "*",
I get a re-order.

Some things DIDN'T need fixing.


Internet: [e-mail]  |  Voice-mail: [phone]
UUCP: ...elroy!tybalt!slr         |  USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca.  91023

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 15:28:00 EDT
From: Lawrence M Geary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Card Questions
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I have a few telephone calling card questions:

If a calling card has your full phone number on it, will the number
automatically change if your areacode changes? I live in the part of
the 201 area that becomes 908 next year.

Has anyone compared the surcharges and/or rates charged by the
different types of cards? For example, would it be cheaper to use a NJ
Bell card or an AT&T Universal card to make a given call? (And does it
depend on where one is calling?)


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

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 15:56:21 mdt
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Which Came First?


When Touch*Tone first came out, I remember my father griping that the
number pad was arranged differently from that of ten-key adding
machines, i.e.,

    1 2 3                        7 8 9
    4 5 6   on the phone, vs.    4 5 6  on calculators.
    7 8 9                        1 2 3
      0              0

Does anyone remember why Bell chose to be different?  (I assume ten-key
adders came first).

How are the number pads arranged on European or Asian phones?  The
last time I was in a telco building (1975), dir assisters looked in
paper directories and test boards had rotary dials.  Do the keyboards
of today's operator consoles have the same number pads as us mortals
(7 8 9 on the top), or do they have 1 2 3 on the top row, as on
phones?  Have I reached max_num_of_trivia_questions_per_posting yet? ;-)

Thanks,

John Parsons

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

From: Marc Kwiatkowski <mtxinu!capella.la.locus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Yellow Pages Revenues
Date: 28 Sep 90 19:41:05 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Inglewood, CA


The Donnelly Yellow Pages have run a television ad featuring a young
corporate goon for some local carrier reporting to his master about
the ubiquity of the Donnelly yellow pages.  The steel-ball
manipulating master looks pained and grumbles, "We've got a problem."
My question is, what portion of local-carrier revenues come from
yellow-page listings?  My hunch is that they account for very little,
and the local carriers couldn't care less if Donnelly or anyone else
controlled the listing market.

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 16:25:04 -0700
From: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: ComSystems Long Distance


These folks claim to have a west-coast-only fiber-optic network, and
further claim to resell to Sprint, others.

Their rates for California-California calls are remarkably low.
Anyone have any experience with them?  Is their claim credible?


John

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

From: scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vanity Phone Numbers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 00:41:36 GMT


I just read that my local phone company, Illinois Bell, is going to
start offering "Vanity" Phone Numbers (i.e. numbers that spell words
which customers will be able to choose themselves) for "only" $38. An
Illinois Bell rep was quoted as saying that Illinois bell charges
"only" $38 because they don't want to gouge their customers. Bend
over, Illinois - up 'til now, you could get a "vanity" number FOR FREE
(I know, I've requested and been given several over the past four
years, and they never cost me a penny extra).  Now we'll have to pay
"only" $38...

Incidentally, this comes immediately after Illinois Bell did away with
our unlimited local calling option here in Central Illinois. :-(


Scott Coleman                                     [e-mail]
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Wanted: Specs on the control protocol for the Panasonic AG-1960 VCR. If you
know them or know where I may find them, PLEASE email me! Thanks!!


[Moderator's Note: Previously, we never paid for a number of choice if
the number was within our own CO. We always paid if the number of
choice was outside the CO ... it had to be handled like an FX line.  PAT]

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

From: "M. Hemmat" <[e-mail]>
Subject: REPOSITORY at Your Organization? Anyone?
Date: 29 Sep 90 03:49:30 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


I am very much interested to see if any of you have installed or plan
to install/build a REPOSITORY (data dictionary, encyclopedia) at your
telecommunications organization, and if so:

  - What platforms it is or will be built on?
    (e.g.; Bachman, Brownstone's Data Solution, DBEXCEL,
    Maestro, etc.)
  - Is it a central or distributed repository?
  - What is/are the host computer(s)?
    (e.g.; IBM, DEC, etc.)
  - How useful and reliable it turned out to be?
  - How long have you been using it?
  - What were/are your main concerns/problems?
  - Do you have a migration plan to the IBM's AD/Cycle and Repository
    Manager?
  - and any other comments you may have?

What is a repository? A repository is a way to save, acquire,
maintain, model, share, query, manage, standardize, verify, compare,
define, identify, structure, and restructure information about
information.  A repository is a central storage facility, a host-
workstation communication facility; it is a translator; it is a set of
standards.  A repository is a single point of control for your
APPLICATION LIFE-CYCLE. It is an amalgam of programs and DASD, of
hardware and protocols that can run on various platforms and
communicate with sundry software products from multiple vendors.
[From Solution Space, An IBM I/S Management Institute publication,
April, 1990]

Please reply by e-mail, and I'll try to post a summary of replies.

Thanks.

M. Hemmat    [e-mail] (internet)   Hemmat@ukanvax (bitnet)

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Library BBS Available
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 23:28:51 EDT


The Telecom Library group of publications (Teleconnect,
Inbound/Outbound) has set up a BBS. This BBS has a small selection of
files for download, allows uploading of files, press releases,
information, etc, information about contents of issues of their
magazines, a section which allows on-line subscription, etc.

The number for Infoboard is [phone] for those interested.

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: NPA/NXX Listings Available
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 90 23:40:28 EDT


I just did an update to the exchange listings for New York City 212
and 718.  These will be more accurate than the ones offered earlier.

They are available in two flavours: chart form and line-by-line form.
The former is similar in format to the Canadian NXX charts on the
Archives.  The latter gives each NXX on a separate line. Distinctions
are now made by the general municipality (Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn,
Queens, Staten Island).  It can provide a guide as to how the new 917
NPA will form (that is, the split of 212, giving 917 to Bronx, and
likely some other NYC services).

Thanks to Patrick Humphrey, there is a chart available for NPA 713
(Houston TX area). Thanks to another Digest reader, there is also a
special listing of 214/903 prefixes available (getting ready for the
214/903 split).

As for the other NPAs, I do have some listings for each North American
NPA, but I am in the process of revising these, given that some
strange data was found in them on occasion. Eventually, the idea is to
make both a chart and a line-by-line form of each (I have a utility to
create charts, and a BC Digest reader sent down a C program to do the
opposite (thanx)).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #694
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24580;
          30 Sep 90 13:35 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27089;
          30 Sep 90 12:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16881;
          30 Sep 90 11:03 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Sep 90 10:25:26 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #695
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Sep 90 10:25:17 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 695

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Sprint Cat Responds to ATT Cat [Steve Elias]
    FAX From ATTmail [J. Philip Miller]
    Summary: USEnet on a PC [John Stanley]
    950 Brain-Damage [[e-mail]]
    Telephone Overload [David O'Heare]
    Discount Plans [John Cowan]
    Phone Tree Hardware [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Clean Telephone Humor! [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Cat Responds to ATT Cat
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 17:29:00 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[Sprint cat is responding to ATT cat's allegation that Sprint and GTE
do the same kind of deals as ATT & Western Electric.]

First of all, we were not owned by GTE (US SPRINT that is) we were
owned by two companies, GTE and Unitel.  In case you don't read the
papers, Unitel bought out most of GTE back in August,1988. They also
have an option to buy the rest whenever they want (currently, Unitel
has 80.1%).  This buyout occurred pretty much before tariff 12 was
conceived.

Second, how many people to you know that have GTE PBX's??  They're
the biggest piece of junk PBX's!  Last time I checked, ATT had 26-28%
of the market, the closest competitors were Northern (who we do try to
team up with against tariff 12 bids, and NEC, but neither are quite as
dominant as ATT in the equipment market.  GTE doesn't really even get
an honorable mention.  Even so, the fact that they are all DIFFERENT
COMPANIES counts for a hell of a lot.  It's much harder to have a one
vendor solution when you have more than one company involved.  That's
the point most of the time behind tariff 12.

Third, if it isn't already clear, by the time tariff 12 starting to
become a threat, GTE was completely divorced from day to day
operations of US Sprint.  It is incredibly difficult to arrange a bulk
services agreement for one customer that involves two companies, the
services of which one, will be used to subsidize the price of another.
In other words, Northern is not going to go into a deal unless they
can make a reasonable return on investment.  GTE equipment isnt even
in the running so it's not even considered.


(forwarded by)
eli

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAX From ATTmail
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, Washington Univ., St. Louis, MO
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 22:41:19 GMT


We finally got our act together and started sending out FAXes via
ATTmail - they frequently are identical FAXes sent to 10-15 different
numbers.  The bill came the other day and they averaged about $1.75
each (2-3 pages each).

Now this sure beats paying someone to stand around FAXing to a list of
numbers, but it got me to wondering about the relationship between the
mail service and the long distance stuff.  Does anyone know the
details about how the calls are being placed to the receiving FAX
phones?

1) Are they all placed via regular LD service from a central place?

2) Do they pay the same rate for the LD calls as any other, nonAT&T
   business?

3) If the answer to 2 is yes, are there special rates that would, for
   example, give a discount if they deferred the call if there was high
   demand for curcuits at that time?

4) If the answer to 2 is no, is this fair to other providers of
   similar services (MCI I guess could do the same thing)?

5) If the answer to 1 is no it sure opens up some interesting network
   design opportunities, i.e. it takes a lot less time (and therefore
   long distance charges) to send it long haul via the ASCII text, and
   then send the FAX version as a local call.


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Date: 29 Sep 90 19:58:03 EDT
From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Summary: USEnet on a PC


In a recent Digest, I asked for information on USEnet access via PC. I
have received MANY replies, and some requests to forward what I learn.
In fact, I received replies BEFORE I had a chance to see the Digest my
query appeared in.

Many thanks to all who replied. The following is a summary of responses:

1. The most mentioned product was WAFFLE. WAFFLE is reportedly the
best, and is available from both SIMTEL and Compu$erve. It consists of
9 (nine!)  archives, some as small as 700 bytes, located in UNIXFORUM
Library 13 on CIS.  After downloading it, and performing some
installation, I tried running it.  It is very interesting to be
required to login to one's own PC. It seems that it should do the job,
but I found several times that it would lock up (with the hard drive
access light on) the second time it was run between reboots.  It is
also available on SIMTEL as PD2:<MSDOS2.BBS>WAF163.ZIP. It is
shareware.

2. UUPC was also mentioned. I have a feeling that there are multiple
UUPC's, though, as the one described to me does not match the one I
already have. The one I already have was downloaded from one of the
IBM fora on CIS. The docs with the archive say it absolutely doesn't
do news. The docs in the archive say it does, you just have to provide
your own unbatcher and must use 12 bit compress. The second version is
available via ftp at clutx.clarkson.edu directory pub/uupc, or
Clarkson BBS [phone]. The files are UUPC08AU.ZIP and
UUPC08AS.ZIP. Source is available with both versions.

3. FSUUCP. Available via ftp from polyslo.calpoly.edu as file
fsuucp11.zip, or by contacting the author at [e-mail].
edu. The shareware reg is $35. I have not yet, but will probably fork
over the cash for this one. It will be cheaper than the download
charges.

4. Carnegie Mellon (CMU) is supposed to have something that will help.
This lead came from the reseller of the net access, and I haven't
called them yet.  The name and number I have been given are Karen
Heilman, [phone].

All of the above are shareware, with the exception of CMU which is unknown.

5. Vortex. The only commercial package I have heard about is UULINK.
This is $335. The phone number for them is [phone].

I have tried only the UUPC and WAFFLE. I can't say how well either
works.  Unfortunately, I am in a Catch 22. I don't want to fork over
the money to get a network access until I know I can do what I want.
But, I won't be able to know I can do what I want until I have an
access to test the software against.  That is why I have waited so
long to create a summary. I guess I hope a magic hand will reach in
and straighten this all out (or else I get a job where there is
already a news feed). Again, thanks to all, and I will let you know
what I wind up with.

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 03:30:32 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: 950 Brain-Damage


My CitiBank MasterCard statement came. I had a question for the nice
people in Customer Service. As it so happens, the only number listed on
the bill is 950-1492, with the notation "(TOLL FREE)" after it. Calling
this number gave a "number not in service" recording. I tried 1-415
before the number and got "number cannot be completed...". I called
00 to ask the operator person what was going on. She didn't even know
what a 950 was!

I called 10288-950-1492 and got a recording telling me that "the
number cannot be dialed with the long distance carrier code you have
selected.". I called 10288-0 and told the AT&T operator my story; her
equipment would not allow 950 dialing! Finally I called 800
information and found that there was indeed an 800 number for CitiBank
(which they didn't bother to print anywhere on the bill or its
enclosed documentation). The customer service rep insisted that their
800 number was printed on my MasterCard (it is?) and couldn't
understand why I was having trouble with the 950.

What's going on here?

I would think it would be (a) easier (b) far more straightforward
(c) intelligent (d) all of the above for CitiBank to print the 800 number
on their bills and NOT EVEN BOTHER with the 950. Isn't it more
difficult to get a 950? Needless to say, I am not impressed, but I
don't know whether I should blame the telco or CitiBank.


[Moderator's Note: At one point Citibank thought they could use the
950 number as a way to get ANI on all incoming calls to customer
service. The installation (of 950) was bungled terribly, with a lot of
telcos not getting it correctly installed; and others refusing to
install it claiming 950 was only to be used to connect with long
distance carriers, etc. Citibank finally went with having ANI on the
800 number, but the clowns on their staff have never been able to get
their act together and have the 800 number *actually print out* on all
the monthly statements.  PAT]

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

From: David O'Heare <dciem!gandalf![e-mail]>
Subject: Radio Station Causes Telephone Overload
Date: 28 Sep 90 15:13:08 GMT
Organization: Goodgulf Greyteeth


TELECOM Digest readers might be interested in this morning's telephone
happenings in Ottawa.

One of our local radio stations is running a promotion and giving away
four cars -- special edition black Mazda Miatas, for those interested.
Every once in a while the station plays a special "sting", and the
106th caller through after it wins (the station is CHEZ, FM 106.1).
The calls go to a number on a "choke" exchange (613-750).

The sting got played at 7:40 A.M. As a faithful listener and a fan of
free cars, I try my luck.  Pick up the phone, dial, and immediately
get an odd busy signal - not reorder, but a busy about 30% faster than
normal.  As time passed it took longer and longer (eventually almost
30 seconds) to get dialtone when I went off-hook, although I always
got battery immediately.  Strangely, there were a couple of times that
DTMF tones didn't break dial tone, though pulse dialling always
worked.

I guess I'm not their only faithful listener :-)

BTW, the fellow who won is a college (read poor) student.  I suspect
he may miss a class or two today.


Dave O'Heare   [e-mail]   [phone]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Discount Plans
Organization: ESCC, New York City
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 15:25:34 GMT


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

>If you think about it, why "WATS" or "ProWATS" or "ROA" or any of that
>stuff? Why not just have a sliding scale where the rate gets cheaper
>as usage increases? The "special" plans are nothing more than theater
>to convince the customer that he is getting something "special".

Metromedia ITT does exactly this.  There is a volume discount which
increases in several steps.  I don't make enough calls to trigger more
than the first step of the discount, which is (I think) 5%.

OTOH, Metromedia >still< doesn't seem to deal with supervision
properly, even though I have them as my 1+ carrier.  I go through the
bill every month and remove ALL calls of 1-2 minutes duration, as I
always talk longer than that.  I also deduct 3% excise tax.  To their
credit, MM/ITT has never had a word to say about this practice, and
even (back when they were Telesavers, Inc.)  actually encouraged it.


[e-mail]  (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Phone Tree Hardware
Date: 30 Sep 90 00:34:45 GMT
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


I am looking for some relatively inexpensive hardware to set up a
phone tree/voice mail system in my house.  Basically what I want is a
board or device that plugs into either a MS-DOS box or a Mac (I seem
to have a few extras just lying around not earning their keep!) and do
the following:

    * Ring detect & Pickup.
    * Say things to the poor saps who call me.
    * Recognize touchtone.
    * Digitize what they say.
    * Be reasonably programmable.
    * Optional but nice : Handle more than one line at a time.

Needless to say, I'd like to set up a super-answering machine, with
the ability to let people record messages, store messages for friends
to call in and get, maybe even put up a simple touchtone game or two
just for the hell of it.

So, what is available?  And how good/bad/ugly is it.  Im willing to
hack at it a bit to get it to do what I want.


Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Clean Telephone Humor!
Date: 29 Sep 90 18:27:26 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


This happened over twenty years ago.  I didn't think it harmed anybody
then, and I still don't.

I was an undergraduate at Case-Western Reserve University.  I had a
part-time job, as an attendant at the campus PBX, second or third
shift several nights per week.

The PBX at that time consisted of two rooms of step-by-step switches
which were used to complete intra-campus calls, and a six-position
cord board where incoming calls were completed to extentions.
Outgoing calls from a few privileged people were made by dialing 9 for
an outgoing trunk.  The rest of the campus extension users dialed 0,
appeared on an attendant trunk on the cord board, and then verbally
requested an outside line.

A professor who shall herein be called Dr. Smith used to use
call-forwarding.  No, the PBX hardware didn't exactly provide it, but
when Dr. Smith called the switchboard, he'd ask us to forward his
calls to extension 2201.  We couldn't do anything about directly-
dialed intra-system calls, but we wrote "2201" on some little white
plastic caps, and pushed them into the jack on the switchboard where
his line appeared.  Thereafter, when we were about to plug a cord into
his extention (which was, I think, 2663) we would read the
hand-written forwarding instructions on the cap that blocked the jack,
and then plug it into 2201, instead.

Every evening, when he returned to his office, he'd dial 0.  When we
answered, he'd tell us to un-forward his calls.  A few minutes later,
he'd dial 0 again.  He'd then request an outside line.  A few seconds
later, an incoming call would arrive.  A familiar voice would ask for
Dr. Smith.  We'd find, on trying to connect the call, that his
extension was busy, and tell the caller.  The caller would then hang
up.  As he did so, we'd find an on-hook supervisory lamp on the cord
circuit used to provide an outside line a few seconds earlier, and
we'd take down that connection.

Late one night, when I was working alone, Dr. Smith called in and
requested that we stop forwarding calls from 2663 to 2201.  I told him
I'd 'un-forward' his calls.  As I walked down the switchboard, pulling
the forwarding caps out of each appearance of 2663, an attendant trunk
call arrived (somebody dialed 0).  When I answered it, the caller (who
sounded a lot like Dr. Smith) requested an outside line.  I connected
the other end of the cord circuit to an outgoing trunk, and closed the
key that allowed dial-through.

Like clockwork, an incoming call arrived on the main incoming number
about ten seconds later.  I answered the incoming call: "Good evening,
Case-Western Reserve."

"Dr. Smith's office, please" said the caller -- who also sounded a lot
like Dr. Smith.  I lightly touched the tip of the cord circuit to the
sleeve of extension 2663, heard the familiar 'tick' that indicates a
busy extension.

"Dr. Smith's line is busy," I told the caller, "would you like to hold
until he is free?"  (I might have added that it would be a long wait,
if the caller chose to hold, and a short wait if he chose not to.  But
I didn't.)

"No thanks, I'll try again." replied the caller.

As the caller hung up, I saw the recently-connected outgoing call show
on-hook, and took it down as well.  Then, I plugged a cord into
extension 2663 and rang once.  "Smith" said a voice which answered
almost immediately.

"Thank you for waiting, Dr. Smith can take your call now," I said.

                        ----------

I continued working part-time at the PBX for the rest of the semester.
Many evenings, Dr. Smith would call and have his calls un-forwarded,
as he always did.  But, I don't remember ever again hearing him call
back to verify that it had been done.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #695
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26546;
          30 Sep 90 15:42 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25307;
          30 Sep 90 14:11 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29669;
          30 Sep 90 13:07 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Sep 90 12:12:02 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #696
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Sep 90 12:11:49 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 696

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The 900 Sleaze Keeps Rolling In! [Michael Dorl]
    Thank You For Telling Me So [Matthew McGehrin]
    Correction: DEC is CIT, IBM is Callpath [Vance Shipley]
    Why Did I Reach "215  A Y"? [tygra![e-mail]]
    ATT Does Slamming Also [Peter Gross]
    Reminder: Required Changes in Dialing [Carl Moore]
    Working Assets = Lousy Connection (was: Dial-a-Social Change?) [J. Altzman]
    Working Assets = A Contradiction (was: Dial-a-Social Change?) [Lou Judice]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Joel M. Snyder]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Robert E. Stampfli]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Steve Schallehn]
    Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords) [Alain Fontaine]
    Re: ATM Handling of PINS [Mark Brader]
    Last Laugh! Oh, Fie Mars! I Salve Heaven Stooncards! [David Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Michael Dorl <[e-mail]>
Subject: The 900 Sleaze Keeps Rolling In!
Date: 30 Sep 90 00:25:24 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center


I received a letter in the mail today saying I won one of three
prizes...

  $5000                                    1/300,000 odds

  $2500                                    5/300,000 odds

  $1000 discount shopping spree            1/1 odds

A careful reading of the small print shows there's a 1/1 chance of
winning the last prize which evidentally allows you to buy something
from their catalog.

The real sleaze in this deal is the $9.00 (3.98 plus 1.97/minute, 2.5
minute minimum) cost of the 900 number call you must call to claim the
prize.  One can claim the prize my US Mail to avoid making this a
lottery (illegal in Wisconsin unless run by the state).

I'm curious about the division of the spoils between the perpetrators
of this sleaze and the phone company.  How does the $9.00 get divided
up between the two LECs and the IXC?

Any of the defenders of the use of 900 service can have my winning
number for the asking :-).


Michael Dorl              [phone]  fax [phone]
[e-mail]    MACC / University of Wisconsin - Madison
[e-mail]      1210 W. Dayton St. / Madison, WI 53706


[Moderator's Note: Gosh, that's mighty gracious of you, to share your
discount purchasing power with the rest of us! I so appreciate it I
think I will answer your question. Between the two LEC's and the IXC,
they get about a dollar of it, at most. And there may be only one LEC
involved, since the recipient of your call might have a dish on the
roof and accept the incoming call direct from the 900 service
provider. A sales rep from Telesphere once told me (if I wanted a 900
line) they would charge me fifteen cents per call, and ten cents per
minute of conversation. Anything above that is profit for the owner of
the line.  Some 900 outfits pay all costs and split with you 50/50 on
the revenue from callers. PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: Thank You For Telling Me So
Date: 29 Sep 90 10:36:39 GMT


I just wanted to post a 'network' message for all those who sent me so
much mail telling me that I was wrong. It was the highlight of each
time I logged on here, I averaged four pieces of mail every two days
telling me I was incorrect. Thanks.

(sarcastic as usual)

    Arpa / DDN   : pro-graphics![e-mail]
      UUCP       : crash!pro-graphics!matt_mcgehrin
    Internet     : [e-mail]

  [phone], Free Access, 24 hours a day
      300/1200/2400 baud, 'Pro-Graphics'


[Moderator's Note: So you have learned to never underestimate the
prolific nature of the net, eh? Yes indeed, we have verbosity aplenty
here ... roughly a six-fold increase in traffic since January.  PAT]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction: DEC is CIT, IBM is Callpath
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 18:31:29 GMT


In a recent article I attributed the CIT (Computer Integrated
Telephony) product to IBM.  In actual fact DEC sells CIT, IBM markets
Callpath.

Sorry,

Vance Shipley

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

From: tygra![e-mail]
Subject: Why Did I Reach "215  A Y"?
Date: Fri Sep 28 07:24:03 1990


Speaking of AC 215, I made a toll free (800) call yesterday from
Detroit (ac 313) and got the following message:

   "Your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please hang up and
    try again  215 A Y".

I wasn't calling the 215 area code, I was calling a number in San
Jose.  What gives??

Also - does anyone know what kind of switches Michigan Bell uses
(1AESS's, 5ESS's, etc).

Thanks.

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

From: Peter Gross <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT Does Slamming Also
Date: 29 Sep 90 13:38:52 GMT
Reply-To: Peter Gross <[e-mail]>
Organization: High Altitude Observatory/NCAR, Boulder CO


With all the recent brouhaha about MCI slamming, I though the net
might be interested in my experience with ATT slamming.  I had chosen
MCI as my dial 1+ service for their "Call-Canada" plan which was
substantially better in rates and times of coverage than the ATT
equivalent.  The MCI sales rep told me to call 1-700-555-4141 to check
when the changeover was made.

Sure enough, in a week or so, my line was switched to MCI.  So I told
my wife she could now start calling all her Canadian relatives and
friends with abandon.  Many calls later ... local phone bill arrives
(from US West).  Long distance bill from ATT.  HUGE bill due to
Canadian calls (I was told by someone that a daytime call to Canada is
more expensive than Tokyo).  I call 1-700-555-4141 and sure enough, we
had been slammed back to ATT.  I would have attributed it to accident
had we not been inundated with ATT telemarketing calls trying to get
us to switch back from MCI.  So MCI is not the only guilty party in
this nasty game.

BTW, ATT was very apologetic and cooperative -- they agreed to refund
based on their "ReachOutWorld" plan (.20/min) on the Canadian calls.


peter gross
[e-mail]    [MX-able]
 ..ncar!scg!pag        [uucp]
[e-mail]    [Internet]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 10:28:25 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reminder: Required Changes in Dialing


Based on notes received earlier:

On 9 Sept 1990, 1+512+7D was to be required on toll calls within 512
area (in Texas), thus making N0X/N1X prefixes available there.
214/903 split is coming sometime this fall, elsewhere in Texas.

And on Oct. 1, NPA+7D will be required (1+ optional) for local calls
in DC area which cross NPA lines (Pentagon is being switched from 202
to 703, with 202-694 becoming 703-614, and with other Pentagon
prefixes unchanged except for area code).  (202-694 can NOT move to
703; 703-694 is already used, at Stuart, Va.)

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

From: "Jerry B. Altzman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Working Assets = Lousy Connections (was: Dial-a-Social Change)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 14:36:06 GMT


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

>"That's why Working Assets is proud to offer the first long-distance
>phone service that works for peace, human rights, economic justice and
>a safer environment -- at no cost to you.

Hurumph. When I was subletting an apartment this summer, my landlady
switched to Working Assets from AT&T because she wanted a "socially
responsible" carrier.

In the three months I was in the apartment, I could not make one
decent LD phone call over their network. I have never had that problem
when I used just straight Sprint, however.

The funniest part was when she came and told us about the switch,
claiming she had changed from those "awful, irresponsible bandits" at
AT&T to the angels at WA (her words in quotes)

Sigh.

DISCLAIMER: This isn't Columbia. This is me. Columbia is them.


jerry b. altzman           212 854 8058
[e-mail]        jauus@cuvmb (bitnet)
NEVIS::jbaltz (HEPNET)     ...!rutgers!columbia!jbaltz (bang!)

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 08:55:47 PDT
From: "Lou Judice, 908-562-4103  28-Sep-1990 0938" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Working Assets = A Contradiction (was: Dial-a-Social Change)


>"Working Assets uses the all-new fiber-optic network of US Sprint -- and
>adds our own unique commitment to the future of our world ...

>"We'll hook you up with no intrusion or interruption. Then, every time
>you call long distance, you'll help save a species or two."

Hey, I see a contradiction here ... How many groundhogs have lost
their lives by chewing and swallowing fiber optic cable fragments?
What about the dangerous disruption of animal migration patterns
caused by careless ditch escavation along railroad tracks...

Wouldn't troposcatter microwave, or moonbounce, or carrier pigeons
be an environmentally more sound means of communicating?

ljj


[Moderator's Note: At 6:00 AM this morning (Sunday) a squirrel climbed
the electric pole in the alley behind my home. He got into the
transformer, short-circuited the power for a couple blocks in either
direction, and fried his little self in the process. At 6:20 AM, an
Edison truck pulls up; worker climbs the pole, tosses the carcass to
the ground below and restarts the power. Another worker uses a
scoop-shovel to pick up the squirrel, and dumps it unceremoneously
into the nearest garbage bin after asking 'anyone want fried squirrel
for breakfast, haha...' The radio in their truck tells of the next
stop for them: another squirrel, another part of town.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 1990 0:24:51 MDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One


In article <[e-mail]>, lotus![e-mail] (Ron
Newman) writes...

>An AT&T Universal card does NOT have a real phone number embossed on
>it.

Not only that, it CANNOT have a real phone number on it.  When I
applied for the card, I asked if I could have my home phone number on
it (since my interest in memorizing yet another ten digit number waned
years ago), and was told "yes."  After getting the card, I called in
(as instructed) to change my "calling card code," and found that I
could not.  The excuse was lame: how will we be able to tell your
calls apart (duh, how do you tell them apart NOW, jerkos?), but I was
firmly assured in useless doublespeak that what I wanted was not
possible.  And while I kept the card, my few days of joy at the wonder
of not having to memorize another calling card number ended RATHER
abruptly.

Also: someone asked about getting card encoders/decoders.  They're
easy to get; one source for us (here at Arizona) is the company we buy
our mag-stripe door openers from, Elko in Chicago somewhere.  They're
expensive, about $1000, but if you want one...


Joel M Snyder, The Mosaic Group, 627 E Speedway, 85705  Phone: [phone]
(University of Arizona, Dep't of MIS, Eller Graduate School of Management)
BITNET: jms@arizmis  Internet: [e-mail]  SPAN: 47541::uamis::jms

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

Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 00:43:18 EDT
From: Robert E Stampfli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> (On the other hand, it therefore fell into the category of things
> that is NOT required to be paid off every month, but instead could
> be rolled over.  However, the entire bill was so small that I paid
> the whole thing at once anyway.)

Does anyone know a reason why I can't use one of those "checks" I got
with the card to pay off the phone bill or minimum balance?


Rob Stampfli    / att.com!stampfli (uucp@work) / kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio)
614-864-9377    / osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp@home)


[Moderator's Note: Using 'one of those checks you got with the card'
would of course merely roll the balance, not pay it off ... and I
think if you read the fine print you will see they do not accept those
"checks" to pay their own bill. Try sending them one in the remittance
envelope and see what happens. You will probably get a snotty letter
back and have your account sent to Collections.

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

From: Steve Schallehn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Organization: Kansas State University
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 01:25:25 GMT


[e-mail] (C. Harald Koch) writes:

>There is an ANSI standard describing the magnetic stripe on the back
>of the card. I dont have it in front of me, but from what I remember:

Where would I be able easily find such ANSI standards?  I am more
curious than anything.


Steve Schallehn
Kansas State University

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 14:22:09 +0200
From: "Alain FONTAINE (Postmaster - NAD)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM at Retailers (was: Voice Mail Passwords)


A recent Digest article noted:

>One way encryption is very common.  You store the encrypted PIN on the
>card.  Then when the user enters his PIN, it is encrypted using the
>same algorithm.  If the two encrypted PINs match, the original PINs
>were the same.

Homework : with four digits PIN'S, how many milliseconds of Sparc time
does one need to make an exhaustive search ?


AF

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ATM Handling of PINS
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 1990 14:08:07 -0400


> ... the bank stores the encrypted PIN and does a straight match.  The
> technique was invented by John Atalla, one of the early Fairchild
> people.  Most of the bank PIN pads I have seen have been made by
> Atalla Technovations.  The chip performs a one-way (e.g. many-to-one)
> encryption of an arbitrary number of key presses. ...

As noted by someone else, the same techique of storing only the
encrypted form is used by UNIX for its password file.  To clarify the
above, Atalla's invention was the chip used in ATMs, not the concept
of storing the encrypted form.

The credit for *that* turns out to go to one of the founders of
computing -- it first appears in a book from 1966 or so, by Maurice
Wilkes.  Wilkes was the leader of the team that produced the early
computer -- the first computer, by some people's definition -- called
the EDSAC.

Thanks to Dennis Ritchie and Marc Kaufman for helping me locate the
above information.


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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! Oh, Fie Mars! I Salve Heaven Stooncards!
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 13:43:55 CDT
Organization: Pin Droppers Anonymous of Metropolitan Chicago


In volume 10, issue 686, il Moderatore commented on my story:

| [Moderator's Gasp: Whew! Readers, did you get all that straight?  I'll
| wait while you go back and read it again.  Wouldn't you love to be a
| CSR for Sprint handling the billing cycle David is in and get into these
| commotions with him month after month about something or another?  PAT]

Getting into commotions with US Sprint CSR'z is more the stuff of the
story of the death of account #1 (US Sprint account 108640611, sprung
from hell January 10, 1987, exorcised July 8, 1987).  I was giving
several of them earfuls after every month's bill.

And in all this time since then as a Telecom*USA customer, I've had
only two problems: (1) concern since the MCI merger that they'll lose
their autonomy and I'll just have MCI service instead {starting with a
Grand Slam Breakfast that didn't come from Denny's} and (2) curiosity
why all their reps have the kinds of first names yuppies give their
children.  (I think they use noms de guerre to avoid duplication of
first names with other reps and get to choose their own.)


Sincerely, Trent -- er no, Jared, no, Lane?  Sean!  Naah, just keep calling me
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]


[Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, a letter went out from MCI to
all Telecom*USA customers about two weeks ago announcing the merger
was complete, but that Telecom*USA would continue to provide the same
service as before. I will print the entire text of the letter in a
Digest later on today. And thanks for your clever retort!   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #696
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26717;
          30 Sep 90 15:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25307;
          30 Sep 90 14:13 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29669;
          30 Sep 90 13:07 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Sep 90 13:00:07 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #697
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Sep 90 13:00:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 697

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Need Help With Plantronics Headset [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Need Help With Plantronics Headset [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude [John Higdon]
    Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines [Dave Mc Mahan]
    Automatic Call Forwarding in Australia (was: Sweden) [David E.A. Wilson]
    Re: 215 to Join the N0X/N1X World [David Tamkin]
    Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For a Child [Mark Steiger]
    Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One [Peter da Silva]
    Re: "110" Code (was Re: 976 Numbers) [[e-mail]]
    Re: Sprint Wars [Ray Guydosh]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Tad Cook]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Mark Steiger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Help With Plantronics Headset
Date: 28 Sep 90 18:19:14 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roger
Clark Swann) writes:

> I need some help with this headset that I found today at the surplus
> store.  It is a Platronics StarSet (R) Supra (TM) with the numbers
> HS0552-1 on the back of the connector. This is the type that uses an
> _adapter_ to connect to the phone instrument. The connector is the
> PJ327 flavor, (two 1/4 inch phone plugs side by side on one end of
> small box).  I looked in the ATT source book and the unit is listed
> there for $130 and the adapter for hookup to a 1A or single line set
> an additional $130.

> Question: What is in the adapter box other than an on/off switch and a
> push switch for flashing the line?

> Followup question: Can I make an adapter to hook this headset into a
> phone?

> Yes, the little adapter box looks nice, but not a $130 nice.

> I assume that the network interface in the phone set is used just as
> it is with the regular handset and that the _adapter_ is wired so as
> to provide hookswitch control and connects the headset in place of the
> regular handset. If this is true, I should be able to roll my own
> adapter. The only other thing I need to know is; Which plug on the
> headset is the mic circuit and which is the earphone circuit?

    The Tips of the jack are Transmitter, the Sleeves are Receiver.

    The magic box, known in telco speak as a JS-0180 contains an
amplifier, power feed for the electret mic, flash switch and
hook-switch. It also contains enough odd leads to enable the device to
provide A1 lead control (Works with 1A2 phones) and can be wired to
work with a 4A speaker-phone. But let's be honest, for something made
by underpaid labour in Mexico, this is a rip off at $95.00
(Distributor price).

    But you need the box with your starset and a regular desk
phone.  Making one would be a hassle. You could possibly Mickey Mouse
one together, but it would lack many of the facilities of the real
thing.

    Wiring in a jackset is a nightmare at the best of times. There
is a good instruction book, and only a screwdriver is needed, but it
is not for the neophyte. If you have never opened a phone before,
putting in a jackset is not a good place to start. The Manual is good
and comprehensive, but messing with 16 wires minimum requires patience
and concentration.

     If you want to get a headset going, there is hope. You can
get a used refurbished one. A company called Comfort
Telecommunications sells refurbished JS-0180 jacksets and even
headsets. Here are the details:

    Comfort Communications
    Suite 340
    1417-2 Del Prado Boulevard
    Cape Coral
    Florida 33990

Phone: [phone]   [phone]
FAX:   [phone]

Prices:

Starset 343-1       $39.00
Starset Classic     $39.00
JS-0180 Jackset     $25.00


    Also Plantronics will "repair", which means send you a new
one, for good prices. Send them a JS-0180 that has been run over by a
Mac truck and they will send you a new one for $25.00

    You can call Plantronics repair at [phone]
    For our international readers      [phone]
                               TELEX 357-419

    If you have questions about which of the many Plantronics
headsets to use, you can call sales at [phone] Sorry no POTS
number.

    Hello Direct sell Plantronics headsets. They are expensive but
good.  But if you are a scrounger, get a "broken" one that someone
wants to toss and get Plantronics to "repair" it for just a few bucks.

    There are other headset makers. The brand names like Unex,
Danvox etc make good but expensive headsets. It is hard to justify a
headset that costs more than four times the cost of the phone it is
attached to.  But one experience with a cheapie headset should
convince you to go with the quality.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Help With Plantronics Headset
Date: 29 Sep 90 18:30:55 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roger
Clark Swann) writes:

[ regarding an operator handset/headset with a dual-jack connector ]

> ... The only other thing I need to know is; Which plug on the
> headset is the mic circuit and which is the earphone circuit?

The earphone is connected between the two sleeve leads.  The
microphone is connected between the two tip leads.  That way, it will
work, regardless of which way it's plugged in.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Overbilled by Six Orders of Magnitude
Date: 29 Sep 90 12:12:07 PDT (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Sep 29 at  1:44, Robert Michael Gutierrez writes:

> This I agree on.  MCI had problems with so-called "stuck clocks," or
> billed calls that were extremely excessive (like 600 - 2000 minutes).

MCI also has a problem with excessively small bills. A couple of years
ago, I opened an MCI secondary account. Not once have I placed a call,
but the first month the account was opened, one bogus call appeared on
the bill with a charge of $0.23. I ignored it.

Every month now for two years an MCI bill has appeared with a Past Due
amount of $0.23 showing. Apparently is too small to trigger any
collection action but also there is no sanity check to drop it. MCI
has spent many dollars in postage now reminding me of that 23 cent
amount.

I do enjoy reading the bill inserts, however.


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

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

From: Dave Mc Mahan <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Lines vs. Voice Lines
Date: 29 Sep 90 20:08:46 GMT
Organization: Dave McMahan @ NetCom Services


In a previous article, Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
writes:

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

>>    2) Once digitized at the C.O., the digital data from your
>>phone call is blocked into packets of data which are routed through
>>the phone network.

>This has been explained in some detail in earlier posts but I think a
>quick recap is in order.  While what Mr. Stox says might be true (to
>some degree) sometime in the not too distant future, it is NOT true
>today.  As far as I know, there are no telco owned switches in service
>today that use packet switching for voice.  At the present time, a
>path through a digital switch used for voice grade communications is
>not pre-emptable.  Time division multiplexing is NOT the same as
>packet switching.  A voice grade call gets a "full time" channel
>regardless of what is transported, voice, data or even silence.

There is a company in Campbell, CA called StrataCom that I believe
makes a packet switched voice network that is meant to run over a T1
line.  I think they have had a product available for several years,
but I'm not sure if any telco offices own it.  They use all the
standard tricks of not sending silence and re-generating a small
amount of white noise for a listener so that he is pschycologically
fooled into believing that he has a 100% connection.  I think they are
also offering products that let users insert data channels as well as
voice into the T1 backbone.

My phone book lists them as :

  Stratacom
  3175 S. Winchester Bl.
  Campbell, CA
  95130    (I think this is the right zip code, but am not sure)
  [phone]

dave

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Automatic Call Forwarding in Australia (was: Sweden)
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 01:04:43 GMT


[e-mail] (Dan Sahlin) writes:

>In Sweden the call forwarding facility is available at all modern
>(AXE) exchanges. They are rapidly replacing the old exchanges, so it
>seems that most cities now have this service.
>The service is available automatically for everybody, without asking
>the telephone company for anything.  There is no charge for invoking
>call forwarding.  The only thing you pay is the cost of the call from
>your telephone number at to the phone number that you are forwarding
>to.  The caller will not pay for this, but rather the subscriber who
>has call forwarding.

>What is the pricing for these services in other countries?  Are the
>same codes used for invoking the service?

Interesting. Here in Australia we also use AXE exchanges and can get
Easycall as an extra cost option. It costs A$4.25 per month
for the first 3 features and A$0.53 per month for each additional
feature. The features we can get are as follows:

            Enable        Disable        Use
Last Number Redial                    0#
Call Diversion        *21nnnnnn#    #21#
Call Diversion (Busy)    *24nnnnnn#    #24#
Call Control        *33PCCC#    #33PCCC#
Call Waiting        *43#        #43#
Abbreviated Dialing    *51ADCnnnnnn#    #51ADC#        ADC#
Delayed Hotline        *53nnnnnn#    #53#
Call Diversion (No Ans)    *61nnnnnn#    #61#
Third Party Enq/Conf    Flash nnnnnn    Flash 1        Flash 2 swaps
                            Flash 3 conferences
ADC = Abbreviated Dialling Code
PCCC = Personal Call Control Code - can block LD or international calls

Call diversion costs nothing to use (if you have paid for the feature)
but is limited to numbers in the same exchange. Abbreviated Dialling
costs more if you want more memories (8 included in base charge, 20
+17c/week up to 60 +40c/week).

Are any other codes/features in use in Sweden?


David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 to Join the N0X/N1X World
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 90 21:33:43 CDT


Carl Moore wrote in volume 10, issue 691:

| Local calls WITHIN 215 are and will remain seven digits.  Local calls
| from 215 to outside of 215 are 1+NPA+7D and will stay that way.
| (Someone -- was it JSol? -- sent me a note about trying a local call
| from Pa. to Del. leaving off the 1+ and just using 302+7D in, this
| case, the 215-255 exchange at Kemblesville, Chester County; won't this
| have to be "cleaned up"? and the 1+ required?)

As long as 3-0-2 is never used as a prefix anywhere in area code 215,
it can work.  Generally it's a bad idea to open a prefix that matches
a neighboring area code, since it gets confusing when people tell you
their telephone numbers orally (or advertise them on radio); when one
listens to a telephone number and it begins with the local area code
or one nearby, one shouldn't wonder whether there are seven or four
more digits to come.


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] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Re: A Nice Christmas Gift For A Child
Date: 28 Sep 90 11:36:05 GMT


Thanks for the support Ben.  :)

Maybe Pat is looking for those kind of people in the future?  ;)


  [Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo  218/262-3142     300/1200/2400 baud]
ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo                          America Online: Goalie5
UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin                    MCI Mail......: MSteiger
Internet:[e-mail]     ARPA:crash!gnh-igloo![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yeah, maybe I am.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Card is Not Two Cards in One
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 14:25:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Matthew McGehrin) writes:

> if you use the 'card' to charge purchases, your 'phone number
> with four-digit code', along with the 'ATT Credit card number' goes on
> the same slip...

I don't know about you, but my AT&T card doesn't have a phone number
on it. And they couldn't put two mag stripes (to address another
message) because there's imprinting where the second stripe would have
to go on all credit cards (bad design decision, I'd say).


Peter da Silva
[phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 12:07:34 -0400
Subject: Re: "110" Code (was Re: 976 Numbers)


Another reason for not using "110" that I'm suprised no one has
brought up in the last burst of replies: in most modern switches that
I've used, dialing "11" is the functional equivalent of dialing "*".

(PS: Yet Another Reason the Universal Card PIN is not on the card --
you can have it changed with a phone call.)

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 16:00 EST
From: Ray Guydosh <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Wars


In Vol 10, Issue 682, Carol Springs writes:

>Perhaps someone with more hard facts can post about the discounts and
>about how Sprint's Intrastate and Interstate Sprint Select plans work
>together ...

I must have missed something somewhere.  How is this new "Sprint
Select" different from the old "Sprint Plus".


Ray Guydosh

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

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Date: 28 Sep 90 19:14:06 GMT


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

> The easiest, at least in NYNEX and Atlantic Bell land, is to call the
> operator and ask "what number is this?"  I've never had the request
> refused.

I have tried this a few times with US West, and they NEVER give me the
number.

However, they are quite cooperative when asked to ring back the line
to test ringers.


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] (Mark Steiger)
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number
Date: 29 Sep 90 11:21:22 GMT


I know of a number to find your number.  It works in most USWest
sites.  If not, you'll get a funny recording.

Only use this in US West areas.  I don't know what will happen if used
elsewhere. ( I'm not responsible if you start WWIII or something :))

                       41311

Dial it, then the infamous female voice will come on and say your
number.  Sometimes it does ring a couple of times first.

Let me know how it works for you.


 [ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo  218/262-3142     300/1200/2400 baud]
ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo                          America Online: Goalie5
UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin                    MCI Mail......: MSteiger
Internet:[e-mail]     ARPA:crash!gnh-igloo![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: US West is quite exceptional if it keeps this
number on a long term basis (like more than another month). Most
telcos seem to change the number a lot, and they tend to be in the
range of 200-xxx-xxxx.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #697
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27924;
          30 Sep 90 16:59 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22556;
          30 Sep 90 15:17 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac25307;
          30 Sep 90 14:13 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Sep 90 14:06:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #698
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Sep 90 14:05:28 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 698

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    COCOT-in-Violation Label File [Dave Platt]
    COCOT-in-Violation Label File - Additional Comments, Help [Tom Perrine]
    Re: A Search For COCOT Tariffs [Dave Levenson]
    Re: MCI as Slamming King [Robert J. Woodhead]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 09:58:40 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: COCOT-in-Violation Label File
Organization: Coherent Thought Inc., Palo Alto CA


Here's the current version of my COCOT-in-violation label file.  It
was originally created on a Macintosh, using HyperCard and the "Print
reports" command.  I then ran it through Glenn Reid's "Distillery"
program, to remove all of the Macintosh-specific PostScript constructs
and convert it into standard PostScript.  The positioning and spacing
of the labels have been hand-tuned a bit.

The resulting PostScript program should be compatible with any Adobe
PostScript printer that can print on U.S. letter-sized paper.  It'll
produce a single page of output, which can be copied onto label stock
(10 labels per page ... Avery 5352 or equivalent).

You may wish to edit the text of the labels ... in particular, if you're
located outside of California, you may want to change the phrase
"California PUC" to something else ("FCC", perhaps)?

Happy stickering, all!


Dave Platt                                             VOICE: [phone]
  UUCP: ...!{ames,apple,uunet}!coherent!dplatt   DOMAIN: [e-mail]
  INTERNET:       coherent![e-mail],  [e-mail]
  USNAIL: Coherent Thought Inc.  3350 West Bayshore #205  Palo Alto CA 94303

[Moderator's Note: Dave sent this to me compressed and uuencoded. I've
undone all that, and present it here in straight ASCII text. However,
errors will occur, so if you can't get this to work right, you should
consult Dave at the address he gives above.  PAT]

           -------- begin code here --------

%!PS-Adobe-2.1 debug version ((V 1.0d release 11 edit 4))
%%Title: %stdout
%%Creator: Glenn Reid and still.ps (V 1.0d release 11 edit 4)
%%Pages: 1
%%DocumentFonts: Helvetica
%%DocumentProcSets: Adobe_distill 0.112
%%EndComments
%%BeginProcSet: Adobe_distill 0.112 0
/PROLOGUE 30 40 add dict def
 % 30 procedure entries + room for 40 cached font dictionaries
 PROLOGUE begin
 /clip { } def    % causes problems. remove if "clip" is needed
 /bdef { bind def } bind def    /ldef { load def } bdef
 /T { moveto show } bdef    /A { moveto ashow } bdef
 /W { moveto widthshow } bdef    /AW { moveto awidthshow } bdef
 /f /fill ldef            /R { { rlineto } repeat } bdef
 /r /rlineto ldef        /L { { lineto } repeat } bdef
 /m /moveto ldef        /l { moveto lineto stroke } bdef
 /x { 0 rlineto } bdef        /y { 0 exch rlineto } bdef
 /X { moveto 0 rlineto stroke } bdef
 /Y { moveto 0 exch rlineto stroke } bdef
 /c /curveto ldef        /cp /closepath ldef
 /s /stroke ldef        /w /setlinewidth ldef
 /g /setgray ldef        /j /setlinejoin ldef
 /d /setdash ldef        /F /setfont ldef
 /C /setcmykcolor where { /setcmykcolor get }{ %ifelse
   { %def
     1 sub 3 { 3 index add neg dup 0 lt { pop 0 } if 3 1 roll } repeat
     setrgbcolor
   } bind
 } ifelse def
 /selectfont where { pop }{ %ifelse
     /selectfont { exch findfont exch scalefont setfont } bdef
 } ifelse
 /MF { exch findfont exch makefont setfont } bdef
 /FF /selectfont ldef
 /DF { selectfont currentfont def } bdef
 /BEGINPAGE { pop /pagesave save def } bdef
 /ENDPAGE { pop pagesave restore showpage } def
 /REMAP { %def
   FontDirectory 2 index known { pop pop pop } { %ifelse
     findfont dup length dict begin
       { 1 index /FID ne {def}{pop pop} ifelse } forall
       exch dup length 0 gt { /Encoding exch def }{ pop } ifelse
     currentdict end definefont pop
   } ifelse
 } bdef
 /RECODE { %def
    3 -1 roll 1 index findfont /Encoding get 256 array copy exch
    0 exch { %forall
     dup type/nametype eq
       { 3 {2 index} repeat put pop 1 add }{ exch pop }ifelse
    } forall pop 3 1 roll REMAP
 } bdef
 end %PROLOGUE
%%EndProcSet: Adobe_distill 0.112 0
%%EndProlog
%%BeginSetup
PROLOGUE begin

%%EndSetup
%%Page: 1 1
%%PageFonts: Helvetica
1 BEGINPAGE
18 -36 translate
/F1 /Helvetica 9 DF
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 752.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 743.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 734.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 725.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 716.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 707.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 698.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 689.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 680.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 671.56 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 19.48 662.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 752.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 743.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 734.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 725.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 716.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 707.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 698.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 689.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 680.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 671.56 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 309.48 662.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 606.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 597.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 588.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 579.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 570.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 561.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 552.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 543.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 534.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 525.56 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 19.48 516.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 606.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 597.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 588.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 579.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 570.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 561.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 552.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 543.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 534.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 525.56 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 309.48 516.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 460.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 451.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 442.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 433.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 424.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 415.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 406.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 397.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 388.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 379.56 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 19.48 370.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 460.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 451.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 442.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 433.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 424.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 415.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 406.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 397.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 388.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 379.56 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 309.48 370.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 314.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 305.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 296.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 287.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 278.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 269.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 260.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 251.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 242.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 233.56 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 19.48 224.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 314.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 305.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 296.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 287.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 278.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 269.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 260.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 251.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 242.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 233.56 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 309.48 224.56 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 19.48 167.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned ) 19.48 158.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 19.48 149.56 T
F1 F
( ) 19.48 140.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 19.48 131.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 19.48 122.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 19.48 113.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 19.48 104.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 19.48 95.5601 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 19.48 86.5601 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 19.48 77.5601 T
F1 F
(OUT OF ORDER.  This telephone's programming violates ) 309.48 167.56 T
F1 F
(California PUC rules and regulations concerning customer-owned) 309.48 158.56 T
F1 F
(coin-operated telephones \(COCOTs\)) 309.48 149.56 T
F1 F
( ) 309.48 140.56 T
F1 F
(O  Charges more than $.20 for a local call) 309.48 131.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to alternate long-distance carriers \(10xxx\)) 309.48 122.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to toll-free numbers \(1-800-xxx-xxxx\)) 309.48 113.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to 950-xxxx numbers, or charges for call) 309.48 104.56 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to information \(411\), or charges for call) 309.48 95.5601 T
F1 F
(O  Blocks access to repair service, or charges for call) 309.48 86.5601 T
F1 F
(O  Rates not posted) 309.48 77.5601 T
 /showpage {} def
1 ENDPAGE
%%Trailer
end %PROLOGUE
%%EOF

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

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 90 11:43:15 PDT
From: Tom Perrine <snoopy!tots.Logicon.COM![e-mail]>
Subject: COCOT-in-Violation Label File - Comments and Help


Dave,

Thanks for the "violation stickers". I have successfully printed it on
our Sun 3, using SunOS 3.5 and Transcript. However, this did require
some farbling, which may be required for other Transcript users, so I
am CC'ing the Digest...

If you are using SunOS and Transcript to print the labels, you may
encounter a situation where the file is spooled, but vanishes from the
queue without ever being printed. If this happens, there are two
things to try:

    1. Edit the COCOT-labels.ps file and change the postscript
       version from 2.1 to 1.0, e.g the line should look like this:

%!PS-Adobe-1.0 debug version ((V 1.0d release 11 edit 4))

    2. If that doesn't solve the problem, then just cat the file
       to the serial line where the lazer printer is installed.
       I used "cat COCOT-labels.ps > /dev/lw", your printer name
       may vary. Look in the /etc/printcap file and find the
       printer description for your lazer printer. There will be a
       string "lp=", whatever follows the "=" is your printer. If
       there is no "lp=", but there is a "rm=", then the name
       follwing the "rm=" is the host on your network where the
       printer is attached. Rlogin and do the "cat" there.

Good Luck and happy stickering!

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]


[Moderator's Note: 'COCOT-labels.ps' is the file I got after I first
did 'uudecode' against what Dave sent me, then uncompressed that file,
of the same name with 'z' on the end. If Dave can't help you with
this, then Mr. Perrine might be willing to help.

Remember, there is no law against marking any mechanical,
coin-operated device out of order if in fact it is malfunctioning; and
it is courteous and thoughtful to do so, preventing the next person
from possibly losing their money in the device. Your 'out of order'
label should cover the coin slot, making the deposit of money
impossible without first reading the warning notice. The use of very
sticky labels will prevent vandals from ripping down your notice prior
to the owner of the phone having a chance to fix it so it complies
with federal requirements, the law in your state and hopefully, common
courtesy as well.  PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Search For COCOT Tariffs
Date: 29 Sep 90 17:58:51 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

>     CCMI/McGraw Hill (anybody know what CCMI stands for?)
>     50 South Franklyn Turnpike
>     Ramsey, NJ  07446

CCMI stands for Center for Communications Management, Inc.  They are a
publisher, and were acquired by McGraw Hill a few years ago.  They are
in the business of maintaining an up-to-date database of all telephony
tariffs, throughout the country.  They publish them on paper, on
diskette, and probably in other ways, including a dial-in on-line
service.

The last time I looked, however, their service is not free.  You pay
for their services.  Their telephone number is [phone].

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

From: Robert J Woodhead <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI as Slamming King
Date: 29 Sep 90 10:58:52 GMT
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


[e-mail] (David Tamkin) writes:

[concerning slamming]

>In every slamming complaint posted to this Digest that named the
>obeying telco, said compliant local utility was a Bell company.
>No one has yet, as far as I've noticed, submitted "my independent
>telco let a long distance carrier slam me" nor "my Bell telco
>stymied a slamming attempt on me."

Is it just paranoid moi, or do other people notice that since the
slamming company is the one who gets the bad PR, not the local
utility, and since we all know who the BOC's don't particulary love
Sprint, MCI, et al, it follows that the BOC's have no incentive to
check before they allow a slam?

Nahhh!  Silly me!  ;^)


Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #698
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06297;
          1 Oct 90 0:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11958;
          30 Sep 90 23:21 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18766;
          30 Sep 90 22:18 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Sep 90 21:47:58 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #699
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Sep 90 21:47:48 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 699

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Which Came First? [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: Which Came First? [David Lemson]
    Re: Which Came First? [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: My New 1AESS Generic - Some Missing Features [John Higdon]
    Re: My New 1AESS Generic - Some Missing Features [Vance Shipley]
    Re: 800 Recording Question [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Speaker Phones and the Courts [John G. DeArmond]
    Re: 950 Brain-Damage [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Is a Foreign Exchange Worth the Cost? [Roger Fajman]
    Re: CuD Survey [Chip Rosenthal]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Roeber, Frederick" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Which Came First?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: California Institute of Technology; on loan to CERN
Date: 30 Sep 90 09:07:34


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

>How are the number pads arranged on European or Asian phones?  ...

The pushbutton phones I've seen in France had keypads arranged the
same way as American phones.  The pushbutton phones here at CERN
(obtained from the Swiss PTT) also have the same keypad, with a couple
of additions for the usual extra PBX services: an `R' to the left of
the `7' and a red dot to the left of the `*'.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
r-mail: CERN/SL-CO, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 15:01:35 CDT
From: David Lemson <FREE0612@uiucvmd>
Subject: Re: Which Came First?


In a message of Fri, 28 Sep 90 , John Parsons <[e-mail]>
writes:

>How are the number pads arranged on European or Asian phones?

     The ones I've seen have been just like ours, but I haven't seen
Eastern Europe, etc.  In the older areas (and many countries), you're
more likely to see rotary dial phones.  Some countries don't handle
Touch-Tone (tm), so the only pushbutton phones you see are actually
pulse.  The country I'm thinking about here is Israel, but this
situation is changing (slowly).

>The last time I was in a telco building (1975), dir assisters
>looked in paper directories and test boards had rotary dials.  Do the
>keyboards of today's operator consoles have the same number pads as
>us mortals (7 8 9 on the top), or do they have 1 2 3 on the top row,
>as on phones?

     The only telco building I've seen recently was this year in an
AT&T Office in Washington, D.C. that handled operator assistance for
NPAs 202 and 703.  The setup they had there was the newest equipment
AT&T has, according the guy that showed us around.  There was no large
board with lighted buttons, the equipment consisted of a large (approx
100 key) keyboard, paper white monochrome screen, and earpiece/
microphone.  When a call came in, the operator would see the person's
number and the number they were trying to reach (if they dialed
0+NPA+NXX+XXXX).  If it was a collect call, the operator typed in the
caller's name, and hit one button as the call was placed by the
computer.

The operator asked if they would accept the charges, and one more
button connected the two.  Also, on the keyboards, they could make it
so that the caller could not hear the callee, the caller could hear
but not talk to the callee, or make it a full connection.  Many of the
calls involved one keypress to connect, five to ten seconds of talking
to the caller, and one keypress to disconnect from the operator.  The
operators seemed to like this setup better than the old boards with so
much work.  However, this also seems to make the setup a little more
Big Brotherish, as the AT&T corporate people can instantly see how
productive any certain operator is.  In this room with the operators,
they had several large LED message annunciators that put up messages
like "Good job Jeannie!"  I suppose the negative messages were saved
for review time with the supervisors.  In response to your question,
in this setup, if the operator has to enter a number, it gets entered
just as you might enter it on your computer's number keypad, with the
789 across the top.

Incidentally, in that same building, they had the last cord-board
setup still in use by AT&T.  It's the national TTY (service for the
deaf) directory assistance center.  Each operator has a cord board
with several incoming and outgoing lines, a PC, and a Baudot modem.
The accounting for these calls is all done by hand -- they figure that
the operator has so much time available waiting for slow typists that
they can fill out cards for each call.  And in this setup, when a
typical caller asked for the relay station in Wherever, Pennsylvania,
the operator got out the phone book and looked it up.  (No
computerized DA here!)

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 16:10 EST
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Which Came First?


Regarding why touch-tone pads put the "1" on the top left while adding
machines put the "7" on the top left ... In 1983, I was doing
historical research and I read that the early Touch-Tone pads WERE
configured like adding machine pads -- but the early electronic
switching systems couldn't handle rapid entry of DTMF, and people
proficient with adding machines could literally "outdo" the switch.
Bell engineers flipped the keypad to slow these people down.  If this
is indeed true, will some loyal TC reader please tell me where I found
that reference?  I've often wanted to quote this vignette but can
never remember just where I read it.

Thanks,

Sandy Kyrish, MCI Mail 320-9613

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New 1AESS Generic - Some Missing Features
Date: 30 Sep 90 13:03:51 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Rhoades <[e-mail]> writes:

> The good folks at Pacific*Bell have decided to bless me with a new ESS
> generic.  I am sorry I don't know the number.

> There were several nice bugs (features ?) in the old generic that I'll
> miss.

But what you'll get in return is CLASS features, eventually. The new
generic that supports all of the whizzo/whoopie features that you hear
about everywhere else in the country is being phased in to all of
Pac*Bell's switches. Most of the Bay Area switches were upgraded over
a year ago.

It goes without saying that those "features" that you enjoyed so much
were, in reality, bugs that were corrected in the natural course of
software upgrade. Be thankful that you can still receive call waiting
while on a three-way call and add a third party before
supervision -- things that some digital switches are incapable of.


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

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My New 1AESS Generic - Some Missing Features
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 17:03:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> "Steve L. Rhoades" <slr@tybalt.
caltech.edu> writes:

>There were several nice bugs (features ?) in the old generic that I'll
>miss.

>In the old generic, Phone A could dial 72# + Phone B and literally
>"break thru" phone B's call forwarding.  It wouldn't cancel the
>forward, it would just allow you to break through.

>Also with Commstarr, through a complex series of events, I was able to
>keep adding on calls.  i.e. I didn't just have three-way calling, we
>called it N-way.  Through adding on calls, I once had 20 people
>conferenced at once.

Are these really changes made to the code or class of service changes
made during the course of the cutover (or some other such changes)?
Anyone?


[Moderator's Note: I have to make a decision this month whether to
keep Starline or drop it in favor of CLASS features. Chicago-Rogers
Park CO gets CLASS starting October 15; but none of the CLASS features
will work with centrex here. So, do I want call screening and
auto-return-call, or do I want to keep my group pickup, hold and
intercom. Maybe new software will be installed which allows me to keep
it all! Decisions, decisions!  PAT]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Recording Question
Date: 30 Sep 90 16:31:42 GMT
Reply-to: Bill Huttig <la063249@zach..fit.edu>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

>When I call 1-800-726-3914, which is the number listed on the

>"Your call cannot be completed as entered.  Please check the number and try
>again or call customer service for assistance.  Forty-four one-twenty"

That is a US Sprint recording the number is the location of their
switch. It more than likely means that the number is disconnected.

They should include the customer service number like MCI does. (But it
is US Sprint ;-)


Bill
[e-mail]

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

From: "John G. DeArmond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speaker Phones and the Courts
Date: 30 Sep 90 18:47:47 GMT
Reply-To: "John G. DeArmond" <rsiatl![e-mail]>
Organization: Radiation Systems, Inc. (a thinktank, motorcycle, car
 and gun works facility)


In article <[e-mail]> Jeff Dalton <esl!bambam!jsd@ames.
arc.nasa.gov> writes:

>I'm guessing that a tape recording of a phone conversation cannot be
>used as evidence in court unless both parties are aware they're
>being recorded. But what if one end of the conversation is on a
>speaker phone with witnesses listening.  I would guess that the
>witness could testify about the content of the conversation and the
>person on the other end of the phone wouldn't have to know someone
>else is listening.

>Does anyone know anything about this?

Yes I do. *Caution*  Your mileage may vary widely by state.  My
experience is based on the laws of Tennessee and GA.

I have used tape recordings of my own phone calls in court.  According
to FCC rules, only one party to the conversation (that's me) now must
to be aware of the recording.  In other words, third party wiretapping
is still illegal but it is not illegal to record your own
conversations.

The recordings may be introduced as evidence but only under strictly
controlled conditions.  The recordings must have been made available
for discovery in the pre-trial proceedings.  It is advisable to have
written transcripts made of the important parts.  The recordings can
only be used as rebuttal evidence.  It is considered heresay (?!?)  as
direct evidence.  In other words, you CANNOT use a recording to prove
something was said.  You CAN use it to prove that the person who said
it is now lying about what he said.

Tapes are subject to all the usual rules of evidence.  The other side
will do all in its power to discredit the tapes.  It is highly
advisable to set up a recording system with this in mind - a lawyer's
adivice is highly recommended.  One of the big things you'll need to
do is to be able to prove the authenticity of the tapes and to prove
the time and dates of the recordings.  What I did was after the call
was finished and with the tape still rolling, I'd dial the local time
and temp. number and get a time stamp or for really important calls,
I'd call the National Observatory number in DC.  The DTMF would be
recorded and the charge would show up on the phone bill.

In summary, yes one can make very effective use of phone recordings
but some legal advice and planning is necessary.  I'd imagine that an
ad-hoc recording of a conversation that started to get hot probably
would not withstand the challenge to its authenticity.  And I'll
repeat again, get good legal advice in your state.  I've heard that
some states have tried to restrict your right to record.  It is my and
my attorney's opinion that federal preemption would apply but none of
us likely has enough money to prove the point.


John De Armond, WD4OQC   Radiation Systems, Inc.
Atlanta, Ga             {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 13:27:05 -0700
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 950 Brain-Damage
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


>[Moderator's Note: At one point Citibank thought they could use the
>950 number as a way to get ANI on all incoming calls to customer
>service. The installation (of 950) was bungled terribly, with a lot of
>telcos not getting it correctly installed; and others refusing to
>install it claiming 950 was only to be used to connect with long
>distance carriers, etc. Citibank finally went with having ANI on the
>800 number, but the clowns on their staff have never been able to get
>their act together and have the 800 number *actually print out* on all
>the monthly statements.  PAT]

I guess it depends on where you live.  My statements always have the
950 number listed, and it works!  I call it, and seconds later the
Citibank automated system answers.

Last year, I lived in a location that was far away from my mailing
address, and the 950 number didn't work from there.  I spoke to
Customer Service about this, and learned the following:

1.  950 access is only available from certain areas.

2.  If you area has it, the 950 number is listed on your bill.  Otherwise, the
    800 number is listed.

3.  "Your area" is determined by your ZIP code, not your phone number.  So,
    if your mailing address is in 950 land but you are not, then you're on
    your own.

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90  14:45:48 EDT
Subject: Re: Is a Foreign Exchange Worth the Cost?


> [Moderator's Note: Typically, an FX line only pays off if you keep the
> line loaded at least 12-15 hours per day.

Not so in my case.  When we moved to our current house a couple of
years ago, I checked on FX rates.  Washington, DC, has a large local
calling area that includes portions of Maryland and Northern Virginia.
We live in Maryland, just outside the Metro Calling Area, as it is
refered to.  We can call DC and certain areas of Maryland as a local
call, but not Northern Virginia.  I was told by C&P Telephone customer
service that we could get a Layhill number, instead of an Ashton
number, for about $18 additional per month.

The break even point for that is about three hours per month of calls
to Northern Virginia.  I didn't opt for the Layhill number, as we
don't call Northern Virginia that much and most of the calls we do
make there are reimbursed by someone else who wouldn't pay for the
additional monthly charge.  I haven't checked the costs more recently.


[Moderator's Note: I guess the break even point would be a function of
how much the line costs to begin with, i.e. how far it is extended to
reach you. Years ago we had here in Chicago an FX from Manhattan, NY;
that is, going off hook on it produced dial tone, etc from New York
City. It was about $700 a month for the FX ... yet supposedly paid for
itself because for twelve hours a night it was transmitting data to
some office in New York. During the day, office staff used it to place
local calls to New York instead of using the WATS lines.  PAT]

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

From: Chip Rosenthal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CuD Survey
Date: 29 Sep 90 03:30:03 GMT
Organization: Unicom Systems Development, Austin, TX


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

>The survey should take less than three minutes to complete, and can be
>sent via reply or returned to either:

>             [e-mail] or [e-mail]
>                Thank you for your time and cooperation.
>
>[Moderator's Note: Please DO NOT return these to me!! Thanks.  PAT]

For those who have trouble navigating BITROT addresses, the address:

    [e-mail]

forwards to [e-mail], the submissions address for CuD.  Feel
free to return surveys through the chinacat address if that's any
easier.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #699
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07464;
          1 Oct 90 1:51 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00944;
          1 Oct 90 0:23 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11958;
          30 Sep 90 23:21 CDT
Date:     Sun, 30 Sep 90 22:32:06 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #700
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 30 Sep 90 22:31:40 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 700

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telco Mishandled Lobby Expenses [American-Statesman via Bob Izenberg]
    Proposed 10% Federal Tax on "Electronic Equipment" [Lauren Weinstein]
    Call Quality to and From Japan [Scott Trent]
    Question About "Point of Demarcation" [David G. Cantor]
    Question About Ring Current [Larry Krone]
    Question About 950 Numbers [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: COCOT Woes [Gary Segal]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Izenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco Mishandled Lobby Expenses
Date: 30 Sep 90 18:23:02 GMT


 From the September 30, 1990 edition of the Austin, TX {American-Statesman}:

Phone Company Mishandled Lobby Expenses
By Seth Kantor
American-Statesman Washington Staff

     WASHINGTON - Southwestern Bell Corp. improperly charged millions
of dollars in Washinton lobbying expenses to long-distance carriers
operating in Texas, according to documents filed with the Federal
Communications Commission.

     "Lobbying money has been thrown all over the place by
Southwestern Bell," and the long-distance companies got stuck with the
bills, said Roy Morris, deputy general counsel of Allnet
Communications Services Inc., a Michigan-based long-distance carrier.

     The long-distance carriers, in turn, may have passed the charges
on to their customers - although Southwestern Bell said individuals
would have ended up paying only a fraction of a penny each.

     Bell officials acknowledge that they improperly charged $4
million in lobbying expenses to Allnet, AT&T, Sprint, MCI and more
than 44 other long-distance companies.  The money helped pay for
expensive drinks, dinners and entertainment events that a platform of
lobbyists have lavished on members of Congress and their aides, Morris
said.

     The improper charges were the result of $19 million in accounting
errors committed by Southwestern Bell from 1985 to 1989, the company
said.

     But Morris said the admitted errors are "just the tip of the
iceberg," and that Southwestern Bell may have widespread bookkeeping
problems.

     The accounting errors have awakened interest in Bell's lobbying
activities, have raised questions about the FCC's performance as the
industry watchdog and appear likely to prompt closer scrutiny of the
regional phone company the next time it comes before Texas utility
regulators.

     Discovery of the bookkepping errors was triggered by a complaint
Allnet filed in early 1990 with the FCC against Southwestern Bell.

     The five-state regional phone company subsequently told the FCC
that "we had inadvertently misaccounted for (our) Washington, D.C.,
lobbying expenses," according to Joseph E. Cosgrove Jr., a lawyer at
Southwestern Bell's corporate headquarters in St. Louis.

     Cosgrove estimated that his company spent $10.9 million on
lobbying efforts in Washington between 1985 and 1989, including the $4
million in improper charges to the long-distance carriers.  The
company's lobbying expenditures were incorrectly integrated into other
categories on Southwestern Bell's books, Cosgrove explained.

     "I certainly hope our investigators look into this," said Jo
Campbell, a member of the Texas Public Utility Commission, which
regulates phone service in Texas.

     "Lobbying charges that are flowed through to long-distance access
ratepayers are improper," Campbell said.  "They should be fully borne
by the shareholders.  My hope is that the FCC examines this very
closely."

     "The FCC has already failed to do its job," said Brian Moir, a
Washington communications lawyer who represents a coalition of
business telephone customers.  "The FCC hasn't spent one millisecond's
worth of energy on examining lobbying activities of the phone
companies since 1984."

     That was the year of the landmark federal court consent decree
that broke up AT&T's "Ma Bell" communications monopoly and created the
seven so-called "Baby Bells" - the regional phone systems such as
Southwestern Bell.

     Even though long-distance carriers were improperly charged for
Bell's lobbying, Robert Digneo, a Southwestern Bell spokesman in
Austin, said local billing rates for residential and business
customers in Texas have not been affected.

     Texans placing calls within Texas were not hit with any extra
charges because of the accounting errors, Digneo said.

     "If anything was affected, it would have been via the
(customer's) interstate long-distance rates," DIgneo said. "But for
basic local phone service, this is a different ballpark."

     Digneo said a customer in Central Texas placing a call to some
other state might have had to pay "something like .0001 of a penny
extra" because of the fouled-up bookkeeping transactions.

     "It would have been a very tiny slice of one cent," said Digneo.

     But Allnet's Morris said Southwestern Bell's admission that it
made a $19 million mistake is just the beginning. "There's a lot more
money than that involved, facts will show."

     Allnet's case against Southwestern Bell is still in the discovery
stage at the FCC.  No final resolution is expected until next year.

     In the meantime, the case has sparked interest in the
concentration of Southwestern Bell's lobbying activities in Congress.

     Records show that Southwestern Bell has a team of eight
registered lobbyists promoting special-interest legislation on Capitol
Hill - six of them based in the company's downtown Washington office.

     An outside Washington consulting firm - Bayless and Boland, which
is well connected with the Bush administration - and Washington
attorney Mitchell Pettit are also registered as Southwestern Bell
lobbyists.

     Pettit, whose contract with the phone company expires today,
reported that Southwestern Bell paid him $24,000 plus expenses between
April 1 and June 30 for lobbying activities that he did not detail.

     Two other lobbyists on Southwestern Bell's corporate payroll
share the same title.  Both William H. Shute and M. Camille Barnes are
listed as director of federal relations for the company.

     Shute said he is primarily concerned with issues that come before
the House Judiciary and the Energy and Commerce committees, while
Bares is involved in budgetary affairs and tax matters that come
before the House Ways and Means Committee.

     Bares and Shute reported spending $5,748.95 in the first half of
1990 on wining and dining members of COngress and congressional aides.

     Among Shute's listed lobbying expenses were a $162.50 dinner tab
on April 15 ar Restaurant Nora's, an expensive French hideaway in
Washington, and $419.25 for tickets on April 21 to a Paul McCartney
concert.

     In mid-May, Shute reported spending $421.95 in Fort Worth to
treat a Texas congressman to the annual professional golf tournament
at Colonial Country Club.

     Shute, a University of Texas graduate, refused to identify the
Texas congressman and did not want to be interviewed on the record for
this article.  But he indicated that as a Washington lobbyist, he
frequently discusses legislative business with congressional staff
members at restaurants away from Capitol Hill, "because they have so
little time for such discussions during the crush of business hours."

     Records show that Shute and other Southwestern Bell lobbyists
like to treat their congressional guests to the posh, members-only
Tournament Players Club at Avenel, in a neighborhood of million-
dollar-plus homes near the nation's capital.

     Southwestern Bell has been active this year in various political
arenas.  In Texas, for instance, the telephone company denied state
se.  Hugh Parmer, the Democratic challenger to Republican U.S. Sen.
Phil Gramm, a 900 number that would allow callers to make political
contributions to Parmer.

     But the phone company reversed its stand under Public Utility
Commission pressure when Parmer proved that the Republican National
Committee had been granted a 900 fund-raising number in Texas.

     Parmer spokesman Mike Kelly said this week that "at best, it
showed that Southwestern Bell's Washington lobbying activity,
according to official records, concerns Southwestern Bell's efforts
strong interest in legislation that would allow the Baby Bells to
become involved in three communications areas forbidden to them by the
antitrust consent decree of 1984.

     Under that judgment, the Baby Bells are not allowed to originate
information databases, manufacture telephone equipment or conduct
long-distance operations.

     Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., has sponsored a bill that would
allow Southwestern Bell and the other six regional companies to plunge
into the manufacturing business.

     The bill is controversial within the Texas congressional delegation.

     Sen. Lloyd Bentsen is a strong supporter of the bill, but a
fellow Democrat, Rep. John Bryant of Dallas, is strongly against it.

     "It no longer makes sense to bar the regional Bell companies from
manufacturing telephone equipment," Bentsen told the Austin American-
Statesman. "Not when America has a telecommunications trade deficit of
some $2.6 billion, not when giant foreign firms - many heavily
subsidized by their governments - can sell their equipment here."

     Bryant, a member of the House telecommunications panel, argues
that such legislation "serves no public purpose."

     He said he would be for it "only if each of the regional Bells
guarantees they would manufacture the equipment in this country.  But
in hearings before our panel so far, officials of every Bell company
have admitted they would manufacture the equipment overseas under
their name.

     "That's not creating jobs to benefit American labor," Bryant
said.  That's creating jobs to further compete with America.

[ end of article ]


Bob Izenberg [phone] [ ] cs.utexas.edu!{kvue,balkan}!dogface!bei

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 13:39:26 PDT
From: Lauren Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Proposed 10% Federal Tax on "Electronic Equipment"


Greetings.  On Sunday, September 30, agreement was reached by the
federal budget negotiators on a proposed new budget, including a
variety of program cuts and new/increased taxes.  Ignoring the other
taxes for the moment (e.g. increases in gasoline tax, energy tax,
social security taxes, etc.) there is one brand new tax in the
agreement that might be of particular importance to readers of this
forum.  This is a new "luxury" tax of 10%.  Details are sketchy, but
it apparently is proposed that this tax will apply on items such as
"luxury cars", furs, jewelry, and *electronic equipment*.

As this message is written, it is unclear what that latter category
would include.  Would it include telecommunications and computer
equipment, or "only" televisions, VCR's, stereos, etc. above a certain
selling price?  Would it apply only to individuals, or to business use
of such equipment as well?  Would this tax simply be added on to
existing state and local taxes at the consumer level?

It might be worthwhile for everyone who is involved in the purchase of
"electronic equipment" to carefully track the details of this
significant new proposed tax as they come forth, and make their
opinions known to their House/Senate members (opinions phoned in *do*
get counted by their offices).  At this stage, the budget agreement
has not yet been approved by Congress, and while the leadership will
no doubt wish to have the entire package accepted in one piece, it is
not necessarily the case that changes won't be made.  It is important
that our representatives be informed about the feelings of the
technical community concerning these specific proposals.

 --Lauren--

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 13:56:28 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Call Quality to and From Japan


Here is a brief summary of my experiences line quality to/from Japan.
When I was in Japan this past year calls placed through ITJ (0041)
were crystal clear with very little delay (obviously fiber optic).
Calls placed through KDD (001) had the characteristic "satellite
bounce" delay along with a much lower signal/noise ratio (ie it was
noisy).  I'm told that (0061)'s line quality is also good, but rarely
used it.

As far as calling TO Japan goes, I tried to transfer a file via modem
over normal Sprint lines over a year ago and was unable to.  The line
was simple too noisy.  However, I tried it again this week (Sprint
again), and had no problem at all.

Does anyone know which long distance calling companies offer fiber
optic lines to Japan from the U.S.?  When I've asked Sprint operators,
I've received a number of different answers.  "No, sir.  There is no
such thing as a fiber optic line to Japan".  "Yes, sir.  100 % of our
lines are fiber optic", etc etc.


scott trent
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Question About "Point of Demarcation"
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 11:26:52 -0700
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


In TELECOM Digest, V10, No. 693, Roger Clark refers to new FCC
regulations concerning inside wirng rules and, in particular, refers
to "the point of demarcation" between the telco's wiring and the
subscriber's wiring.

Does the FCC require that there be such a point of demarcation?  I
live in GTE country and neither I, nor my neighbors, have such a
point.  Does this point (which I assume is a modular jack and plug)
have to be accessible without entering the subscriber's premises, or
at least without passing through a locked gate or door?


David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  [e-mail]

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

From: Larry <swatty![e-mail]>
Subject: Question About Ring Current
Date: 30 Sep 90 16:09:06 GMT
Organization: swatty


I have a question regarding ring current generation....

Is there a gizmo on the market that will generate ring current for an
electronic key system? In this application, I have line current
working already, but I need to send ring.

Any ideas???

Email replies to: uunet!swatty!larry

Thanks,

Larry Krone

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

Date: Sun, 30 Sep 90 18:53:56 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Question About 950 Numbers


  Please excuse my ignorance, but could someone explain all this about
950-prefix numbers. I don't want to restart long dead discussions, so
reference to threads in the archives would be sufficient. I just don't
want to have to ftp all that stuff to find it. (Is there a KWIC index
for it yet ?)

  I've read the glossary and similar files from the archives but there
seems to be a combination of references to things that sound like 800
numbers, 10xxx access, COCOT blocking, etc. so I'm not exactly clear
on what it is/does.


Jeff Sicherman
[e-mail]

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOT Woes
Date: 30 Sep 90 22:20:23 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


I had an amusing experiance recently:

I paged one of my co-workers who was at a seminar at a nearby hotel.
When he called me back, it was from a COCOT.  After he had kept
dumping money in it, I asked if he wanted me to call back.  He gave me
the number, and told me that he would pick up the phone in about 30
seconds.  I dialed, and the phone answered with a synthised voice that
said something like "I'm sorry, this is not a billable number".  After
the message repeated three or four times, it went away and my
co-worker was on the line.  (What is even more intereseting is that
when I called the number today, the voice said "Thank you" followed by
some beeps.)

He laughed, because he had heard the same message.  Before he picked
up the reciever, he heard a very brief chirp from the ringer.  After
the message finished, we were able to carry out our conversation
without interuption.

So, if you are on a COCOT, you *may* be able to accept incoming calls,
if you pick up the reciever when you think you should, and the correct
number is printed on the phone.


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.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #700
******************************