Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss751-800

Text File | 1990-11-10 | 880.9 KB | 22,260 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12108;
          22 Oct 90 0:12 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02687;
          21 Oct 90 22:37 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30703;
          21 Oct 90 21:33 CDT
Date:     Sun, 21 Oct 90 21:28:18 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #751
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Oct 90 21:28:13 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 751

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Brian Crawford]
    Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [Jamie Hanrahan]
    Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [Brian Kantor]
    Re: Ring-Back and Finding Own Number [David Tamkin]
    Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist? [John Higdon]
    Re: Telco "Customer Service" [John Higdon]
    Re: Need Help With French Dialing Conventions [John R. Covert]
    Re: Why Companies Use Music on Hold [Bill Vermillion]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 06:50:40 GMT


PT>>rights. Bell did in fact file suit Wednesday to the tune of one
PT>>million dollars against the contractor.  PAT]

FD>...trying to negotiate a payment for their damages, and they are
FD>obviously trying to collect more than the cost of the damage he did.
FD>What he damaged was apparently one each fiber optic device.  He
FD>probably owes them the cost to repair it.  Several hundreds, or a few
FD>thousands, of dollars.

FD>What I object to is going after the cost of lost service.  That was
FD>caused by proven bad management and bad planning.  The study done
FD>following the Hinsdale fire disaster is all the documentation needed
FD>to prove it.  NOBODY builds non-redundant systems and puts critical
FD>traffic on them.  (At least nobody with good management and good
FD>planning does.)

PT>[Moderator's Note: They apparently did ask him to pay, and reasonably
PT>assuming he would not do so voluntarily, they filed suit.

Do you mean you know that they did, or you know that they did not
negotiate damages?  In the given amount of time they couldn't have
done any 'good faith' negotiations.

PT>amount of the damages it goes a lot further than 'one each fiber optic
PT>device' as you stated. How much is the salary for a dozen men being
PT>paid union wages working several hours overtime?

This is precisely what the contractor is responsible for.  Plus all
other costs associated with repair of the damaged cable.  It won't be
inexpensive.

PT>How much did it cost
 ... several examples of expenses as a result of outage deleted ...

PT>have approached a million dollars by the time all was back to normal
PT>in 708-land.  PAT]

Virtually everything listed above is the cost of lost service.  The
loss of service resulted from a non-redundant system with no alternate
restoral route available.  That is bad planning by definition, which
comes from bad management.

The study done after the fire disaster and the plan that arose from it
are documentation that the potential for a disaster was planned into
the system.

For anyone not aware of what "redundant" and "restoral route" mean, in
this context, the normal design for radio and fiber optic systems is
that there are actually two radios or two cables.  Only one is
normally used.  Sometimes the secondary carries special traffic, like
live video feeds, but normally it is totally idle or carries identical
traffic.  When there are several routes between two locations there
may only be one spare, in which case a failure on any one of them
would be alt-routed on the spare.  In this particular case it appears
that either a separate route entirely or a second fiber optic laid
just a few feet apart from the one that was cut would have prevented
most of the service loss.

My guess is the lawyers decided it was good PR to file for such a
large amount.  I'm betting they don't get close to a million bucks
when it is settled.


Floyd L. Davidson      [e-mail]
8347 Richardson Hwy.   [e-mail]
Salcha, AK 99714       [and related to Alascom, Inc. by a pay check, only]

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Date: 21 Oct 90 14:48:02 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Floyd
Davidson) writes:

> What he damaged was apparently one each fiber optic device.  He
> probably owes them the cost to repair it.  Several hundreds, or a few
> thousands, of dollars.

A year ago, the City of Tempe's Water Dept. happened to dig up
Sprint's/MCI's (can't remember which) main fibre optic line which runs
along the Southern Pacific railway right-of-way through the southern
states.  Unfortunately for the Water Dept, it happens to run right
through town here.

I seem to remember their final tab running in the neighborhood of
$300K-$400K.  Don't know if this line would compare to the one in
Illinois, though.


Brian Crawford
[e-mail]

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

From: Jamie Hanrahan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll
Date: 21 Oct 90 09:36:59 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, San Diego CA


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

> [e-mail] describes the process for a NY Times/CBS News poll:

> Is there some magic way to tell if a number is
> residential or commercial, especially the unlisted ones. Or is this
> simply a case of a newspaper article mixing facts and fiction?

I think the latter.  I was at a friend's house when they received a
survey call.  There was some confusion because this house has two
lines, one private and one business.  When the survey folks learned
that they had called the business line, they didn't want to talk
further.  In this case, they were just calling every
randomly-generated number and asking.


       Jamie Hanrahan, Simpact Associates, San Diego CA
Internet:  [e-mail], or if that fails, [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,scubed,decwrl}!simpact!jeh

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll
Date: 21 Oct 90 18:00:37 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


>[Moderator's Note: I think they made the assumption (mostly correct)
>that business phones would probably not be non-pub; thus in the
>process of sorting out who to call and who not to call, all non-pubs
>were assumed to be residential for the purpose of filing the number in
>one compartment or another.   PAT]

Hearty Guffaw!  Here at UCSD we have about 200 dial-in modem lines, of
which some 75 or so are in the same prefix (558) as those assigned to
the student housing, and another 20+ in the 452 prefix, which is split
between homes in the surrounding community, and various small
centrexen serving nearby firms.  Our modem numbers are NOT en-bloc,
since we add lines typically 8 or 16 at a time as demand grows, and it
often seems that we often get all the numbers ending in odd digits.

We only publish the pilot numbers for the six hunt groups these lines
all belong to (each is a different grade of modem service).  All the
rest are non-pub, as are most business centrex numbers, so such a
survey (or solicitation attack) would wind up targeting a whole lot of
business and modem lines among the residences.  I don't think they
would be able to tell which is which ahead of time; it's a real mixed
bag.

This is beside the 534 prefix, which we completely own, and 543 and
294 each of which is about half ours.  In a year or so, if campus
telecommunications removes all PacBell service from the dorms and
replaces student phones with campus lines, as they've been discussing,
we'll probably own half of another prefix as well - about half our
students live in campus housing.

I suspect the newspaper's screening process involves a lot of
apologizing to inappropriate dialees.  That and hanging up on machines.

(Actually, it's pretty easy to tell which are our dial-in modem lines.
They're the ones that are busy all evening long!)


Brian


[Moderator's Note: You refer to those numbers as non-published, but I
think you mean 'non-listed' or 'not listed in the directory'. The
difference between these two conditions is the one is unavailable,
period, and the other, while not listed in the directory will still
usually show up in a cross-reference directory, typically with just
the company name and no address given, or a reference to the lead
number in the group. I think people preparing the list of 'random'
numbers for these polls do first select randomly, then use criss-cross
directories to backtrack them into residence, business or payphone
categories. So if they pick (for example) random number 708-491-1234
in Evanston, IL, looking at the criss-cross will show only a relative
handful of entries under 708-491. No where near the 9000+ numbers the
exchange might have are listed. But the several dozen that are listed
all say 'Northwestern University such and such' ... so the random
number compiler assumes the whole exchange is probably Northwestern.
Likewise if the criss-cross directory lists a number with a business
name and then skips the next two dozen numbers before it starts
listing again, its reasonable to say the numbers following are linked
to the first one. For exchanges that go on page after page in the
criss-cross listing one residence after another, a skipped entry is
probably a residence with a non-pub number. But it is not that often
that a business will have its main incoming number non-pub.   PAT]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring-Back and Finding Own Number
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 13:37:26 CDT


Pat Townson replied to Andy Jacobson in volume 10, issue 723:

| [Moderator's Note: I've since found that 571 (wait for dial tone,
| flash hook, dial 6 and hang up, then get ring back) throughout
| northern Ilinois' old 312 code has been replaced by 1-57x-last four of
| your phone number (get fresh dial tone, dial 6 and hang up, then get
| ring back) throughout 708 and 312.  PAT]

Not "throughout" by any means.  It certainly doesn't work from here in
Centel's part of 312, and I tried all ten possible 1-57X-[last four]
possibilities.

Pat, did it work from your cellular service?

290 stopped working here for reading back your own number when it was
assigned as a prefix in Elk Grove Village.  Now that the 290 in Elk
Grove Village is in another area code, dialing 290-XXXX within 312
from my Centel service gives fast busy for most XXXX but four quick
beeps and then silence on 312 290 1111.  1-290-anything gets an
intercept.


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: No, it won't work on cellular, because Ameritech
uses DID trunks, does it not? I've tried it. It appears to work, but
never gets around to ringing me back. It no doubt rings back on
312-228-xxxx (whatever outgoing trunk I seized when I placed the
call).  I've noticed the ANI reported when I use the cell phone to
call the 800 number was a number totally different than mine. The
number reported by ANI, when dialed back, is listed to IBT Co. in
Hickory Hills, IL and is not for incoming service.  PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does AT&T Mail Exist?
Date: 21 Oct 90 00:39:43 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> There is a charge for the creation of messages if you do it on line.
> There is a very good user software package called AT&T Mail Access, on
> which you can create messages, and with a single Function Key press
> upload your messages and receive messages addressed to you.

AT&T Mail also offers (unlike, I believe, MCI Mail) a UUCP connection
for AT&T Mail services. This means there is no on line charges
whatsoever. No special software is required. No user interaction with
AT&T Mail is required. One account shows detailed user message
accounting (all system users are identified). If there are other
systems involved with a customer, the one account can handle them as
well.

There are fifteen people who have access to my single AT&T Mail
account and sorting the charges out is no problem whatsoever. This
means that the one $30/yr fee is really $2/yr. Combine that with a
lack of any on line charges and it turns out to be pretty reasonable.


        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: Telco "Customer Service"
Date: 21 Oct 90 00:57:58 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> Anonymous cellular telephone salesman: "This model is nice because it
> has true TouchTone.  On the older cellular models, even though it's
> pushbutton, you have to wait for the number to pulse out when placing
> a call."

 From the Pac*Bell repair "Gotcha" department:

Among my many residence lines is one from the #5 crossbar switch --
the rest are on a 1ESS. I am not paying for TT on the Xbar line --
they can't (or don't seem to be able to) turn it off. Anyway, I have
noticed for some time that it takes MUCH longer for calls to complete,
particularly long distance calls, on the Xbar than on the 1ESS. Why? I
don't know -- they both use archaic MF signaling.

Being the pill that I am, called repair service and explained that
calls seemed to take much too long to complete on the Xbar line. A
technician called back and I explained that calls on my ESS lines
completed MUCH faster than those on the number I was reporting. He had
to take it under advisement.

The next day the man called back with the explanation. He did some
checking and found that my ESS lines had TT and the reported line
didn't. He carefully explained that TT was much faster than rotary. If
I were to get TT service on the Xbar line, the problem would be
solved.

Makes sense to me! The man should be taken to lunch by the sales
department.


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 07:42:08 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  21-Oct-1990 1037" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need Help With French Dialing Conventions


>As I understand it, all French numbers are now 8 digits, there are no city
>codes, and dialing within France always involves 8 digits.  But I believe
>that there's some strangeness with respect to dialing the Paris area (Ile
>de France?) from the rest of the country.  ...

The easiest way to look at it is to consider Ile de France as having
an area code of "1" and the rest of the country as having an area code
of "null."

To call between areas, you dial "16" (dial-tone) "area code"
"8-digits", where "area code" is "1" when calling the Ile from the
Provinces, and "null" when calling from the Provinces to the Ile.

Likewise, when calling from outside France, you dial "International
Access Code" "33" "area code" "8-digits", where, as above, "area code"
may be either "1" or "null".


john

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

From: Bill Vermillion <bilver![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music on Hold
Date: 21 Oct 90 17:34:08 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Vermillion <bilver![e-mail]>
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL


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

>Maurice Baker wrote way back in volume 10, issue 716 (ok, I'll get
>caught up on reading some day soon, honestly):

>| OK ... how's this for an idea:

>|     If you're going to be "stacked up" on hold for any length of
>| time, the answering system (tried to choose a suitably generic label)
>| should give you the choice of:

And one I tried gave me a choice of leaving voice mail, or holding.
Since the item was important, I was on site at a customers location
with a hardware problem, I pushed the button that said I would wait.

Every thirty seconds or so I would get a message about everyone being
busy, etc, and THEN about three minutes into holding, it automatically
dumped me into voicemail, and the ONLY choice was to leave a message,
or hang up.

That is WRONG in my book!


Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill
                      : [e-mail]


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #751
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13085;
          22 Oct 90 1:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13888;
          21 Oct 90 23:41 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02687;
          21 Oct 90 22:37 CDT
Date:     Sun, 21 Oct 90 22:19:52 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #752
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 21 Oct 90 22:18:11 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 752

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [John Higdon]
    Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [Steve Rhoades]
    Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [Stephen Friedl]
    Re: Network Guide [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois [Michael H. Riddle]
    Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Miguel Cruz]
    Re: A Good Word For MCI Mail [Paul Wilczynski]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Vance Shipley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell
Date: 21 Oct 90 11:43:42 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dan Ross <[e-mail]> writes:

> I ordered Touch-Tone on Thursday, and will have it Friday.  I had not
> ordered it as a protest against charging extra for something which
> (according to what I'd read) was _cheaper_ to provide!  Have other
> areas eliminated the charge?

Over a year ago, Pac*Bell offered, among other things, to eliminate
the touch tone charges and convert Zone 2 calling areas to Zone 1
(local) if the PUC would allow the company to operate under the "blank
check" school of regulation. That was August of 1989. It is now
October of 1990. They got "blank check" regulation. We're still
waiting for the charges to be dropped.

It is amazing to talk to people who are convinced that the charges
have already been dropped. Pac*Bell's advertising and media campaign
was so effective that just yesterday I astounded a rather
telecom-savvy person with the revelation that he was still paying
touch tone charges.

Pac*Bell's excuse is that it is still trying to figure out how to
replace the revenue that will be lost by removing the charge. Someday
people will learn that Pac*Bell is long on promises but short on
delivery.


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

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

From: Steve Rhoades <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 23:10:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> wybbs![e-mail] (Ken
Jongsma) writes:

>Apparently, when you ask for a directory
>number in PA, you get the usual computer generated answer, followed by
>the suggestion that for an additional 30 cents, you can be connected
>automatically. Presumably, these are for local calls, or perhaps in
>addition to the toll charges.

This service is available in the northern section of Oakland, Calif.
also.  An otherwise local call costs 35 cents (normally 20 cents).

Apparently it's only available from "real" (Pac*Bell) coin phones.


Internet: [e-mail]  |  Voice-mail: [phone]
UUCP: ...elroy!tybalt!slr         |  USmail: Box 1000, Mt. Wilson, Ca.  91023

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

From: Stephen Friedl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll
Date: 21 Oct 90 08:04:15 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


> [Moderator's Note: I think they [NYT] made the assumption (mostly correct)
> that business phones would probably not be non-pub; thus in the
> process of sorting out who to call and who not to call, all non-pubs
> were assumed to be residential for the purpose of filing the number in
> one compartment or another.   PAT]

I'm not so sure about this.  Virtually all business have many more
than one telephone line, and only the main "entry point" numbers will
be published -- it's the default for additional lines.  Four out of my
five telephone lines at home are non-pub, but I certainly don't have
an "unlisted" number in the traditional sense.


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl


[Moderartor's Note: Please see my message in the last issue. Non-pub
is not the same as not-listed. If I cross check all the supplementary
lines into your business, they will still show up with your business
name even though they won't all appear in the directory.   PAT]

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Network Guide
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 21:05:07 GMT


It wouldn't take much change to allow anonymous UUCP to provide email
at least as convenient as FAX. You would send mail to
<[e-mail]>, and it queues up a uux rmail to that number.
You'd just need a routing script that adds the appropriate line to the
Systems file before queueing the UUCP.

The biggest problem is standardising chat scripts.


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 22:47:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.
army.mil> writes:

>1) Is there a *law* to the effect that someone digging on private
>property must "do a JULIE" or otherwise investigate what may be
>underground there before digging? Sure, doing that is a good idea, but
>is it actually legally required?

In California (at least in my area), you don't HAVE to call, but you
are still responsible if you injure a cable.

>2) This was work on ordinary (it appears) residential property. Why
>would a major utility service trunk, as opposed to a feeder, be
>located under such property, as opposed to under municipal-owned or
>public property like a right-of-way, where one would expect such
>utility services to be run?

Sometimes the major utility runs are installed LONG before the
subdivision is created.  In that case, you can conceivably get
utilities anywhere under a property.  Generally, the house must be
sited so that the utilities can be dug up if needed, though I once saw
an old subdivision that had a major sewer main under the principal
residence.

For a new subdivision, it is very common to run phone, water, and
electric utilities under the property edge, where the sidewalk would
be, rather than in the street.

>Would there be something in the
>homeowner's deed or title-search papers showing an easement for this
>use, that the homeowner would be expected to know about?

Yes, absolutely.  The easements would show on both the subdivision
maps and the property map.

> ... indicating an underground cable ran that way; I've seen such signs
>many places, and I would have thought it was the duty (and good
>business sense!) of the telco to keep such signs maintained and
>in-place over such an important cable run.

I've seen maps where the utilities were shown as big red lines.  I
guess the homeowner planted over the red... :-) Most homeowners would
not appreciate the phone company planting "little flags" through their
front yards to mark the easement.  In any event, the homeowner is free
(under the terms of the easement) to do whatever he wants to the
surface, as long as the phone company has the right to dig it up if
necessary (with no compensation to the homeowner).

It's up to the homeowner and the contractor to know what's under the
ground.  This was a phone fiber.  One day my neighbor had a contractor
putting in a stairway of railroad ties in the front lawn.  They were
held to the ground with long steel pipe sections.  I watched one of
the workmen stop a sledgehammer swing in mid stroke when a passing
PG&E repairman told him he was directly above a 12 KV underground
line.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle)
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 14:25:56 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
writes:

>All of the above sounds reasonable to me, *except* that last line.

>What I object to is going after the cost of lost service.  That was
>caused by proven bad management and bad planning.

>[Moderator's Note:

(Pat goes on to mention a lot of valid costs occasioned by the cable cut
that IBT would not otherwise have incurred.)

What we have here seems to be the technological equivalent of the
classic "thin-skull" law school tort problem.  The tortfeasor "takes
their victim as they find them."  If an ordinary person, negligently
bumped on the skull, would only have a headache, it's no defense when
the actual victim suffers a fractured skull and dies.

"But for the action of the tortfeasor, the injury would not have
occured, and the tortfeasor is liable for the total damage."

In the case of the cable cut, the cut did occur, the contractor was
responsible, an ordinary contractor following the customs of the
profession would have "done a JULIE," and then there would have been
at least some legal protection.  One could still argue that when a
excavator encounters an unknown obstacle, they should give it at least
some cursory examination before using brute force to remove it.

In this case, no JULIE was done, no examination of the obstacle was
made, and the contractor is likely to pay a *lot* of money to
compensate for the resulting damages.  (Or the contractor's insurance
company!)


[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
[e-mail]               |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 20:31:27 GMT


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

>We have an AT&T Definity something orother PBX here on campus.  I
>recently discovered that the CO does not send answer supervision info
>to the PBX. As a result, we pay for calls that ring for more than 30
>seconds if they are answered or not.  Any PBX's not have this problem?
>Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX?  Also,

Answer supervision can be had, probably even by your PBX.  But someone
would have to engineer it.  This shouldn't be too hard; digital trunks
configured as TIE lines should do it.  Most telco's have in the past
been reluctant to provide answer supervision for some reason but today
it should'nt be too dificult at all if you're willing to do whatever
is required AKA installing T1 if you don't already have it.

US West recently announced they would provide answer supervision on
analog lines as well.  I'm not sure how many PBX's can support this
but i know that northern telecom's SL-1/M-1 can as well as mitel's sx
line.

>is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business'
>with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on
>the system must pay for local calls?

The residents may not be businesses but the telcom administration is.
They are running a business of aggregating the use of those resident
phones over a service provided to the school.  The school however
doesn't have to charge the residents for local calls :)

>Do all schools with PBX's have these problems?

>[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones
>which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money.   PAT]

I'm sure AT&T's switches can do most of the things an sl-1 can :)

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

From: [e-mail] (Miguel Cruz)
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Organization: University of Michigan Computing Center, Ann Arbor
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 01:16:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave Michaels)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 749, Message 5 of 11

>We have an AT&T Definity something orother PBX here on campus.  I
>recently discovered that the CO does not send answer supervision info
>to the PBX. As a result, we pay for calls that ring for more than 30
>seconds if they are answered or not.  Any PBX's not have this problem?

>[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones
>which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money.   PAT]

Hmmmm .. our school had a 30,000-line DMS for three years before we
got answer supervision on outside calls ... I think there's a little
more to it than just cheapness on the school's part.


Miguel Cruz


[Moderator's Note: In the original message, I unfortunatly neglected
to add the smiley symbol :) at the end of the remarks. I was only
joshing with the original writer. Of all the telecom equipment
manufacturers today, AT&T is probably the best, or one of the best,
and certainly not inexpensive. You have to pay for quality. I guess I
should have phrased it more positively saying that using AT&T
equipment, of all the kinds available, you'd expect something like
call supervision to be standard.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 06:03 EST
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Good Word About MCI Mail


[e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes (about my comments on lowering of MCI
Mail prices) ....

>> Don't forget about the fact that, in the past 18 months or so, MCI
>> Mail ...   -- introduced toll-free access.

>But when I complained about the ending of the local numbers, they told
>me they were centralizing the service via MCI 800 numbers as a COST
>SAVING MEASURE.

I have to admit that this is the first complaint I've heard about
being able to reach MCI Mail for free anywhere in the country.

>>  -- introduced the Preferred Pricing option which gives up to 75% savings
>>     for the first 40 email messages and/or pages of fax.

> But you PAY $10 per month for this!

The $10 you pay _includes_ the first 40 email messages and/or pages of
fax.  It's not the same as telephone services where you pay a fee and
then pay extra for the phone calls.  If you send 40 7500-character
email messages (@ $1.00 each = $40 on regular billing), your savings
is 75% ($30/$40).  If you send 40 1-page faxes (@$.80 each = $32 on
regular billing), your savings is 69% ($22/$32).

>> Paul Wilczynski
>> Krislyn Computer Services
>> MCI Mail Agency

> OH!  ANOTHER MCI Mail agency rep!

I'm not sure what this comment means (except for sarcasm, obviously).
There is more than one agency in the country, and we all speak for
ourselves.

> Bottom line:  They are raising the rates.  Period.

Yep, you're absolutely right.  If I seemed to imply they weren't, I
apologize.

> One interesting thing ... the billing insert didn't say this, but the
> rep pointed out that since I am on the $10 per month high volume plan,
> I don't pay an annual fee anyway.

Glad you mentioned this ... I wish I had remembered to! :-)


[Moderator's Note: The thing with the 800 number was nice, but some
folks already were in a local area where a call to MCI Mail was
'free', or within their local calling area. As a result, to raise the
service charge now saying 'you can call us for free on the 800 number
gives those folks no special comfort.  PAT]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 20:50:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (5013) writes:

>A while back I saw a thread that descibed how I could turn off call
>waiting while I am using my modem.  What I would like to know, if the
>person I am calling has call waiting also, can I turn his feature off
>also?

You as the caller couldn't and shouldn't be able too.  But that gives
rise to the question: can you turn call waiting off on an existing
call?

I just tried it: I flashed and dialed *70 got the three beeps and was
cut through to the existing call.  So if you had some control over
what happened when you called the other number you could have them
initiate blocking.  Of course you would also have to solve the loss of
carrier problem.

vance

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #752
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15454;
          22 Oct 90 3:13 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16842;
          22 Oct 90 1:44 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04495;
          22 Oct 90 0:41 CDT
Date:     Mon, 22 Oct 90 0:08:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #753
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Oct 90 00:08:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 753

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cellular Airtime for Call-Forwarding [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Cell Phone Price/Rates Info [Mark Earle]
    Modems With Cellular Telephones [Roger Fajman]
    Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Nigel Allen]
    EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation [John Stanley]
    Re: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21-OCT-1990 03:29:47.96
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Airtime for Call-Forwarding


Once again, Metro Mobile, the "A"/Nonwireline Cellular provider in
Connecticut and Rhode Island, has proven to me that it has, in my
opinion, the stupidest and rudest customer service people in the
business.

To those not "blessed" enough to use their service, this is the
company that used to have a pretty flaky DMX to New York City, which
never worked well, and was always overloaded. (A DMX allows one to
roam into another area and still receive calls there, as well as, in
some cases, call-forwaring, and other custom calling features...).
After three letters to Metro, they finally managed to get it fixed in
April, and has worked pretty well ever since.

Good, right? Nope ... In May, for 3 days (a weekend plus Monday), they
managed to cross-connect all of their 977 prefix numbers to the U.S.
Sprint "950" access port. So not only could callers not get in touch
with me, but they got a nice Sprint tone, and then had to pay for the
calls since Sprint seems to return supervision on those calls. Great,
another long letter asking for a refund of all those calls, etc.

Last week, I get my bill, and it is *three* times what it normally is!
So I take a closer look, and guess what? They apparently decided to
start charging AIRTIME (not tolls/land charges, but airtime) for
call-forwarding, something they never had done in the past, and
something which I *specifically* asked about when I initially signed
up for service. AND, they just started charging on Sept 14th .. NO
notice, NO pamphlets in the mail, not even a phone call - On Sept
14th, suddenly, all call-forward calls have an airtime charge next to
them!

So I call up Metro Mobile, and ask:

Me> "Why am I being charged airtime for forwarded calls?"

Metro> "Oh, we always did that...".

Me> "Uh...so why do all my bills for the past two years fail to have such
     charges?"

Metro> "You're probably just reading them wrong..." (!!!!!!)

Me> "Err ... yeah ... can I talk to your supervisor?"

Metro> "It's not HER [superivsor's] fault you read your bills improperly!"
       (more !!!!!!!!)

 ....so I listen to dead air for a while, and then the superivsor, Sharon
Ballard, comes on:

Me> (repeat the whole thing about suddenly getting charged)

Sharon> "Oh, we were having a software problem, we've corrected it now..."

Me> "FOR TWO YEARS???!!!! - you've had this problem for two years and
    you only managed to correct it now?" (which, after thinking about
    it for a while, isn't all that implausible with Metro...! :-)  )

Sharon> "Well, we charge it now, regardless..."

After this delightful conversation, I figure it is time to write them
yet another letter, explaining to them why I don't think I should pay
a MONTHLY charge for Call-Forwarding ($4), as well as AIRTIME for
forwarded calls.

I believe I've read from the numerous posts on this subject that both
systems in Chicago no longer charge airtime for call-forwarding, and
was wondering if there are any other areas in North America where this
is also the case.  Metro's usual response to customer complaints is
"Oh, but all the other systems do the same thing...", which is the
answer I got when I asked what reason they had for charging DOUBLE
airtime for Call-Waiting and Three-way calling.  (Basically, they want
to make some more money is what it came down to...  - So much for
competition in the Cellular industry! Neat little duopoly...).  It
would be nice if this time I could refute that argument by giving them
a list of systems which are a bit more enlightened, and do not charge
airtime for call-forwarding.

I'd really appreciate just a brief note letting me know the name of
the system and where it is located, if, as I said, there are any such
systems. I'll summarize if anyone is interested.

Thanks in advance for any/all help!

P.S. Favorite Metro Mobile Quote:

Me> "Hi, would you know the roam port number for Reno, Nevada?"
Metro> "No, I don't...." <click>

     Favorite Quote #2:

Me> "I've notived on my bill a daily charge for using the Baltimore /
     Washington D.C. system, when, as you can see from my bill, I was
     in Westchester County, NY, at the time."

Metro> "Were you near water?"

Me> "Ummm...yeah...Long Island Sound...why?"

Metro> <very sure of herself> "Oh, well THAT explains it - those signals
       travel VERY far over water...we get that all the time!"

Me> "But Baltimore is 200 miles away!!!!"

Metro> "But it's over *water*! - THAT'S what does it all the time!"

(Maybe I should sign up with British Telecom in the UK so I can get
service when I can afford to buy a boat, huh? I mean, the UK is only
3000 miles of "WATER" away!!! :-) )

(In all fairness, they have a technically superior system. It would be
nice if they were able to match the quality of the service of their
employees with the level of technical proficiency found in their
network ... It would also be nice if they weren't such a bunch of
cheap penny-pinchers who try to nickel and dime anything they can, and
make up ridiculous excuses for it later on!)


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 18:22:24 CDT
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cell Phone Price/Rates Info


Cellular Phone Notes From South Texas

As of today, the bargain-basement prices tempted me and I've purchased
a cellular phone. For $80, I get a Uniden President 4000 GTS w/hands
free, installed, antenna included. Any one have the programming notes
for this phone?

It looks middle of the road as far as features.

Don't have it yet (get installed MON) will comment further after some
use.

Rates, with the wireline carrier, Southwestern Bell:

$40/month includes call wait, forward, three way calling.

Airtime: Peak, 38 cents/min non peak, zero cents (non peak is 8 p.m.
to 7 a.m., all day Sat/Sun).

Other plan (which I didn't get): $25/mo, cf, cw, 3way.  Peak 38/min
non peak 22/min.

'Small Talk; 15/mo, no custom features;  all minutes 58 cents each

Big talk; $125/mo, 22 cents all times, but includes 300 "free"
minutes, plus custom calling.

Cellular One, the 'other' provider, offers the same except for the
package with zero off peak.

I had to sign a one year contract, with the penalty that if you quit
before the year is up, the balance (40/mo times months remaining in
year) are due in a lump sum.

All in all not bad, now once I get the thing we'll see how it really
works.


[e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
CIS 73117,351                MCI Mail to: MEARLE
My BBS: (512)-855-7564       Opus 1:160/50.0
Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90  13:49:52 EDT
Subject: Modems With Cellular Telephones


Some people here would like to use a laptop PC and modem with a
celluar telephone for the purpose of giving demonstrations in various
locations where a modular jack may not be available.  Can anyone
recommend cellular telephones and adapters for this purpose?  We don't
have a particular cellular telephone yet -- it would be purchased
specifically for this.  The phone would be stationary, of course,
while the demonstration is going on, but would be inside various
buildings.

A related question is how well various modem technologies work over
cellular telephones.  We are mainly interested in v.22bis (2400 bps)
and V.32 (9600 bps) so that so special modem would be needed at the
other end.  Is it important to have MNP or V.42 error correction?

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

Date: Sat, 20 Oct 90 04:45 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers?
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


The Telephone Pioneers of America also operate in Canada, at least in
the operating territories of Bell Canada (most of Ontario and Quebec)
and Martitime Tel & Tel (Nova Scotia).

Our Moderator writes:

 > They are still around in the local operating companies, and at AT&T.

I think that Pioneers in independent telcos (the term used
pre-divestiture to refer to non-Bell system telephone companies)
belonged to a separate organization, the Independent Telephone
Pioneers. I do not know whether this group is still separate from the
main body of Pioneers.

Does anyone know whether any of the long-distance carriers have their
own Pioneer chapters?  I rather doubt it, since traditionally the
Pioneers were a service club for telco employees who had been with the
company a long time (21 years, perhaps, although the Bell Canada clubs
have reduced the requirement somewhat). People who weren't yet
eligible to join could help out as "Future Pioneers".

Interestingly, the president of the Telephone Pioneers of America is
always an executive of a telephone company, typically the president or
a vice-president.  As much as I admire the work of the Telephone
Pioneers, I suspect that the organization was founded at least partly
to foster the idea that telephone company workers and their managers
are "one big, happy family".

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

Subject: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation
From: John Stanley <fozzie![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 20:55:12 EDT
Organization: One Man Brand


  In the Network Guide Special Edition, and a recent normal edition,
the comments have been made that a flood of email to a user does not
prevent him or her from receiving wanted, or sending outbound, email.
Those who believe this, please consider the following points:

  1. Disk space is never unlimited, and a flood of email can quickly
fill a disk to overflowing. If this is the main system disk, this can
cause catastrophic failures. Even places like AT&T do not have
unlimited disk space. A catastrophic failure of the system most
certainly will prevent sending email. Before someone says "ahh, but
this is poor system management and not the emailer's fault", consider
the parallel to poor system management which allows guessable
passwords on root accounts and cracker breakin's. The system worked
until someone said "hey, lets all send mail to this system".

  2. Bandwidth is limited. Some companies are linked to the network
only through UUCP and a 2400 baud modem. If the mail flow reached the
point where the modem is in use 24 hours a day, when would outgoing
mail be sent? Of course, they should get a 9600 baud modem. They
should connect another system to the outside. Consider the parallel to
junk phone calls and the suggestion that the recipient should get a
second phone line if they want to be able to make calls.

  3. Money is limited. Some email systems charge for messages. When
the costs reach a certain point, guess what will be cut off? Consider
flooding an 800 number with calls. When an 800 number is no longer
cost effective because it is clogged, it gets turned off.

  4. Patience is limited. Those same companies using UUCP generally
have a friendly gateway that connects them for free. If the manager of
this free gateway determines that his system is overloaded because of
a flood of mail to one of his feeds, the easiest way to solve the
problem is to cut the feed. All of a sudden, no incoming or outgoing
mail.

  If someone decided to initiate a flood of mail to me, I would
quickly be overloaded. During the times I am getting my mail feed I am
not only unable to generate outgoing or read incoming mail, I am
unable to make voice phone calls. I have had to dump a UUCP connection
at times when I needed to make other calls. If the flood came to my
CIS account, it would quickly reach the point where I could no longer
afford to read it.

  Yeah, yeah, yeah. Get a 9600 baud modem. Get a second phone line.
Get a multi-tasking UNIX box so I can at least read and write mail
while the flood comes in. Right. Get a life. I have better things to
spend money on than the preventing the possibility I might someday be
overloaded with mail. If the solution doesn't save me money, I can't
implement it. Sounds a lot like a business, doesn't it?

  Finally, there was a comment about a flood of email to a corporate
leader not causing any damage. It most certainly will. At the extreme,
it will cause the termination of email to that site for one of the
above reasons. At least, it will make the executive stop reading his
own email, if he still did. Instead of having the ear of the boss, the
emailer will have the ear of the secretary who will probably not
understand anything in the mail and who will lump it in with
"complaints". A flurry of email messages will also decrease the signal
to noise ratio of the medium to the point that the effort to find the
pearls is not worth the benefit.

BTW, thanks for the network issue, and yes, please, Marty --
information on using [e-mail].

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

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 23:53:32 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation


I'd like to respond to some points raised by John Stanley in his
article to the Digest.

Mr. Stanley raises all sorts of dire predictions about what he terms a
'flood' of email to any given person or site on the net. He points out
that an overflow of mail can crash the system, and that even big
commercial systems are not exempt.

Then he says, when this inevitable crash occurs, because of people
like myself suggesting that one might write letters to persons in
authority, there will be other consequences:

Because the lines will be clogged 24 hours per day, mail will not be
able to get out. Because money is limited, some email systems charge
for messages. Therefore when this becomes too expensive, it will be
cut off.  Company presidents will be forced to have their secretary
dispose of the mail unread, lest they (the president) should be
confronted with ideas and thoughts from the customers.

Doesn't it occur to you, Mr. Stanley that news takes much more time to
transmit than mail, and usually, a lot more space on the disks to
maintain? Why not cut off news instead, Mr. Stanley?  After all, some
of it is quite vindictively written, is it not; and about many of the
same companies mentioned here, no?

I'll tell you what, folks: Let's just all shut our mouths and say
nothing. Let's all go back to the old single server BBS lines and
leave three line messages for each other asking for pirated programs
we can run on our C-64. Isn't that all this medium is supposed to be
good for?

You want to demonstrate the legitimacy of the electronic press? Then
begin to use it, and see to it the right people have the opportunity
to read it. One of two things will happen: Either they will completely
squash it, or they will begin to hold it in strong respect. I'll
gamble on the latter, because if the former is the case, what have we
lost anyway?

I have never suggested that a vindictive effort be made to swamp or
'flood' a system. But at the same time, I'll be damned if I have
someone like Mr. Stanley tell me I should not enourage people to write
and express themselves lest the dire consequences he predicts come
true and some site cuts itself off from the outside world rather than
have to deal with the real and powerful force of email and electronic
publishing.  In the next issue of the Digest, another writer will
continue this topic.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #753
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16763;
          22 Oct 90 4:14 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26508;
          22 Oct 90 2:48 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16842;
          22 Oct 90 1:44 CDT
Date:     Mon, 22 Oct 90 1:38:19 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #754
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 22 Oct 90 01:38:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 754

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Qatar's Telephones [David Leibold]
    Looking for a Personalized "Ring" Switch [Lenny Tropiano]
    Re: Ancient ANI [John Higdon]
    Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: Two Islands in Washington, DC [Stan M. Krieger]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [David G. Cantor]
    Re: Response to International Calling Redlining [Jeff Sicherman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: woody <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Qatar's Telephones
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 16:53:43 EDT


A report in the _Toronto_Star_ made mention of the country of Qatar,
close to the Iraq/Kuwait crisis. Canadian forces are stationed at
Qatar, preparing for possible battle.

In the city of Doha, it is reported that one can tell how financially
well-off someone is doing by finding out how many telephone numbers
there are. Sheik Suhaim bin Nassir Jassim Thani (one of the ruling
family) has 62 phone numbers listed there. Sheik Nassir bin Mohd Jabor
Thani is a relative pauper, with only four phones listed in the book,
including a phone for the garden.

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

Subject: Looking for a Personalized "Ring" Switch
Organization: ICUS Software Systems, Islip, New York
Date: 21 Oct 90 21:33:23 EDT (Sun)
From: Lenny Tropiano <[e-mail]>


I'd like to find a company that sells one of these gadgets, since SWBT
is nice enough to provide this service now, I'd like to be able to
route "certain" calls to certain devices (modems, voice mail, etc..)

If someone could direct me to the company, and approximately what it
would cost, I'd appreciate it.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ancient ANI
Date: 21 Oct 90 20:04:06 PDT (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Oct 21 at 19:05, Peter da Silva writes:

> We get the message. ANI is not CID. Fine. So what is the *external*
> difference between ANI and CID? You say it sends the calling number
> shortly before the called number in an interexchange call. Fine. But
> when it gets to the end user what's the difference? Is the number
> that shows up on the screen (no matter how it's delivered) any different?

Well, yes, there is a considerable difference, but that wasn't my
point either. I am aware that some are irritated by those who insist
on the proper terminology when discussing technical topics, but
without a common language reference things can start becoming very
confusing. As far as the external difference goes, it is night and
day. ANI is used primarily for billing calls and as such is
automatically processed into call records or a database for marketing
purposes. CID's major manifestation will be a number showing up on
someone's LCD window.

If I am in a room with people discussing telephony and someone says,
"I would like to know if someone can help me utilize my ANI to the
fullest", my immediate thought is that the person operates an IEC or a
900 service and is wishing some industrial help.

And, yes, it does make a difference how it's delivered. Caller-ID is
always delivered to an end user. ANI is typically delivered to a
"brother in the cloth" common carrier (whether he, in turn, deliviers
the data to an end user is irrelavent). Caller-ID is delivered to the
end user according to Bellcore standards. ANI is delivered in many
flavors.

ANI is industrial; CID is consumer. BTW, if someone has two lines and
a very smart two-line phone that can conference and divert, do you say
that person has Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, and 3-Way Calling? I
don't think so. Confusing ANI with CID is the direct equivalent of
saying that a person with CW, CF, and 3-Way has two lines.


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

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

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 15:11:28 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers?
Organization: Summit NJ


> [Moderator's Note: You say you could 'never be a member since those
> working for them are not eligible', but I think the rule is you have
> to be employed by a telco for twenty years to be eligible. At least
> under the old consolidated Bell System, twenty years continuous
> employment was the required minimum for Illinois Bell people.

The last I heard, employment was dropped to 15 years.  About 6 years
ago, the drop from 20 to 15 was phased in one year at a time, so the
first year of the phase-in, 19 years employment was required, then 18
the second year, etc.  I was offered the chance to join when I had
completed 17 years employment with AT&T.


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


[Moderator's Note: I hope you took them up on the invitation to join.
Telephone Pioneers is a wonderful, worthwhile organization.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 15:26:09 EDT
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Islands in Washington, DC
Organization: Summit NJ


> Columbia Island is a part of DC that is "across the Potomac".  In
> telecom terms, that means (at least when I took a walk through this
> area in the late 1970s) that the pay phone in its park area just off
> the George Washington Memorial Parkway is on a DC, not Virginia,
> exchange.

> Also in Washington DC: Theodore Roosevelt Island (between the Theodore
> Roosevelt Bridge and the Key Bridge) has no phones that I know of, and
> is reached by a foot bridge from Virginia but is, according to a map,
> in DC.

Maybe this will simplify it.  While the nominal boundary between
Maryland and Virginia is the Potomac River, the entire river is part
of Maryland (unlike the Delaware between NJ and PA or the Hudson
between NJ and NY, where the middle of the river is the boundary).
Thus when Maryland and Virginia together donated the ten mile square
for the national capital, any Potomac River islands came from
Maryland.  Therefore nothing in the river was part of the land
returned to Virginia in 1846.


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

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

Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Date: 21 Oct 90 20:27:38 EDT (Sun)
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>


5013 <[e-mail]> (Mike) wrote:

>What I would like to know, if the person I am calling has call waiting
>also, can I turn his feature off also?

The Moderator's Reply:

>No you cannot. It is up to the person who owns the line to decide what
>features he wants on or off.

An admittedly unlikely scenerio is one where the person you're talking
to has Call Waiting and Conference Calling simultaneously.  In that
case, you can ask the other party to tap the switchhook and dial *70
or 1170.  If the other party hears dial tone again, then he/she would
tap the switchhook once more to return to you.  This disables Call
Waiting in the middle of the conversation.  But, as the Moderator
states, only the person you're talking to can do this.


Sander J. Rabinowitz    | [e-mail] | [phone]
Farmington Hills, Mich. | --OR-- [e-mail] |       8-)


[Moderator's Note: And really, isn't it sort of rude to ask the person
on the other end to suspend their telephone features just so you can
talk without possible interupption? If they wanted it that way, they
would do it that way.   PAT]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 22:14:38 -0700
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


Apparently the telco expects to be completely reimbursed for business
lost due to the damaged cable.  However, most telco tariffs (written
by telcos, of course) provide that if the telco fails to provide
service (regardless of cause, even gross neglicence) the most that the
telco is liable for is the charge for the service.  Perhaps the Court
should take this into account when it assesses damages against the
contractor who damaged the cable.


David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think that will be considered in the case at
hand. There have already been so many suits filed in the matter both
against the contractor and telco that I suspect they will wind up
being consolidated and heard at one time.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 90 01:00:24 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining


 Gee, and I naively thought this thread had died a merciful death, but
I guess you gotta allow for slow readers and PAT's propensity to
continue publishing responses that take his side even when he cuts off
ones that don't (like my last response to his last comment).  PAT
inserted his point of view sarcasticly in a recent issue (748?)  which
I won't waste the effort on responding to. MODERATION has its
privileges I guess in which moderation is not an obligation. Actually,
I'm willing to live with that given all the work this obviously takes;
only a fanatic would do it in the first place.

  As I have acknowledged consistently, I'm not a lawyer (one of MY few
virtues) nor a telecom expert like many readers, so the things I
postulate may not be supported in statute or tariff, but I think I can
support their logic and good sense with anybody.

> Mr. Sicherman, you overlook one difference between the telephone and
> email: if you are bombarded with incoming telephone calls, you cannot
> use your phone for outgoing calls, nor can you receive desired
> incoming calls, so indeed you have been deprived of a service you are
> paying for.

  I think you are taking a very narrow view of things. First, the email
has to get through to the receipient so there is a bandwidth consumption
through nodes, networks and accounts, the nature and extent of which may
vary from system to system and with the actual amount of mail. Second,
the effect of this load on the recipient's email service may also vary
from implementation to implementation and in some indeterminable portion
of cases indeed interfere with his use of the service. We haven't even
addressed the effect upon the providor (MCIMAIL, etc.) and whther they
have a case and a cause for interference with normal operations.

> But if you are bombarded with email, your outgoing email can still get
> out and your desired incoming email (at least on a large commercial
> system like MCI Mail or AT&T Mail, where storage space is not a
> factor) still reaches you.  You may be exasperated, annoyed, angered,
> or incensed, but you have not been deprived of email service.

  I seriously doubt that any tribunal would decide on the (il)legality
or liability based upon the size of the recipients disk space. If
anything, this would impact amount of damages. This would call for
rather detailed foreknowledge by the perpetrators and I don't think
has anything to do with the central issue: which is whether a group of
individuals 'conspired' to send large volumes of email traffic with
the intent to harass the recipient. I do not know how a judge would
rule or jury would decide on this; I just think that if the medium is
not a public forum (so freedom of speech is not an issue) and if the
volume is the message, there is an argument for harassment and a case
for conspiracy among the contributors.

> If you wish to bombard me, kindly do it on GEnie or MCI Mail; at my
> accounts on local pubnet sites, storage limitation *is* a factor.

  Seems to me this supports my argument: you want to restrict the
freedom of others to communicate with you on a volume-dependent basis;
why shouldn't other others have the same right ?

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

[Moderator's Note: Thanks for letting me know I am a fanatic. I'm sure
David Tamkin appreciates your comments about him being a slow reader
also.  Not everyone can devote their entire day to reading TELECOM
Digest, Mr. Sicherman. One reader on MCI Mail said he is currently
about thirty issues behind. Will you graciously pardon us if in a few
days he gets around to your message and decides to respond to it?

And if you don't mind, we prefer not to have meta-conversations
here, as per your 'gee, I thought this thread had died a merciful
death ...' . If you do not wish to continue discussing something, Mr.
Sicherman, then *don't discuss it*. One of the wonderful things about
net news is that you can skip over the messages you do not want to
read. Contrary to your assertion that because I did not agree
with your message I would not print it, you will note that indeed,
your messages do get published here, like lots of others. Or did you
mean that your messages were not printed here as a priority item, Mr.
Sicherman? Was that it?  Yours were to be moved to the top of the
stack?

Although by net custom, my title here is Moderator, I more view my
role as facilitator and editor. I am admittedly, a telecom activist. I
encourage people to do things which in their estimation will make a
difference for the better. Your arguments against the use of email as
a way of informing, educating and persuading people are invalid. The
dire consequences of which you and others have spoken are unrealistic.

You freely admit to not being a solicitor. Why don't we leave it at
that? No one here is encouraging anyone to 'flood' or 'disrupt' the
email service of any site. Define those words as you wish, Mr.
Sicherman. It does not matter, really. Dozens of copies of this Digest
go daily to MCI Mail and AT&T Mail. Your message will be included in
the current mailing. I guess I am already causing a flood of mail,
considering I get over a hundred letters daily and try to print at
least 25-40 of them.  The amount of text transmitted as news on any
given day greatly exceeds the amount of email between sites. Would you
stop that also?  Some of it is pretty vindictive toward the same
companies we talk about here. Better still, perhaps you and Mr.
Stanley could start a mailing list and say all the Correct Things To
Be Said each day, and route your messages to the Correct Departments
and the Correct People.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #754
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03877;
          23 Oct 90 19:01 EDT
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ci05351; 23 Oct 90 16:57 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29146;
          23 Oct 90 3:51 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05550;
          23 Oct 90 2:09 CDT
Date:     Tue, 23 Oct 90 1:40:29 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #755
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 23 Oct 90 01:40:20 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 755

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information [Peter G. Capek]
    Charges for Directory Enquiries [Colum Mylod]
    Who or What is ITI? [David Smith]
    No-Fee DECUServe Mailbox [John R. Covert]
    A Way to Avoid Telemarketers? [Gary Segal]
    ANA (?) in New Jersey [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Whatever Happened to Zenith Numbers? [Lance Gay]
    Wondering About Printed Sources Describing Net Failures [Gregory Rawlins]
    Re: A New Way to be COCOTted [Martin B. Weiss]
    Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number [Carl Moore]
    Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold [Mark Brader]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 02:59:11 EDT
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information


While trying to get the schedule from a local octoplex movie theatre
recently, it occurred to me that it would be to the advantage of both
the theatre operator and the local exchange carrier to allow multiple
incoming calls "get through" to the theatre's recording at the same
time.  I believe that there are services which allow this on a
nationwide basis, or even on a local basis through a special exchange,
but it seems as though, by proper programming in the switch (assuming
it is a digital switch, which should have no problem "replicating" a
half speaking path to many listeners), one could have many callers
listen to a single recording.  All that would seem to be needed is for
the owner of the line to designate that this should happen, and
perhaps to designate a maximum time that any single caller should be
allowed to listen.  This latter wouldn't even really be necessary, I
guess; the caller is paying for the call as usual.  I can't believe
this is a new idea, but I've heard of it being offered as a service by
the phone company.  Is it?


Peter Capek


[Moderator's Note: Actually, the theatre could use voice mail from a
commercial voice mail service with DID ports. For example, I use
Centel Voice Mail. It has about 30 ports, and up to that many callers
can be on at one time, via any combination of mailboxes. The theatre
could, as an example, have 29 callers at once, leaving one port for
everyone else! It works like an accordion at partioning the boxes and
the ports. Plus, most voice mail systems can have more than one box
linked via a 'front end box' like mine is. A caller would be told to
press 1 through 7 for the various theatres or 8 for future
attractions. Voice mail is easy to use and easy to update at any time.
The cost is quite inexpensive. At Centel mine costs $7 per month. PAT]

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

From: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Charges for Directory Enquiries
Date: 22 Oct 90 12:48:03 GMT
Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands


To add to the list of Directory Enquiries: is it free or not:

Ireland is free. National & local inquiries 190, international is 114.
Both are free. Both are jammed up, and it takes much patience to get
an answer. Calls are redirected from region to region if the local
region is busy, not that this seems to improve matters. I've often had
to call the international enquiry on 114 with problems, and NEVER got
an answer. The phone book lists a Dublin number if 114 doesn't work.

Netherlands: National is 008 and costs 15 (Dutch) cents per call,
maximum of two numbers given out at a go. If it is busy you get an
automatic message "Ten people waiting before you". This service goes
to bed at 20.00, with a recording telling you to call another number.
I tried one night at 01.00 and got just ringing tone. International is
0018 and free and stays up all night. The Dutch version of MINITEL has
on-line enquiries: in NL on 06-7400 for 50ct/min, int. +31 6 7400 is
probably blocked.

Spain: Local costs because they believe you could look it up yourself.
National (i.e. not your own area) is free. I believe international is
also free.

France: Both are free from private phones. Local is 10, international
was 19 33 <country-code>, i.e. for Germany dial 19 33 49 (19 is Int.
access code, 33 is France so they use 33 in France to access the
operator.) I'm not sure if this is still in use. In 1986 labels went
up on phone cells claiming that Enquiries were "gratis" from this
cell.

 From personal experience the cell still swallowed money. Of course
with MINITEL enquiries Telecom France may see verbal enquiries as a
bad lot.

Germany: I think it is free. Local enquiries 1188, national 01188,
international 001188 -- nice pattern, so long as N. America doesn't
create an area code 188!

I can see all places charging eventually. It is abused by so many
people not keeping better records, and is very busy in all countries
I've been in.


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

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

From: David Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who or What is ITI?
Date: 22 Oct 90 22:38:26 GMT
Organization: IPCC-ECB, Columbus, Ohio


As part of the experience of renting a vacation house in southern
Florida recently, a friend made the unhappy acquaintance of a phone
company known as ITI, with which the owners or managers of the house
had apparently contracted to provide phone service.

He wanted to make a long-distance call.  His options were to make it
collect, to charge it to a third number, or to charge it to his credit
card -- he couldn't charge it to the vacation house number.  Collect
and third-number charging were impossible under the circumstances.
When he asked to charge it to his credit card, he was told that wasn't
possible because "the computer was down."

But, he was told, he could connect with an AT&T operator by dialing
"00".  Tried that -- didn't work -- called ITI operator back.  Was
told by another ITI operator he could get the AT&T operator with "*0".
Tried that -- didn't work -- called ITI operator back.  ITI operator
tried to connect him with the AT&T operator -- but couldn't.  Friend
asked to speak with a supervisor.  No supervisor available -- was
given an address to write to, instead.

What is ITI?  Is it typical of something relatively new?  Of something
relatively common?


[Moderator's Note: ITI is an 'alternate operator service', or AOS
which purports to be a long distance carrier and alternative to that
mean old ripoff, Ma Bell.  The letters mean International Telesphere,
Inc. Another division of the company operates 900 service, in the
$29.95 for the first minute range. Still another division of the
company sells/manages COCOTS. They really think they are something. I
think they are sleaze. They weasel their way into companies and other
places by promising lucrative commissions on calls, etc. They've been
known to slam (genuine Bell) payphones, naming themselves the default
carrier.  Lots of folks could tell you stories about them.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 12:02:53 PDT
From: "John R. Covert  22-Oct-1990 0829" <[e-mail]>
Subject: No-Fee DECUServe Mailbox


>The Digital Equipment Computer Users Society (DECUS) runs a VAX Notes
>Conferencing system called DECUServe that currently has a $65/year fee,
>and is about to have a 56kb Internet connection installed.

>The interesting thing is that the Decus leadership are in the process
>of lowering the $65/year to $0/year. Decus membership IS required, but
>costs nothing.

The DECUServe Executive Committee has asked me to provide the following
additional information about the above:

1) No-Fee DECUServe still requires the approval of the DECUS Board of
   Directors.  This approval is not expected before 1 July 1991.  Until
   No-Fee DECUServe is approved, subscriptions remain $65/year.

2) For information about DECUServe, please call 800 521-8950 and log
   in under the INFORMATION account.

In addition to the annual fee, DECUServe subscribers pay their own
telecommunications costs from their calling location to DECUServe.


john

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: A Way to Avoid Telemarketers?
Date: 22 Oct 90 15:33:06 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (Jamie Hanrahan) writes:

>I think the latter.  I was at a friend's house when they received a
>survey call.  There was some confusion because this house has two
>lines, one private and one business.  When the survey folks learned
>that they had called the business line, they didn't want to talk
>further.  In this case, they were just calling every
>randomly-generated number and asking.

Hmm ... this gives my an idea!  What if I were to answer my home phone
with "Thank you for calling, how may I help you?"  Would telemarketers
and poll takers be confused and think they called a business?  Would
they care?  Could this be an easy way to cause them to hang up first?

Has anyone else tried this?


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.

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

Date: 22-OCT-1990 17:16:27.41
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANA(?) in New Jersey

Hi-

I tried calling 200-222-2222 from a New Jersey Bell Payphone im
Morristown, NJ, and instead of getting it to read me back the number,
I got a New Jersey Bell operator! (ANA = Automatic Number Announcement
? Is this the correct term?)

I asked her what sort of operator she was, ie, was she a "special
operator" or an intercept operator, and she said "Nope, just a local
operator..."

I tried it again to see if by accident I didn't misdial (maybe
00-222-2222 or something), and again, a NJ Bell operator.

Perhaps if a COCOT would allow this, dialing 200-222-2222 in NJ may be
a good way to get to talk to a NJ Bell operator. (Dialing 0 or 10NJB-0
doesn't always work ... [what else is new? :-( ])

They also seem to have disabled the Touch Tone test, which, from what
I recall, was 0-959-1234. (NOT to be confused with the "coin test",
which still seems to work ... from payphones, obviously.)

Finally, speaking of New Jersey, I noticed that AT&T is now offering
service at a "discount" rate from North Jersey to NYC, like New York
Tel and New Jersey Bell do. As with the NYTel and NJBell plans, you
need to have a certain volume of calls before the plan saves
anything.


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: Lance Gay <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Ever Happened to ZENITH Numbers?
Date: 22 Oct 90 16:36:07 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Lance Gay)
Organization: TRW Systems Engineering & Development Division, Redondo Beach, CA


When I was younger growing up in Southern California, there existed
ZENITH phone numbers.  A typical one might be "ZENITH 1234".  You
accessed this number by dialing the operator and asking for ZENITH
1234.  The operator would then manually connect you to the appropriate
party.  I think they might have been an early form of local toll-free
number.  Do these still exist?


Lance J. Gay (N6BKQ)                         Internet: [e-mail]
TRW Systems Engineering & Development Div.   Phone: [phone]
Redondo Beach, CA  90278


[Moderator's Note: In some parts of the country, like Chicago, they
were known as 'Enterprise numbers', and yes, they were an early form
of 800 service. Some Enterprise/Zenith numbers were for local calling
only, while others were national in scope. They were no longer offered
once 800 service became universal, but they were grandfathered to
existing customers who wanted to keep them. I guess there are still a
few -- very few -- operating. I did see one or two in the last issue
of the Chicago alpha directory.  The recipient of the call paid for
the call itself and if memory serves me, a 25 cent surcharge.  PAT]

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

From: "Gregory J. E. Rawlins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wondering About Printed Sources Describing Net Failures
Date: 23 Oct 90 01:54:46 GMT


I'm a recent subscriber to this newsgroup and I would like to
know if there are published sources of the various phone system and
net outages.  I'm particularly looking for books that described some
of the outages and the reasons for them with special emphasis on the
net itself. For example, I've heard of the first arpanet plague in
1972 but aside from a brief mention in one of Comer's book I have
never seen a book that talked about it. Surely there have been more
since then? (For example, last year's worm.) Are these war stories
collected somewhere?

I'm writing about algorithms on graphs and networks and I would like
to make it more interesting by describing the way these algorithms have
failed in the real world (the '72 Arpanet failure is a good example of
what can go wrong if one of the IMPs decides that it has a negative
hop cost).

Apologies for wasting bandwidth with a simple inquiry. I imagine this
must be a fairly frequent question.


Thanks,

gregory

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

From: Martin B Weiss <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A New Way to be COCOTted
Date: 22 Oct 90 13:03:12 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Services


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry
Rachman) writes:

>Interesting, though, isn't it? I thought I was safe from COCOTs
>because I never went near the fuzzy things, but it seems that they
>come and get you even in the comfort and privacy of your own home!

One thing that hasn't been addressed by the FCC NPRM and the
legislation that was passed and signed by Bush (something he didn't
veto for a change!) is the collect call issue.  Presumably the choice
of carrier should be made by the person paying for the call (that's
the way economics is supposed to work, anyway).  If someone is calling
you collect from a COCOT or a telephone served by an AOS with whom you
don't care to do business, then how do you get to choose?  You are
essentially stuck with the choice made by the person calling you.  As
a result, you can still be had by an AOS despite your best intentions!


   Martin Weiss
   Telecommunications Program, University of Pittsburgh
   Internet: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
   BITNET: mbw@pittvms


Moderator's Note: A sent-paid call and an incoming collect call are
not quite exact opposites of each other. In sent-paid, you are paying
for the decisions *you* make regarding the routing of the call and its
duration. In collect calls, you have agreed to pay for *the caller's*
decisions. The caller 'decided to' use a COCOT. Of course, we know how
that goes: he probably decided nothing, since most phone users know
nothing about it to start with. He saw a phone and used it. If you
tell him later that his choice of phones caused you to get a higher
than expected phone bill, you embarass a friend.  So I usually say
nothing and go ahead and pay for it. But my trained ear is listening
from the moment I answer the call: Unless I hear 'this is the AT&T
operator with a collect call, etc' I make it quick and offer to call
back to wherever.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 9:52:51 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finding Your Own Phone Number


Yes, I also got that recording about 800-666-6258 being changed to
817-877-5629.  The "..." inserted in the message by Arthur S Kamlet
<[e-mail]> is just a repetition of the new-number message.
However, at the end of the message, I got "VTK [pause] F".

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 1990 14:09:32 -0400


> M[usic] O[n] H[old] makes *most* people feel more comfortable on the
> line, so they wait longer before hanging up. ...

Why, then, is it that I don't seem to know any of these "*most*" people?

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #755
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17013;
          24 Oct 90 4:49 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22953;
          24 Oct 90 3:03 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05170;
          24 Oct 90 2:00 CDT
Date:     Wed, 24 Oct 90 1:18:37 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #756
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Oct 90 01:18:37 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 756

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll [Roger Tang]
    Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call? [Jamie tatum]
    Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [M. Spann]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [John Ruckstuhl]
    Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households [Tad Cook]
    Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA (really Pac*Bell) [Joe Konstan]
    Re: Telco "Customer Service" [R. Kevin Oberman]
    Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [Carol Srpings]
    Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [Richard Lerner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Roger Tang <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NY Times Method For Conducting Phone Poll
Date: 22 Oct 90 15:09:25 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (B. S.
Oplinger) writes:

![e-mail] describes the process for a NY Times/CBS News poll:

!How pray tell can they have generated 'telephone numbers ... formed by
!random digits, thus permitting access to both listed and unlisted
!numbers' and then caused them to be 'screened so that only residences
!would be called?' Is there some magic way to tell if a number is
!residential or commercial, especially the unlisted ones. Or is this
!simply a case of a newspaper article mixing facts and fiction?

![Moderator's Note: I think they made the assumption (mostly correct)
!that business phones would probably not be non-pub;

    No, they don't do this.  Based on my days as a telephone
survey taker (NOT a solicitor!), we ASKED (or added two plus two when
somebody answered, 'Joe's Pizza.').

    There's all sorts of methodological screening techniques; some of
theme are quite sophisticated.  This one, however, really just requires
the brains of an avocado.

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

From: Jamie tatum <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri Oct 19 90 at 07:27:19 (EDT)
Subject: Re: 950-xxxx From a COCOT -- Billable Call?


Well we're lucky out here ... our pay phones do not charge for 800
numbers. Not only that, they're cheap at ten cents a call. (Local, of
course!)  I'm referring to Connecticut. You know, since David's
mailbox put up EBBS, I don't think there has been one netting
(Internet, etc.) board in all of Connecticut!


INET: [e-mail]
UUCP: crash!pnet01!gnh-porthole!jtatum
ARPA: crash!pnet01!gnh-porthole![e-mail]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA
Date: 22 Oct 90 15:19:30 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, wybbs![e-mail]
(Ken Jongsma) writes:

> I know we've talked about this in the Digest before, but I hadn't
> realized any telco had implemented it yet.

Yup.  An interesting aside is thinking about how one would block this
service on a PBX that allows access to DA, but would rather have users
dial the number themselves.  Maybe they should make DA a 976 number!


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

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

From: mike spann <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill?
Date: 22 Oct 90 19:14:13 GMT
Reply-To: mike spann <gammafax![e-mail]>
Organization: gammafax


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

>            I hesitate to think what would happen if I tried to mail a
>single check to their collection center in Lincoln, though: they'd
>probably credit the whole payment to only one number and I'd need to
>get the Des Plaines office not only to reallocate the payment but also
>to remove the late charges: Lincoln's done that before.

I pay four separate phone bills mailed to two addresses and with three
different billing names with a single check each month.  The bills
come in two batches, (three on a 969 prefix and one on a 961 prefix)
one week apart.  I have never had Pac Bell incorrectly process my
payment (knock on wood).


Michael Spann      [e-mail]
Voice: [phone]    Fax: [phone]
UUCP: ...!uunet!gammafax!mikes    CIS: 73747,441

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

From: John Ruckstuhl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Date: 22 Oct 90 20:13:58 GMT
Organization: UF CIS Dept.


> What I would like to know, if the person I am calling has call waiting
> also, can I turn his feature off also?

Some respondents discuss how a call-recipient can disable their
call-waiting.

I observe that this is valuable when one is using a call-back security
system for remote computer access via telephone.


John R Ruckstuhl, Jr   University of Florida
[e-mail],      uflorida!ruck

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Date: 22 Oct 90 16:31:13 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Michaels
cccc) writes...

>We have an AT&T Definity something orother PBX here on campus.  I
>recently discovered that the CO does not send answer supervision info
>to the PBX. As a result, we pay for calls that ring for more than 30
>seconds if they are answered or not.  Any PBX's not have this problem?
>Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX?  Also,
>is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business'
>with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on
>the system must pay for local calls?

>Do all schools with PBX's have these problems?
>[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones
>which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money.   PAT]

No fair, Pat.  It's NOT the fault of the PBX!

Central offices routinely deny answer supervision to subscribers.
It's not impossible for them to provide it, but as a rule, telcos
consider answer supervision a private matter. (ISDN, on the other
hand, normally provides it, but sometimes will fail when the other end
is analog.)

If NJBell wanted to be nice about it, they'd provide answer
supervision, but I haven't met a Bell yet who was routinely nice about
it.  Maybe they think it's a benefit of Centrex service, since that
does provide accurate billing on message toll calls. (It doesn't pass
supervision; it is CO-based, so the CO uses its own knowledge in
writing up the bills.)  So PBX users suffer.  Maybe the FCC will
eventually end this little scam but it has lasted so far.


Fred R. Goldstein
Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail] voice: [phone]

Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 15:41:49 PDT


In article <[e-mail]>,  CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET
(Peter G. Capek) writes:

> {The Wall Street Journal} of October 16 has an article describing
> recent announcements by MCI and Sprint of new programs to market 800
> service to residences.  Highlights:

> Apparently in either case, MCI customers get will get a
> four-digit private security code to avoid the reception of unwanted
> calls.

I think the REAL reason for the "security code" is in the next
paragraph:

> Observation: Isn't there a real potential for running out of numbers
> here?  There's really only one area code's worth of 800 numbers, and
> several hundred thousand of those have been assigned already.  If
> these services are successful in any serious sort of way, I see a real
> constraint.  Even if it were technically feasible to add another area
> code or two for "reverse bill" service, advertising it and getting
> people to know, as they do today, that "1-800" is free would certainly
> take a while.

If MCI uses a four digit security code, then that is another 10,000
customers that can use the same 800 number.  I am sure it will work
something like this: You dial the number, and get a voice-mail-like
prompt asking for the security code.  The security code actually
routes you to the correct party.


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

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

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 19:48:14 PDT
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA (really Pac*Bell)


In Telecom Digest V10 #752 Steve Rhoades writes:

>This service is available in the northern section of Oakland, Calif.
>also.  An otherwise local call costs 35 cents (normally 20 cents).

Actually it stretches up into at least Contra Costa County (Richmond
and San Pable) as well and costs 35 cents IN ADDITION TO the 20 cents.
I tried a local call and it asked for 55 cents.  If nobody else has,
I'll try more expensive calls and see how far within Pac*Bell land the
service carries.


Joe Konstan

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telco "Customer Service"
Date: 22 Oct 90 15:17:56 GMT


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

>  From the Pac*Bell repair "Gotcha" department:

> Among my many residence lines is one from the #5 crossbar switch --
> the rest are on a 1ESS. I am not paying for TT on the Xbar line --
> they can't (or don't seem to be able to) turn it off. Anyway, I have
> noticed for some time that it takes MUCH longer for calls to complete,
> particularly long distance calls, on the Xbar than on the 1ESS. Why? I
> don't know -- they both use archaic MF signaling.

I don't think that this could be the case here, but when visiting my
mother in a small town in Colorado last year I noticed an interesting
implementation of TT. The town is still on the old (circa 1950?)
rotary switch. Of course it can't handle TT in any way, right?

What Mountain Bell (now USWest) did was put DTMF receivers on the
input to the switch which output pulses. So I entered the tones and
could hear the pulses being generated in the background. And, no, it
was not a pushbutton phone generating pulses. It was a phone that can
so either with the switch set to tone position. I could clearly hear
the DTMF.


R. Kevin Oberman     Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Internet: [e-mail]              [phone]

Disclaimer: Don't take this too seriously. I just like to improve my typing
and probably don't really know anything useful about anything.

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers?
Date: 23 Oct 90 13:27:35 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> Jim Haynes <[e-mail].
edu.uucp> writes:

>I got to wondering what happened to the Telephone Pioneers
>organization after the great Bell System breakup.

They're still around in Columbus, it would seem.  My wife had one of
the good old volume-control handsets, since we're hard of hearing.
The local PhoneCenter stores are selling them off (and may have
already done so), and the 'new' phones just don't do the job quite as
well.  One day, my son (old enough to know better!) decided to take it
apart to see how it worked.  In short: he practically trashed it, my
wife was devastated, and we somehow got it fixed by a telephone
pioneer (either gratis or for a whole lot less than a new handset
would have cost, if they were even obtainable.  As a side note, she
had to give up a promotion with her employer because they could not
get a good volume-control phone to work with their el-cheapo system.
One advantage of the good old days, I guess.  So we are grateful to
those old-timers.  Hope the Pioneers stay active for a long time.

Thanks!

Bob Zabloudil
Opinions strictly my own, of course.

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

From: [e-mail] (Carol Springs)
Subject: Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell
Date: 23 Oct 90 12:03:40 GMT


In Vol. 10, Issue 750, Dan Ross quotes from his Wisconsin Bell insert:

>Touch-Tone Service
>Effective in October, 1990, Wisconsin Bell has eliminated the $1.50
>per month charge for residential touch-tone service.

>I ordered Touch-Tone on Thursday, and will have it Friday.  I had not
>ordered it as a protest against charging extra for something which
>(according to what I'd read) was _cheaper_ to provide!  Have other
>areas eliminated the charge?

As of October 19, New England Telephone has *raised* monthly
touch-tone from 58 cents to 98 cents.

Toll charges within area codes 617 and 508 (eastern Mass.) have been
lowered:

    Distance (miles)     First minute           Each additional minute
                     Day  Evening  Night/Wknd    Day  Even'g  Night/Wknd
    0-10            0.19   0.124     0.076      0.09   0.059    0.036
    11-14           0.26   0.169     0.104      0.12   0.078    0.048
    15-up           0.32   0.208     0.128      0.14   0.091    0.056

Various other rate changes have been implemented.  These include rate
increases for the various classes of service (e.g., an increase of
about $3/mo. for basic residential Unlimited Service) and the
elimination of the 30 message unit allowance on Measured Service.  On
the plus side, toll-free local calling has been expanded to include
bordering exchanges in all cases.

As I understand things, NET had considered charging for 411 directory
assistance, but this proved to be a political no-no.  Guess where the
money is coming from instead?


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 1990 15:33-EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA


When you call Directory Assistance in (Pittsburgh) Pennsylvania, after
you give the operator the name you want to find, you FIRST get a 15
second or so recording about auto connect (its a $.30 surcharge) and
THEN get the number you desired.  What a waste of time!  They should
at least give you the number first.

I think that the designers of automated phone systems (and other
systems) often forget that peoples' time is of some value.  They
consider only the most naive users and ignore the effects of the
system on "more advanced users".  Other examples are phone menus with
agonizingly long descriptions of your options in a slow deliberate
monotone voice; "If you are calling from a pushbutton phone <long
pause> pleeeze dial 1 to connect you with a sales representative.
<long pause> If you are in need of service or repair, pleeeze dial 2.
If you ... If you are dialing from a rotary phone, please hold the
line and an operator will assist you."  Less socially friendly, but
more user-friendly would be: "Push 1 for sales, 2 for repairs, ..., or
hold for an operator."  My most recent example of poor design was when
I called Sprint to be added to their frequent caller program.  The
number was answered with a phone menu (like the long one above).

Having the requisite touch-tone phone, I pushed 1.  The machine next
asked for my account number.  Since I was calling from work, I did not
have my number handy and I figured that my name would be sufficient if
someone would listen to it.  So I waited for a time out... "Please
enter your account number now" ... "Please enter your account number
now." ... "Please enter your account number now." .... Finally, the
machine just hung up!!!  I should point out that this number is not
Sprint's normal customer service number, but a special number for
their frequent caller program (possibly some outside vendor) and when,
upon calling back and waiting through their phone menu recording, I
finally did speak to an operator, she sounded sincere when she said
she would forward my comments to the appropriate people.


Rick Lerner  ([e-mail])
School of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University


End of TELECOM Digest V10 #756
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18719;
          24 Oct 90 6:02 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18349;
          24 Oct 90 4:06 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab22953;
          24 Oct 90 3:03 CDT
Date:     Wed, 24 Oct 90 2:31:49 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #757
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 24 Oct 90 02:31:03 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 757

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Mercury Marketing Again [John Cowan]
    Re: Looking For Help With AT&T 801c ACU [John Cowan]
    Re: A New Way to be COCOTted [John Higdon]
    Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold [Gregory K. Johnson]
    Re: Ancient ANI [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Ancient ANI [John Nagle]
    Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone [John Cowan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fraudulent Coin Calls
Date: 23 Oct 90 19:26:42 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Benjamin
Ellsworth) writes:

>> ... To totally exclude all non-USA citizens who are visiting us from
>> receiving credit is one thing -- to issue credit to <some> out of
>> country people and not others is illegal. ... PAT

>If DISCRIMINATION of foreign nationals based on country of origin is
>legal (and I believe it is), then *by definition* they may do
>precisely that.  You are free to discriminate against anyone you like
>on any basis EXCEPT those specifically mentioned by law.  The
>protection of these laws, when push comes to shove, is most likely
>only extended to citizens of the USA.

    I doubt that this has been tested in court, and I'd bet that
the civil rights law says "discrimination against any person...", not
"discrimination against any citizen of the United States...". I think
it's been demonstrated that this is a gray area in the law.

    Most likely it would come down to whether PAT or AT&T had the
best lawyer :^).

    Followups to soc.lobotomized.lawyers.

    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well, they would have the best lawyers, I suppose.
Anyway, I don't like most lawyers, and agree with Bill Shaekespeare's
suggestion for dealing with them -- at least all except the seven who
have employed me for a few years now. Or else they work for me, I keep
forgetting exactly how we have it arranged.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:11:03 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Will
Martin) writes:

> 6) This was a pretty obvious situation; you've got a guy with a
> backhoe in open land with a big hole and two broken ends of cable
> sticking out.  Suppose the work had been done by one of those
> horizontal-digging underground-boring machines, putting in a drainage
> pipe or something, that chewed through the cable under an undisturbed
> surface, and the machine just chomped the cable like it was a tree
> root and continued on. No one doing the work might even notice. Now
> here you have "n" miles of underground cable, no obvious hole anyhere,
> and a break somewhere.  With copper wire, you can use time-domain
> reflectometry or something like that to get some idea of where to
> start looking, but can you do that with fiber optics?

Last question first: time-domain reflectometry has it's optical
counter- part -- a broken fiber reflects like a bad mirror.  Check out
the ton of ads in Telephony for fiber trouble-locating equipment.

As to non-backhoe fade-inducers, one of my Dad's neighbors had the
misfortune of killing a quarter-mile of cable connecting an old
previously-independent area with the rest of Southwestern Bell.

 The scene: A county (gravel) road in a lightly-populated area in Kansas.
   A recently-regraded ditch parallels the road, with a broken-down
   fence on the far side of the ditch.  Fence needs repair before
   cows can occupy pasture on far side of fence.

The solution: Build a new fence just inside the old one, leaving a
   couple of feet between fences to allow access to the "road" side
   of the fence.

The problem: When SW Bell bought out the Independent, overhead wire was
   replaced with underground cable and the cable was trenched inside
   existing telephone poles (which tended to be directly in line with any
   existing fence).

Since the post holes were dug to a depth about equal to the cable
depth, several dozen holes were in place before the auger pulled up a
good-sized chunk of cable.  Unfortunately, the cable was damaged in so
many places the whole distance was re-trenched, inside the new fence.
Note that there are (and were) orange poles placed near each
intersection of the cable and any public road, with a reminder that
telephone cables are buried nearby.

 Since the affected area has a population of about 70 farms, one
church and three businesses, the cable damage provided more coffee
break jokes than consternation.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 14:44:05 GMT


I don't understand what's so difficult about getting rid of
telemarketing calls.  I've never had more than two of them from an
undesired source.

Call #1 gets interrupted as soon as I figure out what's going on with
"I'm sorry I'm not interested in <whatever> goodbye" *click*, all in
one breath.

Call #2 gets interrupted with "This call is being recorded and will be
reported to the New York City Police Department as an act of telephone
harassment do not call again goodbye" *click*.  This statement is
untrue, but I have never had a callback after that.

After all, these people get paid by results, no?  The last thing they
want is somebody who 1) will not buy and 2) will make trouble.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)


[Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly. I've always been amused by
the messages both here and elsewhere on the net by folks who
apparently are frightened to death that they might actually encounter
one on the phone and have to say no ... so frigthened by telemarketers
are they that they go to such extremes: published lines where are
never answered; non-pub lines which route through an answering machine
for screening first, etc.  Do like Nancy: Just say no (and hang up).  PAT]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Looking For Help With AT&T 801c ACU
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:15:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Thomas
Lapp) writes:

>I have an AT&T 801c ACU which I have connected to an IBM 37x5 FEP
>running bisync protocol.
   ...
>Does anyone know or work with this device?  Does anyone know of RS-366
>defines a pause character like the "," which is a Hayes standard for
>async modems using the Hayes command set?

As I remember (and this was long ago), 801s dial each digit as
received.  Therefore, pausing is up to you -- you pause by not sending
the next digit for a while.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A New Way to be COCOTted
Date: 23 Oct 90 19:36:25 PDT (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Oct 23 at  1:40, TELECOM Moderator and Martin Weiss write:

> [On] the collect call issue.  Presumably the choice
> of carrier should be made by the person paying for the call (that's
> the way economics is supposed to work, anyway).  If someone is calling
> you collect from a COCOT or a telephone served by an AOS with whom you
> don't care to do business, then how do you get to choose?

> Moderator's Note: A sent-paid call and an incoming collect call are
> not quite exact opposites of each other.

It is just because this is true that I take a somewhat draconian
stance on the problem. I don't accept collect calls. Period. No
exceptions.  The moment I sense that an operator is even thinking
"collect" I say "absolutely not" and hang up.

Now, while you are staggering hand over heart to your terminal to talk
about "emergencies" and "unforseen situations", allow me to give you
the view from here. I have not accepted a collect call from ANYONE in
about twenty years. In that time, no one has dropped dead, gone
hungry, or served time as a result. There is always a way to pre-pay a
call, whether it be change in the box, third-number, credit card,
etc., etc.  If some agency is calling to tell me about a relative or
what-have-you, they can prepay the call. A one-minute call from
anywhere in the country at the most expensive time of day is under
$0.50 (I never said I wouldn't call the person back). The most
destitute or cheap individual can afford that. If the only choice is a
gouge-a-matic AOS, why should I pay rather than the caller?

To that end, I have collect calls blocked in the Pac*Bell database.
This means that a collect attempt within the LATA and a collect
attempt within the state via AT&T will fail before it is placed. My
personal feeling is that the concept of "collect" is an anachronism.
Those who wish to receive collect calls as a "courtesy" to others will
just have to accept the risk that accompanies their largess.


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

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

From: Gregory K Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 04:55:09 GMT


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

>> M[usic] O[n] H[old] makes *most* people feel more comfortable on the
>> line, so they wait longer before hanging up. ...

>Why, then, is it that I don't seem to know any of these "*most*" people?

I think music-on-hold performs one valuable function.  It indicates to
you that you haven't been disconnected (or, as is often the case, it
lets you detect when you have been disconnected).


Greg

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:42:44 CDT
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ancient ANI
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> On Oct 21 at 19:05, Peter da Silva writes:

> > We get the message. ANI is not CID. Fine. So what is the *external*
> > difference between ANI and CID?

> Well, yes, there is a considerable difference, ...
> [besides] the proper terminology when discussing technical topics ...

> Caller-ID is always delivered to an end user. ANI is typically delivered
> to a "brother in the cloth" common carrier

> ANI is industrial; CID is consumer.

Two other differences: 1) ANI can be sent in 7 and 10 digit versions,
depending on who's sending/receiving, and identifies the number
CHARGED for this part of the call.  May not be a valid number or the
number actually assigned to the caller.  CallerID is (so far) always
10 digits.

2) While the above description doesn't sound like a big difference for
most callers, look at a call that involves Call Forwarding.  Any ANI
sent on the "forwarded" leg of the call identifies the Billing Number
of the forwarding station.  Any CallerID delivered to the terminating
telephone identifies the original calling telephone.

Haven't heard anyone say that CallerID can't be used by other than end
user.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems, Lisle, IL

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ancient ANI
Date: 23 Oct 90 17:28:24 GMT


     Caller ID is the delivery vehicle for Automatic Number
Identification information to the subscriber.  Properly, ANI refers to
the original association of called number with physical line performed
in the originating central office.  Transmission of ANI information
via a sender was originally referred to as Automatic Number
Forwarding, or ANF, but that terminology is obsolete, and today the
term "ANI" includes "ANF".

     In existing systems, ANI information is delivered to customers in
very different ways depending upon whether the customer is a large or
small one.  With the transition to ISDN, and the availability of a
digital signalling channel, the distinction between "Caller ID" and
"ANI" will be much reduced, as the same information will be provided
to all ISDN customers as a packet on the D channel.

     The interesting story in the ANI area is how it came to pass that
ANI information is forwarded through the switching system, rather than
going no further than the originating office.  It's a consequence of
phone deregulation, which made long distance carriers retail, rather
than wholesale, businesses.  But enough for now.


John Nagle

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

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 20:49 PDT
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers?


The TPA (Telephone Pioneers of America) runs an excellent museum in
San Francisco (140 New Montgomery St., Pac*Bell's head office, and a
beautiful old building at that). They have a lot of historical
displays, old switchboards, an SxS demo, old and new phones, cable
dammage, lots of stuff on Alexander G. Bell, and Mabel, and a gift
shop where you can buy lots of Pac*Bell _and_ AT&T trinkets.  The
museum is staffed by several knowlegeable retired engineers, who keep
the exibits in good shape, and love to talk trivia. It is quite
something to hear them whistfully expound on the virtues of the old
Bell System, and tell Judge Greene jokes. Highly recommended.

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:09:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael H. Riddle) writes:

>Isn't there an "in-between" alternative, where the instrument appears
>to be dedicated ring-down service, but in reality places the call when
>the customer goes off-hook?

New York Telephone provides exactly this service for the New York
Stock Exchange.  If I remember correctly, it's called a Virtual
Dedicated Circuit, or something of that sort.  It's essentially:

    1) a special bit of programming in the CO such that the switch
will automatically complete the call rather than extending dial tone, plus

    2) some kind of tariff arrangement whereby if the call doesn't
complete at least n% of the time you get your money back, where n% is
tuneable but large.

You pick up the instrument and wait about 2-4 sec, then hear ringing
tone.  The receiving line can be a POTS line in principle, although
it's more typical for it to be another line of the same kind so that
either end can call the other just by picking up.  I suppose
asymmetric solutions might be useful in other contexts.

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

>    When I was a kid growing up in New York (1960's) there were
>green boxes on lamp posts containg phones with which you could call
>the police.  You didn't have to dial, just lift the handset.  Anybody
>know exactly what these were?  Leased ring-down lines from NYTel or
>private wires actually owned by the police department?  And where did
>they ring-down to?  The nearest precinct house, or some pre-911
>central location?

I don't know where they went then, but as of now they ring the same
place 911 does.  However, they are a lousy system.  Essentially, they
are multidrop single circuits, and your call has to wait until all
other calls on your particular circuit (potentially a lot of boxes)
clear.  The word from an acquaintance of mine, a former 911 operator,
is "Avoid them.  They take longer to get through and they have lower
priority because of the high frequency of bogus calls -- take the time
to find a payphone" For the non-New Yorker, payphones are very common
here, both utility and COCOT; there is close to one per corner even in
nlow-rent neighborhoods.


[e-mail]    (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #757
******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18733;
          25 Oct 90 3:57 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08763;
          25 Oct 90 2:19 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23099;
          25 Oct 90 1:16 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Oct 90 0:59:14 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #758
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Oct 90 00:58:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 758

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Directory Assistance on CD-ROM [Peter G. Capek]
    Info Needed: Fiber Link to Hawaii - Does it Exist? [Steve Huff]
    Broken Phone While Out of Town [Ron Heiby]
    SprintFAX: Persian Gulf Updates [David Dodell]
    RMI Net [Rupert Mohr]
    A/A1 Control for Key Telephone Systems [Dennis G. Rears]
    Odd 800 Behavior [Robert M. Hamer]
    What Is ACD?  (was Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold) [Henry Troup]
    Credit for Non U.S. Citizens [Asif Taiyabi]
    Alternate Telephone Service [Jurek Rakoczynski]
    A "New" Interexchange Carrier [Herman Silbiger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 01:02:11 EDT
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM


The {Wall Stree Journal} of 22 October has a short article headed
"Directory Assistance Without Dialing 411".  It describes a product
offered by PhoneDisc USA Corp, of Warwick, NY, which consists of two
CD-ROMs which list 90 million "residential listings" for $1850;
quarterly updates are $400 per year (I presume it is the first set of
disks which costs $1850).  "By contrast, a collection of all the
nation's phone books costs about $60,000 and weighs more than 10,000
pounds."  The article does not explicitly state whether PhoneDisc has
addresses with its listings, and since a CD-Rom is about 560 MB, with
9E9 listings, there's not a lot of room left after the name and the
number.

Now, here's the bad part: the source for this data is NOT the phone
companies, but the databases of direct-marketing companies.  This
means the data may be as much as 15 months out of date (no explanation
offered of where that came from).  Also, PhoneDisc does NOT
(presently) allow reverse searching (number -> subscriber name).

Apparently (someone from Purdue asked about this the other day) NyNex
and US West are the only local operating companies that publish their
listings on CD-ROM.  The October 15 Datamation indicates that the
charge for four workstations accessing the US West database for
fourteen states with monthly updates is $25K/year.  Also, Southwestern
Bell is the only company so far that has signed up for AT&T's on-line
service.

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

From: "Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed: Fiber Link to Hawaii - Does it Exist?
Date: 22 Oct 90 22:17:34 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


My roommate and I were discussing the status of communication from the
USA to Hawaii and Europe, and I'm in need of assistance.  Does a fiber
link exist between the US and Hawaii?  How 'bout Europe?

Thanks ... please e=mail replies.  I'll post a f/up if requested.


Steve Huff, MBA student, University of Kansas        HomeNet: 913 749 4720
Internet:  [e-mail]                 Bitnet: [e-mail]
Don't_hold_your_breath_net:  P.O. Box 1225, Lawrence, KS  66044-8225

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

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Broken Phone While Out of Town
Date: 19 Oct 90 20:09:45 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL


Last night, I returned from a two-day business trip, and one of the
scariest nights of my life.  I was in Dallas, TX.  My home is in a
Northwest suburb of Chicago, IL.  Unbeknownst to me, an IBT installer
had broken a wire on the pair leading to my home's unlisted number
(the one we answer).

I had made specific arrangements with my wife for her to be home by
about 7pm.  I tried calling at 7:15, 8:15, 11:10, 12:00, and 12:30.
Each time, ring-no-answer.  I tried my voice-mail system several
times.  I tried her sister.  I tried her employer.  I tried our Health
Maintenance Organization and Hospital.  I tried the police department
for the town where she works (in a chemical laboratory).  I finally
found out that all was well when the police in my community sent a
black and white over to my home and determined that she was fine.

Throughout this period, I figured that there probably was nothing
wrong with my phone as A) I was getting ring signalling, and B) My
modem on my published number answered.  I didn't know at the time
about the massive cable cut in the western suburbs.  It seems not to
have affected my area, anyway.  I figured that since my modem
answered, a cable cut was unlikely.  Further, I figured that since
there was ring, a call to IBT repair was apt to get me nowhere.

Once I found out (from my home town police) that my home phone was out
of order, I figured that I'd report it to IBT repair, in case my wife
didn't think to use the modem line to do so.  Here's where things
started getting really interesting.

I, not knowing how to reach IBT repair, called 708 DA and asked them.
They told me to dial "611".  I explained that I was standing in DFW
international airport in Texas.  (I was waiting for an associate's
plane to arrive.)  The DA operator said there was no listing for
repair, but could give me the main number in downtown Chicago.  I
called that number and asked to be connected to Repair.  I was told
that since it was after hours, they couldn't connect me.  They told me
to dial "611".  I explained that I was in Texas and that I didn't
think that dialing "611" would get me IBT repair.  The person in the
Chicago office then told me to "just dial '0' for Operator and have
her connect you with IBT's 611".  I expressed my doubts, but she
assured me that that was the way to do it.

So, I called the local (GTE) operator and asked to be connected with
IBT repair service.  The operator was shocked to receive such a
request and told me that she could not do so, that Chicago IBT was
mistaken in thinking that she could.

I then called the Chicago IBT office back and spoke with someone else,
explained the whole sequence, and received another phone number in 312
which (she said) would connect me directly with IBT repair.  I dialed
it and got nothing but some "click-clack" noises with about a 1 per
second frequency for about 20 seconds, then silence.

I called the AT&T (my LD carrier) operator and reported this event.
She tried placing the call and got the same noise.  She contacted
another operator, I presume near Chicago, who also tried it.  Same
noises.  The two AT&T operators probably spent 5-10 minutes trying to
get me connected to IBT Repair.  Finally, I had no option but to give
up.  When I reached my wife at work the next day, I asked her to deal
with it (she hates that kind of thing).

Well, my phone is fixed, now.  I guess I know that next time I want to
report a phone out of order somewhere other than where I'm standing I
should write a letter!


Ron Heiby, [e-mail]    Moderator: comp.newprod


Moderator's Note: Here in 312/708 (except Centel) 611 translates into
a seven digit number: 312-I forget the rest. David T, can you reply?  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 22 Oct 90 22:19:52 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: SprintFAX: Persian Gulf Updates


Sprint has been running a free FAX service to distribute hourly
updates of news of the Persian Gulf situation.  By calling
1-800-676-2255, and punching in your FAX number, you will be shortly
receive a one page summary of the news items for the hour.

The updates are done hourly between 8 am to 8 pm EDT Monday through Friday.


David

          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
    Internet: [e-mail]       FAX: [phone]

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

From: INFOAC-Operator <[e-mail]>
Subject: RMI Net
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 16:25:54 MET


RMI Net is a commercial AND Research Network. Adressing is simply
Internet straightforward.

    user@{host}.rmi.de

    hosts are:
    infoac    The Gateway and INFO.box Aachen (Research Information
        Exchange) (ISDN, X25)
    infohh    Commercial INFO.box Hamburg (Ventura Publisher Group,
        other: scientific: GI (Gesellschaft fuer Informatik)
    infofl    Commercial INFO.box Flensburg (PageMaker Group etc)
    rmi    Gateway to Telex, FAX etc.
    infodn    Ham Radio System in Dueren
    dl3no    Ham Radio System in Aachen

    msn    Mailbox System in Nuernberg
    mms2    Music Mail Service Hamburg
    ccb    Mailbox Bremen
    dsv1    beeing connected

    {others}    confidential

Connected to InterEUnet via [192.33.254.1].

Every System has a correct Postmaster address. Network Information
via [e-mail].

Regards,

Rupert Mohr
uucp:   [e-mail]  [e-mail]
cis    72446,415            Fax    [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 12:05:50 EDT
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems


  Can anybody tell me what is meant by A/A1 control for key telephone
systems?  Also what is a 1A2 key system?  A reference would aalso be
good.


Dennis

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 13:23 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Odd 800 Behavior


Upon dialing 800-xxx-xxxx, which is supposed to access a New Orleans
Bread and Breakfast service, the following odd behavior occurred:

1.  After I dialed, I got about 11 seconds of dial tone.
2.  Then, about 1 second of ringback.
3.  Then, the following recording:
      "Operator NR5.  Your call cannot be completed as dialed.  Please
       try your call again or call your customer relations representative
       for further assistance.  This is Operator NR5."
4.  The recording would repeat once, and then I would hear what sounded
    like a reorder tone.

Further experimentation, i.e., calling several times so that I could
get the recording down verbatim, elicited the following variations:

a.  The ringback at step 2 varied from perhaps 1 to 3 seconds.
b.  The recording would sometimes cut off in the middle of its second
    repeat before going to the reorder tone.

And of course, my use of dial tone, ringback, reorder tone should be
construed to mean that they sounded like those to me.

Anyone know (a) what LD company 800-xxx is, and (b) why a dial tone
after the dial and before the ringback, and (c) in general, any
guesses as to what is going on?


[Moderator's Note: Blame me for the 'xxx' entries above where the
actual number was printed when the message arrived. What I found was
that the number is not a 'bed and breakfast service' but is actually a
gateway or dialup to some company's private internal network. The dial
tone you heard was the internal dialtone from the company switch. Had
you experimented further, you would have found that punching various
buttons on your touch tone phone would have *broken* the dial tone and
connected you internally. Some of the dialable combinations in fact
were outgoing WATS lines, FX lines (themselves extending new dial tone
from somewhere far away), etc. You apparently were expecting
something else, and thus overlooked the obvious answer to why would a
line be answered by extending dial tone. I am being purposely vague,
and hope you understand why I'm not going to print the number here so
that 30,000+ readers can try it out Thursday and Friday. Re the 'bed
and breakfast service', I guess they must have some other number,
unless they are out of business, etc.   PAT]

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

Date: 23 Oct 90 11:04:00 EDT
From: Henry Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Is ACD? (was Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold)


fozzie![e-mail] (John Stanley) writes:

> Now, it seems to me that an ACD with ONE entry in the menu is

I thought that ACD was Automatic Call Direction (now superseded by
UCD, Universal Call Direction) which distributed calls between a
number of agents (people), not a voice mail system.

In Northern Telecom's Practice 297-1001-125 (an obsolete edition
only), I find:

   Digital Switching System
   DMS*-100 Family
   Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

   ACD: Automatic Call Distribution

   Automatic Call Distribution: A set of Meridian Digital Centrex
   features that assigns answering machine priorities to incoming
   calls, and then queues and distributes them to a predetermined
   group of telephone sets designated as answering positions.

I don't know a TLA for voice menu systems - do we need one?

*DMS is a trademark of Northern Telecom.


Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | Some material is copy
uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 [e-mail] [phone] | right (c) Northern
                                                      | Telecom
------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 1990 17:11 EDT
From: Asif Taiyabi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens
Organization: Management Systems Laboratory


Since there was a posting some time back whether Non U.S citizens
could be denied credit legally, I am posting the information I
received on one of the Universal Card brochures --

And I quote:

     "The Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors
      from discriminating against credit applicants on the basis of
      race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status,
      age (provided that the applicant has the capacity to enter into
      a contract ); because all or part of the applicant's income
      derives from any public assistance program; or because the
      applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the
      Consumer Credit Protection Act. The Federal agency that
      administers compliance with this law concerning Universal Bank
      is the Regional Director, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
      Marquis One Tower, 245 Peachtree Center Avenue N.E. Suite 1200
      Atlanta, Georgia 30303"

Sorry No E-mail address provided :-)

at/..

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

From: Jurek Rakoczynski <asuvax!rako![e-mail]>
Subject: Alternate Telephone Service
Date: 22 Oct 90 19:39:20 GMT
Organization: AG Communication Systems - Phoenix, AZ


Can anyone summarize the status of 'Alternate Telephone Service
supplier'.  I can only remember about some larger city (NY?) where a
(cable co.?) was installing (fiber optics?) to the homes and was
planning to provide alternate phone service in competion with the
local telco. This was in addition to other services available on the
fiber.  I don't remember where I read this, but I am not confusing
this with just running fiber to the homes, like in California.  I
remember the term 'Alternate Telephone Service' or something like
that.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 21:01:05 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: A "New" Interexchange Carrier
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I received today in the US mail a slick brochure advertizing the
Working Assets Long Distance, an exclusive service of the Working
Assets Funding Service.

It is "a fiber-optic long distance service that helps you save
forests, animals, rivers, and children - just by talking on the
telephone."

There is no added cost to the user -- over the rates of US Sprint.
The pitch is that one percent of the charges will go to non-profit
groups that defend the environment.

Further quote " Now, helping our planet is not only cost-free, it's
absurdly easy.  There is nothing to lose.  Just fill out the card..."
which is addressed to Working Assets Long Distance.

Then there is the small print, which says that signing the attached
cards authorizes them to switch you to Sprint as the primary long
distance carrier.  Your local phone company may charge $5 to do this.
To offset the charge, US Sprint will give you a 30 minute free calling
credit at the night and weekend rate, after your third full month of
service.

This certainly is a novel way for Sprint to sell their services.

Herman Silbiger

Any opinions expressed in the above postings are my own.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #758
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10593;
          26 Oct 90 0:05 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31106;
          25 Oct 90 22:31 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04580;
          25 Oct 90 21:25 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Oct 90 21:19:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #759
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Oct 90 21:19:29 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 759

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Build Your Own Playphone [Jurek Rakoczynski]
    Telecom in the News, Part 1 [[e-mail]]
    Least Cost Routing [Jeff Sicherman]
    MCI and Cubic Zirconia? [Brendan Kehoe]
    What's Going On Here? [Dave Levenson]
    Graybar Catalog [Ken Jongsma]
    Recording Calling Recording? [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jurek Rakoczynski <asuvax!rako![e-mail]>
Subject: Build Your Own Playphone
Date: 22 Oct 90 19:34:31 GMT
Organization: AG Communication Systems - Phoenix, AZ


A few weeks back, I read where someone was looking for an inexpensive
phone system for the home (play phone for the kids, etc.).  It
reminded me of something I built when I lived in a condo.  The
neighbors and my wife would talk on the *real* phone quite a bit, so I
decided to become an Alternate Telephone Service supplier.  I built a
private telephone system between us (we had a common wall between us).

It's very simple to build with only a few inexpensive components.

How it works:

The +Tip (Grn) and -Ring (Red) lead of the telephones are tied in
series with astandard 9v (transitor) battery.  More than enough power
for most/all phones.  The sound is so clear you can here a pin drop. :-)

The calling party signals the called party by closing a switch that
operates in series with a battery (Grn or Red lead), one of the
Yel/Blk leads, a buzzer at the called parties phone and to the other
side of the battery.

One picture (200+ ASCII characters) is worth a 1000 words so heres the
ASCII picture:


                     your house <= | => other house
                                   ^
                               demarkation
                                 point - it's the law :-)

                                      +-BATT-+
                                      |      +
                    +---+  G          |    G |+---+
    ------+-------- |G. | ------------+      +| .G| --------+------
          |         |   |  R               R  |   |         |
To  ------|-------- |R. | ------------------- | .R| --------|------  To
Phone     |         |   |  Y               B  |   |         |       Phone
    --+---|-------- |Y. | --------\ /-------- | .Y| --------|---+--
      |   |         |   |  B       X       Y  |   |         |   |
    --|---|---+---- |B. | --------/ \-------- | .B| ----+---|---|--
      |   |   |     |   |                     |   |     |   |   |
      |   |   |     +---+      4 Cond Ca.     +---+     |   |   |
      |   |   |   Wall Jack                 Wall Jack   |   |   |
      |   |   |                                         |   |   |
      +-/-+-O-+                                         +-O-+-/-+
       S1  PB1                                           PB1  S1

Legend                             Material List
 . = Wire Terminal in Wall Jack     2-S1  Momentary On SPST Push button
G = Green                                 switch - mini
R = Red                             1-B1  9V transistor battery &
Y = Yellow                                snap on connector
B = Black                           2-PB1 Piezo buzzer, operate on less
+ = wire splice                           then 7V.
                                    2-Wall jacks
                                    2-Telephones + cord to wall jack
                                    1 length 4 conductor cable

To clarify the picture: 1. The battery is in series with the Grn lead.
Power to S1/PB1 comes directly from the battery.  The polarity of the
battery usually will not matter unless you have a polarity sensitive
phone. Then swap the R/G leads and keep trying. You could located the
battery in either the Red or Green lead.  I just picked green for
convenience of the picture.

2. There is a cross-over in the Y/B leads between the wall jacks to
keep the termination of S1/PB1 the same on both ends. It makes it easier.

When I originally built this, I mounted the buzzer and battery on the
wall jack, and the switch on the phone (by drilling a hole in the
phone).  You could try mounting the switch and buzzer:

1. both in the phone, or
2. both on an external box with a seperate lead into the phone, or
3. both on an external box that interfaces between the wall jack and phone
   so you don't have to modify the phones.

It worked for 1.5 years on the original battery before I moved and it
was still going strong - like that bunny :-).

If you have any questions, you can try sending me mail, but I not sure
how to email out of here. I guess I should learn.

First time poster: Standard apologies apply for header errors, etc..
No .sig yet.  Standard disclaimers.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 15:49:47 PDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom in the News, Part 1


TELEPHONE SERVICES:  A GROWING FORM OF `FOREIGN AID'

Keith Bradsher, {The New York Times}, Sunday, October 21, 1990
                (Business section, page 5)

 Americans who make international telephone calls are paying extra to
subsidize foreign countries' postal rates, local phone service, even
schools and armies.

 These subsidies are included in quarterly payments that American
telephone companies must make to their counterparts overseas, most of
these are state-owned monopolies.  The net payments, totaling $2.4
billion last year, form one of the fastest-growing pieces of the
American trade deficit, and prompted the Federal communications
Commission this summer to begin an effort that could push down the
price that consumers pay for an international phone call by up to 50
percent within three years.

 The imbalance is a largely unforeseen side effect of the growth of
competition in the American long-distance industry during the 1980's.
The competition drove down outbound rates from the United States,
while overseas monopolies kept their rates high.

 The result is that business and families spread among countries try
to make sure that calls originate in the United States.  Outbound
calls from the United States now outnumber inbound calls by 1.7-to-1,
in minutes -- meaning American phone companies have to pay fees for
the surplus calls.  The F.C.C. is concerned that foreign companies are
demanding much more money than is justified, given the steeply falling
costs of providing service, and proposes to limit unilaterally the
payments American carriers make.

 Central and South American countries filed formal protests against
the F.C.C.'s plan on Oct. 12.  Although developed countries like
Britain and Japan account for more than half of United States
international telephone traffic, some of the largest imbalances in
traffic are with developing countries, which spend the foreign
exchange on everything from school systems to weapons.  The deficit
with Columbia, for example, soared to $71 million last year.

 International charges are based on formulas assigning per-minute
costs of receiving and overseas call and routing it within the home
country.  But while actual costs have dropped in recent years, the
formulas have been very slow to adjust, if they are adjusted at all.
For example, while few international calls require operators, the
formulas are still based on such expenses.

 Furthermore, the investment required for each telephone line in an
undersea cable or aboard a satellite has plummeted with technological
advances.  A trans-Pacific cable with 600,000 lines, announced last
Wednesday and scheduled to go into service in 1996, could cost less
than $1,000 per line.

 Yet the phone company formulas keep charges high.  Germany's Deutsche
Bundespost, for example, currently collects 87 cents a minute from
American carriers, which actually lose money on some of the off-peak
rates they offer American consumers.

MORE CALLS FROM THE U.S. ARE GENERATING A GROWING TRADE DEFICIT

U.S. telephone companies charge less for      1980   0.3   (billions of
overseas calls than foreign companies         1981   0.5    U.S. dollars)
charge for calls the United States.  So       1982   0.7
more international calls originate in the     1983   1.0
United States.  But the U.S. companies pay    1984   1.2
high fees to their foreign counterparts for   1985   1.1
handling those extra calls, and the deficit   1986   1.4
has ballooned in the last decade.             1987   1.7
                                              1988   2.0
                                              1989   2.4 (estimate)
(Source: F.C.C.)

THE LONG DISTANCE USAGE IMBALANCE

Outgoing and incoming U.S. telephone traffic, in 1988, the latest year
for which figures are available, in percent.

Whom are we calling?              Who's calling us?
Total outgoing traffic:           Total incoming traffic:
5,325 million minutes             3,155 million minutes

  Other:      47.9%                  Other:      32.9%
  Canada:     20.2%                  Canada:     35.2%
  Britain:     9.1%                  Britain:    12.6%
  Mexico:      8.8%                  Mexico:      6.2%
  W. Germany:  6.9%                  W. Germany:  5.4%
  Japan:       4.4%                  Japan:       4.3%
  France:      2.7%                  France:      3.4%

(Source:  International Institute of Communications)

COMPARING COSTS:  Price range of five-minute international calls between
the U.S. and other nations.  Figures do not include volume discounts.

Country            From U.S.*          To U.S.

Britain            $2.95 to $5.20      $4.63 to $6.58
Canada (NYC to     $0.90 to $2.25      $1.35 to $2.26
  Montreal)
France             $3.10 to $5.95      $4.72 to $7.73
Japan              $4.00 to $8.01      $4.67 to $8.34
Mexico (NYC to     $4.50 to $7.41      $4.24 to $6.36
  Mexico City)
West Germany       $3.10 to $6.13      $10.22

* For lowest rates, callers pay a monthly $3 fee.
(Source: A.T.&T.)

WHERE THE DEFICIT FALLS: Leading nations with which the United States
has a trade deficit in telephone services, in 1989, in millions of
dollars.

Mexico:               $534
W. Germany:            167
Philippines:           115
South Korea:           112
Japan:                  79
Dominican Republic:     75
Columbia:               71
Italy:                  70       (Source: F.C.C.)
Israel:                 57
Britain:                46

THE RUSH TOWARD LOWER COSTS: The cost per telephone line for laying
each of the eight telephone cables that now span the Atlantic Ocean,
from the one in 1956, which held 48 lines, to the planned 1992 cable
which is expected to carry 80,000 lines.  In current dollars.

1956       $557,000
1959        436,000
1963        289,000
1965        365,000
1970         49,000
1976         25,000
1983         23,000               (Source, F.C.C.)
1988          9,000
1992          5,400  (estimate)

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 03:18:52 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Least Cost Routing


  Is there a regulatory reason why the local companies couldn't
provide a 'least cost' routing service for long-distance calls, where
they select the company with the cheapest rates for a given call from
rate information they have in a database ? Couldn't they charge for
such as service ?

  Expecting consumers to keep up with rate complexity and changes
seems to me to somewhat discourage *real* competition (except for
knowledgeable high volume accounts) on price and instead encourage the
silly and often misleading commercials and slamming activity.

  Or is there some self-interest reason why the local companies
wouldn't want to do this ?


Jeff Sicherman
[e-mail]

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

From: Brendan Kehoe <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI and Cubic Zirconia?
Date: 24 Oct 90 11:24:58 GMT
Reply-To: Brendan Kehoe <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


   There I was, losing in a battle of insomnia, so I decided to flip
around the ol' tube to see if there was anything on at 2:30am other
than those "Call me, I'm waiting to ..." 900 ads splattered all over
the place. Lo and behold, on the Home Shopping Club, there's an ad
enticing members (and non-members, it's easy to join, just ..) to sign
up for MCI and get $10 in Spendable Ka$h to boot.

   So MCI's got a contract with them now? Interesting way to drum up
business -- I can imagine those thousands (millions? nah, I have more
faith in America, don't know why, but I do) of people dialing up and
changing their long distance service the same time they get that
really GREAT cubic zirconia 94 caret ring (with gold inlay in a custom
setting). Kinda strange, isn't it?


Brendan Kehoe | Soon: [e-mail] [ Sometime this week ... pray! ]
For now: [e-mail] | Also: [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's Going On Here?
Date: 24 Oct 90 22:25:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


While on vacation in Santa Fe, NM, last week, I tried to use my host's
telephone to place a calling-card call.  When I dialed 10222+0+10D, I
got a recording indicating that a "It is not necessary to select a
long distance carrier for this call."  I was trying to call NJ,
approximately 2,000 miles away.  I somehow doubt that it was an
intra-LATA call!  I tried 10333 and got the same recording.  With no
carrier-select code, the call was processed normally, by AT&T.  It
appears that the local switch is set up for equal access, but that two
of the three major carriers are not represented in Santa Fe.  Does
anybody know if this is the case?

The phone I was using is served by Mountain Bell, of US West
Communications.  The number is in the 505-983- group.  The switch
sounded like some kind of ESS, but I didn't try to identify its type.


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]

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

Subject: Graybar Catalog
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 17:52:54 EDT
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I wonder if our Moderator copyrighted the name Telecom Digest?

In any case, I received a copy of the Graybar Telecom Digest in the
mail today. It is similar in size to the Hello Direct catalog, but
does not list prices or discount schedules.

Some interesting goodies:

     - PBX's, Answering Machines, Cordless Telephones
     - Key Systems (including POETS)
     - Rugged Phones, Explosion Proof Phones
     - Inmate Service Phones (!), Emergency Service Phones
     - Vandal Resistant Phones, Handsets of all types
     - Backup Power Units
     - SMDR Call Accounting Systems
     - Voice Mail Systems
     - Paging Systems, FAX Machines
     - Distinctive Ring Switching Systems, Remote Service Units
     - CO Simulator, Butt Sets, Automatic Intercept Systems
     - Digit Grabbers, Jacks, Headsets

An interesting catalog. I wish they would at least print retail proces
though.

If you would like a copy, it looks like you'll need to look up your
local Graybar office in the white pages. They do not appear to have a
national number.


Ken Jongsma                   [e-mail]
Smiths Industries             [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan        ..sharkey.cc.umich.edu!wybbs!ken

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 12:42:08 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Recording Calling Recording?


In TELECOM Digest, vol. 10, issue 736:

David A Smallberg <[e-mail]> writes about local high school
having a computer which apparently calls students' parents every
Saturday afternoon with taped information regarding the school for the
following week.  He writes:

>Of course, the first part of the message talks through answering
>machines' outgoing messages.

In other words, a lot of parents aren't home when that computer call
is made, and the recorded message encounters a recording at the
receiving end, and the receiving end gets the incoming recording minus
the beginning (and minus any overflow at the end).  How common is the
problem of recording-calling-a-recording, anyway?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #759
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11355;
          26 Oct 90 1:10 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20649;
          25 Oct 90 23:34 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31106;
          25 Oct 90 22:31 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:02:21 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #760
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:02:00 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 760

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom in the News, Part 2 [[e-mail]]
    The Answering Service Bummer [John Higdon]
    Alex Videotext Service -- An Update [David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 16:29:00 PDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom in the News, Part 2


CRY AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF VOICE MAIL

Michael Schrage, Los Angeles Times Syndicate; Published in {The Boston
Sunday Globe}, October 21, 1990, page A2.

Watson!  Come quickly!  I need you!

"The party you are trying to reach -- Thomas Watson -- is unavailable
at this time.  To leave a message, please wait for the beep.  When you
are finished with the message, press the pound sign.  To review your
message, press 7.  To change your message after reviewing it, press 4.
To add to your message, press 5.  To reach another party, press the
star sign and enter the four digit extension.  To listen to Muzak,
press 23.  To transfer out of phone mail in what I promise you will be
a futile effort to reach a human, press 0 -- because we treat you like
one."

Who hasn't made a perfectly innocent phone call to an organization
only to be ensnared in a hideous Roach Motel of a voice mail system?
No matter if you call a Fortune 500 behemoth or the local mall, the
odds are increasing that you will listen to a machine before you talk
with a human.

In 1985, barely a thousand corporate voice mail systems were sold in
the United States.  By the end of this year, the industry expects to
sell more than 30,000 systems.  Depending upon their designs, you
might never talk with a human -- no matter how desperately you'd like
to.  So ask not for whom the voice mail networks, it networks for
thee.

"Based on my personal experience, five percent of these systems are
superbly designed, 20 percent are poorly to abysmally designed, and
the rest fall in between," says sociologist James E. Katz, who studies
the human impact of telecommunications systems for Bellcore, the
research arm of the regional Bell operating companies.

What superb voice mail design means, of course, is in the ear of the
holder.  Some people would rather chat with a machine that won't
interrupt than with the human that almost certainly will.  Some people
would rather dictate their thoughts; others want the comfort and
courtesy of a voice that's not prerecorded.

But that's not the real question.  Far more interesting is what these
systems say about the organizations that use them.

Just as the design of the office or a tacit employee dress code speaks
volumes about an organization's culture, so do the telecommunications
networks it offers to the outside world.  The well-designed system
conveys a pleasant blend of efficiency and warmth.  The
"technobnoxiousnetwork" reveals the mix of self-importance and
incompetence that permeates too many companies.

The new technology rewrites telephone etiquette even as is it
generates new frontiers of rudeness.  You might believe that the
secretary lost the message; you're skeptical if they say the voice
mail system crashed.  The network becomes as much a crutch as a
communications tool.  Come on!  Are you really always in meetings or
are you using voice mail as a shield to deflect the unexpected call?

Voice mail creates new classes of interaction in the professional
world.  (It also creates the ominous specter of voice mail hackers --
telephone intruders who break into systems to eavesdrop on messages or
surreptitiously plant them.)  While many of these new classes are a
boon to organization effectiveness, they can also signal a subtle but
insulting contempt of outsiders.

The irony here is that voice mail is one of those rare technologies
that made the reverse migration from the home to the office.  For all
their initial awkwardness, answering machines were designed to make
life easier for all parties concerned.

The overwhelming reason why most companies buy voice mail systems
isn't to make life better for people calling in, but rather to make
intra-company communications more efficient at lower cost.

"What we're seeing is the hollowing of the organization social
system," says Rensselaer Polytechnic's Langdon Winner, author of
"Autonomous Technology," an influential critique of technological
innovation.  "Instead of complementing the way people communicate in
organizations, the technology is designed to replace it."

That, says Winner, creates a very different kind of social system --
one where people would rather transfer you to the technology than deal
with you themselves.  Why?  Because that is the value that the
organization is trying to reinforce.

"I think it's regrettable that so many organizations fail to
adequately consider the needs of the customers when they install these
systems," says Bellcore's Katz.  "They mainly consider the internal
needs of the company so outsiders get turned off to the whole
experience when the call in and try to talk to someone."

While becoming "lean and mean" is a touchstone of American management
these days, I'm not certain that all this leanness and meanness was
supposed to be inflicted on the organization's customers.  Indeed,
voice mail illustrates one of the seeming paradoxes of business
practice: How do you become more cost-effective while, at the same
time, offering customers greater value and better service?

Sure, technology is supposed to give you both -- but only if it is
designed and implemented with care and thought.  The nasty implicit
message embedded in most voice mail systems is: "We're too busy to
have anyone talk with you.  Let us treat you like a data entry device
and don't forget to press the pound key after you shut up.  If we have
the time, we may even get back to you."

I don't think there's much question that most voice mail systems do an
excellent job of coordinating internal communications and boosting
group productivity.  But does it come at the price of alienating
potential customers?

Professionally, I like the ease and versatility that voice mail offers
 -- when I'm using it.  Personally, I'm sick and tired of playing
telephone tag with machines instead of people.

The poor quality of so many voice mail systems underscores one of the
most painful truths of technology: We would rather use these new media
to make life easier for ourselves than to make it easier for others.
In the short run, that may make us more "productive."  In the longer
run, what we'll discover is that people would rather not call us any
more.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Answering Service Bummer
Date: 25 Oct 90 14:10:19 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Recently, I purchased some microwave (950 Mhz) gear from my friendly
local broadcast distributor. While installing it, some major problems
turned up, all of which were caused by carelessness on the part of the
manufacturer. The result was a wasted six hours between midnight and
6AM, since the old equipment had to be reinstalled.

Since the distributor effectively represents the manufacturer, I gave
him a call to express my displeasure. After dialing the number, I
heard it forward to a DID system, where it rang and rang. Finally, it
answered with a recording: "Thank you for calling. Please stay on the
line and the first available operator will process your call." To my
way of thinking, this is a new low in answering services -- and an
interesting way to understaff the facility without having people give
up on unanswered calls.

Anyway, I waited about 2-3 minutes for someone to "process" my call.
"Good morning, XYX, may I help you?" "Yes, I would like to speak to
Ferd Nerd." "I'm sorry, he's out of the office. Could I have your name
and number?" At that point, I not only wanted to let him know that I
called, but that I was ripping mad. So, after leaving my name and
number I asked if I could leave a short message. After much hemming
and hawing, the "operator" reluctantly agreed. I left a one-liner and
had to say it one word at a time, frequently having to repeat myself.

When I speak to Mr. Nerd again, I'm going to suggest a machine or
voice mail. The five minutes I wasted with his service could have been
spent conveying a REAL message that he could have started working on
without having to call back and wake me up. As it was, with his
callback and all, I've had no sleep. Answering services can join the
growing list of telephone anachronisms.


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

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alex Videotext Service -- An Update
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 23:54:08 EDT



[The following material was found in the October 1990 edition of
_Toronto_Computes!_, a monthly microcomputer-related newspaper.

The following excerpts from _Toronto_Computes!_ are with respect to
the Bell Canada Alex videotext service which started in Toronto this
spring, and has been in Montreal for some time before that.

The contents (other than any notes I make) are copyrighted, but staff
at ConText advised me that this material may be reproduced on a
non-commercial basis. In other words, don't publish this in _Byte_ or
_Dr_Dobb's_ without clearing it with ConText first. As long as the
material contains the copyright and source statements and is not
subjected to mutilation, it should be permissible to distribute this
wherever Telecom Digest goes. Note that phone numbers and other
references are with respect to Toronto (+1 416) ---- djcl ]

_Toronto_Computes!_ is published by ConText Publishing Inc., 60 St
Clair Ave W, Suite 1, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1M7. Telephone (416)
925.4533 for editorial and advertising offices. Fax [phone].

(c) 1990 by ConText Publishing Inc. - reprinted by permission

================================================

[FROM LETTERS SECTION]

================================================

ALEX USERS ARE SHOCKED BY GIGANTIC PHONE BILLS

Re Alex gets mixed reviews by Jens Kohler (August 1990):

I read with interest the article on Alex. But I was disappointed at
the last sentence because it suggests that the author missed a very
important issue.

The author stated that each month users pay about $50 in addition to
the $7.95. I wish it were so! In reality, those users that have found
something of interest in Alex are soon shocked by their telephone
bill. Furthermore, some service providers have rigged their services
to maximize on-line time. As a consequence, many users have
discontinued Alex after their first phone bill.

Those with PCs rather than Alex terminals have exchanged Alex for BBS.
Since the Alex software is distributed free, Bell Canada likely does
not have up-to-date statistics on how many users are no longer calling
Alex.

My own experience with Alex software on a Compaq DiskPro 386 covers
the month of July. I incurred a phone bill of $345 in Alex charges in
the process of testing out all their services. Many services
identified as French/English in the July Alex booklet were in fact
French only (wasted $$ time). Several services listed were not
connected. Others were trivial advertising.

Services at Alex rate-categories 1 and 2 were generally not in service
or were simple corporate advertisements with no significant reason for
on-line interaction with users. The lone exception was Alex 1 for
which the Bell Canada white pages provided some justification.

But it cost me $1.72 in computer time to find that my phone number and
those of my local relatives were not listed, at least not in a manner
that a quick database search could locate. Alex services at
rate-categories 3, 4 and 5 were largely "future" or else represented
bonus discount rates charged to heavy users of categories 6 and 7.

This left categories 6 and 7 as the most useful of services. At $0.20
or $0.25 per minute, and extensive introductory graphics, these
services are prohibitively expensive. The chat lines are the most
attractive for Alex buffs. But conversations with heavy users taught
me the danger of Alex. Several users indicated they were suffering
phone bills in excess of $1,000 per month due the chat lines.

One poor chap rang up a $2,000 bill in one month (!?!?) and had to
take out a bank loan to cover his obligations to Bell. He shrugged it
off as an investment that will pay for itself if he meets the right
girl on Alex. Unfortunately, that is unlikely since the ratio of males
to females on Alex is very high.

Furthermore, to make matters worse, many of the females on the chat
limes are "plants". That is, the service provider has paid operators
who "chat" with unsuspecting users. This of course contributes to an
inflated phone bill.

The use of Alex can be addictive; the colour graphics on a EGA monitor
are impressive, much better that on the boring monochrome Alex
terminals. The information services have great future potential but
are premature. Bill paying services have not yet connected to enough
banks and stores to make it practical.

Databases for serious professionals are lacking. For example, the
literature search facility of the National Research Council (CISTI:
Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information) is not
available.

The real attraction is the electronic community chatter. But sooner or
later, the Alex addict has to be cured from this financial disease.
The cure, of course, consists of the free BBS services which can be
reached using the Alex terminal. For $7.95 it's a good toy to computer
illiterates, but cannot download or print files.

                            Dieter Birk
                            Oakville

================================================

[commentary from djcl/woody: the "white pages" service mentioned is
actually not an "Alex 1" level service as mentioned above; Alex 1 is a
toll-free level to users. The "white pages" are charged equivalent to
"Alex 3" which means the first three minutes of the connection are
free, but each subsequent minute is charged 10c (presumably the $1.72
figure mentioned includes tax). The "white pages" service from what I
recall of the tariffs are actually listed as one category of service
and Alex 3 is listed as a separate category although both incur the
same charges.

My apologies as I don't have the referred-to August 1990 article
offhand ... djcl]

================================================


BBS BEAT: SAVE BBSING DOLLARS BY USING ALEX BOX

By JAMES MACFARLANE

Bell's Alex, which provides services similar to BBSs, is very
expensive, costing up to $15 an hour. But a growing group of people
are discovering they can use their inexpensive rented terminals to
call directly to any local BBS, free of charge.

James Gooding, previous Alex user and now sysop of Alex Anonymous BBS,
has found there's an incredible demand for his unique BBS.

"My board is designed to be the first BBS Alex users start off using.
I don't actively advertise the board. It just travels by word of mouth
through messages on various Alex services. Once a lot of the Alex
users discover there are alternatives, we will experience a boom in
BBSing."

Gooding says Alex users are quite different from the BBS crowd.  "Most
of them aren't interested in computers themselves, but are very
excited by being able to send messages back and forth to other people.
I want to help people make the transition from Alex to using BBSs."

Alex terminals are available from Bell Phonecentres for about $9 a
month. The 1200-baud dumb terminals provide a great alternative for
anyone wanting to get into BBSing without spending large amounts of
cash on a computer.

You can reach Alex Anonymous at 229-9232. Any sysops who want to
support Alex users should set their boards to accept callers using
7E1.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #760
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12296;
          26 Oct 90 2:16 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04822;
          26 Oct 90 0:38 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20649;
          25 Oct 90 23:34 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:38:44 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #761
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:38:31 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 761

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Mercury Marketing Again [David Pletcher]
    Re: Mercury Marketing Again [John Higdon]
    Re: Mercury Marketing Again [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: "Slamming" Term [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted [Tom Gray]
    Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Dave Levenson]
    Re: A New Way to be COCOTted [Gordon D. Woods]
    Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill? [D. Faunt]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Wm. Randolph Franklin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Pletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again
Date: 24 Oct 90 19:06:28 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Cowan)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 757, Message 3 of 10

>I don't understand what's so difficult about getting rid of
>telemarketing calls.  I've never had more than two of them from an
>undesired source.

>[Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly. I've always been amused by
>the messages both here and elsewhere on the net by folks who
>apparently are frightened to death that they might actually encounter
>one on the phone and have to say no ... so frigthened by telemarketers
>are they that they go to such extremes: published lines where are
>never answered; non-pub lines which route through an answering machine
>for screening first, etc.  Do like Nancy: Just say no (and hang up).  PAT]

I don't know whether avoiding telemarketers and other unsolicited
calls merits some of the extreme measures that other readers use, but
I think that the two of you are forgetting the major reason that
telemarketers are a nuisance.  It is not that it is difficult to
disengage one once I pick up the phone, but merely that answering the
phone is often a great inconvenience.  Many times I have been in the
shower, or eating dinner, or doing something else I don't want to have
interrupted when the phone rings.  So when I pick up the phone after
having jumped out of the shower and run down the hallway, dripping
everyhere, I am not amused to hear an automated announcement
soliciting a piano tuning service (especially since I don't have a
piano).

When the phone rings, I assume it is because someone has something
marginally important, or at least interesting, to say; thus I drop
what I am doing to answer the phone.  That is why I do not appreciate
being interrupted by junk phone calls.


David Pletcher
[e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again
Date: 24 Oct 90 20:43:58 PDT (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


John Cowan <[e-mail]> writes:

> I don't understand what's so difficult about getting rid of
> telemarketing calls.  I've never had more than two of them from an
> undesired source.

But your techniques wouldn't work with the Merky News. They pay no
attention to whom they call on either a short or long term basis. The
numbers are dialed by a machine and then passed to a boiler room
operator. Even if you threatened to boil the caller in oil, you could
find the same person calling you back the next evening -- and it
wouldn't be his fault! The system doesn't care about your response, it
doesn't care whether you already subscribe, and it doesn't care if you
are a Trailblazer; it will call you back over and over again.

> [Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly. I've always been amused by
> the messages both here and elsewhere on the net by folks who
> apparently are frightened to death that they might actually encounter
> one on the phone and have to say no...

I have no trouble telling telemarketers where they can go and what
they can do. Where I draw the line is when the same one calls back
three and four times a week, week after week, going sequentially down
my ten lines EACH TIME. Please do not trivialize the offensiveness of
the Merky telemarketing. I regularly turn down the Police Athletic
League, the Fund for Homeless Furniture Makers, endless investment
"opportunities", MCI LD offers, etc. The list is endless. BUT ...
1) These groups and salespeople take "no" for an answer and don't call
back for at least a couple of months, and ... 2) they don't scan down
sequentially, turning a minor inconvenience into a major annoyance.

The Merky News telemarketing system is possibly the most offensive and
irritating abomination ever concocted in the world of telephony (short
of GTE and COCOTs, of course). There is no defense against it other
than direct legal threats to those in charge. This has worked quite
nicely, but for now only those with 723 prefixes are safe :-)


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

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mercury Marketing Again
Date: 25 Oct 90 09:46:46 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> [Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly.

I have no trouble saying no.  In addition, mxy primary line is
published.  For some reason or another (maybe small town) I don't have
a BIG problem with telemarketers.  However, I can seriously sympathize
with those that do because of at least one problem: sleep.  If one
doesn't sleep the same hours as telemarketers, "just saying no" can be
quite a problem.  If I was losing sleep over the problem, you can bet
I would start dreaming up gizmos to help me out.


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

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

Date: 24-OCT-1990 00:27:48.83
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Slamming" Term


Hi-

I saw in {The New York Times} (Thurs, Oct. 18, 1990) that AT&T accused
MCI of "slamming" over 90,000 AT&T customers. It further said that
these were only the customers who informed AT&T that they had been
"slammed", and that there were potentially many more who didn't even
realize it.

In response, MCI vice president Eugene Eidenberg stated: "Let me state
emphatically that the frequency of unauthorized switching has been
grossly exaggererated by AT&T." (Uh huh...SURE it has! :-) )

So AT&T seems to use the word "slamming", and MCI prefers the term
"switching" ... I wonder why??? ;-)

I think I'll stick with AT&T's terminology...


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Date: 24 Oct 90 01:25:03 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vance
Shipley) writes:

> You as the caller couldn't and shouldn't be able too.  But that gives
> rise to the question: can you turn call waiting off on an existing
> call?

> I just tried it: I flashed and dialed *70 got the three beeps and was
> cut through to the existing call.  So if you had some control over

It is a fairly well-known and well-documented feature that if you have
BOTH Three-Way Calling and Call-Waiting that you can disable Call
Waiting by doing a hook-flash, *70.

Several people (e.g., those who run a BBS part-time on their voice
line) have ask me over the years how they can selectively disable call
waiting on INCOMING calls.  It's pretty easy.  You need Three-Way
Calling, and take advantage of the feature mentioned above.  Rather
than having the modem auto-answer (S0 > 0), you need to have
computer-controlled answering (look for RING messages).  AND, rather
than answering with the "ATA" command, you answer with a dial string
that looks like this: "ATH1DT,!,*70,;A"; you might need another "!"
before the ";" to make it work on your switch.  The "H1" takes you
off-hook, so that the "D" command doesn't wait for dial tone or the
normal two-second delay.  It works faster if you set your "Pause Time
for Comma" to 1 second instead of 2.

Just a bit of interesting trivia.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes![e-mail]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Advice on ANI Hardware Wanted
Date: 24 Oct 90 12:25:18 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!smithd![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel, Kanata Ontario, Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> Heath Roberts <barefoot@hobbes.
ncsu.edu> writes:

>>> Any switch on the face of
>>> the planet can be adapted for ANI.

>>Then why haven't they? Why haven't they offer ANI service as
>>they have done with call-waiting, call-forwarding, and etc?

It is true any switch in North America can be converted to ANI.
Automatic Number identification is used for TELCO billing.  A toll
call is routed from the local exchange to the billing office (called
CAMA - Centralized Automatic Message Accounting?).  The CAMA offices
sends answer supervision to the local office whch pulses out the
calling number and some other information (ie coin call etc) to the
CAMA office. The CAMA office then routes the call and is rrsposible
for detecting answer supervision from the called partyt and billing
the call.

Older offices and certain party lines are not capable of providing
ANI. They use the ONI system (Operator Number identification) in which
one hears the familiar "Wich Number are you dialling please?"

More modern digital offices are dispensing with CAMA and ANI and are
using LAMA (Local AMA). In this case, the local office has a direct
connection to the digital network and can be interrogated remotely by
the TELCO's network management system for billing information.

ANI is not Calling PArty ID. It is a feature of TELCO billing It is
the means by which the TELCO generates caleed party information from
older offices (not necessarily digital offices).

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Date: 24 Oct 90 12:29:47 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> >Why won't (cant?) NJ Bell provide that information to the PBX?  Also,
> >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business'
> >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on
> >the system must pay for local calls?

It would be within the tariff to allow the residences to have
residential rates, while the rest of the campus pays business rates.
It may not be within the capabilities of the PBX to separate the
outgoing call traffic into different outgoing trunk groups.  NJ Bell
even tariffs residence centrex rates, specifically for the college
dorm customer.

> >Do all schools with PBX's have these problems?
> >[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones
> >which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money.   PAT]

> No fair, Pat.  It's NOT the fault of the PBX!

It may or may not be the fault of the PBX.  The facts are that NJ Bell
offers answer supervision, in the form of a loop current reversal, on
PBX trunks.  The service is tariffed.  There is a per-trunk,
per-month, charge for this service.  Assuming that Definity is able to
receive and process this signaling, there is no technical reason why
it isn't being used.  There may, however, be a business reason.
Supervision is charged-for.  You'd pay more for the service.  The
trade-off is between paying more for calls that are chargeable and
paying less, but paying it for some calls which should not have been
charged.

> If NJBell wanted to be nice about it, they'd provide answer
> supervision, but I haven't met a Bell yet who was routinely nice about
> it.

It's not a question of being nice.  It's a question of they offer it
under tariff, and the customer decides whether or not to buy it.


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: Wed, 24 Oct 90 09:01:52 EDT
From: Gordon D Woods <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A New Way to be COCOTted
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Martin B Weiss):

 From Moderator's note:

> decisions. The caller 'decided to' use a COCOT. Of course, we know how
> that goes: he probably decided nothing, since most phone users know
> nothing about it to start with. He saw a phone and used it. If you
> tell him later that his choice of phones caused you to get a higher
> than expected phone bill, you embarass a friend.  So I usually say
> nothing and go ahead and pay for it. But my trained ear is listening

PAT, I can't believe your note. We are the ones who know what is
happening and it is incumbent upon us to inform people and put
"embarassment" aside. If we don't do it, things like defective COCOTs
will endure because the public remains confused.


[Moderator's Note: I'll speak out when asked to do so ... but talking
to some people about relatively technical telecom stuff is a waste of
time. A good many folks -- maybe most of the public -- cannot tell the
difference between a telco payphone and a COCOT without looking
closely, and even then, they are decieved. When COCOTs first started
appearing, *I* could tell the difference easily. Now the COCOT
manufacturers are taking care to make their instruments look exactly
like the genuine thing; even *I* can only tell the difference
sometimes by reading the instruction card in detail: if it says for
Repair Service to call something other than 611, for example ... or if
it gives a strange dial tone of its own, or a few other things. You
expect the public to pay attention?  All these years after divestiture
the public still refers to 'Ma Bell' and 'the phone company'...
admittedly that makes it great for business at the OCC's and the AOS
snakepits; it makes it rough for the rest of us though.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 09:36:31 -0700
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill?


PacBell sends me three bills for three residential lines, same
address, same owner, that all arrive on the same day.  When I had the
third number installed, and asked for combined billing, they told me
it would cost extra, but they did assign me a number in the same
prefix, after first telling me the number would have a different
prefix, in order to get the bills to me on the same day.  They
credited random amounts to different bills several times, and finally
told me to notate the check as to how much went for each bill.  That
seems to have cured the problem.  This is in 415-655.

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 24 Oct 90 16:42:13 GMT


It's the law in NY that you check two days in advance before digging.
There's been a change in utility attitudes in the last few years.
Then it was "Please check before digging" and there were funny
commercials on TV reminding people.  Now it's "Check or else!"

Re suing for loss of service: It would be fairer if this were part of
the tariff.  Now a customer gets nothing unless he's big enough to
afford a lawsuit against someone with deep pockets smaller than him.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #761
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12365;
          26 Oct 90 2:20 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04822;
          26 Oct 90 0:42 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac20649;
          25 Oct 90 23:35 CDT
Date:     Thu, 25 Oct 90 23:12:11 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #762
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 25 Oct 90 23:11:45 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 762

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold [Rahul Dhesi]
    Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages [John Pedersen]
    Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [David Barts]
    Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold [David Lesher]
    Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information [Robert Zabloudil]
    Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [Gregory K. Johnson]
    Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Re: A New Way to be COCOTted [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Telco "Customer Service" (Really DTMF to Pulse) [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town [John Higdon]
    Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [John Higdon]
    Re: Alternate Telephone Service [Ed Hopper]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rahul Dhesi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold
Date: 24 Oct 90 20:12:51 GMT


>> M[usic] O[n] H[old] makes *most* people feel more comfortable on the
>> line, so they wait longer before hanging up. ...

So is that why music on hold also invariably includes commercials on
hold?


Rahul Dhesi <[e-mail]>
UUCP:  oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi

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

From: "John.Pedersen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange Answering Machine Messages
Date: 24 Oct 90 12:58:06 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS


[e-mail] (David E Lemson) writes:

>[e-mail] writes:

>>Whenever I call into my audix from home to check messages, it calls me
>>back after I hang up.  Never says a thing - dead air - but the phone
>>will ring (you can bet on it) as soon as I hang up the receiver.

>Funny you should talk about this.  We have this problem, too.  That

I get it too when my wife calls from Boeing (their building is not on
the Boeing campus thus not supplied service directly from the BTN
(Boeing Telephone Network)) and gets our Audix off of our Sys 85. She
decides not to leave me a message and hangs up. A few seconds later her
phone rings and she hears nothing. I get an Audix message of her
answering the phone.

Now there is a powerful Audix feature: if you don't leave a message it
calls you back and forces you to talk to it!


John Pedersen        N5DKQ        NCR Peripheral Products Division
Engineering Computer Systems Support     3718 N. Rock Road
[e-mail]        Wichita KS 67226-1397
316-636-8837    VPlus 654-8837        FAX [phone]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers?
Date: 25 Oct 90 23:41:21 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> Jim Haynes <[e-mail].
edu.uucp> writes:

>I got to wondering what happened to the Telephone Pioneers
>organization after the great Bell System breakup.

>[Moderator's Note: They are still around in the local operating
>companies, and at AT&T. There was some question back in the early

    My aunt, who was a career operator with Indiana Bell and
retired when their operator services were consolidated at South Bend,
is quite active in the Fort Wayne chapter of the Telephone Pioneers.

    Since Fort Wayne is in GTE-land, many other members of the
chapter are GTE people, and some work for United Telephone and some of
the small local telcos. I'm not aware that the Pioneers were ever
exclusively Bell System people.


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 23 Oct 90 21:04:09 pdt
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!


What I'm wondering is why IBT didn't bury a strip of warning tape
above the cable.  (Maybe they did, but I've heard no mention of
something like "the contractor ignored the warning tape and continued
digging" in any accounts I've heard of this incident.)

When my parents had a house built in 1977, I distinctly remember the
utilities filling the trenches to within a foot of the top, laying a
strip of thick yellow plastic tape, and then filling the trenches the
rest of the way.  This was in a western state (New Mexico) that has
far fewer laws and regulations than a populous state like Illinois.

Why would IBT (or the state of Illinois) fail to take the same steps
to protect a major trunk in the 1980s that Mountain bell took to
protect a single residential service drop in the 1970s?


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

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 18:24:36 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


MOH also covers up crosstalk. In law offices, especially, it can cause
real problems for party X to overhear party Y.

Of course attorneys seem to be the WORST people for discussing
sensitive material on cellphones, too.

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information
Date: 25 Oct 90 15:14:30 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peter G. Capek) writes:

>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 755, Message 1 of 11

Gosh, I hope I'm not too far behind reading the Digest...

>While trying to get the schedule from a local octoplex movie theatre
>recently, it occurred to me that it would be to the advantage of both
>the theatre operator and the local exchange carrier to allow multiple
>incoming calls "get through" to the theatre's recording at the same
>time.  I believe that there are services which allow this on a
>nationwide basis, or even on a local basis through a special exchange,

One of my previous jobs involved as a side duty the regular updating
of the "KRVR Weather Line", which did indeed allow multiple callers to
hear the same recording at the same time.  I never got bold enough to
dig into the 'inner workings', but we always ended our spiel with, "If
you called in the middle, the message repeats", which it would, once.
I'm sure there was a nationwide marketer of these 'boxes' that got a
kickback of the commercial message we recorded along with the weather
and condx, but that wasn't part of what we needed to know to do our
part.

By the way, we were supposed to "wait for the green light to go out"
before updating the message.  On the day of the 1978 blizzard, we had
to cutover to the 'short' message in the middle of a call several
times ... hope the vast masses understood.


[Moderator's Note: 'The vast masses' ?? ... Gosh, now you are
beginning to sound like a certain gas-bag radio commentator on WFMT in
Chicago, or a particularly arrogant columnist for {The Washington
Post}.  :)   PAT]

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

From: Gregory K Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 19:41:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>  [e-mail].
cs.cmu.edu writes:

>[...]  My most recent example of poor design was when
>I called Sprint to be added to their frequent caller program.  The
>number was answered with a phone menu (like the long one above).

>Having the requisite touch-tone phone, I pushed 1.  The machine next
>asked for my account number.  Since I was calling from work, I did not
>have my number handy and I figured that my name would be sufficient if
>someone would listen to it.  So I waited for a time out... "Please
>enter your account number now" ... "Please enter your account number
>now." ... "Please enter your account number now." .... Finally, the
>machine just hung up!!!

AT&T College & University Systems has a brain-damaged computer that
does this also when it asks you for your account number.

But what was most galling was that when I called back and waited for
an operator, the operator couldn't look up my account number!

This is one of many tales of woe with ACUS.  In my opinion their
service is completely incompetent.


Greg

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

From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI and Sprint Pitch 800 Service to Households
Organization: The World
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 01:00:43 GMT


According to Frank Walter, an MCI spokesman, when you sign up for
their service, you just have to put an 800 in front of your home
number. Since a given number could be duplicated across scores of area
codes, you need the "security" code to tell the system where to route
the call. Each customer will be allowed to pick their own 4-digit
code, but the company will check them first to make sure they too, are
not duplicated somewhere, he says.

Robin Pence, a spokeswoman for Sprint, says they are just giving
customers their own unique 800 numbers. She says there has been some
talk of setting up a new 400 series of numbers when the 800s are
exhausted.


Adam Gaffin   Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass.
[e-mail]       Voice: [phone]
Fred the Middlesex News Computer: [phone]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A New Way to be COCOTted
Date: 25 Oct 90 09:37:04 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> The moment I sense that an operator is even thinking
> "collect" I say "absolutely not" and hang up.
  ...
> If the only choice is a
> gouge-a-matic AOS, why should I pay rather than the caller?

Murphy's view of a gouge-a-matic:

"But, sir, our gouge-a-matic automatically detected that you actually
did accept the call -- it has quite an extensive vocabulary to do just
that."

"I most certainly did not."

"But we have your response recorded here; is this your voice sir?"

<playback> "Will you accept the charges?"  "Absolutely"

Hee . . .


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

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco "Customer Service" (Really DTMF to Pulse)
Date: 25 Oct 90 10:05:42 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> What Mountain Bell (now USWest) did was put DTMF receivers on the
> input to the switch which output pulses. So I entered the tones and
> could hear the pulses being generated in the background. And, no, it
> was not a pushbutton phone generating pulses. It was a phone that can
> so either with the switch set to tone position. I could clearly hear
> the DTMF.

I *think* this is what was happening to me (sometimes) at the North
Rim of the Grand Canyon in September.  It made it really difficult
(impossible) to DISA and/or voice mail.  I think it might have worked
once, but I couldn't figure out any possible timeouts, etc to repeat
my success.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town
Date: 25 Oct 90 12:23:51 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ron Heiby <[e-mail]> writes:

> I called the AT&T (my LD carrier) operator and reported this event.
> She tried placing the call and got the same noise.  She contacted
> another operator, I presume near Chicago, who also tried it.  Same
> noises.  The two AT&T operators probably spent 5-10 minutes trying to
> get me connected to IBT Repair.

It is too bad that they couldn't get through. For anyone else who
finds himself in the same situation, the FIRST thing to try is the
AT&T operator. For various reasons, it is frequently necessary to
reach "611" repair in cities all across the country from where I sit
in CA.  The AT&T operator has never failed to connect me to the most
remote repair bureaus. Sometimes the call goes through directly and
other times the operator needs to get other operators involved, but
they seem very willing to help. Haven't tried this with Sprint :-)


        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: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems
Date: 25 Oct 90 12:42:00 PDT (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


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

>   Can anybody tell me what is meant by A/A1 control for key telephone
> systems?  Also what is a 1A2 key system?  A reference would aalso be
> good.

A 1A2 key system is the formerly ubiquitous arrangement found in small
businesses. Typically the phones had a thick cable and six buttons
across the front that represented outside lines and would light when
the line was in use. For larger operations, there were ten, twenty,
even thirty-line phones. Various types of intercoms were available.
Actually, these systems are still available new if you don't mind
basics.

The A/A1 leads for each line controlled what the KSU (central unit)
did with the line. The A lead is the actual control lead and the A1 is
ground. When you come off-hook on a line, the A/A1 pair is closed
through the switchhook. This causes the light to come on. When you
hang up, the pair opens and the light goes out. Now for the magic. If
you open the pair without opening the Tip/Ring pair (as the HOLD
button does) then the KSU will sieze the line and wink the light. You
may then open the Tip/Ring pair (button pops up) without losing the
call.  Reclosing the A/A1 pair and the Tip/Ring pair (pushing the
button back down) re-accesses the line. If the line is ringing (light
flashing), then closure of the A/A1 pair signals an answer.

As far as a reference goes, I learned what I know about 1A2 from
Direct Experience (tm). Data sheets that come with KSUs pretty much
assume you know all about it (or don't care), since they only tell you
where the wires go. Back when I learned 1A2, this was all handled by
the telephone company and ordinary people had "no legitimate need" for
such information, hence there weren't many references. It is probably
a different story now.


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

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

From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternate Telephone Service
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 06:26:49 CDT
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


asuvax!rako![e-mail] (Jurek Rakoczynski) writes:

> Can anyone summarize the status of 'Alternate Telephone Service
> supplier'.  I can only remember about some larger city (NY?) where a
> (cable co.?) was installing (fiber optics?) to the homes and was
> planning to provide alternate phone service in competion with the
> local telco. This was in addition to other services available on the
> fiber.  I don't remember where I read this, but I am not confusing
> this with just running fiber to the homes, like in California.  I
> remember the term 'Alternate Telephone Service' or something like
> that.

I recall reading the other day that a firm (in NYC I believe) recently
began work on a fiber net to connect major buildings in Manhattan for
bypass purposes.  This venture was NOT intended to provide residential
service (except perhaps to some big residential buildings on an
incidental basis).  I don't believe that exchange service was the
objective, it was more designed to provide inter-exchange services via
T-1's etc to the various LD carriers.


Ed Hopper

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #762
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13639;
          26 Oct 90 3:17 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18754;
          26 Oct 90 1:45 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac04822;
          26 Oct 90 0:42 CDT
Date:     Fri, 26 Oct 90 0:05:33 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #763
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 26 Oct 90 00:05:11 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 763

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Talking to People Instead of Machines (was Music on Hold) [T. Steele]
    Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [Eddy J. Gurney]
    Re: Autoconnect from DA in PA [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Michael P. Deignan]
    Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone [Ed Hopper]
    Re: A "New" Interexchange Carrier [Kevin A. Mitchell]
    Re: Ancient ANI [Jim Rees]
    Re: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens [[e-mail]]
    Correction Notice: Re: Who or What is ITI? [Eric Dittman]
    Destinctions and Definitions Needed [George S. Thurman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 14:53:11 BST
From: Tim Steele <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Talking to People Instead of Machines (was Music on Hold)


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

> | A human-factors consideration: when I was making my living as a
> | computer consultant a few years ago, I became sensitive to the fact
> | that people often needed to call me most when they were having
> | problems with their computers, and that the last thing someone who is
> | already upset with his machine needs to hear is another machine
> | answering the phone when he calls for help.

When I was very young (!) I called a company in California from
Cambridge, England using a British pay phone.  I had a huge sack of
10p pieces to stuff into the phone (about one every three seconds!)  I
was so taken aback by the Californian accent on the other end that the
conversation started like this:

<rrrrrrrrrrring!> <rrrrrrrrrrrrring!>

Phone: "Memory Merchant?"
Me:    "Uh ... are you an answering machine?"
Phone: "<pause> I... don't think so!"

Um.

Tim


[e-mail]        ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!tadtec!tjfs
Tadpole Technology plc, Science Park, Milton Road, CAMBRIDGE, CB4 4WQ
Phone: [phone]   Fax: [phone]   Telex: 817316 TADTEC G

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

From: "Eddy J. Gurney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell
Organization: The Eccentricity Group - East Lansing Division
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 18:31:12 GMT


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

>Future Change in Local Usage Service
>[elimination of all residential local call plans; replacement with
>"Volume Discount Plan," with sliding scaled prices on calls, in
>addition to $9.50/mo charge.  PSC requires Wisc Bell to implement this
>no later than July 1, 1992; no decision on when it will happen.]

>Number of Local Calls Made        Price per Local Call
>    1 - 60                    6 cents each
>    61- 150                    5  "
>    151-300                    4  "
>    301-400                    3  "
>    401-1200                2  "
>    1201 and up                5 cents each

>[Example paraphrased:  70 calls cost 60*0.06 + 10*0.05 = $4.10]

Yuck.  I certainly hope this isn't a trend that's going to happened
everywhere.  Unlimited local calling is a "must" for people with uucp
connections or what have you.  For example, over the summer, my
roommate and I both had a U*ix box in our bedrooms.  We both called
once an hour - me on the hour, him on the half hour.  We got our phone
bill the next month, and the kind souls at Michigan Bell told us we
had made something like 1,456 local calls.  At that calling rate,
that's $72.80, FOR LOCAL CALLS!  Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me.  (I
know, how often are you going to have two uucp systems that poll
hourly on the same residential line ... but it CAN happen. :-)

I like unlimited local calling.  I'd rather pay for touch tone and
still have that option available than get touch tone for free and have
to pay for all the local calls my computer makes.


         Eddy J. Gurney  N8FPW         THE ECCENTRICITY GROUP
[e-mail]    [e-mail]    [e-mail]
   (Preferred)        (If your mail bounces)     (If you HAVE to :-)

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 00:23:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> wybbs![e-mail] (Ken
Jongsma) writes:

>Bell of PA as an example. Apparently, when you ask for a directory
>number in PA, you get the usual computer generated answer, followed by
>the suggestion that for an additional 30 cents, you can be connected
>automatically. Presumably, these are for local calls, or perhaps in
>addition to the toll charges.

This is almost certainly provided from a Northern Telecom TOPS MP
system.  In my NT Product Handbook the following description is found
(sic):

TOPS MP

TOPS MP (Traffic Operator Position System Multipurpose) is a universal
operator system developed to meet emerging call-processing
requirements.  Designed to allow telephone operating companies to
combine multiple operator functions into a single work station, TOPS
MP also provides optimal operator efficiency, reliability, and
comfort.

  Through its fully-integrated proprietary interface with DMS-200 and
external data bases, TOPS MP offers a universal approach to operator
services.  Traditionally, separate functions of toll services and
directory assistance are combined in the same trunk network, automatic
call distributors, and operator teams.  In addition to providing
multiple data base access, TOPS MP provides integrated alternate
billing and audio response for new services, and integrated voice and
data interfaces.  Such integration consolidates tasks and eliminates
the need for seperate management, clerical, and methods of support for
each function.

DMS-200 TOPS introduced in 1981
TOPS MP introduced in 1987

Product Summary
Nomenclature: TOPS MP
Features:

  The initial TOPS MP offering, TOPS MP Version 1, is a Toll and
Assistance (TA) system integrating state-of-the-art developments in
ergonomics and producing the lowest Average Work Time (AWT) in the
industry.

  TOPS MP Version 2, the latest advance in operator-service
capabilities for the telephone operating company, adds Advanced
Directory Assistance (ADA) and Intercept (INT) services to the
functionality of TOPS MP Version 1.

  Advanced Directory Assistance offers major improvements over current
Directory Assistance (DA) service offerings by including all of
today's DA services with the power of a full-service Toll and
Assistance tandem switch with Automatic Call Distribution (ACD).
Revenue-generating services such as automatic or operator Directory
Assistance Call Completion (DACC), ADA branding and per-DA-request
billing (with alternate billing service options) are integrated
features of TOPS MP Version 2.

  Intercept on TOPS MP Version 2 provides the full range of intercept
services required today, and serves Automatic Intercept Service (AIS),
Operator Number Identification (ONI) and Automatic Number
Identification Fail (ANIF) intercept, and split referrals.  Where
appropriate, Version 2 also serves intercept recalls to an operator so
that further assistance can be given to an intercepted call.

Benefits:

  TOPS MP supports multiple network trunking arrangements.  Advanced
Directory Assistance, Intercept, and Toll and Assistance calls can
arrive on seperate or combined trunk groups.  TOPS MP Version 2, and
any Version 1 site with BCS27 or higher software, can support up to
100 entries in the Outgoing Trunk (OGT) list.  The OGT list
consolidates the OGT,Transfer (XFER), and Assistance functions of TOPS
MP Version 1 and TOPS 4 systems.

  With TOPS MP Version 2, operator-services management can combine all
TA, ADA, and INT activities in a fully integrated multipurpose system,
or the services can be administered through seperate teams.  In either
mode, only one ACD group is required to serve all operator service
needs, as well as other possible network requirements, such as access
tandem functions.  With a single ACD group, TOPS MP Version 2 performs
the functions that currently require three seperate ACD groups in most
applications.

  To support the administration of TOPS MP, Northern Telecom provides
statistical data that allows administration of a universal position
system.  Statistical data for TA, ADA, and INT are outputted for each
basic service and also are combined in order to evaluate total system
performance.

  TOPS MP also goes far beyond the capabilities of current
operator-services work stations or personal computer-based systems by
allowing telephone operating companies independent access to selected
service nodes and data bases, thereby giving management team full
control of the office.


Vance Shipley    SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
[phone]    vances@ltg  or  ... uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Date: 25 Oct 90 00:50:21 GMT
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917


[e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle) writes:

>In the case of the cable cut, the cut did occur, the contractor was
>responsible, an ordinary contractor following the customs of the
>profession would have "done a JULIE," and then there would have been
>at least some legal protection.  One could still argue that when a
>excavator encounters an unknown obstacle, they should give it at least
>some cursory examination before using brute force to remove it.

Even if the contractor had done a "Julie", there is still no special
indemnification that the contractor receives as a result (at least,
from what I've gathered from the various postings...)

I do find it disturbing that various utility lines could be running
under your property with no apparent warning. I used to live in a
fairly rural area, thru which natural gas and petroleum pipelines ran.
Whenever you intersected either underground line with a road, there
were "posts" on both sides of the road warning you of the presence of
the pipelines.

Seems that something similar was lacking in this case.


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: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 20:35:35 CDT
Subject: Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michael H. Riddle) writes:

>Isn't there an "in-between" alternative, where the instrument appears
>to be dedicated ring-down service, but in reality places the call when
>the customer goes off-hook?

Absolutely, I remember one feature in the AT&T Dimension PBX called "Hot
Line Service".  With that, one translated two extensions to ring each
other when they went off hook.  They still connected to the PBX and
didn't require auxiliary ringdown equipment like one might have
implementing ringdown with 1A2 key equipment.  One quick translation
change and you were back to normal extensions (assuming you had the
Customer Admin Panel, which most sites didn't in the 70's & early 80's).
I don't know if Hot Line Service was carried over into the System
85/75/Definity world, I stopped doing dialtone in 1983.


Ed Hopper
AT&T Computer Systems

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Mitchell)
Subject: Re: A "New" Interexchange Carrier
Date: 25 Oct 90 14:06:42 GMT
Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago


You CAN get to other telco's 611 via seven-digit service. I had some
tremendous problems calling the only free Compuserve node in my area
(after IBT restructured rates to remove unlimited Call-Pak, and
'reduce' [actually, increase by 600%] my phone bill). It was too noisy
to even log in, and was in Centel-land. I called Illinois Bell and
complained of a trunk or called-party problem (I could call any OTHER
modem from home, I explained), and they gave me a 7-digit number that
reached Centel repair service. In two days, the problem was fixed; a
trunk cable running through O'Hare Airport had gotten wet.

CIS couldn't help; when they called the node long distance, it didn't
go through the bad wire, so they got no noise.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Ancient ANI
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 16:36:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Al L Varney)
writes:

>Two other differences: 1) ANI can be sent in 7 and 10 digit versions,
>depending on who's sending/receiving, and identifies the number
>CHARGED for this part of the call.  May not be a valid number or the
>number actually assigned to the caller.  CallerID is (so far) always
>10 digits.

I sure hope the ten-digit limit isn't built into either the protocol or
the displays.  While North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers are
ten digits if you strip off the country code, in general phone numbers
can be just about any length.  Does anyone out there actually have a
working display?  Is it limited to ten digits?

Trivia department: We saw a few very long phone numbers on this list a
few weeks back.  What's the shortest phone number (including country
code) in the world?  What's the longest?  To qualify, it's got to be a
world-wide unique number, diallable from anywhere ("0" doesn't count).

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

From: vu0425 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens
Date: 25 Oct 90 12:06:21 GMT
Reply-To:  <[e-mail]>
Organization: SUNY-Binghamton Computer Center


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Asif Taiyabi)
writes:

>Since there was a posting some time back whether Non U.S citizens
>could be denied credit legally, I am posting the information I
>received on one of the Universal Card brochures --

As far as I recall, a federal judge ruled that non-US citizens could
be denied credit legally, and that the Equal Credit Laws did not apply
to them.

But then again, I'm a permanent resident, and I've never had a problem
getting any credit. I've got a whole slew of high interest credit
cards, an auto loan (as of yesterday morning!).

However, look at it from the point of view of the creditor. I could,
if I wanted, skip the country tomorrow, stick my car on a ship, take
it back to my country of origin; take all my credit cards to their
limit. What're my creditors going to do? Try to have me extradited for
owing them between 3000-10000 dollars each? Sounds rational, but it's
pretty impossible. In the meantime I could be zooming around in the
streets of Bombay in my shiny new Ford Taurus, spending all the
hundreds of thousands of rupees that I ripped of these "foreign"
credit card companies.

Therefore, until there exist better international agreements on such
matters, I have no problems with the fact that Equal Credit laws do
not apply to non-citizens.

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

From: Eric Dittman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction Notice: Re: Who or What is ITI?
Date: 24 Oct 90 15:09:02 CDT
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility


PAT, ITI is International Telecharge, Inc.  Telesphere is Telesphere
Communications, Inc.  The companies are in no way related.

Eric Dittman   Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility
[e-mail]    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for calling attention to this. You are
right, and I stand corrected. I know what I meant to say -- what I
typed was a different matter entirely.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 18:49 GMT
From: George S Thurman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Distinctions and Definitions Needed


Greetings,

Could some of you Telecom Experts out there tell me (in simple terms)
the difference between SS7 and CCIS.


G S Thurman
MCI MAIL 4056081

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #763
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08624;
          27 Oct 90 3:33 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18907;
          27 Oct 90 1:53 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17759;
          27 Oct 90 0:49 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Oct 90 0:30:45 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #764
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Oct 90 00:30:24 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 764

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Online AT&T Mail Registration [Fred E. J. Linton]
    Canadian Telegram Prices May Rise [Nigel Allen]
    NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) [Brian Jay Gould]
    Quality of Telecommunications Services and Products Workshop [Susan Webber]
    Cable Breaks [Steve Gaarder]
    Easements and Utility Company Obligations [David G. Cantor]
    My CO is Scheduled to be Cutover [David Lesher]
    Info Needed Ahout Peacenet Non-Profit Mail Service [Bruce B. LeRoy]
    Can Caller*ID be Heard With an "On Hook" Line Monitor? [Steve Rhoades]
    Best Deal For Calling Japan [Thomas Summerall]
    More SOCal COCOT Info [Ron Schnell]
    Billing For Forwarded Calls [Carl Moore]
    Re: Sweden Already Charges for Directory Enquiries [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 22:15 GMT
From: Fred E J Linton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Online AT&T Mail Registration


I've just unearthed an old brochure explaining how one registers for
AT&T Mail on-line: make a modem call to 1 800 624 5123 (2400, 1200, or
300 baud, 8 bit, no parity); give one (or more) <CR>'s; and at the
login prompt, type REGISTER followed by another <CR>.  The system will
walk you through its on-line registration procedure.  Have a
creditcard number or EFT number handy.  You can back out at any time
with a ^C (<cntrl>-C) and a QUIT.

Other ways to register: through a human at the end of the
telephone-tree on 1 800 624 5672 or on 1 800 367 7225 (mention
extension 720); by mail or by FAX (through faxline 1 201 668 1683)
using forms available from the Telemarketing folks at the 367 7225
800-number mentioned above.

A couple further AT&T Mail features I neglected to mention before
(I've never used them): "Mail Talk" permits retrieval of messages w/o
a terminal from any DTMF phone -- text messages get "spoken" by a
synthesized voice; and there are "Autoanswer" and "Autoresponse"
options permitting fairly flexible automatic response to either all or
selected incoming messages (someone I know had an "Autoforward" option
turned on once, but I have no documentation on that).


Fred  <[e-mail]>  or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>

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

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 23:19 EDT
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Telegram Prices May Rise
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


Unitel Communications Inc. (formerly CNCP Telecommunications) applied
today (October 25) to the CRTC for permission to increase the rates it
charges for telegrams and related services.

Telex and private line services would not be affected by the
application.

Telegrams: within Canada would rise by 10%, to $6.90 for the first
fifteen words. To the U.S. would rise by 15%, to $10.65 for the first
20 words.

Telepost: (the message is printed out at a post office and delivered
in the regular mail): increasing the rates "to telegram level", an
increase of 50 percent within Canada and 74 percent to the U.S.

Personal opinion messages (addressed to elected politicians) to $3.99
(formerly $3.50) within Canada.

Same-day hand delivery is $7.99 within Canada, Monday to Friday, and
$10.99 on Saturday.

Introduction of next day hand delivery at a proposed rate of $4.99.

If you wish to comment on this application or any aspect of Unitel's
telegram services or pricing, write to:

 Secretary General
 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
 Ottawa, Ontario
 Canada K1A 0N2

 Refer to Unitel Tariff Notice 573 (the formal designation
 of the application)

 Send a copy of your letter to:

 Mr. Allan G. Duncan
 General Manager, Regulatory Matters
 Unitel Communications Inc.
 3300 Bloor Street West
 Toronto, Ontario
 Canada M8X 2W9
 Mr. Duncan's voice number is [phone].
 His fax number is [phone].

 If you would like a copy of the application, ask Mr. Duncan.


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

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It)
Date: 26 Oct 90 21:47:28 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


I have been trying to help a non-profit organization cope with the
people at New Jersey Bell who don't give a s--- whether or not the
Centrex service works for them.  It all started when it wasn't
possible to disable call forwarding.  Several calls to NJ Bell over
two weeks resulted in no action from NJ Bell.

I then called on their behalf.  NJ Bell folks told the customer that
the problem HAD to be that they weren't keying the right codes.  I
insisted that the problem had to be in software.  Then after tedious
instructions between NJ Bell and the customer, NJ Bell decided that
the problem was with a faulty installation of lines several weeks
before the problem began.

I called again to suggest that their analysis was cow dip.  They said
they'd look into it.  After working with the customer over the phone
for a few more minutes, NJ Bell suggested that "all of the telephones"
at the customer site must be defective.

They called the customer again about fifteen minutes later and asked
them to try it again.  It worked!  I asked, A software problem?  "NO"
insisted NJ Bell.  The problem must have been with the customer's
wiring but has suddenly corrected itself! (?!)

Now, the same customer needs to reconfigure their services to
something much more sensible. (multi-line phones, and some feature
changes) NJ Bell refuses to give them the time of day.  No one will
call back, and customer service says that they can't help.

After dealing with NJ Bell for about nine years, I have come to
understand that it is their policy to deny that they have any problems
(both technically, and in other matters).  But if someone in the
system can help, please call me at [phone] - or send e-mail.  I
know that NJ Bell is too busy to help a 40 line customer, but it is a
public service organization.


Any disclaimers made for me, by me, or about me - may or may not accurately
reflect my failure to be reflecting the opinions of myself or anyone else.

   Brian Jay Gould - Professional Brain-stormer


[Moderator's Note: I had my service changed in numerous ways in the
past couple of days: IBT is still trying to get it working right! I
dropped Starline and subscribed to all the new CLASS features. Maybe I
will write about it in one of the issues over the weekend. Its been a
real riot.  :)  PAT]

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

From: Susan Webber <asuvax!orbit![e-mail]>
Subject: Quality of Telecommunications Services and Products Workshop
Date: 26 Oct 90 22:34:52 GMT
Organization: gte


A workshop on "Quality of Telecommunications Services & Products" is
being organized by the IEEE Quality Assurance Management Committee.
The workshop is structured to serve as a forum for information
exchange and discussion among experts in various fields of
telecommunications.  There will be two and a half days of sequential
technical sessions, including panel discussions and an after#dinner
talk.  Total participation is limited to 63 people.  In the past we
have found that this format facilitates communication.  Abstracts
(between 200 and 500 words) are being solicited in two areas of
product quality in telecommunications.  Information about these
sessions is as follows:

                          Predicting Product Quality

As the demand for higher quality telecommunication products increases,
methods that can accurately predict product quality during development
become increasingly important.  A telecommunications vendor can no
longer afford to #wait and see" if all of the new methods and
processes invested will pay off in the delivery of a high quality
product.

Recent efforts in the field of telecommunications quality assurance
have focused on developing effective methods for predicting product
quality at a relatively early stage in the product development life
cycle.  This session will focus on those methods being used by
telecommunications vendors to predict product quality.

                          Measuring Product Quality

With increased competition in the field of telecommunications, it has
become more critical that both vendors and customers develop and apply
valid measurement systems for assessing the quality of their products.
In the past, measurement systems were often incomplete and did not
focus on assessing quality as it was perceived by the customer.
Metrics such as defects per thousand lines of code, while perhaps
being appropriate for benchmarking internal processes, do not give a
complete assessment of the product's quality as perceived by the
customer.

This session will focus on both vendor and customer presentations on
measuring product quality and how one can assess if product quality is
improving.  Telecommunications vendors as well as customers are
encouraged to submit appropriate abstracts.

Abstracts for either session should be submitted to the address (U.S.
or USENET) below.

The deadline for abstracts is November 30, 1990.  A full paper is not
required.  Those individuals who submit abstracts that are accepted
will be asked to give a 15-minute presentation.  Presentations should
emphasize practice, problems, and directions in meeting new
technologies.  Where possible, case studies should be presented to
illustrate results.

For more information about the workshop, contact Susan Webber at the
address below, at 602-582-7783, or USENET address below.


Susan Webber, Manager, R&D Quality Assurance
AG Communication Systems Corporation
P. O. Box 52179    2500 West Utopia Road
Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2179
Voice: 602-582-7783    FAX:   [phone]
UUCP:  {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!a1.bustop.umc!webbers
  (Note: Do not reply to posting address.  It is incorrect)

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 19:25:58 EDT
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable Breaks


Some 15 or so years ago, a local farmer cut the main cable that
carried toll calls out of Ithaca, N.Y.  He was digging fence post
holes, and when he hit the cable, he figured he'd found an old,
abandoned cable, and proceeded to dig two more holes into the cable.
A NY Tel spokesman was quoted as saying, "we really wish he'd stopped
after the first one."

The following is a story I heard once, and may be just another legend:
A craft was splicing a cable outside in bad weather, and decided to do
the job in comfort by running each end through opposite windows of his
van, and sitting inside.  It was, "they" say, cheaper to cut open the
roof of the van than cut and re-splice the cable.


Steve Gaarder, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
[e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Easements and Utility Company Obligations
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 08:14:23 -0700
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


I live on a private road.  My property extends to the middle of the
street.  The main "virtue" of this is that I am responsible for
maintenance of the road.  All of the utilities have easements.  Most
of these easements are in an "easement strip", 10 feet wide, between
my home and the curb.  These include gas, water, telephone, cable TV,
and electricity.  Right now, LA County is installing a new drainage
system and they (their contractor) had all of the utilities identify
where their cables, pipes, etc., were.  It didn't matter.  The
contractor has broken TV cables, telephone cables, water pipes, and
electrical cable (fortunately, not gas).  And everyone blames the
other party.  The contractor claims that the utilities gave him the
wrong locations and the utilities blame the contractor.

None of these utilities ever do an adequate patching job after digging
up the road and the main reason we are going to have to repave is
because of these bad patches.


David G. Cantor
Department of Mathematics
University of California at Los Angeles
Internet:  [e-mail]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: My CO is Scheduled to be Cutover
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 21:57:05 EDT
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


I just found out that I'm scheduled to be cutover from our existing
1{A?}ESS to a DMSnnn. As a POTS user, what differences will I notice,
if any? Am I likely to have trouble with either V.22/MNP or PEP
transmission thru the DMS?


[e-mail]                          (305) 255-RTFM

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

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 1990 07:53:58 PDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Info Needed About Peacenet Non-Profit Mail Service


Where can I get more info on Peacenet?

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

Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 21:02:27 PDT
From: Steve Rhoades <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can Caller*ID be Heard With an "On Hook" Line Monitor?


This question is primarily targeted for those of you with Caller*ID.
Since the FSK Caller*ID data is sent between the first and second
rings, I was wondering if it's possible to actually hear it using a
butt set in the monitor position.  Or for that matter, any kind of
monitor that wouldn't produce and "off hook" condition.

On a related note, can someone point me to the specs on demodulating
this data ?  It's probably in a BSTJ somewhere.  (remember BSTJs ?)


Steve
[e-mail]

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

From: Thomas Summerall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Best Deal For Calling Japan
Date: 26 Oct 90 16:22:12 GMT


Anyone know which service has the best rates for calling Japan?


Tom Summerall

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

From: Ron Schnell <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!mit-eddie![e-mail]>
Subject: More SOCal COCOT Info
Reply-To: Ron Schnell <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!mit-eddie![e-mail]>
Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 20:04:27 GMT


I called Pac Bell to report some COCOTs in violation and they said
since it was out of their area I would have to report them to GTE.  So
I figured I would post the number to report violating COCOTs in GTE's
area: (800) 634 - 7797.

I have found a lot of phones which only charge 20 cents for local
call, but the face of the phone says "deposit 25 cents."  What's the
opinion of people out their as to whether those phones are in
violation.  I think most people probably put a quarter in the phone
since it says to deposit coin first.  But they are only charging 20
cents.


Ron

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 15:32:05 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billing For Forwarded Calls

On a normal phone bill, you see calls "to" if you dial direct, and
"from ... to" (or vice versa) for third-party or credit-card
(calling-card) calls, and you get "[collect] from" if you accepted a
collect call?

Now if you call-forward to a number which is long-distance, you are to
see the long-distance charge for a call from your phone to the phone
where you are forwarding to.  How does this appear on your phone bill?
(Lack, for whatever reason, of Caller-ID would prevent you from seeing
the number which called you and got forwarded, right?)


[Moderator's Note: Because it is not a credit card or third-party-pay
call, you would not see the 'from' information. You would merely see a
long distance call at direct dial rates, placed from your line.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 15:55:18 EDT
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sweden Already Charges for Directory Enquiries


Dan Sahlin <[e-mail]> writes in volume 10, #742:

>Are there any more countries where you have to pay for directory
>enquiries?

I believe there are several measured-service plans for directory
enquiries (in the U.S., you normally see the word "assistance", not
"enquiries").  My own telephone service has such a plan; for numbers
within Delaware, I think it's three free calls per month, with my
being able to request two numbers per call.  Elsewhere, I think it is
chargeable and comes under my long distance carrier, with possible
exception of area 215 (since I am in the Philadelphia LATA along with
most but not all of 215).

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #764
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18969;
          27 Oct 90 14:32 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25706;
          27 Oct 90 12:59 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00179;
          27 Oct 90 11:55 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Oct 90 11:02:42 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #765
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Oct 90 11:02:22 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 765

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [Vance Shipley]
    Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill [B. Kantor]
    Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill [J. Lister]
    Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill [R. Zellich]
    Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed [John Higdon]
    Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: What Ever Happened to ZENITH Numbers? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Billing For Forwarded Calls [Douglas Scott Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 14:01:57 GMT


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

>  Can anybody tell me what is meant by A/A1 control for key telephone
>systems?  Also what is a 1A2 key system?  A reference would aalso be
>good.

When you say "key telephone systems" I assume you mean "electronic key
telephones" (EKT).  The predecessor to todays EKT's was the 1A2 key.

The 1A2 key telephone system can be recognized (and spotted nearly
everywhere) by the familiar 500/2500 type desk set with a larger base
and six buttons at the front.  One button is red and the others are
clear.  The red button is the hold and the others are line appearances
or even intercom.  The line cord for these sets is a 25-pair cable
(sometimes 16-pair).  Each line appearance uses 3-pair (although two
wires used as return grounds could be skipped, using a common ground
for return).  The six wires are T/R,A/A1,LG,L.  These are; Tip and
Ring of the CO line, A and A1 control (wired to the button in the set,
a normally open contact which is closed when the line button is
depressed), Lamp Ground and Lamp (the power to light the lamp in the
button).

  When a line appearance button is depressed at a set the A1 lead
signals the KSU that it is in use. The KSU lights the lamps for all
other appearances of that line (with the L lead). Note that the actual
CO line is always available at every set, it is only neccesary to
signal the KSU to light the lamps.  Now the hold key would be the
subject of another lengthy article!

  The application of A/A1 control in an EKT system allows the
integration of EKT and 1A2 on the same lines.  When a user on the 1A2
grabs a line the LED associated with that line on the EKT's will
light.

  But before you think that this is a useless feature in today's
telecom world think of the other uses to put it to.  Most hayes
compatable modems include A/A1 control!  You can use your modem on a
line that is on the EKT system and other users will not be able to
break in, their LED's will be lit.  How about those credit
verification terminals, fax machines and TDD's?  If you don't have an
A/A1 control pair on your terminal you can run down to Radio Shack and
buy a cheap little box which senses when the CO line is in use and
trips a relay providing A/A1.  (I hope these are still available).

  For a reference you might try Radio Shack for a book called
"Understanding Telephone Electronics".  This is actually a very good
reference on the history and operation of telephones and the network.


Vance Shipley
SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
[phone]
vances@ltg   or   ... uunet!watmath!xenitec!ltg!vances

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems
Date: 27 Oct 90 00:59:11 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


[e-mail] (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) asks about A/A1 and 1A2:

A 1A2 key system is the electronic replacement for the 1a1 all relay
ones that preceeded them. This is a relatively simple system that
typically has a KSU supporting 4, 6, or 13 cards. Each card is wired
in series with T+R going to the phones. The card does several things.
It can detect ringing and start a local interrupter (to have ringing
and lamp flashing for many lines all in step) and connect the flashing
lamp service to the lamp lead for that line. It will light that lamp
lead steady if a phone is picked up by noticing that the A lead for
that line and the A1 lead (local signal ground, and the pair-mate to
the phone's A lead for line 1) have been connected.

If the current through the T+R path breaks and then the A A1
connection breaks, (normal hangup sequence) the card knows you are
hanging up and the lamp goes out. If the A-A1 connection is broken BUT
the current is still flowing from Tip to Ring, the line card knows you
want to go on hold (things are in this state when you have the hold
button bottomed). The card immediately switches a 135 ohm 5 watt
(typical) resistor across T+R to simulate a phone off hook to hold the
line up. The card also starts the interrupter and switches the wink
supply to that lines lamp ckt.

The card monitors loop current on hold and if it drops (the far end
probably hung up) drops the hold. The timing of this can be extended
to bridge short duration opens such as those caused by call waiting by
a strapping option usually involving adding a cap.

Answering machines and modems sometimes have the A + A1 leads so they
can light the light and trip local ringing, etc. if used behind such a
1A2 key system. A non A A1 equipped device can be supplemented with an
adapter that watches for loop current and gives the A A1 signal.
Answering machine manufactuorers that no longer include A A1 support
often suggest a source for such a device if they don't offer it
themselves.

Does this give you enough, or do you have some specific other
questions?

There are also probably many similar answers someone could point you
to in the archives.

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill?
Date: 26 Oct 90 19:32:36 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


I too had problems some years ago with multiple bills that I paid on a
single check until I got into the habit of stapling the bills and
check together and folding them lengthwise.  This causes the whole
package to be rejected by the machine that normally extracts the bill
and check from the envelope, and forces a person to deal with it as a
whole.

I did find that it sometimes took them up to an extra week to credit
the payment.  The returned checks didn't look damaged in any way, so I
don't think the machine jammed (most use suction cups, so staples
don't hurt them anyway).

Since I've moved, Pac Bell have been handling multiple bills and one
check in an envelope much better, so I don't use the staple and fold
trick.  Perhaps they've improved their procedures or equipment.


Brian

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

From: John Lister <slhisc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill?
Organization: Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 23:02:50 GMT


I don't seem to have that problem.  I ordered two phone lines from NJ
Bell when I moved into my house 18 months ago. Two different numbers
on the same exchange, one bill. Even better, the second line was given
at a discount rate precisely BECAUSE they could bill to the same
address. And, it wasn't published, so that I can cheerfully ignore
incoming calls on it, because they have to be from random dialling.

I recently ordered another phone line (decided I wanted two voice +
modem and the builder wired the house with six-pair cable, so what the
hell). Different exchange (from the same building) but still one bill.


John Lister

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 10:43:50 CDT
From: Rich Zellich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:Two Residential Phones; Same Address and 'Owner'; One Bill?


When I moved from a condo in St. Louis to a house out in the 'burbs, I
"transferred" my existing account to a local-only number, and also had
a second line installed in the new location with Metro (toll-free
to/from St. Louis metro-area) service.

Initially, I received three transition bills - one for each of the new
lines, and one for the discontinued service.  The old-service bill was
because the service overlapped for about a week and the turn-off date
Southwestern Bell's computer had was two days after the billing cutoff
period, and they charged me for the entire month.

The three bills were extremely confusing and, during a long
conversation with Customer Service, I was told that I would continue
to get two bills, one for each new number, because they were different
prefixes/one was metro and the two prefixes had different billing
cutoff dates.  I protested this, telling the lady that it seemed wrong
since both prefixes were actually served by the same local plant
(metro or not, the Metro number is still a local prefix), but she
insisted they couldn't do it any other way as long as I had one local
and one Metro line.

So yesterday I get my first "regular" bill for the new location.  Lo
and behold, the credit for a partial month for the old service, the
local, and the Metro numbers are all on the same bill, with separate
detail breakout of each, and a polite little note is enclosed telling
me that my billing cutoff date is changed due to the move to a new CO!
Gee, just the way I thought it should work -- so much for Customer
"Service".

The only thing they still do wrong is that they lump all the charges
for the line into one "service" amount - a total of $28.75 for one
line with Metro service and TouchTone and one line with local-only
service and pulse-dial only.  I really think they should break out
each of the charges so I know I'm getting/paying for the features I
ordered.  I suspect this is done so nobody complains about the
TouchTone charge that would then be thrust under their noses month
after month.  They *do* break out a $1.10 charge that is supposed to
be for "extended area" service; when questioned, CS stated that this
was an extra charge added because they had widened the free-calling
service area for everybody ... but I'm already paying a $7.60 premium
for Metro service on that line myself ... and the "local" number is
*really* local - the most restricted free-calling area I've ever seen.

In arguing for a detail breakout of the basic "service" charge, I have
new experience: one item on the new bill was a credit for dropping the
second phone-book listing in my wife's maiden name.  At one time, we
were entitled to a second listing free, and took advantage of it;
some- where along the line, they started charging *monthly* for it,
and added $1.60/month to the "service" charge lump sum part of the
bill.  If I had known about it, I would have canceled the extra
listing two years ago, when we got married and her name was known to
have changed by one and all.

The above-mentioned $28.75 is another CS screwup.  When I ordered the
service, I was told it was $36.85 (including the $1.10 extended area
charge, which wasn't even mentioned) *plus* the $7 Federal End User
Common Line Charges, which would have added up to $43.85.  It turns
out to be only $28.75, plus $1.10, plus $7, for a *grand total* of
$36.85.

The full breakout turns out to be:

   Line 1 (listed)             -  $ 9.65
   Line 1 Federal End User...  -    3.50
   Line 2 (unlisted)           -    9.65  [no charge for not listing
   Line 2 Metro (wide-area)    -    7.60                       second line]
   Line 2 TouchTone            -    1.85
   Line 2 extended area charge -    1.10
   Line 2 Federal End User...  -    3.50
                                  ------
                                  $36.85
   (plus miscellaneous taxes, of course)

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed
Date: 26 Oct 90 02:09:15 PDT (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Signaling System #7 (SS7) is the seventh major implimentation and
standard for Common Channel Interoffice Signaling (CCIS).


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 13:09:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> George S Thurman <0004056081@
mcimail.com> writes:

>Could some of you Telecom Experts out there tell me (in simple terms)
>the difference between SS7 and CCIS.

CCS (Common Channel Signaling) removes the signaling functions from
the individual trunks (ie.  multifreq tones for dialing numbers) and
instead routes the information over a separate data link.  The data
link does not go from one switch to another directly, but instead each
switch is linked to a control point (an STP, Signal Transfer Point)
where a computer interprets the data and sends approriate commands to
each switch involved in a particular connection.

CCIS (Common Channel Interoffice Signaling) is AT&T's implementation
of CCS.

CCITT Signaling System No. 7 is the most recent CCS implementation.

SS7 provides more information to the terminating end office and does
more trunk testing before setting up a path.


Floyd L. Davidson   [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Salcha, AK 99714    connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc.
When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 23:44:17 -0400
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to ZENITH Numbers?
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


Around here, they're called WX numbers, and they are of the form
WX-xxxx, where the x are replaced by digits.  Ask the operator for
one.  Due to the form of the number, there aren't many of them
available.  An 800 number is obviously preferred in most cases, but
the railroad still has the old WX number to reach the Pecan (Palatka)
operator.

 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner


[Moderator's Note: There really doesn't need to be that many of them
available since by whatever name, Zenith, Enterprise, or 'WX', they
are purely local convention. All the prefix and four digit suffix do
is describe the local telco's billing arrangement with some subscriber
(not necessarily their own) somewhere.  PAT]

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

Date: 27-OCT-1990 04:42:01.49
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing For Forwarded Calls


Carl Moore recently wrote about distinguishing "Call Forward" calls
from regular toll calls on your phone bill.

Some companies, New York Telephone for example, do indeed have
indicators next to the call "item" (the line that says when/where the
call was made).

On your average NYTel bill, a Call-Forward will be represented by a "
- ", and a Three-Way call will be represented by a " / ". (Since you
obviously aren't charged for getting a call via Call-Waiting, there is
no itemization for that...) I haven't seen one for Speed-Call, but
that's probably not all too necessary.

I've even noticed on NYTel, SNET, Pac*Bell and C&P Telephone (and
probably others too) that if you make a Calling Card or other operator
assisted call from certain hotels or hospitals, a "#" will appear next
to that item. This doesn't seem to work for all hotels, though,
perhaps only those which use AT&T's (or some Bell's) call-accounting
service(s)?

If you use AT&T, most BOCs will put a "*" (or is it a "C"?) next to a
line where you called AT&T and asked for credit. BOCs may do this on
their portion of the bill as well.

Are there any others that I failed to mention? (There are about six
symbols left unused. Maybe some BOC will figure out a use for them! :-) )


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: There are several symbols the Bell telcos reserve
for use by AT&T, since they do the billing for Mother. Some of the
symbols indicate "Billed as part of Reach Out America, but here is
what the price would be otherwise", "evening discount rate", etc.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #765
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22300;
          27 Oct 90 19:27 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01223;
          27 Oct 90 18:04 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31356;
          27 Oct 90 17:00 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Oct 90 16:54:47 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #766
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Oct 90 16:54:32 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 766

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Len Rose Arrested Again! [TELECOM Moderator]
    Ouch!  AOS/COCOT Call: 2 Mins, $4.27 [Jim Hickstein]
    Another Problem With Centrex [David Gast]
    Technology vs. the Telemarketers [Andy Behrens]
    Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [Robert M. Hamer]
    Telemarketers: Keeping Them From Calling is Harder [Stan Brown]
    Anti-Slamming Regulations [Jordan Kossack]
    Odd (617) Number [Patrick Tufts]
    800 Numbas [Steve Elias]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 11:36:10 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Len Rose Arrested Again!


I am sorry to report that Len Rose has been arrested again, and
charged with 'computer tampering', a violation of state law here in
Illinois.

Readers of the Digest will recall earlier reports about Mr. Rose,
beginning earlier this year. He was accused of various computer crimes
in connection with Operation Sun Devil, the federal inquiry which also
involved the editor of Phrack. Concurrent with his indictment on
federal charges in Maryland earlier this year was a pending matter
with the State of Virginia relating to theft of computer equipment
from a warehouse where Mr. Rose claims some of his own equipment was
being housed, which he states he was trying to recover.  For more
background on the federal case, I refer you to the Telecom Archives
and the sub-directory therein entitled 'computer.security.issues'. The
Archives is accessed via anonymous login at ftp lcs.mit.edu.

In this most recent matter, Mr. Rose had moved with his wife and
children to the Chicago suburb of Naperville, IL. He moved here to my
area about three weeks ago, having been promised a job by a computer
software company. He had been on his new job one week when he was
accused of giving inappropriate commands to the computer, accessing
files which it is claimed were none of his business. In addition, he
was confronted by his superiors with a copy of a memo which had been
circulating on Usenet claiming that Mr. Rose had sold stolen equipment
to friends of the writer of the memo.

On his final day of employment, Mr. Rose was visited by federal agent
Tim Foley, the fellow who has been involved with much of the Operation
Sun Devil investigation since the beginning. On the advice of his
attorney, Mr. Rose declined to speak with Mr. Foley at the time.

A day or two later, federal and local officers came to Mr. Rose's new
residence in Naperville and conducted a raid, placing him under arrest
based on charges filed by his new employer. Mr. Rose is now
incarcerated in the DuPage County Jail, Wheaton, IL, where his bond
was set at $50,000. Efforts by his attorney have gotten the bond
reduced to $10,000.

In the meantime, Mr. Rose's wife who speaks very little English and
his small children are alone in Naperville, an unfamiliar community
to them with no money and/or resources. He is not without counsel
however; his friends and attornies are aware of his current situation
and are trying to get him out of jail and get a factual and candid
account of what happened.

As Jim Thomas points out in the current issue of {Computer Underground
Digest} something very strange is going on ... I refer you to the
current issue of CuD for more specifics on this case. If you are a
subscriber to CuD, you should have received an issue on Saturday
morning with this story. If not, and you'd like to subscribe, then
write the Moderators with your request:  [e-mail].

Was this latest turn of events a 'set up' of some kind, or a
conspiracy against Len Rose? It seems doubtful, yet if the new charges
against him are true, then he must be a very self-destructive
individual. Quite honestly, I was shocked to receive this report a few
days agp from Jim Thomas (I promised not to publish it until he did),
and I really don't know what to think. I do feel terribly sorry for
his wife and children at this point, alone in a strange place without
the resources they need for survival.

It should be remembered that under the Constitution of the United
States, Mr. Rose must be presumed innocent of the latest charges
against him until they are proven in court.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 21:30:04 PDT
From: Jim Hickstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ouch!  AOS/COCOT Call: 2 Mins, $4.27


*flame on*

I have been reading in this Digest about the evils of COCOTs and AOSs
(which I read with relish), but I haven't had the misfortune of being
forced to use them, until now.  Let the titans of telecom argue
economics: this is a call to arms from one of the peons.

I just got my phone bill for last month, covering a trip I made to
Wisconsin and Minnesota.  On my way back to Minneapolis from eastern
Wisconsin I stopped in Chippewa Falls to call a friend who was
expecting me in Minneapolis some time that afternoon.  A six-hour trip
by car has enough variability that I need to connect when I get toward
the end of the trip.  I did not have my cellular phone, and it
probably wouldn't have worked in this small, rural town.  Iridium is a
few years away (and probably over my budget) so I had no choice: I had
to use a public phone. I have done this a number of times over the
years, but never even noticed what it cost me.  It's about 80 miles,
interstate, inter-LATA.  No big deal, right?

I knew there would be trouble, since I could not find a BOC coin
phone.  But I had the presence of mind to dial 00 and demand the name
and address of the company responsible for what I knew would be an
outrage.  I don't remember the name, but they said they were in
Neenah, Wisconsin.  I didn't hear them identify themselves as AT&T or,
for that matter, anyone I had ever heard of before in my life.  I had
a sinking feeling.

I placed the call, and it went through, although the phone disabled the
DTMF pad after it was convinced I was through with it.  No problem,
*this time*.  10xxx did not work.  I do not *know* the 950-xxxx number
for AT&T, and cannot reasonably be expected to know it.  In fact, I
cannot reasonably be expected to know 10288: only my exposure to this
digest makes me one of the few who *do* know it.  How carefully do you
read all the inserts in your phone bill?  (I mean normal people. :-) My
grandmother, who once asked me what a satellite TVRO dish was, can
barely be reasonably expected to know how to place a *pre-MFJ* DDD
call.  That's why there are operators, she says.  It's hard to argue
with that.

This time, for two minutes during the day, (probably 1.01 minutes, but
that's neither here nor there) using my Pacific*Bell Calling Card, it
cost me --> $4.27 <--.  This was on its own sheet bearing the logotype
of the Operator Assistance Network (OAN).  Pacific*Bell has a billing
arrangement with them, evidently.  Over $1.00 of that was a line item
called "LOCAL TAX."  Hmmm.  Can you say "highway robbery"?  Can you
say "string the bast*rds up by their b*lls?"  And I only do this once
or twice a year! What about my brother, who travels extensively
throughout five states?  Granted, his employer bears the cost, but
it's still my money if I buy their product.  And it is absolutely
unnecessary.

This particular gas station has had BOC coin phones for *decades*.
(I've been making this call for some time, now.)  Clearly, they were
*removed* to make way for the zero-armed bandit.  "Greater public
service."  Sure.

Tell me where to write, and write I shall.  And raise Hell along the
way.  These things are a scam and should be AGAINST THE LAW.  If
people want to go into business in this society, they should fill a
need in the marketplace, or expect to be out of business before long.
I do not see how charging me what I figure to be 5 times the going
rate for *anything* fills a need of mine.  I equate this with
organized crime.  (Hmmm ... I wonder if there's an unusually high
number of COCOTs outside pizza parlors. :-)

Remember that TV ad a few years back where people came screaming out
into the hallway of an office, holding pink telephones, with bare
wires dangling, demanding the head of the responsible party on a
plate?  We need to do that with these things.

*flame off*  Sorry about that.  I needed to get this off my chest.

By the way, another such phone in rural western Wisconsin gave me so
much grief that I finally commandeered the red 2500-set on top of the
cash register, placed there for the credit transaction terminal's use,
to make my call.  I guess I sounded like I knew what I was talking
about, because the cashier did not object once I assured him that it
was a "credit card call."  I'm afraid the irony was lost on him. :-)


Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA
[e-mail] ...!{amdcad!teda,sun!teda,apple}!attain!jxh

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 13:50:31 -0700
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Problem With Centrex


It seems that another disadvantage to Centrex is that a bug is easier
to place on a Centrex system than on a PBX system.  Since calls local
to the premises typically don't leave the premises with a PBX system,
a bug would have to placed on the premises.  With a Centrex system,
all calls are routed through the CO and so a bug can be conveniently
placed at the CO.  This bug would be able to monitor all calls
including those internal to the premises.


Given the cozy relationship between law enforcement and the telcos,
this problem is something to think about.


David

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

From: Andy Behrens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Technology vs. the Telemarketers
Date: 26 Oct 90 18:29:08 GMT
Organization: Burlington Coat Factory


Are you too timid to say "no" to telemarketing calls?  Sharper Image
has just the thing for you -- a phone with built-in sound effects.

    "Time to hit one of the eight sound effects buttons on your new
    transparent phone from Fun Products.  You press 'crying baby,' and
    both you and the caller hear the digitalized wail of a tiny tyke."

Only $89.


Andy Behrens
uucp:   {uunet,rutgers}!dartvax!coat.com!andyb
RFD 1, Box 116, East Thetford, Vt. 05043        [phone]
Burlington Coat, PO Box 729, Lebanon, N.H. 03766    [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 24 Oct 90 10:48 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketers: Saying No is the Easy Part


PAT (our esteemed Moderator) about telemarketers:

>one on the phone and have to say no ... so frigthened by telemarketers
>are they that they go to such extremes: published lines where are
>never answered; non-pub lines which route through an answering machine
>for screening first, etc.  Do like Nancy: Just say no (and hang up).  PAT]

Hey, I'm not afraid to say no.  In fact, I can get quite nasty -- I
ask the caller for a supervisor and then ask the supervisor if I can
have his/her phone number so I can call him/her at home to bother
him/her.  I use my answering machine to screen so I don't have to
interrupt dinner to answer a telemarketer or wrong number, or get up
from the living room to go to the foyer to answer.  (Pat -- I may be a
sort of telecom freak, but I only have five phones on the main line,
and don't have one just under my hand while I sit in the living room.)

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

Date: 26 Oct 90 12:05:00 EDT
From: "CONTR  BROWN,STAN" <abvax!iccgcc.decnet.ab.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketers: Keeping Them From Calling is Harder


Our esteemed Moderator, proving that even Jove nods occasionally,
writes in <[e-mail]>:

>[Moderator's Note: My sentiments exactly. I've always been amused by
>the messages both here and elsewhere on the net by folks who
>apparently are frightened to death that they might actually encounter
>one on the phone and have to say no ... so frigthened by telemarketers
>are they that they go to such extremes: published lines where are
>never answered; non-pub lines which route through an answering machine
>for screening first, etc.  Do like Nancy: Just say no (and hang up).  PAT]

The problem is _not_ getting rid of them.  It's the disruptions these
unwanted calls cause.  Either (1) You always answer your phone, which
subjects you to numerous interruptions of daily (and nightly)
activities, or (2) You answer the phone only when you're right next to
it and not doing anything else, which means you may miss urgent calls
and will certainly miss important ones.  ("Hey Stan I just called to
see if you wanted to go to the movies this afternoon but you're not
home so I'll call somebody else bye.")

What I want to know is, how is it that telemarketers always seem to
know as soon as I run a sinkful of soapy water anmd start washing
dishes? :-)

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 01:51:37 CDT
From: Jordan Kossack <[e-mail]>
Subject: Anti-Slamming Regulations


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

- [Moderator's Note: Except some legal beagles contend that by lifting
- the phone receiver and dialing the desired digits you were in fact
- requesting or soliciting the service. By failing to dial the 10xxx
- code on the front, you are requesting the service from the 'default'
- carrier, which might not be the carrier you want. To insure you get
- the one you want, you can always dial 10xxx. So, the legal beagles say
- you can sue the carrier who wrongfully took over the default on your
- line, but they in turn can sue you for not paying for the calls they
- handled for you.  I guess it washes out.   PAT]

     I wonder if anyone has tried to sue and if so, whether they won
the case.  I suppose the best course of action would be to:

1)  Pay the bill but write "Paid under protest" or something similar
     on the check so they couldn't use the fact that you paid the bill
     as 'evidence' that you want their 'service'.

2)  Sue the long distance carrier for the amount of the bill as well
     the cost of returning to your chosen carrier.  In addition, sue
     for an even $1000 in punitive damages.  This should keep the $$$
     low enough that one can sue in small claims court, which means
     that you don't need a lawyer, although legal counsel IS useful
     at times.  Heck, even if you lose the case, the revenge value of
     dragging them into court may be worth the effort.  The real trick
     would to get an injunction to prevent them from providing your
     residence(s) with long distance service at ANY time in the future
     without your express written permission, although I guess THAT is
     too much to expect, right?  ;-)


 [e-mail]  |  Jordan Kossack  |  [phone]  |  n5qvi

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

From: Patrick Tufts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Odd (617) Number
Date: 26 Oct 90 16:48:28 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept


In the thread on 'finding your own number', someone mentioned that
dialing 958 in NJ worked.

I tried 958 in my area.  No response, so I continued with 6544, the
last digits of the calling phone's own number, to see if it was a
ringback.

The response: three quick chirps and a faint hum of electronics
waiting for something.  After a pause, I got a quick busy signal.

Any thoughts on the function of this number, [phone]?

BTW - I got the same response with the same number from another phone.


Pat

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

Subject: 800 Numbas
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 13:07:04 -0400
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


MCI's claim that they can give you an 800 number with the last seven
digits being the same as your home phone # has got to be BS.

MCI doesn't own all the 800 "exchanges", so there's no way they can
assign the numbers as they say ... at least not for all customers.

Also, doesn't their "security code" feature mean that people at pulse
phones can't call?


eli


[Moderator's Note: Even if MCI *did* own all the 800 echanges, it
should be easy to see the fallacy in their presentation: My home
exchange 743 is duplicated in many area codes. If I got one of their
800 numbers, along with someone with the same number as mine in
another area code, then what? If the security codes were not used
properly by the caller, we'd wind up getting each other's calls. And
what about my existing 800 number which begins 747? If a
747-subscriber somewhere signs up with MCI for 800 service, does this
mean I now have to start using special codes to distinquish my calls
from his?  Steve is correct: someone at MCI got it *all* wrong!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #766
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23077;
          27 Oct 90 20:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23041;
          27 Oct 90 19:07 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01223;
          27 Oct 90 18:04 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Oct 90 17:33:56 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #767
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Oct 90 17:33:41 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 767

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Airtime for Call-Forwarding [John Opalko]
    Re: Home 800 Service [Peter G. Capek]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois! [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Ancient ANI [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA [David Pletcher]
    Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information [Barton F. Bruce]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "John Opalko, N7KBT" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Airtime for Call-Forwarding
Date: 26 Oct 90 01:19:58 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
Scott Reuben) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 753, Message 1 of 6

>It >would be nice if this time I could refute that argument by giving them
>a list of systems which are a bit more enlightened, and do not charge
>airtime for call-forwarding.

All of our markets (McCaw Cellular One) charge a monthly fee for the feature.

These markets do not charge anything extra for call forwarding:

    Alaska             Denver        Kansas City      Las Vegas
    Madison         Minneapolis   Oklahoma City    Seattle
    Tulsa

These markets charge a flat fee per forwarded call (typically 10 cents):

    Fort Smith      Fresno        Santa Barbara        Ventura

These markets charge a per-minute rate for forwarded calls (typically 7 to
10 cents per minute):

    Portland        Salinas/Monterey   Salt Lake City

These markets charge airtime for conditional forwarding but not immediate
forwarding:

    Austin          Bryan/College Station   Corpus Christi
    San Antonio     Temple/Killeen


These markets charge airtime for all forwarded calls:

    Indiana         Little Rock        Pittsburgh   Reno
    Sacramento      Santa Rosa    Spokane      Stockton/Modesto

The reason for a call-forwarding charge (I guess; I'm a Unix hacker,
not a billing type) is that the forwarding is not established at the
Telco, but rather at the cellular switch.  When you forward a call,
there are *two* trunks in use between the zone office and the cellular
switch, instead of just one.  Our switch stays in the loop (acting as
a sort-of tandem) until the call is ended.  Therefore, the Telco
charges us twice the rate that it would normally ("x" number of
Erlangs on two trunks instead of one).

The reason some markets charge for conditional (busy/no answer) call
forwarding and not immediate is the switch has to page your mobile
and, if you're in the service area (and powered up) and not busy, set
up a voice channel and initiate ringing to see if you answer.  If the
switch gets no page response or no answer, the call has to be torn
down and rerouted to your forwarding number.  For immediate
forwarding, the switch just has to see that your feature flag is set
and reroute the call without using any of the cell-site trunks or RF
equipment, i.e., it's cheaper.

Whether charging the full airtime rate is reasonable or not, well, I'm
not going to get into that.  :-)

Hope this helps,

John Opalko
McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 03:02:10 EDT
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home 800 Service


Adam Gaffin quotes an MCI spokesman as explaining how their home 800
service works: "you just have to put an 800 in front of your home
number.", and goes on to explain how eliminating the area code which
makes the number unique is compensated for by a four-digit security
code.

a) Does this mean that customers of this service now have, in effect,
   a 14-digit phone number (800-762-xxxx Security: 4321), with a pause
   required in dialing, and explanation for most callers?

b) Aren't 800-exchanges assigned to inter-exchange carriers in a static
   fashion?  It is hard to see how MCI can make good their claim for more
   than a small fraction of potential customers: I believe AT&T has the
   lion's share of the assigned "exchanges", and many haven't been assigned.


Peter G. Capek


[Moderator's Note: As previous messages have pointed out, someone at
MCI was out in left field in making the statements they did, assuming
of course that Mr. Gaffin was quoting them correctly.  PAT]

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

From: Gordon Burditt <sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois!
Date: 21 Oct 90 23:51:42 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


>Michael Glodek must feel like a million dollars today. He's the
>landscaper who was building a new lawn for a home at 3521 Madison
>Avenue in Oak Brook, IL on Monday morning when his digging machine
>uprooted what Illinois Bell termed a 'very major, very important' part
>of their interoffice network covering northern Illinois.

What happens, financially, in a situation like this?  Does the
contractor or his liability insurance pay:

   for the cost of repairing the cable?
   for the overtime of people locating and routing around the cut?
   for the (not necessarily over-)time of people locating and
    routing around the cut?  (allocated how?)
   for estimated lost revenue?  (estimated how?)
   for lost revenue due to service guarantees and missed time-to-repair
    deadlines (especially common on business 800 numbers)?

What happens if neither the cut nor other problems go
   over the downtime guarantee, but together they do?
   to area employers, for paying employees sent home due to inoperative
    phones?
   to MCI, for additional advertising to counter insults in ads by
    AT&T and/or Sprint?

Does MCI get unlimited slamming rights on the contractor's phones ? :-)

Would anything be different if it wasn't a contractor, but a homeowner
digging a garden (pretty DEEP garden!) or trying to remove tree
stumps, on his own property?

    Gordon L. Burditt
    sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon


[Moderator's Note: That is the reason we have courts and judges,
Gordon. The court will decide who pays for what, and how much.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ancient ANI
Date: 26 Oct 90 14:35:46 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I sure hope the ten-digit limit isn't built into either the protocol or
> the displays.  While North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers are
> ten digits if you strip off the country code, in general phone numbers
> can be just about any length.  Does anyone out there actually have a
> working display?  Is it limited to ten digits?

The Caller*ID displays available retail in NJ have come in two
varieties.  Some of the early units had seven-digit displays.  The
ones offered today have a two-line display of about sixteen characters
per line.  They format the information with date, time, the words NEW
or RPT, and such, and provide a ten-digit number display, with two
dashes for punctuation: AAA-PPP-NNNN.  (This refers to the box sold by
Sears, with AT&T's name and logo on it, and made by a company in
Connecticut whose name I cannot remember right now!)


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: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Date: 26 Oct 90 16:24:22 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


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

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

>> >is there any way around the fact that since the school is a 'business'
>> >with a 'business line' the residents of the residence halls who are on
>> >the system must pay for local calls?

>It would be within the tariff to allow the residences to have
>residential rates, while the rest of the campus pays business rates.
>It may not be within the capabilities of the PBX to separate the
>outgoing call traffic into different outgoing trunk groups.

Now we're getting down to interesting details.  Is it within the
capabilities of System 75 to separate residential from toll traffic?
Can YOUR campus save megabucks?

I ran into this several years ago while consulting to a local college
which I shall not name, except to say that they did not implement my
suggestions for residential service even though they bought the
"right" PBX.  On some PBXs, the automatic route selection interacts
with the toll restriction thusly:

    Take first choice route,
        If available, use it; if access restricted, REORDER
    If first choice not available or access restricted, iterate for
      second and third choice routes, etc.

AT&T's then-extant switches, Dimension and S/85, worked that way. I
suspect that S/75 does too (both S/75 and S/85 are now labeled
"Definity").  So if you can't use the cheapest trunk you can't use the
next-cheapest.  Makes sense in a business, right?

Now let's look at the way the SL-1 does it.

    Take first choice route.
        If available, use it; if not OR access restricted,
    Iterate for second and third choice routes.

Note that classmark restriction doesn't cause reorder, just a
continued scan for more choices.  IF the first choice group for local
calls is a RESIDENTIAL tariff, and if all BUSINESS (non-dorm) lines
are restricted from reaching it, then business calls will overflow to
the second choice, the business-tariff local lines.  That keeps the
residential lines uncontaminated.  Of course, you can restrict the
residential phones from the overflow (business) groups too, to avoid
cost, though it's not a tariff requirement.

FWIW, the Rolm technique is rather different but ends up working more
like the SL-1 than the S/85.  And for all I know, AT&T may have fixed
this; I did the above research in 1984.


Fred R. Goldstein              Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail]   voice: [phone]

 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
 alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

From: David Pletcher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Autoconnect From DA in PA
Date: 26 Oct 90 18:30:41 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gregory
K Johnson) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 762, Message 7 of 13

>AT&T College & University Systems has a brain-damaged computer that
>does this also when it asks you for your account number.

>But what was most galling was that when I called back and waited for
>an operator, the operator couldn't look up my account number!

>This is one of many tales of woe with ACUS.  In my opinion their
>service is completely incompetent.

Another particularly annoying feature of ACUS is that great AT&T
itself is charging based on a timeout rather than answer supervision.
In the literature we got with our cards it warns us that we will be
charged for our call if we let it ring more than five times.  To
further complicate matters, our campus PBX is set up badly so that you
cannot reliably hang up when you want to.  Often the phone starts
ringing again after a few seconds, and when you pick it up you hear
your outgoing call in progress (which you are now being charged for
after the fifth ring.)  In light of recent messages which said that
uncompleted interstate calls cannot be charged, I am thinking about
taking this up with the FCC.

It sounds like ACUS does not believe in echo-cancellation either; when
I make outgoing long distance calls it sounds like I am calling from
inside a cave to both parties.  When I am called by others I do not
have this problem.  I have spent quite a long time on the phone with
AT&T people and campus phone service people; neither will accept
responsibility or even claim to understand what I am talking about.

I really expected better from AT&T.


David Pletcher
[e-mail]

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town
Date: 26 Oct 90 17:23:12 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron
Heiby) writes:

>Once I found out (from my home town police) that my home phone was out
>of order, I figured that I'd report it to IBT repair, in case my wife
>didn't think to use the modem line to do so.  Here's where things
>started getting really interesting.

[Very long and sad story deleted]

Although I am not in a policy making position in my company, I DO
care.  Ron's story is pathetic.  Things like this should never happen.
Pat was correct that there is a 7(10) digit regular number that will
connect you with Repair Service.  Now all I have to do is convince the
DA staff to change their proceedures to give it out in situations like
this.  I don't _think_ that will be too hard to do.

If a solution is found, I will post it.  Either way, I will drop Ron
some mail (assuming that the address contained in his original post is
a good one).  I have forwarded a copy of Ron's message to the DA staff
folks (minus his name); I hope that is OK.  His words will likely
carry more impact than if I tried to translate the story.


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


[Moderator's Note: I know the number, as does Tamkin and a few other
Chicago area Digest readers. I did not include the number in the
posting because I am not sure IBT wants it published. Thanks for
passing it along, Ken.  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information
Date: 27 Oct 90 02:06:51 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter
G. Capek) writes:

> While trying to get the schedule from a local octoplex movie theatre
> recently, it occurred to me that it would be to the advantage of both
> the theatre operator and the local exchange carrier to allow multiple
> incoming calls "get through" to the theatre's recording at the same
> time.

Many multi-line answering machines even back in the 'old' days had
either of two schemes. The cheaper one was to 'barge-in' if the
message was already playing, and let you hear at least one complete
version before cutting you off.

The slightly better version had a phased entry, and had the same
message playing maybe in four different phases. Your call got answered
only when the next available phase started and EVERYONE else starting
with you all heard the same signal from the same amplifier which came
out at some good level and went through a pad towards each line. If
the sound source failed, and between words, this kept everyone from
chatting to each other.

The modern digital, often PC based, machine can handle MANY lines,
understands Touch Tone, and could easily be setup to responsively give
anyone whatever individual information they needed, each with a unique
'playing' of the digital voice. The typical auto-attendant / voice
mail box would also make a GOOD theater machine, and I even think a
SMART local theater might also list the competing EXPENSIVE adjacent
big town theaters as a service and customers would always call them
for ALL movie info and would probably go to the local one mostly
anyway.

If you want CO grade stuff, DIGICEPT makes 'nice' machines that can do
HUNDREDS of lines even over MANY COs from a central machine. They can
take T1 trunking in, too. They have cards that do time and temperature
automatically.  I think they just got 'gobbled' by Audicron - a former
competitor. Cook, now gobbled by NTI, also used to make telco grade
announce machines.

For the local theater, the PC based solution should be fine.

Most COs and some PBXs have never busy numbers that anyone calling
connects to.  These are often used for volunteer fire (whistle blows -
everyone dials in to see where to go) and for hospital code 99 teams.
These are "all chat" lines, and that isn't what the theater needs.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #767
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25172;
          27 Oct 90 23:39 EDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02510;
          27 Oct 90 22:12 CDT
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23010;
          27 Oct 90 21:08 CDT
Date:     Sat, 27 Oct 90 20:15:30 CDT
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #768
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 27 Oct 90 20:15:05 CDT    Volume 10 : Issue 768

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [TELECOM Moderator]
    To ACD or to VRU (was Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold) [Kevin Collins]
    Amplified Handsets [Barton F. Bruce]
    Voice Mail -- Just Say "O" [Bob Yasi]
    One Check, Many Numbers  [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Wanted: Home Phone System [Michael Dorl]
    Re: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens [Max Southall]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Telco "Customer Service" [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Cable Breaks [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [Marc T. Kaufman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 19:19:34 CDT
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind


It is that day again: the day when folks in the United States set our
clocks back one hour, to make up for the one hour advancement we made
in April. Sometime Saturday night or Sunday morning, move your clocks
back an hour to resume *Standard* time. The official changeover time
is 2:00 AM Sunday morning local time, of course.

For a curious, yet quite accurate rendition of the correct time, try
calling 1-202-653-1800 Sunday morning at 1:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
 ... after the talking clock reaches 1:59:50 Eastern Daylight Time, it
will tell you the time is 1:00:00 Eastern Standard Time ... never
missing a beat, or a tick-tock as it were.

I was asked once if a telephone call beginning at 1:59 AM on the final
day of daylight time which ended three minutes later at 1:02 AM on the
first day of standard time would be charged for three minutes; 23
hours and three minutes or not at all. Or, would they give you credit
for the 57 minutes you were NOT on the phone that hour.  :)  I
explained that it was set up to compensate for calls which covered the
same time period on the last Sunday morning in April, when callers
were charged for one hour and three minutes.  :)

In any event, do slow down and stay in step with the rest of us,
starting Sunday morning at 2:00 AM *whatever* time zone you are in. To
set computer clocks:

         1-202-653-0351   1200 baud  (NAVOSBY)
         1-202-494-4774   1200 baud  (National Bureau of Standards)

For a voice rendition:

         1-202-653-1800   If you don't want to pay a premium
         1-900-410-TIME   If you don't mind paying a little extra


Patrick Townson

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

From: Kevin Collins <aspect![e-mail]>
Subject: To ACD or to VRU (was Re: Why Companies Use Music On Hold)
Date: 25 Oct 90 23:56:45 GMT
Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca


In article <[e-mail]>, fozzie![e-mail] (John
Stanley) writes:

> [stuff about large book-o-month club having customer-hostile ACD,
> requiring customer to make 3 calls, "stupidity of one-item ACD's",
> club's $5k box putting all calls in one basket, no "direct incoming
> line to customer support", etc. Mr. Stanley's conclusion: general
> public won't grasp total (bad) picture and won't complain.]

I agree with most of your points, but I just wanted to clarify a few
things.  First of all, if this company has a "true" ACD system and is
only using it as you describe, said company wasted a *large* amount of
money!! ACD's cost far more than $5K - a small ACD could easily cost
around $100K. The system you describe sounds more like a Voice Response
Unit, which is much less expensive than an ACD and doesn't provide a lot
in the way of call routing features.

Also, to paraphrase another contributor to this forum, harassing the
poor salescritter won't do you any good! It is unlikely that an ACD
agent understands how calls get routed; it's entirely possible that the
agent's supervisor will not completely understand how the calls are
routed through the entire system. So, perhaps I should rephrase my
original statement: if you don't like how ABC company handles your
incoming calls, complain to *somebody who can change it.*


Kevin Collins                   |  Aspect Telecommunications
USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc  |  San Jose, CA
Voice:  [phone]         |  My opinions are mine alone.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Amplified Handsets
Date: 27 Oct 90 00:07:41 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, nol2105%dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil@
dsac.dla.mil (Robert E. Zabloudil) writes:

> would have cost, if they were even obtainable.  As a side note, she
> had to give up a promotion with her employer because they could not
> get a good volume-control phone to work with their el-cheapo system.

If you are still looking, AT&T has a special 800 number for all sorts
of 'special' hardware for folks with special needs.

Also, Walker, a long time maker of amplified handsets, was bought up
by Pacific Plantronics quite awile ago, and, even if a Walker regular
shaped handset could not work with the 'el-cheapo' system, I bet a
Plantronics operator type headset WILL. The have a FAT listing of what
to order to work with almost ANY handset jack equipped phone, and you
could get a headset that is amplified.

BTW, I think there IS an FCC rule about handset ear pieces HAVING to
be hearing aid compatible. Some sort of hearing aid like device would
then function with any compliant handset.

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

From: Bob Yasi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O"
Date: 27 Oct 90 23:39:37 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corp., Los Angeles


Whenever I get a mouthy voice mail system I just dial "O".  It gets me
a human more than half the time and I believe this is likely to become
a de facto standard.

I certainly complain to whatever human comes on the line -- once I
divinate the bizarre touchtone incantation required to reach one.

"How dare you have a phone system that doesn't get you an operator
when you dial O?"

I've never heard a satisfactory answer to that one!


 -- Bob Yazz --

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

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 1990 10:37:30 PDT
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: One Check, Many Numbers


Since I am in the process of moving and trying to administer my phone
lines in a "transitional" manner, I get no less than six (6) bills
each month. I have found that simply adding them all up, putting them
in one envelope, sending one check, and filling in the "enter amount
paid" box on each slip does the trick great with Pac*Bell.


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100
Mountain View, CA 94040, USA
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]

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

From: "Michael (NMI" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Home Phone System
Date: 27 Oct 90 13:03:31 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center


I'm interested in updating my home phones.  I want something that can
handle at least two phone lines, six instruments, has hold, and
inter-instrument signaling (ringing), and intercomm.  I've seen some
ads for some two line phones that have some of these features but I
worry about continued availability of the instruments.

I wonder if anyone builds a centralized system.  I guess what I have
in mind is a black box that connects between the phone company lines
and the instruments in the house. It should provide the following...

  use standard single line instruments

  allow one to put a call on hold

  allow one to select a phone line

  allow one to ring another (or all) instrument

  allow one to specify default association between
  line and instrument.  Used for outgoing calls and
  for ringing.

Other nice things...

  connect multiple phone lines for party calls

  provide line in use and hold information
  relay outputs

  distinctive ring for inter-instrument signaling
  and to differentiate different incoming lines
  would be nice.

I'd be willing to bring all of the instruments into the system
separately.  The * and # touchtone keys could be used for control.

Anybody know of such a gadget?


Michael Dorl              [phone]  fax [phone]
[e-mail]    MACC / University of Wisconsin - Madison
[e-mail]      1210 W. Dayton St. / Madison, WI 53706


[Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like a small residential PBX would
be what you need. A couple manufacturers which come to mind are Rolm
and Melco. The latter makes a unit which accomodates two central
office lines and up to twelve extensions. Single line phones are used,
and most things are controlled from the touchtones on the phone
including station to station dialing. There are other makers of
similar equipment.  PAT]

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

From: Max Southall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Credit for Non U.S. Citizens
Organization: University of Miami Department of Mathematics & Computer Science
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 05:29:26 GMT


Well ... I know that it is downright difficult if not de facto
impossible for non-resident aliens to obtain credit in this country.
What with the effect of the 1986 Immigration Reform Act (!) it is not
likely that there can be an appeal made on the basis of non-discrimin-
ation. In reality, non-U.S. citizens are not entitled to the same
legal guarantees as resident aliens or citizens.

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 90 19:22:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> hayes![e-mail] (Toby
Nixon) writes:

>It is a fairly well-known and well-documented feature that if you have
>BOTH Three-Way Calling and Call-Waiting that you can disable Call
>Waiting by doing a hook-flash, *70.

I do not have three-way calling.  The only option I have is call-waiting.
*70 works for me!


Vance


[Moderator's Note: Assuming *70 is implemented in your CO, it will
always work as the first digits dialed on a call you originate. The
trick is being able to decide to turn it on the middle of a
conversation, or during a conversation you did not originate. You
*cannot* turn it on in mid-conversation or on calls you receive unless
you have three way calling, or some other valid reason for flashing
the hook. (I don't know of any except to add another call). Instead of
adding the call, however, you can then dial *70 and be immediatly
returned to the call in progress, but with your call waiting suspended
for the duration.  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco "Customer Service"
Date: 26 Oct 90 23:57:16 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> implementation of TT. The town is still on the old (circa 1950?)
> rotary switch. Of course it can't handle TT in any way, right?

> What Mountain Bell (now USWest) did was put DTMF receivers on the
> input to the switch which output pulses. So I entered the tones and
> could hear the pulses being generated in the background. And, no, it

 From about the start of TT there have been various converters for
steppers.  Many simply bolted to the frame behind the linefinders.
Mitel made a "QuadPak" that took four cards, and later, as TT decoding
got more compact their old #1625 cards zillions of which plugged into
these, were upgraded to newer models that could do two lines per card.
Actually the card space could by then do even more, but there were
only card edge connections enough for one more line in the vast
installed base of boxes.

TelTone and others also made such devices, and their cards would slide
into Mitel boxes, too.

Another popular trick, rather than having a TT decoder per linefinder,
was to have a few decoders, and some sort of allocater circuit between
the linefinder and first selector. In 'slenderised' offices, something
'smart' was stuck in that location anyway, to possibly alter what you
dialed into what was needed to transit the selectors. Such a box could
have TT added easily.

The bummer is that they don't always drop off the line. They are
supposed to quit on a timer, or on answer supervision, but if they
don't and you need to TT to the far end, try # or occasionally * to
disable the decoder.

With residential TT $s on the rise here in MA, I have been considering
digging out some old 1625s I have stashed away. They ARE strappable
for 48 or 24 v dc, and for 10 or 20 PPS. At 20 pps (which any xbar or
electronic offic should be able to use), the delay is barely
noticable.

Anyone know of a really good but cheap TT-> pulse converter that
properly deals with ALL the many problems? I havn't looked at that
market in years, but with the chips now available, there just might be
something in the < one year of TT service price range. LECs charging
for TT deserve to lose the revenue.

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cable Breaks
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 10:56:05 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Steve Gaarder <gaarder@theory.
tn.cornell.eduwrites:

> Some 15 or so years ago, a local farmer cut the main cable that
> [ good story deleted ]

>The following is a story I heard once, and may be just another legend:
> [ even better story deleted ]

The above reminded me of an old chuckle.  At the risk of turning this
into comp.humor.telecom, here is another story:

Once upon a time my job location was in the same building, in fact in
the same room, as the military owned and operated DMS-100 switch at
Eielson AFB just south of Fairbanks.  I don't work there anymore
because of a few things I explained to a security cop one day, but
thats not this story.

The Inside Plant people had a Civil Serpent, a retired AF fellow who
had been Inside Plant NCO In Charge there for several years before
retiring, so he knew the place better than anyone they had.  Darn nice
guy too, though he was a bit *too* proud of his curly hair.

One day they added a new 300 pair cable between a bay of jacks and the
CDF, which this fellow proceeded to tie down on the frame blocks.  But
unknown to him the younger fellows had pulled back the end of the cable
and replaced it with about six feet of stub that had been chopped off as
excess.  They carefully hid the end of it in the cable rack, and
stripped the end of every single wire in that cable, wrapped them
together and tied 'em to a 48 volt tap.  48 volts dc won't hurt you,
but you *can* feel it if you work enough to perspire a bit and have
nice wet salty hands.  It's a very irritating tingle.

He checked the other end of that cable about 50 times, and even split
the binders and spread it out, before they told him he was tieing down
the wrong cable.

(The young fellows removed the wrong pairs and wired the whole thing.)
(And that guy's hair is straighter now, too.)


Floyd L. Davidson   [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Salcha, AK 99714    connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc.
When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 21:05:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> "Barton F. Bruce" <BRUCE@ccavax.
camb.com> writes:

>A 1A2 key system is the electronic replacement for the 1a1 all relay
>ones that preceeded them. This is a relatively simple system that
>typically has a KSU supporting 4, 6, or 13 cards. Each card is wired
>in series with T+R going to the phones. The card does several things.
>It can detect ringing and start a local interrupter (to have ringing
>and lamp flashing for many lines all in step) and connect the flashing
>lamp service to the lamp lead for that line.

Ah, yes.  Long ago another engineer and myself used to go into the
basement of the radio station we worked at, and manually engage the
relays.  We would set up ring on some or all ten lines, then put a few
on hold.  This was at 2 AM, and the night DJ thought he was the only
one in the building.  We could hear him crashing about all over the
building, trying to find who was using the phones.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #768
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14303;
          28 Oct 90 23:10 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29397; 28 Oct 90 22:08 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12413;
          28 Oct 90 10:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01914;
          28 Oct 90 9:17 CST
Date:     Sun, 28 Oct 90 9:01:30 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #769
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Oct 90 09:01:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 769

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: NJ Bell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) [Dave Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 8:23:08 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS


For several months now, Illinois Bell has been hawking CLASS.
Brochures in the mail with our bills and newspaper advertisements have
told us about the wonderful new services soon to be offered.

It was just a question, they said, of waiting until your central
office had been converted. The new features being offered here are:

 *66  Auto Call Back:  Call back the last number which called you. No
                       need to know the number.

 *69  Repeat Dial:     If the number you dialed was busy, punching
                       this will keep trying the number for up to
                       30 minutes, and advise you when it can connect.

 *60  Call Screening   Enter:
                       # plus number to be screened out plus #
                       * plus number to be re-admitted  plus *
                       # plus 01 plus # to add the number of the
                         last call you received, whether or not
                         you know the number.
                       1 To play a list of the numbers being screened.
                       0 For a helpful recording of options, etc.

Distinctive Ringing    Up to ten numbers can be programmed in. When a
                       call is received from one of these numbers, your
                       phone will give a special ring to advise you.

Multi-Ring Service     Two additional numbers can be associated with
                       your number. When someone dials one of these
                       two numbers, your phone will give a special ring.

With both Distinctive Ringing and Multi-Ring Service, if you have Call
Waiting, the Call Waiting tones will be different from the norm also,
so that you can tell what is happening.  With Multi-Ring Service, you
can have it programmed so the supplementary numbers associated with
your main number are forwarded when it is forwarded, or do not observe
forwarding, and 'ring through' despite what the main number is doing.

Alternate Answer       Can be programmed so that after 3-7 rings,
                       the unanswered call will be automatically sent
                       to another line *WITHIN YOUR CENTRAL OFFICE*.

                       If the number assigned as an alternate is
                       itself busy or forwarded OUTSIDE YOUR OFFICE
                       then Alternate Answer will not forward the
                       call and continue to ring unanswered.

Transfer on Busy/      This is just another name for 'hunt'. The
        No Answer      difference is that hunt is free; Transfer on
                       Busy/NA  costs a couple bucks per month. Like
                       Alternate Answer, it must forward only to a
                       number on the same switch. Unlike hunt, it
                       will work on NA as well. Unlike Alternate
                       Answer, it works on busy as well.

Caller*ID will be available 'eventually' they say.

Now my story begins:

 From early this summer to the present, I've waited patiently for
CLASS to be available in Chicago-Rogers Park. Finally a date was
announced: October 15 the above features would be available. In
mid-September, I spoke with a rep in the Irving-Kildare Business
Office. She assured me *all* the above features would be available on
October 15. My bill is cut on the 13th of each month, and knowing the
nightmare of reading a bill which has had changes made in mid-month
(page after page of pro-rata entries for credits on the old service,
item by item; pro-rata entries for the new service going in, etc) it
made sense to implement changes on the billing date, to keep the
statement simple.

She couldn't write the order for the service to start October 13,
since CLASS was not officially available until the fifteenth. Well,
okay, so its either wait until November 13 or go ahead and start in
mid-month, worrying about reading the bill once it actually arrives.

I've been ambivilent about CLASS since it is not compatible with my
present service 'Starline', but after much thought -- and since all
installation and order-writing on Custom Calling features is free now
through December 31! -- I decided to try out the new stuff.

She took the order Wednesday afternoon and quoted 'sometime Thursday'
for the work to be done. In fact it was done -- or mostly done -- by
mid-afternoon Thursday. But I should have known better. I should have
remembered my experience with Starline three years ago, when it took a
technician in the central office *one week* to get it all in and
working correctly. Still, I took IBT's word for it.

I got home about 5:30 PM Thursday. *You know* I sat down right away at
the phone to begin testing the new features! :)  The lines were to be
equipped as follows:

Line 1:  Call Waiting                Line 2:  Call Forwarding
         Three Way Calling                    Speed Dial 8
         Call Forwarding                      Busy Repeat Dialing *69
         Speed Dial 8
         Auto Call Back  *66         (second line used mostly by modem;
         Busy Repeat Dialing *69      so Call Waiting undesirable)
         Call Screening *60
         Alternate Answer  (supposed to be programmed to Voice Mail;
                            another CO; another area code [708];
                            even another telco [Centel]).

Busy Repeat Dialing did not work on the second line (not installed)
and Alternate Answer worked (but not as I understood it would) on the
first line. Plus, I had forgotten how to add 'last call received' to
the screening feature.

It is 5:45 ... business office open another fifteen minutes ... good!
I call 1-800-244-4444 which is IBT's idea of a new way to handle calls
to the business office. Everyone in the state of Illinois calls it,
and the calls go wherever someone is free. Before, we could call the
business office in our neighborhood direct ... no longer.

I call; I go on hold; I wait on hold five minutes. Finally a rep comes
on the line, a young fellow who probably Meant Well ...

After getting the preliminary information to look up my account, we
begin our conversation:

Me:  You see from the order the new features put on today?
Him: Yes, which ones are you asking about?
Me:  A couple questions. Explain how to add the last call received to
     your call screening.
Him: Call screening? Well, that's not available in your area yet. You
     see, it will be a few months before we offer it.
Me:  Wait a minute!  It was quoted to me two days ago, and it is on
     the order you are reading now is it not?
     [I read him the order number to confirm we had the same one.]

Him: Yes, it is on here, but it won't work. No matter what was written
     up. Really, I have to apologize for whoever would have taken your
     order and written it there.

Me:  Hold on, hold on!  It *is* installed, and it *is* working! I want
     to know how to work it.

Him: No it is not installed. The only features we can offer you at
     at this time are Busy Redial and Auto Callback. Would you like me
     to put in an order for those?

Me:  Let's talk to the supervisor instead.

Him: (in a huff) Gladly sir.

Supervisor comes on line and repeats what was said by the rep: Call
Screening is not available at this time in Chicago-Rogers Park.

At this point I am furious ...

Me:  Let me speak to the rep who took this order (I quoted her by
     name.)

Supervisor: I never heard of her. She might be in some other office.

Me: (suspicious) Say, is this Irving-Kildare?

Supervisor: No! Of course not! I am in Springfield, IL.

Me: Suppose you give me the name of the manager at Irving-Kildare
then, and I will call there tomorrow. (By now it was 6 PM; the
supervisor was getting figity and nervous wanting to go home.)

Supervisor: Here! Call this number tomorrow and ask for the manager of
            that office, 1-800-244-4444.

Me:  Baloney! Give me the manager's direct number!

Supervisor: Well okay, 312-xxx-xxxx, and ask for Ms. XXXX.

Me: (suspicious again) She is the manager there?

Supervisor: Yes, she will get you straightened out. Goodbye!

Comes Friday morning, I am on the phone a few minutes before 9 AM, at
the suggested direct number. Ms. XXXX reviewed the entire order and
got the Busy Repeat Dial feature added to line two ... but she
insisted the original rep was 'wrong for telling you call screening
was available ..' and the obligatory apology for 'one of my people who
mislead you'. I patiently explained to her also that in fact call
screening was installed and was working.

Manager:  Oh really? Are you sure?

Me:  I am positive. Would you do me a favor? Call the foreman and have
     him call me back.

Manager: Well, someone will call you later.

Later that day, a rep called to say that yes indeed, I was correct. It
seems they had not been told call screening was now available in my
office.  I told her that was odd, considering the rep who first took
the order knew all about it.

I asked when the Alternate Answer 'would be fixed' (bear in mind I
thought it would work outside the CO, which it would not, which is
why it kept ringing through to me instead of forwarding.)

She thought maybe the foreman could figure that out.

Maybe an hour later, a techician did call me to say he was rather
surprised that call screening was working on my line. He gave a
complete and concise explanation of how Alternate Answer and Transfer
on Busy/No Answer was to work. He offered to have it removed from my
line since it would be of no value to me as configured.

One question he could not answer: How do you add the last call
received to call screening?  He could find the answer nowhere, but
said he would see to it I got 'the instruction booklet' in the mail
soon, so maybe I could figure it out myself.

I got busy with other things, and put the question aside ... until
early Saturday morning when I got one of my periodic crank calls from
the same number which has plagued me for a couple months now with
ring, then hangup calls on an irregular basis.

For the fun of it, I punched *69, and told the sassy little girl who
answered the phone to quit fooling around. She was, to say the least,
surprised and startled by my call back. I don't think I will hear from
her again. :)

But I decided to ask again how to add such a number to call screening,
so I called Repair Service.

The Repair Service clerk pulled me up on the tube *including the work
order from two days earlier* and like everyone else said:

Repair:  You don't have Call Screening on your line. That is not
         available yet in your area. We are adding new offices daily,
         blah, blah.

I *couldn't believe* what I was hearing ... I told her I did, and she
insisted I did not ... despite the order, despite what the computer
said.  Finally it was on to her supervisor, but as it turned out, her
supervisor was the foreman on duty for the weekend.  Like the others,
he began with apologies for how I 'had been misinformed' ... no call
screening was available.

Me:  Tell ya what. You say no, and I say yes. You're on the test
     board, no?  I'll hang up. You go on my line, dial *60, listen to
     the recording you hear, then call me back. I will wait here. Take
     your time. When you call back, you can apologize.

Foreman: Well, I'm not on the test board, I'm in my office on my own
     phone.

Me:  So go to the test board, or pick me up in there wherever it is
     handy and use my line. Make a few calls. Add some numbers to the
     call screening; then call me back with egg on your face, okay?

Foreman: Are you saying call screening is on your line and you have
     used it?

Me:  I have used it.  Today. A few minutes ago I played with it.

Foreman: I'll call you back.

(Fifteen mionutes later) ...


Foreman:  Mr. Townson!  Umm ... I have been with this company for 23
     years.  I'll get to the point: I have egg on my face. Not mine
     really, but the company has the egg on the face. You are correct;
     your line has call screening.

Me:  23 years you say?  Are you a member of the Pioneers?

Foreman: (surprised)  Why, uh, yes I am.

Me:  Fine organization isn't it ...

Foreman:  Yes, it certainly is.  You know of them?

Me:  I've heard a few things.

Foreman:  Look, let me tell you something. I did not know -- nor *did
anyone in this office know* that call screening was now available. We
were told it was coming, that's all.

Me:  You mean no one knew it was already in place?

Foreman:  No, apparently not ... I think you are the only customer in
the Rogers Park office who has it at this time.  Because the
assumption was it was not yet installed, the reps were told not to
take orders for it ... I do not know how your order slipped through.

Me:  Will you be telling others?

Foreman: I have already made some calls, and yes, others will be told
about this on Monday.

Me:  Well, you know the *81 feature to turn call screening on and off
is still not working.

Foreman:  I'm not surprised. After all, none of it is supposed to be
working right now.  You seem to know something about this business,
Mr. Townson.

Me: I guess I've picked up a few things along the way.

We then chatted about the Transfer on Busy/No Answer feature. I asked
why, if my cell phone on 312-415-xxxx had the ability to transfer calls
out of the CO and be programmed/turned on and off from the phone
itself, my wire line could not.  312-415 is out of Chicago-Congress
 ...  he thought it might have to do with that office having some
different generics than Rogers Park ... but he could not give a
satisfactory answer.

So if there are any openings in the Telephone Pioneers, they ought to
select me! :) I seem to be first with CLASS in Rogers Park; I was one
of the first with Starline when it became available a few years ago
(and they had a hard time programming me back then also!); I suspect I
was one of the first people to have touch-tone service when I got it
back in the early sixties.

Indeed, getting CLASS has been a fun experience. A week or so from now
if I think of it, I'll let you know of any further developments in the
saga.

Ken Abrams, perhaps you'd like to pass this message along to folks
also. If they want to chat, they can find my number and call me.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It)
Date: 27 Oct 90 12:41:37 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


NJ Bell, like many entrenched beaurocracies, seems to employ a number
of people whose initial reaction to any trouble report is a quick
search of the 'standard responses' database for a reply that avoids
responsibility for the problem.  I have been a computer and
communications consultant in NJ for more than ten years.  I am always
hearing about some trouble, probably caused by CO mis-administration
or outside plant mis-arrangements.  NJ Bell repair service is very
good at trying to convince the customer that their equipment, or their
use of their service, is at fault.

If I have explain the situation to the repair service call-taker more
than once and they still do not agree that NJ Bell needs to take some
action to relieve the trouble, I usually find it's best to agree with
them, and politely excuse myself from the conversation, and hang up.
Wait ten minutes, and call again.  There are also enough good,
well-intentioned, and even technically competent people there that you
stand a reasonable chance of reaching one of them on the next call.
(I sometimes luck out and reach one of these helpful types on the
first call!)

It often takes more than one call to get telco trouble fixed in NJ,
but it seldom seems to take more than two.

Their customer-contact people operate under the assumption that
anybody not employed by NJ Bell cannot possibly know anything about
their network.  A technical explanation of the problem, and of why you
believe it's 'their problem' is sometimes required to convince them
that you know what you're talking about.


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]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #769
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14339;
          28 Oct 90 23:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29397; 28 Oct 90 22:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23189;
          28 Oct 90 11:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12413;
          28 Oct 90 10:28 CST
Date:     Sun, 28 Oct 90 9:41:31 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #770
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Oct 90 09:40:19 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 770

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Can Caller*ID be Heard With an "On Hook" Line Monitor? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Technology vs. the Telemarketers [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: "Dedicated" Phone Lines [Jack Winslade]
    Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: 800 Numbas [David Lesher]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Billing For Forwarded Calls [Dave Levenson]
    Two Locations With Same Number [Tom Maszerowski]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Date: 26 Oct 90 23:26:55 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> If NJBell wanted to be nice about it, they'd provide answer
> supervision, but I haven't met a Bell yet who was routinely nice about
> it. ... So PBX users suffer.  Maybe the FCC will
> eventually end this little scam but it has lasted so far.

Everyone writing to their DPUs requesting they allow alternate local
telcos should also emphasize that any such should be required to
provide answer supervision.

Any IXC will give you answer supervision these days, and I would have
thought that ANY school of even modest size has enough traffic to
justify at least a T1 to some IXC's POP. The feature group D trunks at
the far end of most calls give them the supervision from the
completing IEC. Of course calls to some few locations WON't return
normal answer supervision, so some sort of timer may have to be used,
too.

When you so bypass the IEC for LD traffic, be sure to let them know
that their LACK of answer supervision was an additional incentive to
NOT go through their switch.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can Caller*ID be Heard With an "On Hook" Line Monitor?
Date: 27 Oct 90 12:55:45 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> This question is primarily targeted for those of you with Caller*ID.
> Since the FSK Caller*ID data is sent between the first and second
> rings, I was wondering if it's possible to actually hear it using a
> butt set in the monitor position.  Or for that matter, any kind of
> monitor that wouldn't produce and "off hook" condition.

Yes.  Caller*ID, when monitored with a butt-set in on-hook monitor
mode, sounds like a simplex FSK modem (remember the old 202 dataset?)
between the first and second ring.  When NJ Bell shut off the feature
on one of our lines by mistake, I told their craftsperson (who called
and told me that my display unit was at fault) that I was unable to
hear the 'modem-like tone' after the first ring with a butt-set.  He
tried it.  He then believed me.  The service was restored within the
hour.

> On a related note, can someone point me to the specs on demodulating
> this data ?  It's probably in a BSTJ somewhere.  (remember BSTJs ?)

Bellcore Technical Reference TR-TSY-000030: "SPCS Customer Premises
Equipment Data Interface"

This describes the modulation, bit rate, signal levels, and the rest
of the 'physical layer' of the interface.

Bellcore Technical Reference TR-TSY-000031: "CLASS Feature: Calling
Number Delivery"

This describes the message format, coding, and in general, the
application and presentation layers of the interface.

These and other Bellcore documents may be ordered by calling
[phone].  (Have a credit card ready!)


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: Frederick Roeber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Technology vs. the Telemarketers
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 27 Oct 90 17:24:34 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Andy Behrens) writes:

> Are you too timid to say "no" to telemarketing calls?  Sharper Image
> has just the thing for you -- a phone with built-in sound effects.

> $89

Sheesh.  My little freon air-horn cost a lot less than that..

On a *completely* *different* topic -- are there any laws regulating
just how loud one can be on the phone?  I would think that the
telephones, at least the original AT&T ones, just wouldn't put too
large an amplitude on the line.  But I thought I'd ask ...


Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
r-mail: CERN/SL-CO, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: You can be loud enough that it is a real annoyance
to the unsuspecting person on the other end.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 02:06:50 EDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: "Dedicated" Phone Lines
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <19 Oct 90 12:28:28>, Roy Smith writes:

> When I was a kid growing up in New York (1960's) there were
>green boxes on lamp posts containg phones with which you could call
>the police.  You didn't have to dial, just lift the handset.  Anybody
>know exactly what these were?  Leased ring-down lines from NYTel or
>private wires actually owned by the police department?  And where did
>they ring-down to?  The nearest precinct house, or some pre-911
>central location?

I remember those phones well.  The only time I had to use one (back
around 1970 -- and yes, I was quite aware of phone 'nuances' back
then) was when I almost was part of a massive pileup on East River
Drive.  The phone was on a post right in the median, and
coincidentally right outside my car door where I was forced to stop.

I'm sure it was a dedicated circuit.  I remember that by the time I
got the receiver to my ear, it was answered on the other end.  It may
have been answered at the precinct level or district level, since the
guy knew exactly where I was and what I was talking about.  It also
sounded like a very short direct loop.

This was during the time that 911 was being phased in.  At the time,
911 took forever to answer.  I remember a conversation with a cop at
the time who said (off the record, of course) that the 911 system as
it existed then was a big joke.  He said that if it was urgent, call
it in directly or else ring the operator.

There were a lot of things happening with the phone system in NYC at
that time.  As I said, 911 was new and had bugs, there was a massive
effort to convert as many pay phones as possible to dial-tone-first
operation, what they called 'Extended DDD' or zero-plus LD calling was
being introduced, and Touch-Tone service was being introduced,
although very few offices could handle it at the time.  (Do I dare
mention the PicturePhone <tm> fisaco? ;-)


Good Day!       JSW

[1:285/666@fidonet] DRBBS -- Happy 15th., RHPS, Omaha (1:285/666)

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

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 04:16 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems


In V10, #765, "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]> responds to
[e-mail] (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)):

>If the A-A1 connection is broken BUT
>the current is still flowing from Tip to Ring, the line card knows you
>want to go on hold (things are in this state when you have the hold
>button bottomed). The card immediately switches a 135 ohm 5 watt
>(typical) resistor across T+R to simulate a phone off hook to hold the
>line up.

So, if that is all there is, where would this resistor be on a 400D,
400G or 400H card? Would it be possible to simply put a high Z or
xformer isolated source across it and create your own music on hold
circuit? That would certainly be alot cheaper and less trouble than
buying one of those adaptor kits that companys like Tellabs sells.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Numbas
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 8:06:08 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


|MCI's claim that they can give you an 800 number with the last seven
|digits being the same as your home phone # has got to be BS.

|[Moderator's Note: Even if MCI *did* own all the 800 echanges, it
|should be easy to see the fallacy in their presentation: My home
|exchange 743 is duplicated in many area codes.

Who says how LONG the number is?

    1-800 MCIHOME {tone} yxzx 743-1923

would do just as they say ... and NOT use up big chunks of the NPA.


[e-mail]                          (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 08:32:19 GMT


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

>[Moderator's Note: Assuming *70 is implemented in your CO, it will
>always work as the first digits dialed on a call you originate. The
>trick is being able to decide to turn it on the middle of a
>conversation, or during a conversation you did not originate. You
>*cannot* turn it on in mid-conversation or on calls you receive unless
>you have three way calling, or some other valid reason for flashing
>the hook. (I don't know of any except to add another call). Instead of
>adding the call, however, you can then dial *70 and be immediatly
>returned to the call in progress, but with your call waiting suspended
>for the duration.  PAT]

I recieve dialtone from a DMS in Bell Canada land.  (519)741-XXXX.  I
subscribe to call-waiting and nothing else.

I can flash and receive recall dial tone during any call.  If I flash
on an incoming call and dial *70 I am cut through to the existing
call.  Call waiting is disabled for the remaining duration of the
call.


Vance Shipley                   vances@ltg


[Moderator's Note: Well, yours is the only instance I've heard of
where one can flash and get dial tone without having three way calling
installed. I think its great that they extend dial tone after flashing
when the only apparent need (in your case) is to dial *70. I'm curious
to know what happens if you try anything else with the interim dial
tone you are given. Ever tried another call, for example?  What
happens then?  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM
Date: 27 Oct 90 01:34:44 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, CAPEK%YKTVMT.BITNET (Peter G.
Capek) writes:

> The {Wall Stree Journal} of 22 October has a short article headed
> "Directory Assistance Without Dialing 411".  It describes a product
> offered by PhoneDisc USA Corp, of Warwick, NY, which consists of two
> CD-ROMs which list 90 million "residential listings" for $1850;

I just saw an ad for "Speed Dial" CDROM National Business Telephone
Directory.  It claims numbers for 9.2 million businesses. Search by
yellow page heading or name. Print selected listings. Dial a number.
post a 'sticky-note' on any listing (I assume using your hard disk,
obviously can't do it on CDROM).

Says it has a 30 day money back guarantee (return for any reason).

The interesting thing is that unlike any others I have seen so far
this one might be labeled affordable.

single user:    $249        intro offer $199.
8 user lan    $1399         "      "   $999.
9-100 user lan  $1999         "    "   $1499.

Though nothing else is mentioned about it, there is also a box to
check for info on a national consumer directory, too.

1.800.45.SPEED

They are:
Dataware Technologies Inc
222 Third Avenue, Suite 3300
Cambridge, MA 02142-9815

***no connection what-so-ever***

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Billing For Forwarded Calls
Date: 27 Oct 90 13:03:15 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> On a normal phone bill, you see calls "to" if you dial direct, and
> "from ... to" (or vice versa) for third-party or credit-card
> (calling-card) calls, and you get "[collect] from" if you accepted a
> collect call?

> Now if you call-forward to a number which is long-distance, you are to
> see the long-distance charge for a call from your phone to the phone
> where you are forwarding to.  How does this appear on your phone bill?

NJ Bell shows forwarded calls on the phone bill of the party who did
the forwarding.  The calls show up with the keyletter F in the left
margin of the detail bill.  (Other keyletters are used, alone or in
combination, to indicate, for example, an operator-assisted call, a
day-, evening-, or night-rate call.)  The letter F is listed in the
'explanation of symbols' section as 'a Forwarded call'.  They show the
forward-to number as the 'number called'.

A forwarded call produces no display at all on the Caller*ID display
of the party forwarding the call.  The reciepent of the call is shown
the number of the originating, not the forwarding party, with no
indication that the call was forwarded -- i.e. if I receive a call
from A who called B whose calls were forwarded to me, my Caller*ID
display shows A's number.


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: Sat, 27 Oct 90 22:39:37 EDT
From: Tom Maszerowski <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Two Locations With Same Number


Here's one I wouldn't have believed - I am a member of a Volunteer
Fire Department in the Rochester NY area. My wife is the Deptartment
Treasurer.  Recently we received a huge bill from AT&T for a number of
long distance calls from one of our two phone numbers and a house in
the Buffalo NY suburbs. The bill amounted to over $250 for just the
month of September. Preliminary investigation with the recipient
revealed little, as she would not divulge the name of the caller. Our
local Police Department recommended pursuing her as an accessory to
petit larceny.

Before we could do so, our telephone company, Rochester Telephone,
revealed that there was a another "house" with the same number about a
mile or so away. They had initiated service with the other customer
about a year or so previous. The department had been receiving bills
that seemed a bit large, but not extremely so, for a while but no one
gave it much thought. It wasn't until the aforementioned young lady
moved out of the LATA that the bills got out of hand.

A phone call to the gentleman making the calls was interesting. It
seems that his mother has been paying his bills, even though he
doesn't live with her. His phone was cut off at least once before due
to failure to pay. He simply assumed that when he never recieved a
bill that his mother was paying them, and never gave it a second
thought. AT&T and RTC will be pursuing him for payment; we are
absolved of the cost for the long distance calls to the one number;
but the charges he accumulated in the past we will have to eat as it
would be difficult to prove he made them. RTC is again disconnecting
him, we can only hope that no one else will be assigned our number.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #770
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16620;
          29 Oct 90 1:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12380;
          28 Oct 90 23:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12140;
          28 Oct 90 22:40 CST
Date:     Sun, 28 Oct 90 22:06:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #771
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Oct 90 22:05:38 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 771

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [Timothy L. Kay]
    Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [Henry E. Schaffer]
    Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Other Mail Networks (Was Does AT&T Mail Exist?) [David Tamkin]
    Re: Odd (617) Number [John R. Covert]
    Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems [John Higdon]
    Re: 800 Numbas [John Higdon]
    Re: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O" [Gary Segal]
    Re: MCI and Cubic Zirconia? [Mark Steiger]
    Re: Another Problem With Centrex [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Alternate Telephone Service [Barton F. Bruce]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Timothy L. Kay" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 28 Oct 90 20:13:10 GMT


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

>For several months now, Illinois Bell has been hawking CLASS.

> *60  Call Screening   Enter:
   [...]
>                       # plus 01 plus # to add the number of the
>                         last call you received, whether or not
>                         you know the number.
>                       1 To play a list of the numbers being screened.

What if you enter *60 #01# followed by *60 1?  Does this read back the
number of the last call received?  This could be an inexpensive
alternative to Caller*ID.

>Multi-Ring Service     Two additional numbers can be associated with
>                       your number. When someone dials one of these
>                       two numbers, your phone will give a special ring.

It would be useful to have a fax switch that could decide, based on
the ring, whether to engage the fax machine, data modem, or answering
machine.


Tim

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 19:56:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (TELECOM
Moderator) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 769, Message 1 of 2

>For several months now, Illinois Bell has been hawking CLASS.
>... The new features being offered here are: ...

> *60  Call Screening   Enter:
>                       # plus number to be screened out plus #
>                       * plus number to be re-admitted  plus *
>                       # plus 01 plus # to add the number of the
>                         last call you received, whether or not
>                         you know the number.
>                       1 To play a list of the numbers being screened.

  The two last options look as if they give a way to find out the
number of the last call received, even if that caller didn't want to
be identified - or is there a catch, such as the number won't be
added, or won't be played?


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 21:30:13 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS


Our two respondents in this issue both caught on quickly to the
*possible* way of ascertaining a calling number when Caller*ID is not
available. Unfortunatly, it does not work that way.

*60 # 01 # says one of two things:

   a) "The number you have added is a PRIVATE ENTRY."

   b) or, "I'm sorry, that number cannot be screened."

If the number is from out of LATA or otherwise unidentifiable to your
CO, then you get response (b). Otherwise you get (a). However, even
with (a) the number is not given to you.

Regarding Call Screening generally, I've discovered several
interesting facts about our version of it. (Yes, your Moderator has
been busy playing with his new toys.)

Having been told only about 60-70 percent of 312/708 and the portions
of 815 within our LATA have been converted, I decided to try and find
out which areas had not yet been cutover.  I found a few other things
in the process.

My testing procedure:

I dialed *60, then selected a prefix which came to mind from each of
the telepone areas here. For example, I tried 465 and 761 from here in
my own office, Chicago-Rogers Park.  I always added the same last
four digits '3000' for ease in remembering what had to later be
removed.

There seemed to be only three or four areas where I could not screen,
one being Austin, the other being Evasnton/Skokie to my north, and
Newcastle in the far northwest area of the city.

By accident I found that if a number is not curently in service, it
cannot be added. Numbers which do not return supervision as we think
of it cannot be added. For example, 312-727 is used entirely by
Illinois Bell Headquarters. I could not add any 727 numbers to the
screen.

I was unable to screen 312-368-8000, the Illinois Bell Communicator
Newsline, yet I could screen other 368 numbers. I could not screen out
312-787-0000, which is how 911 gets translated for this neighborhood.

I was unable to screen numbers in any prefix above 9899.
Traditionally, the numbers from 9900 -> 9999 on any prefix here are
reserved for telco use. I was unable to screen 312-PIG anything, which
is the City of Chicago centrex, including the Police Department.
Possibly that is because from anywhere in Chicago, a call to one of
those numbers is only a single untimed unit, no matter how long you
talk, thus the 'supervision' is different than most.

When you add a number to Call Screening, you apparently get all the
numbers in the group. I screened the listed number for my office,
which coincidentally is in the same CO as my residence. I screened
only the listed, first number in the series. To test it, I called in
via the WATS extender line, got the PBX, dialed 9 and went out again
to my number. *It screened the call* -- I know for a fact I was not
actually placing the call from the main listed, first number in the
group. I'd have been on one of the back-lines used for outgoing calls.
So apparently our Call Screening relies on the ANI it receives rather
than the specific number for the trunk used to place the call.
Apparently the ANI refers to all the numbers at our business by the
main number.

I could not screen either cell phone. I guess that is because my cell
phone numbers (312-415-xxxx and 312-504-xxxx) are just incoming DID
trunks. Smart me: I tried screening 312-228-xxxx, which is what ANI
reports is the number I am 'really' using when making a call out from
the cell phone. That could not be screened either, and a cross check
with the Name and Address Bureau showed the owner of 312-228-xxxx as
the 'IBT Co', no address listed, Hickory Hills, IL. Calls *to* that
number are intercepted saying 'the number you dialed, 228-xxxx is not
equipped for incoming calls'.

One curious case: I tried screening 312-855-2000 and various other
lines up to 855-3100. I know these to be DID trunks and a Rolm system
in a department store downtown. The response I got from Call Screening
in every case in this group of numbers:

(After a longer than usual pause) "We're sorry, please try adding the
number again in a few minutes." ????

And I got that report at various times day and night over the past two
days. I have *no idea* why a 'few minutes' would make a difference. I
was able to add other 312-855 numbers (from 3101 up) immediatly.

Finally, I was able to screen myself! :) I added my first (main
listed) number to the screen ... then tried dialing my first line from
my second line. It blocked me out, which re-inforces my belief that
our Call Screening here looks at the ANI given rather than the
individual phone number. I'd say that is a nice way of doing it.

As I find further 'secrets' about Call Screening, I will post
messages.


Patrick Townson

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Other Mail Networks (Was Does AT&T Mail Exist?)
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 16:59:27 CDT


_Portable_Computing's_ list of other email services, submitted by Joel
Snyder in volume 10, issue 735, included these:

| Genie/GE Mail        800-638-9636
|
| Sign up $30, no maintenance fee.  Costs based on connect time.  paper
| mail.  (Internet gateway unknown)

Make that "Signup free, $4.95 monthly maintenance (first month
refunded if you cancel by the end of the month), no connect charges
for time spent composing, sending, or reading text mail, *no* Internet
gateway."  GEnie completely restructured its rates October 1, 1990.

| MCI Mail         800-444-6245
|
| (these rates are known to be out-of-date)
| $25/year fee.  Costs based on connect time plus per message fee.  FAX,
| paper mail.  Internet gateway.

There are no connect charges if you use MCI Mail's direct 800 indial;
there are for reaching them through BT Tymnet.

| Sprint Mail          800-835-3638
|
| $20/year fee.  Costs based on connect time plus per message fee.  FAX,
| paper mail, storage fees.  (Internet gateway unknown).

I have telephoned them several times for printed information, and each
time someone takes my name down, but nothing ever arrives.  It cannot
be their office procedures, because they had no difficulty sending me
information about P C Pursuit.


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: Sun, 28 Oct 90 10:14:19 PST
From: "John R. Covert  28-Oct-1990 1313" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Odd (617) Number


The 617-958-xxxx number referred to in Issue 766 is a pager.

It answers, beeps three times to indicate readiness for Touch-Tone,
accepts the tones, and signals the pager, placing the tones on the
pager display.


john

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A/A1 Control For Key Telephone Systems
Date: 28 Oct 90 11:09:43 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]> writes:

> So, if that is all there is, where would this resistor be on a 400D,
> 400G or 400H card? Would it be possible to simply put a high Z or
> xformer isolated source across it and create your own music on hold
> circuit? That would certainly be alot cheaper and less trouble than
> buying one of those adaptor kits that companys like Tellabs sells.

The resistor is easy to spot. It's the only five watt resistor on the
card. Music on hold is nothing more than bridging audio across that
resistor, usually with a transformer. But also bear in mind that you
will have to provide isolation between lines; you wouldn't want two of
your customers getting together while on hold and discussing an
alternative to your goods or services.

The isolation usually consists of the fact that each line is driven by
a separate amplifier. This prevents audio from the caller from backing
up through the MOH system and being heard by other callers on hold.


        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: 800 Numbas
Date: 28 Oct 90 11:23:33 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

> Who says how LONG the number is?

>     1-800 MCIHOME {tone} yxzx 743-1923

> would do just as they say ... and NOT use up big chunks of the NPA.

Oh, but this is weenie in the extreme and a far cry from "your own
personal 800 number". As a person who has a *real* 800 number, let me
give you some differences. My number could be obtained from "800
555-1212". It is available from rotary phones. It is available from
COCOTs that mute the pad after dialing. It is available from dial-less
toll stations. It requires no special instructions.

What you describe above is nothing more than a "call home" credit card
arrangement -- not an 800 number assignment. To advertise it as such
would be a little fraudulent.


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

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O"
Date: 28 Oct 90 22:42:39 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (Bob Yasi) writes:

>"How dare you have a phone system that doesn't get you an operator
>when you dial O?"

At one company I worked for, there was no one other than myself to
answer my phone.  When a voice mail system was installed, it was very
usefull, allowing me to recieve calls when I was away from my desk.
However, if somebody dialed "0", it would simply ring my line again,
and then go back to the message.  There was no person to whom the call
could be routed to; I didn't have a seceratary, nor would the company
operator have been able to take a message.  I wasn't about to send all
of my calls to my boss, who didn't have seceratary either, and was
also hardly at his desk.  Not the best system, but given the option of
no answer, what would you want?

>I've never heard a satisfactory answer to that one!

How's that?


Gary Segal    ...!uunet!motcid!segal        [phone]
Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004
The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue
the opinions of Motorola INC.

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

From: Mark Steiger <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat Oct 27 90 at 12:30:30 (CDT)
Subject: Re: MCI and Cubic Zirconia?


MCI has a similar offer for members of the Northwest Airlines
frequesnt flier club members.  Every few pucks you spend on MCI LD you
get so many credits to your account.


     [ 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: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Subject:
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 10:24:30 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


Here's another Centrex problem I ran into once.  Downtown Phoenix,
Arizona was heavily Centrexed at one time.  Phoenix Main CO had a ton
of Centrexes working in it including major banks and other firms.

My customer was in another business.  One day, the TCM tried to make a
toll call and got fast busy intercept.  She dialed 0 to be connected
to the Centrex console.  She asked to be patched to the WATS line.
The operator (i.e., the company employee at the console, not the telco
operator) asked her for her departmental accounting code.  "What do
you mean by that?" she asked.  "Well, " the operator replied, "Every
XYZ Bank department has an accounting code."

Somehow, in all of the mass of translation changes that occured each
day in Phoenix Main, someone screwed up and put a Company X extension
in the Centrex of Company Y.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternate Telephone Service
Date: 27 Oct 90 01:10:46 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, asuvax!rako!rakoczynskij@
ncar.ucar.edu (Jurek Rakoczynski) writes:

> Can anyone summarize the status of 'Alternate Telephone Service
> supplier'.  I can only remember about some larger city (NY?) where a
> (cable co.?) was installing (fiber optics?) to the homes and was

I never heard about alternate sources of dialtone to homes, but in NYC
the Teleport Communications folks (made up I believe of Merrill Lynch
and PATH - Port Authority Trans Hudson Corp - the NY/NJ docks,
airports, one of the subways, etc company) have a #5 ESS. Merrill
Lynch bought it as a PBX but only have a piddling 13000 lines on it,
so their partner in this took it over and they are selling local
dialtone to potentially anyone they sell fiber bypass to.  They have
filed to be allowed to do it in CA, too.

This is just what the local phone companies dread, but so sorely
deserve.

If they would only do it here in Boston in the other NYNEX
territory.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #771
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18201;
          29 Oct 90 2:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25441;
          29 Oct 90 0:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12380;
          28 Oct 90 23:44 CST
Date:     Sun, 28 Oct 90 23:16:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #772
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 28 Oct 90 23:15:54 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 772

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cellular ESN # Tie-ing? [Brian Litzinger]
    Device Needed For Fax/Phone on One Line [Robert Trebor Woodhead]
    Two Residential lines, Different Owners, Same Class of Service [A Jacobson]
    New Answering Service [Mark Steiger]
    Billing Arrangements Can be a Nightmare [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [Christopher Gillett]
    What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Christopher Gillett]
    911 Omniscience [Roy Smith]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular ESN # Tie-ing?
Organization: APT Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 06:45:00 GMT


I was innocently minding my own business when my cellular phone could
no longer place calls.  When I tried to place a call, I got the
message 'Your phone is not authorized for this service'.

After eight days of research here is what I've determined seems to
have happened:

My cellular service, Comtech, had disconnected my service for
non-payment and them reconnected it minutes later because I had
actually paid my bill.  They have admitted to having some problems
with their billing system of late.

Five months earlier I had PacTel as my Cellular service provider
however, because of some outright lies on PacTel's part I had the
service discontinued and switched.

Apparently, after I left PacTel they had my ESN # "tied", so I
couldn't establish new service with anyone.  They claimed for
non-payment, but I have the cancelled check.

Unfortunately, for PacTel I had subscribed to my new service before
their "tie" went into effect.

Later when Comtech disconnected my service and then tried to reconnect
it the "tie" showed up and I was left without service.

My question are:

    What exactly is "tie-ing"?

    PacTel continues to leave my ESN# tied, even though they have no
    legal (IMHO) right to do so.  Are they going to pay for my lost
    service and subsequent lost business?

    Has anyone had an experience similar to this and how was it resolved?

I've read the back of my phone bills and flyers from the PUC that say
for non-cellular local systems, and long distance service, they can't
disconnect your service over disputed amounts until after a PUC
hearing.

However, PacTel acts just about the opposite.  Not only can they
disconnect your service, but they seem able, through "tie-ing", to
disable you from all services, and they don't even have to inform you
of what they are doing.

Some opinions about PacTel:

Comtech wanted to handle this problem for me, but PacTel absolutely
refused to talk with them.  I had to middle-man everything.

PacTel expected me to have kept track of everything related to my five
month old account.  I tossed it all, so they basically said they
couldn't help me.

PacTel treated me like this was all my fault, and whatever the case,
it was my job to straighten things out.


<>  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: Sun, 28 Oct 90 10:55:11 JST
From: Robert Trebor Woodhead <kddlab!foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Device Needed For Fax/Phone on One Line


I am looking for a device that will let me connect and use a fax
machine and a regular telephone/answering machine on the same line.
The catch is that I would like incoming callers to be able to leave
either a message or send a fax!

The main problem is that in order to send a fax, the receiving fax
machine (mine) must first send tones; this is normally done when the
fax detects a ring and picks up the phone.  However, in order to be
able to let people leave voice messages, it is the answering machine
that must pick up first.

Checking around at a phone store here in Japan (this is for a friend
of mine) revealed all sorts of wierd and complicated solutions that
involve boxes that listen for voices, and if they dont hear any,
timeout and connect the fax.  Yuck!  Expensive!  $300!

After a little thought, I feel that what is really needed is a simple
box that does the following+

1) When a call comes in, it is automatically routed to output #1 - the
Answering machine.  The message on the machine says "Leave a message
at the tone, or press <some key> for the fax machine."

2) If the box detects the right touchtone (switch settable) it
switches the call over to the fax machine (and may need to fake a
ring).

3) N seconds after the answering machine goes offhook (again, switch
settable), rerouting capability is disabled; or alternatively, if a
different touchtone is heard, the rerouting is turned off.  This
allows the caller to control an answering machine via touchtones
without the switchbox interfering.

Seems to me this is a couple of IC's, a dip switch, a relay and two
modular plugs!  Is there such a device?  Even with the usual huge
markups it shouldnt retail for more than $100.

If there isn't such a device, then perhaps one of the gentle readers
of comp.dcom.telecom would be interested in helping me develop and
patent one.  ;^)  Split the royalties after expense?


Robert Woodhead - [e-mail] - ...!uunet!biar!trebor

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 04:17 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Two Residential Lines; Different Owners; Same Class of Service


When I moved to Yellow Springs, Ohio in 1986, I moved into an
appartment the architect had designed as part of a single family
house.  When I ordered phone service, the Ohio Bell rep (in their
Xenia office) told me that, because the house was in an area zoned for
single family residences, I could only have the class of service that
the other residents of the house had, which was flat rate metro.
Several months later, when 1+ options became available, I was also
told that I could only have the same LD carrier as the other line had.
I wonder if this sort of restriction exists today, or if it was/is
legal.


[Moderator's Note: I think had you taken a copy of your lease to show
them (which would demonstrate that 'the other residents of the house'
had no control over or right of entry into your space; nor you into
theirs) that telco would have been obliged to give you whatever
service you wanted.  PAT]

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

From: Mark Steiger <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat Oct 27 90 at 12:37:11 (CDT)
Subject: New Answering Service


US West has started a new service in the Minneapolis area.  It is a
service which you record a message on thir computer.  When your phone
is busy or not answered, the computer at the phone Co. office catches
the call, plays your message, then listens and records the messages.
They say you can check on your messages from anywhere with touchtone
and change the message at any time.  It sounds kinda good, but I am
too far away to get it.  Also, I don't need Bell keeping track of who
is calling 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: You silly fellow! Bell already has all the
mechanisms in place to 'keep track of who is calling you'. What makes
you think their new voicemail service would make it any easier or more
likely? Under voicemail, they'd only get the ones who left messages.
Whatever switch they are running now, if it is capable of handling
voicemail then I'm sure it already keeps plenty of audit trails.  PAT]

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

From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Billing Arrangements Can be a Nightmare
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 09:22:16 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


I am working from somewhat fuzzy memories, but while in Mountain Bell
Marketing in El Paso, Texas (this was before the barbarians at SWBT
took over the town), I often billed numbers from different COs to
other accounts.  For example a firm had a PBX in it's office on the
west side of town as the main account.  The warehouse with a 1FB on
the east side of town, in a different MBT admin area and CO was billed
via something called an "SBG" to the PBX account.  SBG meant special
billing group.  Note that different classes of service (PBX vs 1FB)
and billing dates existed.  All of this was overcome.  In fact it was
common, when looking at service records for the account, to see 5, 10
or more 1FB line stuck on the end of the service record for billing
purposes.  These lines were all over town.  A convenience store or gas
station chain's records could be a real zoo!

This was not just the case in Bell provided PBXs either.  Customers
who had misguidedly opted to buy from other vendors (:-)) still had
1FBs tagged on to their trunk bills.

The only problem was in trying to bill from a different exchange
(note: an exchange is NOT a CO, it is a tariff area!), i.e., from
Anthony, Texas a small town on the NM state line, to El Paso numbers.
Also, one couldn't cross the business/residential line.

There was a way around that using "GBG", Gift Billing Group.  I'm not
sure we were within compliance with the rules when we did it.  But, we
did, on occasion, make residential service a "gift" from the business
phone.

In 1980, things were fairly manual.  Service reps wrote orders by hand
and they were copied by "order writers", also by hand, to the actual
documents that went to the CO, field installation, dial admin, etc.
They finally got batched into a mainframe by people in an organization
with the acronym "TIGER" after the order was completed.

I can't speak to the measured service issues, then and now measured
service in Texas is like a state income tax, a socialist idea that has
infected other states but to be fought to the last breath here.


Ed Hopper

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 14:07:54 PST
From: Christopher Gillett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy


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

>When the phone rings, I assume it is because someone has something
>marginally important, or at least interesting, to say; thus I drop
>what I am doing to answer the phone.  That is why I do not appreciate
>being interrupted by junk phone calls.

When I relocated to the east coast last year, NET (New England Telco)
sent me a letter with business reply mail postcard shortly after
switching on my service.  This letter said something to the effect of,
"if you don't want telemarketers contacting you, fill this out and
they'll leave you alone".  So, I supplied the requested information,
signed the card, and sent it in.  End of 90% of the telemarketer woes.

My assumption is that they have removed my name and telephone number
from a list that they sell to telemarketing outfits.  Maybe they do
some sort of blocking out here (doubtful), but whatever they've done,
I simply do not get telemarketer phone calls.

During the first year of having service, I've gotten exactly two
calls, one from one of the Boston daily papers, and one from a
recording.  I no longer get calls from all over the country from
people selling magazines, books, (hint: tell them you're blind :-)),
and other goodies.  I don't get calls from boilerrooms trying to jam
securities and other junk down my throat.  When the phone rings, it's
friends, family, or business ... exactly the way it should be.

So, my point is this: if your telco offers not to distribute your
name, then absolutely sign up.  This provides no protection from an
automated dialer that calls every number in an exchange looking for
people, but it can significantly reduce the number of junk calls you
receive.  And if you do happen to receive a call, just say "no
thank you", and if they don't hang up, then you should.  I have no
problem saying "no thank you, have a pleasant day", and then hanging
up.

What's interesting, of course, is that I get many more junk calls at
my office number than at home.  Even with the phone from home
forwarded (I always ask what number they've dialed).  Hmmm.


Christopher Gillett               [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corporation
Hudson, Taxachusetts              [phone]
Semiconductor Engineering Group/Logic Simulation Group
Disclaimer: Ken Olsen speaks for Digital...I speak for me!

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 14:07:54 PST
From: Christopher Gillett <[e-mail]>
Subject:  What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings?


At present, I have your "standard" two phone lines (one voice, one
data).  The voice line is xxx-9020, while the data line is xxx-3691
(and is configured with "RingMate", NET's name for distinctive ring
service, so that that line can double as incoming modem, incoming FAX,
or outgoing anything).  The 3691 number is rarely hooked up to a
telephone since it's supposedly only used for data and FAX traffic.
So, if you call expecting voice, you won't get it.

I prefer to be listed in the phone book as "Christopher Gillett",
since that is my legal name, even though I "go by" Chris.  So, when
people called directory assistance looking for me, the operator said
xxx-3691, and folks could never "find me home", or thought that there
was something wrong with my service.

When I got wind of this, I called NET and asked to have things
structured such that people would get 9020 when they called directory
assistance.  The bottom line is that I cannot be listed at 9020 as
"Christopher Gillett", I had to be listed as "Chris Gillett", and have
the 3691 line changed to unlisted.  Their reasoning was that since
"Chris" comes before "Christopher", and 9020 comes after 3691, it was
necessary to have "Chris" at the 9020 number to avoid the directory
assistance operator telling people I was unlisted.

And when I asked if they could list me as...

        Gillett, Christopher
                       voice xxx-9020
                        data xxx-3691

 ... they got all huffy and inquired as to whether or not I was
running a business, and no, sorry, they couldn't do that unless I
wanted business service.

All this seems incredibly stupid to me.  It seems to me that you
should able to be listed in the phone book in the manner of your
choosing, using your name or legal, proper derivation thereof, without
a lot of hassling.  If someone is looking for the "official me",
they'll look for Christopher.  A directory assistance operator might
say "well, I have a 'Chris', do you want that?", but then again the
operator might not.  So, it's not only a nuisance and a nit, it could
cause problems.

Further, I don't see why "data line in your home" means "commercial
rates".  What is the story here?  Have other people encountered
similar listing difficulties with NET or other telcos?

One last thing, it is SOP amongst all the different telcos to charge
*more* every month for touchtone service than for rotary dial?  I
thought it worked the other way around.


Christopher Gillett               [e-mail]
Digital Equipment Corporation
Hudson, Taxachusetts              [phone]
Semiconductor Engineering Group/Logic Simulation Group
Disclaimer: Ken Olsen speaks for Digital...I speak for me!

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 21:45:21 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 Omniscience


    An article in the Sunday 10/28 {New York Times} (A22, "For
Police, a Delicate Job of Reordering Priorities" describes a 911
operator answering a call, "Within one second, the computer told her
the caller's telephone number and the address and even that the caller
was on an extension phone".  How is it possible to know that the
caller was on an extension?  Did the reporter misunderstand what he
was told, or is there some magic going on here that I can't figure
out?

    Recently somebody on the Digest says he travels with a butt
set so he can, for example, tap somebody's outside junction box in an
emergency.  What would happen if you needed to call 911 and the
fastest way was to break open a nearby telco box, clip a butt set onto
a random pair, and call from there?  When you told the operator, "No,
I'm not at [insert address corresponding to that pair's subscriber's
home], but on the corner of foo and bar", would s/he be likely to
believe you?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #772
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14441;
          30 Oct 90 0:41 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32032;
          29 Oct 90 23:00 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20991;
          29 Oct 90 21:55 CST
Date:     Mon, 29 Oct 90 21:18:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #773
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Oct 90 21:17:29 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 773

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cambodia Gets New Earth Station [[e-mail]]
    Logisticon v. Revlon [Michael H. Riddle]
    AT&T Employee Gets Slammed by Sprint [Ed Hopper]
    BITFTP and uuencoded Files [John C. Fowler]
    MOH Across Hold Resistor [Barton F. Bruce]
    Long Distance Service to Hawaii [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Trick or Treat? [Peter M. Weiss]
    *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown) [J. Eric Townsend]
    Wanted: "Pole climbers" [Bill Berbenich]
    ATC Strikes Again [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [David E. A. Wilson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cambodia Gets New Earth Station
Date: 30 Oct 90 12:19:53 (UTC+11:00)
Organization: The University of Melbourne


 From {The Age} Tuesday, 30 October, 1990.  Melbourne, Australia.

Cambodia to get telecommunications via OTC

Cambodia this month began its first modern telecommunications links to
the outside world using a satellite earth station installed by OTC
International, Australia's overseas arm of OTC. [The Australian
Overseas Telecommunications Commission.]

It claims to provide the first realistic opportunity for the many
thousands of Cambodian-born Australians to have telephone contact with
friends and relatives in Cambodia, but will also link globally
throughout the OTC International Network.

The 7.5 metre Vista earth station was supplied and installed in the
capital city, Phnom Penh, by OTC International under a commercial with
the Directorate of Posts and Telecommunications, DPT, of Cambodia.

Formerly, says OTC, Cambodia has had to rely on a relatively
antiquated network provided through the Soviet Intersputnik system.

Under the contract OTC International and DPT will share investment
costs and revenues, and OTC International, which already holds
contracts in Vietnam, Laos, Sri Lanka and Thailand, will further
develop the Cambodian communications system and training services,
over a ten year period.

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 18:24:55 cst
From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Logisticon v. Revlon


An interesting item appeared recently in several newspapers.  A small
Silicon Valley software house, Logisticon, apparently had a contract
with the giant Revlon for process and inventory control systems.

The stories indicate that Logisticon delivered the product and Revlon
was using it, but the software wasn't doing everything Revlon thought
it should.  While the stories indicate Logisticon was working with
Revlon to fix the problems, they must not have been making much
progress.

Revlon withheld (or threatened to withold) substantial payment, and
threatened to cancel the contract.

So far, an ordinary contract dispute?  Remember, this is Silicon Valley!

{begin telecom angle

Logisticon had dial-up access to the Revlon system, so late one night
recently they dialed up and disabled the software, in the process
encrypting at least the critical parts of the data.  According to the
news reports, two major Revlon distribution centers were shut down for
three days.

Logisticon then re-enabled the software, apparently at the advice of
their counsel.

end telecom angle}

As you can imagine, the lawyers are licking their chops and each side
is trading charges.

Revlon accuses "computer terrorism."

Logisticon responds with [high tech] repossession of unpaid-for
merchandise.

To a law student with 20+ years telecom experience, this is a
fascinating case.  Almost certainly wiser heads will prevail and it
will settle, but it could turn out to set new law as the courts play
catch-up with the modern world.


[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
[e-mail]               |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

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

From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Employee Gets Slammed by Sprint
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 10:44:09 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


I was slammed by US Sprint a few years ago (1986).  I noticed it when
the line quality went down and I couldn't reach certain 201-221
numbers (the AT&T puzzle palace in Basking Ridge, NJ) from my home
phone.  I got suspicious.  I called the 700 number for carrier
validation and, lo and behold, received the message "Thanking you for
choosing US Sprint".  I immediately called SWBT.  They had a record of
a change of primary carrier from AT&T to US Sprint issued by Sprint.
Yes, they would switch me back ASAP, for free.  I then called AT&T
(800-222-0300) and told them about it. Finally I confronted Sprint.  I
called and after an interminable ACD delay, got to a rep.  I asked her
to put her boss on the line at the outset as I wanted things that she
wasn't, I was sure, authorized to do. I also wanted to yell at a
manager, not a peon.

When the manager came on, I told him that his company had goofed,
would he please make it right.  I advised him I was an AT&T employee.
As such I had a certain amount of free LD as a company benefit.  By
slamming me, US Sprint was expecting me to pay for what would normally
be free.  Additionally, several of my calls (I had been on Sprint for
about a week) were work related.  AT&T would also pay for those, but
ONLY if they were made on AT&T.  I advised him that I had no intention
of paying for ANY of the Sprint calls.  Would he please write them off
and also make sure I was switched back to AT&T.  I got very little
hassle out of them.  They agreed to all I wanted and wrote off all
charges.

Quite frankly, if all slammees would insist on not paying for slammed
calls AT ALL, I think the practice would stop.  After all, the charges
for LD calls are ill-gotten gains and I believe that an IXC would have
a hard time substantiating them.  Just follow the practice of
screaming loudly, rationally (don't curse) and highly (keep insisting
on the next level up when you get a "no").

To this day, I call 1-700-555-4141 once a month to make sure that I am
still on my preferred carrier.


Ed Hopper
AT&T Computer Systems

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

Date: Sun, 28 Oct 90 15:14:11 PST
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: BITFTP and uuencoded Files


A while back, someone mentioned that the BITFTP server at
pucc.princeton.edu (or PUCC.BITNET, depending on who you are) will
sometimes send long files in uuencoded format.

I sent a letter to Melinda Varian ([e-mail]) asking about
this.  I was wondering whether the NETDATA option mentioned in the
HELP document would override any decision to uuencode the files before
transmission.

I received a response today.  Explicitly selecting files for NETDATA
transmission will indeed override anything else.  So, if you have been
having problems with uuencoded files, use:

       FTP lcs.mit.edu NETDATA

instead of just

       FTP lcs.mit.edu

to access the TELECOM Archives.

Note that large files may be split up into several messages, which
will be sent to you in a (seemingly) random order.

For more information about the BITFTP service, send a message to
[e-mail] or [e-mail].  The message should
contain only the word "HELP" (without the quotes) on its first line.


John C. Fowler, [e-mail], [e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MOH Across Hold Resistor
Date: 29 Oct 90 01:41:46 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, Andy Jacobson <[e-mail].
edu> writes:

> Would it be possible to simply put a high Z or
> xformer isolated source across it and create your own music on hold
> circuit?

You should use transformer isolation, and that is exactly what the ITT
K-403A music-on-hold card did. It had to be plugged into a k259 panel
(that gave you wrap tails to use as needed, rather than be prewired
for normal card use).  There probably is a FAT cap in there to block
DC fron the xfmr's secondary.  There is 1 input xfmr, and 6 output
ones on the k-403 card.

One normally used it with the k-400E cards that had a jumper option to
put pin 18 to the RING side of the resistor (was 120 ohms on those
cards). That side was the one that got switched. The TIP end of the
resistor was directly connected to TIP, so the MOH xfmr was connected
from pin 14 to pin 18.

Any wire to pin 18 (and 3) was normally for A battery for 401 manual
intercoms or 415s or anything needing quiet 'TALK BATTERY'. If these
were multipled or even connected to A battery and ground, the existing
wires have to be removed first. In the case the 501 KSUs, 18 and 3
were brought out and punched down seperately for each card slot so
there was no problem. On some of the really newer KSUs that used 20
pin connectors, 18, 3, 0, 19 were ALL brought out seperately for
whatever options needed them.

Rather than muck with the KSU, you could instead tack solder a pair of
wires to the ends of the resistor, and bring the wire out to a cheap
connector or something similar for easy servicing.

If you get a k403, here are the connections. Jumper ABC is for input
impedance.  For 500 ohm in, jumper plugs BC, for 8000 ohm, use AB.

output pins for 6 ckts: 1,2/3,4/5,6/13,14/15,16/17,18
input pair pins 7,8
power (filtered A battery) 9=A-bat, 11=A-gnd

It is designed to have at least 45 db isolation between any two lines
connected and getting 'music' (or quiet).

Someone else once made such a unit with one output xfmr with several
windings.  I assume and crostalk isolation was done with pads after
the xfmr.

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

Date: 29-OCT-1990 05:52:59.74
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Service to Hawaii


I've been increasingly annoyed by AT&T service to Hawaii (from the
mainland U.S.). Each time I call I get a satellite, and it usually has
a good deal of echo. I've called AT&T to ask if there is a way to get
an undersea cable (fiber or otherwise), but they had no idea what I
was talking about or WHY I would even care how it went. (Quite unusual
for AT&T, although admittedly, this is a rather unusual question...!)

Is there any other LD Co. that has fiber to Hawaii? I was under the
impression that the trans-Pacific cable was finished, which is why it
is hard for me to believe that AT&T is still using satellite. I don't
like the idea of using someone else other than AT&T (won't count to
ROA, etc...), but if they have better service, might as well take
advantage of one of the few beneficial aspects of Divestiture by
'Equal-Access'-ing the call over whatever carrier...

I've tried MCI and it doesn't seem to be much better (surprise,
surprise..), and Sprint didn't complete! (Well, in all fairness, I
only tried once before giving up...maybe it took them a long time to
connect or something.)

If there is any other company that doesn't use satellite to Hawaii,
I'd love to hear about it! (I THINK the fiber cable is finished, at
least to Hawaii, isn't it?)

Thanks in advance for any help,


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Monday, 29 Oct 1990 08:02:22 EST
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Trick or Treat?


Since Halloween is closing in on us, do you have any horror stories
relating to the use of dialup modems used in hotels/motels that caused
PBX difficulties when the RJ11 wasn't really compatible electrically?


Pete

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 11:22:38 CST
From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown)


Recently I took a trip up to Austin, Tx.  I stayed at the Wyndham (an
expensive ritzy hotel :-).  Being one of those really wierd criminal
types, I paid for my room cash up front.  (Trying to rent cars and
hotel rooms with cash only could make a short novel of anecdotes.
Sigh).

I decided to call my brother, who lives in Austin (a local call). The
hotel operator cut in and told me I needed to leave a deposit to make
phone calls.  This sounded strange to me, since I'd already made some
LD calls with my Sprint card.

Then it hit me: Dial out to Sprint (which is required to be free?)
then make my local call.  I really didn't care if Sprint charged me,
the hotel wanted .25 per call and I really wanted to see if it would
work.

It did.  I got my bill today.  NO CHARGE for the calls I made local to
Austin.  Not even a record of them.

Free calls for all!!


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

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

From: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: "Pole Climbers"
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 12:22:54 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Anyone have a pair of those spiked pole-climbers that the outside
plant guys put on over their boots in order to climb poles? If so, are
you interested in selling them?  I've found a few vendors that sell
them new, but the price is just too high (==$150).  I've already got a
belt- harness and strap, but will consider buying them too, with the
pole- climbers.  Thanks in advance, please reply directly to me at the
e-mail address below.


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

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATC Strikes Again
Date: 29 Oct 90 18:55:13 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


  I just got off of the phone with South Tel (I use them for calls
within my LATA) it turns out the ATC bought them about two months again.

So far ATC bought ... Telus, MicroTel and several other FL bassed
resellers/ carriers.

How long will it be before we are left with three companies?

Does anyone know who the top 10 carriers are? I think the top four are:

AT&T    MCI    US Sprint  ITT/Metromedia   ATC might be fourth.


Bill

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 04:06:48 GMT


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

>It is that day again: the day when folks in the United States set our
>clocks back one hour, to make up for the one hour advancement we made
>in April. Sometime Saturday night or Sunday morning, move your clocks
>back an hour to resume *Standard* time. The official changeover time
>is 2:00 AM Sunday morning local time, of course.

What a coincidence - this year our daylight saving started on
29-Oct-90 at 2am Australian Eastern Standard Time (which became 3am
Australian Eastern Summer Time).

This year all the states (except Western Australia & the Northern
Territory) agreed to start on the same day (in past years Queensland
was out by a week or two).

Apparently a number of newspapers in Queensland had instructed their
readers to move their clocks BACK rather than the correct forward.

The telecom connection? According to one news item on the radio, in
Queensland the Telecom speaking clock also went backwards by mistake.

The lack of a deterministic algorithm for the start/end of daylight
saving causes us no end of problems with our computers. Our Sequent
computer and all our Annex boxes thought it started last week. Our
Sun's got it right this year.


David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #773
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15300;
          30 Oct 90 1:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16128;
          30 Oct 90 0:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32032;
          29 Oct 90 23:00 CST
Date:     Mon, 29 Oct 90 22:21:23 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #774
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Oct 90 22:21:03 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 774

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Device Needed For Fax/Phone on One Line [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: Odd (617) Number [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Len Rose Arrested Again! [Stephen Friedl]
    Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS [Lou Judice]
    Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1 [Wolf Paul]
    Re: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O" [Bob Yasi]
    Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois [Paolo Bellutta]
    Re: 800 Numbas [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Follow-up: Does AT&T Mail Exist??? [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Patrick Tufts]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Jerry Durand]
    Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) [John Cowan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Frederick Roeber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device Needed For Fax/Phone on One Line
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 29 Oct 90 01:28:16 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, kddlab!foretune.co.jp!trebor
(Robert Trebor Woodhead) writes:

> I am looking for a device that will let me connect and use a fax
> machine and a regular telephone/answering machine on the same line.
> The catch is that I would like incoming callers to be able to leave
> either a message or send a fax!

Such things exist.  I have seen a combination FAX/answering machine
that has an OGM, then the `beep' is actually the FAX signal.  Then it
listens for FAX signals to determine what it should do with the
message.

The one I've seen had an OGM ``..leave a message at the beep, or if
you want to send a FAX, press `send' at the beep,'' but the FAX
machine I was sending from patiently waited through the voice message,
recognized the beep, and sent.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
r-mail: CERN/SL-CO, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: [phone]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Odd (617) Number
Date: 29 Oct 90 00:03:44 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Patrick Tufts) writes:

> Any thoughts on the function of this number, [phone]?

Try dialing some TT digits after that. You will then get: "THANK YOU
FOR USING PAGENET". You just beeped someone's beeper, and whatever
garbage you TT'd in is displayed on his beeper.

There IS a concerted push to reclaim 800 numbers from the paging folks
in this area, and I think that at least three other exchanges are so
used, and, like the previous 800 based paging services, are FREE to
the local caller.  Don't know about LD callers, though. It probably is
the SAME whether dialled as a local number from 617 or 508.

I just asked the local operator and that IS a paging exchange, and she
did say there were others, BUT wouldn't volunteer any more info.

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

Date: 28 Oct 90 10:05:30 PST (Sun)
From: Stephen Friedl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Len Rose Arrested Again!
Date: 28 Oct 90 18:05:26 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


Our Moderator writes on the unfortunate arrest of Len Rose:

> It should be remembered that under the Constitution of the United
> States, Mr. Rose must be presumed innocent of the latest charges
> against him until they are proven in court.

The Constitution imposes this requirement only on the government, and
private citizens may feel whatever they like.  It is charitible for me
to presume innocent [I do], but it is not required.


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 06:44:53 PST
From: Peripheral Visionary 29-Oct-1990 0938 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS


Your story on your pioneering efforts in CLASS service was very
entertaining! It prompted me to call NJ Bell AGAIN (I do this every
month or so) to find out when CLASS will be offered in the Peapack
CO. Scheduled installation has moved up five months to APRIL, 1991!!!


Lou

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

From: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1
Date: 27 Oct 90 10:11:46 GMT
Reply-To: wolf paul <iiasa![e-mail]>
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe


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

>TELEPHONE SERVICES:  A GROWING FORM OF `FOREIGN AID'

>in minutes -- meaning American phone companies have to pay fees for
>the surplus calls.  The F.C.C. is concerned that foreign companies are
>demanding much more money than is justified, given the steeply falling
>costs of providing service, and proposes to limit unilaterally the
>payments American carriers make.

Would someone care to tell us how they might enforce this?  Americans
are much more dependent on international phone calls for their
international business; Europeans and I suspect residents of other
countries are much more likely to use correspondence and/or TELEX than
intercontinental phone calls.

So if the FCC limits how much AT&T can pay the German TELEKOM or the
Austrian PTT, etc., and as a result these foreign phone companies
simply suspend telephone service to the US, it would primarily affect
U.S. businesses.

I am not justifying the high rates charged in many places for phone
service, I have to bear them myself, but the idea that the FCC can
dictate to foreign phone companies how much they can charge for access
to their networks is laughable. The mere thought is enough to bring
forth the national pride of the bureaucrats running these phone
companies, to resist any American attempt at interfering in their rate
structures. Why should a European phone company be concerned with the
effects on the American trade deficit of competition among U.S.
carriers? Every call originating in the US instead of Europe is a loss
of revenue to them, so why should they not try to recover that revenue
by charging the U.S. carrier who lured away their customer by his
lower rates?

Mind you, it is a different matter if AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc., told
the foreign phone companies that they consider the rates too high,
they are their business partners; but a U.S. government agency like
the FCC is out of order when it tries to dictate foreign companies'
prices.


Wolf N. Paul, UNIX SysAdmin, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: [phone]     FAX: [phone]      UUCP: uunet!iiasa!wnp
INTERNET: [e-mail]      BITNET: tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]

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

From: Bob Yasi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail -- Just Say "O"
Date: 29 Oct 90 07:46:48 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles


motcid![e-mail] (Gary Segal) quotes me getting irate:

> >"How dare you have a phone system that doesn't get you an operator
> >when you dial O?"
> >I've never heard a satisfactory answer to that one!

and suggests an exception from his own experience:

> There was no person to whom the call could be routed to

Well, Gary, in your example, the actual answer is that there was no
human available at all.  There being no "bizarre touchtone incantation
to divinate", no "French Horn Routing to traverse", no "droning menu
having more options than this sentence has adjectives" to wade through
for before being Permitted to talk to a real human, I'd simply leave a
message on your machine.  So you'd have never heard an irate message
from me; I like answering machines just fine.

By the way, I was so amused by Andy [a College friend I'm back in
e-mail contact with thanks to the Digest] Behrens's posting about the
Sharper self-Image's phone that makes eight different sounds,
including a crying baby to repel telemarketers, that I called them up
to order one!

Well, THEY have a voice mail system. And IT has a LONG menu.  And
dialing "O" only makes it start all over again.  I'll be ordering my
crying baby phone elsewhere!


 -- Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

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

From: Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]>
Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY
Subject: Re: Massive Service Outage in Northern Illinois
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 9:43:58 MET DST


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

[ about cable being dug up ]

Just one question: Was the cable lied down in the ground directly? I
have seen that here the (electric and phone) cables are placed in
tubes which are in the laid ground. This would make more sense, since
a replacement would me more simple. Moreover, a plastic tape is wound
on each cable with an identifier. What is the situation in the US? BTW
in Italy main trunks are via microwave links (reason: mountains).


Paolo Bellutta ([e-mail])

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Numbas
Date: 29 Oct 90 15:49:05 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


 I called MCI several times. They still say that it is your home
number with the area code replaced with 800. They also said that it
will take 45 days because the local phone company has to 'program it'.
I wish MCI would train their people better.  The lady this morning at
the Maryland office (I call there because the CS people in Atlanta are
stupid <generally> and rude) said that the 800 service was a product
of TELECOM*USA and was going to be billed on their computers. That
is why they can't add it to existing accounts and it will take 45 days
to set up.

I think that they haven't finished the programming yet and that is why
it will take so long.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA offers no such package. What they offer
are regular 800 numbers, from the block of same assigned to their
company, which terminate on their switch in Iowa somewhere. The calls
arriving there, DID-style (never a busy signal at that point, no
matter how many people dial your 800 number at one time), are then
outdialed to your regular number. It is all very transparent; the only
thing an experienced 800 user would notice is there is a slightly
longer delay in getting the distant end to ring -- like maybe five
seconds longer -- since the call has to go into Telecom*USA's switch
and back out again. Maybe this is the program MCI reps have in mind
and are trying to describe. They probably mean to say "you get a
regular 800 number but no line appearance at your end; it terminates
on your regular number."  PAT]

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Follow-up: Does AT&T Mail Exist???
Date: 29 Oct 90 11:08:56 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>I don't think I am at liberty to discuss specifics, but it is my
>understanding that corrections are now being made and that hopefully
>more information about AT&T mail will be more readily available in the
>future (outside the TELECOM community, that is).

When AT&T first introduced AT&T Mail, they took out full-color
full-page ads in many national magazines touting the service.  But
nowhere in the ad was a number to call for more information.  And a
call to your local AT&T office would return a "We've never heard of
that."

As has been discussed in length in this forum in the past, your
experiences are typical of those found when dealing with _any_ part of
AT&T.

We wanted to buy a System 75 for our office but could never find a
salesperson who was willing to give us a quote.  We bought a competing
brand.

For the record, when _I_ initially called to order AT&T Mail, I was
told that since I didn't have an MS-DOS machine I could not use the
service.  Only because I repeatedly insisted that I knew that that was
not correct was I able to finally order the service.

Whether it is e-mail, long distance service, computers, telephone
equipment, or documentation, one must be willing to beg and plead if
one wishes to buy from AT&T.


[Mocderator's Note: So you remember those ads back in 1985 also?
Wasn't that a gas! Full page ads in {Info-Week} and various other
industry journals, then they told *no one* about it who would be
answering calls from customers. I remember seeing the ad in a magazine
at my office and calling immediatly -- to sign up on the spot -- and
having two reps,  two supervisors and one manager insist that I must
be trying to buy a Fax machine. A third rep, bless her, thought maybe
I was referring to the Reach Out America program. It took me about 6-8
weeks to get a call back from someone who signed me up and that was by
me calling them almost weekly.  I also got the rap about having an
MS-DOS machine and they at first refused to open an account for me.  PAT]

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

From: Patrick Tufts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings?
Date: 29 Oct 90 17:42:59 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Christopher Gillett) writes:

>One last thing, it is SOP amongst all the different telcos to charge
>*more* every month for touchtone service than for rotary dial?  I
>thought it worked the other way around.

Why, Touchtone is a _feature_! :-) That's why the TelCos I've dealt
with - SNET and NYNEX - charge for it.

Seriously, you'd think they'd charge more for the pulse system, if
only because it ties the line up longer.


Pat

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Disabling Call Waiting
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 09:18:06 PST


I had a problem with one of the "free" options that comes with a
business GTE Mobilnet cellular account, call waiting.  For various
reasons I do not want call waiting active at any time and have figured
out how to disable it until I wish to turn it back on.  There is an
option for FORWARD-ON-BUSY (*74) and if you program this to forward
back to your own cellular number, a call which would normally generate
the call waiting clunk will now just get a busy.  I have had my
service programmed this way for over a month and it seems to work fine
(no infinite loops).

I don't know if you can set something like this up on regular phone
lines, but it could let people turn off call waiting for extended
periods such as when you go out and don't want your answering machine
interrupted or have a BBS active at night.


Jerry Durand, Durand Interstellar, Inc., [e-mail], 408 356-3886

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It)
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 18:16:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, Dave Levenson <dave@westmark.
westmark.com> writes:

>A technical explanation of the problem, and of why you
>believe it's 'their problem' is sometimes required to convince them
>that you know what you're talking about.

Sometimes a little technical jargon can work wonders.

The other day, I had no dial tone.  Being a bit suspicious of the
behavior of my cordless phone lately (maybe a new battery is in the
works) I promptly plugged in my dumb ole 500 set at the main (and
only) jack.  Still nothing doing.

I walked down the street to a payphone and dialled 611.  The usual delays
later:

Me:  "I'd like to report my line, XXX-XXXX out of service."

611: "Are you sure the trouble isn't in your phone, sir?"

Me:  "Yup -- I checked, and there's no dial tone at the demarc."

611: (sigh of relief).  "Okay, that's a big help -- we'll get right on it."

It turned out to be a major cable break on my block, and was fixed within
24 hours.

And all I know about telecom internals is what I've found out reading
the Digest in the last two years or so!


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)


[Moderator's Note: That's nothing! Three years ago I coodunt evun spel
Moddoratur, and now I are one.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #774
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16130;
          30 Oct 90 2:44 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18388;
          30 Oct 90 1:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16128;
          30 Oct 90 0:04 CST
Date:     Mon, 29 Oct 90 23:21:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #775
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 29 Oct 90 23:20:12 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 775

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [John Higdon]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Paul Gauthier]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Russ Kepler]
    Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [Lou Judice]
    Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [George Peavy]
    Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [David Lesher]
    Re: Two Residential Lines; Different Owners; Same Class of Service [Higdon]
    Re: Are Indiana White Pages Available on Electronic Media? [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information [John Cowan]
    Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS  [Mike Verstegen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings?
Date: 29 Oct 90 20:34:30 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, Christopher Gillett <gillett@
ceomax.enet.dec.com> writes:

>         Gillett, Christopher
>                        voice xxx-9020
>                         data xxx-3691

>  ... they got all huffy and inquired as to whether or not I was
> running a business, and no, sorry, they couldn't do that unless I
> wanted business service.

The BILLING name better be yours, but the listing name can be your
'cousin' that lives with you. What is your goldfish's name? We are
related to fish somehow, right? ... Use your cat, if you prefer. That
will leave you with ONLY your voice line with your name on it, and NO
non-listed charges.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings?
Date: 29 Oct 90 16:19:02 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Christopher Gillett <[e-mail]> writes:

> Further, I don't see why "data line in your home" means "commercial
> rates".  What is the story here?  Have other people encountered
> similar listing difficulties with NET or other telcos?

How do they know its a "data" line? What communication you put over
that line is absolutely and positively none of telco's business. Given
that more and more homes are equipped with computers with modems, this
attitude would seem a little outdated.

I had a little talk with a knowledgeable rep about the attitude
concerning modem lines. In my case, with 10 lines, telco had just
assumed that it was mostly for data, probably hobby related, rather
than assuming that I was running a bookie joint out of my home. No one
at Pac*Bell has ever given the impression that the company cared one
hoot about whether a line was being used for a modem or not.


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


[Moderator's Note: John, I would say 'the way they know it is a data
line' is because that is the way he asked them to identify it in their
directory.   PAT]

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

From: Paul Gauthier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 1990 14:12:15 -0400


    Throughout this thread on disabling call-waiting on incoming
calls it has been stated that you need three-way calling to flash over
to another dialtone. On my main voice line I have call-waiting, but
not three-way calling. I am still able to flash over and hear the
triple dialtone sound followed by a consistant dialtone. From there I
can, I can type *70, get a quick set of beeps and then be reconnected
to my party. CW is then disabled (I just tried all this as I typed
it).

    I have a data line without call-waiting as well, and I much
prefer dialing out on it than my call-waiting equipped line. I find it
annoying when trying to terminate calls on the CW-equipped line. I
have a tendancy to lift the plunger too quickly causing the phone to
think I'm trying to flash. It takes a concious effort to sit there
with the plunger down for two or three seconds to be sure it's
registering as a hang-up before I can dial out again. I frequently end
calls with "ok, I'll call so-and-so and get back to you." and find it
annoying when trying to quickly dial out after completing another
call.

    All this information applies to Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, BTW.

PG

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What you say is all well and good, but *why* would
a telco extend new dial tone by flashing the hook when there is no
place to go with it? Surely not just for suspending call-waiting ...
or is it just for that reason? What happens when you attempt to dial
an actual number against that flashed-in dial tone rather than just
dialing *70?  Does your new call go through or get denied?   PAT]

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

From: Russ Kepler <bbx!bbx.basis.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Date: 30 Oct 90 00:19:30 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Albuquerque NM


On a similar vein of the call waiting I had an experience that might
interest some of the readers (the rest can skip it...)

One of my Usenet news feeds became stuck while its owner was out of
town.  No cause could be found until he got back in town and listened
to the call.

The modem was on his phone line and the dialer disabled call waiting
prior to the call.  When the local telco removed call waiting his mode
began getting an intercept and a 'your call cannot be...' message.

Strange - why couldn't they just ignore it?  Seems to me that would be
a better solution than the intercept (better yet to return to dial
tone.)


Russ Kepler -  Basis Int'l     SNAIL:  5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
UUCP: bbx.basis.com!russ                                    PHONE: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 07:31:23 PST
From: Peripheral Visionary 29-Oct-1990 1024 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy


A friend of a friend has a part time job with a telemarketer,
specifically selling subscriptions to a local newspaper. If you really
don't want to just be polite and say no, and you have a tremendous
hankering to be devious, just say "I already receive the Mudtown
Evening Star!". The person at the other end of the line has no idea
whether you're telling the truth or not, but is not going to debate
with you and will instantly leave you alone.

BTW, I especially enjoy the automated callers, since you can take out
lots of fruststration by blasting touchtones or getting your cats to
talk into the handset, etc when they record your "name", etc.!   :)


lou

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

From: George Peavy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy
Organization: William Carey International University
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 18:30:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Christopher Gillett <gillett@
ceomax.enet.dec.com> writes:

>My assumption is that they have removed my name and telephone number
>from a list that they sell to telemarketing outfits.  Maybe they do
>some sort of blocking out here (doubtful), but whatever they've done,
>I simply do not get telemarketer phone calls.

[stuff deleted.....]

>So, my point is this: if your telco offers not to distribute your
>name, then absolutely sign up.  This provides no protection from an
>automated dialer that calls every number in an exchange looking for
>people, but it can significantly reduce the number of junk calls you
>receive.  And if you do happen to receive a call, just say "no
>thank you", and if they don't hang up, then you should.  I have no
>problem saying "no thank you, have a pleasant day", and then hanging
>up.

I don't know how New England Telephone does it, but in the front of a
Pacific Bell Directory, under the section marked "Doing Business with
Us", it notes that in metropolitan areas, there is such a thing as a
directory listing phone numbers by addresses for "people who may wish
to reach you, but don't know your name".

(aaaarrrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!).  It also notes that you can request to
be not listed in this directory.  I don't remember if they charge you
for it or not.


George Peavy

([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: They are just talking about a routine criss-cross
directory. The ones from Donnelly Directory, by virtue of being part
of the telco empire, only list what the alpha books list, in telephone
number order. If you are otherwise non-pub, you won't be in those. The
ones from Haynes, R.L. Polk, Dresser's and City Publishing Co. include
everything they can find, and your request to them means nothing. They
even include what non-pub numbers they can find from other sources.
PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 17:56:54 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


]NET (New England Telco) sent me a letter with business reply mail
]postcard shortly after switching on my service.  This letter said
]something to the effect of, "if you don't want telemarketers contacting
]you, fill this out and they'll leave you alone".

Southern Bell *CHARGES* you for this privilege! Not just ONCE, but
monthly. I suspect they then can complain to the PSC that no one uses
the service.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Residential Lines; Different Owners; Same Class of Service
Date: 29 Oct 90 16:10:57 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]> writes:

> When I ordered phone service, the Ohio Bell rep (in their
> Xenia office) told me that, because the house was in an area zoned for
> single family residences, I could only have the class of service that
> the other residents of the house had, which was flat rate metro.

While I can't speak authoritatively for Ohio, this is probably bogus.
As a general rule, if some rep gives you a line like this you should
check the tariffs yourself or at the very least, walk the
organization.  In Pac*BellLand, there are numerous reps who seem to
make it up as they go along. In my own residence, I have measured and
unmeasured residence service in addition to WATS (a form of business
service) and all in the same Commstar (mini-Centrex) group. From time
to time over the years, various reps have been aghast at this mix of
services, but there is absolutely nothing in the tariffs that prevent
such an arrangement.

Do not be fooled by a rep's insistance. Adamacy does not mean
legality.  If you think you are being given a snow job, ask for a
quote on the tariff. Example: I have had numerous Digest readers write
about unlisted numbers. Reps have repeatedly insisted that the
unlisting charge applies to all unlisted lines and applies even if
there is listed service in the individual's name at the residence. In
this case, the correct policy is given in the Pac*Bell handbook, but
it wasn't until the reps were asked to look it up that the real
procedure was quoted.


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

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Indiana White Pages Available on Electronic Media?
Date: 29 Oct 90 18:32:52 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (George Goble)
writes:

>I have heard (in telecom) that NYNEX and some others are now offering
>white pages on CDROM, tapes, etc, alone or with update services.
>Anybody know about such a service/product existing for Indiana?

    Indiana Bell could offer such a service for the parts of the
state that they serve, but those would not include such places as Fort
Wayne (the second largest city in the state), Lafayette (where Mr.
Goble is), and much of the Upper Wabash and Tippecanoe valleys,
including the moderately large towns of Wabash and Logansport, all of
which are served by GTE.

    In addition, significant portions of Northern Indiana,
including much if not all of Koszciusko County (Warsaw and the heart
of the lake resort region) are served by United Telephone.

    There are also some independent telcos in small rural
communities across the northern part of the state, such as the
Reservoir Telephone Company which serves much of southern Huntington
County.

    If such a service were to be offered, it would probably be
offered by the people who put out the phone-book-on-microfiche
collection (University Microfilms of Ann Arbor?), not the telcos
themselves.

    Jeff Carroll
    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And don't forget the northwest corner of Indiana,
which, although it has been Indiana Bell for a few years since it got
taken over from Illinois Bell is still part of the Chicago metro area
listings. Rarely do you see anything from there associated with the
'Indiana Bell' other areas of the state connect with. They seem to do
their own thing there, and identify with Illinois, and Illinois Bell's
directories, etc.  PAT]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Use of Phones to Give Theatre Schedule Information
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 17:43:50 GMT

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Barton F. Bruce) writes:

>I even think a SMART local theater might also list the competing
>EXPENSIVE adjacent big town theaters as a service and customers
>would always call them for ALL movie info and would probably go
>to the local one mostly anyway.

There exists something analogous to this in New York City now.
Calling 212-777-3456 (777-FILM) gets an automated system that lists a
large fraction of all theaters in the city and outlying regions.
(Non-commercial theaters are not listed.)

You can retrieve movies by title (first three letters), category
(drama/comedy/horror/action/etc.), or location (enter ZIP code).  Once
you have narrowed down to a particular movie at a particular theater,
you will be given the show times for that movie today.  Show times
that have already passed are automatically omitted.

This service is extremely helpful.  It is sponsored by {New York
Magazine} (which publishes weekly movie listings and capsule reviews)
and radio station WPLJ.  There is no charge except normal telco
charges, but you must listen to a commercial for an upcoming film when
you cfirst connect.  There is also an option to find out about
upcoming features in the magazine or WPLJ.  Of course, you must be
able to send DTMF tones to use the service at all.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)


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

From: Mike Verstegen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Shows Real CLASS
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 13:13:28 EST


I read with interest (and amusement) your trials and trivulations with
the new CLASS services. (I've had some too -- like a crossed
translation in a DMS-100 that had all the LD charges cross-billed
between my two lines. By the time a year had passed and the problem
was cleared, Southern Bell security wanted to know how I knew such
things...)

As a follow up to you service usage, a note about what you are paying
for them might be interesting. Some of the rates I've seen make it
look like a customer could pay more for the CLASS special features
than for the basic dialtone. When you consider that all this CLASS is
just software and some CPU cycles plus disk storage, it seems like an
incredible amount of money.  Have the PUCs looked into the rates for
these services?


Mike Verstegen          Domain Systems, Inc           Voice [phone]
 ..!uunet!comtst!mdv     5840 Corporate Way #100       Fax   [phone]
[e-mail]          West Palm Beach, FL 33407


[Moderator's Note: I'll print some of the rates in a message in the
next day or two.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #775
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10800;
          31 Oct 90 3:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32172;
          31 Oct 90 2:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12109;
          31 Oct 90 1:26 CST
Date:     Wed, 31 Oct 90 0:40:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #776
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 Oct 90 00:40:41 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 776

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers? [William T Sykes]
    Tones and Country Codes [Clive Feather]
    Michigan Bell: "For The Time, Dial 1-900" [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    A CLASSless Message [Steve Kass]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 16:32:30 EST
From: William T Sykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to the Telephone Pioneers?
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies - Burlington, NC


Pat,

The following is two articles highlighting the Telephone Pioneers Of
America - Old North State Chapter 79, which include AT&T employees and
retirees in a number of NC counties.  These counties include Alamance,
Forsythe, and Guilford, the core counties of what was the North
Carolina Works of Western Electric.  I believe the Pioneers associated
with Southern Bell and the area Independent Telcos participate in
other chapters, hence the article publication in an AT&T "in-house"
magazine. Comments in brackets [] are mine.  Please find room to
publish in its entirety, as I believe they deserve the recognition
this this forum affords.

                William T. Sykes

Reprinted _with_ permission from AT&T Directions, October 1990
(published for AT&T employees by the Guilford Center Public Relations
staff.) [All typos are mine - wts] Copyright AT&T - 1990.


"_CONGRATULATIONS - Pioneer Chapter 79 earns national honors for support
          of Camp Carefree_

Freedom is a precious commodity.

Freedom is the priceless gift the Pioneers have helped give children
stricken with illnesses like leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, spina bifida
and cystic fibrosis.

Freedom is Camp Carefree.

Located near Stokesdale, Carefree is the only residential camp in
North Carolina for children with these types of problems.  And its
free.

Six years ago the camp was just the dream of Anne and Gib Jones,
Stokesdale residents who lease 22 acres of their farm to the camp for
$1 a year.  Today, thanks to the Pioneers and other groups, the dream
has mushroomed into a place where special children - walking or in a
wheelchair - can go swimming, canoeing, horseback riding and
participate in other activities they may never have done before.

"The Pioneers have been my security blanket," says Anne, the camp's
executive director. "Whenever we have had a pressing need, they have
been there to make sure it was taken care of."

Over the past four years, 1,500 Pioneers cared enough to spend more
than 15,000 hours raising money, building a medical infirmary and a
recreation building, and completing three duplex dormitories.

"Things kind of snowballed", says Russ Tagert, [Telephone Pioneer]
chapter [79] administrator.  "We kept asking them what they needed,
and they told us."

The Pioneers obliged further by building over 500 feet of wheelchair
ramps and walks and planting hundreds of shrubs and trees.

The Pioneers' dedication to Camp Carefree and the children it serves
earned them a [White House] Presidential citation in 1989.

And this September, at the Pioneer General Assembly, it earned them
the national "People Who Care" award.  They were also selected as the
number-one chapter among the 105 chapters throughout the U.S. and
Canada.

"Camp Carefree has been our most challenging, rewarding and exciting
activity for many years," Tagert says.  "Although our role has
certainly been significant, we were not alone.  The camp's success has
been a total community effort, and we are grateful for the opportunity
of helping make it happen."

"The real rewards come each summer when the camp swells with laughter
and smiles."
            --Jeanna Baxter

[Captions accompanying article photographs (photographs deleted for
technical reasons - wts :-) ]

"With the support of volunteer counselors, chronically ill children at
Camp Carefree spend a fun-filled week participating in activities they
never dreamed possible."

"Music is among the activities available to Camp Carefree kids.  And
whether walking or in a wheelchair, they also get the chance to go
swimming, canoeing and horseback riding."

    -------------(Second Directions Article)-----------------------

_Chapter 79 Celebrates 20 Years of Service to Local Communities_

"The Pioneers are having a birthday.

This year culminates two decades of fellowship, fun and community
service for the Old North State Chapter 79.

Started July 1, 1970, Chapter 79 is now one of the largest in the
association and is a consistent leader in membership and community
service, according to Russ Tagert, chapter administrator.

Old North State members give more than 500,000 volunteer hours each
year and raise more than $100,000 for community service projects.

Some highlights of the past 20 years:

    - rebuilding and refurbishing dormitories for a drug
    rehabilitation center and the American Children's Home

    - raising more than $137,000 to restore the Statue of Liberty

    - treating 1,000 underprivileged children to a tailgate party
    and Wake Forest football game.

    - constructing buildings and walkways at Camp Carefree (see
    previous story above)

    - building a medical and dental clinic for Greensboro's [NC]
    inner city

    - purchasing a $30,000 "Vision Van" for conducting glaucoma
    screening throughout the state

    - building 150 wheelchair ramps and other therapeutic devices

    - cleaning a portion of the Appalachian Trail in the snow

    - fingerprinting thousands of children

    - sponsoring "beep-ball" and Easter egg hunts for blind children

    - holding a fishing rodeo for the indigent and aged

    - conducting public health fairs in three malls

    - purchasing a $16,000 van for the food bank"

                -- Jeanna Baxter


[Captions accompanying article photographs (photographs deleted for
technical reasons - wts :-) ]

"Put together over 100 youngsters at an Easter egg hunt, and you're
bound to get some smiles.  Each year the Pioneers sponsor the hunt and
a pumpkin picking on the [AT&T] Guilford Center grounds for hearing
and visually impaired children from the Piedmont."

"With the help of law enforcement and community agencies, the Pioneers
have fingerprinted more than 32,000 children as part of their Child
Safe program."


William T. Sykes  AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies  Burlington, NC
UUCP: att!burl!wts  att!cbnewsl!wts  Phone: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Thanks very much for sending these items in. I do
agree that the Pioneers are a very worthwile organization, and
deserving of the publicity they can receive from the Digest. I'm glad
to share the news from your local chapter.  Are there others out there
with important activities going on?   PAT]

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

From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tones and Country Codes
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 10:02:08 GMT


I just received British Telecom's latest international phone guide. A
new feature in this is descriptions of the tones used in each country
for ringing and engaged. Having merged this with my country codes
list, I thought that readers might be interested.

A few notes:

  BT list two country codes I haven't seen before:
    905   Turkish Cyprus
    290   St. Helena

Six countries which are not directly diallable from the UK (and so no
country code is given) are not listed in the last table of country
codes I took from the Digest. Does anyone know their country codes ?

    Antarctica Australian Territory
    Chatham Islands
    Midway Island
    Pitcairn Islands
    Tristan da Cunha
    Wake Island

In v10i763, Jim Rees asks for the shortest world-wide unique number.
The guide gives the lengths of numbers for some countries. St. Helena
(290) has three digit numbers! Country codes 247, 674, 678, and 680
have four digit numbers.

Here is the up-to-date list. Lines beginning with # are comments.
Lines beginning with + are continuation lines, and repeat the code and
tone info.

# Tone codes (first is ring, second is engaged):
#  A: double ring, repeated regularly (UK ringing tone)
#  B: equal length on/off tones - about 1Hz (UK & USA engaged tone)
#  C: slow equal length on/off tones
#  D: fast equal length on/off tones - 2Hz to 3Hz
#  E: tones separated by long pauses (USA ringing tone)
#  F: long tones separated by short pauses

1            NANP (USA, Canada, and the Carribean)
+1  AB        Anguilla, Dominica, Grenada & Carriacou, Montserrat,
+1  AB        St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & Grenadines,
+1  AB        Virgin Islands (UK)
+1  CB        Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Puerto Rico,
+1  CB        Virgin Islands (US)
+1  EB        Barbados, Canada, Dominican Republic, Jamaica,
+1  EB        United States of America
+1  EF        Antigua & Barbuda
+1  FD        Turks and Caicos Islands

20  CF       Egypt
210          (reserved for Morocco)
211          (reserved for Morocco)
212 EB       Morocco
213 CB       Algeria
214          (reserved for Algeria)
215          (reserved for Algeria)
216 EB       Tunisia
217          (reserved for Tunisia)
218 CF       Libya
219          (reserved for Libya)
220 AB       The Gambia
221 CD       Senegal
222          Mauritania
223 CB       Mali
224 EC       Guinea
225 CD       Cote d'Ivoire
226 EB       Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
227 CF       Niger
228 CB       Togolese Republic
229 CB       Benin
230 AB       Mauritius
231 ED       Liberia
232 CB       Sierra Leone
233 ED       Ghana
234 CF       Nigeria
235 CB       Chad
236 EB       Central African Republic
237 EB       Cameroon
238 CD       Cape Verde
239 CB       Sao Tome and Principe
240          Equatorial Guinea
241 EB       Gabonese Republic
242 CD       Congo
243 CD       Zaire
244 CD       Angola
245 EC       Guinea-Bissau
246          Diego-Garcia
247 [EA]B    Ascension Island [4 digit numbers]
248 AB       Seychelles
249          Sudan
250 CB       Rwandese Republic
251 ED       Ethiopia
252 CB       Somalia
253 EB       Djibouti
254 AF       Kenya
255 AD       Tanzania including Zanzibar
256 [AC]E    Uganda
257 CB       Burundi
258 EB       Mozambique
259          (assigned to Zanzibar, but use 255 54)
260 EF       Zambia
261 CB       Madagascar
262 CB       Reunion (France)
263 AB       Zimbabwe
264 AB       Namibia
265 ED       Malawi
266 AD       Lesotho
267 AB       Botswana
268 AB       Swaziland
269          Mayotte Island (part of France) and Comoros
27  AB       South Africa
290 FB       St. Helena [3 figure numbers]
295 ED       San Marino (not used at present - 39 541 used)
296 AB       Trinidad and Tobago (not used at present - 1 809 used)
297 EB       Aruba
298 ED       Faroe Islands
299 ED       Greenland

30  ED       Greece
31  ED       Netherlands
32  CD       Belgium
33  CB       France (Metropolitan), Andorra (33 628), Monaco (33 93)
34  ED       Spain
350 AB       Gibraltar
351 EB       Portugal
352 ED       Luxembourg
353 AB       Eire (Irish Republic)
354 CD       Iceland
355          Albania
356 AB       Malta
357 AF       Cyprus
358 ED       Finland
359 ED       Bulgaria
36  FD       Hungary
37  ED       Federal Republic of Germany (Eastern Portion, former DDR)
38  E[BD]    Yugoslavia
39  ED       Italy, San Marino (39 541, see also 295), Vatican City (39 6 6982)

40  CB       Romania
41  EB       Switzerland, Liechtenstein (41 75)
42  ED       Czechoslovakia
43  ED       Austria
44  AB       United Kingdom
45  BD       Denmark
46  ED       Sweden
47  ED       Norway
48  EB       Poland
49  ED       Federal Republic of Germany (Western Portion)

500 EB       Falkland Islands
501 ED       Belize
502 CD       Guatemala
503 EB       El Salvador
504 CD       Honduras
505 EB       Nicaragua
506 EB       Costa Rica
507 EA       Panama
508 CB       St. Pierre et Miquelon (France)
509 [EF]B    Haiti
51  EB       Peru
52  ED       Mexico
53  CB       Cuba
54  EB       Argentina
55  EB       Brazil
56  AB       Chile
57  ED       Colombia
58  CD       Venezuela
590 CF       Guadeloupe (France), including St. Barthelemy and French side
+590CF        of St. Martin
591 EB       Bolivia
592 AB       Guyana
593 ED       Ecuador
594 ED       French Guiana
595 EB       Paraguay
596 CB       Martinique (part of France)
597 EB       Suriname
598 EB       Uruguay (East Republic)
599 EB       Netherlands Antilles (Sint Maarten, Saba, Statia, Curacao,
+599EB        Bonaire)

60  AB       Malaysia
61  AB       Australia
62  EB       Indonesia
63  EB       Philippines
64  AB       New Zealand
65  AB       Singapore
66  ED       Thailand
670 EB       Northern Mariana Islands (Saipan)
671 EB       Guam
672 AB       Australian External Territories (Norfolk Island, Christmas Island,
+672AB        Cocos I.)
673 AB       Brunei Darrusalm
674 EB       Nauru [4 digit numbers]
675 AB       Papua New Guinea
676 EB       Tonga
677 DB       Solomon Islands
678 ED       Vanuatu (New Hebrides) [4 digit numbers]
679 AF       Fiji Islands
680 EB       Palau [4 digit numbers]
681          Wallis and Futuna
682 AB       Cook Islands
683          Niue Island
684 EB       American Samoa
685 AB       Western Samoa
686 EB       Kiribati Republic (Gilbert Islands)
687 CB       New Caledonia
688          Tuvalu (Ellice Islands), Saipan
689 CB       French Polynesia
690          Tokelan (Tokelau ?)
691 EB       F.S. of Polynesia (Micronesia ?)
692 EB       Marshall Islands

7   EB       Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

81  EB       Japan
82  FB       Korea (Republic of) (South)
84           Viet Nam
850 ED       Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North)
852 AB       Hong Kong
853 EB       Macao
855          Kampuchea (Cambodia)
856          Laos
86  CB       China (866 assigned to Taiwan, but see also 886)
870          Reserved for Inmarsat
871          Inmarsat (Atlantic East)
872          Inmarsat (Pacific)
873          Inmarsat (Indian)
874          Inmarsat (Atlantic West)
875          Reserved for Inmarsat
876          Reserved for Inmarsat
877          Reserved for Inmarsat
878          Reserved for national mobile telephone purposes
879          Reserved for national mobile telephone purposes
880 AB       Bangladesh
886 EB       Taiwan (normally used, but not CCITT allocation - see 866)

90  EB       Turkey, Turkish Cyprus (90 5)
91  AB       India
92  [EA][BD] Pakistan
93           Afghanistan
94  AB       Sri Lanka
95  EB       Burma
960 AF       Maldives
961 CB       Lebanon
962 AB       Jordan
963 EB       Syrian Arab Republic
964 AB       Iraq
965 EB       Kuwait
966 EB       Saudi Arabia
967 EB       Yemen Arab Republic
968 FB       Oman
969 ED       Yemen Democratic Republic (united with Y.A.R. 967)
971 AB       United Arab Emirates
972 EB       Israel
973 AB       Bahrain
974 AB       Qatar
975 AC       Bhutan
976          Mongolia
977 CE       Nepal
98  ED       Iran


Clive D.W. Feather         | IXI Limited
[e-mail] [x, not ixi] | 62-74 Burleigh St.
 ...!uunet!ixi!clive       | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
Phone: [phone]     | United Kingdom

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

Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 01:29 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Michigan Bell: "For the time, dial 1-900 . . ."


Reports received from WWJ-AM radio tonight indicate that people
dialing the Michigan Bell operator to obtain the time were instructed
to dial a 900 number set up for the purpose.  The operators themselves
were instructed by Michigan Bell superiors to do this and apparently
had no choice in the matter.

Detroit-area callers can continue to get the time WITHOUT CHARGE by
dialing 472-1212.  For how much longer this is in effect remains to be
seen.


Sander J. Rabinowitz    | [e-mail] | [phone]
Farmington Hills, Mich. | --OR-- [e-mail] |       8-)

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 21:12 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: A CLASSless message


When dialling *60 from a phone without CLASS services in NJ Bell
territory, I get the curious message "We're sorry, your call cannot be
completed as dialled.  Please check your instruction manual or call
the business office for assistance."  Either * or # followed by two
digits seems to produce this message.


Steve Kass, Dept. of Math/CS, Drew U., Madison, NJ 07940 - [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #776
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11739;
          31 Oct 90 4:59 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16395;
          31 Oct 90 3:34 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32172;
          31 Oct 90 2:30 CST
Date:     Wed, 31 Oct 90 1:28:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #777
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 Oct 90 01:27:56 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 777

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Ancient ANI [John Cowan]
    Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It) [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Criss-Cross (was Telemarketers...) [Dave Levenson]
    Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [John R. Covert]
    Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Doug Faunt]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Paul Gauthier]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [John Higdon]
    Re: 800 Numbas [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Merlyn LeRoy]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Jim Youll]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ancient ANI
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 17:34:12 GMT


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

>Trivia department: We saw a few very long phone numbers on this list a
>few weeks back.  What's the shortest phone number (including country
>code) in the world?  What's the longest?  To qualify, it's got to be a
>world-wide unique number, diallable from anywhere ("0" doesn't count).

I am informed that the CCITT mandates that the longest legal phone
number is 12 digits long.  I am not sure whether this is meant to
include or exclude country code, so the longest legal phone number is
either 12 or 15 digits.  I doubt that any actual phone numbers exceed
12 digits today; the NANP, the U.K, and France (the only cases I have
at hand) are all 11 digits or less including country code.


[e-mail]        (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)


[Moderator's Note: But I think the original author was talking about
the total number of pulses when dialing with a rotary phone, as
opposed to simply how many digits had to be dialed in total.   PAT]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NJBell Hates Centrex (or Makes Me Hate It)
Date: 29 Oct 90 23:46:04 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brian Jay
Gould) writes:

> I have been trying to help a non-profit organization cope with the
> people at New Jersey Bell who don't give a s--- whether or not the
> Centrex service works for them.  It all started when it wasn't
> possible to disable call forwarding.  Several calls to NJ Bell over
> two weeks resulted in no action from NJ Bell.

  Well, I co-manage a 600-line chunk of Centrex for my employer (St.
Peter's College) in Jersey City, NJ. We have the option called CCRS
(Customer Con- trolled Rearrangement Service, or Completely Chaotic
Random Scrambling, as you prefer 8-). This is a dialup service that
lets you verify and/or change the service characteristics for each of
your Centrex lines. That's the good news - the bad news is that this
doesn't directly manipulate the switch data- base - it just generates
"requests" to change things. Thus, you can get out of sync with the
switch on occasion.

  On the few cases where that happens, I call the CCRS manager (_not_
repair service) and ask him to re-sync the switch with the database
during the next overnight.

  I have had one case where that didn't help - one bank of lines
wouldn't accept TT dialing, no matter what we did. Repair service
didn't want to hear about it - "You have to configure that in your
Centrex", etc. Finally I got them to run some tests on it - one
complete bank was mis-configured and would not respond to TT.

  In any event, if you have enough lines to justify it (or if you can
convince NJB to give it to you so you'll go away 8-), I'd suggest
getting the CCRS so you can manipulate this stuff yourself.


        Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
        [e-mail]     St. Peter's College, US
        [e-mail]    [phone]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Criss-Cross (was Telemarketers...)
Date: 31 Oct 90 04:25:39 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George Peavy) writes:

> I don't know how New England Telephone does it, but in the front of a
> Pacific Bell Directory, under the section marked "Doing Business with
> Us", it notes that in metropolitan areas, there is such a thing as a
> directory listing phone numbers by addresses for "people who may wish
> to reach you, but don't know your name".

> [Moderator's Note: They are just talking about a routine criss-cross
> directory. The ones from Donnelly Directory, by virtue of being part
> of the telco empire, only list what the alpha books list, in telephone
> number order. If you are otherwise non-pub, you won't be in those. The
> ones from Haynes, R.L. Polk, Dresser's and City Publishing Co. include
> everything they can find, and your request to them means nothing. They
> even include what non-pub numbers they can find from other sources.
> PAT]

In Santa Fe, NM, I noticed last week, Mountain Bell publishes the
standard white pages listing three times in the same volume: Once by
name (like every other white pages I've ever seen), once by address,
and once by telephone numer.  It makes the phone book for this city of
about 50,000 as big as some metro-suburban directories around here
which contain only the alphabetical listings!

Does any other telco publish these criss-cross listings in the
standard phone book that gets circulated to everybody?  Does Mountain
Bell (or US West) do this throughout their serving area?


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: Tue, 30 Oct 90 09:32:32 PST
From: "John R. Covert  30-Oct-1990 1229" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings?


I've been through this with NET and the Massachusetts DPU.

Residence listings must be simply "the name you go by" and optionally
your spouses name in addition.  So there should be no problem being
listed as either Christopher or Chris; your choice.  You can
optionally be listed as "Christopher & nn".

You can't do anything else in a residence listing, and the DPU will
back NET up on this.

Unless you have a reason for wanting the data line to be listed, you
can solve the problem of people getting the wrong number by requesting
that it be non-pub.  (Not unlisted -- the rep will hear non-listed,
which means D.A. has it but the printed directory doesn't.)

There is no charge for non-pub numbers which are additional lines at
the same address as your main number.


john


[Moderator's Note: John, isn't there an exception made by the DPU, (as
in most states) for the phrase 'TTY' in front of a phone number? TTY
of course implies a form of data service, but it is there not so much
to identify a line as handling data as it is to clue in callers that
the recipient is deaf.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 09:16:22 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings?


If you want to check out the Oakland CA 'phone book, you can see how I
did it.  Three lines, listed as Faunt Doug (that I answer), Faunt D
(has never gotten any calls, but there's an answering machine on it),
and Faunt Computer (my "middle name" :-)).

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

From: Paul Gauthier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date:     Tue, 30 Oct 1990 13:58:02 -0400


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul
Gauthier) writes:

>[Moderator's Note: What you say is all well and good, but *why* would
>a telco extend new dial tone by flashing the hook when there is no
>place to go with it? Surely not just for suspending call-waiting ...
>or is it just for that reason? What happens when you attempt to dial
>an actual number against that flashed-in dial tone rather than just
>dialing *70?  Does your new call go through or get denied?   PAT]

    When you attempt to dial you get a rapid busy signal type
tone.  Thus, the call is denied. Something else that's interesting is
that if I pick up the phone right now and receive a *real* dialtone I
can do a flash and obtain a secondary dialtone exactly like the one
described before.  This secondary dialtone is discernable from a
regular dialtone because when it begins you hear a 'triple dialtone'
kind of like someone flicking the sound on and off three times
quickly; then comes a normal sounding dialtone.

Trying to dial on this secondary dialtone, even if it is obtained
straight from a normal dialtone via flash, gets you the same rapid
busy signal. Also of interest is the fact that once you commence
dialing a number on your normal dialtone until you are connected
(actually have someone answer the other end) a flash terminates that
call, and does not simply offer you a secondary dialtone. No matter
how you obtain one of those secondary dialtones (whether from a
regular dialtone or in mid-call) another flash will return you to
where you came from (the regular dialtone or the other call). "*70",
as mentioned before disables call waiting in mid call and puts you
back through to your party.

    Hope someone finds this trivia interesting. I assume that as
well as performing call-waiting disabling from this secondary dialtone
you can initiate a 3-way call, or work with any of the other special
features offered (like call-forwarding) if you've paid for them (I
haven't, so I don't know much about them).


[e-mail]
tyrant@dalac

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Date: 30 Oct 90 21:06:24 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Oct 29 at 23:21, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: What you say is all well and good, but *why* would
> a telco extend new dial tone by flashing the hook when there is no
> place to go with it? Surely not just for suspending call-waiting ...
> or is it just for that reason? What happens when you attempt to dial
> an actual number against that flashed-in dial tone rather than just
> dialing *70?  Does your new call go through or get denied?   PAT]

If it had been Pac*Bell, it could have been something like this:

(From the Pac*Bell Slameroo Dept.)

A friend of mine who writes for a crackpot audio magazine moved a few
years back from Sunnyvale to Mountain View. We were talking and he got
call-waited. When he returned, he commented, "This is so confusing.
Call Waiting works differently here in Mt. View than it did in
Sunnyvale. It's much more complicated."

Bzzzt! What??? I inquired further. "In Sunnyvale, when I got a
call-wait, I simply flashed the hook and got the second call. Now, I
have to flash, get dial tone, then dial '*9'."

"What other features do you have?", I asked. "None."

So then I told him the bad news. He had been "upsold" into Commstar
(mini-Centrex). He didn't even realize that he had three-way calling,
which is intregal to Commstar. I told him that he was paying about 8
dollars too much and told him what to say to the rep.

If you flash during the call with Commstar (without being call-waited)
you will get second dial tone which can call the world.

BTW, the "Commstar Slam" was accomplished by implying to the customer
"that's the way it works now". The customer was led to believe that
Commstar was prerequisite to custom calling.


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

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Numbas
Date: 30 Oct 90 17:01:00 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


>[Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA offers no such package. What they offer
>are regular 800 numbers, from the block of same assigned to their
>company, which terminate on their switch in Iowa somewhere. The calls
>arriving there, DID-style (never a busy signal at that point, no

I wonder what percent of 800 numbers are DID type?

>matter how many people dial your 800 number at one time), are then
>outdialed to your regular number. It is all very transparent; the only

I assume MCI's version will do this also, so if you had lines in a
hunt group or with busy/noanswer forwarding then you would have
multi-800 lines.

>thing an experienced 800 user would notice is there is a slightly
>longer delay in getting the distant end to ring -- like maybe five
>seconds longer -- since the call has to go into Telecom*USA's switch

I can tell it seems like forever. I have one of their 800 #'s from ATC
(800-780-xxxx).  When you someone hangs up on the 800 number the line
still rings for a short period of time.

>and back out again. Maybe this is the program MCI reps have in mind
>and are trying to describe. They probably mean to say "you get a
>regular 800 number but no line appearance at your end; it terminates
>on your regular number."  PAT]

MCI reps where not trained properly on it. I had a question and asked
the 800 order dept to call me back on a 407-676 number which is one of
my home lines.  They called me back on my Ring Master number of that
line which is 407-952-xxxx. I asked how they got the other # and they
would admit to checking my existing MCI account ... (Thats the only
place they have it)

I wish MCI would offer the option of not haveing the four digit
security code on the number. Also they could offer remote programming
like C&W does.

I have lost the number to Calble and Wireless. Could someone send it to me?

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

From: "Brian Westley (Merlyn LeRoy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, St. Louis Park, MN
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 16:33:20 GMT


>try calling 1-202-653-1800 Sunday morning at 1:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> ... after the talking clock reaches 1:59:50 Eastern Daylight Time, it
>will tell you the time is 1:00:00 Eastern Standard Time ...

When they insert leap-seconds at the end of the year, does it state
the time as 11:59:50 ... 11:59:60 ... 12:00:00 ?

Just Wondering,

Merlyn LeRoy


[Moderator's Note: No they don't, but that is due to the message
length. They actually only give the time twice every fifteen seconds,
at ten and then five second intervals. The entire fifteen second
message goes like this:

(in the first nine seconds) "US Naval Observatory Master Clock: At the
tone, Eastern Standard (Daylight) Time, H hours, M minutes, S seconds."
Or the word 'exactly' in lieu of zero seconds.

Then a one second signal tone, followed by (in the next four seconds)
"Universal Time, H hours, M minutes, S seconds." In this rendition,
S has been incremented by 5. Another one second signal tone, then back
to the first message.

There isn't enough time to speak the entire message every five
seconds, let alone every second. On ocassions of adding a leap-second,
they simply stall the rendition for an additional second.   This
organization, the US NAVOSY, was responsible for setting all the
Western Union master clocks throughout the USA for a half-century. Ask
me about the Western Union Clock Service sometime. :)   PAT]

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

Date:  Mon, 29 Oct 90 19:19:46 -0500
From: Jim Youll <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I once had a nifty program which called NBS and synchronized my
computer's clock with theirs. My copy on disk broke a couple of years
ago, and I lost the spare which was in my library of diskettes.

Per your previous posting, I thought you might have a copy of this
program, or could tell me where to find it. It was accompanied by
some very interesting text about how the two computers negotiate their
connection, determine what the various delays are, and ultimately get
the two clocks (somewhat) in sync.

Thanks in advance,

Jim

PS: TELECOM Digest is great reading...


[Moderator's Note: Readers? Can anyone send Jim the program he wants,
or advise him which public directory he can ftp to get it?   PAT]

PS: I think so too! :) Thanks for writing.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #777
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12783;
          31 Oct 90 6:01 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19374;
          31 Oct 90 4:37 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16395;
          31 Oct 90 3:34 CST
Date:     Wed, 31 Oct 90 3:29:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #778
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 31 Oct 90 03:28:51 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 778

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM [Tim Oldham]
    Re: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Supervision? [Bill Higgins]
    Can I Get ISDN For my Home? [Ross Garrett Cutler]
    Cellular Daily Roaming urcharge $4.00 Per Day? [Brian Litzinger]
    MNP Drivers for MS-DOS [Joel Disini]
    T1 Interface Connector [Kent Hauser]
    LD to Hawaii [Steve Elias]
    New Prefixes in Maryland [Carl Moore]
    SLIP Wanted [David E. Martin]
    AT&T Modem Calls Succeed; Other Carriers Fail [Scott Barnes]
    Interlock For Two Phones [Tim Stradtman]
    FAX Paper Ordering [Jens von der Heide]
    IEEE Spectrum Article on 'Blue Boxes' [Eddy J. Gurney]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 05:20:26 GMT


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

>[Moderator's Note: Well, yours is the only instance I've heard of
>where one can flash and get dial tone without having three way calling
>installed. I think its great that they extend dial tone after flashing
>when the only apparent need (in your case) is to dial *70. I'm curious
>to know what happens if you try anything else with the interim dial
>tone you are given. Ever tried another call, for example?  What
>happens then?  PAT]

It seems that they did provide recall dialtone only to block
call-waiting.  If I try to transfer I receive re-order tone, if I try
to use any of the other DMS codes I receive re-order.  If I flash an
existing call and hang up it does not ring me back. (#$!?) :)


vance

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Oldham)
Subject: Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM
Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 14:09:58 GMT


In the UK, (BT) charges for directory inquires are to be brought in
next year. (Mercury, the only other carrier, has always charged, I
believe.)  This has lead to BT offering two alternative services for
inquiries; an dial-up on-line inquiries database, via modem (although
I'm not sure what speeds are to be offered; V.32 at best, I imagine)
and a CD-ROM + PC software solution.

With the former, you pay only for the call into the database, which is
at local rates. With the latter, I believe the charge will be c. 2200
pounds sterling per annum, which gives you quarterly releases of the
entire UK phone book on CD-ROM and suitable software for a PC. Data is
stored in encrypted form on the CD; reverse inquiries are "impossible".
(Read: not worthwhile in sensible compute time).

The only thing that puzzles me is exactly how you manage the logistics
of having a CD-ROM/PC solution. What do people see as a sensible way
of working? Switchboard having the PC and doing inquiries for you?
Surely a dedicated own-company inquiry service is OTT? And the trouble
with the dial-up solution is surely the sheer amount of time needed to
do a simple inquiry. Other solutions?

Of course, a networked inquiries server would be fine by me, but I'm
not at all sure that that's actually possible with the s/w being
offered.  Presumably it wouldn't make BT enough money to recoup the
development costs.

Disclaimer: while I work for BT, I have no connection with directory
inquiries or even the phone system in general. These are my opinions
and questions, not BT's.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Re: EMAIL Flood and Use Deprivation
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 08:09:03 GMT


I don't think that there's anything morally wrong about encouraging
people to write (electronically or physically) to the chairman of
AT&T.

That having been said, I should point out that corporate chief
executives have staffs of people to screen their mail. Vice-presidents
are more likely to read mail addressed to them.

So does anyone want to post the e-mail address of the AT&T
vice-president responsible for international long distance, and an MCI
regional vice-president or two?


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

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

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <unhd!unhtel![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 13:15:33 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 752, Message 7 of 10

>Answer supervision can be had, probably even by your PBX.  . . .

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

>>Do all schools with PBX's have these problems?

>>[Moderator's Note: Not all schools have that problem. Just the ones
>>which buy cheap equipment thinking they will save money.   PAT]

>I'm sure AT&T's switches can do most of the things an sl-1 can :)

Well, Pat, they keep telling us that our System 85 can't do it, but
that they would be glad to sell us a 5ESS....  ???

Our short call threshold is 0.9 min. domestic and 1.4 min. foreign,
(billing for 1 min. and over and 1.5 min. and over, respectively) so
customers get a pretty good free short call benefit.  I would much
rather have the answer supervision, though.


Paul S. Sawyer              [e-mail]      {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul
UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services    [e-mail]
Durham, NH  03824-3523      VOX: [phone]         FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 16:07 CDT
From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is "Supervision"?


I think many TELECOM Digest postings would become clear to me if I
just understood one jargon word.

What is meant by "supervision?"


Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Bitnet:     [e-mail]
Internet:  [e-mail]

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

From: Ross Garrett Cutler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Can I Get ISDN For my Home?
Reply-To: Ross Garrett Cutler <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 03:22:23 GMT


Hello,

    I just read an blurb in the Nov. Byte about an ISDN card for
PCs that sells for ~$1600.  Could someone please tell me where ISDN is
being used?  I didn't think it was being implemented.  Most
importantly, can I use it for my home to hook up to Internet (making
my modem obsolete)?  Thanks very much!

Please email -- I'll summarize.


Ross Cutler
University of Maryland, College Park
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Brian Litzinger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day?
Organization: APT Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 05:13:09 GMT


My cellular phone was parked in one spot for two days out of my
standard service area.  I made several calls each day, and I knew that
my phone was roaming.

I had heard about daily service charges of $2 per day in some areas.

I checked my roaming rate chart, and there was no daily roaming charge
in the area that I was in.

Well, the bill and apparently the truth has now arrived.  I don't so
much mind the $2.00 per day charge, but two $2.00 per day charges per
day?

I asked my celluar carrier about the $2.00 per day charge when my
chart said they were no per day charges in that area.  They responded
that I should have dialed *611 and gotten the information that was
accurate for the particular minute is was planning to dial during 8-).

Now what about the two $2.00 per day day charges?
In my bill they look like:

xxx-xxx-xxxx: ROAMER CALL: Sacramento, CA:  MCCAW CELLUALR COMM

  PLACE & NUMBER       DATE  TIME              OTHER   TAX  TOTAL
DAILY CHRG 001-29 -  Jul 29 12:00A              2.00   .02   2.02
 ...

xxx-xxx-xxxx: ROAMER CALL: Stockton, CA:  MCCAW CELLUALR COMM

  PLACE & NUMBER       DATE  TIME              OTHER   TAX  TOTAL
DAILY CHRG 002-33 -  Jul 29 12:00A              2.00   .02   2.02
 ...

My phone didn't budge an inch during that day. Also, about
half the calls I placed and was billed for failed to go through.

So what is the deal? Do I pay?

I can't wait till they have about 40 different services in the same
area so my roaming charge will be $80 a day! 8-)

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

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

Subject: MNP Drivers for MS-DOS
From: "Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT" <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Oct 90 11:15 GMT


Greetings,

Does anyone know of an MNP driver for MS-DOS that can be used w/
various telecomm apps (so that ordinary modems may connect with MNP
modems)?  I have seen MTE, an MNP Terminal Emulator by MagicSoft of
Lombard, IL [phone] but I would like to use some other terminal
emulators with heavier scripting functions (together with such an MNP
driver)...


Sincerely,
joel disini

Please cc: your responses please, as I am not on this list.

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

From: Kent Hauser <tfd![e-mail]>
Subject: T1 Interface Connector
Date: 30 Oct 90 17:09:00 GMT
Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC


What physical connectors are commonly used to connect T1 trunks
to devices which terminate many lines (like a DACS)?

I've looked in 47 CFR 68.500 & can't find anything.
The channel banks I've seen just have the big wire-wrap pins.

Is there something more modern/better?

Thanks.


Kent Hauser            UUCP: {uunet, sun!sundc}!tfd!kent
Twenty-First Designs        INET: [e-mail]
[phone]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: LD to Hawaii
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 12:44:17 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


I called Hawaii a couple o times last month on US Sprint.  don't know
if they have fiber to Hawaii, but the sound quality was great.  There
were no weird echo-cancelling noises, but I did notice that there was
a short time delay occuring, so perhaps a satellite link was involved.


; Steve Elias, [e-mail];  617 932 5598 (voicemail)
; 508 294 0101 (SCO Unix fax)
; 508 294 7556 (work phone)

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

Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 13:04:00 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Prefixes in Maryland


Area code 301:

996 (formerly serving area near Stewartstown, Pa.?) is now at Elkton.
This puts it two exchanges away from Newport, Delaware, which includes
302-996; but Elkton has no local service to Delaware, even though
Delaware is right next door.

Also, I just got a look at the new (Oct. 1990) Northeastern Maryland
call guide (Harford County edition), and find these prefixes I had not
seen before:  307 Towson;  316 Cockeysville, 569;  Edgewood.

Comments: Towson and Cockeysville are NORTHERN suburbs of Baltimore
(notice the N0X/N1X prefixes above); I know of no N0X/N1X prefixes in
Virginia beyond the DC calling area, and I am sure Maryland has
shorter supply of phone numbers than does area 703, which includes Va.
suburbs of DC.  569 is Edgewood (verified by checking with AT&T
operator and by dialing 569-xxxx from pay phone and having it treated
as local call); thus 569 has vanished from Severn.  569 at Severn was
a local call from 621,261,etc., but had to be dialed 1-301-569-xxxx
from those places because of 569 also being used at Springfield, Va.
(703 area); what becomes of subscribers who were on 301-569 at Severn?

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

Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 15:14:21 EST
From: David E Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: SLIP Wanted
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL


Does anyone know where I can ftp a copy of SLIP?  I would like to run
IP over a normal telephone line to share some license tokens.  Also,
does anyone have any experience hooking two Sun's together via TCP-IP
over regular phone lines?


David E. Martin     AT&T Bell Laboratories
200 Park Plaza, Rm 2B-514  Naperville, IL  60566  USA
phone: [phone]     ax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 19:19:17 EST
From: Scott Barnes <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Modem Calls Succeed; Other Carriers Fail


Over the past few months, I have been unable to place modem calls
using Least Cost Route (LCR) long distance on our Rolm CBX 9000 PBX.
The calls do complete, but the local and remote modems usually refuse
to handshake.

This probably sounds like a typical modem failure, but there is a
twist to the problem.  Explicit AT&T credit card modem calls are
successful, as are local calls.  I have duplicated this situation
several times using different modems.  The problem seems to lie
somewhere outside the Rolm system, but I have been unable to put my
finger on it.

Is is possible that one of the LCR carriers has an entire rack of
faulty equipment (i.e., distorting the frequency of the call)?  Would
the LCR trunks be distinct from AT&T and local trunks in the Rolm
system?  Any clues or assistance would be appreciated, as I would like
to know what I'm talking about before I report this problem.


Scott Barnes
University of Rochester
[e-mail]

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

From: Tim Stradtman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interlock For Two Phones
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 16:09:52 GMT


Recently there was an article referring to a simple gadget that would
interlock two phones so that only one could be in use at a time.  I
beleive it referenced an article in _Popular Electronics_.  However,
our library doesn't carry PE, and I couldn't get the article.  Can
anyone help me??


Thanks,

Tim Stradtman
[e-mail]  or  uunet!cwjcc!ncoast!tim  or  [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: motcid!oslo![e-mail]
From: Jens von der Heide <[e-mail]>
Subject: FAX Paper Ordering
Organization: Motorola Inc., Software Research and Development,
 Rolling Meadows, IL
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 18:18:35 GMT


    This is sort of a silly question, but, when sending documents
via FAX, should they be sent in order, or in reverse order (EG: First
page first VS First page last) ?

    Is this addressed in the CCITT standards ?


[e-mail]        Voice: [phone]
                 UUCP: uunet!motcid!jens


[Moderator's Note: I assume your thinking is when the paper falls out
of the machine into the collection tray on the other end they will
wind up in order with the first page on top if you send them
backwards.  PAT]

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

From: "Eddy J. Gurney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: IEEE Spectrum Article on 'Blue Boxes'
Organization: The Eccentricity Group - East Lansing Division
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 90 23:13:18 GMT


Since a few weeks ago (or was it a few months? :-) there was a
discussion about the Ramparts article on how to make your own "black
box", I thought everyone on the net might be interested to know that
in the latest issue of IEEE Spectrum (November, 1990), on pages
117-119, there's an interesting article entitled "The Great Blue Box
Phone Frauds", subtitled "Until the phone company separated signaling
information from the voice signal, long-distance calls could be made
without charge by anyone who could whistle at 2600 hertz."

It even has the illustration from the June 1972 "Ramparts" magazine,
showing how to constuct a "black box" to prevent the calling party
from being billed for the call.

There's also a list of about five or six other references at the end
of the article which sound interesting.

I'd type in the article, but it's a full three pages long. :-) If
someone with a scanner wants to do it, be my guest.  (I'm not sure
what the IEEE's policy on redistribution is, I couldn't find anything
in the TOC...)

For what it's worth,


         Eddy J. Gurney  N8FPW         THE ECCENTRICITY GROUP
[e-mail]    [e-mail]    [e-mail]
   (Preferred)        (If your mail bounces)     (If you HAVE to :-)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #778
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21574;
          1 Nov 90 18:51 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07634; 1 Nov 90 17:39 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17278;
          1 Nov 90 3:11 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26888;
          1 Nov 90 1:51 CST
Date:     Thu, 1 Nov 90 1:49:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #779
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Nov 90 01:49:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 779

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [David Lemson]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Benjamin Ellsworth]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [John Wheeler]
    Program to Call US Naval Observatory [David Dodell]
    Re: What is "Supervision"? [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: What is "Supervision"? [Tom Gray]
    Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed [Jeffri H. Frontz]
    Re: Tones and Country Codes [Spyros C. Bartsocas]
    Re: Anti-Slamming Regulations [Chris Johnson]
    Re: FAX Paper Ordering [Ernest H. Robl]
    Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [Dan Ross]
    Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1 [Martin Baines]
    Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1 [Bob Goudreau]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:16:23 CST
From: David Lemson <FREE0612@uiucvmd>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind


A few years ago I listened at midnight on December 31st (well, I guess
it was technically January 1st) to the National Bureau of Standards'
broadcast of radio station WWV so I could hear the leap second.  The
way they used to broadcast the time was "Fourteen hours, thirteen
minutes, Coordinated Universal Time ... BEEP" With a click each
second.  I counted the clicks, waiting for midnight.  What they did
was simply add an extra "click" for the leap second.

On hours and quarter hours, WWV offers "interesting" information
between the minute-beeps, such as sunspot pattern.  The minute after
the leap second was added, they gave a message about how the extra
second was added.  WWV is on several "shortwave" frequencies,
including 15.000 MHz, 10.000 MHz, and a few others I can't remember
right now.


David Lemson, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 16:35:14 pst
From: Benjamin Ellsworth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind


I call [phone] (a line to the Nat'l Bureau of Standards) for a
voice rendition of the NBS time.


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



[Moderator's Note: The only reason I do not often recommend this one
is because you only get the voice time announcement once a minute. On
the NAVOSBY system you can be on and off in about 15 secons or less.
On the NBS line, its conceivable you could be charged for a two minute
phone call if you happen to come in a couple seconds before the
minute. But their other announcements on the quarter hour are
worthwhile also sometimes.  PAT]

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

From: John Wheeler <infmx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Date:  1 Nov 90 00:43:14 GMT


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

>For a voice rendition:

>         1-202-653-1800   If you don't want to pay a premium
>         1-900-410-TIME   If you don't mind paying a little extra
>

Let us not forget the NIST WWV phone version at [phone].  If you
call at the top of the hour, you'll hear the complete station ID and
address info.


John Wheeler

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 18:54:45 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Program to Call US Naval Observatory


 From: Jim Youll <[e-mail]>

>I once had a nifty program which called NBS and synchronized my
>computer's clock with theirs. My copy on disk broke a couple of years
>ago, and I lost the spare which was in my library of diskettes.

I have a program used on Fidonet, that is called USNO.EXE ... I don't
know if it will run on a standalone machine without some of the
fidonet index files, but I have placed it on my host for ftp.

Connect to asuvax.eas.asu.edu
directory stjhmc
program: usno.exe
usno ?  gives directions.

Let me know if it works for you.  Also if it does work, I can try and fine
the whole program with docs so our moderator could put it in the TELECOM
Digest ftp site.


David

          St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix, Arizona
        uucp: {gatech, ames, rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
    Bitnet: ATW1H @ ASUACAD                    FidoNet=> 1:114/15
    Internet: [e-mail]       FAX: [phone]

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is "Supervision"?
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 14:50:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>I think many TELECOM Digest postings would become clear to me if I
>just understood one jargon word.

>What is meant by "supervision?"

Supervision in it's simplest terms is any control signal that
indicates whether your phone is on hook or off hook.

When you go off hook the line switcher see's that there is now current
on your loop (off hook supervison) ... You dial your friend in Alaska
and your toll switch needs to know when the distant end is off hook...
That used to be done with a 2600 Hertz tone on the circuit, but now it
is sent via a data circuit that is entirely separate from the circuit
you talk on.

Technically any control signal that indicates the status of one part
of a circuit, or piece of equipment, to another is a supervisory
signal.  But what everyone is always refering to is hookswitch
supervison.



Floyd L. Davidson   [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Salcha, AK 99714    connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc.
When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is "Supervision"?
Date: 31 Oct 90 16:09:58 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!smithd![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

>I think many TELECOM Digest postings would become clear to me if I
>just understood one jargon word.

>What is meant by "supervision?"

Control information is sent two ways on a telephone loop.  Outgoing
(ie from telephone to CO/PBX or the originating side of a trunk), its
called signalling. Incoming (ie from CO/PBX to telephone or the
terminating side of a trunk its called SUPERVISION. There is a special
type of supervision called answer supervision, which indocates that
the called end has answered and the call is completed and later that
the called end has released.

Hope this helps - forward and back - siganlling and supervision.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:23:43 EST
From: Jeffri H Frontz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed
Organization: Jeff's Telephone & Telegraph, Columbus, Ohio


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George S
Thurman) writes:

> Could some of you Telecom Experts out there tell me (in simple terms)
> the difference between SS7 and CCIS.

Well, here in CNI (Common Network Interface -- we do the signaling
portion of all US versions and some international versions of AT&T's
switches, STPs and NCPs), we use SS7 and CCS7 interchangeably to refer
to the North American adaptation of the CCITT Signaling System #7
(commonly referred to around here as CCITT7).

CCIS is usually used to refer to CCS6 or to CCS6 traffic transported
via CCS7 (actually, ECIS, Embedded Common channel Interoffice
Signaling, is a more appropriate term for the latter).


Jeff Frontz                  Work:  [phone]
AT&T-Bell Labs (CB 1C-356)   Cornet:       353-2797
att!jeff.frontz              [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:53:43 -0500
From: "Spyros C. Bartsocas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:Tones and Country Codes


>  BT list two country codes I haven't seen before:
>    905   Turkish Cyprus

This is not a country code.  There is no such country as Turkish
Cyprus.  I assume BT refers to the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus
(Cyprus has country code of 357).  Country code 90 is Turkey, they are
just advertising (for political reasons) how to reach a certain area
of the teritory they control.


Spyros Bartsocas
[e-mail]

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Slamming Regulations
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 20:04:57 GMT


Does anyone have an address, or a contact where I could get the
address, of someone at AT&T who might be interested in seeing evidence
of repeated slamming of its customers by MCI?  I thought I read in the
news that AT&T was suing MCI for that specific reason in court.

MCI has slammed me twice, the second time against my specific
instructions to leave my service exactly as it was and not to touch or
change anything.  I'm writing to the FCC and others about it, but I
thought AT&T might be interested since it's they who have lost revenue
from a paying customer (me) in both cases.


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

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

From: "Ernest H. Robl" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FAX Paper Ordering
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 21:03:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jens von der
Heide) writes:

>     This is sort of a silly question, but, when sending documents
> via FAX, should they be sent in order, or in reverse order (EG: First
> page first VS First page last) ?

>     Is this addressed in the CCITT standards ?

I don't know about standards, but there are a couple of things to
consider:

(1) Some cheap FAX machines -- like mine at home -- do not provide
automatic paper cutting.  Instead the machine simply prints a line
between pages.  Pages are printed continuously in the order received.

(2)  Some fax machines (most?) automatically print a page number at
the top of each page.  I'm not sure whether this is done on the
sending or receiving end.

Based on the above considerations, I would ALWAYS load the paper in
such a way that the first page is sent first and the last page last.
(Some machines want pages loaded face up, or face down, and they may
feed off the top or bottom of the stack.  You mileage may vary :-)

For machines which cut pages and stack them in reverse order, sorting
should be a trivial task.


Ernest

"My other computer is a Nikon N8008." -- Ernest H. Robl
Ernest H. Robl (ehr@ecsvax)  Durham, NC, USA  [phone]

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

From: Dan Ross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell
Date: 31 Oct 90 21:13:58 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eddy J. Gurney)
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 763, Message 2 of 10

>In article <[e-mail]> I ([e-mail]) write:

>Future Change in Local Usage Service
>>[elimination of all residential local call plans; replacement with
>>"Volume Discount Plan," with sliding scaled prices on calls...]

>I like unlimited local calling.  I'd rather pay for touch tone and
>still have that option available than get touch tone for free and have
>to pay for all the local calls my computer makes.

>         Eddy J. Gurney  N8FPW         THE ECCENTRICITY GROUP

I don't know that the tariff was trading unlimited calling for
touch-tone.  Even if it was, unlimited calling puts a load on the
local phone network (if taken advantage of), contrasted with
touch-tone which costs the phone company nothing (at this point).  I
was getting pretty tired of waiting for my push- button phone to
complete the dialling sequence, but didn't see why the phone company
should charge for touch-tone when the equipment had been already put
in place.


Dan Ross    [e-mail]

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

From: Martin Baines - Sun UK - Technical Account Executive Cambridge <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1
Date: 31 Oct 90 12:47:15 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd



|> >TELEPHONE SERVICES:  A GROWING FORM OF `FOREIGN AID'

|> >in minutes -- meaning American phone companies have to pay fees for
|> >the surplus calls.  The F.C.C. is concerned that foreign companies are
|> >demanding much more money than is justified, given the steeply falling
|> >costs of providing service, and proposes to limit unilaterally the
|> >payments American carriers make.

|> Would someone care to tell us how they might enforce this?  Americans
|> are much more dependent on international phone calls for their
|> international business; Europeans and I suspect residents of other
|> countries are much more likely to use correspondence and/or TELEX than
|> intercontinental phone calls.

Come again? Exports from the US account for about 10% GDP, for the UK
and Germany this figure is nearer 50%, so why should we us the phone
less?

|> So if the FCC limits how much AT&T can pay the German TELEKOM or the
|> Austrian PTT, etc., and as a result these foreign phone companies
|> simply suspend telephone service to the US, it would primarily affect
|> U.S. businesses.

It's worse than you think, all of the fixed cables across the atlantic
terminate either in the UK (most of them) or France, so it only takes
3 companies to pull the plug (BT, France Telecom, Mercury) and the US
is limited to satellite only comms to the rest of Europe.

|> I am not justifying the high rates charged in many places for phone
|> service, I have to bear them myself, but the idea that the FCC can
|> dictate to foreign phone companies how much they can charge for access
|> to their networks is laughable. The mere thought is enough to bring
|> forth the national pride of the bureaucrats running these phone
|> companies, to resist any American attempt at interfering in their rate
|> structures. Why should a European phone company be concerned with the
|> effects on the American trade deficit of competition among U.S.
|> carriers? Every call originating in the US instead of Europe is a loss
|> of revenue to them, so why should they not try to recover that revenue
|> by charging the U.S. carrier who lured away their customer by his
|> lower rates?

This sort of action cause MAJOR politcal storms in the world outside
the US: it's similar to when 3rd world countries unilaterally
stoped paying their debts - the US banks sisn't like it one bit!

|> Mind you, it is a different matter if AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc., told
|> the foreign phone companies that they consider the rates too high,
|> they are their business partners; but a U.S. government agency like
|> the FCC is out of order when it tries to dictate foreign companies'
|> prices.

Quite agree, business is business, politics is politics lets
TRY and avoid mixing the two!


Martin Baines
Technical Account Wallah
Sun Microsystems Ltd
Cambridge
UK

UK:            0223 420421              JANET:     [e-mail]
International: [phone]           Other UK:  [e-mail]
                                        Internet:  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 17:15:37 gmt
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom in the News, Part 1

In article <[e-mail]>, iiasa![e-mail] (wolf paul) writes:

> Mind you, it is a different matter if AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc., told
> the foreign phone companies that they consider the rates too high,
> they are their business partners; but a U.S. government agency like
> the FCC is out of order when it tries to dictate foreign companies'
> prices.

Given that most of the "foreign companies" are really just arms of
their respective governments (granted, some are closer-held than
others), why is it a surprise that the various US long distance
companies are forced to rely on the US government in order to deal
effectively with European PTTs?

One could just as well ask why (say) American Airlines must seek
approval from the French government for its Paris<-->US fares.
(Answer:  because the French government is trying to protect Air
France from competition.)


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation
62 Alexander Drive            [e-mail]
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709    ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
USA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #779
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28114;
          2 Nov 90 0:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01985;
          1 Nov 90 22:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09683;
          1 Nov 90 21:25 CST
Date:     Thu, 1 Nov 90 21:10:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #780
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Nov 90 21:10:23 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 780

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [Craig R. Watkins]
    Info Needed About Email in Japan [Jim Hickstein]
    Building an Acoustic Coupler [Ted Goldstein]
    Armenia to Get Alternative International Gateway [Dan Ross]
    DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Steve Willoughby]
    Area 908 Now in a Directory [Carl Moore]
    Suppressing Caller ID in D.C. Area [Carl Moore]
    HELP - INTERNET Access in Canada Needed [Scott T. Grant]
    Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier? [Mike Olson]
    ATT ISDN Set Question [Roger Clark Swann]
    Zone Maps are Desirable (was Criss-Cross) [Laird P. Broadfield]
    Name and Address Bureau [Tom Ace]
    John Higdon Said the Same Thing :-} [David Lesher]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed
Date: 30 Oct 90 13:11:19 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


Dave, a friend of mine, has a primary number XYB-5600.  The local
Sears' published number is XYB-2451.  However, Sears recently moved a
few doors down in the mall and installed a new Rolm PBX and switched
their phone number to XYA-5600 (I suspect the number switch was to
move them from the old ESS to a DMS switch).

When people call the old published Sears number, XYB-2451, they get an
intercept: "The number you have reached, XYB-2451 has been
disconnected; calls are being taken by XYA-5600..."  The problem is
that two or three people per day match the old exchange and the new
number and dial XYB-5600 and get Dave.

The problems that have been echoed on this list before apply here.
It's no problem to answer the phone and tell people what number they
really wanted unless you are sleeping/showering/busy/etc. or if the
people don't catch on and continue to call you back, or they want to
argue with you about what you are telling them.  We also really wonder
about the people that leave messages for Sears on a machine that
starts out "Hi, Dave and Dan aren't available...."

This has been going on for months and we are hoping it will let up in
February when the new directory comes out.  We realize that this isn't
Bell's fault and this isn't Sears' fault.  We're looking for a cheap
creative solution to hold Dave over till February (or later).  We've
not made any "official" request from anyone at Bell yet -- we know
that when you call asking Bell for things, you better already know
what you want from them in advance.  The usual Bell response is often
"We'll be VERY nice and change the number for free."  Of course that
doesn't work here as Dave will no longer get phone calls from anyone
that knows his number.  If Bell puts an intercept on XYB-5600 with the
new number, we suspect the Sears calls will simply follow him to his
new number.

The best solution we've come up with so far is to ask Bell (in
conjunction with Sears) to change the number given out on the
intercept to some other number in their hunt (eg XYA-5601 -- we
haven't checked this number).  This assumes something like XYB-5601
isn't in use or the problems will simply move to someone else.  We are
concerned that someone at Bell or Sears will conceive of some problem
with this (eg people may "write down" this temporary 5601 number and
use it forever and there might be some problem with that).

Any other ideas?


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

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

From: Jim Hickstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Email in Japan?
Date: 31 Oct 90 12:07:37 GMT
Organization: Teradyne, Inc. San Jose CA


Knowing the Moderator's feelings about extending electronic mail to
the masses, I thought this would be an appropriate place to ask: What
is available along these lines to my mother, who is a missionary in
Japan?  She is in a rural town about 100 miles north of Tokyo, but she
uses a computer every single day, and can type even faster than I do.
So, I figured the hard part is done. :-)

Furthermore, my employer's wide-area network has an appearance (?) in
Tokyo; a handful of Suns and VAXen with which I trade email traffic
and files routinely.  How do you get from a farm in Nishinasuno to
Teradyne in Tokyo?  Unfortunately, when asked about their local
connections, hoping to hear of UUCP hops to major Japanese companies
which are our customers, I heard a heart-rending tale of mail to a
friend at Sony going back through Boston and LA to arrive, several
hours later, 10 miles away on the other side of town.  How can I help
our Tokyo office to get better connected locally?  What kind of
standards are prevalent in Japan?  (Bell 212A?  V.22bis?  V.32?  PEP,
even? (I hope, I hope)) What about local loops away out in the sticks?
Are they obtainable?  Are they usable?  (This is why I want to use
PEP.)  What about commercial services such as the
much-talked-about-in-here-lately ATT-Mail and MCI-Mail?  Do they make
this easy?  Cheap?  What's availble for free?

What about third-party traffic on Amateur packet radio?  I mean, she's
out in the country, but this shouldn't be necessary.  When I call her
on the phone, we obviously are getting a fully digital channel on what
I assume is the latest cable (TAT-8?) that lands in Sacramento on my
end.  It's not like she has a wet party line between her and the toll
center that handles *those* calls: they sound better than most of the
calls I make to Minnesota!  (I love this business.)

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

From: Ted Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Building an Acoustic Coupler
Date: 31 Oct 90 19:03:38 GMT
Organization: Purdue University


Hello all,

     I am trying to build an external acoustic coupler for a direct
connect modem so it can be used with a foriegn phone system and I need
some phone gurus to tell me if my idea is possible or not.  Basically
my setup is as follows:
                                      _____ _____
                                      |   | |   |----------\ To phone line
                                      | __| |__ |----------/
                                      | |     | |
 ________      ________               | |     | |
 |      |      |      |               | |__ __| |
 | PC   | - - -|Modem |---------------|   | |   |
 |      |      |      |----   --------| A | | B |
 --------      --------   |   |       ----- -----
                           +9V        Two phones taped
                                      mic to speaker.

The idea is that the tones the modem puts out are converted to
acoustic by american phone 'A' and then converted back into phone line
signals by foriegn phone 'B'. The end goal is to use an American modem
in France.

I have tried this setup, and the modem does hear the dial tone, and
will attempt dialling, but can't hear the carrier from the answering
modem.

I am using el'cheapo (tm) phones for my tests, maybe they are
distorting the tones(?). Before I try again with better phones, I was
wondering if my theory is sound (no pun intended). Should this work?

I have also heard such a commercial device exists to accomplish this
task.  Any leads on this would also be welcome.

Any information, thoughts, ideas or product leads would be greatly
appreciated!


Ted Goldstein                            E-mail: [e-mail]
Network and Systems Admninistrator       Phone : [phone]
Purdue University School of Technology   Office: Knoy Hall, Rm G009

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 15:47:25 -0600
From: Dan Ross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Armenia to Get Alternative International Gateway


Pinched from _Network_World_, Oct. 29, 1990, "Briefs", p. 2:

               Armenia to be Gateway to East.
               ==============================

AT&T last week announced plans to ship a 5ESS central office switch
and satellite earth station to Soviet Armenia.  The equipment will be
used by the republic's telephone agency as an international gateway
for communications to the U.S., providing an alternative to routing
traffic through Moscow, which is currently the only international
gateway in the Soviet Union.  An AT&T spokesman said Armenia is the
only republic that has permission to operate its telephone net
independent of the central government.


Dan Ross            [e-mail]

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

From: Steve Willoughby <aardvark![e-mail]>
Subject: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics)
Date: 31 Oct 90 06:01:01 GMT
Reply-To: Steve Willoughby <aardvark![e-mail]>
Organization: Steve's Unix System, Portland, Oregon


I'm playing around with building a circuit that will, among other
things, (try to) recognize DTMF tones played into it.  An example
application of this would be to make your own voice-mail system (the
circuit would look for DTMF keypad keys pressed on the incoming line
and signal a CPU to do something, like play or record a message.)

The problem is that I can't seem to find any references to
DTMF-decoder chips or schematics of discrete-component circuits to do
this function.  Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks in advance,


Steve Willoughby N7PFJ
[e-mail]
(sun.com!nosun!tessi
     !aardvark!steve)

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 10:37:56 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area 908 Now in a Directory


July 1990 Monmouth area directory in New Jersey is now printed with
area code 908 references.  There is a map showing the NJ area codes,
including 908.  The prefix lists still have the "bullet" at the left
of those prefixes used in both (current) 201 and 609, but there is no
more footnote to go with this; instead there is a note about the list
for 908 saying "Designation assigned in 201, 609 or 908 areas" (I
think this is ambiguous).

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 10:39:04 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Suppressing Caller ID in D.C. Area


{Washington Post} index shows, for page 1 in section C on July 31,
1990 (my paraphrasing):

DC-area callers who do not want phone number known via caller ID will
have to make calls thru operator at cost of 45 cents.

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 11:03:12 EST
From: Scott T Grant <[e-mail]>
Subject: HELP - INTERNET Access in Canada Needed
Organization: Society of Anti-Heroes


     I have a friend in Nova Scotia, Canada (Halifax), who is in
desperate need of an account to use INTERNET mail (USENET wouldn't
hurt, either :-). Is there anyone out there who knows of *any* system,
of *any* kind in, or around, Halifax, that has direct INTERNET mail
access? It doesn't matter whether it is a public access UNIX system,
BITNET, etc. If not, is there perhaps, then, some kind System
Administrator out there who could provide her with an account for a
few months? *Any* help would be sincerely appreciated, including any
alternatives anyone might have. Please respond via E-MAIL, I don't
want to waste any bandwith with this.


Thanks in advance,


Raven

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are my own and no one else's.

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

From: Mike Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier?
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 09:22:34 PST


I heard an amusing anecdote at lunch the other day from the principal,
who'll remain nameless since it doesn't matter very much...

A well-known Unix researcher here at UC Berkeley recently switched
from AT&T to MCI.  He got a telephone call from AT&T telemarketing
types soon afterwards.  They wanted to know why he had switched.  His
answer: "You charge too much for Unix."

Who knows ... If everyone who switches carriers tells them that, we
may drop the price within the reach of individuals.


Mike Olson, UC Berkeley, [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 14:11:06 pst
From: Roger Clark Swann <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATT ISDN Set Question


Here at the Big 'B' most all of the secretarial stations are equipped
with an ATT ISDN 7505 set. That's the one with the multifuction
display. Behind these sets are 5ESS switches, everything being
purchased from and integrated by ATT.  One of the functions of the
display on the 7505 is a clock/calendar. The recent change from
daylight time back to standard time brings the following question:

  Why isn't the clock display in the station set slaved off the real
  time clock on the switch (5ESS) such that the stations are updated
  at least once every 24 hours?

These sets are powered from the local 120V outlet through a transformer
and when there is a power outage, the local clock/calendar gets
trashed, the result being that someone must set the clock manually at
each station. I would like to see a *clock sync* data packet sent out
over the ISDN interface to each station that would set the local clock
at regular intervals. Perhaps someone would comment on this.


Roger Swann        uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark

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

From: "Laird P. Broadfield" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Zone Maps Are Desirable (was Criss-Cross)
Date: 31 Oct 90 18:07:39 GMT


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

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (George Peavy) writes:

>  [assorted discussions of criss-cross, Polk, etc. directories deleted]

Along the same lines, I've traveled to a couple of cities (I _think_
St.  Louis, MO was one) where the telephone book included a one-page
reference that translated the centrex number to a city map (i.e. you
want to know what part of the city 234-xxxx is in, so you look in the
table, and it says "234 ... area 17" so you look at the map, and
there's a little squiggly shape with 17 marked in it.)

This is something that I have often wanted (yes, we all get a feel for
this in our hometowns after long enough, but a definitive reference
would be nice.)  Is there any particular reason most (assumption)
telcos don't publish one of these?  Is this one of those things (like
so many telco things) that if I just knew the right name for it I
could ask my account rep for one and she'd hand it to me?


Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell prints lists of all exchanges in the
312/708 area codes, along with prefixes in 815/219/414 within this
LATA in their phone directories, with a reference to where it is in
the city, or which suburb handles it.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 29 Oct 90 10:10:47 PST
From: Tom Ace <[e-mail]>
Subject: Name and Address Bureau


Our Moderator writes:

>...a cross check
>with the Name and Address Bureau showed the owner of 312-228-xxxx as
>the 'IBT Co', no address listed, Hickory Hills, IL.

Patrick, did you go through telco people, or call their number
directly?  TAP had published a nationwide list of CNA bureau numbers
back around 1981, but those haven't been valid for a long time now.
If you have the current number(s), how did you get it (them)?  Just
curious, of course.  :-)


Tom Ace

{sun,pyramid}!hoptoad!lever!ace
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell sells their CNA service to the
public, with pleasure. Just 35 cents per call gets you two listings.
If the number is non-pub, they will say so. If there is no record of
the number, that's tough. You pay anyway. The lookups take about ten
seconds each. After two, the clerk disconnects you. When the clerk
answers 'Name and Address, area and number?' just say the area
312/708 and the seven digit number.  Have a pencil and paper handy;
they do not like to repeat themselves.  They'll give you the name and
address.  From 312/708: dial only the seven digits, 796-9600. From
elsewhere: 312-796-9600.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 20:11:04 -0500
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: John Higdon Said the Same Thing :-}
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


{Discussion lifted from rec.arts.movies about goofs in DieHard II}

M>They are supposedly in Dulles Intnl Airport -
M>Washington DC. The phone has a "Pacific Bell" label on it!

J>Well, that was a bit funny, but I thought about it afterwards.
J>I don't think Pacific Bell is a real company, but I could be wrong.

I'm not so sure, after listening to John's stories....

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #780
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29114;
          2 Nov 90 1:12 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28600;
          1 Nov 90 23:34 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01985;
          1 Nov 90 22:31 CST
Date:     Thu, 1 Nov 90 22:15:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #781
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Nov 90 22:15:23 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 781

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Protecting Your PBX From Illegal Access [Comm. Fraud Control Association]
    AT&T Language Line Services [Jeffrey Jonas]
    NNX Shortage in Maryland [Carl Moore]
    Bell of PA Automated DA Becomes Friendlier [Scott D. Green]
    Phone Survey in Penn Station NYC [Michael L. Ardai]
    More MCI Residential 800 Woes [Joe Konstan]
    Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities [Charles Bryant]
    Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy [Robert Jackson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 17:37 GMT
From: CTC Wang Labs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Protecting Your PBX From Illegal Access


[Pat: I think your subscribers might find the following interesting. dab]

  - - - - - - -

  Date:     Thu Aug 16, 1990  9:26 pm  GMT
  From:     Communications Fraud Control Association / MCI ID: 338-0396
  Subject:  PBX Security Brochure


             Protecting Your PBX From Illegal Access
             =======================================

     As an owner of a private branch exchange (or PBX) you've invested
quite a lot of money into a remarkable piece of equipment that greatly
enhances your company's communications capabilities. A so-called smart
device, this sophisticated switch usually has a number of useful
features such as remote access and voice store-and-forward systems, or
voice mail.

     The problem is, criminals are finding it easier than ever to
access these helpful features, blocking out legitimate users.  This is
mainly because many end-users are not taking advantage of new
protective technologies that are now available.

     You may be a victim of this industry-wide problem and not even
know it. Last year, a Midwestern manufacturer lost $25,000 when
someone accessed its PBX for a short time to make unauthorized long
distance calls.

     One favorite PBX pathway to free long distance calls is the
remote access unit, which allows callers to access the switch from a
phone outside the company and obtain a dial tone.

     The abuse is hitting end-users at all levels. Over a two- month
period in 1988, employees at a large city agency rigged a phone system
in a scam that cost taxpayers over $700,000 for unauthorized phone
calls. Workers tampered with the organization's PBX to allow callers
from public payphones to dial a special access number that gave them
an outside line to anywhere in the world.

     In another case, intruders left instructions on computer bulletin
board systems detailing how to access conference bridges, call
diverters and remote access units.

     Abusers can include current and former employees, summer interns
and technicians as well as hackers, street hustlers and other thieves
of telecommunications services.  And unfortunately, many companies
simply forget to take out the easy-to-break authorization test codes
that are installed before a PBX is placed in service.


                      Establish Strict Defenses
                      =========================

1.   Assign authorization codes randomly on a need-to-have basis,
     and limit the number of calls using these codes. Never match
     codes with company telephone, station or badge numbers.

2.   Instruct employees to safeguard their authorization codes,
     which should be assigned individually, not printed in
     billing records. And the codes should be changed frequently,
     and canceled when employees depart.

3.   Remote access trunks should be limited to domestic calling
     and shut down when not in use.

4.   Use the time-of-day PBX option.

5.   Use a system-wide barrier code, followed by an authorization
     code with the most digits your PBX can handle.

6.   Use a nonpublished number for remote access lines.

7.   Use a delayed electronic call response (the same as letting
     your phone ring four or five times before answering).

8.   Try hacking your own system to find weaknesses, then correct
     them.


               Implementing Effective Controls
               ===============================

1.   Know the safeguards on your PBX.

2.   Develop an action plan that provides adequate staffing to
     direct specific defensive procedures.

3.   Monitor billing, call details and traffic for unusual
     patterns and busy lines during off-peak hours, such as late
     at night.

4.   Inform PBX console attendants, night security officers and
     remote access users of the need to secure equipment and what
     to do if they suspect an intrusion.

5.   Ask your PBX vendor/supplier what inherent defenses could be
     used to make your PBX more difficult to penetrate.

6.   Monitor valid and invalid call attempts as often as
     possible.

7.   Look for attempted calls of short duration that usually
     indicate hacking activity.

8.   Know who is on the other end of the line before giving out
     any information.

9.   Learn whom to contact at your local and long distance
     service providers when you have a security problem.


                            Glossary
                            ========

Access number:  Preliminary digits that must be dialed to connect
to an outgoing line.

Authorization code: Unique multidigit code identifying an authorized
subscriber that must be validated for a call to be processed.

Barrier code: A number of digits that, when dialed before an
authorization code, allow dial entry to a PBX.

Bulletin board system:  Computer-based message system.

Call detail recording: A PBX feature that logs outgoing and incoming
calls.

Conference bridge: Allows several parties to carry on a conversation
(Conference Call) from remote sites.

End-user: Subscriber that uses, rather than provides, telecommunications
services.

PBX, or private branch exchange A private switch, either automatic or
manually operated, serving extensions in a business complex and
providing access to the public switched network.

Remote access: A feature that allows an employee to access a PBX from
a remote site and charge calls to the caller's company.

Smart device:  A computer-based system that carries out complex functions.

Switch: A mechanical or solid state device that opens or closes
circuits, changes operating parameters, or selects paths or circuits,
either on a space or time division basis.

Time-of-day option: An added restriction to the automatic route
selection or least-cost options, it can be preset to block long
distance calls at certain hours.

Trunk: A communications channel between different switching systems or
between a PBX and a central office.

Voice mail: or voice store-and-forward systems: A voice message system
that allows messages to be played back when the addressee returns.


          Since 1985, CFCA has served as the industry's
          clearinghouse for information pertaining to
          the fraudulent use of telecommunications
          services. To learn more about PBX system
          security, call [phone], or write:

      The Communications Fraud Control Association
           7921 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 300
               McLean, VA  22102

          eMail address:  < [e-mail] >


A short footnote:

    If you even >think< you have a problem with PBX Fraud, contact:

  1.  Your PBX Switching System Vendor

  2.  Your 'Local Exchange Carrier' ( Your local telephone company) and

  3.  Your 'Inter-Exchange Carrier' ( Your long-distance telephone company)

    If finding the >right person< gets to be a problem, contact the
Communications Fraud Control Association (CFCA) at the above address
or telephone them at [phone].


dab

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 04:32:36 -0500
From: synsys![e-mail]
Subject: AT&T Language Line Services


More news from the AT&T newsline +1 800 2ATT NOW

The AT&T Language Line Services is now available to consumers (it used
to be for police, hospital and emergency use only).  They will
translate on line to "virtually any language and dialect", and even
translate printed material.  On line costs .50 per minute (10 per
hour!), billed to any major credit card (Visa, Mastercard, American
Express).

in the USA: [phone]
information: [phone]
outside of the USA: either call USA direct and ask for AT&T Language
     Line Service orr call [phone]

I'm posting this because there may be some occasion a telecom reader
may want to contact somebody in a language they don't speak.  If you
don't know to ask for this service, you won't know what to do!

The same for my previous postings about the TDD relay service.
There's no reason NOT to contact someone because they're deaf or don't
speak the same language.  (what about a deaf person who understands
only a foreign language - will the relay service and translation
cooperate?  Is the translation service equipped and trained to use
TDD/e-mail/telex?)  I dunno - I'm just acting as a messenger!

I don't work for AT&T.  I just observe the industry and try to
understand the technology.  It's nice to see that AT&T is providing
services that really let you "reach out and touch someone" regardless
of location, language, hearing or speaking ability.  Perhaps they're
understanding that there's more to a phone call than just providing an
audio path.


Jeffrey Jonas        [e-mail]    synsys![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Maybe this is also the reason some of us insist on
staying with AT&T as our long distance carrier: If you want quality
and extra service, you pay a little more. It is worth every nickle!
And of course as time goes on, we are finding out AT&T really isn't
that much more, considering the services they offer.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 11:20:35 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: NNX Shortage in Maryland


I went to the library at Elkton, Maryland, and looked through call
guides for other parts of Maryland.  When I was done, I listed only 17
unused NNX prefixes in Maryland (area 301 for entire state), and these
include 950 (carrier access) and 958 (phone-co. usage?).  As a result,
I saw N0X/N1X prefixes appearing in Maryland further away from DC than
I have ever seen before: 606 in Frederick, 416 in Myersville (near
Frederick), and 208 in Berlin on the lower eastern shore.  These have
no local service outside of Maryland.

But I see that the next exchange north of Berlin, which is at the
junction of U.S. 113 and U.S. 50, is 301-352 Bishopville, which is
local to Selbyville, Delaware.  There would be a problem (right?) in
putting N0X/N1X prefix in an exchange which is just a 7-digit local
call away from an out-of-area exchange (exception in Maryland for the
DC area suburbs, which now require NPA+7D for out-of-area local call
anyway).

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 14:34 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell of PA Automated DA Becomes Friendlier


Bell of PA, which recently started allowing callers to be connected
automatically to the number requested from DA (for an additional $.30)
has announced a change in the service.

Now, DA will *first* recite the number you requested, and then give
you the option to be connected automatically.  Seems as though folks
got a little cranky having to sit through the pitch first before
getting the number.

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

From: teda![e-mail]
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 13:43:52 PST
Subject: Phone Survey in Penn Station NYC


Last Sunday evening, I arrived early at Penn Station in New York so I
decided to do a little phone survey.

There are 17 COCOTs in various shops, all run by 'Tel_a_booth
Communications LTD' in Long Island City.  These phones channel all
other carrier access attempts to 'ITI', where an ACD that gives the
option of either placing a collect call or connecting to an operator.
Both of these options outpulsed a call, rang once and then returned a
dialtone.  The repair number terminated in an answering machine.
700-555-4141 resulted in 'restricted number.'

In the Amtrack terminal area, there are 38 New York Telephone phones,
and about 30 more had been removed since the last time I was there.
These phones also blocked calls to other carriers, giving a message
that 'it is not necessary to dial a company access code for this call'
:-) Logically, 700-555-4141 reported ATT as the long-distance carrier.
I called the local operator and asked about the problems connecting to
a Sprint operator, and was told that it was impossible to reach anyone
other than ATT.  Repair claimed it was a switching problem that would
be fixed by 6pm on Monday.


Michael L. Ardai   Teradyne EDA East  ...!sun!teda!ardai or ardai@bu_pub.bu.edu


[Moderator's Note: Sleaze, one and all! ITI is one of the worst rip-offs
ever!  Please follow instructions in previous issues of the Digest to
notify the FCC of the situation there. They in turn will hopefully
order the Pennsylvania Station Corporation (managers of the building)
and the proprietors of the COCOTS to rectify the situation immediatly.
It might be a good idea also to have a supply of out-of-order stickers
with you on your trips through the station. Mark the offending phones
out-of-order to warn other innocent users.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 18:09:55 PST
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: More MCI Residential 800 Woes


I have tried now for two days to get straight answers from MCI about
this service and here is where I've gotten:

Consistent info:

    Cost is $5.00 per month and 25 cents a minute billed in
one-minute increments.

Other stuff:

    The people at their special residential-800 number keep
claiming that the assigned number will be 1-800-my home phone
number-ABCD where ABCD is a special security code.  When I asked about
the fact that this could conflict with existing 800 numbers, I was
told that the security code would prevent this.  I spoke with three
people before giving up.  The most remarkable dialog went like this:

Me:  So, I my home phone number is 444-4444 (MCI Customer Service) and
someone dials my 800 number, then they will have a chance to enter
four digits for me, and MCI customer service calls will wait for four
digits before connecting.

MCI:  Right.

Me:  What if my home phone number prefix is not an MCI 800 number
prefix, is every 800 number in the country being changed to handle a
4-digit suffix?

MCI:  Not every 800 number, just MCI 800 numbers.

Me:  So how does the call get to me?

MCI:  Because of the special four-digit code.

AAArgh!  I am now reall;y curious and frustrated.  I haven't been able
to get a technical person or one of the supervisors who seem to be in
a meeting at all hours.  Can someone use a contact inside MCI to get
the real story????


Joe Konstan


[Moderator's Note:  I've got a couple of Telecom*USA 800 numbers, and
Telecom*USA is now part of MCI, unfortunatly. The day they tell me I
have to start appending or prepending four additional digits to my 800
numbers is the day they get them both back. What complete nonsense!
It sounds like MCI has some serious problems in Customer Service at
the present time. Hopefully they will let Telecom*USA keep handling
their own customers.  PAT]

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

From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: San Francisco P.D. and 911 Priorities
Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 10:42:33 GMT


[e-mail] (David Brightbill) writes:

>The door latches and stays locked until a fire or
>police person responds to the call and lets the citizen out.

And what if the phone has been vandalized so the citizen can't call
the emergency services? Is it just a totally stupid design or are
there further safeguards (like it is constantly on line to the police
who go out if the line is interrupted)?


Charles Bryant ([e-mail])

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telemarketers: Saying No is Easy
Date: 1 Nov 90 07:20:02 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


Washington State has a law against telemarketer intrusions.  It's not
ironclad by any means, but it certainly has resulted in my getting
lots fewer telemarketing calls since moving from California, which has
no law in this regard.


Bob Jacobson
Seattle

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #781
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00556;
          2 Nov 90 2:15 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07095;
          2 Nov 90 0:38 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28600;
          1 Nov 90 23:35 CST
Date:     Thu, 1 Nov 90 22:53:47 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #782
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 1 Nov 90 22:53:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 782

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day? [Carl Couric]
    Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell [John Higdon]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Chris Sowden]
    Re: AT&T Modem Calls Succeed; Other Carriers Fail [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Interlock For Two Phones [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Odd (617) Number [Ofer Inbar]
    Re: Alternate Telephone Service [John Wheeler]
    Re: LD to Hawaii [David Newman]
    Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Jim Hickstein]
    Trailblazer Wanted [Larry Rachman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Carl Couric <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day?
Date: 1 Nov 90 17:28:17 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., Seattle


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

>My cellular phone was parked in one spot for two days out of my
>standard service area.  I made several calls each day, and I knew that
>my phone was roaming.

And so did McCaw :-) . You were using our network. You are not a
normal customer and we have to verify you against your home system.
This costs us in computer time/switch time.

>I had heard about daily service charges of $2 per day in some areas.

That's what we charge to set you up for the day into our switch.

>Well, the bill and apparently the truth has now arrived.  I don't so
>much mind the $2.00 per day charge, but two $2.00 per day charges each
>day?

We have to verify every 24 hours. Let's say you MOVED to the area and
didn't want to pay your previous carrier. We sure don't want to get
stuck with the bill, would you ;-) .

>I asked my celluar carrier about the $2.00 per day charge when my
>chart said they were no per day charges in that area.  They responded
>that I should have dialed *611 and gotten the information that was
>accurate for the particular minute is was planning to dial during 8-).

True, If you ever have a question hit 611. It is free (ie: we don't
charge), because the information to use our network should be
free.

>My phone didn't budge an inch during that day. Also, about
>half the calls I placed and was billed for failed to go through.
>So what is the deal? Do I pay?

If you do have a problem PLEASE call the Cellular One local to you. If
they can help, they will. You could also call down to the McCaw
Cellular One and see if the charges should stand. I know that here in
Florida, McCaw does not charge for incomplete calls, busy, or no
answers. That's nice considering you're using the radio spectrum to
find out if the number you want to talk to is available.

>I can't wait till they have about 40 different services in the same
>area so my roaming charge will be $80 a day! 8-)

Lets see, with just two carriers per area, you would have to scan AB
(please!), and if you were in a plane, you just might do it! 8-).

Do note that when the snow birds come down, they usually register with
us instead of paying the $2 a day. They also get a cheaper rate
compared to the roam rate. You're using another carrier's system, and
as such, that carrier is providing you a service as quickly as
possible. We verify you against your home system (and that network is
not free!). So, $2 a day is not to much if you really think about it.
Hope this helps...


Carl Couric
VAX systems manager
Florida Cellular One  (McCaw Corp).
[phone]  x543

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: October Changes to Wisconsin Bell
Date: 1 Nov 90 12:04:41 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Dan Ross <[e-mail]> writes:

> I don't know that the tariff was trading unlimited calling for
> touch-tone.  Even if it was, unlimited calling puts a load on the
> local phone network (if taken advantage of), contrasted with
> touch-tone which costs the phone company nothing (at this point).

Since this country can't seem to get off the 'business day' mentality
(that gives rise to traffic jams, both automobile and telephone, and
lowers general overall productivity), why not take advantage of it? A
number of years ago, Pac*Bell experimented with a plan that allowed
residence subscribers unlimited BAY AREA calling (that's right, San
Jose to San Rafael) between 5 PM and 8 AM and all weekend. During the
business day it was gougem toll as usual. Calls made during the off
hours didn't even show up on the bill.

 From a reality standpoint this would make sense, since during
off-business hours, the network is just loafing with a good deal of
excess capacity. So the logical question to be asked is, "Why can't
the telcos come up with an off-peak unlimited local calling plan?"
Instead of eliminating unlimited altogether, as in some areas of the
country, why not make it time of day sensitive? Evening "peak"
residential use runs a poor second to the ordinary business day use.
Telcos should charge MUCH less for this, since it puts no strain on
capacity whatsoever.


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

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

From: Chris Sowden <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 18:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely


In the UK it is possible to recall dial tone on any line connected to
a digital exchange (which I think the majority now are).  The
secondary dial tone you get is identical to the primary dial tone.  In
the following, "R" means Recall or flash.

If you only pay for a basic service, I think you can only request
charge advice for the call in progress (R*40#).

If you pay for call waiting, you can turn call waiting on (R*43#) or
off (R#43#), drop the current call and answer a waiting call (R1),
switch between calls (R2) or reject a waiting call and turn call
waiting off (R0).

If you pay for three way calling, you can additionally set up a second
call (R number), set up a conference with two existing calls (R3),
disconnect the first party (R5) or disconnect the second party (R7).

To use the extra facilities, you need a tone phone.  If you recall
dial tone on a pulse phone and try dialling a number, you get dumped
straight back to the call you left.

Being able to recall dial tone does mean you get one useful feature
which works regardless of the type of phone, extras paid for or which
end originated the call.  If you recall dial tone and then put the
phone on hook, the exchange rings straight back (with single bursts of
ringing rather than the usual UK double bursts).  You can then move to
another extension to continue the call.


Chris Sowden

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Modem Calls Succeed; Other Carriers Fail
Date: 1 Nov 90 17:33:35 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Scott Barnes) writes:

> Over the past few months, I have been unable to place modem calls
> using Least Cost Route (LCR) long distance on our Rolm CBX 9000 PBX.

> Is is possible that one of the LCR carriers has an entire rack of
> faulty equipment (i.e., distorting the frequency of the call)?  Would
> the LCR trunks be distinct from AT&T and local trunks in the Rolm system?

There are all sorts of possible problems, but you need to ask your
admin. who the other carriers are and HOW they are connected to your
switch.

If there is a leased T1 line to their POP, and if some 'clever' chap
decided that 44 ADPCM voice channels was a better choice than 24 PCM
ones, that IS your problem.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interlock For Two Phones
Date: 1 Nov 90 17:46:16 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Recently there was an article referring to a simple gadget that would
> interlock two phones so that only one could be in use at a time.  I

Can't help with the requested article, but that functionality is an
old standard 1A2 or even 1A1 key system standby. The key system
version needs lots of exclusion cards and a mess of wiring, and is
best done for maybe 1 line and 1 phone excluding ALL other phones from
getting that line.

Any level of sophistication can be installed, but it gets to be a real
mess to maintain.

The easier way is to use the simple little inline encapsulated solid
state thingies that 1) can let which ever phone gets the line
automatically exclude ALL others so equipped, or 2) a master phone can
even 'steal' the connection from another simply by going off hook.

There is provision for allowing another back in so two of you can be
on the line at once.

These little electronic excluders have been in supply catalogs for
years, and I think you should try Proctor Associates (Redmond WA), or
maybe even Melco (now Augat Comm Division - there is an 800 # listed
under Augat Comm Div). Start with Proctor, and if they no longer make
them, ask who does.

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

From: Ofer Inbar <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Odd (617) Number
Date: 2 Nov 90 01:27:20 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University Computer Science Dept


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Patrick Tufts) writes:

[describes dialing a phone number, hoping to 'find his own number']

>The response: three quick chirps and a faint hum of electronics
>waiting for something.  After a pause, I got a quick busy signal.
 ...

>BTW - I got the same response with the same number from another phone.

This is the standard behavior for electronic pager numbers.  Each
pager number is associated with one pager, and dialing that number
causes the person carrying that pager to be paged.

Since the computer at the other end paused for a while, and seemed to
be 'waiting for something,' it was probably connected to a display
pager.  If you had punched in some numbers from you DTMF pad while it
was waiting, those numbers would have appeared on the pager when it
beeped.  The purpose of these is so you can inform the person who is
on call what phone number you want him/her to call back on.

I have one of these pagers, though the number you dialed was not mine
(mine is an 800); you may however have paged someone, who probably had
no idea what he/she was being paged for.

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)  --  [e-mail]
  --  WBRS (BRiS)  --  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

From: John Wheeler <infmx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternate Telephone Service
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Date:  1 Nov 90 00:07:20 GMT


asuvax!rako![e-mail] (Jurek Rakoczynski) writes:

>Can anyone summarize the status of 'Alternate Telephone Service
>supplier'.  I can only remember about some larger city (NY?) where a
>(cable co.?) was installing (fiber optics?) to the homes and was
>planning to provide alternate phone service in competion with the
>local telco. This was in addition to other services available on the
>fiber.  I don't remember where I read this, but I am not confusing
>this with just running fiber to the homes, like in California.  I
>remember the term 'Alternate Telephone Service' or something like
>that.

I was a subscriber to an 'Alternate Telephone Service' of sorts while
I lived in Atlanta, for several years. An Atlanta company (now out of
business) named StarTouch installed switches at several apartment
complexes around town.

They were working on - well, I guess a lot of loopholes. They got
their trunks from Southern Bell and did their own billing, (sooner or
later you got a bill, of sorts), they had an agreement with what was
SouthernNet (now part of Telecom*USA?) to provide exclusive LD
service. You had no choice of carriers, but they undercut the Southern
Bell rate for equivalent service by 25% or so. By default, you got
three-way, forwarding, call waiting, voice mail with message light
(they provided hotel-type phones), personal speed dialing, and
pre-programmed system speed dialing of several hundred businesses.

The complex management even used the voice mail system to mass-mail
messages to the tenants.  The switch was made by - I believe - Solid
State of Kennesaw, GA, and, worked fine 90% of the time. The problems?
Well, there were occasionally not enough local trunks, or not enough
LD trunks, or the system that sent the billing code to the LD carrier
wasn't working, or the building power would go off and the UPS would
run dry and the system go dead, or the software would glitch, and
there was a certain trunk that ALWAYS sounded horrible.  But, usually,
it worked fine. They closed business about a year ago.  Good idea,
but....


John Wheeler

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

From: David Newman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD to Hawaii
Date: 1 Nov 90 14:33:16 GMT
Reply-To: David Newman <[e-mail]>
Organization: MCC  Austin, Texas


Calling Hawaii and Africa on AT&T recently, I have had trouble with
delays.  The other person and I get confused about who is talking
because of the delays, and we both talk at the same time, or we have
long pauses in the conversation waiting for the other person to talk.

I thought that someone in the Digest indicated that AT&T was superior
to the other long-distance companies in this respect.  Is that
superiority limited to the lower 48 where AT&T has a better network?
Don't all the LD companies use basically the same network once you get
outside the continental US?


Dave

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

From: Jim Hickstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings?
Date: 31 Oct 90 13:06:26 GMT
Organization: Teradyne, Inc. San Jose CA


When I recently added another line to my business for the express
purpose of putting a modem on it, Pac*Bell asked me whether this, too,
would be a "modem line."  I was nonplussed.  How did they know that my
other lines were "modem lines" and why did they care?  The answer to
the first question is that my predecessor evidently told them this
much about the existing lines.  Their response to the second was that
they flag these somehow in their computer so that a line that has no
signal on it will not be reassigned accidentally.

What?  You mean if I'm not on the blower 24 hours a day they might
just yank me out of the wall whenever they feel like it?  Doesn't the
mere fact that the number is assigned show up on their "computer"?
What would make them think to check the computer more often when they
don't even know before doing so that it will give them interesting
results?  Or do they check it when there is trouble and they can't
raise a human by ringing the line?  Again, the computer should tell
them where to call with no special knowledge of the use of that
secondary line.

Sounds like a commie plot to start charging for erlangs.  I went along
with it, but I'm starting to feel nervous about it.

"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure."


Jim Hickstein, Teradyne/Attain, San Jose CA, [phone] FAX -0252
[e-mail] ...!{amdcad!teda,sun!teda,apple}!attain!jxh

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

Date: 01 Nov 90 22:20:56 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Trailblazer Wanted


Does anyone out there know of a source for a used or discounted
Telebit Trailblazer? I'm trying to set up a machine on the net, but
I'm on a limited budget.

Also, does anyone have any stories to tell (good or bad) about the
UNIX look-alike "COHERENT", by the Mark Williams Company, in
Northbrook, IL?  Right now, its a toss-up between that and the
shareware package, WAFFLE.


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX    [e-mail]
Fax: [phone]        Voice: 516-427-1112

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #782
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04523;
          2 Nov 90 5:19 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03086;
          2 Nov 90 3:43 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11118;
          2 Nov 90 2:39 CST
Date:     Fri, 2 Nov 90 2:03:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #783
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 2 Nov 90 02:03:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 783

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [John Cowan]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Jim Rees]
    Western Union Time Service [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 90 10:20 EST
From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.


You write:

>This organization, the US NAVOSY, was responsible for setting all the
>Western Union master clocks throughout the USA for a half-century. Ask
>me about the Western Union Clock Service sometime. :)   PAT]

Consider yourself asked.  In other words, enqueue job!


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)


[Moderator's Note: Actually, it was the "Time Service". Read on in
this issue. We have covered this before, but a lot of newer readers
would not remember.  PAT]

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Date: 1 Nov 90 22:31:07 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


In article <[e-mail]> FREE0612@uiucvmd (David Lemson)
writes:

>WWV is on several "shortwave" frequencies, including 15.000 MHz,
>10.000 MHz, and a few others I can't remember right now.

As a former SWL junkie, I've practically got 'em memorized:

WWV broadcasts on 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz as I recall; as an
interesting sidelight, their sister station WWVH is on most of the
same frequencies.  At the right time of year/day on the right frequency
they make interesting harmonics together.


[Moderator's Note: Interference between WWV in Boulder, CO and WWVH in
Hawaii is common in the western United States. Usually the two
stations transmit a tone with the ticking except for the times they
make announcements. But during the time one station is making
announcements the other side silences the tone. Please note also the
lady on WWVH announces the time at about 45 seconds; WWV comes in
rightr behind her and announces the time at about 53 seconds; both
beep together on the minute. That delay keeps them from walking on
each other.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 21:00:55 GMT


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

  Ask me about the Western Union Clock Service sometime. :)   PAT]

OK, I'll ask.  I have a clock at home that's marked on the face
"Western Union, Naval Observatory Time."  It originally held two
F-cells that wound up an ordinary pendulum clock mechanism.  The
interesting part is that it also has terminals to connect wires from
"outside."  The clock apparently expects to get a synchronizing pulse
on these wires.  If the clock is within five minutes of the top of the
hour, then the trailing edge of the pulse will set it to exactly on
the hour.

I have no specs on the pulse, but the clock seems to be happiest with
about a 6-volt, half-second pulse.

So, I called up Western Union to ask them what it would cost to have
the synchronizing pulses brought into my house.  The rep I talked to
had never heard of this service.

What I did was replace the F-cells with alkaline D-cells.  For the
pulses, I went to the local Service Merchandise and bought the
cheapest alarm watch they had that could be set to beep every hour on
the hour.  I soldered a couple of wires to the piezo element and
designed a little circuit with a FET front end (so as not to load down
the watch battery) and a big power transistor to fire a pulse at the
synchronizing solenoid in the clock.

So every ten minutes or so, the clock makes a soft whirring sound as
the spring winds up, and every hour the watch beeps and the
synchronizing solenoid pulls in with a satisfying "ker-chunk."  I love
this clock.  I love to picture thousands of them across the country
all ker-chunking at the same time.

When were these clocks first deployed?  How long did they last?  Where
were they installed?  How much did it cost to have the pulses
delivered?  Was there really a network of wires stretching across the
country from the Naval Observatory in Bethesda?


[Moderator's Note: I replaced the batteries in mine with a three volt
DC transformer I plug in the wall. I've never heard of them winding
every ten minutes; usually it is once an hour, and the winding takes
8-10 seconds, depending on the strength of the batteries. Western
Union first offered the service a few years before the start of this
century. They discontinued it about 1965. No one at Western Union has
heard of it unless they've worked there more than 25 years and/or have
read the history of the company. Even 30 years ago it was being
'phased out' with only grandfathered customers allowed to keep it.

If you have the clock hanging level then the use of the setting
circuit is probably an overkill. Mine run without it and may be out of
adjustment by one minute over a month's time. I have the setting
circuits on my two clocks wired in series down to a doorbell buzzer
under my desk and a nine volt battery. A call to NAVOSBY every month
at 202-653-1800 and a tap of the button at the proper moment does the
job. There were about a dozen circuits out of NAVOSBY in all
directions which were tapped along the way and fed to master clocks
which in turn fed other masters, etc .. sort of like branches and
twigs on a tree.  The clocks lasted for years, like all good
workmanship years agp used to last. Many are still running in private
places like your home and mine. One of mine is 91 years old.  The one
I got from the Chicago Temple Building lobby (when they no longer
appreciated it and gave it to me in exchange for an electric clock I
gave them I got at Fields!)  had a pencilled inscription on the wall
behind its mounting saying it was installed May 25, 1927 in that spot.
I brought it home in 1974 and restarted it. The one I got from the
Board of Ed lunchroom was installed around 1910. I got it in 1972, and
had to strip several coats of ugly paint from the wooden case.  The ID
tag on the works say it was built in 1899. I guess the Board of Ed
must have been its second home. Western Union gave the clocks for free
to whoever subscribed to the Time Service which cost fifty cents per
month in the beginning; a dollar a month at the end. I have not seen
any of the clocks at the place where they originally hung for probably
twenty years.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 0:27:29 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Western Union Time Service


In response to the inquiries about Western Union Time Service, here is
the scoop ...

For about seven decades, from late in the nineteenth century until
about 1965, Western Union offered 'Time Service', a highly accurate
rendition of the time of day, using wall clocks with their name and
trademark, along with that of the Naval Observatory.

The clocks came in many styles and sizes. Typical was the version with
the 12 inch dial, brown metal case with glass front, cream colored
dial and brown lettering/numbering. There were thousands of that kind
around, and probably a few thousand also with 'sweep-second' hands.
Some were in wooden cabinets which latched on the side. The most
ornate model in the series was a grandfather clock which stood six
feet tall and had a four foot pendulum. The only one of the
grandfather clocks I ever saw was the one in the lobby of Telegraph
Federal Bank For Savings (nee Telegraph Workers Credit Union) on
Jackson Boulevard downtown, next door to the Board of Trade. That bank
has been gone for years.

In each case, the clock was driven by a spring which in turn was wound
by two 'telephone cells' rated at a volt and a half each which were
housed in the case with the works. The works were manufactured by the
'Self Winding Clock Company' of New York City, which went out of
business during the depression in the 1930's. As the clock unwound
itself, contacts inside the works would eventually work their way
around to making contact with the wires from the 'telephone cell'
batteries, which would re-wind the spring using a small motor
enclosed. Rewinding took about 8-12 seconds once an hour. If the
batteries were dead (not likely, because they lasted about five years)
or disconnected (more likely because the wires would come loose from
the contacts), the clock spring had enough tension to run the clock
for about three hours before stopping. Western Union must have had a
huge inventory of those clocks, as they were able to replace them as
needed and install new ones for subscribers until sometime in the
1950's when new orders were no longer taken and the service was
grandfathered to existing customers.

As one correspondent points out, there was an extra pair of wires
coming from the clock. These were connected to dedicated wire pairs
which ran to the local Western Union office, where the 'master clock'
was located in each community. In a town the size of Chicago, there
were actually several such clocks: clocks in one part of town were
served by a 'sub-master' clock; the various 'sub-masters' were in turn
connected to the 'master clock' downtown. But really, it was a
sub-master clock itself, since the master clock -- sometimes then
called the 'Grand Master' was located at NAVOSBY, the US Naval
Observatory in Our Nation's (drug and murder) Capitol.

Well ... schools and other public buildings had dozens of the clocks,
and they had their own master clock (really a sub master) as well.
I've got two in my possession here, both of which are running just
fine at the age of 91 years and 77 years respectively. Mine came from
the cafeteria at the Board of Education Building and the lobby of the
Chicago Temple Building, both downtown. I was lucky to get those two
after the Time Service was discontinued. Every local telegraph office
(at least if it was a Western Union agency) had one or two clocks; all
office buildings had them, etc.

When Western Union announced that the Time Service was being
discontinued, about 1965, they told their subscribers they were free
to keep the clocks if they wanted them but that there would be no more
setting signals after a certain date.  Believe it or not, the clocks
were tariffed, and WU had to get permission from the FCC to
discontinue service.

Once WU announced the end of the service, the clocks were snatched
up almost immediatly. One day in the Western Union Headqarters office
downtown I counted a couple dozen of them ... a week later when I was
in the building *every single one* was gone ... with a bland looking
electric wall clock in its place. Every executive in the place
probably took one home with him.

The idea behind their operation was rather simple.  Twice daily,
NAVOSBY would outpulse voltage to all the master clocks all over the
nation. I think they did it at 12:30 AM and 12:30 PM.  This was timed
so the setting of the master clocks would not interfere with the
masters synching of the local clocks, every hour on the hour.  This
pulse would jerk the minute hand of the clock exactly to the six and
shove the sweep-second hand exactly to the twelve. In turn, the local
'master clocks' would outpulse exactly on the hour to set all the
local clocks. A small red light in the base of the local clock would
flash for about a half-second during the synching. If you had nothing
better to do you could stand in front of the window at the telegraph
office and watch exactly on the hour as the red light would flash and
the minute hand would barely move as necessary.

During the period from 1930 to about 1955, the FCC had a requirement
that all radio and television stations *had* to have Western Union
Time Service in order to time their station breaks and programming
properly. In fact one Chicago station, WGN (720 AM) was famous for
their 'beep' on the hour. They took the lightbulb out of their clock
and attached two wires in the same place. These wires fed something
which made the tone which went over the air hourly on that station.

The telcos all used the Time Service to set the little time-clocks on
each operator's position so that long distnace charge tickets could be
accurately stamped in and out. Many companies used the Time Service to
set their employee time-clocks also.

I think Western Union got fifty cents *per clock, per month* for the
service in the early days. When the service was discontinued, they
were getting $1 per clock/month.

My friend of many years standing worked for Western Union as a clock
installer and repairman for about thirty years, until the day the
service ended, which was coincidentally the day he retired. He'd
install them for new subscribers, go around and collect the money from
delinquent customers (fifty cents please, or I have to remove your
clock!) and repair the circuits to the master clock as needed. He
commented on the 'fun' they always had twice each year when daylight
time started and stopped. The clocks could calibrate within a
two-minute grace period either side of the hour. That is, the minute
hand could be pulled backward or forward as needed. To adjust it by
one hour, this man had to go around and set each one by hand.

He said that he and a helper would start on Friday before the Sunday
adjustment. They would literally rush from one office to the next in a
large building and change one clock after another. It took less than a
minute to open the case, move the hand forward or backward one hour,
close the case and leave. Accuracy was not important ('we would just
move the hand (forward/backward) to within a minute of the time; on
the next hourly setting, the clock would cure itself for the
difference'). Starting on the Friday before, they would finish on the
Tuesday following ... only to do it all in reverse a few months later.
Except, he said, the state office building, the Board of Education and
all the schools: under state law they stayed on 'standard time' year
around, '... so we did not set those clocks when we did the rest ...'

Even without the setting circuit active, the clocks are highly
accurate if properly hung ... you have to make them hang *perfectly
level*.  He pointed out to me that the workmanship in hanging the
clock made a big difference:

'Once I came to work on Monday morning; the clock circuit had gone
open on Friday night in the Board of Trade; the clocks had not synched
all weekend; yet when I fixed the wire then went around to each office
to look at the clocks, none of them were off more than a minute, and
most were less than that, so the next time there was a pulse they all
became accurate again. I guess I had to set one or two in the whole
building which were out by more than two minutes.'

And sometimes people would not pay for the Time Service, nor would
they allow the clock to be removed ... 'well, then we had to fix their
clock, so to speak, or I guess you would stay stop their clock. We'd
go to where the setting circuit came into the premises and put a
'load' on it ... the current would hold the minute hand and keep it
from moving. We'd leave the load on for maybe a couple minutes at most;
that was all it would take. Once the minute hand was unable to move,
it would force the escapement to stop; that would retard the pendulum,
and soon the clock was stopped. Now the folks had a clock alright, but
it was not running. We then had to go to all the others on the same
circuit and restart their clocks ... but not restart the fellow who
would not pay us.  Usually they would come out to get us and pay at
that point ... '

Retired Western Union workers and executives have the clocks put away
safely now, and maybe they use one or two, like I do. I'd still like
to find out what happened to the grandfather clock in the Telegraph
Federal Bank for Savings though ... *someone* has it put away!

And strangely enough, of the thousands that were out there, I've not
seen any at all but my own two for about twenty years. The last two I
saw -- still working, but without setting circuit -- were in the lobby
and back stage at Orchestra Hall, 1970 or so. I had lust in my
heart; but so did the box office manager who snuck them home with him one
night during the summer the Hall was closed for renovations beating me
to them by only a few days.


Patrick Townson


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #783
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09420;
          3 Nov 90 13:29 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29053;
          3 Nov 90 11:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13784;
          3 Nov 90 10:50 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Nov 90 10:07:44 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #784
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Nov 90 10:07:14 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 784

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What is "Supervision"? [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: What is "Supervision"? [Bob Yasi]
    Re: What is "Supervision"? [John Cowan]
    Re: Answer Supervision on PBX [Vance Shipley]
    CPC / "Wink" Call Termination [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [Roy Smith]
    Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [Robert E. Zabloudil]
    Re: Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: AT&T ISDN Set Question [Tom Gray]
    Re: AT&T ISDN Set Question [Doug Coffland]
    Searching For a Battery [Bert Cowlan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is "Supervision"?
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 10:59:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Tom Gray <mitel!smithd!grayt@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

>>What is meant by "supervision?"

>Control information is sent two ways on a telephone loop.  Outgoing
>(ie from telephone to CO/PBX or the originating side of a trunk), its
>called signalling. Incoming (ie from CO/PBX to telephone or the
>terminating side of a trunk its called SUPERVISION. There is a special
>type of supervision called answer supervision, which indocates that
>the called end has answered and the call is completed and later that
>the called end has released.

>Hope this helps - forward and back - siganlling and supervision.

The direction does not make any difference.  Supervision is control
signaling.

Ref: "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks - 1986", Bell
Communications Research.  See page G-29.

Comment: I liked the title "Notes on the Network", as it used to be
known, a lot better.  Nicer sound to it...


Floyd L. Davidson   [e-mail]    [e-mail]
Salcha, AK 99714    connected by paycheck to Alascom, Inc.
When *I* speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.

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

From: Bob Yasi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is "Supervision"?
Date: 1 Nov 90 21:18:41 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles


>What is meant by "supervision?"

I know other responses have been posted, but I thought a simple answer
to a simple question would help.  Anyone looking for technical
completeness will NOT find it in this post!  (:-) You Will understand
supervision tho:

When you call your friend long distance, you shouldn't have to start
paying for the call until your friend actually answers the phone.  The
signal (from his end) that tells the billing equipment (at your end)
that your friend picked up the phone is called supervision.

There are lots of situations when supervision is NOT provided, and
these tend to be the subject of discussion, since phone bills get
screwed up as a result.  Equipment that doesn't get supervision
generally makes guesses as to when and whether the phone was answered.

Hope this helps.


 -- Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is "Supervision"?
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 16:07:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, HIGGINS%FNAL.BITNET (Bill
Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>What is meant by "supervision?"

"Supervision" is the signal returned by a remote central office to
your local central office to indicate that the call has gone through
(the party has answered) and billing for the call should begin.  How
this is done physically varies from place to place: one common method
is to reverse the DC polarity (48 volts) on the phone line.

When the called party answers, his central office is said to "return
super- vision".  The call is also said to "return supervision" or just
to "supervise".

E.g.  "Operator, this payphone took my money even though the call
didn't supervise."

Problems with supervision occur when the calling party is not just a
dumb telephone directly wired to the central office, but is a PBX
(private business exchange), COCOT (customer-owned coin-operated
telephone) or other device which wants to make its own billing
decisions.  If the local central office does not forward the
supervision information to the PBX or COCOT, it has to guess whether
the called party has answered.  This is typically done by "timeout";
in other words, if the call is shorter than a certain magic time,
assume it didn't go through; otherwise, assume it did (even if the
caller just let the callee's phone ring 25 times).

Another type of supervision problem arises when an alternative IXC
(inter- exchange carrier, i.e. long distance company) fails to get
supervisory information from the called party's central office.  In
this case, the IXC itself has to use the same timeout trick to decide
if the call went through.  It is not possible to just listen for ring,
busy signal, etc.  because these tones vary too much from place to
place.

Hope this helps.


[e-mail]            (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on PBX
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 90 01:11:39 GMT


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

>Well, Pat, they keep telling us that our System 85 can't do it, but
>that they would be glad to sell us a 5ESS....  ???

Paul, can you provide us with some background?  What is you're
trunking arrangement? (PRA,T-1,Analog,etc.)  What generic is the
switch running?


vance

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

Date: 2-NOV-1990 01:26:10.23
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: CPC / "Wink" Call Termination


Hi-

I'm wondering if anyone here knows exactly (or not so exactly :-) )
what the "wink", or I believe it is sometimes called "CPC" signal is.

I'm referring to the process by which the Central Office switch can
signal a end-user device (an answering machine, for example) that the
calling party has hung up. IE, someone calls my machine, hears the
outgoing message, thinks it is really too long, and just hangs up. The
machine "knows" that the caller has hung up even before it starts
"listening" on the line to see if anyone is recording a message or
not.

I've heard from some sources that this is done with polarity reversal,
and from others that there is just a drop in line current for a brief
momment.  Is either (or both?) correct?

If anyone knows the exact timing (ie, the wink = xxx miliseconds,
etc.) and what voltages are involved, I'd really appreciate hearing
about it. Or, if you'd prefer that I not be so lazy and research it on
my own ( :-) ), could you perhaps steer to the proper sources?? I've
looked in the "Red" Radio Shack book and in my other sources, and have
found nothing dealing with this topic. So just about any info would be
helpful!

Thanks in advance for any/all help!


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

P.S. Gilbert- ( at Rochelle Com. in Texas) - I've lost my entire mail file
     and could use your address again. Could you please e-mail me at the
     above address? Thanks...

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 08:54:39 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


> When people call the old published Sears number, XYB-2451, they get an
> intercept: "The number you have reached, XYB-2451 has been disconnected;
> calls are being taken by XYA-5600..."

Why can't the switch just play "The number you have reached ... Your
call is being automatically forwarded to that number now, but please
make a note of the proper number for future reference", and then
forward the call.  Your telco service rep may freak out if you request
that service, but it doesn't seem like it should be beyond the
capabilities of the switch.


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

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

From: "Robert E. Zabloudil" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed
Date: 2 Nov 90 16:34:20 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


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

>When people call the old published Sears number, XYB-2451, they get an
>intercept: "The number you have reached, XYB-2451 has been
>disconnected; calls are being taken by XYA-5600..."  The problem is
>that two or three people per day match the old exchange and the new
>number and dial XYB-5600 and get Dave.

We had a similar problem once, when we lived in the Quad Cities.  Our
phone number, XYY-YYZX, got all sorts of calls from people who
couldn't tell how many Y's they had dialed, that is, they dialed
either one more *or* less than they wanted.

Our solution, which worked fairly well, was to have the number changed
(for free), and then have the intercept go not to a recording, but to
the operator (If I remember correctly; it WAS 7 or 8 years ago!).  The
caller was asked what number they were dialing; if ours, they got the
new number, if not, at least the telco got the drudgery, not us.

Oh, yes, we did tell select friends and family members the new number
ourselves.  8^)


Bob Zabloudil
opinions my own, etc.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 03:56:07 EST
Subject: Re: Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier?


Mike Olson writes,

>A well-known Unix researcher here at UC Berkeley recently switched
>from AT&T to MCI.

There aren't so many of them left.  Next time I'm in town I'll wangle
a dinner invitation or so and slam him back personally while
pretending to visit the lab.


Dennis Ritchie
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier?
Date: 2 Nov 90 13:04:25 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike
Olson) writes:

> A well-known Unix researcher here at UC Berkeley recently switched
> from AT&T to MCI.  He got a telephone call from AT&T telemarketing
> types soon afterwards.  They wanted to know why he had switched.  His
> answer: "You charge too much for Unix."

When I switched my residential default carrier from AT&T to US Sprint
last winter, it was for political reasons.  When the AT&T marketers
called and asked why, I told them that it was due to the decision by
the AT&T Foundation to end its grants to Planned Parenthood.

> Who knows ... If everyone who switches carriers tells them that, we
> may drop the price within the reach of individuals.

Let's cast our ballots -- our equal-access ballots may speak as loudly
on specific issues as the ballots we cast next Tuesday!


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: I agree absolutely. For whatever reason you decide
to sign up with a carrier or drop another carrier, be certain to let
the proper people know. Email and the access 'ballot' are powerful
tools.  PAT]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T ISDN Set Question
Date: 2 Nov 90 14:37:35 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!halligan![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Roger
Clark Swann) writes:

>Why isn't the clock display in the station set slaved off the real
>time clock on the switch (5ESS) such that the stations are updated
>at least once every 24 hours?

It is surprising that the ISDn telephones do not do this. My CLASS
telephone from Bell Canada updates the local clock at each incoming
call.

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

From: Doug Coffland <coffland@roxanne>
Subject: Re: AT&T ISDN Set Question
Date: 2 Nov 90 21:31:45 GMT
Reply-To: Doug Coffland <coffland@roxanne>
Organization: Computations Department, LLNL, Livermore CA


>Here at the Big 'B' most all of the secretarial stations are equipped
>with an ATT ISDN 7505 set. That's the one with the multifuction
>display. Behind these sets are 5ESS switches, everything being
>purchased from and integrated by ATT.  One of the functions of the
>display on the 7505 is a clock/calendar. The recent change from
>daylight time back to standard time brings the following question:

>Why isn't the clock display in the station set slaved off the real
>time clock on the switch (5ESS) such that the stations are updated
>at least once every 24 hours?

This seems like a very valid question and the only explanation that I
can come with is that this is how AT&T chose to implement the set.  In
fact, CCITT Recommendation Q.932 which spells out the Layer 3
Supplementary Services describes a Supplementary Service Element for
Date and Time. i.e. you can querry the network for the date and time
and expect a response.

I'm not completely clear on this, but since this element is one of the
supplementary services, it may not be available with basic ISDN
service.

As I read on into the 5E6 ISDN Basic Rate Interface Specification from
AT&T, I found that this supplementary service is available to
Attendant Consoles.  It is not clear whether it is possible to turn
this service on for other types of instruments in the 5ESS.

After this, I decided to try out our AT&T ISDN Attendant Console and
sure enough they do retrieve the date and time from the switch.  By
the way, the operators immediately jumped on me when they found out
what I was up to and said that the time was about four minutes slow in
our switch.  The switch tech adjusted the switch which, in turn,
updated the consoles.  AT&T ISDN Attendant Consoles work from a Basic
Rate Interface just as do our other 8,000 ISDN sets.

In summary, a set vendor that builds his phones to rely only on the
network for the time may be at risk.  Certainly, more research than I
have done is required.  Investigation into the implementations of
other ISDN Switch builders not to mention the various generics and
translation options in each is a must.

Another possibility may be for a vendor to sell an applications
processor along with his individual sets that provides a central time
source and is querried via X.25 packets across the network.  This may
be a potential suggestion for the North American ISDN User's Forum to
avoid the proprietary nature of an application that would tend to
occur naturally.

Another shortfall is that the time provided across a packet network
whether it originates from a peripheral applications processor or from
the ISDN itself is subject to error equal to packet delay across the
network.

Finally, as you can see, ISDN is only an emerging standard at best.
The type of question presented here is one of many revolving around
this standard.  I feel that comp.dcom.telecom is an excellent forum to
discuss and possibly even resolve these problems and would like to see
more discussion around ISDN in the future.


Douglas R. Coffland
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
415-423-7867    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 05:34:59 -0800
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Searching For a Battery


I am looking for a type of battery (D cell, 1.5 volts) I've not seen
in a long time.  It is an Everready but is only one-half the height
of a standard D cell.  Would anyone know if these are still
manufactured and perhaps supply an address where they can be bought?

I've tried calling Union Carbide and the response has been "we never
made one."  It is, of course, sitting on my desk.  But, sadly, long
dead.


Thanks.

Bert Cowlan. pssc on EcoNet.


[Moderator's Note: No offense to Union Carbide, an otherwise fine
company, but don't you just love it when a representative of a firm
absolutely denies what you already know? Then when you tell them what
*you know*, instead of seeking counsel from a more experienced or
informed employee they keep right on denying it.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #784
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09488;
          3 Nov 90 13:33 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29053;
          3 Nov 90 11:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13784;
          3 Nov 90 10:50 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Nov 90 10:43:59 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #785
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Nov 90 10:43:33 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 785

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Saudi Arabia's Telephone System [Mike Doughney]
    Mysterious LD Fraud [Barton F. Bruce]
    Dial Tone Delays [Jane M. Fraser]
    Airtime Notes From Southwestern Bell [Mark Earle]
    Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group [James Deibele]
    The Number's Up, Your Honor [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 02 Nov 90 12:34:28 EST
From: Mike Doughney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Saudi Arabia's Telephone System


I'm in the middle of an extended visit to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Here's a summary of the telephone system in the Kingdom.

Telephone Equipment: Stores here sell Japanese, Taiwanese and Korean
telephones of all descriptions; in hotels here I've seen ITT,
Stromberg-Carlson, Northern Telecom, and French made phones.  American
phones work here without electrical modification, but there's no
standardization on connectors. In addition to the RJ11 and four pin
plugs used in the U.S., a two pin plug, a plug with four large pins in
a trapezoid arrangement, and a three wire slot type plug are also seen
here.  Every building is different, depending on what organization
built it, and this lack of standardization extends to the AC power,
which is 120 volts on U.S. type connectors or 220 on European two-pin
or U.S. type connectors.

I noticed in a newspaper article here that Hitachi switches are one of
the brands used.  Dial-tone, busy and ringing sounds are European, but
hotel PBX's and certain exchanges provide U.S. type dial tone.  I
haven't had any difficulty completing local calls here, and
transmission quality is generally good.

Since I haven't seen any standard phone type in businesses here, I'm
fairly sure that the Ministry of PTT doesn't usually provide a phone.
Some stores sell a Korean made phone which has the Saudi logo and both
Arabic and Western numerals on the keys.  (Yes, numerals here are
completely different from those used in most languages.)  Touch-tone
service is apparently standard at no extra cost.

Calling Area: The entire city of Riyadh and a few small towns nearby
are a local calling area.  Calls in this area cost 0.05 Saudi Riyals
(1.3 cents) per six minutes from a private phone, or 0.10 SR per
minute from a pay phone.

Calls outside this area, but inside the country, range from 0.20 SR
(5.3 cents) to 1.50 SR (40 cents) per minute; a nearby city about 60
km away is in the 0.20 SR band.

Kingdom-wide toll-free 800 number service is available; some of these
numbers begin with 1.  USA Direct service was temporarily available on
1-800-100; I don't know if it's still available as the PBX I'm on
won't allow me to dial the number.

International Calling: Direct international dialing is available from
private phones, the access code is '00'.  International calls are
allowed from specially marked payphones only.  Cuba, Czechoslovakia,
East Germany, Hungary, and Yugoslavia are listed in the phone book as
direct dial countries, while the USSR, Poland, Romania and China are
listed in the rate directory but are not direct dialable.  Israel is
not included in either list.

Rates to the continental US are 9 SR ($2.40) per minute direct dialed,
36 SR ($9.63) first three minutes station to station operator handled
and 9 SR each additional. Alaska is 16 SR ($4.26), Hawaii is 18 SR
($4.81) and Puerto Rico is 22 SR ($5.87) per minute direct dialed.
For all countries there is a 20% discount from 23:00 to 08:00 daily,
except for the UK and the US where regular rates apply between 08:00
Thursday to 23:00 on Saturday.  The weekend here is Thursday and
Friday.

Rates to the adjacent countries of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and
United Arab Emirates are 3.50SR ($0.93) per minute, and 2.45SR ($0.65)
per minute from 22:00 to 08:00 daily, Friday from 08:00 to 22:00, and
on certain Islamic holidays.

The rate list includes "Antarctic" at 18 SR per minute direct dialed.
I think this was some kind of inside joke!

The Phone Book: The phone book is two volumes: an English and an
Arabic version. Both look a lot like a standard American phone book,
with a big color photo on the cover and a modified Yellow Pages logo.
It almost looks like American workers had a hand in its production;
the Yellow Pages includes all the little promotional ads like "There
are eight directories Kingdom-wide - increase your business by advertising
in more than one" and "The Yellow Pages works 365 days a year"; also
lots of reminders to "Call before you dig".

There's a full page section on how to make Inmarsat telephone and
telex calls; calls from the Kingdom to a ship are billed at 24 SR
($6.42) per minute.  Mobile telephone service is advertised; it is
some type of VHF system and not cellular as we know it.

Emergency, business office, and directory assistance numbers are
three digit numbers in the 900 range.  Telephone exchanges begin
with 220 and end at 786; apparently there are none starting with
8 or 9, at least in Riyadh.  All phone numbers are 7 digits.
Police is 999, fire is 998, ambulance is 997, traffic police is
993, and a "speaking clock" in English is on 963.

There are maps showing where the subscription and billing offices are
located, and a detailed city map showing the areas that each exchange
serves.  The term "NXX" is used on the map and on a table showing the
different billing cycles by exchange number.  The term "rate center"
is used on the national rate chart.

Send followups/questions directly to me, I'm not regularly reading the
Digest right now.


Mike Doughney, IDB Communications Group Inc.
Unit K-5, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia  ([e-mail])
"Affiliation given for identification purposes only"


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for an excellent report! And for those with
followups, do please send them to the Digest as well as direct to the
writer.  Thanks.  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mysterious LD Fraud
Date: 2 Nov 90 14:56:35 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


The Oct 29 issue of {Network World} has a front page article titled:
"Users paying big price for PBX fraud"

It goes on to describe NYC street hawkers peddling DISA phone numbers
and account codes. It further mentions that some offenders are PBX
hopping (dialing out from a different PBX (in the same company) from
the one they called in to as a way to further obscure what they are
doing.

MCI is specifically mentioned, and calls to Dominican Republic (amoung
other places) seem to be popular.

I have a situation where a customer is an ATT SDN user (all calls
default to 10732 rather than 10288), and 10xxx routing is definitely
blocked from all but a few managment phones. All, and I mean ALL
including brief aborted misdialed sequences, outward dialing is
captured on the SMDR log. NO DISA is enabled on their switch, and the
maint. port is on an internal PBX extension that has INCOMING CALLS
LOGGED. No database changes have been made - there have been NO calls
to this extension in MONTHS (this is a Hotel and their configuration
is quite static).

Their NET&T bill showed MCI calls on their LDN. Curiously, that new
LDN, though defaulting to 10732, is not in AT&Ts SDN database, so will
default to vanilla AT&T service. Virtually all their other trunks,
including oneway outgoing HOBIC trunks, give their own WTN as the ANI
number.  There are two trunks that do give a former LTN (their new LTN
is a 8000 that they prefer to list rather than the old one that was
quite nondistinctive) rather than their actual WTN, but none of these
old numbers are involved in the MCI calls.

There is NO WAY anyone could have routed calls 10222, and even if they
had, they would have shown up on the SMDR log. Also the trunks are in
a rotary hunt group outgoing that always picks another trunk on
successive calls.  The chance of anyone getting even a few, let alone
all these calls, onto THE ONE TRUNK that ANIs as xxx.8000 is
impossible from behind the PBX.

The 8000 number was 'acquired' less than a year ago, and had been on
an intercept for SEVERAL YEARS. Apparently a dentist's office had
gotten it and it had before that belonged to a candy factory. The
dentist kept getting too many calls for the candy folks, so changed
numbers. Somehow it was on that intercept recording for several years
when we found it. There is a shortage of x000 numbers so we grabbed
it.

The reason I am giving this history is that it seems unlikely that
through all those many months of unuse, that another WTN, possibly
giving the 8000 number for ANI, could have existed without someone
noticing that there was noone paying the bill for that number.

I suspect that something is screwed up in the CO, or that someone has
tapped the line outside this building and explicitly dialed 10222
before these calls.

Another curious thing is that the bill shows one call every few days
to a different NPA.555.1212 (and that is all there was during that
time period), and then a flurry of EXPENSIVE offshore calls, a few
more DA calls, and more offshore calls. There were just a few
Dominican Republic numbers called, and the same numbers were repeated
WEEKS apart. The DA calls may have been 'test' calls...

Something is DEFINITELY wrong here, and I am fishing for suggestions
on HOW it is being done. I want to stop it COLD. NET&T has been told
these are being refused, and they are kicking it all back to some
special department, and MCI. I havn't heard anything else, yet.

Anyone have any bright ideas?


[Moderator's Note:  Could we please have a little more information
about the use of '10732' for routing of calls?  Thanks.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 08:27:47 est
From: "Jane M. Fraser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial Tone Delays


Can anyone give me sources for information on how long one waits after
picking up a phone to hear the dial tone in other countries?
Historical data would also be of interest to me.

Thanks.

Jane M. Fraser
Center for Advanced Study in Telecommunications
210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH 43210
614-292-4129

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 19:18:44 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Airtime Notes From Southwestern Bell


I recently signed on with Southwestern Bell. They do it thusly:
Immediate call forwarding-no air time fee (except for the one call to
set up the forward, or to turn it off upon return to vehicle). For the
"on" and "off" call, regular charges apply, depending on your rate
plan.

Conditional (busy/no answer) forward: no air time charge, same as
above about "on" or "off"

Three way calling: you pay 2x the normal airtime (you pay normal airtime
for BOTH calls you've conferenced.

Call Waiting: Answer the second call, and as above with three way, you
pay 2x the normal airtime, while you've got one or the other call on
"hold".

Roaming: within a large number of SBMS cities, no daily charge, no
extra Follow me roam charge. For instance, on my plan, peak minutes
are 38 cents, off peak zero (yes, zero) Off peak is 8 p.m. local to 7
a.m.  local, plus all weekend and some holidays. Anyhow, once I roam,
I pay .38/min both peak and off peak while a roamer, but no daily
fees.

Standard FMR problem with it cutting off each night. I have not played
with this feature much.

If you don't FMR, but someone knows where you might be, they can call
(on their nickle) a number in that city, and at the "beep" enter your
10 digit cellphone number to ring you. This same number will work if a
local in your "roam" city wants to ring you. In this case, me as the
cell phone user pay only for the airtime on the incoming calls.

Anyhow-the Uniden GTS-4000 phone seems solid, sounds good, etc. I get
"local" (non-roam) service up to 90 miles NORTH of Corpus Christi, and
by then am in the San Antonio coverage area. Similiar coverage South.
That's LOTs of square miles! It seems I can be in range of SBMS from
Dallas to Corpus, and over towards Houston. Quite a system, so far.

Rates, in general:

$40/month -- Call Forwarding/Waiting, three-way, .38/prime, zero off peak
$25/month -- Call Forwarding/Waiting, three-way, .38/prime, .21 off peak
$15/month -- .38/prime and off peak
$125 (or is it $150?) -- Call Forwarding/Waiting, three-way, .21 prime
and off peak, but you get (hmmm ...300?) minutes "free" per month..

I am recalling the last from memory; I picked the $40/month plan,
since a *lot* of my useage time is off peak.

Anyhow ... it is amazing, for a "uniform" product (cellular access)
the variations between wireline and non, and market to market; judging
by what others have posted.

BTW: It seems this phone is programmed by a magic handset. It looks
like a normal handset. Anyone know the details; if it's a jumper
cut/add, etc?  Since this phone has one NAM (OK, I'm cheap!) might be
nice to get a "local" account if it could be keyboard-programmed. I
also wonder if there is a "test" function for signal strength display
(apparently it's not a normal user feature, if it exists at all).

Thanks!


[e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
CIS 73117,351                MCI Mail to: MEARLE
My BBS: (512)-855-7564       Opus 1:160/50.0
Blucher Institute, Corpus Christi State University


[Moderator's Note: You did not mention what city your service is based
out of; I am guessing it is Corpus Christi. Chances are there is a
local programming mode for the unit which is accessed by entering some
unusual (from the view of someone dialing an actual call) combination
of numbers on the keypad beginning with the # or * keys. I'm sure
Uniden would sell you a service manual with the details.   PAT]

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

From: James Deibele <[e-mail]>
Subject: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group
Reply-To: James Deibele <[e-mail]>
Organization: TECHbooks - Beaverton, Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 01:34:21 GMT


I would like to set up a sequence whereby someone calling number X
would start at the top of a group of phone lines.  These would be
given out to 2400 baud callers.  Number Y would be given out to people
who wanted to use Telebits, and would be part of that same sequence.
(So people with 2400 baud modems would fill up the 2400 baud modems
before falling through to the Telebits.)

This seems reasonable to me.  However, experimenting with my current
hunt group, it seems that if I call any other number besides X, I will
get a busy signal or a ring for that one line only --- in other words,
if I call X+1 and it's busy, I will not get X+2.  Is this a reasonable
conclusion, or have I somehow made a mistake while testing?  (I've
done testing where I could see the modems as I was dialing, to see if
they were all really busy.)

I have GTE phone service, but I'm afraid I don't know what the local
switching equipment is.  It seems as those there can be only one
"magic number" on a hunt group, but I'd really like to be told I'm
wrong ...


[e-mail]  ...!{tektronix!nosun,uunet}!techbook!jamesd
Public Access UNIX at [phone] (1200/2400) Voice: [phone]
"Sitting on the console all day, watching the news scroll away ..."

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

Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 23:09:02 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Number's Up, Your Honor


If there is a court of last resort for telephone calls which begin and
end "Sorry, wrong number", it is the West Virginia Supreme Court.
Specifically, the office of Justice W. T. Brotherton, Jr.

Due to a mixup, Brotherton's chambers' phone number is listed 171
times (but paired with the names of other state of West Virginia
employees 170 of those times) in the state government telephone
directory.

That tabulation was reached by counting alphabetically only through
the letter /K/ -- how many more are listed past that point is anyone's
guess, unless you'd like to count them all and report back here.

The director of telephone services for the state government extends
his apologies, and guesses they will have to reprint the book, or at
the very least have to change His Honor's extension.  I guess so.  :)


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #785
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13691;
          3 Nov 90 17:54 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22159;
          3 Nov 90 16:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16827;
          3 Nov 90 14:59 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Nov 90 14:10:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #786
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Nov 90 14:10:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 786

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: IEEE Spectrum Article on 'Blue Boxes' [Stephen Friedl]
    Re: Anti-Slamming Regulations [Charles Bryant]
    Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely [Vance Shipley]
    Re: $4 Per Day Roaming Charge [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: $4 Per Day Roaming Charge [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: SLIP Wanted [Eric Brunner]
    Re: Tones and Country Codes [Martin Baines]
    Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated Phone" [John R. Levine]
    State College, PA Area [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Stephen Friedl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum Article on 'Blue Boxes'
Date: 2 Nov 90 14:41:51 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


Eddy Gurney writes:

> "Until the phone company separated signaling
> information from the voice signal, long-distance calls could be made
> without charge by anyone who could whistle at 2600 hertz."

A couple of questions about this.  First, was the moving signalling
info out of the voice channel done solely to prevent fraud?  Second,
how big a job was this to redesign the phone system for it (my guess
is that it was a Very Big Deal) ?


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

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

From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Slamming Regulations
Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 16:13:29 GMT


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

> [Moderator's Note: Except some legal beagles contend that by lifting
> the phone receiver and dialing the desired digits you were in fact
> requesting or soliciting the service. By failing to dial the 10xxx
> code on the front, you are requesting the service from the 'default'
> carrier, which might not be the carrier you want.

I don't see how anyone can claim that I owe them for service which
they provided without my consent. It is up to the service provider to
get my consent - not up to me to actively deny it.


Charles Bryant
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But their service is providing long distance
connections between telephones. They did not provide this service by
connecting your telephone with another telephone until you 'asked'
them to do so by going off-hook and dialing a number. You'll not find
a single charge from the long distance company on your bill until you
actively request their service by dialing a number. A local telco
service charge, yes -- a long distance call charge, no.  Let the
lesson be this: ALWAYS verify that your carrier of choice is the
default carrier by checking with 1-700-555-4141 once a month or so.  PAT]

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 17:36:49 GMT


Our answering machine starts with the following message:

    "Hello, this is NOT AllState, and there are no
     insurance agents here..."

Guess who used to have our number? The calls have dropped off, or
we were about to change it to:

    "Hello, this is no longer an insurance agency. If
     you want a State Farm agent call..."


Peter da Silva.
[phone].
[e-mail]

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turning Off Call Waiting Remotely
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 90 02:12:51 GMT


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

>Being able to recall dial tone does mean you get one useful feature
>which works regardless of the type of phone, extras paid for or which
>end originated the call.  If you recall dial tone and then put the
>phone on hook, the exchange rings straight back (with single bursts of
>ringing rather than the usual UK double bursts).  You can then move to
>another extension to continue the call.

This is what I wish we could do.  Unfortunately if I try this the
original call is dropped, my phone never rings back.  If I have
accepted a call waiting and then hang up the original call rings back
though.


Vance Shipley


[Moderator's Note: And the way yours works seems to be the norm, which
is why I was surprised by the folks who said they can flash and get
dial tone even with they have nothing to use it for except to suspend
call waiting.  PAT]

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 04:10:23 GMT


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

>McCaw does not charge for incomplete calls, busy, or no
>answers. That's nice considering you're using the radio spectrum to
>find out if the number you want to talk to is available.

Great.  What a fine, generous attitude.  I suppose when I dial New
York from my home near San Francisco, I am *NOT* using radio spectrum
or system resources to find out if the number I want to talk to is
available.

Bah!  This just reinforces my decision NOT to get a cellular phone.
They're just like COCOTs, but they cost more.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Date: 2-NOV-1990 03:36:29.63
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: $4 Per Day Roaming Charge


A few posts back Brian Litzinger mentioned that he was charged *two*
daily roam charges, one in the Stockton Cell One (McCaw) system, the
other in the Sac Cell One System.

This happened to me too, and the practice seems quite common - Cell
One San Francisco does this as well.

Sacramento is the main "center" for the Sac, Stockton, and Reno, NV
systems, and (I believe) if you have service in any one of those areas
as your "home" system, you can go into any of the others without
"roaming", ie, the roam light won't come on since the System ID code
is supposedly the same for all the systems. (Yet there seem to be
"secondary ID codes" in the format of 30xxx which no one seems to know
about ... Cell One SF told me this and I have no idea if they just made
it up or what).

So, for example, a customer with a 209 Stockton number can go to Reno
without having the roam light come on, and to him it appears as if he
is in one system.

Yet a roamer making the same trip is going from the Stockton system to
the Sac system and then to the Reno/Lake Tahoe system. Since Cell
One/McCaw charges a $2 daily roaming charge, a roamer who calls *611
and is told "Oh, we are all one big system, all the way up to Reno on
I-80" THINKS that there will be one daily charge, when, in effect, if
the phone is used for a billable call in all three areas, the roamer
will get all THREE $2 daily charges.

This is true of the San Francisco system - Cell One SAYS that its SF
system spans from Santa Rosa in the north to Santa Cruz in the south,
yet a roamer driving down US-101 and using his phone in each area will
pay a $2 a day charge for Santa Rosa, San Francisco, AND Santa Cruz.
The really stupid part about all this is that he will never know it
until the bill comes, because the roam port (415-860-7626) pages in
all three systems, and if the roamer reprograms his phone to the
SF/Cell One ID # (00041??), it will show "Home" in all three areas.
Roamers will only find out about this once they get their bills, and
if anyone has a mobile company as bad as mine, you will probably be
expected to pay for the charges despite what anyone at either your
home or the roam systems told you.

In Brian's case, he may have been in a transitional area between the
Stockton and Sac systems, so that depending on how the radio waves
travelled, he was alternating between systems. This happened to me
while up in the hills on CA-17, between Los Gatos and Santa Cruz,
where I kept getting caught between both systems, and was billed two
daily roam charges even though I was parked at a payphone along the
road for an hour.

It is unfortunate that mobile companies see fit to charge all of these
excessive "surcharges" for service, as all it tends to do is make the
mobile phone less productive and discourages further use by their
customers. Charging multiple dialy roam charges - or roam charges at
all - is an effective disincentive to use my phone to its fullest
extent. Frequently, when I find myself roaming and know that a call
will cost $3 (daily charge) and $.90 per minute (as the Philadelphia
"A" system will), I'll just wait till I get back to my home area or go
to a payphone (especially if it is a local call).  The same goes for
other charges, like airtime for call forwarding. Rather than tell
people to call me at the car all the time, and that: "If I'm not in
the car it will forward to a land number where you can get me...", I
now have to leave a list of numbers where I will be.

So rather than making a REASONABLE profit on a roamer call, or $4 per
month for having Call-Forwarding in my feature package (plus all the
calls I get when I am actually in the car since I USED to use my car
number as my general, 'always-reachable' number), the mobile companies
will get nothing. Many other people I talk to are also quite leary of
using these "extra" services which cell companies seem all to eager to
charge for. I can't see why they do this, as it would seem that such
charges tend to discourage usage for all but the most urgent calls.
Wouldn't they make more money in the long run by encouraging the cell
phone to be used as often as possible, rather than tacking on charges
that tend discourage use?

Hopefully other mobile companies will do what SNET has done and
abolish all daily roaming charges for their customers and set up a
flat, $.60 per- minute charge while roaming.

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

Favorite Metro Mobile quote of the week (YES, I *do* seem to have to
call them at *least* once a week!):

Metro> "Oh yes, of course we are DMXed to Boston ... have been for a
year!"

Me> "So how come no one can call me there directly?"

Metro> "Did you turn your phone on?"

Me> (NO, I JUST EXPECTED IT TO PUT THE KEY IN THE IGNITION ALL BY
ITSELF!!!)
    "Yes, it was on..."

Metro> "Is this Boston, Mass. you are talking about?"

What I SHOULD have said> "Would you like me to shoot you now, or wait
till you get home? !!!!!! "


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Is it just me, or do most of you find the 'B'
carriers to me a little easier to reason with and a little less
expensive in their charges, particularly where roaming is concerned?
My experience in roaming is limited.     PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: SLIP Wanted
Reply-To: [e-mail] ()
Organization: IBM AWD Palo Alto
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 23:48:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David E Martin)
writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 778, Message 12 of 16

>Does anyone know where I can ftp a copy of SLIP?  I would like to run
>IP over a normal telephone line to share some license tokens.  Also,
>does anyone have any experience hooking two Sun's together via TCP-IP
>over regular phone lines?

Slip (ip over serial lines) can be found on several anonymous ftp
sites on the internet, try any of the following:

   uunet.uu.net,   rutgers.edu,   ucbarpa.berkeley.edu   and so forth

You will need to decide which version of SunOS you intend to run on
your two boxes, I presume that you'll use SunOS 3.5 or later, e.g.,
the current 4.1 release. You will find binaries for both the SPARC and
Motorola architectures (actually .o files, you'll need to build a
kernel, not hard if you follow instructions or have done it before on
any bsd-derived system), and the user level code (slattach and
friends). Since this is a little out of the ordinary for the telecom
news group, I suggest that you figure out what your going to use for
modems, Sun hardware and software, then go exploring on the cannonical
internet ftp sites. If after doing this you want more assistance, post
a query (details are always appreciated) to comp.protocols.tcp-ip. If
you want some one with experience to spend a few hours setting you up,
post a pre-proposal to misc.jobs.contract.

Below is a list of files in the slip _source_ distribution I use
(note, _not_ for Sun gear, I support 4.3bsd on the IBM RT platform):

[brunner@bullhead:390]% find slip -type f -print
slip/sl/README            <- obvious
slip/sl/man/manl/dstaddr.l    <- man page for dst addr config
slip/sl/man/man8/slattach.8c    <- man page for link config
slip/sl/src/local/dstaddr.c    <- src for
slip/sl/src/local/Makefile    <- obvious
slip/sl/src/local/slattach.c    <- src for
slip/sl/src/sys/net/if_sl.c    <- kernel serial line driver src, vax version
slip/sl/vax.diff        <- patches conf/files, h/ioctl.h, net/route.c
                    and sys/tty_conf.c
slip/sl/sun.diff        <- same for files, ioctl,h and tty_conf.c
slip/sl/if_sl.c.diff        <- patch for Sun

If you don't have SunOS source, you'll want the relocatable binary
object file I mentioned earlier. Don't forget to use binary mode when
doing the file transfer.


#include <std/disclaimer.h>
Eric Brunner, Consultant, IBM AWD Palo Alto    [phone]
inet: [e-mail]        uucp: uunet!ibmsupt!brunner

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

From: Martin Baines <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tones and Country Codes
Date: 2 Nov 90 12:44:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Sun Microsystems Ltd


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

|> >  BT list two country codes I haven't seen before:
|> >    905   Turkish Cyprus

|> This is not a country code.  There is no such country as Turkish
|> Cyprus.  I assume BT refers to the Turkish occupied area of Cyprus
|> (Cyprus has country code of 357).  Country code 90 is Turkey, they are
|> just advertising (for political reasons) how to reach a certain area
|> of the teritory they control.

Oh no, politics again.

The code refered to get you to the area that designates itself "The
Turkish Republic of Northern Cypres". This may not be widely
recognised as a country, but that is how it considers itself, so to
say there is no such country is a bias statement: after all, Iraq does
recognise the existance of Kuwait!


Martin Baines   Technical Account Wallah
Sun Microsystems Ltd   Cambridge UK
Phone:                                  Email
UK:            0223 420421              JANET:     [e-mail]
International: [phone]           Other UK:  [e-mail]
                                        Internet:  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Sports Stadium Use of a "Dedicated" Phone
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge MA 02238
Date: 2 Nov 90 00:00:00 EDT (Fri)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>Would it be possible for a baseball dugout to have phones connecting
>only to, say, the bullpen?

>From a dugout to a bullpen would be such an overkill when the
>already-in-place PBX connects them anyway with three digit dialing, no?  PAT]

Most PBXes make it easy to make any extension a ring-down.  You set
the extension to call, generally the same way that you set any
forwarding target, and set a status bit to make the extension a
ring-down.  Assuming you have a free port on the PBX, there's no real
cost beyond wiring up the phone.

I could imagine that a non-technophilic manager would like to have a
few phones in the dugout on which he could just pick up and start
talking.

Regards,

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

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

Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 10:38:18 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: State College, PA Area


Bill Fenner <[e-mail]> wrote in this Digest in a note dated 18
Mar 90 23:19:01 GMT (hcx.psu.edu not a valid hostname anymore at this
writing?):

>... State College, the surrounding town [ w/r to Penn State U. ],
>has exchanges 231,234,237,238,353,355,359.

Area code above is 814.  Actually, 353,355,359 are not State College,
but the apparently-neighboring Bellefonte exchange.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #786
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15918;
          3 Nov 90 19:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31443;
          3 Nov 90 18:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07304;
          3 Nov 90 17:05 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Nov 90 16:03:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #787
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Nov 90 16:03:04 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 787

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Strange "Calls To" on My Last Bill [Dave Esan]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [John Wheeler]
    Re: Telco "Customer Service" (Really DTMF to Pulse) [Tad Cook]
    Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Interlock For Two Phones [Max J. Rochlin]
    Re: Mysterious LD Fraud [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier? [Richard Bowles]
    Time Protocol (was Re: AT&T ISDN Set Question) [Frederick Roeber]
    Distinctive Ringing Fax/Phone Switch [Rahul Dhesi]
    Vendor's Experiences With ISDN [Paul McGinnis]
    Special Issue: Teleconnect*USA Illegal Blocking [TELECOM Moderator]
    Magazine For COCOT Owners: Payphone Exchange [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Strange "Calls To" on My Last Bill
Date: 2 Nov 90 20:44:54 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


In article <[e-mail]> bgsuvax![e-mail]
(Jim Youll) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 701, Message 4 of 11

>My last phone bill listed long distance calls to Cleveland, etc.
>but also showed calls to :
>   WASZ 2   MD
>   PHSZ 43  PA
>These calls were handled by an aggregator. Any idea why the funny
>destination names, and what they mean?

I suspect that the aggregator is using a product from my company, or
from a similar company to bill his calls.  Let me briefly explain how
these names are used.

We acquire our V&H data (that is the vertical and horizontal
coordinates for each area code-exchange combination) from BellCore.
They define a name for each NPA/NXX.  However, that name is not always
descriptive of the location.  New York City is a large place, and does
not accurately describe where the call went.  Furthermore, most major
cities have zoned local calling, that is making a call is not a flat
rate, but rather costs differently for each zone that you call to.

We are forced then to create our own V&H coordinates for cities that
are zoned and that BellCore does not believe is zoned, or even for
cities like Chicago (the Moderator's town), which has more zones than
BellCore admits exists.  To differentiate between zones, we give them
the number or names that the local telephone company does.  Thus NYCZ
1 is New York City Zone 1, WASZ 2 is Washington Suburban Zone 2, and
PHSZ 43 is Philadelphia Suburban Zone 43.  They do match the local
tariff, and probably make sense to a person in that town.  A place
like Chicago may include CHCZ 1 (Chicago City Zone 1) and wonderful
town names like SKOKIE (which may or may not really be SKOKIE, but is
rather the zone that Illinois Bell says is Skokie.)


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: John Wheeler <infmx![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Date:  2 Nov 90 22:27:28 GMT


[e-mail] (Robert E. Zabloudil) writes:

>[Moderator's Note: Interference between WWV in Boulder, CO and WWVH in
>Hawaii is common in the western United States. Usually the two
>stations transmit a tone with the ticking except for the times they
>make announcements. But during the time one station is making
>announcements the other side silences the tone. Please note also the
>lady on WWVH announces the time at about 45 seconds; WWV comes in
>right behind her and announces the time at about 53 seconds; both
>beep together on the minute. That delay keeps them from walking on
>each other.  PAT]

For your trivial information, that 'lady' on WWVH is none other than
Atlanta's Jane Barbe, the voice of hundreds of thousands of intercept
messages heard 'round the world. I have her demo tape, and it's quite
possible that she has the most 'played' voice in the world. {Esquire
Magazine} did a story on her around 1970.  Her husband, John, is a
music composer. I forget the WWV guy's name, but he's also an
Atlantan. I believe Audichron did the actual messages. BTW ... the
inflection on the new "National Institute of Standards and Technology
Time..." message at the top of the hour was obviously recorded to have
the time itself attached ... but instead they're using it by itself as a
sentence. Sounds really wrong!


John Wheeler

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telco "Customer Service" (Really DTMF to Pulse)
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 90 15:41:29 PST


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

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

> > What Mountain Bell (now USWest) did was put DTMF receivers on the
> > input to the switch which output pulses. So I entered the tones and
> > could hear the pulses being generated in the background. And, no, it
> > was not a pushbutton phone generating pulses. It was a phone that can
> > so either with the switch set to tone position. I could clearly hear
> > the DTMF.

> I *think* this is what was happening to me (sometimes) at the North
> Rim of the Grand Canyon in September.  It made it really difficult
> (impossible) to DISA and/or voice mail.  I think it might have worked
> once, but I couldn't figure out any possible timeouts, etc to repeat
> my success.

The telco was using a standard touchtone to dialpulse converter,
probably Mitel or Teltone, between the linefinder and the first
selector.

After the dialing is done, there are several ways to disable the
converter for end-to-end DTMF signalling.

Some of them are set up to disable the converter upon receipt of
answer supervision, in the form of a line reversal.

Some of them will accept a * from the caller to disable the converter.

Most of them will time out the converter after about 15 or 20 seconds.


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: Rolf Meier <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics)
Date: 2 Nov 90 14:07:34 GMT
Reply-To: Rolf Meier <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> Steve Willoughby <aardvark!
[e-mail]> writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 780, Message 5 of 13

>I'm playing around with building a circuit that will, among other
>things, (try to) recognize DTMF tones played into it.  An example
>application of this would be to make your own voice-mail system (the
>circuit would look for DTMF keypad keys pressed on the incoming line
>and signal a CPU to do something, like play or record a message.)

Mitel Semiconductor has an integrated DTMF receiver chip, MT8870.
This should do the trick.

In North America, call 1-800-267-6244.  In Portland, try Time
Electronics, [phone].


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

From: "Max J. Rochlin" <lever![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interlock For Two Phones
Date: 3 Nov 90 02:10:09 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Tim
Stradtman):

> Recently there was an article referring to a simple gadget that would
> interlock two phones so that only one could be in use at a time.

AT&T, Radio Shack, etc all sell a device for answering machings that
cut the line if another phone on the circut is picked up.  This is
what you're looking for.  They cost about $10.00.


  decwrl!madmax!max           or         {sun,uunet}!saxony!madmax!max
  ^^^^^^ been DEAD LATELY  so, better use     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mysterious LD Fraud
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 18:34:52 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> "Barton F. Bruce"  <BRUCE@ccavax.
camb.com> writes:

>There is NO WAY anyone could have routed calls 10222, and even if they
>had, they would have shown up on the SMDR log.

>I suspect that something is screwed up in the CO, or that someone has
>tapped the line outside this building and explicitly dialed 10222
>before these calls.

My guess (based on an actual occurrance with my residence line) is
that your line is bridged to another drop pair in one of the phone
company's cable termination boxes.  It is not uncommon to leave a drop
connected to a trunk pair when switching service -- presumably the
drop pair will get disconnected and reconnected to another trunk when
new service is ordered for it.  The phone company just assumes that no
one will check the demarc for dial tone.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: Richard Bowles <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Did You Choose Your LD Carrier?
Date: 3 Nov 90 19:52:46 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218


[e-mail] writes:

>Mike Olson writes,

>>A well-known Unix researcher here at UC Berkeley recently switched
>>from AT&T to MCI.

>There aren't so many of them left.  Next time I'm in town I'll wangle
>a dinner invitation or so and slam him back personally while
>pretending to visit the lab.

>Dennis Ritchie
>[e-mail]

Did anyone notice that their is no "disclaimer" in the above posting?
Since it came from someone as respected as Dennis Ritchie, can I
assume that ATT is endorsing slamming? :-)

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

From: Frederick Roeber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Time Protocol, was Re: AT&T ISDN Set Question
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 3 Nov 90 11:37:03 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, coffland@roxanne (Doug Coffland)
writes:

> Another shortfall is that the time provided across a packet network
> whether it originates from a peripheral applications processor or from
> the ISDN itself is subject to error equal to packet delay across the
> network.

RFC-1059 "Network Time Protocol (NTP)" describes (or at least points
to the paper describing) the algorithm used to solve this problem in
the IP network time protocol.  Last I checked, RFC's can be ftp'd
from nic.ddn.mil.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
r-mail: CERN/SL-CO, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: [phone]

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

From: Rahul Dhesi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Distinctive Ringing Fax/Phone Switch
Date: 2 Nov 90 05:08:52 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Timothy L. Kay)
writes:

>It would be useful to have a fax switch that could decide, based on
>the ring, whether to engage the fax machine, data modem, or answering
>machine.

I recently purchased a fax/phone/modem switch that claims to do just
that.  I don't know how well this works, because I don't have
distinctive ringing.  The brand name of the fax/phone switch is
"ExtraLine" and it cost me about $150+tax.  It is supposed to be able
to select one of two devices based on distinctive ringing.


Rahul Dhesi <[e-mail]>
UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Vendor's Experiences With ISDN
Date: Fri,  2 Nov 90 22:53:26 PST


I happen to work for a manufacturer of data comm equipment. We are
working on a new product and are looking seriously into the
possibility of an ISDN interface. Since this product is unannounced, I
can't be too specific about it.

What we are planning is a 2B+D interface (the basic user TE1 / NT
setup) for the new product. Documentation I've found about ISDN often
leaves out basic things like electrical specs for interconnection to
the telco, etc. Also, there are several competing chip sets on the
market. For example, has anyone had any experience with the AT&T T72xx
series?

I guess what I'm wondering is if any other vendors care to share any
words of wisdom about doing ISDN for real in a commercial product.

One thing we are rather painfully aware of is that we have sold
equipment to various phone companies for other purposes and they are
real gung-ho on ISDN in future products.


Paul McGinnis
Internet: [e-mail]
(no, I don't work for Portal but rent time there...)

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

Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 14:19:48 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: Teleconnect*USA Illegal Blocking


Some time ago I received detailed information regarding the policy of
illegally blocking traffic practiced by one of the OCC's.  Later today
you will receive a two-part special issue of the Digest devoted to
this topic, which will contain excerpts from the files I received.

All the files on the topic are now being placed in the Telecom
Archives where they are stored in the 'telecom.security.issues'
sub-directory for further review as desired.

You should receive the two special issues sometime Saturday afternoon
or evening. Because of the size of the article, it will be split
roughly in half. Please observe the headers when reading to make sure
you have them in the right order, given the odd way things get
transmitted at times around here.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 15:49:02 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magazine for COCOT Owners:  Payphone Exchange


I recently became aquainted with a magazine specifically for the COCOT
industry entitled "Payphone Exchange / 0+ Magazine". Published by Leo
Douglas, Inc. this magazine is devoted to news and features about the
private (non-telco-owned) payphone business and the alternate operator
service bureaus.

In my review of the October, 1990 issue, I found stories about:

  "The Equal Access Qaundry and the FCC"  (article discusses why the
     owners of COCOTS should not have to provide 800/950/10xxx access
     for free)

  "Fraud and Security"  (Line tapping can zap you)

  "Regulatory Comment: The LEC Coin Line Shutout"

 Other items included a Calendar, a roundtable discussion, and a
feature story dealing with the difficulties encountered in trying to
maintain the payphones in major transportation terminals.

The 62-page October issue included numerous advertisements from
vendors of COCOTS, operator service bureaus and related enterprises.
Maybe they would add you to their mailing list (it seems to be free)
if you write them, including your company name in your request.

                       Payphone Exchange / 0 + Magazine
                       Leo Douglas, Inc.
                       9607 Gayton Road, Suite 201
                       Richmond, VA 23233


The Reader Service Card & Subscription Request card in my sample issue
asks for:

Your name:
Your company name:
Address:
Phone:

Check one:

Current subscriber. Please extend subscription _____
Passalong Reader. Please send subscription info ____

Your business description:

Payohone Vender, Independent Telco, Financial/Legal, RBOC/BOC, OSP,
Manufacturer, Long Distance Carrier, Government/Assoc, Interconnect,
Public Tel. Co, Consultant, End User (specify), Other (specify)

Are you buying or planning to purchase payphones or operator services?

Software for same?  When?  How Many?   What Type?


You might find the magazine as interesting as I did. It will certainly
bring you up to date on the growing COCOT industry.

My thanks to Don Kimberlin for sending along the sample copy.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #787
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16002;
          3 Nov 90 20:00 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31443;
          3 Nov 90 18:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07304;
          3 Nov 90 17:05 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Nov 90 16:37:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Blocking LD Calls
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Nov 90 16:36:00 CST    Blocking LD Calls - Part I

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Blocking of Long Distance Calls - Part I [Jim Schmickley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 16:17:30 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blocking of Long Distance Calls - Part I


My thanks to John Winslade for sending along the information for this
two part special issue of the Digest. Actually, he sent several other
files related to this, and they have all been placed in the Telecom
Archives at MIT, in the sub-directory 'telecom.security.issues'.

The Telecom Archives are available via anonymous ftp from lcs.mit.edu.
If necessary, you can also use the bitftp archives server to recieve
these files in the mail.

This is part one of two parts:

   Date: 22 Oct 90 18:23:00 CDT
   From: JOHN WINSLADE <[e-mail]>
   Subject: Blocking of Long-Distance Calls


                 BLOCKING OF LONG-DISTANCE CALLS
                        by  Jim Schmickley
                 Hawkeye PC,  Cedar Rapids, Iowa


     SUMMARY.  This article describes the "blocking" by one
long-distance telephone company of access through their system to
certain telephone numbers, particularly BBS numbers.  The blocking is
applied in a very arbitrary manner, and the company arrogantly asserts
that BBS SYSOPS and anyone who uses a computer modem are "hackers."

     The company doesn't really want to discuss the situation, but it
appears the following scenario occurred.  The proverbial "person or
persons unknown" identified one or more "valid" long-distance account
numbers, and subsequently used those numbers on one or more occasions
to fraudulently call a legitimate computer bulletin board system
(BBS).  When the long-distance company discovered the fraudulent
charges, they "blocked" the line without bothering to investigate or
contacting the BBS System Operator to obtain his assistance.  In fact,
the company did not even determine the SYSOP's name.

     The long-distance carrier would like to pretend that the incident
which triggered the actions described in this article was an isolated
situation, not related to anything else in the world.  However, there
are major principles of free, uninhibited communications and
individual rights deeply interwoven into the issue.  And, there is
still the lingering question, "If one long-distance company is
interfering with their customers' communications on little more than a
whim, are other long-distant companies also interfering with the
American public's right of free 'electronic speech'?"

     SETTING THE SCENE.  Teleconnect is a long-distance carrier and
telephone direct marketing company headquartered in Cedar Rapids,
Iowa.  The company is about eight years old, and has a long-distance
business base of approximately 200,000 customers.  Teleconnect has
just completed its first public stock offering, and is presently
(August, 1988) involved in a merger which will make it the nation's
fourth-largest long-distance carrier.  It is a very rapidly- growing
company, having achieved its spectacular growth by offering long-
distance service at rates advertised as being 15% to 30% below AT&T's
rates.

     When Teleconnect started out in the telephone interconnection
business, few, if any, exchanges were set up for "equal access", so
the company set up a network of local access numbers (essentially just
unlisted local PABXs - private automatic branch exchanges) and
assigned a six-digit account number to each customer.  Later, a
seventh "security" digit was added to all account numbers.  (I know
what you're thinking - what could be easier for a war-games dialer
than to seek out "valid" seven-digit numbers?)  Teleconnect now offers
direct "equal access" dialing on most exchanges.  But, the older
access number/account code system is still in place for those
exchanges which do not offer "equal access."  And, that system is
still very useful for customers who place calls from their offices or
other locations away from home.

     "BLOCKING" DISCOVERED.  In early April 1988, a friend mentioned
that Teleconnect was "blocking" certain telephone lines where they
detected computer tone.  In particular, he had been unable to call
Curt Kyhl's Stock Exchange BBS in Waterloo, Iowa.  This sounded like
something I should certainly look into, so I tried to call Curt's BBS.

     CONTACT WITH TELECONNECT.  Teleconnect would not allow my call to
go through.  Instead, I got a recorded voice message stating that the
call was a local call from my location.  A second attempt got the same
recorded message.  At least, they were consistent.

     I called my Teleconnect service representative and asked just
what the problem was.  After I explained what happened, she suggested
that it must be a local call.  I explained that I really didn't think
a 70 mile call from Cedar Rapids to Waterloo was a local call.  She
checked on the situation and informed me that the line was being
"blocked."  I asked why, and she "supposed it was at the customer's
request."  After being advised that statement made no sense, she
admitted she really didn't know why.  So, on to her supervisor.

     The first level supervisor verified the line was being "blocked
by Teleconnect security", but she couldn't or wouldn't say why.  Then,
she challenged, "Why do you want to call that number?"  That was the
wrong question to ask this unhappy customer, and the lady quickly
discovered that bit of information was none of her business, And, on
to her supervisor.

     The second level supervisor refused to reveal any information of
value to a mere customer, but she did suggest that any line Teleconnect
was blocking could still be reached through AT&T or Northwestern Bell
by dialing 10288-1.  When questioned why Teleconnect, which for years
had sold its long-distance service on the basis of a cost-saving over
AT&T rates, was now suggesting that customers use AT&T, the lady had
no answer.

     I was then informed that, if I needed more information, I should
contact Dan Rogers, Teleconnect's Vice President for Customer Service.
That sounded good; "Please connect me."  Then, "I'm sorry, but Mr.
Rogers is out of town, and won't be back until next week."  "Next
week?"  "But he does call in regularly.  Maybe he could call you back
before that."  Mr. Rogers did call me back, later that day, from
Washington, D.C. where he and some Teleconnect "security people" were
attending a conference on telephone security.

     TELECONNECT RESPONDS, A LITTLE.  Dan Rogers prefaced his
conversation with, "I'm just the mouthpiece; I don't understand all
the technical details.  But, our security people are blocking that
number because we've had some problems with it in the past."  I
protested that the allegation of "problems" didn't make sense because
the number was for a computer bulletin board system operated by a
reputable businessman, Curt Kyhl.

     Mr. Rogers said that I had just given Teleconnect new
information; they had not been able to determine whose number they
were blocking.  "Our people are good, but they're not that good.
Northwestern Bell won't release subscriber information to us."  And,
when he got back to his office the following Monday, he would have the
security people check to see if the block could be removed.

     The following Monday, another woman from Teleconnect called to
inform me that they had checked the line, and they were removing the
block from it.  She added the comment that this was the first time in
four years that anyone had requested that a line be unblocked.  I
suggested that it probably wouldn't be the last time.

     In a later telephone conversation, Dan Rogers verified that the
block had been removed from Curt Kyhl's line, but warned that the line
would be blocked again "if there were any more problems with it."  A
brief, non-conclusive discussion of Teleconnect's right to take such
action then ensued.  I added that the fact that Teleconnect "security"
had been unable to determine the identity of the SYSOP of the blocked
board just didn't make sense; that it didn't sound as if the "security
people" were very competent.  Mr. Rogers then admitted that every time
the security people tried to call the number, they got a busy signal
(and, although Mr. Rogers didn't admit it, they just "gave up", and
arbitrarily blocked the line.)  Oh, yes, the lying voice message,
"This is a local call...", was not intended to deceive anyone
according to Dan Rogers.  It was just that Teleconnect could only put
so many messages on their equipment, and that was the one they
selected for blocked lines.

     BEGINNING THE PAPER TRAIL.  Obviously, Teleconnect was not going
to pay much attention to telephone calls from mere customers.  On
April 22, Ben Blackstock, practicing attorney and veteran SYSOP, wrote
to Mr. Rogers urging that Teleconnect permit their customers to call
whatever numbers they desired.  Ben questioned Teleconnect's authority
to block calls, and suggested that such action had serious overlays of
"big brother."  He also noted that "you cannot punish the innocent to
get at someone who is apparently causing Teleconnect difficulty."

     Casey D. Mahon, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of
Teleconnect, replied to Ben Blackstock's letter on April 28th.  This
response was the start of Teleconnect's seemingly endless stream of
vague, general allegations regarding "hackers" and "computer
billboards."  Teleconnect insisted they did have authority to block
access to telephone lines, and cited 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(i) as an
example of the authority.  The Teleconnect position was summed up in
the letter:

     "Finally, please be advised the company is willing to 'unblock'
the line in order to ascertain whether or not illegal hacking has
ceased.  In the event, however, that theft of Teleconnect long
distance services through use of the bulletin board resumes, we will
certainly block access through the Teleconnect network again and use
our authority under federal law to ascertain the identity of the
hacker or hackers."

     THE GAUNTLET IS PICKED UP.  Mr. Blackstock checked the cited
section of the U.S. Code, and discovered that it related only to
"interception" of communications, but had nothing to do with
"blocking".  He advised me of his opinion and also wrote back to Casey
Mahon challenging her interpretation of that section of federal law.

     In his letter, Ben noted that, "Either Teleconnect is providing a
communication service that is not discriminatory, or it is not."  He
added that he would "become upset, to say the least" if he discovered
that Teleconnect was blocking access to his BBS.  Mr. Blackstock
concluded by offering to cooperate with Teleconnect in seeking a
declaratory judgment regarding their "right" to block a telephone
number based upon the actions of some third party.  To date,
Teleconnect has not responded to that offer.

     On May 13th, I sent my own reply to Casey Mahon, and answered the
issues of her letter point by point.  I noted that even I, not an
attorney, knew the difference between "interception" and "blocking",
and if Teleconnect didn't, they could check with any football fan.  My
letter concluded:

     "Since Teleconnect's 'blocking' policies are ill-conceived,
thoughtlessly arbitrary, anti-consumer, and of questionable legality,
they need to be corrected immediately.  Please advise me how
Teleconnect is revising these policies to ensure that I and all other
legitimate subscribers will have uninhibited access to any and all
long-distance numbers we choose to call."

     Casey Mahon replied on June 3rd.  Not unexpectedly, she brushed
aside all my arguments.  She also presented the first of the sweeping
generalizations, with total avoidance of specifics, which we have
since come to recognize as a Teleconnect trademark.  One paragraph
neatly sums Casey Mahon's letter:

     "While I appreciate the time and thought that obviously went into
your letter, I do not agree with your conclusion that Teleconnect's
efforts to prevent theft of its services are in any way inappropriate.
The interexchange industry has been plagued, throughout its history,
by individuals who devote substantial ingenuity to the theft of long
distance services.  It is not unheard of for an interexchange company
to lose as much as $500,000 a month to theft.  As you can imagine,
such losses, over a period of time, could drive a company out of
business."

     ESCALATION.  By this time it was very obvious that Teleconnect
was going to remain recalcitrant until some third party, preferably a
regulatory agency, convinced them of the error of their ways.
Accordingly, I assembled the file and added a letter of complaint
addressed to the Iowa Utilities Board.  The complaint simply asked
that Teleconnect be directed to institute appropriate safeguards to
ensure that "innocent third parties" would no longer be adversely
affected by Teleconnect's arbitrary "blocking" policies.

     My letter of complaint was dated July 7th, and the Iowa Utilities
Board replied on July 13th.  The reply stated that Teleconnect was
required to respond to my complaint by August 2nd, and the Board would
then propose a resolution.  If the proposed resolution was not
satisfactory, I could request that the file be reopened and the
complaint be reconsidered.  If the results of that action were not
satisfactory, a formal hearing could be requested.

     After filing the complaint, I also sent a copy of the file to
Congressman Tom Tauke.  Mr. Tauke represents the Second Congressional
District of Iowa, which includes Cedar Rapids, and is also a member of
the House Telecommunications Subcommittee.  I have subsequently had a
personal conversation with Mr. Tauke as well as additional
correspondence on the subject.  He seems to have a deep and genuine
interest in the issue, but at my request, is simply an interested
observer at this time.  It is our hope that the Iowa Utilities Board
will propose an acceptable resolution without additional help.

     AN UNRESPONSIVE RESPONSE.  Teleconnect's "response" to the Iowa
Utilities Board was filed July 29th.  As anticipated, it was a mass of
vague generalities and unsubstantiated allegations.  However, it
offered one item of new, and shocking, information; Curt Kyhl's BBS
had been blocked for ten months, from June 6, 1987 to mid-April 1988.
(At this point it should be noted that Teleconnect's customers had no
idea that the company was blocking some of our calls.  We just assumed
that calls weren't going through because of Teleconnect's technical
problems.)


[Moderator's Note: This will be continued in Part II of this special
issue, which will be transmitted in the next few minutes.  PAT]


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

End of TELECOM Digest Special Issue: Blocking LD Calls - Part I
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16869;
          3 Nov 90 20:47 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac11260;
          3 Nov 90 19:22 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae31443;
          3 Nov 90 18:13 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Nov 90 17:53:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Error in Mailing Special Issue
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

Due to an error, part 2 of the special issue on Blocking Long Distance
Calls got transmitted twice:

Once with the label "issue 787"

Once with the correct label "Special Issue"

Please disgard the erroneous duplicate mailing. That is a problem here
that someday I will manage to correct.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16943;
          3 Nov 90 20:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11260;
          3 Nov 90 19:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad31443;
          3 Nov 90 18:13 CST
Date:     Sat, 3 Nov 90 17:42:00 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: Blocking LD Calls
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 3 Nov 90 17:37:00 CST    Blocking LD Calls - Part II

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Blocking of Long Distance Calls - Part II [Jim Schmickley]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 16:56:48 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Blocking of Long Distance Calls - Part II


This is part two of two parts in this special issue. If you have not
yet read/received part one, please do so before reading this part.


  Date: 22 Oct 90 18:23:00 CDT
  From: JOHN WINSLADE <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Blocking of Long-Distance Calls - Part II


                 BLOCKING OF LONG-DISTANCE CALLS
                        by Jim Schmickley
                 Hawkeye PC,  Cedar Rapids, Iowa


[Where we left off: Teleconnect had filed their response to the Iowa
Utilities Board. Their answer was that blocking had been going on for
almost a year!] .....

     AN UNRESPONSIVE RESPONSE.  Teleconnect's "response" to the Iowa
Utilities Board was filed July 29th.  As anticipated, it was a mass of
vague generalities and unsubstantiated allegations.  However, it
offered one item of new, and shocking, information; Curt Kyhl's BBS
had been blocked for ten months, from June 6, 1987 to mid-April 1988.
(At this point it should be noted that Teleconnect's customers had no
idea that the company was blocking some of our calls.  We just assumed
that calls weren't going through because of Teleconnect's technical
problems.)

     Teleconnect avoided putting any specific, or even relevant,
information in their letter.  However, they did offer to whisper in
the staff's ear; "Teleconnect would be willing to share detailed
information regarding this specific case, and hacking in general, with
the Board's staff, as it has in the past with various federal and
local law enforcement agencies, including the United States Secret
Service.  Teleconnect respectfully requests, however, that the board
agree to keep such information confidential, as to do otherwise would
involve public disclosure of ongoing investigations of criminal
conduct and the methods by which interexchange carriers, including
Teleconnect, detect such theft."

     There is no indication of whether anyone felt that such a
"confidential" meeting would violate Iowa's Open Meetings Law.  And,
nobody apparently questioned why, during a ten-months long "ongoing
investigation", Teleconnect seemed unable to determine the name of the
individual whose line they were blocking.  Of course, whatever they
did was justified because (in their own words), "Teleconnect had
suffered substantial dollar losses as a result of the theft of long
distance services by means of computer 'hacking' utilizing the
computer billboard which is available at that number."

     Teleconnect's most vile allegation was, "Many times, the hacker
will enter the stolen authorization code on computer billboards,
allowing others to steal long distance services by utilizing the
code."  But no harm was done by the blocking of the BBS number
because, "During the ten month period the number was blocked,
Teleconnect received no complaints from anyone claiming to be the
party to whom the number was assigned."  The fact that Curt Kyhl had
no way of knowing his line was being blocked might have had something
to do with the fact that he didn't complain.

     It was also pointed out that I really had no right to complain
since, "First, and foremost, Mr. Schmickley is not the subscriber to
the number."  That's true; I'm just a long-time Teleconnect customer
who was refused service because of an alleged act performed by an
unknown third party.

     Then Teleconnect dumped on the Utilities Board staff a copy of a
seven page article from Business Week Magazine, entitled "Is Your
Computer Secure?"  This article was totally unrelated to the theft of
long-distance service, except for an excerpt from a sidebar story
about a West German hackers' club.  The story reported that, "In 1984,
Chaos uncovered a security hole in the videotex system that the German
telephone authority, the Deutsche Bundespost, was building.  When the
agency ignored club warnings that messages in a customer's private
electronic mailbox weren't secure, Chaos members set out to prove the
point.  They logged on to computers at Hamburger Sparkasse, a savings
bank, and programmed them to make thousands of videotex calls to Chaos
headquarters on one weekend.  After only two days of this, the bank
owed the Bundespost $75,000 in telephone charges."

     RESOLUTION WITH A RUBBER STAMP.  The staff of the Iowa Utilities
Board replied to my complaint by letter on August 19th.  They
apparently accepted the vague innuendo submitted by Teleconnect
without any verification; "Considering the illegal actions reportedly
to be taking place on number [phone], it appears the blocking
was reasonable.  However, we believe the Board should be notified
shortly after the blocking and permission should be obtained to
continue the blocking for any period of time."

     However, it was also noted that, "Iowa Code 476.20 (1) (1987)
states, 'A utility shall not, except in cases of emergency,
discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community or a part of a
community, except for nonpayment of account or violation of rules and
regulations, unless and until permission to do so is obtained from the
Board."  The letter further clarified, "Although the Iowa Code is
subject to interpretation, it appears to staff that 'emergengy' refers
to a relatively short time..."

     CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE.  Since it appeared obvious that the
Utilities Board staff had not questioned or investigated a single one
of Teleconnect's allegations, the staff's response was absolutely
astounding.  Accordingly, I filed a request for reconsideration on
August 22nd.

     Three points were raised in the request for reconsideration: (1)
The staff's evaluation should have been focused on the denial of
service to me and countless others of Teleconnect's 200,000 customers,
and not just on the blocking of incoming calls to one BBS.  (2) The
staff accepted all of Teleconnect's allegations as fact, although not
one bit of hard evidence was presented in support of those
allegations.  (3) In the words of the staff's own citation, it
appeared that Teleconnect had violated Iowa Code 476.20 (1) (1987)
continuously over a ten months' period, perhaps as long as four years.

     Since Teleconnect had dumped a seven page irrelevant magazine
article on the staff, it seemed only fair to now offer a two page
completely relevant story to them.  This was "On Your Computer -
Bulletin Boards", from the June 1988 issue of "Changing Times".  This
excellent article cited nine BBSs as "good places to get started".
Among the nine listed BBSs was Curt Kyhl's "Stock Exchange, Waterloo,
Iowa (319-236-0834)."  Even the geniuses at Teleconnect ought to be
able to recognize that this BBS, recommended by a national magazine,
is the very same one they blocked for ten months.

     ONCE MORE THROUGH THE DO-LOOP, THEN EXIT.  The Utilities Board
Staff went through the same motions again, and came to the same
conclusion, again.  Essentially, the staff concluded that, because
Teleconnect insisted that it had evidence to justify its actions, but
that evidence was competition-sensitive and could not be revealed,
the staff would have to "take Teleconnect's word for it" and uphold
the company's actions.

     At this point it was painfully obvious that the staff of the
Utilities Board was more than willing to buy any vapor-ware
Teleconnect offered them.  The only way to get the issue out of the
staff's hands and before the Iowa State Utilities Board was to request
a formal hearing.  The request was filed.

     FORMAL HEARING ORDERED.  On November 2, 1988, the Board ordered
that the complaint be docketed for a formal hearing.  After four
months, it was acknowledged that the "blocking" issue had sufficient
substance to merit a hearing.  As of this date (November 15, 1988),
the case has not been assigned to an Administrative Law Judge, nor has
a hearing date been set.

     THE SECOND FRONT OPENS.  A few months ago, we were able to verify
that Teleconnect was blocking interstate (Iowa to Illinois, in this
case) calls, and a complaint was filed with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC).  In late October, the FCC informed Teleconnect of
the complaint, and ordered Teleconnect to respond.

     While it appears that this also could be a slow process, it is
expected that the FCC will much more responsive that the staff of the
Iowa Board, for whom this was a very new issue.  In addition,
Congressman Tom Tauke has expressed his interest in the matter.  Mr.
Tauke, representing the Second District of Iowa (including Cedar
Rapids), is a member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee, and
was recently reelected for a sixth term.

     Recently, we have been able to verify that Teleconnect is
blocking two other eastern BBS lines.  It might be possible to use
these verifications to establish a pattern to escalate the FCC
complaint to formal complaint status.

     STATUS.  And now, as of November 15, 1988, here's where we are:

     We are starting to prepare questions for an interrogatory to
Teleconnect for the Iowa hearing.  Finally, after six months, we
finally have hopes of getting straight answers (or even any answer) to
questions on blocking.  We will try to keep you informed (through
BBSs, etc.) about the hearing date, as soon as it is scheduled, and
other developments.

     We are also beginning to run up some expenses, and need the help
of concerned groups and individuals in defraying expenses in this
fight for communications freedom.  An expense fund has been authorized
by Hawkeye PC, and will be administered by the treasurer.
Contributions are requested to be sent to: Hawkeye PC Users' Group,
Anti-Blocking Expense Fund, c/o Pat Alden, Treasurer, 840 Maggard,
Iowa City, Iowa 52240.

     The complaint on the interstate aspect of the blocking problem is
just beginning to slowly wend its way through the FCC.

     Teleconnect has effectively completed its merger.  Now, it is a
major component of a new company, Telecom*USA, which is the fourth
largest American long-distance company.  This company now has
long-distance operations in over half of the states plus the District
of Columbia.

     Curt Kyhl, whose Stock Exchange BBS was blocked by Teleconnect
for ten months (June 1987 to April 1988) even though they didn't even
know his name, has accepted a new business opportunity and moved to
Des Moines.  Curt is now operating his excellent BBS at (515)
226-0680.

     And, in an unexpected development, Teleconnect Vice President for
Customer Service, Dan Rogers, has requested an opportunity to discuss
the company's "blocking policy".  He is scheduled to do so at Hawkeye
PC's November 28th meeting in Iowa City.

     UPDATE, January 4, 1989:

     Dan Rogers addressed Hawkeye PC in Iowa City on Nov. 28th.  To
summarize, the assembled members did NOT accept Teleconnect's
explanation that blocking was necessary to protect revenues for the
good of all their customers.  The assembled group included
professional people, university students, and four Sysops, Ben
Blackstock, Al Chapman, John Friel III (author of QModem), and John
Oren.  It appeared Dan Rogers was impressed by the fact that this was
not a group of hackers (a term which Teleconnect had been bandying
about rather freely.)  The high point of the evening was an eloquent
sermon delivered by John Oren, in which he pointed that the idea of
"the greater good of all" to the disadvantage of individuals did not
work for Immanuel Kant, and it certainly wasn't going to play for
Teleconnect.

     On December 19, 1988 Bruce Wilson and I participated in a
pre-hearing conference before an administrative law judge in Des
Moines as the initial step in the formal complaint procedure with the
Iowa Utilities Board.  Casey Mahon, Teleconnect's senior vice
president and general counsel, represented the company.  Curt Kyhl,
Sysop of the Stock Exchange BBS, attended as a very interested
observer.  The judge gave instructions to the attorneys to reduce the
significant points of the case to writing and report back to him on
January 18, 1989.  He also suggested that a rules-making procedure
would be in order to establish rules by which the Utilities Board
could decide any future cases of this type which it might encounter.
Bruce Wilson had already prepared a rules-making petition for filing
at a later time.  (The rules-making petition will be filed as soon as
this complaint is resolved.)

     Following the conference, Bruce Wilson, Casey Mahon, Curt Kyhl,
and I met informally and discussed possible resolution of the
complaint.  There is a reasonable expectation of reaching an "out of
court" resolution of the issue without compromising the principles
involved.  Regrettably, however, nothing further along the line of a
settlement has occurred in the ensuing two weeks.

     On December 22, 1988, I set up my computer in the offices of
Teleconnect, and demonstrated communication via modem to Dan Rogers
and some of his security staff.  The intent was to make those people
much more knowledgable of modems and BBSs, and they seemed to be
genuinely impressed by the professional quality of the boards I
called.  We also had an extensive discussion on the high standards,
caller verification, and self-regulation practiced by the Sysops.

     Meanwhile, in Washington, Teleconnect's D.C. law firm had replied
to the FCC on the interstate blocking complaint I had filed.  The
response was, unfortunately, a rehash of the same generalizations and
pleas of "revenue loss" which they had submitted to the Iowa Utilities
Board.  The FCC has not acted yet, but there is some indication that
they recognize that they have never before received a complaint of
this type, and it could become a precedent setter to some extent.

     And, the situation is now receiving national publicity.  Senior
Editor Art Brodsky of "Communications Daily" read about it on a BBS,
and contacted me for more information, as well as checking with the
FCC.  He wrote an excellent article which was published on December
16th.  Dana Blankenhorn picked up on Mr. Brodsky's article and
published an item in NEWS BYTES, an on-line service of The Source.  It
appears now that other publications will also pick up the story.

     Meanwhile, we are preparing to continue with the formal hearing
before the Iowa Utilities Board's administrative law judge.

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

[Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mr. Winslade for sending this along.
Now we need an update: what has happened over the past two years? We
know of course that Telecom*USA is now part of MCI.

I am still hearing complaints about AT&T's practice of illegally
blocking traffic which they suspect -- but cannot prove! -- is being
originated fraudulently. They are continuing to deny service on
selected international calls where their own credit card is used for
billing purposes. Like Teleconnect, they are deceptive in how they
discuss their activities: they blame the local telco for blocking the
call; they claim the foreign telephone administration told them to do
it; etc, or sometimes they flatly deny doing it.  Maybe eventually the
FCC will get involved with this also.  But let's face it: no one likes
to go against AT&T. It is a long, very expensive and time-consuming
process, just like the complaints filed against little Teleconnect, an
organization only a fraction of AT&T's size.  But now and then, people
do buck AT&T and win.

Then we had (still have?) Sprint taking it upon themselves to decide
who can and cannot use their card by blocking payphones in New York's
Port Authority terminal.  This whole matter, of long distance
companies -- common carriers under law -- selectively blocking out
calls they don't want to handle is one that needs review and
adjudication by the FCC on a timely basis.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special Issue: Blocking LD Calls: Part II
******************************











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28675;
          4 Nov 90 6:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07493;
          4 Nov 90 3:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06233;
          4 Nov 90 2:25 CST
Date:     Sun, 4 Nov 90 1:27:43 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #788
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Nov 90 01:27:32 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 788

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Dial 10732 for AT&T SDN (was Mysterious LD Fraud) [Robert M. Gutierrez]
    10732 Non-Info [halcyon![e-mail]]
    Re: Mysterious LD Fraud [Robert Michael Gutierrez]
    Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [Bob Yasi]
    Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: Email in Japan [Mark Steiger]
    Re: Email in Japan [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: Trailblazer Wanted [Mark Steiger]
    Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increses [Colin Plumb]
    Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town [Colin Plumb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial 10732 for AT&T SDN (was Mysterious LD Fraud)
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 04:00:44 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center


In another article in this issue, I wrote I would explain what the
carrier access code 10732.  That was in an article by Barton F. Bruce
([e-mail]) in which he was asking for help in trying to
find the source for some fraudulent calls originating on his outgoing
trunks.

10732 is an access code used by AT&T, but not for its normal L.D.
network as you would describe, but rather for it's Software Defined
Network (SDN).  A SDN is a network that you as it's customer,
literally sets up (or has AT&T set it up for you) with your own "phone
numbers".  Depending on how large the network would be, they can
either be 7 digit or 10 digit numbers, and they can be literally
anything (assuming following normal NPA/NXX configurations, for a
reason...).  MCI and Sprint also offer the same service (under the
names V-Net [MCI] and Sprint ??? Network).

In a virtual network like this, you need access to the switch that
knows how to route calls, and obviously, routes them along.  Normally,
this access is provided by dedicated lines (either private lines for
single trunks or T-1 access for multiple trunks) that go directly into
the switch, since it is the AT&T (or other L.D. carrier) switch that
has the information to route the call (or "translation").  In
actuality, the switch consults with a central database somewhere that
does the "translation" so the call can be routed.

If this private network is all dedicated lines and T-1 spans, that's
all fine and dandy.  But what if a customer has a few offices in some
far away place, each with just a few phones, and the idea of
installing private lies to that place is just too expensive???  Are
those places S.O.L. (that's "S*** Out of Luck," BTW).

In a Software Defined Network, it would be no problem to place those
phones in the network to _receive_ calls (just provide good ol' POTS
translations in the database), but that still leaves the problem to
dial into the network itself from those same phones.

AT&T used the carrier access code 10732 to designate SDN calls.  The
AT&T switch sees that the call comes in on that access code ("just
another class of service"), and instead of routing the call based on
the number it received, it queries the SDN database, saying
"415-732-2000 is calling 202-976-7883", and the SDN database replies
that it actually translates to "Trunk Type 1010 in switch Cheyenne-1,
Port 1", the NORAD Hot Line instead of 976-STUD in Washington, D.C.  :-)

MCI uses a similiar method, in which their V-Net calls are prefixed
with 700 (ie: 1-700-XXX-XXXX if your default carrier is MCI).  With
this method, MCI appears to be limited to seven digit numbers, but
they rely on the switch itself to carry the class of service info for
that particular number (loaded on there by each region's Database
Group, daily).  So, no matter what call comes into that switch, if
it's been marked as V-Net, it will do a database lookup for every call
from that number.  MCI, though, is willing to do any translation your
heart desires on any number you want, and regularly does routing
translations for it's V-Net customers, routing calls around rotten
paths (ie: analog or known bad digital microwave paths) for regular
long distance calls on V-Net.

This concludes today's seminar, Virtual Networks 101 :-)


   Robert Michael Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Office - Network Operations Center.
   Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.  USA.


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

Subject: 10732 Non-Info
From: halcyon![e-mail]
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 90 15:51:02 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News


[e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) writes:

> I have a situation where a customer is an ATT SDN user (all calls
> default to 10732 rather than 10288), and 10xxx routing is definitely

[stuff deleted]

> [Moderator's Note:  Could we please have a little more information
> about the use of '10732' for routing of calls?  Thanks.   PAT]

Dialing 10732 1.700.555.4141 yielded a "You have dialed a number that
is not available from your calling area" intercept.  This is from the
206 area code.


[Moderator's Note: I got the same intercept message when I tried
dialing 10732-1-700-555-4141 from here in Chicago. However I tried
dialing a call, 10732-1-202-653-1800 and the call did go through. I
wonder how it will show up on my bill and if it will be counted in my
Reach Out Plan. Was it handled any differently than if 10288 or 1+ had
handled the call?  Bob, anyone?   PAT]

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

From: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mysterious LD Fraud
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 03:17:12 GMT
Reply-To: Robert Michael Gutierrez <[e-mail]>
Organization: NASA Science Internet - Network Operations Center


[e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) writes an article in which he
is attempting to trace some fraudulent calls coming from his lines.
The PBX is programmed to dial out on AT&T's SDN network (10732) [I
will explain the use of 10732 below].

> Their NET&T bill showed MCI calls on their LDN. Curiously, that new
> LDN, though defaulting to 10732, is not in AT&Ts SDN database, so will
> default to vanilla AT&T service. Virtually all their other trunks,
> including oneway outgoing HOBIC trunks, give their own WTN as the ANI
> number.  There are two trunks that do give a former LTN (their new LTN
> is a 8000 that they prefer to list rather than the old one that was
> quite nondistinctive) rather than their actual WTN, but none of these
> old numbers are involved in the MCI calls.

[BTW ... is this a chain hotel??? That would explain how they can get/afford
AT&T SDN.]

In another article, somebody offers that a drop hasn't been
disconnected, either out of the frame (C.O.) or a B-box down the line
(one of those telco pedistals you see on some street corners).  To be
exact:

Marc Kaufman ([e-mail]) writes:

>My guess (based on an actual occurrance with my residence line) is
>that your line is bridged to another drop pair in one of the phone
>company's cable termination boxes...

This could be true, but with common ground-start trunks, it would be
hard for the person with a standard 2500 set (or similiar Korean
equivalents) to get dial tone out of it.  I have myself experienced a
multi-drop dialtone, when I was 14 and had just moved to another
apartment.  I picked up the handset and somebody was talking on it!
The other party was none too happy to hear somebody "tapping" into
their line, and was going to "call the police" about it.  I knew
better (being telephone aware by that time) and just waited for
somebody on the frame to discover the pair was crossed when we got our
own dialtone.

Back to the original article:

> There is NO WAY anyone could have routed calls 10222, and even if they
> had, they would have shown up on the SMDR log. Also the trunks are in
> a rotary hunt group outgoing that always picks another trunk on
> successive calls.  The chance of anyone getting even a few, let alone
> all these calls, onto THE ONE TRUNK that ANIs as xxx.8000 is
> impossible from behind the PBX.

I know I'm going to sound like your mother :-), or your security admin
(do you have a security administrator???), but you better make damn
sure that nobody has set up a class of service that direct accesses a
trunk, and bypasses the SMDR (ie: non-logging).  Print out the
configuration, DON'T just look at it on the console.  Take it to your
desk, and with a pencil/pen, mark off all the confirmed configurations
for ALL classes and ALL extensions.  Sounds tedious, well, it is, but
a good admin will cover every angle before pointing fingers.  Remember
what you mom said, "It's not nice to point," especially when you're
wrong...

Oh, also one other thing.  *All* large PBX's have direct trunk access
(I seem to remember Rolm's was **7X, N.T.'s was 72XX, etc).  This is
an often overlooked class of service, and always a very DANGEROUS one.
With direct trunk access, a user can punch one of these up, take the
switch out of the line (usually with a #), and the trunk then belongs
to them, with no monitoring or logging whatsoever.  This class of
service has always been the most ignored, and 3-4 large companies I've
worked with have proven this ignorance.  This class should be looked
at *BOTH* globally and on the extension level.


   Robert Michael Gutierrez
   NASA Science Internet Office - Network Operations Center.
   Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California.  USA.

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

From: Bob Yasi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed
Date: 3 Nov 90 23:14:59 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corp., Los Angeles


On the wrong-number-from-Sears front, I have two comments.

First, if the old number is on a "good" switch then Sears could have
the old number forward into their new hunt group.  I think they were
dumb not to do this in the first place, quite apart from the annoyance
they have caused our telecom digest poster, because of the
inconvenience they cause their customers.  I think an important
component of Sears's public image is their "Old Reliable Standby,
my-grandmother's 1920 Kenmore sewing machine still works, Craftsman
tools are guaranteed forever" sort of thing.  Making it inconvenient
to call the store doesn't jibe.  When grandma, who is perhaps still
leasing her black dial desk telephone from AT&T, calls for a new bobin
on her 1920 sewing machine using the same phone number she has used
for years, maybe decades, she doesn't expect Sears to make it more
complicated than it used to be.  Even if the old number is on a "bad"
switch, Sears can afford the additional cost to make it easy for
grandma.

Second, the different wrong-number problem with repeated or missing
digits is very often caused by cheap cheap cheap phones.  Half-decent
pushbutton phones pay attention to "debouncing", which prevents a
button which is pushed once from dialing a digit twice.  This is a
reason to avoid telephone numbers with repeated digits in them.
(Missing digits generally prevent a call from going through.)

When I have time I'll post an amusing story involving a different
Department store whose number horned in on mine.  I wound up changing
my number, but not without a stink and a free dinner for two.  (:-)


 -- Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

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

Date: 3-NOV-1990 23:24:58.71
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed"


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

> When people call the old published Sears number, XYB-2451, they get an
> intercept: "The number you have reached, XYB-2451 has been
> disconnected; calls are being taken by XYA-5600..."  The problem is
> that two or three people per day match the old exchange and the new
> number and dial XYB-5600 and get Dave.

How about an intercept on Dave's number with the following message:

"If you are trying to reach Sears at their new number, please hang up
and try your call again, dialing eks wye EIGH , five six hundred .
That's eks wye EIGH , , five six hundred .  If you are calling the
<Dave's full name> residence, please stay on the line, you will be
connected in a moment."

Then a 10-second timeout; and action to match the message.

Might even work -- if the local Bell company were willing :-) .


Fred    <[e-mail]>  or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail>

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

From: Mark Steiger <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat Nov  3 90 at 12:40:41 (CST)
Subject: Re: Email in Japan


::Still trying to figure out crack about crappy sounding phone calls to
Minnesota::

I love in MN and have had very few problems with phone calls.


 [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]

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

Date: 3-NOV-1990 23:45:23.55
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Email in Japan


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

>extending electronic mail to the masses: What is available in Japan?

    I suppose <jimmy@denwa> knows better than I, but AT&T Mail
connects with at least KDD in Japan -- see the attmail help files for
MHS, and try DIR MHS!KDD for contact information (ok, replace that KDD
by whatever the name of the KDD-operated mhs really is); and
CompuServe claimed, last time I noticed, to be available through the
local phone system -- kdd? ntt? other?  -- too.  More than this, alas
I cannot tell you, for I do not know.


Fred   <[e-mail]>  or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>

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

From: Mark Steiger <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat Nov  3 90 at 12:38:29 (CST)
Subject: Re: Trailblazer Wanted


There is a review of Coherent in the November Issue of BYTE.  It had
lots of good and bad to say about it.  Pick it up and check it out.


  [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: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: More on MCI Mail Rate Increases
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 06:18:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> (One of the neat things about MCI Mail is that you can
> enter a name, and see who is on there.  You can send mail to Bill
> Gates and John Sculley too.)

Wouldn't [e-mail] or <examine Apple's naming
convention>@apple.com work just as well?

(P.S. mail to billg@microsoft, at least, hits a mail filter first,
which passes the Turing test.  I believe it's traditionally called a
"secretary.")

    -Colin


[Moderator's Note: Certainly your address for him works as well as via
MCI. If someone has an Internet account it might be even faster.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 06:27:23 GMT


I had a similar experience when I tried to report a problem in
Baltimore, Maryland from Toronto, Ontario.  I tried umpteen different
operators and directory assistance people and kept getting told that
the repair department definitely did not have a 7-digit number and I
should dial 611.  But that gets me Bell Canada, you moron, and the
problem isn't *in* Canada!  Bell Canada, unfortunately, didn't have
any ideas either.

Eventually I decided I wasn't going to waste my time trying to improve
their service when they so clearly demonstrated they didn't care.

(This was a few years ago, and by now I've forgotten what the problem
was, but it was quite clear it was at the remote end.)


Colin

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #788
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05416;
          4 Nov 90 13:24 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00483;
          4 Nov 90 11:39 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09411;
          4 Nov 90 10:35 CST
Date:     Sun, 4 Nov 90 9:47:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #789
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Nov 90 09:47:25 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 789

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    An Unfair Advantage? [halcyon![e-mail]]
    A CLASSless Society [Ben Burch]
    911 Botch-up in Detroit [David Leibold]
    Answering Service Owner Needs Technical Help [Jeff Scheer]
    Erroneous Phone Book Listings [David E. A. Wilson]
    Re: Alex Videotext Service - An Update [Colin Plumb]
    Re: HELP - INTERNET Access in Canada Needed [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Where Credit is Due ... ;-) [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Blocking of Long Distance Calls - Part I  [Werner Uhrig]
    CALL FOR VOTES: comp.dcom.fax [Evan Leibovitch]
    Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.dcom.fax [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: An Unfair Advantage?
From: halcyon![e-mail]
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 90 16:00:40 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News


I've used a variety of LD carriers over the past couple of years, and
have noticed significant delays between the end of the dial sequence
and the beginning of the ring on networks OTHER than AT&T.  I am of
the belief that many (if not all) LD carriers use part of (again, if
not all) of AT&T's longlines.

The recent television ads from AT&T indicate a quicker response
through their network (1.7 seconds, or something like that), stating
that their calls get connected faster.

What is it that takes these 'other' networks longer to get their calls
through?  Are things being held up on the AT&T end while software
figures out what to do?

As a purveyor of an LD interconnect system (selling links to, say,
GTE, etc.), would it not behoove AT&T to process their calls just as
fast?

Could the delay be with the local telco figuring out what to do with
the call?  U.S West (aka Pacific Northwest Bell) handles things
locally, and used to share a cozy bed with AT&T.

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

From: Ben Burch <[e-mail]>
Subject: A CLASSless Society
Organization: Analysts International Corp, Chicago Branch
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 17:20:48 GMT


Well, having been reminded by our Moderator's recent postings on the
subject, I today called an Illinois Bell service representative to ask
if CLASS services were available in my exchange. (708-888 in Elgin)
She said that my exchange had automatic callback, and busy number
redial installed.  I asked her about the call screening service, which
is what I was really interested in.  She said that the service had
been tried in Chicago, and that it hadn't really taken off, and that
it would probably never be offered in the suburbs!  If our Moderator's
experience is any indication, they didn't try to sell it very hard in
Chicago.


Ben Burch


[Moderator's Note: I think maybe she was confused. Call again and ask
a different rep, or a supervisor. My review shows quite a few of the
south suburbs already converted, and a few north suburbs now finished.
I'm told the area will be 100% converted by next summer.  PAT]

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: 911 Botch-up in Detroit
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 90 23:51:08 EST


An Associated Press report mentioned an incident in Detroit where a
girl (age 7) phoned 911 to report that her brother was being beaten.
She was told by a 911 operator to "get off the phone" and her call was
basically ignored. The operator's insistence that the girl hang up
interfered with the girl's pleadings for assistance.

The mother phoned for an ambulance a short time later, but the boy was
dead by the time an ambulance arrived.

The 911 operator who took the call was supposedly "disciplined"
according to a Wayne County prosecutor.

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

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 90 01:04:03 EST
From: Jeff Scheer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Service Owner Needs Assistance
Reply-to: Jeff [e-mail]


 I own a very small answering service in Council Bluffs IA. I am not
sure what type of ESS office I am served by.  I have a few
questions:

1) The local Telco here buried a 100 pr cable to the demarc outside
my back door.  I was told that the telco heated 25 pr.  I currently
run 1 DID w/100 bank of numbers and am considering adding a 2nd trunk.
Does anyone know if CLID could be used to identify the last 3 or 4
numbers in my DID hundreds group.  Since people CF to me, I just need
a "read-out" of the last 3 or 4 digits that was call forwarded to.

2) After reading about a voice mail upgrade in PC Mag, I am
considering putting in Voice mail as an added extra.  I currently have
a 555 cord board to answer the DID's and my business lines along with
my home number. I run ext's. off the 555 for a repair business that my
cousin has in my garage. He is a tow truck owner/operator, and I
dispatch his calls for him.  Is there anyway to make a 555 board have
"patch" capabilities?  The Answering Service I worked for in SF
through Pac*Bell was serviced with 555's (8) in a row.  I was chief
operator.

3) Would it make sense to "upgrade" to a "Merlin system" and could
the Merlin handle a DID install?

4) Any help or schematics regarding the 555 would be of great help, since
I am in a wheelchair full time and only run the answering service from
6 am - 8 pm M-Sat.

5) Also, does anyone know where I could pick up a 48 VDC power unit for a
555 Type PBX?  I discovered upon battery power up, ( 2 24 v. truck
batteries ) that all lights and supervisory signals work.

6) Is it possible to change out a rotary dial for a TT/ to fit the 555?

7) And do I need punch down blocks after the demarc to feed the board?

8) I am having trouble finding a schematic for the 555. Would US West
or any BOC be able to send me one?  I bought the board at an auction,
where it was hooked up and still in operation until the day of the
auction.  When I bought the board, a Telco Employee just took the back
of the board off and cut the feeder cable to it.  The 555 has a
terminal block made of wood and soldered cables from each Trunk drop
(I have five trunks available to me).

If anyone could help me with this, I would be truly indebted to you
all, as I am in a wheelchair, and can't afford a electronic key set to
use as my main answering points. Also is it possible to take four of
the "extensions" and turn them into a "Patch" where I can call a
client, and extend the call to them, without having to tie up more
trunks? I could use Centron/Preimer service, but here it could cost
a small fortune.

Can CLID be used to identify a Inbound only DID?  As the Telco will
outpulse the last three or four digits of my Inbound DID, I figure
that CLID would be useful for that function, if it will do that.  Any
ideas?

Please respond ASAP, as I am also using my PC for Voice mail with transfer
capabilities for the "human" touch.

Thank You,

Jeff Scheer,
Central Telephone Answering Service & Word Processing
3422 9th Ave.
Council Bluffs, IA   51501-5628
Voice/Modem: 712-325-8701/ 712-325-0443


 The .COMmand Center (1:285/23)

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

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Erroneous Phone Book Listings
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 01:05:13 GMT


The Moderator's story reminded me of an interesting mistake made in
the Wollongong 1989 Yellow Pages. The Wespac Banking Corp managed to
get its branches listed under the following headings (in addition to
Banks):

Abattoir Machinery & Equipment *
Abattoirs
Aboriginal Arts & Crafts *
Aboriginal Associations & Organizations
Abrasive Blasting
Abrasive Blasting Equipment
Abrasives
Accomodation Inquiry Services
Accountants & Auditors
Acid Proofing *
Acoustic Materials &/or Services *
Acoustical Consultants
Actuaries
Acupuncture
Addressing Machines *
Adhesives
Adoption Information Services *
Adventure Tours & Holidays

The headings marked with a * had Westpac as their ONLY entry.


David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Alex Videotext Service -- An Update
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 06:33:48 GMT


I know someone who was interested in Alex ... at first.  Getting the
technical details he needed to do anything was like pulling teeth,
and he had lots of ideas for really cheap services.  You can price
ypur service anywhere you like, he was told ... as long as *someone*
pays the phone company 10 cents a minute.  Boom, there goes that idea.

The terminals aren't great (NAPLPS over 1200 baud isn't much fun), but
he thought someone might be able to take advantage of the really cheap
prices they were being pushed out at by setting up your own modem pool
and doing an end run around Bell.


Colin

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

Date: 3-NOV-1990 23:59:49.50
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: HELP - INTERNET Access in Canada Needed


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott T Grant) writes:

> ... who knows of *any* system, of *any* kind in, or around, Halifax,
> that has direct INTERNET mail access?

    Dalhousie University's dalcs is a UUCP/Internet site there;
Mt. Allison University's MTA is a bitnet site near there.  Both
probably prefer to limit access to students and faculty, but it can't
hurt to ask.

    As to commercial systems, Canada Telecom's Envoy-100 service
was one of the first X.400 services to link with AT&T Mail; so one
might hope for internet mail access via attmail!internet once signed
up with envoy (known to attmail users as mhs!envoy ).

    Logged on to attmail, a DIR MHS!ENVOY should still yield
contact information -- did once, at any rate.  Hope some of this
helps.


Fred   <[e-mail]>  <fejlinton@{attmail,mcimail}.com>

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

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 90 01:11:17 EST
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where Credit is Due ... ;-)
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In the preface to a recent Special Issue, Pat writes:

> My thanks to John Winslade for sending along the information for this
> two part special issue of the Digest. Actually, he sent several other
> files related to this, and they have all been placed in the Telecom
> Archives at MIT, in the sub-directory 'telecom.security.issues'.

I appreciate the thanks, Patrick, but I do want to be sure that the
credit for this goes where the credit is really due.  I'm afraid that
I was only the messenger in this case.

Sue Welborn, one of our local point operators, provided the material.
As you know, there are problems sending large files from Fidonet to
Internet sites, so I agreed to send the material in for Sue.

Sue's return address is [e-mail].

Good Day!

JSW  (Sysop, DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Fidonet 1:285/666)

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

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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for pointing this out. Please do have
someone send along updates on the matter. What has happened with this
since January, 1989 to the present time?   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 1990 4:24:38 CST
From: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Blocking of Long Distance Calls - Part I


> Instead, I got a recorded voice message stating that the call was a local
> call from my location.  A second attempt got the same recorded message.

This is interesting. Just last month, I had a similar "experience"
dialing some number (I forget which) and, automatically, I switched to
AT&T (my primary is Metromedia ITT, formerly LDS) which completed
without a problem.  I will keep my eyes out for the next AT&T bill to
refresh my memory as to the number and then look into the matter a
little more closely. Gee, wouldn't that be a surprise to find more
instances of this happening. (I suspect I called a customer support
number of some software company, and I would be rather infuriated if
Metromedia kept me from obtaining a needed software update...)

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

From: Evan Leibovitch <[e-mail]>
Subject: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.dcom.fax
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date:     Sat, 3 Nov 1990 23:43:58 -0500


[ I am conducting this vote on behalf of Steve Elias
<[e-mail]>, who was involved in the discussion regarding the
creation of this newsgroup. I apologize for the delay in actually
calling for the vote.  I was not involved in the discussion, and while
I am personally in favour of the group, I would not consider myself a
proponent. ]

This is a CALL FOR VOTES for a proposed unmoderated newsgroup,
comp.dcom.fax.

The proposed function of the group is to provide a forum for
discussion of computer and standalone facsimile technology, including
computerfax hardware/software, faxmodems, standalone fax machines,
plain paper fax machines, and other fax devices.

COMMENTARY: The call for discussion for comp.*.fax was posted many
moonths ago, and there was very little discussion.  The person who
issued the call mistook the lack of discussion to be a lack of
interest.  When he withdrew the call for discussion, many people
responded at that time indicating that they supported the idea for a
comp.dcom.fax newsgroup.

HOW TO VOTE: Mail (do not post) your votes by either replying to this
posting, or sending mail to

    [e-mail]

If you have problems reaching me that way,

    ...!uunet!attcan!telly!fax

should get your vote here as well. Note that votes which are posted
rather than mailed will be ignored, and not counted in the final
total.  Please state clearly whather your vote is "yes" or "no" in the
subject line of you message. Votes mailed to me personally (rather
than the "fax" account) are discouraged but will be accepted.

Voting closes on December 2, 1990. At that time, if there are more
than 100 "yes" votes than "no" votes, and if the "yes" votes outnumber
the "no" votes by a ratio of at least 2-1, I will issue a call for the
group's creation.

There will be a single mass acknowledgement posted midway through the
vote, and another one which will accompany the final vote tally. There
will be no individual replies to votes.

Thank you.

Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
    [e-mail] / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / [phone]
           ...quoth the Raven, "Eat My Shorts!" -- Bart

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

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 9:10:10 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.dcom.fax


The Call For Votes message appearing in this issue of the Digest is
required here since Usenet (to whom the Digest is gatewayed as
comp.dcom.telecom) requires that in addition to announcement of voting
in news.groups, persons in groups likely to be affected are also to be
notified.

The establishment of 'comp.dcom.fax' would affect this group since it
is likely some messages which previously would have appeared in
telecom pertaining to Fax will no longer appear here. It is possible
some articles about Fax might be cross-posted, as now happens
sometimes with articles about modems which appear in comp.dcom.modems
at the same time as here.

I do not believe there is sufficient traffic in the subject matter of
Fax at this time to warrant a separate group. In any event, some
readers of TELECOM Digest are unable to receive the Usenet news groups
and (unless the article is cross-posted) would not be able to see
posts pertaining to Fax if they did not appear here.

My recommendation therefore is to vote NO for the establishment of
comp.dcom.fax. After you have made your decision, please send your
vote to the address given in the previous message.  *Do not* send your
vote to me.

Thank you.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #789
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21357;
          5 Nov 90 2:52 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13214;
          5 Nov 90 0:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06772;
          4 Nov 90 23:41 CST
Date:     Sun, 4 Nov 90 23:14:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #790
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 4 Nov 90 23:14:07 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 790

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Interlock For Two Phones [Tad Cook]
    Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Tad Cook]
    Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Gary Segal]
    Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town [David Lesher]
    Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Telephone Pioneers of America [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Telco "Customer Service" (Really DTMF to Pulse) [Dave Levenson]
    Re: *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown) [Tad Cook]
    Re: IEEE Spectrum Article on 'Blue Boxing' [John Higdon]
    Re: More On MCI Mail Rate Increase [John Higdon]
    Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group [Vance Shipley]
    Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Magazine for COCOT Owners:  Payphone Exchange [Brian Oplinger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: Interlock For Two Phones
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 15:45:32 PST


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

> Recently there was an article referring to a simple gadget that would
> interlock two phones so that only one could be in use at a time.  I

What you are talking about is an exclusion module.  They can lock out
certain (or any) phones from a line that is already in use by another
extension.  Real handy for preventing modem interruptions on your home
phone.

Proctor and Associates has been making these for 20 years.  You can
reach them at 206-881-7000 in Redmond, Washington.


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] (Tad Cook)
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics)
Date: 5 Nov 90 00:05:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, aardvark![e-mail] (Steve
Willoughby) writes:

> The problem is that I can't seem to find any references to
> DTMF-decoder chips or schematics of discrete-component circuits to do
> this function.  Any help would be appreciated.

Check with Teltone.  They sell touchtone receivers.  You could also
talk to SSI (Silicon Systems), although I don't remember their
address.  They are in southern California.  There is an application
circuit for the SSI chip on page 34-3 of the 1990 ARRL Handbook.

Stay away from circuits in the older ham radio literature that use
567s and discrete components.

Here is how to get in touch with Teltone:

Teltone Corp.
10801 120th Ave. NE
Kirkland, WA  98033

206-827-9626


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: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics)
Date: 4 Nov 90 20:32:28 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


mitel!spock![e-mail] (Rolf Meier) writes:

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

>>I'm playing around with building a circuit that will, among other
>>things, (try to) recognize DTMF tones played into it.  An example
>>application of this would be to make your own voice-mail system (the
>>circuit would look for DTMF keypad keys pressed on the incoming line
>>and signal a CPU to do something, like play or record a message.)

>Mitel Semiconductor has an integrated DTMF receiver chip, MT8870.
>This should do the trick.

Before this turns into a shouting match by all of the people that make
DTMF decoders, please note that Mitel is not the only company that
makes them.  Of course, I'd like to see you use the Motorola chip
(MC145436), but it sounds like your best bet is to go to your local
Radio Shack and buy whatever manufacturer happens to be in the bubble
pack.


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.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 08:16:20 -0500
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>


Ohio Bell went one better!

They discontinued "611" and installed all manner of intrastate 800
numbers to reach repair. UNLISTED 800 numbers, that is. Sure they're
in the front of your phone book, but if you don't have one, for
whatever reason, you are up the creek.

I called and raised hell. Their answer was 'Call 411." My retort: "You
charge for that. I was at a neighbors, and HE should pay because *you*
screwed up?" {They had disabled my TT detection, and I was not about
to waste an hour looking for my old rotary butt-in.} Silence ensued.

Several calls later the truth emerged. OBT has to PAY to get their 800
numbers listed. They wanted to save their money. {I understood the 800
DA service to be a contractor, but never could get details.}

Unlike the clerks I was talking to, I have heard why they went to the
INWATS. It seems the beancounters wanted centralized afterhours repair
centers. Sound familiar, PAT? But the union had a fit that all the
calls went to one place, and thus those folks got all the premium pay.
So the responding center had to rotate nightly. Thus, you needed to
collect all the local 611 ringdowns, and send them halfway across the
state, but somewhere different every night! But the people in charge
did all this without getting any transmission engineering done. Net
result -- it didn't work. Word soon came back to the Transmission
Engineering Dept. THEY asked the folks who had set it up, and their
reply was:

  "Well, we figured that if we asked you first, you'd say
  it would not work. So we went ahead anyhow, and thought
  you could fix it up after we installed it."

{Or words to that effect}

Your telephone dollars at work....


[e-mail]        (305) 255-RTFM

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town
Date: 4 Nov 90 17:02:59 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I should have thought of this earlier ... Call AT&T repair at
1-800-222-3000 and they will pass the info to the local phone company.
(I think).


[Moderator's Note: That's very nice of them, if in fact they still do
it. I know prior to divestiture the long distance operator would
contact 'inward' in your community and that operator would turn in the
report. Who knows now ...   PAT]

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

Date: 4-NOV-1990 18:17:09.01
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Pioneers of America


Saw something in the {New York Times} Sunday section, from last week
(10/29/90).

For all of you who live on or down near "The Island" (or is it
supposed to be "OUT on the Island..." ? :-) ) - there is a Long Island
(NY) chapter of the TPA who seem to have opened a museum:

"With some 7,000 current and retired telephone employees on the
Island, the Paumanok chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America has
enough man- and woman power to open a Pioneer Telephone Museum in
Commack. Today from 1 to 4PM, the museum greets the public with an
open house to show off its old and new communication equipment.

"The museum is at 445 Commack Road, and admission is free.
Information: 543-1371."

(The area code wasn't in the article [everyone on "The Island" I guess
is supposed to know it], which is 516.)


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco "Customer Service" (Really DTMF to Pulse)
Date: 4 Nov 90 23:05:52 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail].
washington.edu writes:

> The telco was using a standard touchtone to dialpulse converter,
> probably Mitel or Teltone, between the linefinder and the first
> selector.

> Some of them will accept a * from the caller to disable the converter.

Many of them accept the # to disable the converter.  This is so common
that it is used to advantage in the MCCS (mechanized calling card
service) logo tone.  This tone (sometimes called the Bong tone) is
heard on 0+ calls and precedes the announcement that prompts for your
card number.  The first ten milliseconds of the BONG are actually a #
which then fades into something else, as one of its two component
tones decays.  The intent here is that the if the caller (or the
caller's telco) is using a tone-to-pulse converter, the converter will
be disabled when the caller enters the card number.


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]

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

Subject: Re: *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown)
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 4 Nov 90 23:35:37 GMT


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


> Then it hit me: Dial out to Sprint (which is required to be free?)
> then make my local call.  I really didn't care if Sprint charged me,
> the hotel wanted .25 per call and I really wanted to see if it would
> work.

> It did.  I got my bill today.  NO CHARGE for the calls I made local to
> Austin.  Not even a record of them.

> Free calls for all!!

Hmmmm ... I tried this, but got different results.  I had some time to
kill at a payphone, some local calls to make, a Sprint FON Card, and
no quarters.

The Sprint bill showed up, and on the longer local calls, the charges
were rather hefty.

Or did he mean that the HOTEL didn't bill him?


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]

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

Subject: Re: IEEE Spectrum Article on 'Blue Boxing'
Date: 4 Nov 90 11:33:18 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Stephen Friedl <[e-mail]> writes:

> A couple of questions about this.  First, was the moving signalling
> info out of the voice channel done solely to prevent fraud?  Second,
> how big a job was this to redesign the phone system for it (my guess
> is that it was a Very Big Deal) ?

No. Out of band interoffice signaling carries with it many advantages
over inband signaling, such as speed, the ability to pass information
readily in both directions, in addition to being more secure. CCIS was
a gleam in the eye of the Bell System long before "blue boxing" became
recognized as some type of problem. Oh, and yes, it was a VBD!


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

Subject: Re: More On MCI Mail Rate Increase
Date: 4 Nov 90 11:36:10 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Colin Plumb) writes:

> Wouldn't [e-mail] or <examine Apple's naming
> convention>@apple.com work just as well?

> (P.S. mail to billg@microsoft, at least, hits a mail filter first,
> which passes the Turing test.  I believe it's traditionally called a
> "secretary.")

In my experience in dealing with both companies, I would expect that
you would get through to John Scully long before you would ever expect
to reach Bill Gates. Any company (Microsoft) that would subject
customers to a 900 number to reach technical support is way down on
the food chain, IMHO.

I wrote a letter to Microsoft telling them what I thought of a
particular product (and them for having a 900 number) and six weeks
later received a phone call from someone who, in essence, told me that
all the problems were causes by (in order), my hardware, my other
software, my incompetence. This person left a call back number and an
email "name" to facilitate a return call. When I called back, I was
informed that they were aware of no such person.

Microsoft is a company that could probably have all of its phones
disconnected and not suffer a reduction in communication capabiltiy.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: Vance Shipley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group
Organization: SwitchView - The Linton Technology Group
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 90 19:25:01 GMT


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

>if I call X+1 and it's busy, I will not get X+2.  Is this a reasonable
>conclusion, or have I somehow made a mistake while testing?

One common mistake made when testing hunt groups is to use a member of
the hunt group to make the test calls.  If you call line X from line X
you will get a busy, it will not hunt.


vance


[Moderator's Note: I don't think you are correct. I think anywhere you
enter the loop if that line is busy (i.e. you are in fact calling from
it) the incoming call will continue forward in the hunt group.  The
exception would be as Mr. Levenson points out in the next message.  PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group
Date: 4 Nov 90 22:40:05 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James
Deibele) writes:

> I would like to set up a sequence whereby someone calling number X
> would start at the top of a group of phone lines.  These would be
> given out to 2400 baud callers.  Number Y would be given out to people
> who wanted to use Telebits, and would be part of that same sequence.
> (So people with 2400 baud modems would fill up the 2400 baud modems
> before falling through to the Telebits.)

> if I call X+1 and it's busy, I will not get X+2.

I think your present hunt group is arranged for night service.  With
that option, callers to numbers other than the first one don't hunt.
It is typically used on PBX trunk groups.  During the day, the whole
group is answered by the PBX attendant.  At night, each trunk is
hard-wired to a specific station.  Night callers are given the night
number associated with a station.  If the station is busy, they don't
hunt to another station.  Your local telco can probably re-arrange the
hunting to do what you want.


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: Sun, 4 Nov 90 10:07:33 EST
From: "B. S. Oplinger" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Magazine for COCOT Owners:  Payphone Exchange
Organization: General Electric Corporate R&D Center


Patrick,

    I know you are busy, but could you maybe summarize the "The
Equal Access Qaundry and the FCC" (article discusses why the owners of
COCOTS should not have to provide 800/950/10xxx access for free)?

    I think it might provide insight into why COCOTs don't do all
the things required instead of just saying thinks like: they want to
make money, they are greedy, etc.

    Just a suggestion.

brian
[e-mail]
<#include standard.disclaimer>


[Moderator's Note: Well in summary that article said COCOT owners
resent not being paid for handling calls of that nature. They point
out that (in the case of telco payphones) the originating telco does
get money for handling 800/950/10xxx calls through intercompany
settlements between telcos. COCOT owners feel they should get the
couple cents on each call the local telco gets. Of course, COCOT
owners are end-users -- not telcos -- albiet end users who resell
their service. That makes the difference. The local telcos do *not*
share that pittance they get for handling 800/950/10xxx traffic with
their commission payphone agents; so why should they share it with the
COCOT people? As Higdon pointed out, COCOT owners are bogus middlemen
who are trying to resell what we always got direct from telco in the
past. A lot of things get out of kilter when you insist on cutting up
the pie in one more slice.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #790
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22487;
          5 Nov 90 3:36 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20646;
          5 Nov 90 1:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab13214;
          5 Nov 90 0:46 CST
Date:     Mon, 5 Nov 90 0:00:37 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #791
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Nov 90 00:00:09 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 791

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Has TAT-8 Been Damaged? [Rop Gonggrijp]
    A Potential Downside to ISDN [James Warner Adams]
    New DiamondTel Handheld [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Building an Acoustic Coupler [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Airtime Charges for Call-Forwarding [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    NJ Bell Lab in Morristown, NJ [Matthew McGehrin]
    Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day? [Craig R. Watkins]
    Special Issue: 214/903 Split [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rop Gonggrijp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Has TAT-8 Been Damaged?
Date: 5 Nov 90 01:08:24 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic


In another newsgroup someone wrote about a delay in the news and
someone else explained that this was because the TAT-8 had broken and
there were some delays as the internet was being rerouted over
satellites.

What is true of this story, and why didn't anybody bring it up here?
(or was it up here but was I unable to get it because............)


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]) is also
editor of  Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.)
Postbus 22953    (in DUTCH)
1100 DL  AMSTERDAM
tel: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Quite honestly, I had not heard about it. Had there
been something mentioned, I'd have put the item to the front of the
queue immediatly. Has anyone else heard anything on this?  PAT]

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

Date: 5 Nov 90 00:21:21 GMT
From: James Warner Adams <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Potential Downside to ISDN
Organization: University of Cincinnati


I have seen several postings related to ISDN.  Most have praised the
potential for simultaneous voice/data/fax, etc.  I agree, but there
seems to me to be a potential downside as well:

First, this is going to obsolete a lot of expensive equipment.  On the
other hand, this is something that society in general is going to have
to come to grips with (e.g., HDTV, etc.).

My main concern is that the implementation of ISDN is going to give
the telephone carriers a golden opportunity to clamp down on the
low-to-mid speed data comm market that more-or-less escaped control in
the wake of the Carterfone decision.  Given the indifferent-to-hostile
attitude of the BOCs toward home BBS's and USENET sites, one has to
wonder what will happen when a new technology is installed.  Given the
almost unlimited class-of-service control available under a purely
digital system, how will data comm access/billing be handled?

If this is a valid concern, perhaps it's time to start a movement to
raise the awareness of this issue among legislators and other officials.


       Jim Adams              Department of Physiology and Biophysics
[e-mail]     University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: New DiamondTel Handheld
Date: 4 Nov 90 22:55:52 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


At a promo party given by the local Cell One this weekend I had a
chance to see the new DiamondTel (sp?) Model 99X handheld.  It seemed
to be a very nice 10.5 ounce handheld that looks like a miniturized
version of their previous handheld (I think 90X).

Personally, all desires for a Motorola flip phone flew away (I
currently have an NEC P9100).  It also seemed to have all those
features that I missed in other phones such as display of current SID,
control channel, SAT code, etc.  -- listed right in the instruction
manual!  The promo price was $799 -- regularly $999.

By the time I had gotten there, however, the battery was dead and I
had no chance to actually play with it.  Does anyone have any direct
experience with it?  It seems like my dream phone.  The model that
Cell One had on display was sold and they expected more in about a
month, so it will be a while before I get to play.


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

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Building an Acoustic Coupler
Date: 4 Nov 90 20:41:44 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ted
Goldstein) writes:

>      I am trying to build an external acoustic coupler for a direct
> connect modem so it can be used with a foriegn phone system and I need
> some phone gurus to tell me if my idea is possible or not.

    Drawing deleted

>Two phones taped mic to speaker.

> The idea is that the tones the modem puts out are converted to
> acoustic by american phone 'A' and then converted back into phone line
> signals by foriegn phone 'B'. The end goal is to use an American modem
> in France.

> I have tried this setup, and the modem does hear the dial tone, and
> will attempt dialling, but can't hear the carrier from the answering
> modem.

    More stuff deleted

>Any leads on this would also be welcome.

    The "How do I connect my U.S. Modem to overseas phone lines
FAQ" has reared its head again.

    First let me address the Acoustic Coupler thing. Basically,
acoustic couplers are an "Okie fix". They are a chickenshit solution
to the "Don't you dare connect anything to our equipment" bullying
from telcos in the pre deregulation days. Before that starts a
flamefest, I said deregulation, not divestiture. Acoustic couplers
work some of the time with 300 baud FSK modems (Bell 103). They work
every now and again with 1200 baud modems(Bell 212A, CCITT V22). How
well they work depends on the angle at which you hold the handset when
using carbon transmitters. Yes, using an electret transmitter works
better with an acoustic coupler. It also depends on the level at which
you transmit the tones into the transmitter and how well you detect
them. The coupler should also shield out room noise, etc.

This is all a tremendous pain in the arse and can be avoided with the
solution presented below. But if anyone really wants to know how to
build an acoustic coupler, I could tell them. I could even ship them a
modem or two with the damn things built in. They are gathering dust in
the garage/telco warehouse.

    The best way to couple a modem to the phone line is wire the
damn thing to the phone line. This can be done to any phone anywhere
in the world, despite what the superstitious natives may tell you. If
you have a U.S. type phone, answering machine, dialer, modem or what
have you, this is what you do:

    You need a line cord with a modular plug on one end and spade
lugs on the other. Radio Shack part number 279-391 for the twelve foot
jobbie.  Ignore or remove the two outer wires and lugs. These may be a
yellow and black wire. The two inner conductors carry the telephone
signal and voltage. For extra versatility, you may want to buy a pair
of Radio Shack Alligator clips, Part Number 270-346. These are also
known as crocodile clips or roach clips depending on whether you
consort with colonials or dopers. They have a screw terminal on them
so you can screw the line cord spade lugs on to them. Yes, you will
need to know how to use a screwdriver.

    When in foreign lands, locate the jack or terminal block that
the phone is connected to. Disassemble and using either a screwdriver
to loosen screws and insert spade lugs or the clips to attach to
exposed metal, make the phone connection. If you get dialtone, you
have done it correctly. You may find that carrying a sleezoid one
piece phone as a test set helps.

    Before you plug your equipment into the electrical socket
check the voltage. Don't forget that in different lands they have
different line voltages. The U.S. Gummint printing office has a nifty
book on voltage levels and plugs. The book is Electric Current Abroad
from the U.S. Dept of Commerce. I paid $2.50 for mine at the U.S.
Gummint printing office, the parking was $6.00.


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

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

Date: 4-NOV-1990 19:33:41.78
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Airtime Charges for Call-Forwarding


Hi-

A while back I posted an inquiry as to how Cellular Telephone
Companies justify the charges for AIRTIME (not tolls) on
Call-Forwarded calls, especially calls which are unconditionally
forwarded (*72). These calls do not seem to take up *any* airtime, as
the entire processing is handled at the switch.

The numerous people who responded to me indicated that the above is
more or less correct (and THANK YOU! for taking the time to answer),
and that there are many, if not a majority, of Cellular Companies who
do not charge for this service, or who charge a small, fixed fee for
use of an extra trunk by which the forwarded call is sent away from
the switch to whatever said forwarded number is.

I mentioned this to my customer service rep. at Metro Mobile
(Connecticut's [derogatory adjective of choice] "A" carrier), and
since she was unable to respond to these questions, I asked that a
'management person' write back to me explaining why they started
charging airtime for call-forwarding.

This is what I got back in Saturday's mail:

    Dear Mr. Reuben:

    This letter is in response to your recent question about Metro
        Mobile's charges for calls forwarded from your mobile telephone.

    We are permitted by our interconnection arrangements and by law
        to charge usage rates for the utilization of the cellular system,
      when forwarding or transferring calls through our switch. Additionally,
    we are allowed to charge local exchange service rates (if any)
    incurred to complete calls using the public switched telephone
    network. Similarly, we are allowed to charge toll rates for completion
    of toll traffic, where applicable.

    Therefore, per-minute usage (airtime and long-distance tolls, if
    applicable) are appropriately charged for each forwarded call from
    your mobile telephone. Similarly, per-minute usage charges apply
    to all transferred calls, in conjunction with out "no-answer
    transfer feature". (Were you to have "call waiting" or "conference
    calling", applicable usage would also be charged for all calls
    involved.

    We apologize ... [for being a bunch of idiots .., please call
    your customer service rep. if you want to be more confused,
        etc.- DR]

    Cordially,

    Charles Murphy
    Vice President, Marketing


Err ... did I miss something here? Or did he basically tell me that
the reason that Metro Mobile/Connecticut (and RI too) charge airtime
for call-forwarding is because they can get away with it, "by law"? I
mean, I know they are free to charge what they want, but WHY?? If it
is to make more money, I wish the guy would have just come out and
said "Because that's what the market will bear..." So I had to spend 3
hours writing a letter to the exec.  headquarters in New York City
telling them why there is no *technical* reason to charge airtime (ie,
airtime is not being used), and to thus explain to me what Mr. Murphy
could not.

Anyone know the names of the Administrative judges at the FCC who get
to decide if the present system of two cell systems per market should
be expanded to further competition? I'd like to make some LARGE
contributions to them...! :-) (Better than paying airtime for call
forwarding!! -- probably cheaper too! :-) )

By the way, I too would say that on average, the "B" carriers seem a
lot more reasonable and rational than do the "A"'s ... (Possible
exceptions: NYNEX/Boston, which charges airtme PLUS a daily charge
just to activate or deactivate Follow Me Roaming; McCaw/Cell One
Stockton - they went out of their way, on the 4th of July - to program
my number into their switch so that I would have service in Lake
Tahoe ... all this and I wasn't even a customer, but a roamer!)


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: By the same token, I have to wonder how they get
away with charging double air time on call-waiting and three-way
calling connections. Both of these situations are done in the switch
also. The cell phone user is not holding up two frequencies; he has
nothing in his phone which is manipulating the calls on hold, etc. The
fact is, the switch is either merging the calls (in three-way calling)
and transmitting them both over the same frequency or swapping them in
and out (in the case of call-waiting) and sending one or the other out
over the frequency. In any case *one frequency* -- one use of
'airtime'.  But, they get away with it.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Matthew McGehrin)
Subject: NJ Bell Lab in Morristown, NJ
Date: 5 Nov 90 00:36:02 GMT


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

I have to find the number, but I remeber calling a system in
Morristown, NJ. It was a NJ Bell Lab. It was really interesting.
Depending on which number you called you could make the system do the
following:

Give you a wake up call (you enter in your phone number and the time
in 24 hr format and at the time it would call your house, wait till
you picked up and in a computer voice say ' NJ BELL WAKE up call'
(click)

Another feature was they had a recording that would say 'Yes (pause
pause) Yes operator I will accept the charges. It was nice since when
ever you didn't have any money you would do a third party to that
number and three out five times it worked, since most of the operators
didnt give a hoot.

Also they had a 'directory' of employee's at the lab. You could press
numbers (via a TT pad), and it would tell you the names that
correspond. Then if their number was listed it would tell you their
street adddress, telephone number and you had the option of dialing
out.

Oh Yeah, also you could find out the temperture in the room, see if
people had mail in their voice mailboxes, play some music (computer
generated) or listen to the radio. They had it tuned to (102.7 WNEW
FM). I hope they do not get scared by all the information I just left.
It was a great system that could be used in the real world.


Matthew

ProLine : matt_mcgehrin@pro-sherwood
Internet: [e-mail]
    UUCP: crash!pro-sherwood!matt_mcgehrin
    ARPA: crash!pro-sherwood![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Thank you for *NOT* including the phone number
involved. I'd have really had to edit it out ... I can't condone
the kind of tampering around you were doing.  I agree though it seems
like an interesting device which you were playing with. Too bad it was
not available for general use.   PAT]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day?
Date: 4 Nov 90 22:33:05 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> I asked my celluar carrier about the $2.00 per day charge when my
> chart said they were no per day charges in that area.  They responded
> that I should have dialed *611 and gotten the information that was
> accurate for the particular minute is was planning to dial during 8-).

I was amused to find roaming charges on my bill for Philadelphia once,
and no charge for any calls.  It seems that I had made a (free) call
to (*)611 while changing planes which invoked the roam charge.

I know I called and complained about such a silly concept but I don't
recall how far I got.  If you have to ask how much it costs, then you
had better be able to afford it.


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


[Moderator's Note: That's why I fully support the concept of learning
to program your own phone, and getting accounts on many systems.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 23:19:05 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Issue: 214/903 Split


Another special issue will be coming out hopefully in the next day or
two. Woody (David Leibold) has sent me a listing of prefixes from area
code 214 showing which will remain in 204 and which will be placed in
903.

This is quite a lengthy file, and requires some editing work, so it
won't be coming out until probably Tuesday morning ... maybe.  Watch
for it in the next couple days, though.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #791
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20768;
          6 Nov 90 2:52 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26112;
          6 Nov 90 1:00 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23470;
          5 Nov 90 23:56 CST
Date:     Mon, 5 Nov 90 23:19:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #792
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 5 Nov 90 23:19:15 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 792

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town [David Tamkin]
    Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town [John Higdon]
    Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group [William Degnan]
    Re: A Potential Downside to ISDN [[e-mail]]
    Re: Saudi Arabia's Telephone System [Henry Troup]
    Re: Mysterious LD Fraud [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Mysterious LD Fraud [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Has TAT-8 Been Damaged? [Paul A. Ebersman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 17:19:17 CST


Back in Volume 10, issue 758 (you mean I'm only ten days behind?), Ron
Heiby wrote, concerning his problems in reporting his home phone out
of order while he was out of town:

| I then called the Chicago IBT office back and spoke with someone else,
| explained the whole sequence, and received another phone number in 312
| which (she said) would connect me directly with IBT repair.  I dialed
| it and got nothing but some "click-clack" noises with about a 1 per
| second frequency for about 20 seconds, then silence.

| Well, my phone is fixed, now.  I guess I know that next time I want to
| report a phone out of order somewhere other than where I'm standing I
| should write a letter!

Pat Townson responded:

| [Moderator's Note: Here in 312/708 (except Centel) 611 translates into
| a seven digit number: 312-I forget the rest. David T, can you reply?  PAT]

When I moved from Illinois Bell's satrapy to Centel's I was absorbing
the front pages of Centel's directory.  It stated clearly that to call
repair service one should dial 611; from outside Centel's area (now it
should read "from a non-Centel phone" to allow for COCOTs and
cellulars) one should dial 698-9955 [312 being assumed; this was two
years before the 708 split, but it's in 708 now].  I thought, hmm,
gee, what if I fear something is wrong with my parents' Illinois Bell
service and want to report it?  All Illinois Bell could tell me was to
find an Illinois Bell phone and dial 611 or call someone with a
working Illinois Bell phone and ask him or her to dial 611.  There
were at the time four Illinois Bell coin phones within a quarter mile
of my home (the two nearest have since been replaced with COCOTs,
though), so I figured I'd have to walk over to one of them if I ever
needed to tell IBT about someone else's phone trouble.

About three months later I had difficulty calling another Centel
customer.  I dialed 611 to tell Centel about the other phone's
problems.  While I was on hold, their recording told me, if I was
reporting trouble with an Illinois Bell phone, to dial Illinois Bell
repair at 509-2510.  (It's still in 312.)

Interesting; another telco knows the number but IBT doesn't.  I've
since had to use that number twice (once to report a vandalized pay
phone, the other time for a reason I don't remember) and it got me
through to IBT Repair.  Is that the number Ron Heiby couldn't reach?

Centel now advertises two numbers for reaching their repair department
from outside their area: 708-698-9955 and 800-348-0833; but IBT has
the Bell System "We're *the* phone company" mentality and cannot admit
that there could possibly be a non-IBT phone to dial from.  Nope, not
a phone from a neighboring BOC (not even from their own sister
subsidiaries of Ameritech, Indiana Bell and Wisconsin Bell); not a
phone from a cellular provider (not even from Ameritech Mobile);
certainly not a phone served by an independent telco nor a COCOT!

So apparently 611 from IBT country in and around Chicago is translated
to however one dials [phone].  From Centel phones it is
translated to [phone] (yes, I double checked after permissive
dialing between the two area codes ended, and I did get put through
from area code 312, so the translation was updated).  A lot of COCOTs
have 611 as their repair number as well, translating it to the
procurer's ... er, provider's direct (and probably unpublished) number.

Now, what I don't understand about Ron's story is why his wife
couldn't pick up the line that worked and dial 611 from it to report
the non-functioning line, but that's a different matter from IBT's not
knowing its own repair number.


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

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

Subject: Re: Broken Phone While Out of Town
Date: 5 Nov 90 02:18:38 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

> Unlike the clerks I was talking to, I have heard why they went to the
> INWATS. It seems the beancounters wanted centralized afterhours repair
> centers. Sound familiar, PAT? But the union had a fit that all the
> calls went to one place, and thus those folks got all the premium pay.
> So the responding center had to rotate nightly.

Well, it's good to hear that there is a telco that is even more inept
than Pac*Bell. For a decade and a half Pac*Bell has been diverting 611
calls to rotating centralized locations all over California without
much customer inconvenience. Some of the machinations that the
crossbar switches had to go through were fun to listen to: "Please
hold for telephone repair service..." If you hit a '*', you could dump
the device and get dial tone that belonged to telco and do many mean
and nasty things.

Unfortunately, preset translations to central routing points are used
now and all the fun is gone. If I dial '611' on a weekend, there is a
significant possiblity that the person who answers will be in Anaheim
or even San Diego.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group
Date: 5 Nov 90 13:41:29 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Vance
Shipley) writes:

> One common mistake made when testing hunt groups is to use a member of
> the hunt group to make the test calls.  If you call line X from line X
> you will get a busy, it will not hunt.

This is not always a mistake.  When I had a two-line hunt-group in
Summit, NJ, (we were then served by an elderly 5-crossbar switch,
201-273 for those who care) that was the case.  Hunting did not work
if the call was originated within the hunt-group.  In the 1AESS which
later replaced the 5-crossbar switch, hunting did work when the call
originated within the group.

I don't know whether this is a 'feature' of 5-crossbar, or a
translation option that happened to be changed along with the massive
changes that accompanied the CO cutover (back in about 1980, as I
recall).


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: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group
Date: 5 Nov 90 08:00:53 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


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

> [Moderator's Note: I don't think you are correct. I think anywhere you
> enter the loop if that line is busy (i.e. you are in fact calling from
> it) the incoming call will continue forward in the hunt group.  The
> exception would be as Mr. Levenson points out in the next message.  PAT]

  I know of several methods of setting up "hunt groups". Not all of
these are available on all switches:

  o Single-entry hunt - A single number is used to enter the hunt group,
    with the remaining numbers not hunting. On older (step-by-step) gear,
    the additional numbers may not even be directly dialable.

  o Linear hunt - The group may be entered on any of it's members. If all
    lines from the entry one through the end are in use, a busy signal is
    issued (the group does not loop back to the front).

  o Circular hunt - like linear, but it will loop from the tail to the
    head if necessary.

  o Call Forward Busy - If the line is busy, calls are forwarded to another
    number. On switches which allow recursive forwarding, one can construct
    large hunt groups this way.

  o Call Forward Busy / No answer - Adds the ability to hop to another line
    if one of the numbers doesn't answer.

  o Automatic Call Distributor - Calls to a single number are routed pseudo-
    randomly to various numbers in the modem pool.

  Some of these are only useful for _large_ pools of numbers (ACD),
while others don't scale well to larger groups (CFB, CFB/NA).

  Again, depending on the switch, you may not be able to verify the
hunt from within the group. Also, if you've ordered a two-line hunt
group, or find one, it may be set up CFB rather than true hunt,
especially if the customer has other features on the line, like 3W
calling, speed dial, etc.


        Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
        [e-mail]     St. Peter's College, US
        [e-mail]    [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 90 11:06:29 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group


>This seems reasonable to me.  However, experimenting with my
>current hunt group, it seems that if I call any other number besides X, I
>will get a busy signal or a ring for that one line only --- in other
>words, if I call X+1 and it's busy, I will not get X+2.  Is this a
>reasonable conclusion, or have I somehow made a mistake while testing?

You have made a natural error while testing. It seems that you can't
test hunting from a server within the hunt group. If you call from a
line that is not part of the hunt group, it should perform as
expected.

Perhaps the designers never thought we'd want to call ourselves to
check translations?


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]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Potential Downside to ISDN
Date: 6 Nov 90 14:18:16 +1100
Organization: The University of Melbourne


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(James Warner Adams) writes:

> My main concern is that the implementation of ISDN is going to give
> the telephone carriers a golden opportunity to clamp down on the
> low-to-mid speed data comm market that more-or-less escaped control in
> the wake of the Carterfone decision.  Given the indifferent-to-hostile
> attitude of the BOCs toward home BBS's and USENET sites, one has to
> wonder what will happen when a new technology is installed.  Given the
> almost unlimited class-of-service control available under a purely
> digital system, how will data comm access/billing be handled?

I imagine that since digital voice telephony allocates 64kbps to a
channel the telcos will be hard pressed to justify charging different
rates for different uses.  If an analogue modem is used on a digital
telephony circuit, then the situation is no different than before.

My guess is that as more people buy ISDN pads (or whatever they are
called) for their PC's etc, the price will fall so the V22bis modems
will be used by fewer and fewer people.  As far as ISDN in the network
is concerned, I think voice traffic will be considered as data
traffic.

Just my own (probably ill-informed) humble opinion,


Danny

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

Date: 5 Nov 90 11:28:00 EST
From: Henry Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Saudi Arabia's Telephone System


Mike Doughney writes:

> It almost looks like American workers had a hand in its production;

Bell Canada built and used to operate the Saudi phone system, on
contract for the government.  I think that the latest operations
contract went to someone else.

So the central office switches will be a mix of 1-ESS and DMS-100/200,
as my memory of the Saudi connection is that it goes back twenty years
or so.

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mysterious LD Fraud
Date: 5 Nov 90 06:19:00 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


In article <[e-mail]> Robert Michael Gutierrez
<[e-mail]> writes:

>but you better make damn sure that nobody has set up a class of
>service that direct accesses a trunk,

Very true.  This is one of my favorite ways of making free calls from
hotels (combined with letting the receiver time out so that the digits
aren't logged).

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

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 90 06:22 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mysterious LD Fraud


In TELECOMecom Digest V. 10 #785: Barton F. Bruce <BRUCE@ccavax.
camb.com> writes:

Long story deleted

>blocked from all but a few managment phones. All, and I mean ALL
>including brief aborted misdialed sequences, outward dialing is
>captured on the SMDR log. NO DISA is enabled on their switch, and the

more story deleted

>Their NET&T bill showed MCI calls on their LDN. Curiously, that new

more story deleted

>There is NO WAY anyone could have routed calls 10222, and even if they
>had, they would have shown up on the SMDR log. Also the trunks are in
>a rotary hunt group outgoing that always picks another trunk on
>successive calls.  The chance of anyone getting even a few, let alone
>all these calls, onto THE ONE TRUNK that ANIs as xxx.8000 is
>impossible from behind the PBX.

more deleted

>I suspect that something is screwed up in the CO, or that someone has
>tapped the line outside this building and explicitly dialed 10222
>before these calls.

Well, it sounds like either someone is getting onto that LDN trunk
only, and that can either be an inside job, which was not mentioned as
a possibility, or an outside job. (Someone in the manhole with a but
set or tapping your crossconnect. _A definite_possibility_.)

One thing to note, depending on the type of trunk you have and the
type of switch that serves it, it is possible that someone "behind the
PBX" is dialing one type of CAROT test port on your local switch,
signalling it to disconnect, and getting trunk dial tone. Supervision
may not be ended by the local CO on some types of test ports, and a
second call can be piggy backed on to the test port call. This would
not explain why only one trunk is getting these calls unless that
trunk is the only one that can get to those test ports on the right
type of switch. Check your log for calls that fall on coincident
times, and if any test port numbers are being dialed.

Good luck.

P.S. I think it's spelled CAROT(?) Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

A. Jacobson

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

From: Paul Ebersman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has TAT-8 Been Damaged?
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 10:07:51 EST
Organization: UUNET Communications, Falls Church, VA


We were told by MCI that a power station in the UK was out, making the
cable unusable. They rerouted to satellite to get around this.

This cable carried the link from EUNET to the Internet via Alternet
and also the link from NORDUNET to the US (through NEARNET??).
Therefore, most European traffic to the US is running much slower.

We haven't heard any uptime on this. It has been on satellite since
last Tuesday.

                   Paul A. Ebersman @ UUNET Communications
                   uunet!ebersman or [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #792
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21987;
          6 Nov 90 3:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31643;
          6 Nov 90 2:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26112;
          6 Nov 90 1:00 CST
Date:     Tue, 6 Nov 90 0:16:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #793
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Nov 90 00:15:23 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 793

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What's the Deal with NET and Directory Listings? [David Tamkin]
    Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [David Tamkin]
    Re: *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown) [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: Question About "Point of Demarcation" [John R. Levine]
    Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Paul Gauthier]
    Re: $4 Per Day Roaming Charge [Jim Rees]
    Re: Email in Japan? [Tad Cook]
    Re: Talking to People Instead of Machines (Correction) [David Tamkin]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Philip Gladstone]
    Re: Zone Maps are Desireable [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Dealing With Telemarketers [Bill Nickless]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the Deal with NET and Directory Listings?
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 0:30:30 CST


Christopher Gillett wrote in volume 10, issue 772:

[Christopher wants DA to give out his numerically higher telephone
number rather than the numerically lower one.]

| The bottom line is that I cannot be listed at 9020 as
| "Christopher Gillett", I had to be listed as "Chris Gillett", and have
| the 3691 line changed to unlisted.  Their reasoning was that since
| "Chris" comes before "Christopher", and 9020 comes after 3691, it was
| necessary to have "Chris" at the 9020 number to avoid the directory
| assistance operator telling people I was unlisted.

| All this seems incredibly stupid to me.  It seems to me that you
| should able to be listed in the phone book in the manner of your
| choosing, using your name or legal, proper derivation thereof, without
| a lot of hassling.  If someone is looking for the "official me",
| they'll look for Christopher.  A directory assistance operator might
| say "well, I have a 'Chris', do you want that?", but then again the
| operator might not.  So, it's not only a nuisance and a nit, it could
| cause problems.

Christopher, do you have a middle initial?  Can you pretend to have
one?  Consider retitling your service on 3691 as "Christopher Z.
Gillett" [or use your real middle initial if you like].  That way only
9020 will be listed for "Christopher Gillett," 9020 will appear first
in the DA operators' displays, and you won't have to pay for an
unlisted number nor hope that people will ask for "Chris".

It worked for me when I was in the same situation; I had my middle
initial stripped from the registration for my higher-numbered phone
line so that it would be the one that showed up when people asked DA
for my number.


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

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 0:53:31 CST


In volume 10, issue 780, Craig Watkins wrote:

| Dave, a friend of mine, has a primary number XYB-5600.  The local
| Sears' published number is XYB-2451.  However, Sears recently switched
| their phone number to XYA-5600.  The problem is that two or three
| people per day match the old exchange and the new number and dial
| XYB-5600 and get Dave.

| It's no problem to answer the phone and tell people what number they
| really wanted unless you are sleeping/showering/busy/etc. or if the
| people don't catch on and continue to call you back, or they want to
| argue with you about what you are telling them.  We also really wonder
| about the people that leave messages for Sears on a machine that
| starts out "Hi, Dave and Dan aren't available...."

| This has been going on for months and we are hoping it will let up in
| February when the new directory comes out.

It may subside slightly; it's amazing how people marry old directories.

| The usual Bell response is often "We'll be VERY nice and change the
| number for free."  Of course that doesn't work here as Dave will no
| longer get phone calls from anyone that knows his number.  If Bell
| puts an intercept on XYB-5600 with the new number, we suspect the
| Sears calls will simply follow him to his new number.

That they will; suddenly people will get the number in the second
intercept right, even if Dave and Dan's new number is on a different
prefix from either XYA or XYB (if possible; I don't know how many
prefixes serve their area).

| Any other ideas?

This is no 100% cure-all solution, but it may help: as long as Dave
and Dan have an answering machine, they should start their OGM with,
"Sears Roebuck & Co.'s telephone number has been changed to XYA-5600;
that's XY_*A*_-5600 [much, much emphasis on the A digit].  If you want
Sears, you must hang up and dial XYA-5600.  If you want Dan or Dave,
please leave a message."

If they have a machine that allows interrupting the OGM, they should
tell their friends how to do it.  This method will catch a fair number
of the doofi who currently listen to "This is Dan and Dave" but still
leave messages for Sears.  It will also put off most of the people who
want to argue with them that yes, they are Sears, stop lying; after
all, individual Sears employees can play games with you on the phone
but the person at Sears in charge of the answering machine would never
record a lie on its OGM, right?  Of course it's silly, fellow readers,
but consider the mentality we're dealing with here.  When such dolts
get an intercept, they don't yell at it that it is lying: that which
comes from a machine is beyond question.  Garbage in, gospel out.


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]
[Note: my answering machine is not the fax of Fran Dyra at Children's Press.]

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

From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown)
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 17:25:09 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

>The Sprint bill showed up, and on the longer local calls, the charges
>were rather hefty. Or did he mean that the HOTEL didn't bill him?

Well, the hotel didn't bill me, and Sprint hasn't billed me (yet).


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

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

Subject: Re: Question About "Point of Demarcation"
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge MA 02238
Date: 5 Nov 90 16:11:29 EDT (Mon)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>The only feature I have in my wiring which could be called a "point of
>demarcation" is a small terminal block on the inside wall of my garage,
>covered by a neoprene boot which says "Bell System" on it.

That's it.  It's the lightning protector, provided to keep your phones
from exploding if there's a hit nearby.  Post-MFJ demarcation points
are a somewhat bigger box with both the protector and an RJ-11 plug
and socket, so in case of trouble you can unplug your inside wiring,
plug in a known good phone, and tell easily if the trouble's inside or
outside.

As far as I can tell, every phone installation in the country is
supposed to run through a protector, so it is a sensible demarc point.
(Yeah, large PBX installations have an RJ-21 block for the demarc
point, but we can hope that such PBXes have someone around who knows
what's going on.)

Regards,

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

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

From: Paul Gauthier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics)
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 1990 19:08:27 -0400


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, aardvark![e-mail] (Steve
>Willoughby) writes:

>> The problem is that I can't seem to find any references to
>> DTMF-decoder chips or schematics of discrete-component circuits to do
>> this function.  Any help would be appreciated.

Check one of the recent issues of {Radio & Electronics} at your local
library. One of their recent projects was a board for IBMs which allow
detection of DTMF sounds and other pretty nifty control features of
the phone line. Schematics, pinouts, traces, etc are all in the
article.  I'm not sure which month it was in. I also believe a source
for a complete kit was listed in the article.


PG

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: $4 Per Day Roaming Charge
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 16:41:42 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Douglas Scott Reuben) writes:

>Wouldn't they make more money in the long run by encouraging the cell
>phone to be used as often as possible, rather than tacking on charges
>that tend discourage use?

I think this is probably institutional inertia at work.  When cell
phones first came out, they cost about $2000 each, so they were only
used by business folks who didn't care how much they cost.  Now that
you can buy a cell phone for as little as $100 (or less if you agree
to extortionate service "packages"), a more people-oriented rate
structure might make better sense.  But the people who set cell phone
rates don't have much incentive to lower rates, especially when they
enjoy a duopoly.

>  Metro> "Is this Boston, Mass. you are talking about?"

Boston, Virginia is lovely this time of year, but I don't know if they
have cell service.

I was fascinated by cellphones when they first came out, but now that
they have come down in price to where I might be able to afford one,
it sounds like the companies are so sleazy that I would rather not
have to deal with them.

Now I have a question.  Suppose I have a cell phone, and service in my
local area, and I travel to a different area and want to place a call.
What do I need to do?  Just pick up the phone and dial?  Call a
special number and tell them I want to roam for the day?  Go visit an
office somewhere and put down a deposit?  What do I need to do to
arrange for incoming calls to reach me?  Can callers use my regular
phone number or do I get a new one when I'm roaming?  What about
roaming in foriegn countries (HK in particular)?  (I looked in the
archives for a cellphone primer but didn't see one.)


[Moderator's Note: We need a good cellphone tutorial in the archives.
To answer your questions: Yes, you generally just pick up the phone
and call. Charges will be forwarded back to your home system via
intercompany settlements; you will be billed a month or two or three
later. You keep your phone number when roaming. Incoming calls can
reach you two ways: The caller can dial the roaming port for the place
where you are. On hearing new dial tone, then dial your number. In the
alternative, many carriers offer 'follow me' roaming. By punching a
certain code in the new city, you tell that carrier to advise your
home carrier of your whereabouts, and to forward calls to you
automatically. In the first case, the caller pays the toll to reach
the roamer port in the distant city; the the latter case, the toll
charge for the call forwarded on to you from your home system is paid
by yourself.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Email in Japan?
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 4 Nov 90 23:55:01 GMT


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

> What about third-party traffic on Amateur packet radio?

Communicating with Japan via amateur radio on behalf of a third party
is illegal.  Of course, if you and your mom get ham tickets, then it
is OK.

The US has to have a third party traffic treaty with a particular
country before you are allowed to communicate with someone there on
behalf of a third party.


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

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

Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 00:17 CST
From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Talking to People Instead of Machines (Correction)
Organization: Contributor Account at ddsw1, Wheeling, Illinois


Tim Steele misattributed the following to me in volume 10, issue 763:

| > | A human-factors consideration: when I was making my living as a
| > | computer consultant a few years ago ...

Please, Mr. Steele, be more careful when you attribute quoted text!
Those were not my words but rather something I in turn had quoted from
yet a previous article.  I've never been a computer consultant even as
a dilettante, let alone as a way to earn a living, and I've never even
qualified for such a position.  I cannot let it be implied that I had
made such an outlandish claim.

My attorneys and my conscience now invite you to return to reading
comp.dcom.telecom.


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] (Philip Gladstone)
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Organization: Data General, Development Lab Europe
Date: 5 Nov 90 11:17:41


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brian Westley
(Merlyn LeRoy)) writes:

>When they insert leap-seconds at the end of the year, does it state
>the time as 11:59:50 ... 11:59:60 ... 12:00:00 ?

A point to note is that the leap second which is inserted (or removed)
is the last second before 00:00:00 *GMT*. I've always wondered how the
change is handled as it occurrs in the middle of the evening for US
people, which is a time when it might get noticed. Over here, the
winter change happens during New Year's celebrations and nobody is
sober enough to care!


Philip Gladstone          Development Lab Europe
Data General, Cambridge  England.  [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 90 23:56 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Zone Maps are Desireable


In Telecom Digest V. 10 #780 Laird P. Broadfield <lairdb@crash.
cts.com> writes:

>I've traveled to a couple of cities (I _think_
>St.  Louis, MO was one) where the telephone book included a one-page
>reference that translated the centrex number to a city map (i.e. you
>want to know what part of the city 234-xxxx is in, so you look in
>the table, and it says "234 ... area 17" so you look at the map, and
>there's a little squiggly shape with 17 marked in it.)

Well, Cincinatti Bell (Not part of the old AT&T, and thus never
actually divested) does just that in their directory. They also list a
small number of prefixes right around the river that can be reached
from either the Ohio(513) or Kentucky(606) side without dialing the
area code. I assume they can do this as its all within their LATA.
Rather a nifty service if you ask me ... I don't remember what the
prefixes are, but I wonder if you could reach those numbers from
outside the LATA by dialing either 513- or 606- area codes.


     A. Jacobson

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

Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 17:46:00 CST
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dealing with Telemarketers


A reasonable response I haven't read about yet could be scripted like
this:

Sleaze:   "Is Mr. Nickless available?"  (Or better yet, I live with my
           recently widowed aunt, and the Sleaze asks for "Mr. or Mrs.
           White....")

Our Hero: "Just a moment, please."

(20 minutes later, Sleaze hangs up in disgust, realizing that it has
lost that time to harass someone else.)  :-)


detour mail to [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Based on only one sentence from the person calling,
how do you know it was a telemarketer and not a police officer,
hospital clerk or someone Mr. and Mrs. White *do* need and want to
speak with?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #793
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28553;
          6 Nov 90 10:05 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25351;
          6 Nov 90 8:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13650;
          6 Nov 90 7:06 CST
Date:     Tue, 6 Nov 90 6:54:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #794
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Nov 90 06:53:45 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 794

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Bell Canada News October 29, 1990 [Henry Troup]
    Understanding CCITT X.*, V.* and ISDN [Luis Jenkins]
    ISDN Frame Relay Service [Johnny Zweig]
    Your Ideas Needed For SWB Telecom Meeting [Ed Hopper]
    An Introduction to ACD [Kevin Collins]
    Kowabunga: Sprint to Hawaii [Sprint Employee via Steve Elias]
    Sprint Calling Card System Beta Test [Sprint Employee via Steve Elias]
    Turkey City Codes [Carl Moore]
    Misspelled City Name [Art Hau]
    Re: Area 908 Now in a Diectory [Andy Jacobson]
    Fax Newsgroup -- Vote Early and Vote Yes [Steve Elias]
    Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.dcom.fax [John Levine]
    Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.dcom.fax [Norman Yarvin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Nov 90 11:43:00 EST
From: Henry Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Canada News October 29, 1990


I thought I'd summarise the latest issue of {Bell News}, the Bell Canada
Ontario Region newspaper:

 - Bell demonstrates international technology link

Bell Canada demo'd OSI for the first time in Canada at the ANSI
plenary session. During the demonstration, more than 100 industry
experts observed as a full seven-layer OSI stack was used to remotely
manage a high-speed fiber optic transmission system in Montreal.

 - New Call-Me Card proving popular ... over 20,000 issued

 - Datapac reductions

Reductions of up to 68% on international packet switching - $4.50 per
hour to Europe, Caribbean, Central and South Americe, Middle and Far
East, Africa, Australia.  Access to over 100 foreign public packet
networks in 85 countries.

 - Teleglobe expands

Orivate digital satellite service to 13 new countries including
Jamaica, Brazil, South Korea, New Zealand, Germany, Bermuda,
Switzerland. "Teleglobe, a Memotech company, is Canada's international
telecommunications carrier."  The services are called Globesat (tm)
and Globestream (tm).

 - Downturn spurs changed spending processes

The projected increase in calls for 1990 and 1991 is less than the
historical trend to date, and Bell Canada is deferring a bunch of
spending.

A less interesting issue than many ... hope some of this is of
interest.  I've left out the purely 'company' stuff, like internal
cost reduction "Return your spare furniture", and volleyball games,
Pioneer activities, obituaries, etc.

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

From: Luis Jenkins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Understanding CCITT X.*, V.* and ISDN
Date: 6 Nov 90 02:57:11 GMT
Reply-To: Luis Jenkins <quintus![e-mail]>
Organization: Sandinista Research Laboratories


Hi there world. I know next to nothing about the CCITT X*, V* and
about ISDN (how's that for honesty?), but I am getting very interested
in these subjects. I do have a monotonically increasing amount of
knowledge about UUCP and TCP/IP.

Is there an online repository of documents about these standards and
services, ala nic.ddn.mil for RFCs?

Also, what books would this group recommend? I am interested in both
the user's point of view, and the technical details.

And, although I am a software type, I can usually tell apart an RJ-11
from a DB-25 :-)

Thanks a lot,

Luis Eduardo Jenkins          [e-mail]
Quintus Computer Systems   ...!sun!quintus!lej

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Frame Relay Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 04:49:10 GMT


I was talking to Van Jacobson last week and he described a service his
local telco is going to offer real soon now in which the customer sets
up virtual calls using the D-channel and then dumps HDLC frames onto
the B-channel and they get routed by the CO switch. Zounds! This
sounds really neat -- the functionality of IP coming right out of the
funny-looking ISDN jack on the wall.

Does anyone know more about this service?  I am mostly interested in
how reliable the frame delivery would be, whether frames would be
delivered in order, whether one could set up calls to the same
destination over both B-channels in a PRI (to crank out 128kbps to a
single other machine) and that sort of thing.


Johnny ISDN

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

From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Your Ideas Needed For SWB Telecom Meeting
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 90 19:35:53 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


I have been asked, in my position as president of a BBS sysop and
users group, to attend a focus group session on telecommunications
services for data communications hobbyists. This group would be
connected by Southwestern Bell.

I am soliciting input as to needed services.  Among the things I see
as needed:

1. Methodology for resolution of data transmission problems other than
"you need a data line [at PBX business trunk rates]".

2. Pricing of ISDN 2B+D services at levels consistent with hobby use.
My own feeling on this is that I want data transmission on the B
channel at 64 KB.  Afterall, I can do 14.4KB on a dial up, why pay
extra for 16K on the D channel?

After the above two, I get stumped.  The other things I want from the
LECs, no discrimination, no harrassment and clean circuits are not
exactly "new products".

At any rate, I would like to solicit input for this meeting (not yet
scheduled, but probably late November).  Please mail your comments to
me at the following:

[e-mail]   attmail!ehopper   [e-mail]

DISCLAIMER: My participation in this matter is not connected with my
employer.


Ed Hopper's BBS 713-997-7575 - Houston - Free Access to AT&T Employees
USENET - ILink - Smartnet     PC Board - Markmail Offline Reader System

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

From: Kevin Collins <aspect![e-mail]>
Subject: An Introduction to ACD
Date: 5 Nov 90 17:51:28 GMT
Organization: Aspect Telecommunications, San Jose, Ca


In article <[e-mail]>,  [e-mail] (Henry Troup) writes:

> I thought that ACD was Automatic Call Direction (now superseded by
> UCD, Universal Call Direction) which distributed calls between a
> number of agents (people), not a voice mail system. [definition of
> Automatic Call Distribution from Northern Telecom DMS*-100 docs]

I don't know if {Automatic,Universal} Call Direction is the same as
Automatic Call Distribution or not, but I do know a little history
about the origins of Automatic Call Distribution.

Long ago in the early days of digital PBX's, when features were
features and bugs were everywhere, there came a wonderous feature
called a "Hunt Group". When a call came into a Hunt Group, the PBX
would do a linear search, starting always at the head of a defined
list of extensions, and offer the call to the 1st extension it found
that wasn't busy. This method would give many calls to the extensions
at the start of the list and few calls to those at the end of the
list. To help alleviate this problem, vendors came up with
"Distribution Groups". This method used a circular queue, and after an
extension took a call, it would move to the end of the queue. Both
these methods had the problem of offering a call to an extension when
the person wasn't at their desk.

ROLM invented the idea of ACD; they associated "states" with the
extensions (Available, meaning the ext. could take calls, and
Unavailable, meaning the ext. could NOT take calls). The routing could
be done in one of three ways: Hunt Groups, Distribution Groups, or by
Longest Time Available. Statistics on the agent's performance (time
Avail., time Unavail., calls answered, etc.) were also kept. Also, I
_think_ that queueing calls when everybody was busy was first offered
with ACD.

ACD has advanced a _looooong_ way since those humble beginnings; I
could give more detail, but that would be a different message.

*DMS is a trademark of Northern Telecom.


Kevin Collins                   |  Aspect Telecommunications
USENET: ...uunet!aspect!kevinc  |  San Jose, CA
Voice:  [phone]         |  My opinions are mine alone.

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Kowabunga: Sprint to Hawaii
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 90 08:43:36 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: Once again, the Sprint person who feels s/he must
remain Anonymous ... passing along messages to Mr. Elias.  PAT]

[forwarded from Sprint employee.]

Yes, we do have fiber to Hawaii, as a matter of fact.  About a year or
so ago, we bought Long Distance USA which was a Hawaii based telecom
operation with the largest percentage of LD market share out of
Hawaii.

They were/are predominantly hospitality oriented and are strong in
operator services etc.

[end forwarded message.]


eli

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Sprint Calling Card System Beta Tdtest
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 90 09:59:54 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: For some reason, I don't think we received the
original commentary which is quoted here. It apparently was in some
other newsgroup.  PAT]

  Date: 1 Nov 90 19:08:07 GMT
  From: [e-mail] (Jim Morton [ext 237])
  Subject: U.S. Sprint New Calling Card System


>U.S. Sprint just announced that they are "Beta-testing" a new phone
>calling card system that will use voice spoken card numbers, and no
>card number entries will be able to be entered by touch-tone keys.
>This presents the risk of the person at the next pay phone to you
>overhearing your calling card number as you speak it and be able to
>write it down and distribute it to other people as has happened with
>PC Bulletin boards around the country.

Jim!  Where's the risk?  It doesn't matter how many people know your
calling card number unless they have your voice on tape, too!  Note
that the card numbers *cannot* be entered via touch tones, only via
the user's voice.  If you're looking for a "risk" in this system, how
about when the user has laryngitis?!

>To make the matter worse, nine of
>the digits in the "voice card" number are your SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.
>There have been endless discussions on Usenet about the SSN privacy
>issue.  I would urge people to consider these risks before
>participating in this "Beta-test".

I'm sure Sprint will provide you with another "voice card" number if
you don't want to use your Social Security number.

[ forwarded from US Sprint employee. ]

As far as i know, and I've just gotten a lot of literature on the
subject too incidentally, it's not a beta test.  We are beyond beta,
it's between beta and rollout and we call it a pilot test.  It will
involve a total of 3500 users testing various features. The users will
be selected from amoung those large corporate users (national accts)
who express interest accross the country.  Roughly 700 cards per
region - not a lot.

The MARKETING FEATURE SET which will be tested involves a spoken id
but there is no mention of any kind of # id and certainly no mention
of the use of a social security #.  But I also have some other
literature on the subject and it does say that you speak a voicecard
number so the system can verify it and your voiceprint against
existing voice templates.

Spoken speed dial commands "call home" and "call office" will be
tested (which lead me to believe that the # ID isn't what you [eli]
think it is.  Lastly, call delivery, which allows a user to send a
message if called party doesn't answer.

Also tested will be voicemail features and other stuff they think of
along the way.

The way it basically works is by matching the caller's voice against a
voice template (voice recognition).  So it shouldn't make any
difference if anyone tries to use it other than you because no one has
exactly your voice. (We can do this since we are the only guys who are
100% digital - I don't think any other carrier even has this stuff any
where near development)

[ End of Forwarded Message. ]


eli


[Moderator's Note: Again, I would ask that your anonymous correspondent
provide us at least with a name when posting here.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 5 Nov 90 10:37:31 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Turkey City Codes


Having received "90 5" for Turkish Cyprus in message to telecom digest
from Clive Feather <[e-mail]>, I now have this for Turkey's city
codes.  Notice 51 for Izmir (also called Smyrna?), which isn't all
that close to Cyprus.

90  Turkey

    1 or 11  Istanbul
    41  Ankara
    5   Turkish Cyprus
    51  Izmir or Ismir
    711 Adana

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

Date: Sun,  4 Nov 90 12:51:25 MST
From: Art Hau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Misspelled City Name


For many years, I have been frustrated in seeing a city's name
misspelled on my phone bill.  Is there an easy way to contact someone
to get this changed?

The city in question is San German, PR [(809)-892-XXXX].  My phone
bill has it spelled as San Germain!  (Notice the extra 'i'.)


    Art Hau                 |   [e-mail]
    4231 S. Fremont Avenue  |   [e-mail]
    Tucson, AZ  85714       |   noao!coyote!art



Art Hau - via FidoNet node 1:300/14
UUCP: ...!noao!coyote!emdisle!Art.Hau
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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


Date: Fri, 02 Nov 90 23:56 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area 908 Now in a Directory


The new GTE directories that just came out in the western part of 213
area code make no mention whatsoever of the impending split that will
put all those directories in the 310 area code starting Nov. 2,1991.
Nor do they mention the 510 area code that starts in the East Bay area
of 415 also in California on Sept. 2, 1991 ... (Nor do they mention
the new 903 area east of Dallas that starts this Sunday for that
matter).  But then what do I expect from GTE (read: Generic Telephone
Equivalent)?  Pac*Bell in their October '90 directories has a whole
page, and boxes, arrows and bold lettering all over the place to warn
us. I kind of remember IBT had made, and still does make quite a big
deal about the advent of 708 in the Chicago area. Maybe GTE expects
Pac*Bell to do all the PR for them out here.


     A. Jacobson

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

Subject: Fax Newsgroup -- Vote Early and Vote Yes
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 90 10:15:51 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Well, the facts indicate that Patrick's opinion that there is not
enough net.traffic about fax to warrant a separate group is just an
opinion, and probably a wrong one at that.

There is already a fax newsgroup on usenet (alt.fax).  The question is
not whether there is enough traffic, but whether the group deserves to
be in the legit comp.* hierarchy or the black-sheep alt.* hierarchy.
My opinion is that it belongs in the real-stuff hierarchy, where
(hopefully) more people can read it.

So, send your "yes" votes to "[e-mail]"


eli

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

Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.dcom.fax
Organization: I.E.C.C., Cambridge MA 02238
Date: 4 Nov 90 19:37:46 EST (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


Do you see alt.fax?  It doesn't go everywhere Usenet does, so you may
not.  It's been running 5 - 10 messages per day lately.  There's
plenty of traffic for a real news group.

Regards,

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

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

From: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CALL FOR VOTES: comp.dcom.fax
Date: 5 Nov 90 15:58:12 GMT


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

>I do not believe there is sufficient traffic in the subject matter of
>Fax at this time to warrant a separate group.

The newsgroup "alt.fax" already exists; the reason put forth for
creating comp.dcom.fax has been to move alt.fax to the mainstream
hierarchy.  The traffic in question has already left TELECOM Digest.


[Moderator's Note: In the above three messages we have rebuttals to my
comment yesterday that a fax newsgroup is not needed. Since I printed
one point of view, I am including these opposing viewpoints.
Discussion about the establishment of new groups ordinarily should
take place in 'news.groups'.  Thanks.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #794
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29798;
          6 Nov 90 11:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01791;
          6 Nov 90 9:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25351;
          6 Nov 90 8:11 CST
Date:     Tue, 6 Nov 90 7:54:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest Special: 214/903 Area Split
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 6 Nov 90 07:52:00 CST    Special: 214/903 Split

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    214/903 Split - What Exchanges go Where [Joe Isham via David Leibold]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: 214/903 Split - What Exchanges go Where
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 90 0:07:11 EST
From: woody <[e-mail]>


With the upcoming split of the 214 area code becoming active in a few
days, I received a list of exchanges and how they would split. Thanks
to Joe Isham for this information.

      From: Joe Isham <[e-mail]>
      Subject: 214/903 Prefix Guide

Following is a guide to the 214/903 area code which I compiled from the
earlier posting on comp.dcom.telecom, the telco's listings, and a patient
operator at SWBT.  Hope you can use it...

                     214/903 PREFIX GUIDE

Below are listed the possible prefixes in the 214/903 area codes.
Prefixes with an exchange not listed are not currently assigned (to
the best of my knowledge).

The area code to be assigned to each prefix is listed with each
prefix.

Some NNX exchanges have not yet been assigned due to confusion with
some greater Fort Worth EMS exchanges. See the note at the end of the
list for some exceptions.

Compiled 07/12/90 by Joe Isham
joeisham@chinet -or- [e-mail]


214 200                214 201
214 202 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 203 Sunnyvale
214 204 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 205 Garland
214 206             214 207
214 208             214 209
214 210             214 211 --reserved--
214 212 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 213
214 214 --reserved--        214 215
214 216 Mesquite        214 217 De Soto
214 218 Lancaster        214 219 Lewisville
214 220 Dallas Ross Avenue    214 221 Lewisville
214 222 Lawson            214 223 De Soto
214 224 Danieldale        214 225 Hutchins
214 226 Sunnyvale        214 227 Lancaster
214 228 Danieldale        214 229 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 230 De Soto            214 231 Richardson
214 232             214 233 Addison
214 234 Richardson        214 235 Richardson
903 236 Longview        903 237 Longview
214 238 Richardson        214 239 Addison
214 240 Garland            214 241 Farmers Branch
214 242 Carrollton        214 243 Farmers Branch
214 244 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 245 Carrollton
214 246 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 247 Farmers Branch
214 248 Renner            214 249 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 250 Renner            214 251 Irving (EMS)
214 252 Irving            214 253 Irving
214 254 Irving            214 255 Irving
214 256 Irving (EMS)        214 257 Irving
214 258 Irving            214 259 Irving
214 260 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 261
214 262 Grand Prairie        214 263 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 264 Grand Prairie        214 265
214 266 Grand Prairie        214 267 (see note)
214 268             214 269 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 270 North Mesquite        214 271 Garland
214 272 Garland            214 273
214 274             214 275
214 276 Garland            214 277
214 278 Garland            214 279 North Mesquite
214 280             214 281
214 282 Grand Prairie        214 283
214 284             214 285 Mesquite
214 286 Rylie            214 287 Seagoville
214 288 Mesquite        214 289 Mesquite
214 290 Dallas Riverside    214 291 Cedar Hill
214 292 Little Elm        214 293 Cedar Hill
214 294 Little Elm (EAS)    903 295 Longview
214 296 Duncanville        903 297 Longview
214 298 Duncanville        214 299 Cedar Hill (EMS)
214 300             214 301 Richardson
214 302 Dallas Franklin        214 303 Garland
214 304 Lewisville        214 305 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 306 Carrollton        214 307 Carrollton
214 308 Addison            214 309 Dallas Express
214 310             214 311 --reserved--
214 312             214 313 Irving
214 314 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 315 Lewisville
214 316 Lewisville (EMS)    214 317 Lewisville
214 318 Lewisville (EMS)    214 319 Dallas Davis
214 320 Dallas Davis        214 321 Dallas Davis
903 322 Buffalo            214 323 Carrollton
214 324 Dallas Davis        903 325 Ben Franklin
903 326 Rice            214 327 Dallas Davis
214 328 Dallas Davis        214 329
214 330 Dallas Federal        214 331 Dallas Federal
214 332 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 333 Dallas Federal
903 334 Texarkana        214 335
214 336 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 337 Dallas Federal
903 338 Koon Kreek        214 339 Dallas Federal
214 340 Dallas Diamond        214 341 Dallas Diamond
903 342 Winnsboro        214 343 Dallas Diamond
903 344 Leona            903 345 Roane
903 346 Roxton            214 347 Prosper
214 348 Dallas Diamond        214 349 Dallas Diamond
214 350 Dallas Fleetwood    214 351 Dallas Fleetwood
214 352 Dallas Fleetwood    214 353 Dallas Fleetwood
903 354 Emhouse            214 355
903 356 Quinlan            214 357 Dallas Fleetwood
214 358 Dallas Fleetwood    903 359 Pecan Gap
214 360 Dallas Emerson        214 361 Dallas Emerson
903 362 Richland        214 363 Dallas Emerson
903 364 Whitewright        903 365 Wynne
214 366 Venus            903 367 Ladonia
214 368 Dallas Emerson        214 369 Dallas Emerson
214 370 The Colony        214 371 Dallas Franklin
214 372 Dallas Franklin        214 373 Dallas Emerson
214 374 Dallas Franklin        214 375 Dallas Franklin
214 376 Dallas Franklin        214 377 Frisco
903 378 Honey Grove        903 379 Talco
214 380 Renner            214 381 Dallas Evergreen
903 382 Celina            903 383 Yantis
214 384 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 385 Addison
214 386 Addison            214 387 Addison
214 388 Dallas Evergreen    903 389 Fairfield
214 390 Allen (EAS)        214 391 Dallas Express
214 392 Addison            214 393 Lewisville
214 394 Carrollton        903 395 Cooper
903 396 Kerens            214 397 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 398 Dallas Express        214 399 Irving (EMS)
214 400             214 401 North Lake
214 402 North Lake        214 403 Plano
214 404 Addison            214 405
214 406 Farmers Branch        214 407 Renner
214 408             214 409
214 410             214 411 --reserved--
214 412 Rowlett            214 413 Irving (EMS)
214 414 Garland            903 415 Denison
214 416 Carrollton        214 417
214 418 Carrollton        214 419
214 420 Lewisville        214 421 Dallas Hamilton
214 422 Plano            214 423 Plano
214 424 Plano            903 425 Eustace
214 426 Dallas Hamilton        903 427 Clarksville
214 428 Dallas Hamilton        903 429 Collinsville
214 430             214 431
903 432 Tool-Seven Points    903 433 Gunter
214 434 Lewisville (EMS)    214 435 Maypearl
214 436 Lewisville        214 437 Richardson
214 438 Irving            903 439 Sulphur Springs
214 440 Dallas Melrose        214 441 D/FW Airport (EMS)
214 442 Wylie            214 443 Dallas Lakeside
214 444             214 445 Irving (EMS)
214 446 Carrollton        903 447 Tawakoni
214 448             214 449
214 450 Addison            903 451 Payne Springs
214 452 Scurry            214 453 D/FW Airport (EMS)
903 454 Greenville        903 455 Greenville
214 456 D/FW Airport        903 457 Greenville
214 458 Addison            903 459 Miller Grove
214 460             214 461
214 462 Lewisville        903 463 Denison
214 464 Dallas Riverside    903 465 Denison
214 466 Carrollton        214 467
903 468 Commerce E. Texas St.U    903 469 Murchison
214 470 Richardson        214 471 Lewisville (EMS)
214 472 Crandall        903 473 Emory
214 474 Combine            214 475 Rowlett
903 476 Dorchester        903 477 Tawakoni
903 478 Slocum            903 479 Martin Mills
214 480 Richardson        214 481
903 482 Van Alstyne        903 483 Italy
214 484 Farmers Branch        903 485 Shirley
214 486 Rosser            214 487 Garland
903 488 Como            903 489 Malakoff
214 490 Addison            214 491
214 492 Carrollton        903 493 Milford
214 494 Garland            214 495 Garland
903 496 Wolfe City        214 497 Richardson
903 498 Kemp            903 499 Cayuga
214 500             214 501
214 502 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 503 Dallas Diamond
214 504 Grand Prairie        214 505
214 506 North Lake        214 507
214 508 Dallas Riverside    214 509
214 510             214 511 --reserved--
214 512             214 513 Irving
214 514 Irving (EMS)        214 515 Red Oak
214 516 Plano            214 517 Plano
214 518 Irving            214 519 Plano
214 520 Dallas Lakeside        214 521 Dallas Lakeside
214 522 Dallas Lakeside        903 523 Gordonville
903 524 Winfield        214 525 Wilmer
214 526 Dallas Lakeside        903 527 Caddo Mills
214 528 Dallas Lakeside        903 529 Marquez
214 530 Garland            903 531 Tyler
903 532 Howe            214 533 Grand Prairie (EMS)
903 534 Tyler            903 535 Tyler
903 536 Centerville        214 537 Mt. Vernon
903 538 Tucker            214 539 Lewisville
214 540 McKinney        214 541 Irving
214 542 McKinney        903 543 Simms
214 544 Ferris            903 545 Oakwood
903 546 Tom Bean        903 547 Hooks
214 548 McKinney        903 549 Montalba
214 550 Irving            214 551 Terrell
214 552 Forney            214 553 Dallas Diamond
214 554 Irving            214 555 --reserved--
214 556 North Lake        214 557 Rylie
214 558 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 559 Dallas Riverside
903 560 Wills Point North    903 561 Tyler
903 562 Avinger            214 563 Terrell
903 564 Whitesboro        214 565 Dallas Hamilton
903 566 Tyler            903 567 Canton
903 568 Celeste            903 569 Mineola
214 570 Irving            903 571 Tyler
903 572 Mount Pleasant        214 573 Dallas Riverside
214 574 D/FW Airport (EMS)    214 575 Plano
214 576 Red Oak            903 577 Mount Pleasant
214 578 Plano            214 579 Irving
214 580 Irving            903 581 Tyler
903 582 Brashear        903 583 Bonham
903 584 Neches            903 585 Maud
903 586 Jacksonville        903 587 Leonard
903 588 Gladebranch        903 589 Jacksonville
214 590 Dallas Melrose        214 591 Addison
903 592 Tyler            903 593 Tyler
214 594 Irving            903 595 Tyler
214 596 Plano            903 597 Tyler
903 598 Point            903 599 Streetman
214 600             214 601 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 602 Grand Prairie        214 603 Grand Prairie
214 604 Plano            214 605 Plano
214 606 Grand Prairie        214 607 Irving
214 608 Plano            214 609 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 610             214 611 --reserved--
214 612 Plano            214 613 North Mesquite
214 614             214 615 D/FW Airport (EMS)
214 616 Grand Prairie        214 617 Red Oak (EAS)
214 618 Plano            214 619
214 620 Farmers Branch        214 621 Irving (EMS)
903 622 Deadwood        903 623 Windom
214 624 The Colony        214 625 The Colony (EAS)
903 626 Jewett            903 627 Avalon
903 628 New Boston        903 629 Sandy Creek
214 630 Dallas Melrose        214 631 Dallas Melrose
903 632 Bogata            903 633 Elysian Fields
214 634 Dallas Melrose        214 635 Royse City
903 636 Big Sandy        214 637 Dallas Melrose
214 638 Dallas Melrose        903 639 Hughes Springs
214 640             214 641 Grand Prairie
214 642 Grand Prairie        903 643 Longview
214 644 Richardson        903 645 Daingerfield
903 646 Bardwell        214 647 Grand Prairie (EMS)
903 648 Weaver            214 649
214 650 Irving            214 651 Dallas Riverside
903 652 Deport            214 653 Dallas Riverside
903 654 Corsicana        214 655 Dallas Riverside
903 656 Lone Star        903 657 Henderson
214 658 Dallas Riverside    214 659 Irving
214 660 Grand Prairie        214 661 Addison
903 662 Lone Oak        903 663 Longview
903 664 Telephone        903 665 Jefferson
214 666 Bristol            903 667 Dekalb
903 668 Hallsville        214 669 Richardson
214 670 Dallas Riverside    903 671 Redwater
903 672 Vivian            903 673 Pritchett
903 674 Detroit            903 675 Athens
214 676 Grand Prairie (EMS)    903 677 Athens
903 678 Beckville        903 679 Karnack
214 680 Richardson        214 681 North Mesquite
903 682 Frost            903 683 Rusk
903 684 Avery            903 685 Gary
214 686 North Mesquite        903 687 Waskom
214 688 Dallas Melrose        214 689 Dallas Melrose
214 690 Richardson        214 691 Dallas Emerson
214 692 Dallas Emerson        903 693 Carthage
214 694 Josephine        903 695 Blooming Grove
214 696 Dallas Emerson        903 697 Annona
214 698 Dallas Riverside    214 699 Richardson
214 700             214 701 Addison
214 702 Addison            214 703 --SPIDS--
214 704 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 705 Richardson
214 706 Dallas Emerson        214 707 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 708 Duncanville        214 709 Duncanville
214 710             214 711 --reserved--
214 712 Dallas Riverside    214 713 Renner
214 714 Irving            214 715 Addison
214 716             214 717 Irving
214 718 Irving (EMS        214 719
214 720 Dallas Ross Avenue    214 721 Irving
214 722 Rockwall        903 723 Palestine
214 724 Lewisville (EMS)    903 725 Rosewood
903 726 New Summerfield        214 727 Allen (EAS)
903 728 Bloomburg        903 729 Palestine
214 730             903 731 Palestine
903 732 Paris            214 733 Renner
903 734 Pritchett        903 735 Texarkana
214 736 Princeton        903 737 Paris
903 738 Longview        214 739 Dallas Emerson
214 740 Dallas Riverside    214 741 Dallas Riverside
214 742 Dallas Riverside    903 743 Hudson
214 744 Dallas Riverside    214 745 Dallas Riverside
214 746 Dallas Riverside    214 747 Dallas Riverside
214 748 Dallas Riverside    214 749 Dallas Riverside
214 750 Dallas Emerson        214 751 Irving (EMS)
214 752 Blue Ridge        903 753 Longview
214 754 Dallas Ross Avenue    903 755 Mims
903 756 Linden            903 757 Longview
903 758 Longview        903 759 Longview
214 760 Dallas Riverside    214 761 Dallas Riverside
903 762 Bettie            903 763 Quitman
903 764 Elkhart            903 765 Alba
903 766 De Berry        214 767 Dallas Riverside
903 768 Golden            903 769 Hawkins
214 770 Addison            214 771 Rockwall (EAS)
903 772 (see note)        903 773 (see note)
903 774 (see note)        214 775 Midlothian
903 776 Merit            903 777 Harleton
903 778 Trinidad        903 779 (see note)
214 780 Duncanville        214 781 Dallas Melrose
214 782 Farmersville        214 783 Richardson
903 784 Paris            903 785 Paris
903 786 Pottsboro        214 787 --high response--
214 788 Addison            903 789 Uncertain
214 790 Irving            214 791 Irving (EMS)
903 792 Texarkana        903 793 Texarkana
903 794 Texarkana        903 795 Maydelle
903 796 Atlanta            903 797 Pine Acres
903 798 Texarkana        214 799 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 800             214 801 Richardson
214 802 Richardson        214 803
214 804 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 805
214 806             214 807
214 808 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 809
214 810             214 811 --reserved--
214 812 Dallas Ross Avenue    903 813 Sherman (Austin College)
214 814             214 815
214 816             214 817 --reserved--
214 818 Dallas Taylor        214 819 Dallas Melrose
214 820 Dallas Taylor        214 821 Dallas Taylor
903 822 Mount Enterprise    214 823 Dallas Taylor
214 824 Dallas Taylor        903 825 Lake Palestine
214 826 Dallas Taylor        214 827 Dallas Taylor
214 828 Dallas Taylor        903 829 Oakland
214 830 North Lake        903 831 Texarkana
903 832 Texarkana        903 833 Ben Wheeler
903 834 Overton            903 835 Marietta
903 836 Oak Hill        214 837 Melissa
903 838 Texarkana        903 839 Whitehouse
214 840 Garland            214 841 Dallas Taylor
903 842 Troup            903 843 Gilmer
214 844 --time--        903 845 Gladewater
903 846 Douglassville        903 847 Turnertown
903 848 Jackson            903 849 Chandler
214 850 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 851 Addison
903 852 Brownsboro        214 853 Nevada
903 854 Good Springs        214 855 Dallas Riverside
903 856 Pittsburg        903 857 Pine Mills
903 858 Red Springs        903 859 Arp
903 860 Cypress Springs        903 861 Price
903 862 Campbell        903 863 Laneville
214 864 Garland            903 865 Myrtle Springs
903 866 Pickton            214 867 Plano
903 868 Sherman            214 869 North Lake
903 870 Sherman            214 871 Dallas Riverside
903 872 Corsicana        903 873 Wills Point
903 874 Corsicana        214 875 Ennis
903 876 Frankston        903 877 Owentown
903 878 Dry Creek        214 879 Dallas Melrose
214 880 Dallas Ross Avenue    214 881 Plano
903 882 Lindale            903 883 Cash
903 884 Omaha            903 885 Sulphur Springs
903 886 Commerce        903 887 Mabank
214 888 Farmers Branch        903 889 Pine Hill
214 890 Dallas Emerson        214 891 Dallas Emerson
903 892 Sherman            903 893 Sherman
903 894 Bullard            903 895 New London
903 896 Edgewood        903 897 Naples
903 898 Minden            214 899 Dallas Taylor
214 900             903 901 Longview
214 902 Dallas Fleetwood    214 903 --reserved--
214 904 Dallas Fleetwood    214 905 Dallas Melrose
214 906 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 907 Richardson
214 908             214 909 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 910             214 911 --reserved--
214 912             214 913 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 914             214 915
214 916             214 917 Richardson
214 918 Richardson        214 919 Farmers Branch
214 920 Dallas Melrose        214 921
214 922 Dallas Ross Avenue    214 923 Waxahachie
903 924 Anna            903 925 Bagwell
214 926             903 927 Marshall
903 928 Tennessee Colony    214 929 Irving
903 930 Marshall        214 931 Renner
214 932 Kaufman            214 933 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 934 Addison            903 935 Marshall
214 936             214 937 Waxahachie
903 938 Marshall        214 939 Dallas Riverside
214 940 Dallas Fleetwood    214 941 Dallas Whitehall
214 942 Dallas Whitehall    214 943 Dallas Whitehall
214 944 Dallas Whitehall    903 945 Birthright
214 946 Dallas Whitehall    903 947 Tatum
214 948 Dallas Whitehall    214 949 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 950 --reserved--        214 951 Dallas Melrose
214 952 Richardson        214 953 Dallas Ross Avenue
214 954 Dallas Ross Avenue    214 955
214 956 Dallas Fleetwood    214 957 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 958             214 959
214 960 Addison            903 961 Ector
903 962 Grand Saline        903 963 Van
214 964 Plano            903 965 Bells Savoy
903 966 Negley            903 967 Jim Hogg
903 968 Ore City        214 969 Dallas Ross Avenue
214 970 --reserved--        214 971 --reserved--
214 972                214 973
214 974             214 975 Grand Prairie (EMS)
214 976 --pay services--    214 977 Dallas Riverside
214 978 Dallas Ross Avenue    214 979 Dallas Ross Avenue
214 980 Addison            214 981
903 982 Blossom            903 983 Kilgore
903 984 Kilgore            214 985 Plano
214 986 Irving            214 987 Dallas Emerson
214 988 Grand Prairie (EMS)    903 989 Trenton
214 990             214 991 Addison
214 992 Grand Prairie (EMS)    214 993 Grand Prairie (EMS)
903 994 Cumby            214 995 Richardson
214 996 Addison            214 997 Richardson
214 998             214 999 Dallas Ross Avenue

NOTES

EAS Extended Area Service: allows local dialing
    to and from greater Dallas exchanges
EMS Extended Metropolitan Service: allows local
    10-digit dialing to and from greater Fort Worth
    exchanges
SPIDS subscription-only information service

214 267 is a patch for greater Dallas
    exchanges to dial the 817 267 exchange with
    only seven digits
903 772 reserved to avoid confusion with same exchange
    in Texarkana AR
903 773 as above
903 774 as above
903 779 as above
214 787 Dallas/Fort Worth: high-response lines for
    ticket agencies and radio stations
214 844 is used for time of day service in both
    Dallas and Sherman
214 970 test exchange (Dallas)
214 971 test exchange (Dallas)

Ten-digit local dialing (NPA-NXX-XXXX) exists between
greater Dallas and EMS prefixes in greater Fort Worth;
between greater Fort Worth and EMS prefixes in greater
Dallas; and between neighboring exchanges on the border
between greater Dallas and greater Fort Worth.

Seven-digit interstate local dialing exists between
Texarkana, Texas and Texarkana, Arkansas.

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

End of TELECOM Digest Special Issue: Area 214/903 Split
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16779;
          7 Nov 90 3:58 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16053;
          7 Nov 90 2:23 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae07466;
          7 Nov 90 1:19 CST
Date:     Wed, 7 Nov 90 1:09:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #795
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 7 Nov 90 01:08:57 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 795

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Rolf Meier]
    Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Phil Weinberg]
    Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day? [Dan Flak]
    Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day? [Peter B. Hayward]
    Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day? [Carl Couric]
    Re: Saudi Arabia's Telephone System [Mark Hahn]
    Re: Saudi Arabia's Telephone System [Jim Breen]
    Re: Western Union Time Service [Joel Shprentz]
    Re: Western Union Time Service [Brian Gordon]
    "Illegal Blocking of LD Calls" [Steve Elias]
    Re: Blocking of Long Distace Calls [Dave Close]
    Re: Distinctive Ringing Fax/Phone Switch [Miguel Casteleiro]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics)
Date: 6 Nov 90 14:11:24 GMT
Reply-To: Rolf Meier <mitel!healey![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] (Gary
Segal) writes:

>Before this turns into a shouting match by all of the people that make
>DTMF decoders, please note that Mitel is not the only company that
>makes them.  Of course, I'd like to see you use the Motorola chip
>(MC145436), but it sounds like your best bet is to go to your local
>Radio Shack and buy whatever manufacturer happens to be in the bubble
>pack.

I don't know about Radio Shack in the U.S., but in Canada they have
the habit of selling components which are "seconds".  I suggest that
you go to a qualified distributor/representative if you want quality
components, be it Mitel, Motorola, or whoever.  Ever notice how little
ESD protection there is in the Radio Shack packages?


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics)
Date: 6 Nov 90 10:42:52 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, aardvark![e-mail] (Steve
Willoughby) writes:

> The problem is that I can't seem to find any references to
> DTMF-decoder chips or schematics of discrete-component circuits to do
> this function.  Any help would be appreciated.

Get the chip handbooks from several of the major chip houses. There
are often seperate handbooks for telecom devices. There are plenty of
TT chips made.

If you are just tinkering, go to Radio Shack. They have TT decode
chips, but are hardly where you need to go if you are going to make a
product.

BTW, just use a DTMF decode chip. DON'T try to do it yourself.

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

From: Phil Weinberg SPS <hplabs!mcdcup![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics)
Date: 7 Nov 90 01:30:02 GMT
Reply-To: Phil Weinberg SPS <hplabs!mcdcup![e-mail]>
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products, Sunnyvale , CA 94086-5303


In article <[e-mail]>, aardvark![e-mail] (Steve
Willoughby) is quoted as saying earlier:

> The problem is that I can't seem to find any references to
> DTMF-decoder chips or schematics of discrete-component circuits to do
> this function.  Any help would be appreciated.

Motorola Semiconductor makes a DTMF decoder chip called the MC145436.
It's available in a DIP package as a MC145436P ($3.09/each) or in a
surface mount version MC145436DW (also $3.09 each).  It should be
available at your Motorola authorized distributor.

You might want to get a copy of Motorola's Telecommunications Device
Data Book (motorola P/N DL136/D) which has all kind of telecom goodies
(or is that goodys?) that are available as standard off-the- shelf
devices.

No disclaimer.  I work for Motorola Semiconductor and hope you buy
bunches of our circuits!!

<< Usual Disclaimer >>
Phil Weinberg @ Motorola Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5395
UUCP:  {hplabs, mot,} !mcdcup!phil
Telephone:  [phone]

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

From: Dan Flak <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day?
Date: 6 Nov 90 17:01:37 GMT
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc, Seattle, Wa


Dear Brian,

I read your article in comp.dcom.telecom, and have forwarded a copy of
it to the Manager of National Customer Care here at McCaw Cellular
Communicattions Headquarters. Obviously, the experience you had is not
something we would like to have happen to our customers.

We would like to correct your specific problem, and also get from you
more specific information so we can keep this type of problem from
occurring to others in the future.

Either call or E-mail me with a telephone number at which you would
like to be contacted, and I will forward it to the customer care
representative who is handling your case.


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

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

From: "Peter B. Hayward" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day?
Organization: The University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 21:32:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc T.
Kaufman) writes:

>Great.  What a fine, generous attitude.  I suppose when I dial New
>York from my home near San Francisco, I am *NOT* using radio spectrum
>or system resources to find out if the number I want to talk to is
>available.

>Bah!  This just reinforces my decision NOT to get a cellular phone.
>They're just like COCOTs, but they cost more.

Marc, I am mystified by the reason for your angry response here.
Neither of you are charged for "incomplete calls, busy, or no
answers."  How does this make cell phones different from LD carriers?


Peter B. Hayward                     N9IZT/AE
University of Chicago Computing Organizations

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

From: Carl Couric <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day?
Date: 6 Nov 90 17:17:48 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marc T.
Kaufman) writes:

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

>>McCaw does not charge for incomplete calls, busy, or no
>>answers. That's nice considering you're using the radio spectrum to
>>find out if the number you want to talk to is available.

>Great.  What a fine, generous attitude.  I suppose when I dial New
>York from my home near San Francisco, I am *NOT* using radio spectrum
>or system resources to find out if the number I want to talk to is
>available.

Yes, you are! In fact, It is a generous attitude. Neither the long
distance company OR McCaw charge you. You are correct in that calling
New York will use Various radio spectrum, either Via Microwave or
Sattlelite. I don't mean to come off sounding harsh or rude. I just
want to say that the cellular company does not charge you, it the same
convience you already enjoy with your current hardline system.

>Bah!  This just reinforces my decision NOT to get a cellular phone.
>They're just like COCOTs, but they cost more.

It really depends on what you want. Why are we like a COCOT? I see
this as a convenience to go wireless, just like push button compared
to rotary. In some cases, its even cheaper than hardwire (I can show
physical proof :-).

Marc (and anyone else), still have questions on this, PLEASE reply or
call me. I hope I have shed some light on this subject.


Carl Couric    VAX System Manager
Florida Cellular One (McCaw Communications)
[phone] x543

or Please reply to this account... ;-)


[Moderator's Note: You are quite correct that cellular calls are as
cheap as or cheaper than landline in many cases. When I tell people
that my Ameritech service allows me to call *anywhere* in northeastern
Illinoiis, from Wisconsin on the north to Morris, IL on the southwest
and parts of northern Indiana at the rate of 10 cents for the first
three minutes and ten cents a minute thereafter they can't believe it.
A four minute cellular call to a place forty miles distant costs 20
cents. On a 'genuine Bell' payphone the same call costs 50 cents!
People who know little or nothing about cellular service think I am a
wealthy person. My total monthly bill: $35-45, period. They look at me
and say 'is *that* all?' .... Yes, and I use it at least once or twice
daily. Cellular service is a definite answer to the COCOT menace.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed,  7 Nov 90 00:04:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Hahn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Saudi Arabia's Telephone System


For what it is worth, the previous description didn't mention the
Aramco telephone system, to which many if not most American
expatriates are connected.  (Aramco is the oil co.)

To call my old home phone, dial 011-966-387-42688.  011-966 is, of
course, the international access for Saudi.  3 is, I think the escape
for Aramco.  87 is, I think, the city code for Dhahran.

BEWARE: all this is based on recollections from a few years ago.  it's
also (mildly) interesting to note that the Aramco system began with
very few digits, and gradually added more.  my first number (in 1970)
was 2912, then 22912, and so on.


Regards,

Mark

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Saudi Arabia's Telephone System
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 21:56:39 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry Troup) writes:

> Mike Doughney writes:

> It almost looks like American workers had a hand in its production;

> Bell Canada built and used to operate the Saudi phone system, on
> contract for the government.  I think that the latest operations
> contract went to someone else.

It sure did; Telecom Australia International. There was a lot of news
about it here as all the dependants of the Australian staff were
evacuated in fear of an Iraki invasion.

> So the central office switches will be a mix of 1-ESS and DMS-100/200,
> as my memory of the Saudi connection is that it goes back twenty years
> or so.

 From memory there are a lot of Ericcson AXE switches.


Jim Breen ($B?@Ip(J) ([e-mail]) Dept of
     Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University
       PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
         (ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 17:31:02 EST
From: Joel Shprentz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Western Union Time Service


Just two days after I read your article about Western Union Time
Service, I found a Western Union clock for sale at a railroadiana
show.  Thanks to your information, I knew what I was looking at and
was able to strike a bargain with the dealer.

The clock I bought is a model 37-SS with a 15-inch dial, a second
hand, and a red light that signals synchronization.  I haven't hung it
yet, so I don't know how well it works.

The clock came with a copy of the Western Union Time Service Marketing
Guide circa 1961.


Joel Shprentz                   Phone:  [phone]
BDM International, Inc.         Uucp:  {rutgers,vrdxhq,rlgvax}!bdmrrr!shprentz
7915 Jones Branch Drive         Internet:  [e-mail]
McLean, Virginia  22102

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

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 10:59:16 PST
From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Western Union Time Service
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


Once upon a time (late 60's) the University of South Carolina opened a
new classroom building.  In each classroom was a reasonably large
electric clock "built into" the wall over a door.  As I recall, they
said "IBM" on the face.  Once a day, at 8am (?), the clocks would
"hmmm" and jump to exactly 8am.

This sounds like it was after the WUTS era.  Does it sould at all
familiar?


Brian G. Gordon         [e-mail] (if you trust exotic mailers)
            ...!sun!briangordon (if you route it yourself)

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: "Illegal Blocking of LD Calls"
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 90 10:07:50 -0500
From: Steve Elias <[e-mail]>


Patrick, thanks for sending out the digests about blocking of LD calls
by certain carriers, but I have to question your calling such blocking
"illegal".  Has a judge declared it to be "illegal"?  If not, how can
you authoritatively call it "illegal"?


eli


[Moderator's Note: It is not necessary, and not really within the
scope of the judge's duties to rule that something is illegal. The law
(in this case, administrative regulations with the force of law) says
what is illegal. The Public Utilities code in Iowa addresses what
Teleconnect*USA was/is doing. The FCC regulations are specific in the
same way. Common carriers cannot selectively accept or refuse traffic.
They cannot interfere with the movement of traffic. The Federal Trade
Commission (again, administrative regulations with the force of law)
discusses denial of credit. The FTC has the final say-so on how AT&T's
Universal Card is administered, i.e. AT&T refusing to honor its own
credit card on calls to international points when they think (without
proof, just like Teleconnet) that someone might be defrauding them.
The fact that a few do cheat does not mean most people cheat. The FTC
says you can't lump people together like that. I can authoritatively
call it illegal because I can read the tariffs pertaining to handling
of traffic by common carriers.  I can authoritatively call it illegal
because I know about FTC rules and regs plus FCC regs. Now whether or
not a judge decides to act on it is a different matter entirely.  PAT]

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

From: Dave Close <central!central![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Blocking of Long Distance Calls
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 90 00:03:38 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Dave Close)
Organization: Shared Financial Systems


>     THE SECOND FRONT OPENS.  A few months ago, we were able to verify
>that Teleconnect was blocking interstate (Iowa to Illinois, in this
>case) calls, and a complaint was filed with the Federal Communications
>Commission (FCC).

If we have a pattern of activity which violates the law, it seems to
me that the parties involved would really make Teleconnect (now MCI)
wake up by filing suit under RICO.  It might be expensive, but the
payoff could be quite large also.  (Of course, I don't usually
recommend filing suit at all, and RICO is, IMHO, immoral, but
sometimes that's what it takes.)


Dave Close, Shared Financial Systems, Dallas
uunet!shared!davec
These comments are mine and are not necessarily shared by Shared.

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

From: Miguel Casteleiro <inesc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing Fax/Phone Switch
Date: 6 Nov 90 21:00:52 GMT
Organization: INESC - Inst. Eng. Sistemas e Computadores, LISBOA. PORTUGAL.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

> In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Timothy L. Kay)
> writes:

> >It would be useful to have a fax switch that could decide, based on
> >the ring, whether to engage the fax machine, data modem, or answering
> >machine.

> I recently purchased a fax/phone/modem switch that claims to do just
> that.  [...]  It is supposed to be able
> to select one of two devices based on distinctive ringing.

Can someone please explain how do this devices work?  Do they answer
to the phone line, and then decide based on the tones what type of
call is it?  And then, do they simulate the calling tone to the fax
and the modem?  If so, aren't this tones diferent from country to
country?

In short, suppose that I have a dumb fax and a dumb modem, can I
interface one of this devices between one phone line and them?

Thanks for any help.


Miguel Casteleiro at
INESC, Lisboa, Portugal.
UUCP: ...!mcsun!inesc!jmc

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #795
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08474;
          8 Nov 90 3:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29302;
          8 Nov 90 1:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00498;
          8 Nov 90 0:27 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Nov 90 0:01:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #796
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Nov 90 00:01:04 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 796

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind [David Tamkin]
    Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: What's the Deal with NET and Directory Listings? [Richard Lerner]
    Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [Bob Yasi]
    Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed [Mark Brader]
    Re: Odd (617) Number [Ken Levitt]
    Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics) [Art Nicolaysen]
    Re: Zone Maps Are Desirable (was Criss-Cross) [Ron Newman]
    900 Number TV Report in Chicago [Steve Wolfson]
    Cincinnati Area Notes (Was: Zone Maps are Desirable) [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Date: 5 Nov 90 18:45:41 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


The Naval Observatory digital time service (modem access) can be
reached on [phone].  Access is 1200bps (Bell 212), 7 data
bits, even parity, 1 stop bit.  It outputs information in the format:

    jjjjj nnn hhmmss UTC

where "jjjjj" is the Julian date, "nnn" is the day of the current
year, "hhmmss" is the current time (Coordinated Universal Time).  I'm
sure most folks know how to calculate local time from this, and could
write a quick little program to place the call, do the calculation,
and set the clock.

One very nice program (I believe the one referred to in the original
article in this thread) that will place calls to this number and
automatically set the system clock on a variety of IBM PC-compatible
systems is "Professional TIMESET" by Dr. Peter Petrakis of Life
Sciences Editorial Services, 1236 River Bay Road, Annapolis MD 21401.
It's a shareware program ($35 individuals, $75 institutions), that
comes with excellent documentation and several support programs.  I
downloaded it from Compuserve.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes![e-mail]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Spring Ahead, Fall Behind
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 10:49:29 CST


In volume 10, issue 793, Philip Gladstone wrote:

| A point to note is that the leap second which is inserted (or removed)
| is the last second before 00:00:00 *GMT*.

Leap seconds are never removed.  The whole reason that we have leap
seconds is that the second was redefined in the late 1960's by some
physical or atomic standard (just as the meter was redefined around
the same time and the inch followed); there was a choice between a
definition that was slightly too short for 1/86,400 of an average
solar day and having to add leap seconds occasionally and one that was
slightly too long with a result of needing to skip leap seconds
occasionally.  The selection was the former for the very reason that
holding a clock still to add a leap second was considered less
difficult (or less confusing) than speeding one up to skip a leap
second.  Surely some of the readers can name organizations, dates, and
people involved in that decision.

| I've always wondered how the change is handled as it occurrs in the middle
| of the evening for US people, which is a time when it might get noticed.
| Over here, the winter change happens during New Year's celebrations and
| nobody is sober enough to care!

Nobody?  Maybe no one of Mr. Gladstone's acquaintance, but nobody?
Anyhow, yes, in North America the leap seconds are added in the late
afternoon or early evening, but most people aren't affected by a
single second one way or the other, so people who are interested in
timekeeping notice it and those who are not do not; imbibing has
nothing to do with it.  How did the UK cope with the leap second added
on June 30, 1972, when fewer people were inebriated?  [Perhaps Mr.
Gladstone's crowd got drunk then too; a leap second is reason enough
just on its own for a blowout.  You have to spend that extra second
doing *something*.]


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: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the Deal With NET and Directory Listings?
Date: 5 Nov 90 17:51:51 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> When I recently added another line to my business for the express
> purpose of putting a modem on it, Pac*Bell asked me whether this, too,
> would be a "modem line."  I was nonplussed.  How did they know that my
> other lines were "modem lines" and why did they care?  The answer to
> the first question is that my predecessor evidently told them this
> much about the existing lines.

Actually, your predecessor didn't need to tell them.  I haven't seen
it myself, but the phone company has monitoring equipment that not
only can tell that you have a modem on the line (during a call, of
course), but what kind (modulation) of modem it is, and, often, what
data is being transmitted.  Yes!  They can listen in on your voice
calls, why not your data calls?  This isn't a "conspiracy theory"; the
operation of the equipment has been described to be by AT&T employees.
They use the equipment in traffic studies, to know what type of
traffic is being carried (voice, data, fax) and the type, for planning
purposes.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if LECs had the same equipment, and if
there was some "flag" someplace that indicated that a modem was, at
least occassionally, used on a particular line.

> Their response to the second was that
> they flag these somehow in their computer so that a line that has no
> signal on it will not be reassigned accidentally.

Hmmmm.  DURING A CALL, it is IMPORTANT for the phone network to know
that you're using a modem -- so that echo suppressors and echo
cancellers are disabled, and so that you get a full PCM instead of
ADPCM circuit (on systems that can give priority to data calls).
Another reason is that if they're using TASI, and you're using a
half-duplex fast-train modem, they can avoid switching circuits on you
during the silent line turn-around time; if they switched you, the
changing characteristics of the circuit would require a full retrain
on every turnaround, which would result in unacceptably slow
throughput.

Of course, most people use full-duplex modems with continuous carrier
in both directions, AND TASI is used almost exclusively on
international calls, AND the ANSWER TONE at the beginning of the call
tells them all they need to know about the fact that you're using a
modem, AND there's probably no way for that billing computer to tell
the TASI equipment or anything else that you're using a modem ... so,
I think they're feeding you a line of bull, and your suspicions are
probably correct (they're collecting data for future higher billing of
switched data circuits).


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer    | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                   | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348  USA      | Internet       hayes![e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 1990 10:52-EST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What's the Deal with NET and Directory Listings?


In PA I had two consecutive numbers listed the same.  I always assumed
that they would give out the first one.  However, at some point I
noticed a lot of calls coming on my other line.  It turns out that
they give out the most recently modified number.  So when I changed
the level of service on my second number, they started giving out that
number.  I had to unlist the second number to assure that only the
first was given out.


Rick Lerner            [e-mail]
Carnegie Mellon University    Pittsburgh, PA

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

From: Bob Yasi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed
Date: 6 Nov 90 05:47:06 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corp., Los Angeles


Here's the amusing wrong-number story I mentioned last week.  I really
am a nice guy, mentally insert smileys wherever necessary.  (:-)

A new prefix had opened up in San Diego, and I got the number xyz-y000
(that's XYZ Y-thousand).  Early that Autumn, Neiman-Marcus
(Needless-Markup to those who know them) opened up shop.  They got
xyz-y100 (XYZ Y-one-hundred) and I started getting their calls on my
answering machine.  The Directory Assistance voice computer didn't say
Y-one-hundred, it said Y-one-oh-oh.  The directory wasn't even printed
yet and anyone who shops at Neiman's isn't worried about how much it
costs to call 411.  I guess a lot of people just presumed that a
status symbol store like Neiman's would have a status symbol phone
number like mine.

Annoyed not with Neiman's but rather with the callers, I endeavored to
discourage them by changing the outgoing message on my answering
machine to an utter fabrication:

"Hello this is Bob, if you're calling for me leave a message at the
beep.  But if you're calling for Neiman-Marcus, a Tragic Explosion has
shut them down until Well Past Christmas so there's no reason to call
back until then."

Well, the message did not produce the intended effect.

When I got home from work the next day there were not two or three of
the usual hangup calls but nearly two dozen!  And, listening to them
they almost all sounded like long distance calls (there was a little
"chirp" at the end).  One local-sounding woman actually took the time
to leave the message in a nasal voice of shocked dismay, (similar to
that of the woman on TV who has fallen and can't get up) "Oh, an
explosion at Neiman's.  How awwwful!".

Having clearly failed to discourage callers, I changed the message back.

The next day at work (How did they get my work number?) I received a
call from an AT&T Longlines Division Account Manager who was most
eager to "help solve Our problem".  She told me that Neiman-Marcus's
was worried and the phrase "fear of bomb threats" found its way into
the conversation!  All the hangups were from people at Neiman's legal
department listening to the content of the message.  They didn't like
it but the message contained no threat.  She wanted me to change the
message and I told her I had already changed it the night before,
which made her happy.  She also wanted me to change my number.  I did
NOT want that.  Neiman's claimed they had already printed up too many
company directories and business cards to change.  I said the problem
was only the number that DA gave out -- they didn't have to reprint
anything.  Just give out a less error-prone number to their apparently
error-prone customers.  I spoke with some VP at Neiman's, even.  No
dice.

I finally changed (for free) my number to abc-1200.  Everyone was very
very gracious.  The VP was so apologetic about "all this
inconvenience".  He even encouraged me to come in to the store and
meet him.  I asked about a gift certificate.  He said "No, but did
anyone make any representation to you that you would receive one?"
Then I got nervy.  I said, "Oh, no, not at all.  I just think you
should."  Well, they have a fine restaurant he assured me and I could
have a dinner for two there anytime I wanted.  Even a generous tip for
the waitress was included, I made sure.

The dinner was good.  In the end, I was very glad the same thing
hadn't happened with a Woolworth's!


 -- Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]   <--lowercase matters to uunet

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Number Suggestions Needed
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 1990 23:42:34 -0500


> When people call the old published Sears number, XYB-2451, they get an
> intercept: "The number you have reached, XYB-2451 has been disconnected;
> calls are being taken by XYA-5600..."

If the intercept is individually recorded, rather than synthesized, it
could be helpful to have the recording redone with emphasis on the
first changed digit.  "...are being taken by ex why EH five six..."


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

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

Date: Mon, 05 Nov 90 19:11:32 EST
From: Ken Levitt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Odd (617) Number


>>From: Patrick Tufts <[e-mail]>
>>Subject: Odd (617) Number

>>The response: three quick chirps and a faint hum of electronics
>>waiting for something.  After a pause, I got a quick busy signal.
>>Any thoughts on the function of this number, (617)xxx-xxxx?

The number quoted was someone's pager number.  It was expecting you to
enter a call back number from your touch tone phone.

I bet the owner of that pager is really P***ed if a lot of telecom
readers called that number.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: Art Nicolaysen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF Decoder Wanted (or Chips/Schematics)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Art Nicolaysen)
Organization: William Carey Int'l University
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 10:13:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul
Gauthier) writes:

>Check one of the recent issues of {Radio & Electronics} at your local
>library.

Also, try the April 1982 issue of BYTE, in the "Ciarcia's Circuit
Cellar" column.  A DTMF decoder project discusses alternate design
schemes, includes schematics.  BYTE Publications also issued a series
of books that included the Circiut Cellar projects.


Art Nicolaysen          William Carey Int'l University (Global Mapping)
[e-mail]            Pasadena CA 91104

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

From: Ron Newman  <lotus![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Zone Maps Are Desirable (was Criss-Cross)
Reply-To: Ron Newman  <lotus![e-mail]>
Organization: Lotus Development Corp.
Date: Tue Nov  6 15:50:40 1990


New England Telephone doesn't publish a map, but their Boston-area
white pages do have four pages of listings matching the first three
digits of any Massachusetts phone number (area codes 413, 508, and
617) to a city, town, or subdistrict of Boston.

The table entries look like this:

Code            Location

  221            Burlington
  223            Boston
  427            Roxbury

 ... and so on.  To the phone company, "Boston" is a very small
district comprising downtown, Back Bay, and some very close-in
neighborhoods (North End, South End, West End); the rest of the city
is divided into smaller, well-known districts like "Mattapan",
"Dorchester", "Brighton", and "Roxbury".

Another page of the book lists all towns and subdistricts in the
Boston area, and which exchanges are found in them.

I know that the phone companies in Los Angeles publish similiar
information in the front of their directories; I'm surprised to read
that every U.S. phone company doesn't do this!


Ron Newman

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

From: Steve Wolfson <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: 900 Number TV Report in Chicago
Date: 7 Nov 90 19:26:43 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


For those of you in the Chicago area WBBM (channel 2) is going to be
running a special report on 900 numbers Thursday at 10:00 p.m.


Steve Wolfson - Motorola Cellular Inc.

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

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 10:15:34 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cincinnati Area Notes (Was: Zone Maps are Desirable)


Based on what I came across years ago, I do NOT think that 513 and 606
are interchangeable in any circumstances.  (These are the area codes
for Cincinnati and the neighboring part of Kentucky.)  There was
(still is?) an intercept message saying "We're sorry, but calls to
Kentucky cannot be completed using area code 513.  You must dial area
code 606."  This cut down on the number of prefixes available in 513,
and could have gone away later if prefix supply ran short in 513.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #796
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15269;
          8 Nov 90 10:32 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21321;
          8 Nov 90 8:39 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05250;
          8 Nov 90 7:33 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Nov 90 7:25:52 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #797
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Nov 90 07:25:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 797

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day? [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day? [John Higdon]
    Re: AT&T ISDN Set Question [Henry Troup]
    Re: A Potential Downside to ISDN [Jim Breen]
    Re: ISDN Frame Relay Service [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: ISDN Frame Relay Service [Stephen Fleming]
    Request INFO Sources About ISDN [Weaver Hickerson]
    Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed [Jurek Rakoczynski]
    Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM [John Slater]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day?
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 17:27:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter B.
Hayward) writes:

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

->Great.  What a fine, generous attitude.  I suppose when I dial New
->York from my home near San Francisco, I am *NOT* using radio spectrum
->or system resources to find out if the number I want to talk to is
->available.

>Marc, I am mystified by the reason for your angry response here.
>Neither of you are charged for "incomplete calls, busy, or no
>answers."  How does this make cell phones different from LD carriers?

Sorry for the outburst.  I got angry because the original poster (from
McCaw?)  said it in a way that implied the no-charge for busy was a
gracious gift, rather than just a part of the business.  Most of us
here on the net know at least a LITTLE about computer networking, and
I can't believe a $2.00 charge is warranted for a couple of packets of
data exchanged with the home provider.  Especially considering the
high probability that the $2 is spread among only a very few calls
(like only 1 call in the examples that started this thread).  I agree
with an earlier poster who suggested that roaming should be handled as
a per-minute surcharge of, say, 10 or 20 cents per minute.

And for those of you who think Cellular is not like an AOS -- how do
they justify double-dipping for non-existant air time on forwarded
calls?


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Daily Roaming Surcharge $4.00 per Day?
Date: 7 Nov 90 11:31:17 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Much has been said concerning various cellular operators and what
appear to be outrageous charges. Quite honestly, most cellular charges
are way out of line. However, what you are seeing is the marketplace
at work.

Demand for cellular service is greater than the wildest expectations
of the developers. Every trick in the book is used to handle the flood
of customers and the resultant traffic -- from multiplying the number
of cell sites to (and here's the nasty part) keeping the price high
enough to discourage casual use. A number of operators have requested
rate reductions from the appropriate regulatory agencies and have been
denied due to the heavy demand. Does this mean that McCaw, PacTel,
GTE, and the like are getting rich? You bet! If you have a product
that is mega-popular, you make money.

At the moment I am roaming in the much-maligned LA area PacTel system.
These are the slimes who charge for call attempts even if it's the
system's fault that the call bombs. They charge roamers $0.70/min
during the day. BUT, they have no per-day roaming charge. This means
that I can activate FMR daily without charge, and pay only if I get a
call. I find this preferable to the instant $2.00/day charge that is
tacked on to a single call in many systems.

But don't expect rates to come down any time soon. Those who find the
system convenient and helpful will use it; those who do not think the
charges are worth it will not. The providers are NOT hurting for
customers. When someone complains that the charges are outrageous,
he's right. And when he refuses to subscribe, that's natural selection
at work.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

Date: 7 Nov 90 10:30:00 EST
From: Henry Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T ISDN Set Question


coffland@roxanne (Doug Coffland) writes:

> you can querry the network for the date and time

I know that some feature of Northern Telecom's systems cannot be used
in the U.S. due to (interpretations of) the MFJ's requirement that
telcos cannot be 'information providers'.  Any chance that this has
been applied to date and time information ?


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

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Potential Downside to ISDN
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 22:05:36 GMT


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

> I imagine that since digital voice telephony allocates 64kbps to a
> channel the telcos will be hard pressed to justify charging different
> rates for different uses.  If an analogue modem is used on a digital
> telephony circuit, then the situation is no different than before.

Almost correct. Telecom Australia has a slightly lower tariff on 64k
"digital telephony" than on 64k "digital data". On questioning they
say that with digital telephony circuits they will be free to use
interpolation techniques at a later stage, whereas they will leave the
data circuits alone. The message here is to use the lower tariff
circuits until Telecom ever gets around to putting in compression/
interpolation equipment (if ever.)

A modem which maintains continuous carrier should be ok. Of course
using a modem over ISDN is a terrible waste of bandwidth.


Jim Breen ($B?@Ip(J) ([e-mail])
Dept of  Robotics & Digital Technology. Monash University
      PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
       (ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Frame Relay Service
Date: 6 Nov 90 21:13:29 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Johnny Zweig)
writes...

>I was talking to Van Jacobson last week and he described a service his
>local telco is going to offer real soon now in which the customer sets
>up virtual calls using the D-channel and then dumps HDLC frames onto
>the B-channel and they get routed by the CO switch. Zounds! This
>sounds really neat -- the functionality of IP coming right out of the
>funny-looking ISDN jack on the wall.

>Does anyone know more about this service?  I am mostly interested in
>how reliable the frame delivery would be, whether frames would be
>delivered in order, whether one could set up calls to the same
>destination over both B-channels in a PRI (to crank out 128kbps to a
>single other machine) and that sort of thing.

Frame Relay Service is, as you say, based upon using the D channel to
set up calls and the B channel (OR the D channel, on a low priority
basis) to send the bearer frames.  The bearer frame uses the "Core
Aspects of LAPD" protocol (ANSI T1.6ca, partially through balloting,
and also a subset of CCITT draft Q.922), which has an HDLC flag, CRC,
and LAPD address, but NO HDLC control info.  (That's payload, in a
higher layer.)

It does not guarantee frame delivery, but what frames it delivers
should be in order (under normal circumstances).  Two separate B
channels would normally be two separate packet streams, though a 128
kbps access to the packet handler (bit-synchronized) isn't
inconceivable for the future.  Private FR switches, of course, can
have faster accesses; you can also theoretically use ISDN H channels
(384 kbps, 1.472 and 1.536 Mbps).

We spent _years_ working on this at ANSI T1S1...


Fred R. Goldstein              Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA
[e-mail]   voice: [phone]
 Do you think anyone else on the planet would share my opinions, let
 alone a multi-billion dollar corporation?

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: ISDN Frame Relay Service
Date: Wed,  7 Nov 90 09:04:54 PST


> Does anyone know more about this service?  I am mostly
> interested in how reliable the frame delivery would be,
> whether frames would be delivered in order, whether one could
> set up calls to the same destination over both B-channels in
> a PRI (to crank out 128kbps to a single other machine) and
> that sort of thing.

Frame delivery would be unreliable by design.  Error-checking and
retransmission becomes the responsibility of the terminal (Application
Layer), not the network.  This mindset change lets you rip out most of
the overhead associated with X.25 and start packetizing at 1.5 Mb/s
(today ... faster soon).

Frames would maintain sequence since you are setting up virtual
circuits (connection-oriented).

"Both B channels in a PRI" -- a PRI has 23 B channels.  And yes, you
can dedicate all 23 of them to a single virtual circuit.  I haven't
seen frame relay promised yet for BRI (2B+D), but it is certainly
feasible.

There's a decent non-technical tutorial on frame relay in the October
issue of Telecommunications magazine (Disclaimer: I wrote it).  Let me
know by E-mail if I can help.


Stephen Fleming            | Internet: [e-mail]
Director, Technology Mktg. | CI$: 76354,3176    AOL: SFleming
Northern Telecom           | BIX: srfleming     X.500:  ???
7900 Westpark Drive, A220  +----------------------------------
McLean, Virginia  22102    |   Opinions expressed do not
[phone]             |   represent Northern Telecom.

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

Subject: Request INFO Sources About ISDN
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 9:58:35 EST
From: Weaver Hickerson <holos0![e-mail]>


Patrick,

Can you recommend sources of info about ISDN?  I'm afraid my telecom
expertise is sorely lacking, although I read the Digest with interest.

I'm interested in finding what types, if any, of AT bus hardware is
available/in the works for ISDN, as well as simply learning more about
the service.

Thanks for any pointers.


Weaver

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

From: Jurek Rakoczynski <asuvax!rako![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctions and Definitions Needed
Date: 1 Nov 90 17:29:35 GMT
Organization: AG Communication Systems-Phoenix, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Floyd
Davidson) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> George S Thurman <0004056081@
> mcimail.com> writes:

>>Could some of you Telecom Experts out there tell me (in simple
>>terms) the difference between SS7 and CCIS.

> CCS (Common Channel Signaling) removes the signaling functions from
> the individual trunks (ie.  multifreq tones for dialing numbers) and text
> deleted  CCIS (Common Channel Interoffice Signaling) is AT&T's
> implementation of CCS.  CCITT Signaling System No. 7 is the most
> recent CCS implementation.  SS7 provides more information to the
> terminating end office and does more trunk testing before setting up
> a path.

CCIS introduced Out-of-Band signaling in Class 1-4 offices (pre-
divestiture usage :-) ).  In actual implementation, I don't think it
was continued down to the Class 5 end office. There was, however, some
development by GTE (and AT&T?) to put it in Class 5 offices.  BTW:
AT&T may not have 'officially' implemented all of the Data Bits on the
STP link required in the CCIS specs.

SS7 extended the general principle of Out-of-Band signaling to the end
office. It also implements the 7 layer signaling protocol, which CCIS
did not have.

CCIS is still in use, but will be phased and replaced with SS7.

The above is VERY short but to the point.

Some trivia: An interesting problem came up when telcos were being
given classes on development of CCIS on the end office.

With CCIS on an end office, if the originating end office was able to
complete its' part of the call set-up, but the terminating end office
could not (eg. busy phone, etc.), the originating office was to return
reorder tone (120 ips), instead of the terminating office, since the
voice path had not been established.

A trivial matter you say! :-) HA!  The peg counters (old term) that
recorded the uncompleted traffic, would also show the uncompleted CCIS
call as uncompleted in the originating office log.  These records are
used to monitor the office for the PUC, salaries for the CO people,
etc.  Even though a certain amount of traffic is expected to be
uncompleted for legitimate reasons (caller goes on-hook before call
completion, Mother's Day, etc.), excess uncompleted calls could mean
poor switch maintenance.  CCIS would obviously increase the
uncompleted call record.  A soution to have another record type, log
CCIS problems, was to be developed if SS7 did not come around.

Thanks to Heinz Berg at my office for filling me in on some of the
above info.


UUCP: {ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!rakoczynskij
Inet: gtephx![e-mail]
Voice: [phone]  Fax: [phone]

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Logistics of Setting up a Modem Hunt Group
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 05:06:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> William.Degnan@f39.n382.
z1.fidonet.org (William Degnan) writes:

> It seems that you can't test hunting from a server within the hunt
> group. ...
> Perhaps the designers never thought we'd want to call ourselves to
> check translations?

As has been noted already, this varies. This is not a bug, it is a
feature. It allows you to test the individual lines of the group by
calling each one in turn.

When I first encountered hunt groups, in a modem pool, in a foreign
country, many years ago, only the lead number would hunt; the
subordinate numbers behaved normally. Thus, you could test all numbers
except the lead number. Disabling the hunt for calls originating
within the group is a simple way of achieving this test capability
(although it would seem to require a bit of computer processing to
implement).


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

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Directory Assistance on CD-ROM
Date: 6 Nov 90 18:39:32 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM


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

|> In the UK, (BT) charges for directory inquires are to be brought in
|> next year. (Mercury, the only other carrier, has always charged, I
|> believe.)

In fact Mercury used to be free too. They started charging about two
years ago. But I digress ...

|> This has lead to BT offering two alternative services for
|> inquiries; an dial-up on-line inquiries database, via modem (although
|> I'm not sure what speeds are to be offered; V.32 at best, I imagine)
|> and a CD-ROM + PC software solution.

The dial-in service is V.23 (blecch!). This is the brain-damaged
1200/75 baud system used by Prestel (aka Viewdata, but that was a long
time ago).  Sad but true. BT have said they will consider faster
modems if the demand is there.

My theory is that BT is recycling its old Prestel modems, now that
that service is in decline. BTW, you can also get through to Phonebase
(as it is called) via Prestel on page 192.

Somehow I think BT is more interested in making money on voice
enquiries (at 43 pence per call) than it is in providing a sensible,
low-cost data link.

The cheapest solution is to call directory enquiries from a payphone -
calls will still be free from these.


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #797
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16934;
          8 Nov 90 11:56 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01415;
          8 Nov 90 9:44 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21321;
          8 Nov 90 8:39 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Nov 90 8:10:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #798
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Nov 90 08:08:21 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 798

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Has TAT-8 Been Damaged? [Kauto Huopio OH5LFM]
    Re: Has TAT-8 Been Damaged? [Daniel Karrenberg]
    Re: Has TAT-8 Been Damaged? [Paul Ebersman]
    TAT-9 Progress [John R. Levine]
    Re: CPC / "Wink" Call Termination [Tom Gray]
    Re: NJ Bell Lab in Morristown, NJ [Brent Chapman]
    Re: *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown) [Jeff Carroll]
    Microsoft Use of 900 Number for Tech Support [Tad Cook]
    Re: Distinctive Ringing Fax/Phone Switch [Edward Elhauge]
    Re: Turkey City Codes [Clive Feather]
    Seoul-Moscow Phone Links [Wall Street Journal via Stephen Friedl]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Kauto Huopio OH5LFM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has TAT-8 Been Damaged?
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
Date: 6 Nov 90 21:10:22


> In another newsgroup someone wrote about a delay in the news and
> someone else explained that this was because the TAT-8 had broken and

> [Moderator's Note: Quite honestly, I had not heard about it. Had there
> been something mentioned, I'd have put the item to the front of the
> queue immediatly. Has anyone else heard anything on this?  PAT]

If I have understood it right, there was a repeater problem at the
stateside end of TAT-8. The Internet connections to Europe were indeed
routed to sateillite links. I haven't read about any service return to
TAT-8 connection. Because there hasn't been any great fuss about the
failure, maybe just one fibre repeater has broken and only data
traffic has been in it?


                   Kauto Huopio ([e-mail])
*US Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta, Finland *

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

From: Daniel Karrenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has TAT-8 Been Damaged?
Date: 7 Nov 90 15:57:59 GMT
Organization: European Unix systems User Group


The latest word from MCI Europe about this is that one of the
repeaters is damaged. A ship is on location but weather is too bad to
begin working on it.


Daniel Karrenberg                    Future Net:  <[e-mail]>
CWI, Amsterdam                        Oldie Net:  mcsun!dfk
The Netherlands          Because It's There Net:  DFK@MCVAX

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

From: Paul Ebersman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Has TAT-8 Been Damaged?
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 15:42:05 EST
Organization: UUNET Communications, Falls Church, VA


Latest word on the TAT-8 cable is that it is not a power station as
was originally thought, but a problem in an underwater repeater
station. The ship is now onsite, but there is no firm uptime for the
cable yet.

Apparently the PTAT is also down between the UK and Belgium, which is
why certain links are on satellite.


                   Paul A. Ebersman @ UUNET Communications
                   uunet!ebersman or [e-mail]

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

Subject: TAT-9 Progress
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 11:40:03 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


The {Beach Haven (NJ) Times} reports in its October 31st issue on the
new TAT-9 trans-Atlantic cable.

AT&T on October 4th got its permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to
lay the cable through the wetlands under and adjoining Barnegat Bay
and the adjacent coastal waters.  The cable parallels the existing
Bermuda cable that runs from the mainland town of Manahawkin under
Barnegat Bay, along Bergen Ave. through Harvey Cedars, which is on
Long Beach Island, a narrow barrier island, and thence out under the
ocean.  The new cable will share the existing conduit across the
island, which is important because the dunes at the ocean end of the
street are quite fragile and hard to restore if dug up.  AT&T and the
Corps are also required to restore the eel grass in the tidal marshes
on the west side of the bay.

I was closing up my beach cottage in Harvey Cedars last week, and
noticed some peculiar looking equipment tearing up Bergen Ave., which
is a tiny street which runs about 1/4 mile from one side of the island
to the other two blocks from my house.  I figured they were doing
maintenance on the Bermuda cable; if I'd know it was TAT-9 I'd have
gone over for a closer look.

TAT-8 runs from Tuckerton on the mainland through Beach Haven, about
10 miles south of TAT-9.  I wonder how AT&T chooses their cable
routes?

Regards,

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

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CPC / "Wink" Call Termination
Date: 6 Nov 90 22:23:31 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!halligan![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Douglas
Scott Reuben) writes:

>I'm wondering if anyone here knows exactly (or not so exactly :-) )
>what the "wink", or I believe it is sometimes called "CPC" signal is.

>I'm referring to the process by which the Central Office switch can
>signal a end-user device (an answering machine, for example) that the
>calling party has hung up. i.e., someone calls my machine, hears the
>outgoing message, thinks it is really too long, and just hangs up. The
>machine "knows" that the caller has hung up even before it starts
>"listening" on the line to see if anyone is recording a message or
>not.

>I've heard from some sources that this is done with polarity reversal,
>and from others that there is just a drop in line current for a brief
>moment.  Is either (or both?) correct?

The problem described here occurs on loop start lines on which no
answer supervision is provided. A call is answerd by a machine The
answering machine needs an indication that the far end has
disconnected.  In the absence of answer supervision, how is this done?

Normally for non-answer supervision loops a service can be provided in
which the impedance of the loop is raised above 15K ohms for a short
period of time. This has the effect of lowering the loop current below
the off hook threshhold. Answering equipment can be designed to detect
the absence of loop current on a disconnect signal.  The usual means of
providing this service is to open the tip (A lead for non North
Americans) with a relay. in effect, the CO is providing the disconnect
signal normally provided on a ground start trunk on a loop start
service.

Naturally if answer supervision is provided on a loop. Far end
disconnect is indicated by an on hook signal. This is the reversal of
battery mentioned above (assuming that reverse battery signalling is
used).

The service described above (called Cut Off on Disconnect around here)
is the removal of loop current for a few hundred milliseconds. The
exact timimgs of this cut off will vary greatly depending on the type
of equipment installed.

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

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NJ Bell Lab in Morristown, NJ
Date: 6 Nov 90 21:54:01 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA


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

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

>I have to find the number, but I remeber calling a system in
>Morristown, NJ. It was a NJ Bell Lab. It was really interesting.
>Depending on which number you called you could make the system do the
>following:

   (examples deleted)

Are you sure this was NJ Bell, and not BellCore?

A few years ago, some of the researchers at BellCore (can't recall
their names at the moment) started experimenting with using a UNIX
system to drive a phone switch that was controlled by commands sent
over an RS-232 serial port.  I seem to recall that the work was
described in some detail in a paper given at one of the USENIX
conferences a few years ago.

The switch, if I recall correctly, had a trunk (DID?) interface on one
side and lots (40 or so?) of individual lines on the other.  Most of
the lines had just normal touch tone phone sets attached to them, but
many had things like voice syntesizers, recorders, radios, and so on
attached.  They created a scripting language for controlling the
switch, so that they could associate different actions with calls to
different numbers.  When a call came in on a certain number, the
computer would find and execute "program" for that number.  The
program could then do something like grab a free voice synthesizer,
connect that to the circuit the call was coming in on, and then have
the voice synthesizer say whatever they wanted it to.  Since the voice
synthesizer had a touchtone decoder, they could recognize TT input
from the caller, and the program couliWd respond accordingly.

The voice synthesizers they were using were fairly featureful, and
could do things like vary the tone of their output, to produce (for
instance) either a deep, masculine voice, a warm, feminine voice, or a
squeeky little child's voice.  One of the researchers used this
feature to create what they called the "touch tone shell".  Basically,
you'd call up the number for this service, and it would connect you to
a UNIX system, with the voice synthesizer "reading" the output which
would normally be on the screen.  If I recall correctly, stdin was
read back in the masculine voice, stdout in the feminine voice, and
stderr in the squeeky child's voice.  You could use two-digit codes on
the keypad to enter whatever characters you wanted as input, to
control the system.

I wish I could remember more about the system.  It was absolutely
fascinating to read about, and wish for.  Hopefully someone who knows
more about it will read this, and can provide pointers to the original
articles and papers describing the system.


Brent Chapman                    Ascent Logic Corporation
Computer Operations Manager     180 Rose Orchard Way, Suite 200
[e-mail]                  San Jose, CA  95134
                                 Phone:  [phone]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *FREE* Calls From a Hotel! (Legality Unknown)
Date: 7 Nov 90 01:11:58 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Eric
Townsend) writes:

>Then it hit me: Dial out to Sprint (which is required to be free?)
>then make my local call.  I really didn't care if Sprint charged me,
>the hotel wanted .25 per call and I really wanted to see if it would
>work.

>It did.  I got my bill today.  NO CHARGE for the calls I made local to
>Austin.  Not even a record of them.

    I sometimes do this when I'm at a coin phone with no coins.
Sprint always charges me, even for local calls.

    Sometimes these calls turn out to be fairly expensive (up to
$1.50 in some cases).


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Microsoft Use of 900 Number for Tech Support
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 12:29:36 PST


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

> Any company (Microsoft) that would subject customers to a 900 number
> to reach technical support is way down on the food chain, IMHO.

Higdon has a HUMBLE OPINION??!?  No, but seriously, they recently
instituted this for support of MS DOS ONLY ... all their applications
support is free.  Since they didn't sell DOS themselves, but only
licensed it to other companies, for years they didn't support it
directly.  This is now changing, and I am sure that the 900 number is
an effective filter for all the millions of DOS copies out there.  Can
you imagine, in place of the 900 number, if they did a "can I have
your registration number please"?

> I wrote a letter to Microsoft telling them what I thought of a
> particular product (and them for having a 900 number) and six weeks
> later received a phone call from someone who, in essence, told me that
> all the problems were causes by (in order), my hardware, my other
> software, my incompetence. This person left a call back number and an
> email "name" to facilitate a return call. When I called back, I was
> informed that they were aware of no such person.

Gee, *I* haven't had these problems.  What makes Higdon so special?
But he often has problems communicating with phone companies and toll
carriers too...

> Microsoft is a company that could probably have all of its phones
> disconnected and not suffer a reduction in communication capabiltiy.

Hmmmmm ... I doubt it.  I have always had good support from them.
There is an advantage though to living within toll-free calling of
them (Seattle).  Also, if you want to follow up with a particular
support person, they will give you their network username.  You can
really blow their mind by getting on usenet and addressing your
followup communication to [e-mail].  I have done this,
and it ALWAYS gets a quick phone call, especially from the NEW folks
over there.  It is a fast growing company, so the majority of support
folks are "new."


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: Edward Elhauge <lever![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing Fax/Phone Switch
Date: 8 Nov 90 08:49:24 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by inesc![e-mail]
(Miguel Casteleiro):

>> I recently purchased a fax/phone/modem switch that claims to do just

> Can someone please explain how do this devices work?  Do they answer

I bought a model called the Eliminator TF 300 at Office Club a couple
of weeks ago. The instructions say that it looks for "audible beep
tones called CNG (CalliNG) signals from the remote fax.

After a brief timeout is seems to switch to the voice circuits where
my modem is stimulated by Eliminator produced rings. It mostly works
OK.

Every so often I'll get someone out there sending me a fax with a
modem that doesn't produce this signal and the fax gets connected to
the modem.


      Edward Elhauge      |    {hoptoad,uunet}!\
     Lever Industries     |        lever!ee
       San Francisco      |
    Voice 415-550-6789    |      [e-mail]

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

From: Clive Feather <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Turkey City Codes
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 6:43:06 GMT


Several people have stated that 90 is the country code for Turkey, and
5 is simply the area code for Turkish Cyprus. This is not the case.
The BT booklet I built the list from gave two country codes for
Cyprus: 357 and 905. In each case, there was a list of area codes.

Clearly, 905 is a subset of 90, but the phone user will find the
information under "Cyprus", not under "Turkey". In other words, we're
all in agreement.

BTW, can anyone confirm the St. Helena code 290, or supply any of the
codes I'm missing ?

    Antarctica Australian Territory
    Chatham Islands
    Midway Island
    Pitcairn Islands
    Tristan da Cunha
    Wake Island


Clive D.W. Feather     | IXI Limited
[e-mail]          | 62-74 Burleigh St.
Phone: [phone] | Cambridge   CB1 1OJ
(USA: 1 800 XDESK 57)  | United Kingdom

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

Date: 7 Nov 90 13:27:07 PST (Wed)
From: Stephen Friedl <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Seoul-Moscow Phone Links" - from WSJ
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


According to the _The Wall Street Journal_, in the issue of 6 November
1990, on page A11:

    Seoul-Moscow Phone Links
    ------------------------

Four direct telephone circuits linking Seoul to Moscow were set to
open at midnight last night.  South Korea's Communication Ministry
said telephone calls between South Korea and the Soviet Union have
jumped from four calls in all of 1987 to some 5,000 a month this year.


Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / I speak for me only / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy
[phone]  / [e-mail]  / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #798
******************************
Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13532;
          9 Nov 90 12:03 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00068;
          8 Nov 90 23:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08880;
          8 Nov 90 22:49 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Nov 90 22:00:46 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #799
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Nov 90 22:00:36 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 799

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom Art [Mitchell L. Silverman]
    Centel PBX - Strange Codes? [Gil Kloepfer Jr.]
    Is the "V&H" Tape Still Available? [Barton F. Bruce]
    IBM, Northern Telecom and NYNEX Joint Announcement [Vogon News Service]
    The Braux Bill (S. 1660) [New Haven Register via Fred E.J. Linton]
    WD-40 "Hour Free" Account: Two Blasts from the Past [Carol Springs]
    What Happens When 800 Fills Up? [Mark Brader]
    Recommendations Needed on Telecom Publications [Sergey Goldgaber]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 04:04:40 EST
From: "Mitchell L. Silverman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Art


This is strange, I know.  But could all the people who post messages
to the TELECOM Digest take a second to make sure that they have a
geographical address in their signatures?  I ask this for two related
reasons.

First: I (and, I assume, other TELECOM Digest readers) are curious to
know the geographic span of messages posted here.  Long-time computer
users (myself included) sometimes get jaded about what their toys can
do, but surely the thought that this Digest enmeshes such a large part
of the globe and connects such a geographically diverse group, must
occasionally instill a sense of wonder in its readers?

Second (and, I admit, my real motive :) ): I am taking a computer art
class, and, rather than sketching pretty pictures using PixelPaint, I
am exploring the wild world of conceptual art.  I was inspired to do
an electronic mail piece by a cutting-edge conceptual piece done in
1969, called "Trans VSI Connection NSCAD-NETCO Sept. 15-Oct 5, 1969."
That conceptual artwork involved, as the book that records the
installation tells, "... an exchange between the Nova Scotia College of
Art and Design and Iain Baxter's N. E. Thing Co., Ltd.[in Vancouver,
British Columbia], via telex, telecopier and telephone.

The N. E. Thing Co. initiated propositions and the college community
responded with some appropriate activity.  The transmissions from the
exhibition are arranged chronologically, with evidence of response
following each." Now telex, facsimile and phone were fine 21 years
ago, but this is the 90s, after all. I did an installation in which I
asked users of a local BBS to send me a word of their choice, then
took their email and some maps and whipped up an interactive
conceptual art installation using HyperCard.  And THAT is what I'd
like to do with the Digest -- conceptual art.  Readers, PAT, what do you
think?


UUCP: crash!pro-exchange!reverend          | Mitchell L. Silverman
ARPA: crash!pro-exchange![e-mail] | P.O. Box 25607
INET: [e-mail]        | Tamarac, FL 33320-5607
  Disclaimer?  Why would I need a disclaimer?  I speak for no one.


[Moderator's Note: I must say, yours is a very interesting request.
You make an interesting observation on the far-flung nature of TELECOM
Digest. We have about 40,000 daily readers on Usenet alone, via the
comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup in about a dozen nations of the world, but
the bulk of that is of course in the USA. The mailing list version
reaches a couple thousand more readers. Telenet's Net Exchange BBS has
quite a few readers of the Digest, and there are numerous Fidonet
participants.  PAT]

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

Subject: Centel PBX - Strange Codes?
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 8:57:20 CST
From: "Gil Kloepfer Jr." <[e-mail]>


In regard to strange codes from PBX stations: At the office, we have a
Centel PBX system.  I'm wondering if anyone can pass along what the
following means:

If I dial '87' on the phone, I get a second dial tone.  This isn't the
same as dialling '9' for an outside line -- it also sounds like a
standard dial tone.  However, it performs some funky dialing depending
on what I do.  For example -- if I dial NNX-YYYY-111-1111 it seems to
dial the standard NNX-YYYY -- but I do need to dial the 7 ones after
it.

Even more interesting still, if I dial '87*', I get a **LOUD** rushing
noise which sounds similar to a combination of a 2400 baud modem
tones, and Telebit PEP noises.  Pressing any touch-tone key at this
point temporarily termninates the noise, and gives me a dial tone
which lets me do nothing.  Could this be the trunk access code?  What
happens if you plug an analog phone onto a T1 trunk?

Last bit of information, and something which I would like clarified a
little -- we have a whole block of numbers from the local telco, which
I assume is a DID arrangement.  Of course, we'd need to be able to
program the PBX switch to handle the direction of each number in this
range.  I'm assuming that this is all handled by some signalling from
the CO.  How is this transmitted to the PBX (in-band, or some kind of
digital signalling?)

My apologies for the length of this, but I think that although the
information will be specific to this PBX, everyone else will learn
from the concepts involved.


Gil Kloepfer, Jr.              [e-mail]   ...!ames!limbic!gil
Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS)   Houston, Texas

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is the "V&H" Tape Still Available?
Date: 6 Nov 90 11:35:28 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


There used to be a mag tape called a "V&H" tape that you could get
from AT&T for about $43. It had every NPA-NXX code, the location's
name, and its Vertical and Horizontal coordinates.

One could easily find the mileage between any two COs in the country.

Especially useful would be such a list that also contained the type of
switches at each NPA-NXX, and also listed the nearest POPs for IXCs.

Much of this sort of info is now sold by specialised publishers, but I
was wondering if there are still any reasonable priced sources or even
public domain lists. Any such list FTPable?

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

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 10:21:01 PST
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: IBM, Northern Telecom and NYNEX Joint Announcement


The following is lifted from "VNS," an electronic newspaper that is
edited and published daily within Digital Equipment Corporation. VNS
is not an official Digital publication, and is totally supported by
volunteers.  Reproduced with permission.


Jeff E. Nelson | Digital Equipment Corporation | [e-mail]
Affiliation given for identification purposes only.

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

Edition : 2189              Tuesday  6-Nov-1990            Circulation :  8446

VNS COMPUTER NEWS:                          [Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk]
==================                          [Nashua, NH, USA                 ]

 IBM, Northern Telecom, Nynex - Announcement today on data services
breakthrough

     {The Wall Street Journal, 5-Nov-90, p. B1}

  The companies plan to announce today a technological breakthrough in
public communications that will make widely available advanced voice
and data services previously accessible only to big corporations on
private networks costing millions of dollars. The new service would
link a back office IBM computer owned by a business or organization
such as a school to a telephone company's central office switch. This
way, data containing a customer's name and phone number could be used
to automatically fetch a file on the customer from the office computer
as a phone call is being made. The computer would then deliver the
information to, say, a clerk or attorney's computer terminal at the
same time the call is answered.

Until now, only large corporations like American Express and American
Airlines could get this kind of service by installing sophisticated
private network equipment. AT&T has yet to announce a similar product.
Moreover, Northern plans to announce next week a hardware and software
automatic call distribution system, which Northern has dubbed the
Meridian Server, that can be installed on any central office switch,
including AT&T's, to deliver the same service. The product comes after
two years of development work between IBM and Northern, one of the
world's largest suppliers of computerized phone exchanges and AT&T's
chief rival in the U.S.  equipment market. Northern wouldn't comment
on the announcement or the alliance. But one Northern insider said:
"This will be the first of several products. We'd love to plan more
products in the future with IBM."  Under the current system, IBM uses
AS/400 minicomputers and its CallPath software that has been
fine-tuned to work with big-company switches to provide a public
network service.

Nynex plans to announce that Syracuse University will be the test site
for the new service in the summer of 1991. IBM is said to be readying
all of its computer lines, including personal computers, for the same
voice and data capability. But a little company in Austin, Texas, has
already designed an inexpensive software and hardware system that lets
a personal computer perform simultaneous voice and data functions, by
using Caller I.D.  information delivered by the phone company's
switch. Rochelle Communications Inc. plans to unveil the $249 product
line later this month at the Comdex computer show. The system lets a
PC call up a customer record as a call is received. The system also
keeps a log of all calls and can store up to 65,000 files on
customers. "Our system is geared to the home market and small
businesses while IBM's and Northern's products will be aimed at
medium-sized businesses," said Gilbert Amine, Rochelle's president.
"This is going to be a very hot market."

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

    Permission to copy material from this VNS is granted (per DIGITAL PP&P)
    provided that the message header for the issue and credit lines for the
    VNS correspondent and original source are retained in the copy.

<><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 2189     Tuesday  6-Nov-1990   <><><><><><><><>

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

Date: 6-NOV-1990 18:09:59.79
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Braux Bill (S. 1660)


     The Business section of the {New Haven Register} of Tuesday,
Oct. 30, had the following brief take (reproduced here, *with*
permission, in its entirety) in column one of page 2:

     Those obscure companies that often levy sky-high charges for
     long-distance calls made at airports, hotels and other public
     places are going to have to become a little more user-friendly
     beginning next month.  Starting Nov. 17, the operator companies
     will be required to clearly identify themselves during calls,
     provide rates and billing procedures on demand, stop charging
     for unanswered calls and allow some access to the interstate
     long-distance company that callers wish to use.

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

     It turns out, though neither my local operating company (SNET)
nor the business editor at the {Register} were the ones to know, that a
bill passed the Senate October 3, was signed into law October 17, and
therefore takes effect November 17, having essentially the effects
described.  This I learned from a nameless but helpful AT&T rep at one
of AT&T's many corporate 800 numbers, which I had called originally on
quite a different matter (10XXX and 950 assistance and information).

     The bill is S. 1660, sponsored by Sen. Braux of Louisiana,
hence known to the AT&T rep who described it to me as the Braux bill;
it apparently prohibits blocking of 800 and 950 calls at phones in
hotels, motels, and universities (and maybe more).  Said rep went on
to explain that, while the bill "goes into effect" November 17, it
begins *really* only after a 210-day period the FCC has thereafter in
which to implement a compliance schedule.

     So in fact there's an FCC docket # relevant here -- # 90313,
if that rep and my typing are not mistaken -- which is still open for
comments on the part of the interested public.

     If someone with easy access to the Congressional Record could
share with TELECOM Digest the salient features of S.1660, we might
know a little better just what comments, if any, might still need to
get offered :-) .  Such comments, in any event, should be sent to:
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington
DC 20554.


Fred   <[e-mail]>   <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>

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

From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: WD-40 "Hour Free" Account:  Two Blasts from the Past
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 21:17:43 EST


The other day I received a new bill from Sprint for the work-number
FONCARD account that I had opened under the infamous WD-40 offer.
Right away I knew something was amiss.

Background: I had made a total of one call on the account, at a cost
of 90 cents including surcharge and tax, and had immediately written
to have the card canceled after receiving a "FONCARD Non-recurring
Charge" of $10 (the first of three such *nonrecurring* charges).  My
first two attempts at canceling the card had failed, despite Sprint's
calling me to assure me that the account would be canceled as
requested.  However, during a mostly polite phone call a few months
ago, I seemed finally to get the point through to the helpful service
rep -- who initially kept assuring me that the billing software was
fixed, that I wouldn't be charged if there was no account activity
during a given month, etc. -- that I had returned the FONCARD months
earlier and I *just wanted the blasted thing canceled once and for
all*.

I had arranged with Sprint for credit on all the bad charges and had a
balance of zero in my defunct account.  This latest invoice was
somewhat mystifying since it contained two $30.81 credits, each
labeled "FONCARD fee adjustment," applied 10/9/90 and 9/23/90 for a
total of $61.62 credit.  Unfortunately, just below these lines were
two "FONCARD fee adjustment" *charges* of $30.81 each, for the same
dates, bringing the balance back to zero in The Account that Would Not
Die.

I phoned Sprint customer service to ask why I was receiving strange
charges and credits for a defunct account.  The rep assured me that
her records showed the account as having been canceled in July.  The
charges were a result of "computer account sweeps" that had resulted
in erroneous billing info.  The problems had been corrected and I
shouldn't be receiving any more invoices.

Today, a few days later, I was reminded of all this when I received in
the mail at work a mysterious "Customer Refund" check from Sprint in
the amount of $10.68.  I deposited the check this evening.  After all,
I wouldn't want to foul up Sprint's books.  And didn't they "owe" me a
free hour somewhere in there?

I confess that when I saw the "To the Order of" in the address window,
I had sorta hoped that the check would be for $30.81...


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Happens When 800 Fills Up?
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 1990 23:47:07 -0500


Has any particular plan been made for what to do when the North
American area code for toll-free calls, 800, fills up?  It would be
nice if a code that was somewhat similar had been reserved for
splitting it.  Given that 700, 801, and 900 are all in some sort of
use, the best choice would seem to be 810.

What fraction of the 800-number namespace is currently allocated?


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

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

From: Sergey Goldgaber <sbcs![e-mail]>
Subject: Recommendations Needed on Telecom Publications
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 18:56:02 GMT


Could anyone please recommend any sources of beginning/intermediate
(non-technical) information (books, mags, newsletters, etc) on
telecommunication in general?

Many thanks in advance,

Sergey Goldgaber          [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #799
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03191;
          9 Nov 90 2:49 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27966;
          9 Nov 90 0:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab00068;
          8 Nov 90 23:52 CST
Date:     Thu, 8 Nov 90 23:39:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #800
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 8 Nov 90 23:39:21 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 800

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Massachusetts DPU Fees for COCOT Info [Carol Springs]
    NET Calling Card Woes [Carol Springs]
    Calling USA Collect or With Card From Other Countries [V. Macapagal]
    Want to Build SNA Gateway [Mike Ciarald]
    Washington DC Seminar: The Packet Switching Mystery! [Diana Scotti]
    Former 312-Area Ringback Prefixes [Carl Moore]
    McCaw "Nationlink" vs. Follow Me Roaming [Bill Berbenich]
    Info Needed on Prodigy Service [Sandy Kyrish]
    Phone Help Please, GTE Model 960 [Leonard P. Levine]
    DAK Catalog Telecom Equipment [Otto Miller]
    BusinessWeek Article on Slamming [Haroon H. Dogar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Massachusetts DPU Fees for COCOT Innfo
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 21:21:29 EST


A few weeks ago, I sent a letter to the Massachusetts DPU in which I
expressed interest in receiving a copy of the tariff governing the
operation of COCOTs in Massachusetts.  I said that I was especially
interested in knowing whether COCOTs here are required to provide
equal access via 10xxx and free access to 1-800 and 950 numbers.  I
asked to be notified about any charges associated with my request.

Today I received on my voice mail a message from "Ciss" ("Sis"?) at
the Mass. DPU saying that they had a "package" of info for me, for
which the cost would be $45 if I wanted it.  I immediately phoned to
cancel my request.  Ciss seemed to have anticipated my reply.  The
conversation was brief since I didn't feel like pursuing my more
general questions at that point.

Anyhow, if some more generous person than I wants to contribute $45 to
the cause of hard facts on Massachusetts COCOTs, they can call Ciss at
the Massachusetts DPU to order the package.  Or has anyone found ways
around this charge?


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: NET Calling Card Woes
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 21:33:11 EST


I have noticed consistent problems lately with entering my New England
Telephone calling card number when placing local calls from work.
Usually a message interrupts with "card number incomplete" when I'm in
the middle of entering the number, and the second entry attempt
generally works.  In the past I would also occasionally get a repeated
"card number invalid, please enter card number again" no matter how
many times I entered the complete valid number.  In each case of this
latter sort, the call completed successfully if I hung up and tried
again.

Today I got *both* messages during a call to the DPU -- a new record!
After the "card number incomplete" message, I re-entered the number
and got the "card number invalid" message.  But this time the second
message told me to hang up and enter 0, the number I was calling, and
the card number.  Which I did, and what do you know, things then
worked fine.

Nice to see the loop problem has been, uh, fixed...


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 7 Nov 90 01:10:40 hst
From: Victorino Macapagal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling USA Collect or With Card From Other Countries


I just recently discovered that AT&T has a service called USA Direct
which makes it easy to make collect call or calling card calls to the
USA from many overseas countries.  Or, you can simply talk to an AT&T
operator if you wish.  I thought it would be helpful to post dialing
information for reaching a USA operator to make a collect or calling
card call from another country from the various foreign countries that
are part of the USA Direct service.

Argentina   001-800-200-1111
Aruba  800-1011
Australia  0014-881-011
Austria  022-903-011 (Public phones require coin or card)
Bahamas  1-800-872-2881 (Limited avaibility)
Bahrain   800-001
Belgium   11-0010 (Public phones require coin or card)
Brazil   000-8010
Br. Virgin Is.   1-800-872-2881
Cayman Islands   1872
Chile   00*-0312
Colombia   980-11-0010 (Limited avaibility)
Costa Rica   114 (Public phones require coin or card)
Czechoslovakia   00-420-00101
Denmark   8001-0010  (Public phones require coin or card)
Dominica  1-800-872-2881
Dom. Rep.   1-800-872-2881
Finland   9800-100-10 (Public phones require coin or card)
France   19*-0011 (Public phones require coin or card)
Gambia   001-199-220-0010 (Public phones require coin or card)
Germany, FRG   0130-0010 (Trial basis only)
Greece   00-800-1311 (Public phones require coin or card)
Grenada  872 (Limited availability)
Guam   018-872 (Limited availability)
Guatemala   190 (Public phones require coin or card)
Hong Kong   008-1111
Hungary   00*-36-0111
Indonesia   00-8}i01-10
Italy   172-1011 (Public phoness require coin or card)
Jamaica   0-800-872-2881 (Limited availability)
Japan   0039-111 (Public phones require coin or card)
Korea   009-11
Liberia   797-797
Macau   0800-111
Netherlands   06*-022-9111 (Public phones require coin or card)
Neth/Antil.   001-800-872-2881
New Zealand   000-911
Norway   050-12-011 (Public phones require coin or card)
Panama   109
Peru   ##0 (Limited Availability)
Philippines  105-11 (Public phones require coin or card) (Limited availability)
Singapore   800-0011 (Public phones require coin or card)
St. Kitts   1-800-872-2881
Sweden   020-795-611 (Public phones require coin or card)
Switzerland   046-05-0011 (Public phones require coin or card)
U.K.   0800-89-0011
Uruguay   00-0410 (Public phones require coin or card)

The asterisk (*) in some of the above phone numbers indicate that you
must wait for a second dialtone.

This information was printed on a wallet card dated April 1990.

The AT&T USA Direct office can be reached at 1-800-874-4000 x359 or
collect from foreign countries at [phone] (Problems are
reported at 1-800-222-0300 in USA only.)

Do not use the International calling card number printed in small type
on your Calling Card, use your regular calling card number in big type
on your card.


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for the updated list of countries. We've had
various messages about USA Direct before, but it is always a good idea
to repeat these messages from time to time for newer readers.  PAT]

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

From: Mike Ciaraldi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Want to Build SNA Gateway
Date: 7 Nov 90 12:16:55 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester, Rochester NY


I'm trying to set up a gateway system to route between workstations
connected by Ethernet and an IBM mainframe host connected by a 56kb
line running SNA/SDLC.

What I have working now is a Sun 4/330 with a Systech communications
board and software from SSI.  The software provides 3270 terminal
emulation and 3770 RJE emulation. The custom routing software uses
something from SSI called "HLLAPI", the High Level Language
Applications Program Interface. This gives us a standard set of
subroutines for sending keystrokes, querying fields on the emulated
3270 screen, etc.

I've been able to handle 200+ simultaneous 3270 sessions, plus card
reader, punch, and printer emulation like an RJE terminal.

I'm looking for a hardware/software solution that provides the same
functionality, but with lower performance (say, 20 sessions) and cost.

The comm board we use is only available for the VMEbus, so we can't
plug it into a SPARCstation. I found some comm boards for the S-bus
that provide synchronous communications, but so far haven't found one
that provides HLLAPI compatiblity or RJE.

What I don't need is a package that just opens a 3270 emulation screen
on a Sun screen; I need to get to the emulated screens from my program
so I can digest them and send them to the workstations.

Right now I'm mostly interested in a Sun-based solution, but I'd
consider other platforms if porting my HLLAPI-based C code wouldn't be
too hard. And I need RJE support, of course.

Any suggestions? Anyone done something similar? BTW, is there a
newsgroup that would be a better choice? Thanks.


Mike Ciaraldi
[e-mail]
 ...rochester!uhura!ciaraldi

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

From: Diana Scotti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Washington DC Seminar: The Packet Switching Mystery!
Date: 8 Nov 90 14:33:31 GMT
Reply-To: Diana Scotti <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park


        CAPITOL WOMEN AND MEN IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS
                     PRESENTS


        "THE PACKET SWITCHING MYSTERY!"
        Featuring our special guest speaker

              DR. PAUL NEMIROVSKY
              Director of Engineering
              Sprint International



While packet switching has been around for a while, many in our
industry are still confused about what it is, why it is used, how it
is used and how it has evolved.  Our distinguished speaker will
unravel the packet switching mystery with a tutorial on packet
switching technology and applications.  Dr. Nemirovsky, Director of
Engineering at Sprint International, is a recognized expert in packet
switching networks.  He'll begin by covering basic concepts such as
packets, PADs and X.25, and finish by covering more complex topics as
fast-packet and frame relay.  As always, a question and answer period
will follow.  Join us for this informative meeting as we solve the
packet switching mystery!


WHEN:    Wednesday, November 14, 1990

TIME:    6:30pm-7:00pm    Registration and Welcome
    7:00pm-8:00pm    Speaker Presentation
    8:00pm-8:30pm    Informal Reception

WHERE:    Omni Georgetown Hotel
    2121 P Street N.W.
    Washington, DC
    [phone]
    Street parking available after 6:30pm or $4.00 valet parking
    with hotel validation, or METRO's Red Line, Dupont Circle,
    Q Street exit.

COST:    $15 Members of CAPITOL WIT    (Includes hors d'oeuvres
    $25 Non-members             and refreshments)

*****NOTE: While you are registering, if you state that you heard
about this meeting via the Internet, you will be able to pay the
discounted member fee of $15.00.

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

Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 10:19:56 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Former 312-Area Ringback Prefixes


An earlier note said that 570 thru 574 were, in the pre-split 312
area, the ringback prefixes.  By 1982, however, 570 was an Evanston
prefix, and it and all the other above-mentioned prefixes were
apparently in use at the time of the 312/708 split, and all of them
moved to 708.  Are 570 thru 574 assigned to anything in the PRESENT
area 312?


[Moderator's Note: Well actually, the correct numbers are 1-571
through 1-577. No area code, but you must use 1 plus the appropriate
three digit code for your CO (571 through 577) plus the last four
digits of the phone you want to ring back. For example xxx-2368 would
be rung back by dialing 1-571-2368 (or 572, 573, whatever applies in
your office -- test 'em all to find out which!) The corect combination
will return dial tone. Flash the hook. The dial tone will change to a
high pitched tone. Two tests are possible: To test the accuracy of the
touch tone pad, punch in 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0. If the tones issued are
at the correct frequency, you will hear a double spurt of tone:
Dah-dah!  Test two: Dial 6 and hang up. The phone will ring back.  PAT]

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: McCaw "Nationlink" vs. Follow Me Roaming
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 10:48:27 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Are Follow Me Roaming and McCaw's Nationlink the same thing?  I know
that they achieve the same effect for their member systems and users,
but are they in fact the same system?  If not, what organization
administers each and from where?

Also, if anyone has the time (or a scanner :-), a posting of the
cities to which Follow Me Roaming and Nationlink (respectively) is
available would be of interest to many here.  If it's a big listing,
perhaps our esteemed moderator would consider a special issue to post
it.

On a different note, I agree with PAT in that when people find out I
have a cellular phone they think I am rich or "hustle" on the side.  I
tell them that I am paying 18 dollars/month and 29 cents peak/22 cents
off-peak and then they understand that cellular isn't really so bad
(corporate rate from BellSouth in Atlanta).  I encourage others to
call their cellular provider to see if they qualify for scandalously
low rates by virtue of their working for a large employer (such as
U.S. or state gov't, or a big corporation).  Like our moderator, my
bill is RARELY over $40 and I use it at least twice a day.


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


[Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I get annoyed at people who see my
Radio Shack CT-301 handheld and ask me if I am (a) a seller of illicit
drugs or (b) a male prostitute on an outcall.  Whichever they ask me,
I usually tell them I am the other, and I always give them my 'direct
cell phone number' whenever they want to have a good time or buy
something from me: 911-6278.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 8 Nov 90 19:26 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Info Needed on Prodigy Service


I'm interested in knowing just how successful Prodigy *really* is.
Anyone with informal (or formal) knowledge of these questions, I'd
appreciate hearing from you ... either through this forum, or at my
personal MCI Mailbox, MCI ID 320-9613.

1. Prodigy claims nearly 500,000 subscribers.  What's the turnover
rate?  Do people "buy the yellow box", keep Prodigy for awhile, and
then cut it off?  And what is this 500K number really based on; boxes
sold/given away, or active bill-paying subscribers?

2. Is anything besides the e-mail/BBS service really popular with
subscribers?  Is the shopping at home/banking at home making a dent?

3.  What do you think people are really responding to with Prodigy --
the ability to access information, the ability to finally put their PC
to good use, the e-mail/BBSs, or something else?

4.  Do you/did you use it, and how do you/did you like it?

Thanks in advance,

Sandy Kyrish


[Moderator's Note: I'm hearing some bad news about Prodigy lately. So
'they' say, several users recently were summarily evicted from the
service after they sent email to other users criticizing the service's
plan to begin charging for 'excessive' amounts of email.  Does anyone
have any details on this?  PAT]

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

From: Leonard P Levine <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Help Please, GTE Model 960
Date: 8 Nov 90 18:34:49 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I have a GTE model 960 phone, purchased about ten years ago that has a
small "clamshell" covering the dialing buttons.  The phone is
all-in-one, no base, and when closed is off-hook.  It is a family
friend and is just right for the space it occupies.

The plastic hinge on the clamshell broke today.  Is there a number at
GTE that I can call for a repair part, or a replacement phone, or does
some fine soul out there have one that they want to sell?

Thanks.

Please reply by email, I will post if the responses seem to be of
interest. :-)


Leonard P. Levine                    e-mail [e-mail]
Professor, Computer Science             Office [phone]
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee       Home   [phone]
Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.              FAX    [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 6 Nov 90 12:14:26 EST
From: Otto Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: DAK Catalog Telecom Equipment


I just received a DAK winter '91 catalog.  Two telecom items caught my
eye, but the buyer beware in me prompts this message.  On pages 22 &
23 there is PC Switchboard (or so they call it) that has 999 voice
mail boxes, a 9600 baud (send/receive) fax and a 2400 baud modem all
on on PC card.  The other item on pages 44 & 45 were some GTE
(Wolfpack [I think]) telephone (two line) instruments, with
conference, paging etc.  Has anyone had any experiences with either of
these products (pro or con).  Thanks in advance!

Sincerely,

Otto L. Miller
[e-mail]

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

From: "Haroon H. Dogar" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: BusinessWeek Article on Slamming
Date: 6 Nov 90 18:39:20 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Page 55 of the November 12th {BusinessWeek} has a short article on
possible impending regulation to restrict slamming.


hd

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #800
******************************