Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1990.volume.10/vol10.iss851-900

Text File | 1990-12-22 | 868KB | 21,673 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00842;
          28 Nov 90 6:02 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07011;
          28 Nov 90 4:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01859;
          28 Nov 90 3:20 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Nov 90 2:56:49 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #851
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Nov 90 20:55:56 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 851

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Half Out-of-Service [Dick Rawson]
    CLASS in California [John Higdon]
    AT&T System 85 Routing [Andrew D'Uva]
    Choice of Where to Put 410 [Carl Moore]
    Fax/Voice/Mail Switches [Michael H. Riddle]
    Duplicate Telephone Numbers? [Eduardo Krell]
    Finland Wants 37!! [Kauto Huopio]
    The Extent of the Net (was: Telecom Art) [H. Shrikumar]
    More EC Standardisation [Colum Mylod]
    Answering Machine and Call Waiting [Eric Tholome]
    Some Consumer Protection [Jeff Sicherman]
    Telemarketing of Sleeze 900 [J. Philip Miller]
    EEC Caller ID Specs [Dan Hepner]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 13:14:03 PST
From: Dick Rawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Half Out-of-Service


After the October 17, 1989 earthquake, my home telephone lines had no
battery (blowing in the mic produced no noise in the ear piece), and
did not have dial tone.  I could get incoming calls however: the phone
rang, and I could answer and talk normally.  (That may not have been
true for BOTH lines; I got calls on only one of the lines.)  It was
fixed more than 24 hours later.

Someone told me today of the opposite situation: a phone that could
call out normally, could not receive calls.  (I do not know if it
returned 'busy', appeared to ring, or what.)

What happens to cause these cases?  Both problems were 'solid'; it was
not the case that some times you got dial tone, but usually not, etc.


Dick Rawson        BT Tymnet, Inc.        408-922-6545

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

Subject: CLASS in California
Date: 26 Nov 90 11:32:03 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


As the day grows nearer that CLASS will be offered by Pac*Bell (just a
year away now!), an amusing scenario similar to what took place in the
early sixties should begin to unfold.

In the mid-fifties, many of the San Francisco suburbs were either
getting dial service for the first time or having SXS switches
replaced. The equipment that went in was #5 crossbar which came
complete with DDD (no '1' required, full ANI). San Francisco proper
was mostly panel at the time.

In the early sixties, Pacific Telephone started gluing DDD into the #1
crossbar and panel switches in the Bay Area. Now mind you, many of the
growth areas had been using DDD for years on their #5 Xbar equipment.
But when DDD was finally introduced en masse in SF, the local media
picked up on it and did stories about this "remarkable new service".
They proclaimed that a telephone user could actually dial his own long
distance calls and made the whole thing sound as if it was invented in
San Francisco and was some kind of cutting edge technology. At the
time, my phone had been able to dial nationwide for about six years,
and I lived in lowly San Jose.

During the next year, we are going to hear much about CLASS features.
While most of the stuff will be on the Caller-ID controversy, there
will be much about the usefulness of the other services. The Kens and
Barbies of the TV airwaves will no doubt refer to the advanced
"Silicon Valley Nature" of the "revolutionary new services". Anyone
who visits or moves here will no doubt be highly entertained at the
time warp presented by the media during the coming twelve months. And
of course, Pac*Bell PR will be assuring customers that their phone
service is the most advanced in the world. Gag.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew D'Uva)
Subject: ATT System 85 Routing
Date: 26 Nov 90 20:35:19 GMT
Organization: Anomaly: Rhode Island's Public Access *NIX: [phone]


        I have a question regarding call routing on PBX systems for
all you PBX gurus out there.  The scenario is as follows.  PBX A can
dial into PBX B by dialing a three digit code, receiving dialtone and
then dialing four digits.  PBX B can dial into PBX A by prefixing a
single digit and then dialing the 4 more digits to reach a station on
PBX A.

        PBX A is an AT&T System 85
        PBX B is an AT&T System 75

The problem: BOTH PBXen have DID trunks, and PBX A has t local
exchanges reserved for its use.  PBX B has fewer than 1000 stations
and has numbers in the format 662-9XXX.  Callers on PBX A frequently
call PBX B by dialing 9 + 662 + XXXX, call is routed out over the
local telco's public network, and call is billed, dedicated lines
going unused.  But the switch software does not SEEM (and herein lies
the challenge) to allow automatic selection of the trunk lines to PBX
B based on the fact that an "external call" has been initiated by
dialing 9.

The question: Can the software select the routing for the call based
on the first four digits (actually, if call begins with 6629, select
trunk if available, else place call on local lines)?

Please reply via email, since this newsgroup gets EXPIRed regularly at
this site.  I'll summarize for the list.  Thanks!


Andrew D'Uva

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

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 17:23:02 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Choice of Where to Put 410


I haven't seen maps of the 410 area.  The 410 area in Maryland is to
border: 301, within Maryland; 804 in Va.  on the lower eastern shore;
302 in Delaware; 215 and 717 in Pa.  Notice that 301 now (before the
split) touches Delaware, whose area code is only 1 dial click off from
301, and that 410 is NOT going into western Maryland, which barely
touches area 412 in Pa.  Post-split 301 will still touch 304 in West
Virginia.  Also 202 in DC; 703 and 804 in Va.; 412, 814, and 717 in
Pa.; and 410.  I take it 304 is more distinct from 301 than 302 is
distinct from 301.  301 is across from 804 in the lower part of the
Potomac River, downstream from U.S. Route 301, which enters Virginia
in the 703-663 Dahlgren exchange, just upstream from 804-224[?] in
Colonial Beach.

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

Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 21:52:30 cst
From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax/Voice/Mail Switches


A Frequently Asked Question in the newsgroup is "what kind of neat
widget will let me connect a modem and a fax and a voice phone to the
same line and automagically connect whatever the other end wants to
talk to?"

The December 11th issue of PC Magazine contains a good description of
at least four types of such a switch and reviews 15 product offerings.
I quickly reviewed it at the library tonight and would recommend it to
anyone needing such a device.


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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 13:41:56 EST
Subject: Duplicate Telephone Numbers?


I receivec a letter from NJ Bell asking me to call them back ASAP
"regarding your telephone account". I called them today (Monday) and
the following is an approximate transcript of the conversation:

SR == Service Representative

Me: I'd like to talk to Mrs. C. Greene, please [she was the one who
    signed the letter I got].

SR: What is this all about?

Me: I got a letter from her asking to call this number.

SR: Let me have your phone number so I can check whether the letter
    originated in this office or not.

Me: [I give her my name and phone number].

SR: [After a one minute wait] I see what the problem is. Your telephone
    number has been also assigned to a business. Have you been receiving
    a lot of business calls?

Me: I couldn't tell. I'm not at home during the day and I don't have
    an answering machine.

SR: Well, one of the two numbers needs to be changed.

Me: Sure.

SR: Sir, we can change your number FREE OF CHARGE [emphasis added] if that's
    ok with you.

Me: No, thanks. I'm happy with my current number and I don't want it
    changed.

SR: Oh. I'll have to tell Mrs. Greene. Where can you be contacted during
    the day?

Me: [I give her my office number].

End of conversation. I hope I don't get a call. How dare they offer me
a free phone number change after they screw up and give my number to
someone else?

Do I have any rights if they decide to change my number without my
consent?


Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well, I see they are up to their old tricks again.
There is no such person as "Mrs. C. Green". This is just an example of
a name attached to letters so that real people can avoid giving out
their real names. At some companies, including many telco business
offices unfortunatly, the people are absolutly paranoid of writing
letters and signing their own name, i.e. possibly having some
erroneous thing in writing that they will be required to justify or
prove. That's why the rep who took your call needed your number. The
part about "C. Greene" told her there was a problem of some kind with
your account ... any rep that answered your call would have handled it
the same way: looked up your number, glanced through the notes on file
on the tube and discussed it with you. For a long time, Illinois Bell
used the name "Mrs. Adams" on vague letters asking you to call them if
they wanted you to put down a larger security deposit. So a rep would
get a "Mrs. Adams call" and know right away what to start telling you.
In a way, it is kind of insulting, isn't it, that they play games and
humor the subscribers like this. Why not just say in the letter what
it is about? They're afraid you might make an end run around them and
go to the Chairman's Office then they will get in trouble if the
decision was a bad one on their part.

Do you have the right to keep your number? No. You have no property
rights in your phone number and by the contract you have with them and
the tariff, they may change your phone number whenever they deem
necessary in the conduct of their business. In actual practice, they
rarely will change it if you make a big stink since one thing they
hate even worse than having to write a letter *saying something* and
signing their real name is a public relations nightmare or an inquiry
from the regulators.  The telcos are not the only ones ... Columbia
House (nee Columbia Record Club) still uses alias names on every piece
of mail they send out as did American Express for many years (maybe
still?)    PAT]

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

From: Kauto Huopio OH5LFM <[e-mail]>
Subject: Finland Wants 37!!
Organization: Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
Date: 27 Nov 90 10:00:28


I've heard that our PTT has made a request to obtain the former
country code of the former East Germany (or DDR/GDR, whatever you
would like to call it). Finland's country code at present is 358. Does
anybody have more information? I've also heard that there are several
other countries that want to use 37 as a country code.


Kauto Huopio ([e-mail])
Mail: Kauto Huopio, Punkkerikatu 1 A 10, SF-53850 Lappeenranta,Finland

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

From: "H.Shrikumar" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Extent of the Net (was: Telecom Art)
Date: 27 Nov 90 09:58:07 GMT
Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar " <[e-mail]>
Organization: National Centre for Software Technology, Bombay, INDIA


  If I could request your indulgence for a brief digression ...

  I just realised that with India now on the Internet, we are the one
site with the largest (absolute) time difference from the nearest edge
of the largest chunk of the Internet, the mainland US.

  Particularly, statements dealing with night-and-day-usgae and
Internet-load ftp-access etc. seem very lop-sided from our point of
view.

  Could somebody counter my claim ?

shrikumar ( [e-mail] ) NCST, Bombay, INDIA.


[Moderator's Note: I know your country is the one place I am never
able to reach during business hours from my office. There is no window
of time early morning or late afternoon when I can get through and
anything to do with India I must bring home with me and do at night.
Typically I do my UK and German stuff first thing each morning until
about 10 AM. I start on my Fiji and New Zealand stuff about 4 PM and
catch the 'early shift' in Australia about 5 PM (my time) before
leaving for the day. Most Australia and Hong Kong work has to be
brought home also. And did anyone ever notice that 'economy rates' on
international calls from the USA *always* wind up being at a time when
either people in the USA or the other end -- or both -- ought to be in
bed asleep? Economy rates never coincide with whatever small common
part of daylight hours exist in both countries.  PAT]

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

From: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Subject: More EC Standardisation
Date: 27 Nov 90 15:34:50 GMT
Organization: Oracle Europe, The Netherlands


A quick article in "The Irish Times" Sat. 24 Nov. 1990 made mention of
a Friday decision by the European Commission that "regular travellers
throughout Europe will in the future have to remember only one
emergency number -- 112". This must make 112 the second "standard" for
the 12 states, along with 00 for International Access. Quite WHEN is
not specified, though it would make a change from remembering whether
to use 999, 17, 18, 110, 111, 000, 06-11 or 222222.


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

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

From: Eric THOLOME <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machine and Call Waiting
Organization: Stanford University - AIR
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 01:42:27 GMT


My answering machine (Panasonic) has a switch which I should set to A
if I don't use Call Waiting service, and B otherwise. Does anybody
know what the precise difference is ?


Eric THOLOME    [e-mail]    Stanford University

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

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 21:18:29 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Some Consumer Protection


New California laws scheduled to take effect January 1, 1991 (from the
NOLO NEWS):

1.  Phone solicitors using recorded messages must announce, with a
live voice, the name of caller or organization and obtain consent
before playing the recording.

2.  Telephone solicitors must maintain a $50,000 bond for the benefit
of consumers cheated by the solicitor, in case the consumer sues and
obtains a judgment.


Jeff Sicherman    [e-mail]

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing of Sleeze 900
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, WUMS, St. Louis, MO
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 03:43:29 GMT


We have all seen the ads on TV for the dating services with 900
numbers. Well at least here in St. Louis, they have now started
peddling these with computerized dialing/recorded messages.  I just
got a call with a recording offering me dates - just call a local
number 314-992-0000.  When calling that number, there was a menu tree
activated with a touch tone that allowed me to select whether I wanted
men or women, black or white, and age category.  It then provided me
with a 900 number to call which would give me the recorded messages
from prospective dates, in the st. louis area at only $.98/min.

Well, at least my teen-ager didn't answer the original call :-)


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 16:59:50 pst
From: Dan Hepner <[e-mail]>
Subject: EEC Caller ID Specs


>From: [e-mail] (Philip Gladstone)

>The EEC (European Community) are investigating the whole area of

>1)  The caller must be able to supress the transmission of his Caller
> ID on a case by case basis or permanently.

>2)  The called party may eliminate reception of the caller id (case by
> case or permanently) [presumably means eliminate reception of
> calls with certain selected ids]. Further the called party MUST be able to
> limit incoming calls to those which identify the callers number.

You gotta wonder what the fuss is.  Here is a concise statement as to
how CID should work everywhere.  Who could complain?

Why is it that USA CID schemes all fall so far short of what seems a
simple goal?  The Chicago scheme described earlier doesn't allow for
easy suppression.  The proposed Pac Bell scheme doesn't allow for easy
limiting of incoming calls to only those which contain CID info.


Dan Hepner

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #851
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20670;
          29 Nov 90 1:45 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31061;
          28 Nov 90 23:37 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19663;
          28 Nov 90 22:33 CST
Date:     Wed, 28 Nov 90 22:22:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #852
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 28 Nov 90 22:22:27 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 852

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Massachusetts May Finally Get E911 [Adam M. Gaffin]
    Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise [Brian D. McMahon]
    Sprint Visa-Phone [John Slater]
    Nova on Telemarketing ("We Know Where You Live") [Warren Tucker]
    Nova: We Know Where You Live [Werner Uhrig]
    The Convenience of AOS [Matt Simpson]
    Ad Age AT&T Advertising Contest [George Cross]
    New Archives File: Hayes ISDN PC Adapter [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Adam M Gaffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Massachusetts May Finally Get E911
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 14:52:23 GMT


[Preface by Mr. Gaffin -- PAT]

Not mentioned in the article is what role this year's election will
have played if this measure finally passes. Billy Galvin, chairman of
a House telecommunications subcommittee, never hid his distaste for
NET and anything he saw as an attempt by the company to raise rates,
and he was always successful in scuttling any attempt to link 911 and
411. But then he gave up his house seat this year and ran for state
treasurer, only to lose to a Republican (gasp!).

Watching the floor debate on this bill, it was obvious nobody cares
anymore what he has to say. The house defeated all four of his
proposed amendments: to sever the 911 and 411 issues, to raise the
number of free calls from 10 to 15, to exempt out-of-area-code
information calls from the limit and to open the handicapped-access
provisions to competitive bidding. But the house did agree to an
amendment from another rep to exempt any information calls in which it
turns out the number is non-published.

Middlesex News, Framingham, Mass., 11/27/90

By Adam Gaffin
NEWS STAFF WRITER

People who make more than ten directory-assistance calls a month will
pay for a statewide 911 system and help give the handicapped better
access to the phone system under a measure approved by the state House
of Representatives yesterday.

Even if the ``enhanced 911'' measure, strongly supported by statewide
police and fire chief associations, becomes law, New England Telephone
would still have to win permission from the state Department of Public
Utilities before it could begin a levy on excess information calls.
One provision in the bill would require that any profits be returned
to consumers through rate reductions.

Company spokesman Jack Caunter estimated the company would seek to
charge 35 cents for each excess call. He added that consumers can
order phone books for any part of the state for free.

Caunter estimated it would take about three years to create the
database and computer system needed for the new service.

Once operational, all 911 calls would be routed to a dispatch center
where the originating number and address would appear on a computer
screen. Dispatchers would then route the calls to the appropriate
local emergency service. Still to be decided is whether to build a
central 911 dispatch center for the entire state or several regional
dispatch centers. Currently, most Massachusetts communities have no
911 service, and none has a system that displays a caller's address.

Similar 911 measures have died in the Legislature for the past seven
years, victims of disputes between legislators, Gov. Michael Dukakis
and New England Telephone over how to pay for the system.

New England Telephone estimates the 911 system would cost $40 million
to set up and up to $5 million a year to run. Creating a telephone
message-relay service for the deaf and re-fitting one out of every
four public pay phones with special amplifiers would cost $22 million
and about $5 million to maintain.

Local police chiefs contacted yesterday support the proposal, citing
calls in which people hang up - or have the phone grabbed from them -
before they can give their address. Holliston Chief William George
said people who dial 911 are sometimes too excited or upset to speak
clearly.  Others noted that phone exchanges and town lines often
overlap, which means that people who dial 911 in many areas get
connected to another community's dispatchers.

Marlboro Chief Joseph Barry said he cannot believe it has taken the
Legislature this long to do something.

``I wonder how many lives could have been saved,'' Barry said. Barry
said that now, it can take up to 30 minutes to trace a call into the
city's 911 system.

He recalled an incident a few years ago in which a woman called to
report her ex-boyfriend was breaking into her apartment. Just before
she could give the address, however, he grabbed the phone and hung it
up.  ``Fortunately, a neighbor called'' to report a disturbance, he
said.

In 1982, a Natick couple being beaten by their mentally disturbed son
dialed 911 - which connected them to the Framingham police. But the
son hung up the phone and the police were unable to trace the call.
The couple was found dead by another son.

Local departments reported getting varying numbers of non-emergency
calls, which range from two-year-olds playing with phones to people
asking when the local July 4 fireworks begin.

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

[Moderator's Note: Adam, again I want to thank you for sharing with us
from your column in the paper. We always enjoy your pieces.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 10:10:33 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise


Recently, I was running through a few tests with my modem at home.
Among other things, I wanted to check behavior when the dialled number
was busy.  No problem, I thought, I'll just dial my own number.  Much
to my surprise, instead of the expected busy tones, I got a recording
approximately like this: "You have dialled a party on your own line.
Please hang up to allow the other phone to ring."  (This is an inexact
quote from memory, but you get the idea.)

Interesting.  The switch seems to be acting as though I was on a party
line.  (Remember those?)  But I'm not.  It's a plain ole single-line
residential number.  At least, that's what I *thought* it was.  I sure
don't get calls for other parties.  (Except for an occasional
telemarketer with an out-of-date listing) Does the switch (Lord knows
what kind it is) treat EVERYTHING as if it *might* be a party line?

(Note: This is a rural area -- party-line service is alive and well
here.  The table of residential rates in the front of the phone book
lists one- and two-party service for the Urban Service Rate Area, and
one- and four-party service for Rural Zones 1, 2, and 3.  There's also
a propaganda blurb ("Sharing a phone line is no party") in the yellow
pages, urging people to switch to a private line.  And the phone book
is 9" by 6" and maybe 1/4" thick...)

(BTW, this is GTE territory, area code 515.)

This appears to be true for the 236 exchange only.  Here at work, I
get a busy signal when I dial my desk number, but the college is in
the 269 exchange that got added a couple of years ago, I think to
handle PBXs and such.  The only 269 numbers I've seen belong to the
college's Omni or to GTE's local operations.

Can someone explain to this poor telecom-illiterate in the hinterland why
the H*ll things are set up this way?  Is the switch really incapable of
distinguishing between a private and a party line?

Gee, I guess ISDN may not get here for a while, eh?  ;-)


Brian McMahon  <[e-mail]> Grinnell College Computer Services
Grinnell, Iowa 50112 USA Voice: [phone] Fax:   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Whoever wishes to answer Brian's questions can
answer one for me also: How come if I have call-waiting on my line
dialing my own number does not produce a call-waiting signal instead
of a busy signal?  I notice if I go out of my CO to do it, i.e. I use
my phone to dial my 800 number which comes back to ring on the same
line then I *do* get a call-waiting signal. Likewise a call to
10835-1-700-my number goes out to Telecom*USA, comes back and gives me
a call-wwaiting signal. Dialing my own number direct returns busy.
Why?  PAT]

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Visa-Phone
Date: 27 Nov 90 18:21:43 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc.


I read today that Sprint has announced a service called VisaPhone. It
appears that this is similar to AT&T's Universal Card, in that calls
are billed directly to a credit card, but with one big difference:
any existing Visa card will do. Furthermore calls can be placed to the
US from abroad as well as from within the country.

Can anyone shed any more light on this? The preceding paragraph is all
the detail I have. I am particularly interested in being able to call
the US from the UK, using my British-issued Visa card, at Sprint's
rates. This is likely to work out even cheaper than Mercury, despite
the latter's recent 15% price cut for calls to the US during
economy-rate periods.  Can anyone shed any more light on this?

Any further info on this scheme would be much appreciated.


John Slater
Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 21:16:29 EST
From: Warren Tucker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nova on Telemarketing ("We Know Where You Live")


The NOVA titled "We Know Where You Live" on PBS tonight was a VERY
enlightening display of what the telemarketing/information brokering
industry has brought to the Information Age.  I must admit it has
gelled my thoughts on how to handle future unsolicited marketing
attempts.  Unsolicited telephone marketing attempts have always
guaranteed I would boycott the item being sold, but I have usually

  1) politely dismissed polite callers
  2) hung up on persistent, obnoxious callers
  3) after several such calls in one afternoon, suggested
     to more than one they "get an honest job"

I have always regretted being nasty to individuals, who after all we
only just trying to make a living.  Now I plan to gather as much
information as possible as I can on Them and reply by mail to the
actual perpetrators, stating my feelings and indicating they are now
in my database :-).

I was impressed with the gentleman who formed "Private Citizens" and
actually won judgments of $0.97 and $38 against telemarketers, with an
exclamation from one judge that if he were molested again, he would
win a larger sum.

I would appreciate hearing from anyone who knows how I may contact
Private Citizens or other similar efforts.


Warren Tucker, TuckerWare emory!n4hgf!wht or [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 1990 21:07:17 CST
From: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Subject: NOVA: We Know Where You Live

I just finished watching this week's hour-long program in the
NOVA-series on the local PBS station, titled:

        We Know Where You Live

The topic dealt with computer databases, junk mail, junk calls,
and how some people fight them....

(And just now FRONTLINE starts with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
where Bill Moyer's retells the story of the Iran-Contra affair -
another program which does public broadcasting proud!)

You may want to find a friend who taped it.

Cheers,

Werner


[Moderator's Note: Thanks also to Jeff Sicherman for noting this
program and suggesting that you watch it when it airs in your
community.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 09:16:32 EDT
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The 'Convenience' of AOS


There was an interesting flyer in my South Central Bell bill. It was
touting the SCB calling card as "The Shortcut to Charging Long
Distance". It described all the problems with using "one long distance
company's charge card with another long distance company's phone". It
discussed all the hassles of remembering complicated access codes, and
the problems with phones that won't accept the access code on your
charge card, etc.

But it tells us there is a better way. In boldface type, it says that
by using the SCB calling card, "you won't have to think about access
codes or which company is carrying the call."  Then it goes on to say
that, in most cases, South Central Bell will handle all the billing.

Isn't that good news for all you folks out there who have been going
to great pains to avoid COCOTS, and pasting labels on those that won't
connect you to the LD carrier of your choice? Just use your SCB
calling card with "virtually any phone" and the calls will be billed
on your regular monthly phone bill "regardless of which long distance
company actually carries the calls."

Equal access at its finest. You know the breakup is complete when AT&T
is trying to educate its customers how to make sure they're using
AT&T, and the local BOC is telling you how convenient it is to be
ripped off by whatever slime-ball AOS a payphone happens to be
connected to.

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

Date: 28 Nov 90 09:36:45
From: George Cross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ad Age AT&T Advertising Contest


This is quoted from {Advertising Age}, November 26, 1990

<Background:  The Next Trend (T.N.T.) is a contest in Ad Age magazine.
Readers (usually in the ad business) are invited to contribute fake
ads and other quips on some topical theme.  For example,
Contest #253 was to predict a headline from the next magazine freed
from the restraints of an advertising editorial policy like
{Ms. Magazine.}

Winners included:

        Surprising link found between tobacco and cancer
              -- Philip Morris Magazine
         How to use your public library
              -- TV Guide
         Something borrowed? Let it be your dress!
              -- Brides


This week's contest is:

                         Phone in and win

Contest #257: AT&T, please! Enough already! The other phone
companies just can't be as bad as you paint them - no one is!

Pretty soon we expect to see ads where the speaker confides:

"So I pick up the phone and it's one of them, you know, the
Church of Satan members who temp for MCI because the company's
promised to strangle a goat for every new customer they sign up?
The guy says, 'Child of Darkness, why not switch ... Etc, etc.'"

A rankled T.N.T. wonders: What will be a snatch of dialogue from the
next, even more vicious AT&T ad?

Another sample:

So the Sprint guy says, "If you don't switch I will simply have to bite
off a chunk of your ear, and I like, Excuse me?"

Rules:
Entries for contest #257 must be received by December 10.  Send
entries to:

       T.N.T. contest #257
       Advertising Age
       220 E. 42nd St
       Suite 930
       New York, New York 10017

or fax them to 212-210-0200.

Please include, legibly, your name, title, company and address on the
sheet with your entries.  Top three winners receive T.N.T.-shirts.
Entries become the property of Ad Age and cannot be returned.


George R. Cross                            [e-mail]
Contel Technology Center
Intelligent Systems Laboratory             (703)-818-4504
15000 Conference Center Drive
Chantilly, VA 22021-3808

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 21:36:39 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Archives File: Hayes ISDN PC Adapter


Toby Nixon has sent a lengthy file to the Digest which discusses a new
product from Hayes: an ISDN PC Adapter.

If you would like to review this file in detail (it is far too long
for an article here), pull it from the Telecom Archives.

ftp lcs.mit.edu   login anonymous   give username@site for password.
cd telecom-archives
get isdn.pc.adapter-hayes

While you are there get 'index.to.archives' for an updated index to
the entire archives if you do not already have a copy.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #852
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22450;
          29 Nov 90 3:25 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20688;
          29 Nov 90 1:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28153;
          29 Nov 90 0:37 CST
Date:     Thu, 29 Nov 90 0:02:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #853
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 29 Nov 90 00:02:22 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 853

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Robert Halloran]
    Re: Prodigy Response to E-Mail Criticism [Lou Judice]
    Re: Prodigy Response to E-Mail Criticism [Mark Hahn]
    Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines [David Lesher]
    Re: NZ Phone Numbers [Mark James]
    Re: A Zero Length Phone Number! [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Are Cellular Calls Free to Landline Customers, or Not? [David Wilson]
    Re: Programming Cellular Phones [Pat Barron]
    Re: French Modem Info Sought [Keith Mitchell]
    Re: Area Code History Request [David Cornutt]
    Re: Return*Call Humor [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Return*Call Humor [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Halloran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol
Date: 28 Nov 90 13:57:40 GMT
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


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

>Videotext in the USA was based on NAPLPS (pronounced nap-lips) the
>North American Presentation Language Protocol Syntax.  T'wouldn't
>surprise me a bit to see that AT&T revived that technology for
>Prodigy.  Prodigy strikes me as the ultimate resurrection of videotext
>in the USA.

Are we forgetting that Prodigy is the offspring of Sears & IBM; AT&T
has no hand in it ... just FYI.


Bob Halloran
Internet: [e-mail]    UUCP: att!mtune!rkh

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 07:30:49 PST
From: Peripheral Visionary 28-Nov-1990 1024 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Response to E-Mail Criticism


Though I've been critical here of Prodigy response time, I do agree
with their stand on messaging charges. In any production data center
or information service it's only fair to charge for resources
consumed.  If the numbers they give are accurate, and I would have no
reason to doubt themn, their new chargeback philosophy seems
reasonable. Since I know nothing about their costs, I can't really say
if the actual CHARGE they've set for messaging is fair, though.

In the six months I've had Prodigy, BTW, I've not even sent a TOTAL of
thirty messages! I've also never bothered to look at the bulletin
boards more than once. What I have used it for is to check stock
quotes, company news and weather - and to order stuff. Though the Dow
Jones News stories seem to be watered down, and though the service is
slow, I'd still say it's a bargain for $9.95.


ljj

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 14:19:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Mark Hahn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism


Tthis text was remarkably humble, considering the involvement of big
blue.  It is pretty sad that Prodigy is intended as a new form of
broadcast, more targetable than, say, TV, but still pablum-oriented.
I hope no one accepts their poor excuses about email, since their
explanation implies simply that they haven't thought about the
logistics: email is just not that hard.

Has anyone investigated the Prodigy protocols, with an eye to offering
competition?

Regards,


Mark

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 00:39:12 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Does ISDN have any security implications/advantages to protect
against the techniques used by hackers such as these to barge in and
piggy-back calls off of PBX's ?


Jeff Sicherman


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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 20:00:13 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


{DEA hackers ... used service worth $100,000/months}


|$100,000 in a month seems to be a little high.  Considering that a
|full rate call to anywhere in the 48 states costs at most 25 cents a
|minute, .......

Not that this alters John's math much, but ISTM last time I checked,
we paid a flat-rate $0.40/minute for FTS anywhere in the US.  Note
that this was pre-FTS2000 so the new rates may be much lower. In our
case, given the $160/line/month FX charge to the switch, and the fact
that even ModerAtor Bell wanted a lot less to our primary domestic
destination (DC), we went back to POTS.

More to the point, why would anyone WANT to steal FTS service?  Don't
most people want circuits that work?


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

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

From: Mark James <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NZ Phone Numbers
Date: 28 Nov 90 12:38:49 GMT
Organization: Altair/INRIA, France


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

>[e-mail] (Pat Cain) writes:

>> * Telecom begin to convert the whole country's telephone numbering system

>>         Five single digit area codes with all telephone numbers
>>         being seven digits.

>> Patrick Cain   )) Voice: [phone] (GMT+12)

>So which it it?  Six or seven?  Or is Wellington a special case?

It's seven.  Pat obviously hasn't been converted yet.  A good chunk of
the metropolitan Auckland area has been on seven digits for some years
now.  Then again, another chunk is (or was) still on five digits, so
you can see the need for the conversion.


Mark James  <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Zero Length Phone Number!
Date: 28 Nov 90 14:06:09 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> A pedant could claim that the Vatican City State has even shorter
> telephone numbers - viz. zero digits long.  The country code is +39
> 66982, and the "country" has only one telephone number, which is: .

Pat adds:

> [Moderator's Note: It is not as though there 'is only one phone in the
> whole place'. What we have here is a situation where an institution,

I visited St. Peter's as a tourist back in 1964.  I'm sure a lot has
changed since then, but I couldn't help noticing back then that there
was a telephone set (a plain black rotary-dial set, in '64) on the
altar, looking much like a desk-accessory alongside the other items
normally found on altars.

As I noticed this, I began to wonder ... does it ever ring while the
Pope is at work there?  If it does, who is calling?  It is a private
line to the Almighty?  (I couldn't get close enough to read the number
on it.)


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


[Moderator's Note: I saw something similar to this in the Chicago
Temple Building auditorium here in Chicago several years ago. A
five-line, (six buttons with hold) phone was on a shelf next to the
console of the huge pipe organ on stage-left. The ringer was
apparently not connected and a beehive lamp flashed instead when that
extension was called on the building phone system. An interesting part
of it was the headset jack on the back of the phone, and the headset
the organist wore. One of the five lines coming up there was an
extension on the phone system; one button was unused; the other three
terminations were 'hot lines' -- lines with continuous battery on them
 -- labled 'radio booth', 'pipe chambers', and 'stage right'.

Apparently the Almighty in this case was the engineer in the radio
broadcast booth on the second floor who would talk to the organist
through the headphones to tell him when WNIB was offline / online for
a broadcast. The hotline to the pipe chambers was used when the
instrument was being repaired or tuned; the technicians could talk
among themselves as one worked upstairs and the other worked from the
console.  Both the radio booth and the pipe chambers had a similar six
button set with a headset. Oh yeah! There was also a Western Union
clock mounted backstage where it could be seen by people entering or
exiting from the stage along with one in the radio/sound engineer's
booth.  PAT]

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

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Cellular Calls Free to Landline Customers, or Not?
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 04:22:04 GMT


[e-mail] (peter da silva) writes:

>The folks who want 1+ to mean "toll" are really really going to be
>upset over this one, since there's no way to tell by inspection if a
>given call is going to be to a cellular phone.

This makes the Australian way of doing cellular look good. All
cellular phones are in their own prefix (018) and the caller pays
(15/26/39c/min if <= 745km and 23/38/57c/min if > 745km) so we know
before calling that it is a cell phone and approx how much it will
cost.

It is not possible to tell if a call is local (but to an adjacent area
code) or within an area code but at STD rates (disjoint charging
districts) without knowing a little bit of geography and which
exchanges are where.


David Wilson    Dept Comp Sci, Uni of Wollongong    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 1990 11:19:03 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Programming Cellular Phones


In a similar vein, I'd be interested in seeing programming information
for the Uniden CP2000.  It has a mini-DB connector on it which I
assume is the programming port, but I've no clue how to talk to it.

Thanks,

Pat

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

From: Keith Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 14:37:56 WET
Subject: Re: French Modem Info Sought


> I am currently residing in the US, but shortly I will be relocating to
> France.  Does anyone have any information or insights to offer
> regarding modems compatible with the French telephone system?  I'm

I don't know too much about the score regarding modems in France, but
did make an interesting discovery recently. Apparently modems with
acoustic couplers (!) approved for use in one EEC country are
automatically approved for use in all.

Anyway, we needed a modem for our new German office, and it turns out
phone jacks are either different or non-existent in Germany, depending
on where you are. An acoustic coupler seemed the only solution for our
travelling salesman, and funnily enough I'd seen an advert for such an
item, "Le Voyager" from a French company called COM1.

I haven't tried it yet, but it is real dinky (cigarette packet size
with a velcro bendy coupler), and it seems quite good from the specs.
Most annoying thing is there are no pin-outs in the manual (what makes
manufacturers of RS232 devices think this is even remotely acceptable
?? Grr.). It does V22bis, MNP etc, and auto-dialling is obviously only
via DTMF.

Seems to me the fact this is made by a French company suggests the
phone socket situation in France may be similar to Germany, though I
find it all a bit hard to believe. They have both US and French
contact addresses which may be of use to you:

Eurolink            COM1
Carrolton,            Bordeaux
Texas 75007            France
[phone]        [phone]

Note that this is just a suggestion to help you - I really cannot say
I am endorsing their products.

Keith Mitchell                  (postmaster)

Spider Systems Ltd.             Spider Systems Inc.
Spider Park                    12 New England Executive Park
Stanwell Street                 Burlington
Edinburgh, Scotland             MA 01803
Phone: [phone]          [phone]
Fax:   [phone]

[e-mail]              [e-mail]
 ...!uunet!ukc!spider!keith      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Do you know WHY an acoustic-coupled modem accepted
by one country is accepted by all? I'll tell you why!  :) Because
anyone who would even think about using an acoustic-coupled modem is a
very sick puppy who needs all the support he can get. The countries of
the world have made this concession as a humanitarian gesture to the
poor devil who is stuck with such a piece of junk!  THAT's why!  :)  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 09:47:10 CST
From: David Cornutt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Area Code History Request


S.C. Bell is putting N0X/N1X prefixes into effect in Alabama next
month, in an attempt to avoid a split of area code 205.  With this,
all toll calls will require ten-digit dialing.

(Personally, I think that a split is inevitable about 1992.  Rapid
growth is occurring in the Birmingham and Huntsville metro areas, and
this, combined with a cellular phone and pager explosion, mean that a
number of the N0X/N1X prefixes are already spoken for.  Plus, S.C.B.
is setting up several ISDN CO's here.  It wouldn't surprise me to see
a split in about two years, with Huntsville and Birmingham going into
a new area code, and Montgomery and points south keeping 205.


Dave Cornutt ([e-mail]), Huntsville, AL [phone]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor
Date: 28 Nov 90 09:05:39 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


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

> [Moderator's Note: This raises a good point. When a call reaches you
> via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the
> forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening
> and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback
> and/or screening, etc?   PAT]

  Here in New Jersey, Caller ID returns the original caller's number
on forwarded calls. I have two numbers forwarded to a third number
which has Caller ID, and I get the real caller info, not the number of
one of my other lines.

  Of course, this is with consumer (Class) call forwarding. I'm
uncertain what would happen with permanent call forwarding (a
different, non-Class service offering). I'm also unsure what would
happen on a call forwarded through a Centrex to my phone, but I could
check that and see.


Terry Kennedy           Operations Manager, Academic Computing
[e-mail]     St. Peter's College, US
[e-mail]    [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 14:03:25 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: bill <[e-mail]>


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

>[Moderator's Note: This raises a good point. When a call reaches you
>via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the
>forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening
>and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback
>and/or screening, etc?   PAT]

I have this Return-Call at home and it seems to justify its monthly
cost.  To get to the point, if you try to 'return call' to a number
which is itself being forwarded to a third number, 'return call' will
give a fast busy (the same fast busy that you'd get if the return call
number was busy at the time - and it will attempt to return call the
original caller for thirty minutes).  If the original caller turns off
call forwarding and/or hangs up for the appropriate length of time,
return call will give me a "ring-ring-riiiinnnggg" special ring.
After I 'answer' the special ring, the switch will dial the original
calling party's number and the connection and call will proceed as
usual.

This is the case on my phone at home and very likely the situation for
the whole of Atlanta.  BTW, there used to be a time when one could
'bypass' another party's call-forwarding if they were on the same
switch and if you had call-forwarding yourself.  All you had to do was
to proceed like you were call-forwarding your phone to the person to
who you wanted to 'bypass,' and you'd ring right through to them
unforwarded.  This must have been a 'feature' of either some old
software or of the 1(A) switch, because it doesn't work here any
longer.


Bill     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #853
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23935;
          29 Nov 90 5:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27355;
          29 Nov 90 3:46 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22002;
          29 Nov 90 2:41 CST
Date:     Thu, 29 Nov 90 2:10:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #854
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 29 Nov 90 02:10:27 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 854

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Len Rose Indicted in Illinois [Chicago Tribune, via TELECOM Moderator]
    Magazine List Update - Request For Submissions [David Leibold]
    Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Curtis E. Reid]
    Information Needed on Phone Patches [Emmanuel Disini]
    Building a Phone Line Simulator [Todd Inch]
    Caller ID Info Needed - ASAP [Steven Shimatzki]
    Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [John Boteler]
    Questions About the GTE Airfone [Dan Veeneman]
    Forwarded Calls and CallerID [Arnette Baker]
    Last Laugh! New Service From Taco Bell [Dan "Shag" Birchall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 0:48:44 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Len Rose Indicted in Illinois


About a month ago, we noted in the Digest that Len Rose had been
arrested again -- this time during the first week of his new job and
new home here in the Chicago area; in Naperville, IL to be precise.
His indictment occurred earlier this week. The {Chicago Tribune} on
Wednesday told the details of Len's latest misunderstanding with the
authorities:


                    "Man is Charged in Computer Crime"
                            By Joseph Sjostrom
         From: Chicago Tribune, 28 November, 1990: Section 2, p. 2

Du Page County prosecutors have indicted a Naperville resident in
connection with an investigation into computer tampering.

Leonard Rose, 31, of 799 Royal St. George St., Naperville, was charged
by the Du Page County grand jury last week with violating the 1988
"computer tampering" law that prohibits unauthorized entry into a
computer to copy, delete or damage programs or data contained in it.

Rose, who lived in Baltimore until last September or October, is under
federal indictment there for allegedly copying and disseminating a
valuable computer program owned by AT&T. The Du Page indictment
charges him with copying the same program from the computer of a
Naperville software firm that employed him for a week in October.

His alleged tampering with computers there was noticed by other
employees, according to Naperville police. A search warrant was
obtained for Rose's apartment last month, and two computers and a
quantity of computer data storage discs were confiscated, police said.

The Du Page County and federal indictments charge that Rose made
unauthorized copies of the AT&T Unix Source Code, a so-called
operating system that gives a computer its basic instructions on how
to function.

The federal indictment says Rose's illegal actions there were commited
between May 1988 and January 1990.  The Du Page County indictment
alleges he tampered with the Naperville firm's computers on Oct. 17.

                                (end article)

                ----------

Something is very odd here. Either Len Rose is the victim of a strange
set of circumstances or he is a very self-destructive person.  If he
is not guilty, this latest turn of events must have him in quite an
emotional turmoil. I know how I would feel if I were in his shoes.
Yet if he is guilty then what is wrong with someone who would leave
the jurisdiction of the court in Baltimore (he was not officially
granted permission to come here until after the fact), come to a new
job in a new community with a wife and children to support with little
or no money in his pocket, and act out as he did the first week on the
job?

His wife speaks little English; there are two small children to
support with zero resources in a town where they are strangers -- and
then he pulls that shit and gets locked up in the Dupage County Jail
his first week here.

If he is guilty, that is.

I feel much sadness for his wife and children. He is, so far as I
know, still at the address in the Tribune article above if you wish to
contact him and offer your support, your condemnation, your questions
or whatever. I'm told most of all he could use some financial
assistance to keep putting food in the kids and pay the rent. His
attorney, Sheldon Zenner of Chicago also would like to get paid for
doing a decent job of representing him.

On a related note: Jim Thomas of Computer Underground Digest has
forwarded a file to me detailing the laws in Illinois relating to
computer crimes. It will be housed in the Telecom Archives in the
telecom.security.issues sub-directory.

The first time I wrote about Len Rose in the Digest -- back in
February -- he contacted the Postmaster here to complain bitterly
about me.  He was going to sue me, the trustees of Northwestern
University and anyone else who 'implied' he was guilty of anything.

So for once, I don't care whether you read what I write in this final
paragraph or not. In fact, move on to the next article if you like.
It is placed here primarily to placate Len, and his attornies:
It should be remembered that under the Constitution of the United
States, Len Rose must be presumed innocent of the latest charges
against him until they are proven to be factual in a court of law.


Patrick Townson

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Magazine List Update - Request For Submissions
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 22:58:00 EST


Many months ago I did a list of Telecom-related magazines. I'm getting
ready to revise this list, so any information about periodicals
relating to telcos or telecommunications would be appreciated,
especially for those that did not make the last magazines list. The
revised list might take a number of weeks to appear, but submissions
should be done over the next week or two.

Please *NET MAIL* any submissions to:

[e-mail]

(you may need to route via uunet, geac.uucp, becker.uucp if you encounter
mail path trouble).

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 10:24 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'


I recall many, many issues ago that someone was interested in knowing
if there is a valid phone number ending with all zeros i.e.,
xxx-xxx-0000.

Well, I found one:

    Bloomingdale's        Sales Order line    800-777-0000

I've used it myself.


Curtis E. Reid
[e-mail]                 (Bitnet)
[e-mail]            (Internet)


[Moderator's Note: In fact, 312-743-0000 is FX'd to an attorney in
Wilmette, IL. It comes from the same CO as myself, Chicago-Rogers Park.
312-787-0000 is the number '911' translates into here for some police
districts. And in those instances where it is not a valid ending to a
phone number the intercept lady is *so* funny to listen to as she
tells us of our error: "The number you have dialed, NXX oh! OH! OH!!! Oh!
is not a working number." All those 'oh!' noises could be interpreted
in a lewd way by someone with a dirty mind. (Not your Moderator!) :)  PAT

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

Subject: Information Needed on Phone Patches
From: "Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT" <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Nov 90 15:12 GMT


Does anyone know about phone patches? It's something like a portable
telephone which can both receive and originate calls miles away (at
least 30) from a home base that's hooked up to the phone company's CO.
It's not exactly cellular, (you could think of it as a cellular phone
that only works within one cell) but at least the rates you pay per
call will not be at cellular rates.

We are currently looking at Dataradio's RFTel and Alcom's Pegasus
1000.  The prices they quote are inordinately high (in Manila). Can
anyone shed some light on what models to look into and what prices
might be like in the US of A?  Any help is very much appreciated!

Thanks all,

Joel Disini
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The distance covered by a phone patch is a function
of the radio it works with. Phone patches have been around for years.
Many ham radio operators use them, and a few civic-minded and helpful
CB radio operators (yes, there are some who meet that description)
have them also. Some are manually operated by the radio attendant who
taps a button as the parties converse, others are totally VOX.   PAT]

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Building a Phone Line Simulator
Organization: Global Tech International Inc.
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 21:10:19 GMT


Someone (oops, lost the article) requested a phone-line simulator with
some special needs which amounted to one side dropping current when
the other side went on-hook.  Ringing wasn't a requirement.

Here's my favorite, assuming you don't need dialing to do anything in
particular, don't need ringing of any sort, and don't need dial tone.
(Yes, that limits its application a bit!)

   To phone, speakerphone, fax, other device

               |     |
               |     |
    9 Volt  -------  |
    Battery   ---    |
               |     |
               |     |

   To other phone, speakerphone, fax, etc.

This works for everything I've ever tried.  I've heard it'll even work
for a couple of "dumb" FAX machines that don't listen for dial tone.
If your speakerphones need lots of voltage, you might put a few 9 Volt
batteries in series to increase voltage as necessary.  On some
(especially older) touch-tone equipment, the polarity has to be
correct, so just reverse the wires if it goes "clunk" instead of
"beep" when you press the buttons.  (Not that the tones will actually
DO anything with this circuit.)

Turn those old phones you've got laying around into "field sets" for
the kids to play with.  Sorry, no ringing.

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

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 28 Nov 1990 18:02:11 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Caller ID Information Needed - ASAP.


Hi, I'm Trying to get as much info on Caller ID as I can.  I wanted to
use it in a research paper, but the Professor doesn't really like the
ideal of using NetNews as a reference.

(Think about it, net news is the ultimate gossip ring ... even though
it may be a lot of facts, but still a lot of word of mouth.)

So, if you have any leads to information on Caller ID, please let me
know.  I will then post a completed list along with 'Thanks' to the
group.  That way, I can get FAST results through email. The list will
be made up and available to anyone for later use ... and you can see
you name in eternal thanks.

If you can help, please send me information for the following:

Journals, magazines, books, etc...  Please, no soap box lessons ...
like I said, I Need REAL, legit, verifiable sources.

Thank you,

Steven Shimatzki    [e-mail]
RD#1 Box 20-A
Dunbar, Pa 15431    Disclaimer: "Yea, I said that.."


[Moderator's Note: Dear me ... your professor would rather have you
quote News Weak or the Pseudo Science Monitor than TELECOM Digest? I
was going to forward your letter to telecom-priv, but you said you did
not want any Soap Box lessons either.  Maybe some folks here can help
you with your project.   PAT]

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

Subject: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal??
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 13:17:00 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


I know a similar, not identical, topic has been thrashed about here
recently.

Does any currently available PBX transmit the loop interrupt signal
through to its POTS (2500-type) stations? Assume, for the sake of
sanity, that the telephone company central office does provide a loop
interrupt signal to us on POTS subscriber loops when the calling party
releases the call.

According to our research so far, neither the Vodavi nor the Mitel
SX-100/200 line provides this.

Is the search futile?


John Boteler   bote@csense                {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling

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

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 12:33:31 CST
From: Dan Veeneman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About the GTE Airfone


I just got back from a long weekend trip to Baltimore, and during a
delay due to "mechanical problems" I got a chance to peek at the GTE
Airfones that were built into the headrest of the center seats of each
row.  Inserting a credit card into a vertical slot released the phone,
which was tied to the headrest by a short (two or three foot) cord.
Sliding a credit card along the right edge of the handset would, after
a short time, give you the opportunity to place your call.  (I only
got a chance to observe, as the phone in my row was non-functional,
much to the disappointment of the guy next to me).

  Hopefully someone out there will have the answers to these questions:

1.  How is the credit card verified ?  Are they all stored on board
and downloaded after the airplane lands, or is it real-time ?

2.  What happens if everyone wanted to place a call at the same time?
On the jet I was on, that would be 56 phones in use at the same time.
Quite a multiplexer/transceiver, if that's how it's done.

3.  How is frequency assignment done for numerous planes in the same
local area (i.e. 20 planes backed up, waiting for takeoff at O'Hare)?

4.  Has anyone tried a ringback or number announcement from the phone
?  I know the phones aren't capable of actually receiving a call or
ringing, but it would be interesting to see what happens.

5.  Is there a nationwide cellular-like network for these phones, i.e.
the ground station hands off the call(s) to the next station when the
plane leaves the service area ?

Any further information would be appreciated.


Dan      [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 10:25 CST
Subject: Forwarded Calls and CallerID


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken
Weaverling) describes how his girl friend had "Return*called" a crank
call, yelling at the caller, only to have that person return the call
and act as if she were the crank caller.  He concludes:

>>We sat around puzzled for a moment, then finally figured out that
>>there must be several extensions in their house and the original crank
>>call must have originated, perhaps, with a child, and the child's
>>Mother answered our Return*Call.

Matt Funkchick responds -

>Or else the real crank caller was at another number and was forwarding
>calls to another one of his/her victims.

And our Moderator Notes -

>This raises a good point. When a call reaches you
>via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the
>forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening
>and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback
>and/or screening, etc?

The answer to all the above is that the original calling parties
number is what is passed in any chain of call forwarding.  Example: A
calls B, B is forwarded to C (so A's call rings at C) - for any of the
CLASS services C's memory space will contain A's phone number.  So
CallerID, Return*Call, or any of the screening features will work with
A's number.  (Need I mention this is only if there is complete SS7
connectivity between all the COs involved - and that all three parties
are in the same LATA.)

The only time B's memory space will be updated is if they have Call
Forwarding Don't Answer - then their memory space will contain A's
phone number (as will C's).

So the original poster's problem either was caused by the person who
answered their Return*Call being in on the "joke", or by the person
being unaware that an outgoing call had been made from that location.


Arnette Baker
[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 03:59:57 EST
From: Dan "Shag" Birchall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Last Laugh! New Service From Taco Bell

>(Overheard)

>"No Lulu, 'Taco Bell' is not a Mexican phone company..."

Not Mexican, no.  Lulu might have heard of the service Taco Bell gave
the 'phreaks' a couple towns from me {office of some sort there} by
being so kind as to leave its PBX outdial extension set to some easy
number sequence.

Last time I was at a Taco Bell, I looked at the pay fone outside the
'restaurant' and noticed that although the panel of the enclosure
directly above the phone bore the name of our local BOC, the large
side panels made it evident that this phone was actually operated by
Taco Bell.  If I dial 0, will they ask me to place an order?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #854
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15766;
          30 Nov 90 4:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18901;
          30 Nov 90 3:14 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06061;
          30 Nov 90 2:10 CST
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 1:31:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #855
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 30 Nov 90 01:31:09 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 855

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: IDG Hackers [Chuck Frosberg]
    Re: IDG Hackers [John Cowan]
    Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines [Roger Fajman]
    Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise [John Higdon]
    Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise [Jim Miller]
    Re: Tymnet Help Needed [Dick Rawson]
    Re: Keeping a Line "Busy" w/o a Phone Off Hook [Jack Dominey]
    Re: The "Bell" Logo [Paul M. Dubuc]
    Re: Answering Machine and Call Waiting [John Higdon]
    Re: Alternatives to Traditional Multi-Drop 4-Wire Data Lines [Schoffstall]
    Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? [Charles "Chip" Roberson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chuck Frosberg WA7KGX <omen![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IDG Hackers
Date: 28 Nov 90 16:55:25 GMT
Organization: Omen Technology INC


Sounds like an attractive nuisance.  If corporations with attractive
nuisances were treated the same as homeowners with attractive
nuisances, they would pay proper attention to computer security.

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

From: John Cowan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: IDG Hackers
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 19:49:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, John Macdonald  <eci386!jmm@
uunet.uu.net> writes:

>Pat, are you trying to say that it doesn't matter how much damage was
>done?  The and importance and concerns are the same for $2.4M and $24?
>Do you consider the offence to be identical when one person kicks over
>a sand castle and another dynamites a ten story building?

Our Esteemed Moderator replies:

>The monetary value is not nearly as important
>as is the nearly forgotten and frequently ignored ethical value called
>'respect for the property rights of others'.

Ethical values are one thing; bases for legal action, quite another.
In law, the amount of the damage makes a great deal of difference.
For example, "diversity jurisdiction" suits (ones that are heard in
Federal court because the parties are of different states) must
involve damages exceeding $10,000, or back to state court they go.
Therefore, your smart member of the Federal bar always specifies at
least $10,000, however petty the issue.

Punishment-by-frivolous lawsuit is indeed a serious problem in this
country, exacerbated by the each-pays-for-himself rule of American
courts (as opposed to English ones, where the loser bears the winner's
costs).  Inflating the value of the matter at hand allows the bringing
to bear of much larger guns.

>I really get sick of
>hearing this bologna about how hackers/phreakers are so different,

No argument with the sentiment, but the word in that sense is spelled
"baloney".  Check out Al Smith's speeches.


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


[Moderator's Note:  I get tired of the baloney also!  PAT]

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90  19:38:27 EST
Subject: Re: Hackers Break Into DEA Lines


> More to the point, why would anyone WANT to steal FTS service?  Don't
> most people want circuits that work?

FTS was lousy, but FTS 2000 works just fine.  I have no complaints
about it.  I believe that the conversion to FTS 2000 for voice service
is now complete.

By the way, I have an authorization code for making FTS 2000 calls
from off the network.  There's an 800 number to call, then you enter
the number being called (seven digits for an FTS number, ten digits
for a commercial number), followed by the eleven digit code number.  I
had trouble making data calls that way because it seems to be very
picky about the timing of entering the numbers.


Roger Fajman                         Telephone:  [phone]
National Institutes of Health        BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA              Internet:   [e-mail]


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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise
Date: 29 Nov 90 00:58:24 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Nov 28 at 22:22, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Whoever wishes to answer Brian's questions can
> answer one for me also: How come if I have call-waiting on my line
> dialing my own number does not produce a call-waiting signal instead
> of a busy signal?

Simply put, when you dial your own number, the test for busy is
technically performed before you have finished dialing. You have a
1AESS, if memory serves, so you can hear some of the call states quite
well. In older generics (and some newer non-Pac*Bell ones), call
waiting and three-way will not work until the "ka-chunk" -- the time
when you are connected with the interoffice trunk or the other number
in your switch. When you dial your own number, your line is tested for
busy, and the action is taken based on the instantaneous condition of
your line (i.e., off-hook, dialing) which is "send to busy trunk".
Call waiting has not yet been enabled.

> I notice if I go out of my CO to do it, i.e. I use
> my phone to dial my 800 number which comes back to ring on the same
> line then I *do* get a call-waiting signal. Likewise a call to
> 10835-1-700-my number goes out to Telecom*USA, comes back and gives me
> a call-wwaiting signal. Dialing my own number direct returns busy.
> Why?  PAT]

When you do that, your switch is out of the picture. You dial, finish
dialing, "ka-chunk" (you are connected to the IEC trunk) and the
carrier routes the call back to your number. At that moment the
condition is different than the above. You are off-hook, dialing
completed, connected to trunk. Action taken: switch you to conference
trunk, send tone, send RBT to caller.

Pac*Bell Weenie Note: In the Pac*Bell implementations of the 1AESS
(W.E.  should never have provided them with the source!), you would
still get busy, even when dialing through Telecom*USA. PB's generic
will not allow CW or 3W until the first call is supervised. Pac*Bell
had some lame reason for doing this, but I forgot what it was.


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

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 1990 19:07:05 EST
From: Jim Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise


In issue 852 of the Digest, Brian McMahon writes:

>          No problem, I thought, I'll just dial my own number.  Much
>to my surprise, instead of the expected busy tones, I got a recording
>approximately like this: "You have dialled a party on your own line.
>Please hang up to allow the other phone to ring."  (This is an inexact
>quote from memory, but you get the idea.)
>(BTW, this is GTE territory, area code 515.)

>Can someone explain to this poor telecom-illiterate in the hinterland why
>the H*ll things are set up this way?  Is the switch really incapable of
>distinguishing between a private and a party line?

I am also located in GTE territory, area code 419.  I do not know what
model switch I am on, but it provides features such as call waiting
and call forwarding. I also have some 'extended' features, like 'busy
number redial' and 'saved number redial'.  My switch replies in the
same way as yours with reference to dialing your own number - just
hang up and you get a ringback.  Besides the obvious usefulness on a
party line, I imagine this is provided as a (free) FEATURE to those
with private lines: it is a rudimentary intercom.  By being able to
ring back your own line, it allows you (in the house) to ring an
extension phone (which might be out in the workshop, at the pool deck
or in the upstairs dining room).

>[Moderator's Note: Whoever wishes to answer Brian's questions can
>answer one for me also: How come if I have call-waiting on my line
>dialing my own number does not produce a call-waiting signal instead
>of a busy signal?  I notice if I go out of my CO to do it, i.e. I use
>my phone to dial my 800 number which comes back to ring on the same
>line then I *do* get a call-waiting signal. Likewise a call to
>10835-1-700-my number goes out to Telecom*USA, comes back and gives me
>a call-wwaiting signal. Dialing my own number direct returns busy.
>Why?  PAT]

Pat - I cannot answer your question, but something similar seems to
happen on my switch: If I dial the local weather number and get a busy
signal, then flash and dial the SAME NUMBER AGAIN on the 'three-way'
dialtone, I get a fast busy (after a long delay).  Maybe the switch
notices that the call I just attempted is to the same number as the
first (busy) call? Could the behavior we are seeing be due to the fact
that the call originates and terminates in the same switch, without
ever leaving the CO?  Maybe the switch has more 'knowledge' about such
an intra-CO call.

This brings up two questions I have.  First, I tried one time to use
the 'busy number redial' on the abovementioned weather number.  No
luck - I get a fast busy indicating it can't be done.  This weather
number is in the same town, served by GTE, on a regular exchange (ie
not a 'choke' exchange).  Upon further investigation, and after
talking to a CO technician, I am told that 'busy number redial' is not
usable on a 'number with multiple lines'.  I assume this means I can't
use it when the target number is part of a hunt group?  Why?  Second,
from the features I have described above, does it sound like I am on a
switch that is already set up to supply things like Caller-ID,
call-trace, return-call, and the related features?  Could GTE enable
these if they obtained proper tariffs from the PUC?


/* Jim Miller             [e-mail] */

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 08:34:35 PST
From: Dick Rawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tymnet Help Needed


Your request said Internet: [e-mail], but mail there
bounced with <stjhmc.fidonet.org>... User unknown

You could get the 9600-bps number from:

1.  Customer service at 800-336-0149.

2.  Log in to INFORMATION on the 1200/2400 number you do know, and
look up the 9600 number.

I just tried 800 information, and they provided 800-872-7654.  That is
Tymnet Telemarketing, but the woman I spoke with knew the 800-336-0149
number, so that route should have worked for you too.  (I asked her to
look into getting the 800 information listing clarified.)


Dick Rawson, Tymnet (development)

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Nov 28 08:34:26 EST 1990
Subject: Re: Keeping a Line "Busy" w/o a Phone Off Hook


Re the current conversation about making a line busy: A customer of
mine added an additional line to their 800 group (lines that carry
*only* 800 traffic, sometimes [incorrectly] called InWATS). But the
customer had no ports remaining open on their PBX. Thus the new line
just sat there on the RJ21. It was the fifth line in the group, so if
the first four were busy, the fifth caller would get a ring that was
never answered. The customer expected to upgrade their PBX in a month
or so, so they wanted to "busy out" the extra line.

We couldn't do it.  A constant busy on an 800 line apparently sounds
an alarm in the Central Office, and the Repair Folks cannot rest until
this "trouble condition" has been cleared.  We wound up disconnecting
that fifth line.

Conclusion: Making a line busy can be necessary, but be careful about
doing it with a dedicated 800 line.


Jack Dominey|AT&T Commercial Telemarketing|800 241-4285|AT&T Mail: !dominey

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 13:35:58 EST
From: Paul M Dubuc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes:

> I'm not sure about Ameritech (Midwest) as a whole, but I THINK the
> payphones at O'Hare and Midway said Illinois Bell and had the Bell
> logo next to it.  (This was six months ago, so maybe it changed.)

Ohio Bell (an Ameritech Company) still uses the Bell logo.


Paul Dubuc    att!cbvox!pmd

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

Subject: Re: Answering Machine and Call Waiting
Date: 28 Nov 90 11:06:51 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Eric THOLOME <[e-mail]> writes:

> My answering machine (Panasonic) has a switch which I should set to A
> if I don't use Call Waiting service, and B otherwise. Does anybody
> know what the precise difference is ?

This is a loop current timing selector. It determines whether the
answering machine will disconnect on a short loop current interruption
or whether it requires a longer one. The longer one is used for
call-waiting. This will prevent the machine from unceremoniously
hanging up on a caller who is leaving a message if someone else
happens to call at the same time. The shorter one will allow the
machine to hang up at the slightest loop twitch and has the advantage
of instantly disconnecting at the moment the caller hangs up.

All of the above mainly deals with 1/1AESS switches. Most digital
switches have no loop signal (CPC) on call waiting and you may set the
switch to the non-call waiting position.


John Higdon <[e-mail]> (hiding out in the desert)

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

From: Martin Schoffstall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alternatives to Traditional Multi-Drop 4-Wire Data Lines
Reply-To: Martin Schoffstall <[e-mail]>
Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc.
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 23:12:08 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Barton F.
Bruce) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 837, Message 5 of 9


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Richard Szabo) writes:

>> What are the alternatives to the following: My shop runs a data
>> network over multi-drop four-wire leased lines to ~80 branch locations

>If you have DDS II filed there you should find that you can do the
>whole thing with digital ckts. Digital multidrop nets are what the
>bank cash machines and lottery agents all use.

In the NYC area many of the ATM machines use the local NYTEL X.25
network.


Marty


[Moderator's Note: This seems to be the case in Chicago also, at least
for ATM's run by First National Bank.  PAT]

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

From: Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think?
Date: 26 Nov 90 19:36:09 GMT
Reply-To: Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurw07![e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC


A friend of mine works from home and also operates a BBS.  He recently
moved from the Washington, DC area to Raleigh, NC.  Apparently it is a
common practice for BBSes to take a modem off-hook when the system is
down or the sysop is performing maintenance.  In DC this wasn't a
problem but in Raleigh, every time this happens the phone company
disconnects his line and charges him $35 to reconnect his line.  He
can reconfigure the BBS program to not go off-hook but his mailer can
hang the modem in an off-hook state at various times.  Needless to
say, this has become quite expensive to him.

The last time this happened, it wasn't with the BBS it was with his
development computer.  The power supply started to go on the day
before thanksgiving so he turned off the system and replaced the PS
the day after Thanksgiving.  When he turned it back on, the phone
company had cut him off.  I think he has had his phone lines
re-connected four times over the last month.

Is this standard practice for phone companies to react so strongly to
off-hook lines?  Obviously, he is doing everything he can to avoid
leaving his modem off-hook but every now and then he still gets
nailed.  Is there a more user friendly (cheaper) way to take
care/avoid of this?

Thanks,

chip

* Work:  2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609  [phone]
* (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || ([e-mail]) ||
* ([e-mail]) || ([e-mail])
#include <disclaimer.h>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #855
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07465;
          1 Dec 90 3:07 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16371;
          1 Dec 90 1:23 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06475;
          1 Dec 90 0:19 CST
Date:     Fri, 30 Nov 90 23:41:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #856
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 30 Nov 90 23:40:51 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 856

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Amanda Walker]
    Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism [David Tamkin]
    Prodigy Reps/Phone Numbers Needed [Bruce Klopfenstein]
    Re: A Look at Moderator's Phone Bill [David O'Heare]
    Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco? [Tom Gray]
    Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco? [David Feustel]
    Re: Return*Call Humor [Steve Forrette]
    Re: EED Caller ID Specs [David Tamkin]
    Re: Polish Payphones Revisited [Wolf Paul]
    Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling [Mark Brader]
    Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling [Sergio Gelato]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol
Reply-To: Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 04:49:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Nelson Bolyard) writes:

> 'Twouldn't surprise me a bit to see that AT&T revived that technology
> [NAPLPS] for Prodigy.

Back during my very brief tenure as a Prodigy user, I poked around
some in the Macintosh client software (trying to figure out why it was
so unfriendly to the rest of the Mac).  I ran across several pieces of
code that had debugging messages & debugger symbols which referred to
NAPLPS.  I never peered at the actual data stream, but all of the
screen displays are certainly well within the capability of vanilla
NAPLPS.  The first time I signed on, in fact, my first thought was,
"my god, this looks like Telidon back from the grave" :).


Amanda Walker

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism
Date: 28 Nov 90 15:03:45 GMT
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


(The PRODIGY response concerning unlimited email)

>A small minority of members used the Prodigy Service as a high-volume
>"E-mail" network -- something we didn't expect and certainly can't
>afford to offer at current rates...
>A very small group of members had even created special programs
>capable of flooding the network with thousands of messages...
>With our launch nationwide on September 6th, we faced a business
>decision. We could continue to allow a small group of heavy messagers
>to keep pushing up the costs, and pass those costs on to the general
>membership in ever-higher fees.  Or we could ask those who received
>the most value from heavy personal messaging to pay in proportion to
>the value they receive. There was only one fair choice.

There was another choice; change the software so it cost less!  The
argument about storage and forwarding is bull, because Prodigy
provides the equivalent of moderated newsgroups, a (one) -> (storage,
once) -> (many) situation, and you don't hear them getting upset about
that.  What they seem to be upset about is that one person is sending
email to many people, and their software is dutifully filing a copy in
each person's mailbox, thus leading to inefficiency.

Given that the vast majority of this traffic is in reaction to
Prodigy's "editing" of newsgroup traffic, there seem to be two
possible solutions:

1) Modify the email system so that it stores each message once, and
each user who is a recipient of that message merely gets a pointer to
it.  This is a *minor* change.

2) Allow user owned/edited forums, accessable only by jumpword, and
access restricted.  Note that this accomplishes the same as 1) with
even fewer software changes.

IMHO, as an interested observer and non-Prodigy user, Prodigy is using
this "Email costs us too much $" argument as a way to deal with a
percieved (by them) loss of control over their product.  They are also
probably worried about legal issues (are they a common carrier, or an
electronic publisher?).


Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor [e-mail]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 18:53:08 CST


Prodigy management stated in the letter that Nigel Allen passed
along in volume 10, issue 850:

| With our launch nationwide on September 6th, we faced a business
| decision. We could continue to allow a small group of heavy messagers
| to keep pushing up the costs, and pass those costs on to the general
| membership in ever-higher fees.  Or we could ask those who received
| the most value from heavy personal messaging to pay in proportion to
| the value they receive.  There was only one fair choice.

But they chose both, didn't they?  They're surcharging for (in their
opinion) high volumes of email and also raising membership rates.


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: Bruce Klopfenstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Prodigy Reps/Phone Numbers Needed
Date: 29 Nov 90 06:55:30 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


I teach a course in new electronic media at BGSU.  I have tried
unsuccessfully to contact Prodigy in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Toledo
(where service reportedly was to begin in December).  A call to a New
York office got me voice mail, but no response.

Does anyone have a phone number for these guys (perhaps I have been
given a bad number for the Detroit area from directory assistance)?

Also, with all the criticisms of the email decision, could it be that
Prodigy is retrenching?

My desire was to get a Prodigy rep to our campus to demonstrate their
product for educational purposes.


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


[Moderator's Note: We really must conclude the Prodigy thread at this
time. Numerous points of view have been aired and we are beginning to
digress from our general theme of telecommunications. Further messages
will be limited to *fresh news* if any comes in.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 1990 12:35:26 -0500
From: David O'Heare <dciem!gandalf![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Look at Moderator's Phone Bill


Pat:

In the look at your phone bill, you say:

> I own all my telephones with the exception of one 2-line single turn
> button set (lift the left plunger for hold) which belongs to AT&T. So
> I get a bill every three months from AT&T Consumer Products, Inc. for
> the lease of that phone -- about $20.00. I should go buy a new two
> line phone from Radio Shack and give theirs back.

Is it possible to buy one of these phones? I assume it's a 500-style
set with a turn button -- I would dearly love to have one of those so
I could get rid of the poor-quality thing I've got.

Any ideas on where a poor Canadian might get one (Ma Bell's reps claim
to not know about them)?


Dave O'Heare    [e-mail]   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: AT&T is selling off quite a bit of their inventory
of phones and related stuff. I do not think they are selling the one
button, two-line phones. In fact I am almost positive you can only
lease them, and that you must be in the USA to do that.    PAT]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!spock![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco?
Date: 28 Nov 90 16:39:38 GMT
Reply-To: Tom Gray <mitel!smithd![e-mail]>
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> 1) Why is AT&T, rather than my LEC, supplying ISDN service?

ISDN is a set of protocols. Any service provider can use the ISDN
protocols for its service. If ATT has a service that it is legally
able to provide to an individual site, then it can use ISDN protocols
or any other that it sees fit.

ISDN is not a service; it is a means of providing services. Both the
LEC and AT&T (or any other service provider) will provide their
services using ISDN. ISDN is not an end in itself; it is a means
of communicating. It will make new serivces possible but will not
define or (hopefully) limit them.

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

From: David Feustel <amdcad!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco?
Date: 28 Nov 90 23:18:22 GMT
Organization: DAFCO - An OS/2 Oasis


I've tried to find out about ISDN offerings from GTE of Indiana, but
no one there (that I've talked to) knows what ISDN is.


David Feustel, 1930 Curdes Ave, Fort Wayne, IN 46805, [phone]
EMAIL: netcom.uucp

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

Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 23:11:17 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>[Moderator's Note: This raises a good point. When a call reaches you
>via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the
>forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening
>and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback
>and/or screening, etc?   PAT]

I got involved in a conversation with my Pacific Bell friend last week
about just this issue.  He's working on implementing all the new SS7
stuff on the DMS-100's.  Apparently, they consider the person actually
placing the call to be the "Caller" with respect to "Caller ID."  It
doesn't matter if there are several "hops" of forwarding - the
original number will display.

Also, we talked about how this works with ISDN.  There will be display
sets which can display both the calling number and the called number.
So, a secretary, upon receiving a call, can tell not only the number
of the calling party, but the number they called (very useful in the
case where the call no-answer transferred to the secretary, and where
there are several numbers that no-answer transfer to the same place).
Of course, I just had to ask the question: "What if there are several
hops of no-answer transfer or call forwarding?"  In this case, the
original calling number and the original called number will be
displayed, regardless of any subsequent transfers.  This gives the
answerer complete information: who is calling, and who they think they
called.

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: EED Caller ID Specs
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 18:49:57 CST


Dan Hepner wrote in volume 10, issue 851:

| The proposed Pac Bell scheme doesn't allow for easy
| limiting of incoming calls to only those which contain CID info.

It's easy enough: look at your CID display, and if it says "blocked,"
"private," or "refused," don't pick up the phone.


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: Wolf PAUL  <tuvie!iiasa.local![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Polish Payphones Revisited
Date: 29 Nov 90 08:53:14 GMT
Reply-To: Wolf PAUL  <[e-mail]>
Organization: Intl. Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria


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

>While staying in Wroclaw (Breslau), Poland, there was a news item on TV that
>the city had installed the nation's first public telephones
>activitated through credit cards.  I couldn't understand the fine
>details because it was in Polish.  From what my host explained to me,
>the credit cards are issued by the telephone company and you insert
>them into a slot in the telephone and then dial the number.  No word
>yet how successful people have been with their calls.

Actually these probably don't accept credit cards, but pre-paid phone
cards such as are used in several West European countries as well.
Austria, Belgium (I think) and the UK use phone cards where the
information is stored magnetically; Germany uses phone cards with a
tiny chip on them.

Their main attraction is in countries with a low density of private
phones, where most people use public phones most of the time. Credit
cards would be impractical since there would not be a home phone
account to charge them to. I also doubt that credit cards would find
much public acceptance in the recently-liberated societies of Eastern
Europe.

You buy them in stores (different depending on country) and they come
in denominations such as 100 units, or 200 units (Austria), or UKL 5
or 10 (UK), etc.

The cards even from the same system, such as UK and Austria, are not
compatible: it seems they do contain some coding difference, or else
have a PTT identifier code readable by the equipment. Thus, a UK card
will not work in Austria and vice versa. Of course the German
Microchip cards don't work anywhere else either, nor would one expect
them to.


W.N.Paul, Int. Institute f. Applied Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg--Austria
PHONE: [phone]            INTERNET: [e-mail]
FAX:   [phone]                UUCP:     uunet!iiasa!wnp
HOME:  [phone]               BITNET:   tuvie!iiasa![e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 1990 23:13:00 -0500
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept.

> [Moderator's Note: I just now tried it from Chicago, USA. It accepted
> the entire number (that is, 011-44-81-603-four more), and the response
> to me on each of several attempts was the same recorded announcement
> ... Instead of playing the French recording to
> me, when AT&T heard something 'go wrong' over there, it yanked the
> connection back and played an English language message instead.  PAT]

Well, it presumably was an AT&T message, or you would have noticed an
accent.  But, although the quoted sentence refers to France and an
earlier part of that message did pertain to France, the country where
the above number would be (if it existed) *is* one where English is
spoken.

Well, a sort of English, anyway... :-)


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

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 19:21 EST
From: Sergio Gelato <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling


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

>Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept.

>[Moderator's Note: I just now tried it from Chicago, USA. It accepted
>the entire number (that is, 011-44-81-603-four more), and the response
>to me on each of several attempts was the same recorded announcement:
>You call cannot be completed by the telephone company in the country
>you are calling at this time. Please try your call again later."
>Interestingly, my call had left Chicago, gotten out of the USA and was
>sitting in limbo somewhere. Instead of playing the French recording to
>me, when AT&T heard something 'go wrong' over there, it yanked the
>connection back and played an English language message instead.  PAT]

One good reason why the Moderator didn't get a French language
intercept with this number (+44 81 etc.) is that 44 is the country
code for the United Kingdom (that of France being 33). A French
intercept may have been expected only if he had dialled the number
from France, where "+" translates to "19~". This does not invalidate
the conclusion about who generated the intercept message.


Sergio Gelato <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: The emphasis is on the wrong thing here. It is not
so much that it was an English speaking country, i.e. UK instead of a
French speaking country, but that AT&T yanked the cord when the
network sensed it wasn't getting anywhere on the other end for some
reason, and substituted an AT&T recording. The conection to the UK was
made, I know I had gotten as far as some switch in the UK, but no
ring/no answer/no busy signal. In a few seconds, bing! I am back on
the AT&T switch here in Chicago (apparently) being told the foreign
telephone company can't handle it right now.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #856
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14639;
          1 Dec 90 11:10 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17615;
          1 Dec 90 9:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12652;
          1 Dec 90 8:25 CST
Date:     Sat, 1 Dec 90 7:47:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #857
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 1 Dec 90 07:46:52 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 857

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Barry Mitchell]
    Western Union Clocks in Omaha [Paul Schleck]
    Using 10732 to Route AT&T Calls [Bill Crane]
    Distinctive Ring Based Call Distributor [T.R. Rajha]
    Forwarded Calls and Caller*ID [Nicholas J. Simicich]
    For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Peter G. Capek]
    Running Your Own Long Distance Company [J. Philip Miller]
    Apocryphal T1 Story? [Sandy Kyrish]
    General Datacom DTX-2000s [Victor Cericole]
    Dealing With Phone Tampering [Kenneth H. Lee]
    Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones Revisited) [Deryck Fay]
    Re: Last Laugh! What is the Area Code For Outer Space? [John Murray]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 10:36:05 EST
From: Barry Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago


When I lived in England in 1970 the phone systems there were almost
the same as those described in the previous messages.  A telephone
number (area code, etc) was not the same throughout the country.  From
one city, your home number would be something totally different from
what it would be in another city.  The result being that if you were
out of your home town and wanted to call home, you couldn't just dial
it from memory ... you had to find a local telephone book with all the
right codes.

I don't know if they have updated the system since then but it made
me appreciate the convenience and value that we receive here in the US
and North America.  Where else can you order a pizza from a cellular
phone while driving home and have the delivery person be there waiting
on you when you arrive home?

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

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 23:45:43 EST
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Western Union Clocks in Omaha
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Thanks for all the replies to my announcement of finding Western Union
clocks.  Rather than replying the preferred route via a phone call or
via my Internet address, most people sent me mail to the Inns of Court
BBS, which I don't have reply capability for netmail on.  They also
gave complicated UUCP "bang" paths, many of which did not work.

Both of the brown metal 15" Western Union clocks are spoken for, one
by me, another by a quick replier from New York.  The dealer DOES have
a Bulova model (minus works) plus a "New York Self-Winding Clock
Company" model in an oak case.  The Bulova is "not for sale" (i.e.
bargain for it). The oak model is $250.  Those who would like the
dealer's name may contact me via my Internet address or via the
telephone.


Paul W. Schleck    [e-mail]    [phone]

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5
 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0)

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Crane)
Subject: Using 10732 To Route AT&T Calls
Date: 29 Nov 90 21:29:22 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Crane)
Organization: Days Inns of America


[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

> [Moderator's Note:  Could we please have a little more information
> about the use of '10732' for routing of calls?  Thanks.   PAT]

'10732' is the PIC that AT&T has defined for their SDN customers.
Using 10732 will allow the caller to complete the call at the (lower)
SDN rates.  It's my understanding that the number from where the call
originates must have authorization to use this PIC or else the call
will not go through (this prevents non SDN subscribers from completing
a call on the SDN network).


Bill Crane                    ...!gatech!daysinns!bill
Days Inns of America Inc      [e-mail]
2751 Buford Hwy NE            Atlanta GA 30324


[Moderator's Note: I'm not locked out or restricted from using it. I
just now placed a couple test calls: 10732-1-202-653-1800, 10732-0,
and 10732-1-700-555-4141. The first two completed just fine, and on
the second one the AT&T operator had my number come up on the tube
when she answered me. The last one resulted in a message, "the number
you dialed cannot be reached with the carrier access code you have
chosen."  I wonder if when the bill comes I'll get the additional
reduction in price along with the sizeable discounts I get already as
an ROA 24-Hour Plan / ROW Plan user?  PAT]

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

From: "T.R. Rajha" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Distinctive Ring Based Call Distributor
Date: 29 Nov 90 17:51:43 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


There was an article posted here some time ago, describing a product
called FONE FILTER that routes calls to telephones, fax machine,
computer, etc. in response to distinctive rings.

It was also mentioned that the device was priced at $ 79.95 and was
available from South Tech Instruments, Inc. Any idea where this
company is located ? The toll free number that was posted seems to
belong to a kitchenware supply company in Illinois.

If you have any information on this or similar products that make use
of distinctive ringing, please send me email at:


[e-mail]        or     [e-mail]

Thanks.

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 13:29:42 EST
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Forwarded Calls and CallerID


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken
Weaverling) describes how his girl friend had "Return*called" a crank
call, yelling at the caller, only to have that person return the call
and act as if she were the crank caller.

Various people come up with various complicated explanations about how
the phone system might have been confused by call forwarding, or
people where the callback call was answered might have been either
without knowledge or confused, or even intentional dupes.

The simplest explanation is the one that seems to be ignored by most
people: The phone switching system simply misrouted the Return*Call,
or garbled the number it remembered.


Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON on bitnet, [e-mail])
SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 23:44:28 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North


{The New York Times} Travel section this past Sunday mentioned an
interesting device called a Telefreeze.  It connects to a phone line
and makes the line go "off hook" when the ambient temperature goes
below a preset limit.  The idea is that you would periodically call
home (or your ski house..) and if you get a busy, call a
neighbor/plumber/heating contractor to investigate before the pipes
freeze.  Available through dealers and plumbers.  The manufacturer is
Telefreeze Company at 516-288-4451; contact there is Preston Brown.
Usual disclaimers apply.  Please, let's not resurrect the discussion
about whether this device is transmitting a message and thereby
depriving some corporation of revenue.

In this vein, I'd mention that there exist similar devices which can
be used to turn on a light when the temperature drops.  I have one
which cost about $25, and an adjustable temperature setting.


Peter Capek

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Running Your Own Long Distance Company
Organization: Division of Biostatistics, WUMS, St. Louis, MO
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 11:38:01 GMT


The {St. Louis Post Dispatch} this morning carries a story about
William Outten, the owner of an answering service in surburban St.
Louis who is now offering "free" long distance calls from Jefferson
county into St. Louis.

Utilizing a scheme often mentioned here, he has been leasing lines
which allow unlimited calling into St. Louis and then allowing his
customers to connect with them with three-way calling.  He originally
was charging his customers $.03/min while SWBT charges .30 for the
first min and .17 for each additional meeting.  According to the Post
he was collecting $2,500/mo from his customers and paying Bell $700.
The PSC stopped this practice in September and are now seeking a court
order to stop the current practice.

Outten claims that now he is not offering telephone service and that
he should be treated no differently than anyone else who utilizes
three-way calling.  The PSC accuses him of "blatently skirting" state
regulations.

It is not clear whether the equipment utilized to make the connections
is commercially available equipment or of Outten's own design.  He is
described as a "telephone nut" and the equipment as a circuit the size
of a sheet of paper contained within a toolbox bolted to the wall in
his answering service.  He describes it as "This is something you
don't learn in college."

A decison is expected next week.


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 14:08 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apocryphal T1 Story?


Another "set the record straight" question: did the decision to
establish the T1 standard as 24 voice channels have something to do
with the distance between New York City manholes, etc.?  An informal
history about T1 would be of interest to me, as well as an explanation
as to why the European T1 std. is different.

Also, thanks to all who responded publicly and privately to my Prodigy
question.  I welcome any future information you would like to pass
along about that service, or about RBOCs' planned entry into
residential broadband services.

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

From: Victor Cericole <[e-mail]>
Subject: General Datacom DTX-2000s
Date: 30 Nov 90 14:40:19 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


We've got some General Datacom DTX-2000 DOV units that require
maintenance.  If you're using these beasties, I got a couple of
questions that need answering.  They are: 1) where are you getting
them repaired? and 2) how much are you paying to get them fixed?
We're shopping around for the best bang for our few bucks.

Could you please email me a response?  I can be reached at:

         [e-mail]

Thanks,

Victor

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 16:19:42 EST
From: "Kenneth H. Lee" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dealing With Phone Tampering


I've been having a problem with my roommate tampering with my phone
service.

We live on the third floor of a three family house in which all the
phone services come into his room.  I have the wiring from my room
running to a bridge near the network interface (NI).  I then plug in
the modular cable from the bridge into the NI.

The problem is that he has on occasion disconnected my phone service
at the NI.  Both times I found out because I couldn't raise my
answering machine while at work and found the line disconnected once I
got home.  The twit is doing it to annoy me and has admitted that is
what he is trying to achieve.

I called New York Telephone and the customer service rep says that
there is nothing that they can do because the demarcation point falls
inside a private home/apartment and there is legally nothing they can
do.  If it was elsewhere in the building where it would be accessible
to other people they would be able to do something about relocating
the NI without charge.

The rep was trying to help but couldn't think of anything that could
be done.  He even thought of the Annoyance Bureau, but this isn't a
case of annoying phone calls.  I even asked if I could have a
complaint letter attached to his file and they said that this was not
possible.

Do I have any recourse? Is there anything I can do at this point?
Raise it to higher level management within the phone company?
Complain to the Public Utilities Commision?  Complain to the FCC?

I want to get some sort of official complaint on record somewhere.  I
don't appreciate people messing around with my phone service and find
that I can't have him fined or warned.

Thanks,

Kenneth H. Lee                [e-mail]
Columbia University            rutgers!columbia!cunixf!khl
209 Watson, 612 West 115 Street        [e-mail]
New York, NY 10025            [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Neither the FCC, the PUC or NY Tel is going to
involve themselves in what is essentially a domestic dispute between
yourself and the person you live with. NY Tel cannot really tell
someone (your roomate) they can or cannot disconnect wires in their
private home. Did you choose this roommate? If so, why not *unchoose*
him? The landlord should also be aware of this. If you and the
roommate are sharing this area through no choice of your own, i.e. you
were assigned by the university, then ask for a different assignment
if possible, making it known to the housing officials why you wish to
move. Another alternative is have NY Bell move *your* wires off of the
demarc in his room to a new one under your control. Even though you
have to pay, it might be worth it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones Revisited)
Date: 29 Nov 90 17:44:14 GMT
Organization: Trinity College Dublin


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Richard Budd)
writes:

> While staying in Wroclaw (Breslau), there was a news item on TV that
> the city had installed the nation's first public telephones
> activitated through credit cards.  I couldn't understand the fine
> details because it was in Polish.  From what my host explained to me,
> the credit cards are issued by the telephone company and you insert
> them into a slot in the telephone and then dial the number.

Similar systems using pre-paid cards for public phones are common in
most European countries.  You buy a card, normally from a post office
or newsagent, which is worth a certain number of units.  The units are
deducted from the card as you speak.

There seem to be three systems in use:

* a 'smart card' with an in-built chip, used in France, Germany
and Ireland

* a holographic system used in Austria and by British Telecom in
the U.K.

* a magnetic card system used in Italy.  I think the Mercury phones
in the U.K. also use a magnetic system.

The use of card phones is becoming increasingly common: in France
coin-operated payphones (without a queue) can be hard to find.  I
think the reason for their absence in the U.S. is their dependence on
meter pulsing for billing.

> ... Telephone calls in
> Poland are an exercise in patience.

Just as a BTW, I had no problems making international calls from
payphones in Czechoslovakia this autumn.  Line quality to Ireland and
West Germany was excellent.


Deryck Fay   Department of Geography
[e-mail]  Trinity College  Dublin 2

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

From: John Murray <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Laugh! What is the Area Code For Outer Space?
Date: 28 Nov 90 15:10:21 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University


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

#> Perhaps it would be much simpler for all concerned if the telcos were
#> simply to switch to 8-digit numbers for all of Southern California.
#> Of course, it could then be given a two-digit "country code" :-).

#Given that this is the home of Disneyland, Hollywood, etc., perhaps
#"planet code" would be more appropriate! ;-)

Hey! Then I would be perfectly correct the next time I say "I'm really
not from this planet..!"  :-)


Disclaimer: Any opinions above (or below) have nothing to do with reality.

John R. Murray
[e-mail]
Supercomputer Research Inst.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #857
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21292;
          1 Dec 90 18:29 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26285;
          1 Dec 90 16:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22213;
          1 Dec 90 15:40 CST
Date:     Sat, 1 Dec 90 15:30:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #858
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest      Sat, 1 Dec 90 15:30:13 CST      Volume 10 : Issue 858

Inside This Issue:                          Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The "Bell" Logo  [Michael Graff]
    Re: Sprint Visa-Phone [Ed Belisle]
    Re: Return*Call Humor [John Boteler]
    Re: Establishing a UUCP Site [Alan Millar]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [John R. Covert]
    Re: Hangup Indication [Tad Cook]
    Re: Answering Machine Beeps But Does Not Take Message [Tom Ohmer]
    Re: Lower Hotel Charges [Charles "Chip" Roberson]
    Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? [John Higdon]
    Re: New 410 Code for MD [Carl Moore]
    No Call Waiting Until Supervised [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise [Andy Jacobson]
    What Number am I? [Gary D. Archer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 11:21:01 PST
From: Michael Graff <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In issue 848, Douglas Scott Reuben writes:

>  As to Pac*Bell, well, they kept the word "Bell", but I guess the
>  like the highly original asterisk symbol a lot better! :-) (They
>  must have searched REALLY hard for that logo!  "Gee ... let's use
>  one of the buttons on the phone!")

You'll appreciate a COCOT I saw last night.  In a font that looked
pretty close to the one used by PACIFIC*BELL, it said WESTERN#BELL.  I
guess other companies will have to use one of the digits, or perhaps
they can use a word with DEF or TUV or OPER in it.  :-)

I had very little time to play with it, but at first glance it seemed
to be pretty reasonable for a COCOT.  Dialing 10288 did not get an
immediate intercept message.  The label explicitly stated that MCI was
the default carrier.

I'm not sure whether the name and logo for WESTERN#BELL was meant to
be deceptive, or if it was an inside joke.  Probably some of both.


Michael

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 19:23 GMT
From: Ed Belisle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Visa-Phone


In TELECOM Digest V10 #852, John Slater <[e-mail]> asks
for more information on Sprint's VisaPhone.  I don't know know about
Sprint, but MCI VisaPhone has been available since February.

There's an 800 access number.  You use your Visa card number and a
four digit PIN (given to you when you sign up)

Rates are $0.18/min Day, $0.13/min Evening, and $0.10/min
Night/Weekend.  There is a $0.70 surcharge per call.  Right now there
is a promotion for $5.00 credit/certificate with your second month's
bill.

To get MCI VisaPhone (and your PIN) you can sign up your Visa Card by
calling MCI (1-800-444-4444, Option 4).


Ed Belisle
MCI Consultant Liaison  703-506-6353

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

From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor
Organization: Common Sense Computing, McLean, VA.
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 13:25:27 GMT


PAT writes:

> This raises a good point. When a call reaches you
> via forwarding through some other number, does 'return call' go to the
> forwarded number or the original caller? Likewise for Call Screening
> and Caller-ID: *whose* ID gets passed for the purpose of callback
> and/or screening, etc?

[ Author's Note: As discussed previously, Calling Line ID is what the
name says it is: the ID of the line calling you is displayed and used
for CLASS treatment. Forwarding Line ID is another spec yet to be
offered as far as I know.

If you *69 the sucker, it goes back to the caller, not the forwarder. ]


John Boteler   bote@csense                {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Establishing a UUCP Site
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 90 21:18:05 PST


>I would like to ask how can one "make" a UUCP site, in particular, I
>have a PC and a modem, is it possible to have my home computer as a
>UUCP site ?  What are the software, OS, tools ... etc that are needed
>to do that, What are the costs incurred before and after establishing
>the site ?

If you can, join the Usenet newgroup called

    comp.mail.uucp

Home uucp sites are a never-ending topic of discussion.  Requirements
and software availability are common topics.


Alan Millar   [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 21:11:27 PST
From: "John R. Covert  29-Nov-1990 1017" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone

>1.  How is the credit card verified ?  Are they all stored on board
>and downloaded after the airplane lands, or is it real-time ?

I'm 99% sure it's real-time, done during call setup.

>2.  What happens if everyone wanted to place a call at the same time?
>On the jet I was on, that would be 56 phones in use at the same time.
>Quite a multiplexer/transceiver, if that's how it's done.

Only a small number of phones can be in use at one time.  Other
callers will get a recording telling them "Please wait for the dial
tone."

>3.  How is frequency assignment done for numerous planes in the same
>local area (i.e. 20 planes backed up, waiting for takeoff at O'Hare)?

Similar to land-based cellular phones.  However, Airfone is not
supposed to work on the ground.  There may be airports close enough to
airfone cell sites that it works at some of them, but it is an
"in-flight" service.

>4.  Has anyone tried a ringback or number announcement from the phone
>?  I know the phones aren't capable of actually receiving a call or
>ringing, but it would be interesting to see what happens.

Those sort of numbers are blocked.  The phone accepts only
NPA-NXX-XXXX or 011+CC+...

>5.  Is there a nationwide cellular-like network for these phones, i.e.
>the ground station hands off the call(s) to the next station when the
>plane leaves the service area ?

There is a nationwide network, but there is no hand-off.


john

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

Subject: Re: Hangup Indication
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 28 Nov 90 23:49:13 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Johnny Zweig)
writes:

> I was just listening to the seventeenth message in a row on my
> answering machine that says "If you would like to make a call, please
> hang up and try it again" and got to thinking: for POTS, what
> indicator is there that the party on the other end of a connection has
> hung up?  Is it just the dialtone(*), or is there some other kind of
> signal (line-voltage, say) that lets you know?

In most modern electronic offices there is a signal called the CPC
Pulse (I don't know what CPC stands for ... Calling Party Control
maybe??) that happens when the other party goes on hook.  It is a
brief interruption in battery on the line.  Many answering machines
can respond to this, so that they will reset and stop recording when
the other party hangs up.  My Panasonic machine even has a CPC switch
on the bottom for disabling this feature.

Unfortunately, there is no signal to tell you when the called party
has gone off hook ... which is why COCOTs have problems deciding when
to collect your coin.


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: Tom Ohmer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine Beeps But Does Not Take Message
Date: 30 Nov 90 14:07:41 GMT
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (John
Higdon):

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

<> What is the meaning of the aforementioned beep?
<> [on a machine that announces that it does not record messages from
<> callers]

< This beep is your signal that the TV station in question is too cheap
< or lazy to obtain an answering device that has an "announce-only"
< function. []

Mine (Tandy/Radio Shack) has an "announce" function, and behaves
precisely as Carl described.  When the OGM tape head senses the foil
at the end/beginning of the loop, the beep sounds and the OGM stops,
regardless of "answer" or "announce" mode.

The *meaning* of the beep, to me, would be that the announcement was
completed.


Tom Ohmer @ Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center,
            DSAC-AMB, Bldg. 27-6, P.O. Box 1605, Columbus, OH  43216-5002
UUCP: ...osu-cis!dsac!tohmer   INTERNET: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]   AutoVoN: 850-8059   #include <stdsclmr.h>

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

From: Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lower Hotel Charges
Date: 30 Nov 90 16:20:14 GMT
Reply-To: Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurw04![e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (USENET News
System) writes:

>I recently read a tip on saving multiple charges on outgoing AT&T
>credit card calls from hotel rooms.

>press the # key on the push button telephone to place your next call.

Does MCI or US Sprint offer anything like this?


chip

* Work:  2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609  [phone]
* (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || ([e-mail]) ||
* ([e-mail]) || ([e-mail])
#include <disclaimer.h>


[Moderator's Note: The back of my Spint FON card says 'press # for one
full second to make another call ...'  PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think?
Date: 30 Nov 90 10:30:56 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01![e-mail]> writes:

> but in Raleigh, every time this happens the phone company
> disconnects his line and charges him $35 to reconnect his line.

> Is this standard practice for phone companies to react so strongly to
> off-hook lines?

No, it is not. And there is absolutely no reason, given any switch
other than SXS to behave in this manner. It is a scam to increase
revenue and nothing else.

In any common control switch (virtually anything other than SXS,
electronic or mechanical), provision has been made for PS
(unintentional off-hook lines). After a maximum of 30 seconds, the
register that receives incoming dialing is released and the line is
connected to a howler trunk and then to a PS holding trunk. Telcos
usually have the PS holding trunk set to return the line to service
automatically when the fault is cleared. The only facility being used
by a PSed line in the end is a position on the PS trunk bank, which
should have more than enough capacity for any condition short of cable
failure.

What if the PS was caused by a cable splicer or lineman? Would you
still have to pay $35? How would you prove it?

The only thing close to this practice that I am aware of in CA
concerns DID trunks on a 1/1AESS. The customer's PBX normally supplies
battery back to the CO. If this battery is lost for more than 30
seconds or so, either because of switch failure or momentary
disconnection of the pair, the CO switch busys out the trunk
"permanently". To restore it, it is necessary to call repair service
and have them reset the trunk.  This is done at no charge.


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

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 18:40:49 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 410 Code for MD


Do you know of any reasons for:

1. relatively short notice of this change
2. long time for permissive dialing (unless it's just a
   logical followup to item 1 immediately above)

Baltimore, for those of you who don't know, is big enough to make a
distinction between city and suburban exchange (and it's getting the
new area code).  Other such big cities in the mid-Atlantic area are
New York City, Philadelphia, and Washington DC.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 08:39 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: No Call Waiting Until Supervised


>Pac*Bell Weenie Note: In the Pac*Bell implementations of the 1AESS
>(W.E.  should never have provided them with the source!), you would
>still get busy, even when dialing through Telecom*USA. PB's generic
>will not allow CW or 3W until the first call is supervised. Pac*Bell
>had some lame reason for doing this, but I forgot what it was.

I think I like this feature ... It never occurred to me that it should
work any differently.  If your call hasn't supervised, and you get a
call waiting, and answer it, your called party (of the first part :-)
stands a good chance of answering and already being on hold.  Also,
you're already listening to ring or busy tone.  Now you have to pick
call waiting tones out of the tone jungle.  Finally, what about a call
that is abandoned half dialed and off-hook, or a line left off hook,
or shorted?  Surely that should return busy.  When do you disable
call-waiting?  When the line goes to permanent signal?

I also think that the CO implementation of traditional PBX features
such as three way and call waiting should be a bit more idiot-friendly
than their PBX counterparts.  (Yes, I know, build an idiot-proof
system, and only an idiot will be willing to use it.)

Does anybody think that this is an incorrect philosophy?  Is anyone
REALLY bothered by not being able to get a C.W. while originating a
call?


edg

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

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 90 01:41 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dialing Own Number Brings a Surprise


I should note that from the GTD-5 and 2EAX switches here in GTE-land,
just dialing your own number is how you get ringback. (See TELECOM
Digest Guide to Special Prefixes/Numbers.)

In TELECOM Digest, V10 #855, John Higdon <[e-mail]>
writes:

>Pac*Bell Weenie Note: In the Pac*Bell implementations of the 1AESS
>(W.E.  should never have provided them with the source!), you would
>still get busy, even when dialing through Telecom*USA. PB's generic
>will not allow CW or 3W until the first call is supervised. Pac*Bell
>had some lame reason for doing this, but I forgot what it was.

With 3W, I assume Pac*Bell does this to prevent you from invoking the
second dial tone if you're trying to hang up (with no answer), and
dial again . GTE's 1E software thankfully does this too at least
within the same CO. (I say thankfully, as it seems you have to go on
hook for an eternity of 3 or 4 seconds to get rid of the first call
before getting fresh dial tone.)  Another reason I can see for
Pac*Bell's implementation would be so that you don't switch to the
second call before the first called party answers, to dead air.

This would also prevent you from crank connecting two calls to each
other before they answer. (This sort of "mix and match"ing is probably
a major crank caller fantasy.)  With CW, dead air also applies. Might
there also be some detection problem if you come back from CW
(switchhook flash) at the same instant that the first called party
answers (DC reversal or voltage drop as supervision begins)?

With CW looped outside the local switch, GTE differs. If I call number
A (GTD-5 switch) from number B (1AESS) that number A is forwarded to,
I get CW beep before I hear distant ringing. I can flash to put the
orig segment on hold and answer the loop around, and flash back and
forth to my heart's content (always with one segment or the other on
hold).  Supervision would appear to play no part in it. However, when
I hang up on either segment, it does not ring me to tell me that there
is a call on hold.  Though logically, if I hang up on the loop around
segment it should This gets to be rather abstract stuff after a while.


Andy Jacobson<[e-mail]>

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

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 13:07:18 PST
From: "Gary D. Archer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Number am I?


In the 408 ac calling 760-xxxx results in an automatic voice readback
of the number you're calling from.  It goes pretty quickly and you
must listen carefully.  It also disconnects right after the seven
digit number.  I don't know if this is available dialing from a GTE
area or from outside the 408 area.  PS ... you don't have to dial more
than 760- and let it time out. It will read your number, disconnect
and then return dial tone.


Gary

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #858
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09760;
          2 Dec 90 18:28 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01226;
          2 Dec 90 16:26 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08227;
          2 Dec 90 15:20 CST
Date:     Sun, 2 Dec 90 14:47:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #859
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Dec 90 14:46:54 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 859

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Tokyo Telephone Numbers Are About to Change [Craig R. Watkins]
    Canadian Radio-Television and Telecom Commission Annual Report [N. Allen]
    Long Distance Billing Systems [Mark Oberg]
    Hello Direct's Conference Phone [Jon Sreekanth]
    Announcement: The Great Caller*ID Debate [Peter G. Capek]
    Odd Response When Line is Busy [Joseph Tucker]
    ACD Headset Vendors Needed [Bill Crane]
    Re: IDG Hackers [Kurt Baumann]
    Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Finland Wants 37!! [Richard Budd]
    Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling [Mark Steiger]
    Tymnet Information in Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
    Administrivia: (non) Delivery of comp.dcom.telecom? [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tokyo Telephone Numbers Are About to Change
Date: 1 Dec 90 22:35:03 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


I got a notice in the mail from NTT (not exactly sure why) stressing
that Tokyo telephone numbers are about to change on December 31st at
noon EST.  They claim: "You'll need to dial a '3' before seven-digit
telephone numbers in Tokyo."  They show this change as:

  81-3-3123-4567
       -         added three
       --------- telephone number
     -           area code
  --             country code

"Most telephone numbers in Tokyo are about to undergo a simple but
necessary change to make more numbers available for new telephone
lines.  An extra digit, a '3,' will be added to all seven-digit
telephone numbers."

Also directly from the notice:

Q: There are already some eight-digit telephone numbers in Tokyo.
Will these change?

A: No.  All current eight-digit numbers in the "3" area code will stay
the same.

Q:  Can I dial the new eight-digit numbers now?

A: No.  The change will not go into effect until noon EST on December
31.  If you dial the new eight-digit numbers before that time you'll
get a wrong number.

Q: What happens if I dial the old number after the change?

A: You'll reach a recorded message which will tell you how to dial the
right number.

And above all ... please remember to reprogram all Tokyo telephone
numbers in your fax machine's memory from noon EST on December 31.

Also, don't forget telephone numbers in the memory of autodial
telephones, computers and other communications equipment.

(They also included stickers describing the change to stick on fax
machines, etc.)


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

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

Date: Sat, 1 Dec 90 08:46 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Canadian Radio-Television and Telecom Commission Annual Report
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


If you would like to receive a free copy of the CRTC's annual report,
write to:

Information Services, Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N2, Canada, telephone [phone],
or fax [phone]. (No e-mail address, interestingly enough.)

The CRTC is Canada's counterpart to the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission, regulating both broadcasting and telecommunications.  Like
most Canadian government agencies, it is more interventionist than its
U.S. counterpart, and studying the annual report will give you some
insights into what Canadian communications policy is like and how it
is made.

(Canada also has a Cabinet-level Department of Communications. If you
would like to receive *its* annual report, just write to: Information
Services, Department of Communications, Government of Canada, 300
Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C8, Canada.)

Here is part of the CRTC news release about its report:

CRTC Annual Report Cites Balacing Public, Industry and Policy
Objectives as Guiding Principles for Regulation

OTTAWA/HULL, November 15, 1990 -- The CRTC today released its 1989-90
Annual Report outlining the Commission's major decisions and
initiatives over the past fiscal year, as well as key issues for the
future. This year, the CRTC's Annual Report also provides an overview
and statistics on public complaints filed with the Commission.

"Overall, the focus of the Commission has been on making our
broadcasting and telecommunications systems more Canadian, more
affordable, and more competitive wherever competition serves the
public interest," said newly-appointed CRTC Chairman David Colville.

In the area of telecommunications, CRTC actions resulted in lower
long-distance rates; a climate more favourable to competition; as well
as the extension of basic telephone service, and, the introduction of
new telecommunications services.

Key telecommunications initiatives included:

* assuming jurisdiction over the major Atlantic telephone companies in
line with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada;

* new rates for Bell Canada's and the British Columbia Telephone
Company's competitive network services;

* reducing overseas telephone rates;

* substantial decreases in long distance rates for Bell Canada, B.C.
Tel, and Northwestel subscribers.

Disclaimer: None of the above organizations has me on its payroll.


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

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

From: Mark Oberg <grout![e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Billing Systems
Date: 30 Nov 90 17:39:52 GMT
Organization: Eric's PC Beltsville MD


My company is looking for billing software which is used by a long
distance service provider.  As this is a fairly specialized type of
program, we are having a difficult time finding the right thing.  If
anyone in this newsgroup works for or knows of a company which sells
this type of software, please reply to this request.


Mark_Oberg!f506!n109!z1!fidonet.org
 or: uunet!hadron!lsw!grout!mark
 or: No Place Like Home BBS - 301/596-6450 Fidonet 1:109/506
 Voice phone: NATel, Inc. 301/381-8588

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hello Direct's Conference Phone
Date: 1 Dec 90 10:26:05


In my latest Hello Direct catalog (Winter 90), on the back cover,
there's a "conference phone" advertised. It's about the size of a
large hardcover, and it looks pretty slick, and attaches to a normal
phone jack.

"VoicePoint Teleconferencer tunes itself to phone line, room size, and
acoustics, handles conference rooms of 2 - 12 people.  Virtually
eliminates echo and feedback ... digital echo cancellation eliminates
echo and feedback - without clipping words like old fashioned simplex
speakerphones ... "

The process seems straightforward enough, and as a matter of fact, it
was something I'd thought of a while ago, so I feel a proprietary
interest :-) in it. Hello Direct does not say who makes it, but
carefully squinting at the photo, I think I see NEC's logo on the
right bottom corner. At any rate, the blurb claims it's a "Conference
phone breakthrough!" and sells it for about $1295.

Questions: Is such a product really new? Seems obvious. The moment I
bought a speaker phone earlier this year, I realized it was simplex,
and there could be a need for full duplex. Second, does it cost $1295?
Is it harder to do room echo cancellation than what a cheap full
duplex modem has to do?

Regards,

Jon Sreekanth

Assabet Valley Microsystems            Fax and PC products
346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752        508-562-0722
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 01 Dec 90 01:26:38 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Announcement: The Great Caller-ID Debate


I was visiting MIT recently and noticed a poster announcing:

         The Great Caller-ID Debate

to be held December 6, 1990 from 4pm to 6pm in the Bartos Theater, 20
Ames Street, Cambridge, Mass.  The information number is 617-253-3144.
(This building is the Media Lab.)  Representatives from MIT, Bellcore
and CCL Corp will participate.  I can't go, so if some reading this
does, it would be nice to have a summary posted here.


Peter Capek

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 12:48 CDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Odd Response When Line is Busy


Question: Once in a while when I call a number that is busy several
times in a row I get another dial tone.  Sometimes someone else picks
up the line and tells me to get off.

Can someone tell me what is happening here???


Joseph Tucker
JTUCKER@UMKCVAX2


[Moderator's Note: Is your service coming from some old, ancient
stepper switch or similar? When I was on one of those many years ago
it was not unheard of to get conditions like you mention sometimes.  PAT]

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

From: Bill Crane <daysinns![e-mail]>
Subject: ACD Headset Vendors Needed
Date: 28 Nov 90 20:33:14 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Crane <daysinns![e-mail]>
Organization: Days Inns of America


We are looking for another supplier of Headsets for our sales agents.
There is not really a problem with our current supplier, only that
management wants to explore the current market.  Can any readers
provide me with contacts for any Headset suppliers?

Incidently, we only process incoming calls, so don't blame me
for annoying telemarketers. :-)


Bill Crane                   ...!gatech!daysinns!bill
Days Inns of America Inc     [e-mail]
2751 Buford Hwy NE           Atlanta GA 30324

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

From: [e-mail] (Kurt Baumann)
Subject: Re: IDG Hackers
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Kurt Baumann)
Organization: InterCon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 90 20:48:09 GMT


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

> >> magazine, prompted two Staten Island, N.Y., teen-age brothers to break
> >> into the telephone mail system at International Data Group's
> >> Peterborough, N.H., office - where Gamepro is published - and cause
> >> $2.4 million worth of damage.

> > I wonder how likely that figure is to shrink under the gaze of a
> > competent defense lawyer

> > [Moderator's Note: Suppose the damage was only $24,000; or $240, or
> > $24.  Then what?   PAT]

> I have no sympathy for the "teen-age brothers" who allegedly trashed
> the phone mail system -- if they are guilty they must pay the
> consequences.  And perhaps be made examples of.  [Cheee...  am I in a
> vindictive mood this morning, or what?  :-) ]

> However, I agree with the poster, Mr. Izenberg, about the "spector of
> Bellsouth".  It will be interesting to see how much the claimed monetary
> damages have been "inflated".  [I find the $2.4 million hard to swallow.]

I would have to agree here too.  In fact I thought about sending IDG a
FAX asking what in the world they could have on their voice-mail that
would be worth $2.4M?  Come on, even if they broke in and physically
destroyed the equipment you would be hard pressed to do $2.4M.  It is
also interesting to see this figure coming out of one of their own
periodicals.  (So far I haven't seen it anywhere else) My feeling is
that they are doing themselves and a lot of other people, who get hurt
by people doing the wrong thing, a dis-service by inflating the amount
of damage.  Especially if this amount comes down, the general public
will start getting the opinion that all cases are overly inflated.

I too feel that these kids (I don't think that the 17 year old should
be viewed as an adult, I know how I was at 17 :-)), should pay the
piper.  But to say that they did $2.4M worth of damage is a bit hard
to swallow.


Kurt Baumann        InterCon Systems Corporation
703.709.9890        Creators of fine TCP/IP products
703.709.9896 FAX    for the Macintosh.

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

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 08:43 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think?


Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01![e-mail]> writes:

>In DC this wasn't a problem but in Raleigh, every time [the line is
>left off hook] the phone company disconnects his line and charges him
>$35 to reconnect his line.

Your friend should check the tarriffs and see if there's anything that
allows the phone company to charge for recovering from a permanent
signal, or to disconnect a line when it goes to permanent signal.
Also, it would be and interesting (though expensive) exercise to leave
a line not associated with a computer (or a sysop) off-hook and see if
that line is treated the same.  There may be a case of discrimination
against BBS operators.


edg

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

From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finland Wants 37!!
Date: 29 Nov 90 13:44:01


Kauto Huopio <[e-mail]> writes in TC Digest 851:

>I've heard that our PTT has made a request to obtain the former
>country code of the former East Germany {Country Code 37}

According to an engineer from Chemnitz, country code 37 is still being
used by Germany until the area codes of E. German communities are
reorganized.  The German government hopes to have the new system in
place by the beginning of 1991.  The reason for this is obvious.  Many
eastern German communities have the same area codes as cities and
towns in the former West Germany, but these communities are not
contiguous.  And of course there is the problem of two different
customers in different cities miles apart having the same telephone
number.

Germany is going through the same difficulty with postal zip codes.
For example, 8000 is the zip code for Muenchen in West Germany and
Dresden in East Germany.  For the time being, people mailing letters
to Germany need to put a "W" in front of the zip code for former West
German communities and an "O" <for Ost> for former East German
communities.


Richard Budd   [e-mail]  Marist College   Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

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

From: Mark Steiger <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed Nov 28 90 at 20:24:18 (CST)
Subject: Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling


How can someone access this Alliance Teleconferencing?


[Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142  300/1200/2400/9600 (HST/Dual)]

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: Alliance is an AT&T service for setting up
conference calls between yourself and several other parties. It has
two basic modes of operation: Operator-assisted, 24 hours per day,
from rotary or touch-tone phones: Call 1-800-544-6363 and give your
request to the operator. The other mode allows for a completely
automated conference with no operator intervenion or assistance. This
mode is available Monday through Friday from 6 AM to 7 PM ** from
touch-tone phones only ** by calling 0-700-456-1000. The automatic
mode is fully prompted. Further details and rates available from the
first number at any time.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 0:25:26 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tymnet Information in Archives


The telecom-priv moderator recently received several files of
information regarding Tymnet. Included are files about the outdials,
the costs for international service and others. These files were sent
to the archives by Bryan Buss <[e-mail]>, and since they are
more relevant to telcom rather than Caller*ID and privacy they were
forwarded here.

Look in the Telecom Archives for a sub-directory entitled
'tymnet.info'.

These articles should be installed in the next day or two.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 13:06:45 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: (non) Delivery of comp.dcom.telecom?


I've had a few complaints recently from readers who say the last issue
of TELECOM Digest they've seen in comp.dcom.telecom were the messages
from issue 850 ... since then, nothing.

As of yet, I do not have an answer to this, but will make up missed
copies of the Digest on request, and will add names to the mailing
list here if the news has been erratic at your site.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #859
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12874;
          2 Dec 90 22:21 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29010;
          2 Dec 90 20:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21382;
          2 Dec 90 19:31 CST
Date:     Sun, 2 Dec 90 19:04:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #860
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 2 Dec 90 19:04:04 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 860

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Tony L Hansen]
    Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Ralph W. Hyre]
    Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Building a Phone Line Simulator [David G. Cantor]
    Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Tim Russell]
    Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID [John Higdon]
    Re: No Call Waiting Until Supervised [John Higdon]
    Re: New 410 Code for MD [John Kennedy]
    Re: Lower Hotel Charges [Bill Nickless]
    Re: Anyone Know of Any Chipsets For Mu-Law Digitation [Brian Crawford]
    Marketing Madness [Dave McKellar]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Nov 90 11:52:57 EST
From: Tony L Hansen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From: [e-mail] (Nelson Bolyard)

< Today, an AT&T Mail Customer Assistance Center techincal representative
< dropped this bombshell on me: He is NOT PERMITTED to tell me ANYTHING
< about how to use their Internet mail gateway because it's not
< "official" yet.  He didn't think it was working yet.  When confronted
< with the news that there are people who use it regularly to communciate
< with the internet, his response was that I should reply to a message
< from one of those people and ask them how they do it.  Astounding!  If
< you want to know how to use AT&T Mail, you're better off asking their
< customers, not their Customer Assistance reps?

Nelson,

Let me get this straight: You're offended because AT&T Mail has a test
connection to the Internet, but won't tell you how to use it? Note
that test connections are probably subject to unreasonable amounts of
down time or potentially lost or mangled mail. (I'm not saying that
the AT&T Mail test connection does or does not have these problems.)
They're called "tests" for a reason; tests don't always work perfectly
100% of the time. Obviously some other people are willing to take the
risks; does that mean that AT&T Mail should advertise where to take
the risks?  AT&T Mail has a certain reputation regarding guaranteed
delivery or acknowledgement of non-delivery. In light of this
reputation, non-disclosure of less-than-perfect services by the
Customer Assistance is definitely in line with their goals.


Tony Hansen     att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Apparently the testing is now finished. I got a
note from my contact at att.com saying that a copy of the
documentation would be sent to me for publication in the Digest. As of
yet that documentation has not arrived (either here or my box at
attmail), but assuming it will come eventually, I'm publishing the
next two messages to explain the process.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati
Date: 30 Nov 90 14:15:53 EST (Fri)
From: "Ralph W. Hyre" <[e-mail]>


I believe:

internet!<machine>!user, ie internet!eecs.nwu.edu!telecom

While ONLINE, try 'Help internet' or 'help network', or something like
that.  ATTMail is busy advertising their X.400 interconnections with
other services, I can't imagine why Internet paths would be 'secret.'
[It has never been related to me as such, and I am not especially
privledged.]

Good luck.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
Internet: [e-mail]        Snail Mail: 45150-0085 [ZIP code]
UUCP: att!cinoss1!cinpmx!rhyre        Phone: [phone]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions
Date: 1 Dec 90 16:22:54 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Nelson Bolyard) writes:

> So with no alternative left, I ask Pat and any other AT&T Mail users in
> telecom land, the following questions:

Pat said he's sworn to secrecy because he's an official beta-tester of
the gateway.  Well, I simply stumbled onto it, am not an official beta
tester, am not sworn to secrecy, and hopefully he'll post this message
to the group.

> 1.  How do you, as an AT&T Mail user, address mail to someone on the
> Internet. How would you address mail to me, [e-mail], for
> example?

I would address AT&T Mail to you as "internet!sgi.com!nelson".  Maybe
I'll try it and see if it works!  Might be necessary to throw a smart
mailer in there, like "internet!uunet!sgi.com!nelson".  I can send to
myself at Hayes as "internet!uunet!hayes!tnixon".

> 2.  How do I (an Internet mail user) address mail to you, an AT&T
> Mail user?  I invite you to send me some e-mail from your AT&T Mail
> account. I should be able to figure out the reply address from the
> mail I receive.

You can send mail to me at AT&T Mail as "[e-mail]" or
"uunet!attmail.com!tnixon".


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]


[Moderator's Note: Your instructions are correct. Although the gateway
was officially closed for some time pending software changes and the
making of policy decisions regarding traffic from ATT Mail to our net
and vice-versa, TELECOM Digest has been allowed to pass through to ATT
Mail subscribers for some time. I was asked to say nothing about it
until everything was finalized. I got a note several days ago saying
the documentation would be sent to me for publication, but it has not
arrived. When it does, I'll publish it. In the meantime, the use of
the gateway is very simple: [e-mail] gets it from here to
there; internet!site!username gets it from there to here. For the
purpose of this discussion, Bitnet is considered a 'domain' of the
Internet, i.e. 'internet!nuacc.bitnet!telecom' would reach me as would
'internet!eecs.nwu.edu!telecom'. Likewise, Fido is a 'domain', meaning
you would write to: 'internet!fido.address!username. Always use the
bang (!) style of addressing from ATT Mail; never use '@'.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Building a Phone Line Simulator
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 90 08:41:15 -0800
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


In Telecom V10, #854, Todd Inch  <gtisqr![e-mail].
edu> suggests a circuity for a simple phone line simulator: Here is
(in my opinion) a minor improvement:


|                |         This differes from the original by the
|                |         addition of the (load) resistor.  The
|                |         "battery" can be any DC supply from about
|                |         6 volts to 50 volts and the resistance
|    Line  1     |         should be chosen so that about 20 ma
|                |         flows when the lines are shorted.  That is,
|                |         R = 50 V, where R = restance in ohms and
|                |         V = voltage of supply.  Note that the telco
|                |         standard has V=48 and R around 2400.  None
|                |         of this is critical.  A slightly  better
--battery-\/\/\/ |         simulator is made if the batter is shunted
|                |         by a capacitor, on the order of 10 microfarads.
|                |
|                |
|                |
|                |
|    Line 2      |
|                |
|                |
|                |

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

From: Tim Russell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol
Date: 1 Dec 90 18:56:27 GMT


 From article <[e-mail]>, by nelson%odin.corp.sgi.c
[e-mail] (Nelson Bolyard):

> Maybe TELECOM Digest's readers include someone who still has a copy of
> the NAPLPS standard and who could take a peek at a Prodigy data stream
> to see if it looks familiar.

    Prodigy online documentation confirms that the Prodigy software
does indeed use the NAPLPS videotext standard.


\TR/  Tim Russell
 \/   Omaha NE
 [e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID
Date: 1 Dec 90 11:08:25 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]> writes:

> The simplest explanation is the one that seems to be ignored by most
> people: The phone switching system simply misrouted the Return*Call,
> or garbled the number it remembered.

It was probably ignored because of the virtually zero probability that
it was the case. SS7 data is error-checked and garbled data would be
rejected as invalid. Today's network does not "simply misroute" calls.
And parity-checked RAM does not "garble" numbers that it "remembers".

When I receive a wrong number, I always assume error on the part of
the caller, not in the switching network. To quote a well-known radio
doctor, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."


        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: No Call Waiting Until Supervised
Date: 1 Dec 90 17:24:41 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> Does anybody think that this is an incorrect philosophy?  Is anyone
> REALLY bothered by not being able to get a C.W. while originating a
> call?

Well, yes, actually it is a problem. In PacBellLand, 611 does not
supervise (at least, not in my CO), and I spend a lot of time talking
to these people. (The urge to launch a cheap shot is overwhelming at
this point -- like Pac*Bell customers get to know 611 really well --
but I will be good and keep silent.) What this means is that for the
duration of the call to repair, CW is totally inoperative. Once I
spent a good portion of a morning chatting with the good people at
telephone repair and had many complaints about my busy phone later in
the day.


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

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

From: John Kennedy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 410 Code for MD
Date: 2 Dec 90 14:01:55 GMT
Reply-To: John Kennedy <[e-mail]>
Organization: Second Source, Inc., Annapolis, MD


You're all well aware that now we dial ten digits in the DC area for
local calls across the 703, 301 and 202 area codes.

When 410 splits Maryland next year, there will continue to be local
calls from those area codes above into the new 410 area.

While two of the lines in my home are now long distance to each other
(757 and 858, where 858 is actually Bowie/Glendale), these two lines will
have different area codes and calls remain toll.

A friend in Crofton has two lines that are allowed to call each other
locally.  He will have two different area codes but these lines will
remain local to each other.


John Kennedy    [e-mail]     Second Source, Inc.     Annapolis, MD

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

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 13:32:31 CST
From: Bill   B40417 2-7390 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lower Hotel Charges


Regarding pressing '#' to get a second dial tone from an IXC:

If you accidently dial into a modem line, and the modem answers, the
octothorpe detector may be disabled along with the echo cancellers.  I
observed this behavior on AT&T between Montana and Chicago.

Two frequently dialed numbers differ only in the transposition of the
final two digits.  One is the office of a colleague, and the other is
a modem pool.  I accidently dialed the modem, and was unable to avoid
hanging up and re-entering the AT&T Universal Card number while the
modem tones were active.


[e-mail]

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Anyone Know of Any Chipsets For Mu-Law Digitation.
Date: 2 Dec 90 23:03:00 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(FISHER,MARK DAVID) writes:

> I am thinking about designing/building a seven second delay for our
> campus radio station.

> I've been told that several manufacturers make chip sets to do mu-law
> conversion.  I would be appreciative for any leads as to
> manufacturer/chip numbers and any companies that would sell them in
> single unit quantitys.

The IC Master lists A LOT of mu-law chips of various kinds.  Don't
suppose a simple digital delay line would much good once you had the
signal in digital, would it?  NEC makes several kinds of neat delays
for various applications.


Brian Crawford
enuxha.eas.asu.edu

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

Date: Sun, 2 Dec 90 10:55:56 EST
From: "Dave McKellar @ Digital Media Networks" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Marketing Madness


 From the "Toronto Star", Dec 1, 1990.

 Customer puzzled by Bell survey `results'.

                 By Jack Lakey
                 Toronto Star

    Paul Bergman wants to know how Bell Canada can get the answers
to a customer survey before it was ever mailed out.

    Bergman received a letter from Bell about 10 days ago outlining
"results" from a questionare he and other customers of Bell's new
computer communications system had supposedly received.

    He thought this was odd for two reasons: He never got a question-
naire in the first place, and the letter was dated Dec. 12 - nearly
three weeks later than the Nov. 21 postmark on the enevelope it came
in.

    On Wednesday he got a second letter from Bell, saying that the
"questionare mentioned in the (Dec. 12) letter was unfortunately
omitted."  He was asked to fill out the enclosed survey and mail it
back.

    "I feel that they just made the answers up," said Bergman, 28, a
project manager who lives in Thornhill.  "How can they have results
from a questionare that hasn't been mailed out yet?"

    "It seems like a scam, a cheap sales pitch aimed at people like
me, who arn't using their system.  It's misrepresentation.  They are
fabricating responses.

    "Bell is supposed to be motherhood and apple pie," [:=>] Bergman
said.  "I feel like I've been taken for a ride."

    Bell spokesperson Marilyn Koen said Bergman and as many as 200
other customers mahy have mistakenly been mailed copies of a draft
letter of what a marketing firm hired to conduct the survey thought
the answers would be.

    "We are very embarrasssed," Koen admitted, stressing the letter
should never have been mailed.

    Bergman subscribes to Bell's "ALEX" videotex communications
system, which provides electronic information and allows users to
bank, shop, book airline tickets, read news and communicate with other
suscribers.

    Customers use a personal identification number and a computer
connected to a home or office telephone to access the system.  About
14,000 Metro-area subscribers pay up to 45 cents per minute to use the
service.

    Bergman said he applied for a number when Bell first started the
service in Toronto, about seven months ago.  Though he has computers
at home and in his office, he said he never uses the system "because I
haven't heard a single good thing about it."

    But the Dec. 12 letter with the alleged results of the question-
naire tells subscribers that Bell believes they are delighted with
the system.

    "People who are regular ALEX users most of all love the conven-
ience of ALEX," the letter said.  "They also greatly appreciate the
way ALEX saves them time."

    It says people who are subscribers but don't use the system re-
sponded that "they've just been too busy to get around to it.  And
isn't this a riddle ... Trying to find enough time to get around to a
terrific time-saving tool."

    Bill Kerr, president of KTP Direct, the agency hired by Bell to
handle the marketing campaign, insisted the alleged findings of the
survey "weren't made up," but were the results of asking 60 people the
same questions by telephone.

    Kerr said about 2,000 ALEX subscribers who weren't using the
service were to first be mailed a questionnaire, then send the results
a month later, to stimulate their interest in the system.

    The draft letter was based on the 60-member telephone survey, he
said.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #860
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13803;
          2 Dec 90 23:27 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25776;
          2 Dec 90 21:41 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29010;
          2 Dec 90 20:36 CST
Date:     Sun, 2 Dec 90 19:37:52 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Comp.dcom.fax Vote Passes! New Group to be Established
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


To readers of TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom:

The special announcement which follows notes that comp.dcom.fax will
most likely be established as a Usenet newsgroup over the next two
weeks or so. In keeping with the spirit of this announcement, I
suggest that henceforth the majority of messages relating to Fax
products and services should be posted to the new comp.dcom.fax group
rather than in telecom as in the past. Obviously there will be
exceptions to the rule, and instances where a news item or commentary
applies equally to telecom and fax. Naturally, those items should be
cross-posted, bearing in mind that moderator's approval is still
required where comp.dcom.telecom is concerned. Please keep in mind
also that some readers of telecom -- mainly those who read TELECOM
Digest because they do not receive net news -- may not see messages
posted only to comp.dcom.fax.

My best wishes for the success of the new newsgroup!


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator  / TELECOM Digest / comp.dcom.telecom

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

  From: Evan Leibovitch <[e-mail]>
  Subject: comp.dcom.fax vote passes
  Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
  Date: Sun, 2 Dec 1990 19:00:17 -0500
  Followup-To: news.groups

Thankfully, the minor controversy which accompanied the call for votes
dissipated quickly. In its place, a clean, uneventful vote...

The final tally:

Yes: 207 (86.6%)
No :  32 (13.3%)

Thank you all for voting. A complete list of voters appears below.

I now ask for a one-week waiting period, during which time anyone may
voice any concerns about lost votes, etc. After that period, I would
call upon Eliot to issue the newgroup message since the vote has
passed relatively decisively (and uneventfully, at least recently).

NOTES:
======

One voter withdrew his NO vote as he objected to the voter list being
publicly posted (standard procedure, I believe);

One voter said he'd vote YES, but only if it was close and his vote
would make a difference. I have not included his vote in the above
figures.

"NO" VOTES (32):
================
Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Bill Ashmanskas <[e-mail]>
Bob Clair <[e-mail]>
Bob Sloane <[e-mail]>
Dan Schlitt <[e-mail]>
Ed McGuire <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Programmin' up a storm.)
Jeff Beadles <m2xenix!qiclab!onion![e-mail]>
Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Arthur David Olson)
bond![e-mail] (Pawan Misra)
[e-mail] (Charleen Bunjiovianna Stoner)
[e-mail] (Craig S. Wilson)
[e-mail] (David Robinson)
[e-mail] (Eric Dittman)
[e-mail] (Dave Rand)
[e-mail] (Ron Heiby)
igloo.Scum.com![e-mail] (Bill Fischer)
[e-mail] (Brian Kenney)
[e-mail] (Kip J. Guinn)
[e-mail] (Laird Heal)
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Leonard Peirce)
[e-mail] (Raymond Chen)
[e-mail] (Richard H. Miller)
[e-mail] (Tim Sullivan)
uunet!aspect!kevinc
uunet!intrbas!gollum.LOCAL!schuldy (Mark)
uunet!motcid!marble!ibbotson (Craig Ibbotson)
uunet!motcid!void!marocchi (Jim Marocchi)
[e-mail] (Bill Fischer)
[e-mail] (Paul J Zawada)

"YES" VOTES (207):
==================
tmp/[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Adri Verhoef <[e-mail]>
Allan D. Griefer <[e-mail]>
Amir Plivatsky <[e-mail]>
Andy Malis <[e-mail]>
Andy Rabagliati <uunet!inmos.com!andyr>
[e-mail]
Atro Tossavainen <[e-mail]>
Barton F.Bruce <[e-mail]>
Bengt Larsson <[e-mail]>
Bill Campbell <[e-mail]>
Bob Yasi <[e-mail]>
Brain in Neutral <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
Bryon Johnson <[e-mail]>
Chip Hill <[e-mail]>
Chris Sowden <[e-mail]>
Christopher Bryden <[e-mail]>
Cliff Stanford <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
David Herron <[e-mail]>
David Yoon <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
Dion Johnson <[e-mail]>
Dmitry V. Volodin <[e-mail]>
Douglas F. DeJulio <[e-mail]>
Ed Basart <[e-mail]>
Ed Braaten <[e-mail]>
Ed Hall <[e-mail]>
Ed Vielmetti <[e-mail]>
Evan Leibovitch <[e-mail]>
Farhad Afrahi <[e-mail]>
Frank D. Cringle <uunet!materna!fdc>
Fred E.J. Linton <uunet!EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU!FLINTON>
Geoff Twibell <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Harald Boegeholz <[e-mail]>
Hardy Pottinger <[e-mail]>
Havard Eidnes <[e-mail]>
Ittai Hershman <[e-mail]>
James H. Thompson - HNL <uunet!verifone.com!jimmy_t>
Jim Battan <[e-mail]>
Jim Knowles <[e-mail]>
Joel B Levin <[e-mail]>
John Mann <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Kevin Purcell <[e-mail]>
Larry Masinter <[e-mail]>
Lars H}kedal <[e-mail]>
Lauren Leibovitch <[e-mail]>
Mark Alexander Davis <[e-mail]>
Matthew Farwell <[e-mail]>
Monte Bateman <[e-mail]>
Ofer Inbar <[e-mail]>
Olaf Brandt <uunet!lupine!olaf>
Peter Quirk <[e-mail]>
Petri Helenius <[e-mail]>
Philip Gladstone <[e-mail]>
Purcell <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Frederick G. M. Roeber)
Robin Schaufler <[e-mail]>
Samuel Lam <[e-mail]>
Scott Barman <[e-mail]>
Scott Kay <[e-mail]>
Sergio Fogel <[e-mail]>
Stan Barber <[e-mail]>
Stefan Karlsson <[e-mail]>
Steve Elias <[e-mail]>
Steve Hayman <[e-mail]>
Steve Huff, U. of Kansas, Lawrence <[e-mail]>
Steven P. Donegan <zardoz!stanton!donegan>
Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Tom Dubinski <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
Walter Doerr <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Rene Stolarczyk)
[e-mail] (Stacie Simerson)
[e-mail] (Amanda Corie)
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Stan Voket)
atrc!mofh![e-mail] (alvan tom)
auspex![e-mail] (Brian Ehrmantraut)
[e-mail] (Bruce Balden)
bandw![e-mail] (Craig Goss)
[e-mail] (Benjamin Chase)
[e-mail]
blackbox![e-mail] (Chris Bradley)
[e-mail] (Doug Blair)
[e-mail] (BMUG)
[e-mail] (Bruce Lilly)
[e-mail] (Carl Rigney)
[e-mail] (Charlie Kestner)
christopher williams <[e-mail]>
[e-mail]
coplex![e-mail] (John Vaccaro)
[e-mail] (Curt Sampson)
[e-mail] (Cyndee Richards)
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Tim Dayger)
dciem!gandalf!alayne (Alayne McGregor)
dciem!jsitcom!brett
[e-mail] (David Dodell)
decwrl!teda!attain![e-mail] (Jim Hickstein)
[e-mail] (Daniel E Zuccarelli)
[e-mail] (Gihan Dias)
[e-mail] (woody)
[e-mail]
dscatl!daysinns![e-mail]
[e-mail] (Rob Gibson)
[e-mail] (Ed Hew)
[e-mail] (Edward Un, Multimedia Platform Products)
[e-mail] (Elliott S Frank)
[e-mail] (Fernando J. Selman)
fmsystm![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
foxtail![e-mail]
[e-mail] (Fred Rump from home)
[e-mail] (Stephen Friedl)
[e-mail] (Geert Jan de Groot)
[e-mail]
halcyon![e-mail]
[e-mail] (H. S. Magnuski)
[e-mail] (Tony L Hansen)
[e-mail] (Heiko Schlichting)
[e-mail] (Vera Heinau)
[e-mail]
iexist!dem (David E. Martin)
inesc![e-mail] (Miguel Casteleiro)
[e-mail] (Irving Wolfe)
[e-mail] (John F. Woods)
[e-mail] (Jim Gottlieb)
[e-mail] (Jiro Nakamura NeXT Developer)
[e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
[e-mail] (John R. Levine)
[e-mail] (Jon Sreekanth)
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Jamie Saker)
[e-mail] (James G Keegan Jr)
klaus u schallhorn <cnix![e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Ken Mandelberg)
[e-mail] (Bob Kusumoto)
[e-mail] (Lar Kaufman)
[e-mail] (Lar Kaufman)
[e-mail] (Leif Ljung /DP)
[e-mail] ("Mark Corbould")
[e-mail] (Mark Adams)
[e-mail] (Michael C. Berch)
[e-mail] (Mark M Mehl)
[e-mail] (Melchior A. Meilchen)
[e-mail] (Jim Mercer)
merk!cogsys![e-mail]
[e-mail] (David Hayes)
mje99![e-mail] (Mark J Elkins)
[e-mail] (M.R.Murphy)
[e-mail] (David Muir Sharnoff)
[e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
[e-mail] (Bill Campbell)
olsa99!tabbs![e-mail] (Aris Stathakis)
[e-mail] (Paolo Crini)
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Pat Cain)
[e-mail] (Paul Maclauchlan)
[e-mail] (Per Hedeland)
[e-mail] (Phil Weinberg SPS)
[e-mail] (Phillip Everson)
[e-mail] (Daniel Poirot)
polari![e-mail] (Don Wennick)
[e-mail] (Peter Preuss)
[e-mail] (Ray Smith)
resumix!sparcport![e-mail] (Mark Stevans)
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Roger H. Brown)
[e-mail] (Richard J. Sexton)
[e-mail] (Robert A. Kukura)
[e-mail] (0000-Admin(0000))
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Russell Lawrence)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman)
[e-mail] (Scott J Loftesness)
[e-mail] (Stuart Lynne)
[e-mail] (Joel Swan)
[e-mail] (Karl Tombre)
[e-mail] (Thorn Roby)
uunet!blackbox!cbradley (Chris Bradley)
uunet!bywater!scifi!njs (Nicholas J. Simicich)
uunet!cdl!pajari
uunet!consult!bob
uunet!domain.com!mdv (Mike Verstegen)
uunet!gammalink.com!mikes (mike spann)
uunet!kksys.KKSYS.MN.ORG!gk (Greg Kemnitz)
uunet!paralogics!compsm!rlg
uunet!pnet51.orb.mn.org!elec (Doug Renner)
uunet!wubios.wustl.edu!phil (J. Philip Miller)
uunet!yale!bronson!tan (Tan Bronson)
[e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
virtech![e-mail] (Conor P. Cahill)
[e-mail]
[e-mail] (William Clare Stewart)
well![e-mail] (Bill White)
[e-mail]
wolves.uucp![e-mail] (Gregory G. Woodbury)
[e-mail]


Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
     [e-mail] / uunet!attcan!telly!evan / [phone]
      Keep an open mind -- you'll never know what might fall in.











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11769;
          4 Dec 90 0:24 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23165;
          3 Dec 90 22:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27922;
          3 Dec 90 21:02 CST
Date:     Mon, 3 Dec 90 20:57:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #861
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 3 Dec 90 20:57:09 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 861

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Randy Borow]
    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Quick-Conference from US Sprint [Roger Clark Swann]
    Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Wolfgang S. Rupprecht]
    Re: Odd Response When Line is Busy [John Higdon]
    Re: Hello Direct's Conference Phone [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism [Marvin Sirbu]
    Re: What Number am I? [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: New 410 Code for MD [Carl Moore]
    Re: Lower Hotel Charges [John Higdon]
    Re: The "Bell" Logo [Subodh Bapat]
    Two Line Turnbutton Phones [Ed Greenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Dec  3 10:45:24 CST 1990
Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing


For those who have asked, here's a bit more on ALLIANCE teleconferencing:

*While traditionally a conference system for several users, it can be
used for from two callers to 58, although it's more cost-effective to
utilize three-way calling if your local service allows such.

*ALLIANCE can even be used for local conferencing. Seems many local
telcos no longer provide such conferencing abilities. When I inquired
about it from my LEC (Illinois Bell), they suggested using ALLIANCE.

*Charges are 25c per minute per location (the bridge charge as it's
called), as well as the regular LD charge for each location (based on
the bridge location used: Chicago, White Plains, Dallas, and Reno),
charged as calls from those locales.

*Local conference calls are billed at the usual 25c/min. bridge
charge, but because they are not truly LD calls, they're billed at
rates dependent on time of day, at a minimum rate. The rates vary, but
the operator quoted me a ballpark figure of c. 18c first min., 8c each
additional (lower for evenings and night/weekends).

*When calling after the automated access can no longer be used, the
operator will assist you in setting up and passing control to you
without being charged operator-assisted rates.

*The originator can hang up early and pass control to another
conferee; however, originator's billing will continue (of course).

*ALLIANCE's "Meet Me" service (which can also be done automatically)
allows callers to set up conference calls individually by calling a
special # at a predetermined time and punching a few keys, etc.

All in all, ALLIANCE is a convenient, and easy service to use. If
anyone desires more {printed} information regarding ALLIANCE, I have a
limited number of brochures and/or wallet cards available.


Randy Borow (Rolling Meadows, IL.)
attmail!internet!bcm1a09!rborow
[phone], ext. 7614

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

Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 10:04:55 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: bill <[e-mail]>


> [Moderator's Note: ...

> The other mode allows for a completely
> automated conference with no operator intervention or assistance. This
> mode is available Monday through Friday from 6 AM to 7 PM ** from
> touch-tone phones only ** by calling 0-700-456-1000. The automatic
> mode is fully prompted.  PAT]

Patrick, an important note here.  0-700-456-1000 will only work, as
dialed, if AT&T is your default carrier.  To be sure:

                 dial  10288-0-700-456-1000.

Most of us here realize this, but I thought I'd make it more precise
for those who didn't know about the '10288' LD carrier access code
being necessary if their default carrier is not AT&T.


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


[Moderator's Note: Of course you are correct ... I guess I sometimes
ignore the need for 10288 since I have never given serious thought to
the idea of *not* having AT&T as my default carrier.  :) PAT

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Quick-Conference From US Sprint
Date: 1 Dec 90 05:55:37 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


I just spotted a news item from Sprint in {Telephony} / November 26,
1990 regarding the introduction of Quick-Conference. Foncard user's
can now set up a three-way conference call from a push button phone
without operator assistance. To access Quick-Conference, a user calls
the first party, then enters *12 to put the call on hold. The user
then dials the second party and enters *13, the bridge code, to bring
all three parties into the conference call. The cost of the service is
the regular long distance charges plus a $0.75 bridge charge.

                            ---------

OK, sounds neat and I might even use it. However, I do have a couple
of questions:

The first is technical, do they dedicate a tone decoder to each
circuit for the duration of the call? Remember there is no *flash*
used here ... Or do they time out the tone decoders after say a
minute?

The second, can this be used from a line with Sprint as the primary
LDC, using 1+ dialing???


    Roger Swann           uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @
The Boeing Company

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

From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wsrcc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions
Organization: Wolfgang S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Washington DC.
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 17:06:47 GMT


[e-mail] (Nelson Bolyard) writes:

>So with no alternative left, I ask Pat and any other AT&T Mail users in
>Telecom-land, the following questions:

>2.  How do I (an Internet mail user) address mail to you, an AT&T Mail user?
>    I invite you to send me some e-mail from your AT&T Mail account.
>    I should be able to figure out the reply address from the mail I receive.

psuvax1.psu.edu!cbis3!attmail!<username>

>1.  How do you, as an AT&T Mail user, address mail to someone on the Internet.
>    How would you address mail to me, [e-mail], for example?

attmail!cbis3!psuvax1.psu.edu!<machine>!<user>

This assumes attmail can send to uucp addresses.  I have no idea about
this silly mail service.

Why wouldn't one just run UUPC on their own pc and get uucp mail
connectivity for free?  UUPC is a PD uucp clone by Rick Lamb. It's
avalable on uunet and other PD sources archives.


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


[Moderator's Note: I think the preferred addressing for outbound from
ATT Mail is:  internet!wherever.domain!username. And it is really a
moot point as to whether or not ATT Mail can reach uucp addresses,
since all they do (I believe) is hand off everything to the Internet
for routing, including Bitnet and Fido, and I assume uucp as well.
Regarding your comment about running a uucp clone and 'getting it for
free', I'd be interested in hearing about the deal you cut with C&P to
give you a no-charge phone line for your site.   PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Odd Response When Line is Busy
Date: 2 Dec 90 16:52:50 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> Question: Once in a while when I call a number that is busy several
> times in a row I get another dial tone.  Sometimes someone else picks
> up the line and tells me to get off.

> [Moderator's Note: Is your service coming from some old, ancient
> stepper switch or similar?

Crossbar is particularly vulnerable to this type of problem. It is
known as "double connection" and is briefly mentioned in the service
manuals and in some Bellcore publications. If you compare a crossbar
system to mechanical computer, it is easy to see how this can happen.
The "CPU" is the marker, whose job it is to allocate resources and
connect them at the proper time. Being a mechanical device (a bunch of
relays) and working with registers, trunk units, etc. that are also
mechanical, it can become confused regarding the availability of a
particular line or trunk unit and seize two at once. Dialing a number
can simultaneously produce a busy signal and dial tone, or more
likely, a busy and RBT which may eventually be answered and may or may
not be the party you were calling, etc., etc.


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

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 02:05 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Hello Direct's Conference Phone


Jon Sreekanth described an NEC VoicePoint speakerphone unit and asks:

> Questions: Is such a product really new? Seems obvious. The moment I
> bought a speaker phone earlier this year, I realized it was simplex,
> and there could be a need for full duplex. Second, does it cost $1295?
> Is it harder to do room echo cancellation than what a cheap full
> duplex modem has to do?

No, the concept is not new.  Shure Teleconferencing Systems (among
others) has been selling an extremely high performance unit for years,
but at twice to thrice the cost.  Yes, the price is real.  Yes, it is
quite hard to do full-duplex with echo cancellation, especially for
calls carried by satellite.  And, the product "really, really works."

The International Teleconferencing Association awards committee (for
whom I am a judge) was so impressed with the price-performance of the
VoicePoint that we tabbed it the Outstanding Audioconferencing Product
of 1989-90.  This is not an endorsement; instead it is an exhortation
to anyone who has not used full-duplex speakerphone equipment.  The
difference is similar to going from 300 baud to 2400 baud, from SXS to
ESS.  It will permanently change the way you think about
audioconferencing, and it will enable you to achieve real hands-free
talking without that devastating barrel effect.  Your listeners will
not mind that you are on a speakerphone ... if they can tell, that is.

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

Date: Mon,  3 Dec 90 00:34:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Responds to E-Mail Criticism


The Prodigy system is designed like a multi-level memory hierarchy.
Information is stored initially at some nationwide location.  As it is
demanded in a particular city, it is copied to the city node and
cached there.  Thus subsequent reads do not require a transfer from
the national headquarters to the regional node.  (Cacheing is also
done in the PC, but that is irrelevant to the point of this message)

A bboard post, if widely read, will be copied from the national host
to each regional, and then read from the regional many times.  Thus,
every transfer from the national to the regional is "amortized" over
multiple reads.  I infer from the information supplied by Prodigy that
all individually addressed mail goes up to the national host and then
down to the regional for delivery to the recipient.

I also suspect for efficiency, the regionals are designed only to do
object cacheing, independently of the type of object. If so, it would
be a fairly radical change to reimplement mail so that mail objects
with multiple destinations are not replicated at the national host,
but in a two step process that would send one replica to each region
where there are addressees, and the region would then replicate the
object for each addressee. This would require the regionals to do more
than object cacheing: they would have to examine the content of the
object.

If replication does happen at the national level, then, indeed, a
multi-addressed message is much less efficient than a bboard post.


Marvin Sirbu
Carnegie Mellon

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

Date: Mon, 03 Dec 90 06:25 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What Number am I?


"Gary D. Archer" <[e-mail]> writes:

>In the 408 ac calling 760-xxxx results in an automatic voice readback
>of the number you're calling from.  It goes pretty quickly and you

This also works as far as I can tell from many places (but not
everywhere) in 415 as well.


Andy Jacobson<[e-mail]>

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 9:55:40 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New 410 Code for MD


(I can't send to [e-mail] !  This replies to a note from him.)

Huh?  What local calls will there be going into 410 from 202 and from
703?

I have already written in the Digest about local calls from Laurel and
Silver Spring going across what will become the 301/410 boundary.  How
will those local calls (now seven digit because they're within 301
area) be dialed after the 301/410 split?  Am I correct in the
assumptions I have sent to the Digest? <-- Laurel, except for
Baltimore-metro prefixes, stays in 301; Columbia, except for prefixes
which are local to Washington, will go into 410.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Lower Hotel Charges
Date: 3 Dec 90 10:54:58 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Bill   B40417 2-7390 <[e-mail]> writes:

> Two frequently dialed numbers differ only in the transposition of the
> final two digits.  One is the office of a colleague, and the other is
> a modem pool.  I accidently dialed the modem, and was unable to avoid
> hanging up and re-entering the AT&T Universal Card number while the
> modem tones were active.

As far as AT&T is concerned:

The real reason for this is that the '#' "recall" function is diaabled
during supervision. It wouldn't matter if it was a modem on the other
end or your Aunt Sophie -- as long as the call is supervised (distant
end off hook), you cannot use the '#' to make another call. To make
another call, you MUST wait for the called party to hang up or use the
'#' before they answer.

This has been an inconvenience at times, since I occasionally use a
DISA. If I call into the DISA and make a mistake, the only way to
recover is to physically hang up and dial again; since the DISA will
not disconnect until the caller hangs up, the '#' is useless.


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

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
Date: 3 Dec 90 16:46:28 GMT
Organization: (I don't speak for) Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL


Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that,
once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the
copyright expired and they forgot to renew it? The story I heard was
that they had to pay a lot of money to get it back from some smart
entrepreneur who, in the meantime, sneaked in and got the copyright
for himself.

Anyone have any facts to substantiate/dispel this rumor?


Subodh Bapat              [e-mail]     OR           ...uunet!rm1!bapat
MS E-204, PO Box 407044,  Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I've never heard that story before. Readers?   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 08:51 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Two Line Turnbutton Phones


The Moderator (or anybody else) should be able to buy one of these
from any telecom vendor.  (I don't mean Hello Direct but rather a
supplier like North.)

It might also be interesting to contact AT&T and ask if you can buy
out the lease and what it would cost.

One question, Patrick, weren't you offered the option to buy this set
during divestature?
                                -edg


[Moderator's Note: No. I wish I was ... but the two-line, one-button
phones were specifically *not* for sale during divestiture. They were
then categorized as PBX equipment even though they were frequently
used in homes instead of business places. And to this day, they are
one type of phone the AT&T Phone Stores cannot help you with, other
than to act as a depot to turn in broken sets or take them off lease.
If I want to replace the one I have, I must call AT&T Consumer
Products, and they ship out a new one by United Parcel Service the
same day. I give the one going back to the UPS driver at the time the
new one arrives in a carton the driver has for that purpose.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #861
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27907;
          4 Dec 90 14:16 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id dn01625; 4 Dec 90 11:59 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26752;
          4 Dec 90 1:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32234;
          4 Dec 90 0:10 CST
Date:     Mon, 3 Dec 90 23:28:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #862
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 3 Dec 90 23:27:52 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 862

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI Personal 800 - General Information [Bill Huttig]
    UK City Codes to Change [Ken Jongsma]
    Modem Development Equipment [Jeff Wilkinson]
    Public Access to CCITT Bulletin Board [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Tone That Prompts You For Calling Card Number [Jon Sreekanth]
    What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Peter Anvin]
    Parity Checking in Memory [Nicholas J. Simicich]
    Future Projections of Area Code Growth [Subodh Bapat]
    Need Help Finding AT&T Proto Magazine [Roger Clark Swann]
    Do You Need an Answering Service? [Jeff Scheer]
    Re: Pizza Pizza Toll-Free Cellular Number [Charles "Chip" Roberson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 06:47:57 EST
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Personal 800 - General Information
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, CS Dept., Melbourne, FL


 I delayed posting this waiting for my info packet from MCI but
decided to post it now. I called MCI/Telecom*USA (800-933-4040) which
is the customer service number for the 800/800 Primetime Services.
They found an account for me.  It seems that they only have two of the
PrimeTime services available with the 800 service. The $7.50 first
hour National Plan and the one with the state option ($8.25 in FL)
both include the $1 for a 10% daytime discount.  800 calls are priced
at 10.83 cents per minute and (along with your 1+ calls ) count
towards the first hour. Daytime calls are 25 cents per minute but
receive a 10% discount + $2/mo per 800 number.

 None of the other calling plans are available ... ie. Call Canada,
etc.  All billing will be done via the Telecom*USA billing centers.  I
guess that means the old SoutherNet (including SouthLand) and the old
Teleconnect parts.

The plan for current MCI customers is called 800 companion plan and is
billed at $2/mo and the 10.83 cents per minute during Primetime hours
and 25 cents/min with 10% discount. All 800 calls will come on a
separate bill from the Telecom*USA Billing Center. Your MCI calls will
appear on the bill they are now using. (Your local telco bill or one
directly from MCI.)

Depending on which account you have you have to dial the proper PIC if
not 1+.

If you have the 800 Prime Time you need to dial over the Telecom*USA
network via 10835 if you live in an old Teleconnect area or 10852 if
you live in a old SouthernNet area. (They may have other PIC's).  If
you have the account from MCI you need to use 10222.

I had them transfer my old Telecom*USA account into the new 800 Prime
Time account.  They even transfered my * Card and SoutherNet card
(originally signed up at SouthLand which was bought by SoutherNet
which merged into Telecom*USA) to the new account.

When I get my packet in the mail I will update this posting with
calling card information and anything else they include.

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

Subject: UK City Codes to Change
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 5:58:27 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Coming right on the heels of the London City Code change, the {London
Financial Times} reports that British Telecom is requesting approval to
add one digit to all city codes in the UK. BT expresses the usual
argument that with the explosion of FAX, modem and other users, the
country is running out of numbers. Initially, the change would be made
by adding the number 1 after the trunk access code 0. Hence, 071 in
London would become 0171.

No date was given for th change, except the BT wants to wait until
most mechanical exchanges have been converted to digital, to make the
change easier.

(From the same edition of the {Financial Times}: AT&T wants to
purchase NCR.)


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

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

From: Jeff Wilkinson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Development Equipment
Organization: Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis MN
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 20:27:55 GMT


I am looking for a DSP engine to plug into a PC or other workstation
and interface to the telephone network with a minimum of external
hardware.  It would be used as a modem prototyping system.  Anyone
know of any companies which sell this sort of hardware? (I know the
DSP part is not a problem, its the _approved_ phone interface which
connects to it that seems hard to find.)

Thanks in advance.


Jeff Wilkinson      [e-mail]
Medtronic, Inc.     7000 Central Ave NE
       Voice [phone]

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

Date: Mon,  3 Dec 90 14:31:29 EST
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public Access to CCITT Bulletin Board
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


The ITU (International Telecommunications Union), parent body to the
CCITT, now has a public bulletin board for information retrieval.  The
service is called TIES, Telecom Information Exchange Services.

Access is either by the telephone network and modem, or by packet
networks.

The login procedure from the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network)
is by calling [phone], which provides access through a
multistandard modem interface.  CCITT V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, and
Bell 212A modems are supporteds.  Terminal emulation is ANSI/VTXXX.

 From the PSPDN (Public Switched Packet Data Network) access is via
the Swiss TELEPAC using the DTE number #228468111112, where # is your
local access.

The Username INFO, with no password, can be used by any person for the
access to the Public Information available on the ITU Info service.

Participants in CCITT Study Groups can obtain a login and make use of
the e-mail and electronic conference facilities, as well as uploading
drafts etc.


Herman Silbiger
[e-mail]

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number
Date: 3 Dec 90 21:06:37


I know the subject line sounds obscure; I couldn't describe it any
better in one line.

 From a public phone, for example, to make an operator assisted call,
or to make a calling card, one might dial 0 - area code - number. Then
there's a pause, and a sound best described as a 'boiiiing', or a
'pinnng', and after that, one enters the calling card number (or after
time out, operator comes on line.)

What are the specs on that tone? Frequency (single, or mixture of
frequencies), envelope, duration, etc.

(We're thinking of using that as a prompt on one of our products.)


Thanks,

Jon Sreekanth

Assabet Valley Microsystems            Fax and PC products
346 Lincoln St #722, Marlboro, MA 01752        508-562-0722
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 03:59:33 CST
From: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?
Reply-To: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>
Organization: Academic Computing and Network Services, Evanston, Il.


Could anyone please explain what that mystical area code 700 is, and
what is so special with the exchange number 555?

I know 555-1212 is the information number, but there must be something
else that is special with it, or no?  Is there a reason for it being
used as a "foo" for phone numbers (no one takes number 555-1234
seriously, no?)

Finally, does the customer pay for calls to area code 700?


[Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number
for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little
else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses
something like 555-8111, but that is about all.  Other examples?

Whether or not you are charged for calls to 700 numbers depends on
what carriers and services are involved. 700 is sort of like 900, with
various services and offerings on a carrier by carrier basis. Unlike
900 numbers which are either national or local/statewide, 700 numbers
are by carrier, meaning an AT&T customer usually cannot directly
access the services of other carriers on 700 numbers, etc. Telecom*USA
has their Voice News Network there for *their* customers; AT&T has
their Alliance Teleconferencing Service there as we discussed a couple
issues ago. Does anyone have a complete (more or less) list of
everything in the 700 range, listed by carrier? If so, please send it
along.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 12:40:58 EST
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Parity Checking in Memory


All parity checking does is reduces the chance of an undetected error.
It does not eliminate it.

I've worked with digital and modem communications for some years now.
Although rare, I've been shown garbled data which passed crc-16 checks
three times now in my career.  (This data was collected during traces,
or in other cases where people were looking for garbled data because
of a prior occurence.)  The answer was, "It happens, and you should
have a second end-to-end check on correct transmission, and not rely
on link level reliability."

The point is that something like TELECOM Digest acts as a lightning
rod for unusual events.  For any particular Return*Call, it is almost
a certainty that, yes, the system will function correctly, and so
forth.  For any particular occurence unusual enough to report to
TELECOM Digest, I'd put the odds at no better than 50%.  :-)

As for your comment about parity checked memory: All parity does is to
raise the bar.  Some number of failures will be single bit, and will
be detected by [parity, ecc, etc.].  Some much smaller number of
errors will be multi-bit, and with the pattern of affected bits such
that they will not be detected (any two bit error for parity memory,
for example).  And you might remember the report a while back, I think
in Telecom, but it might have bee in one of the TCP/IP lists, about
this particular high speed (rf or something) modem that frequently
constructed bytes that were in error but which produced the same
incremental CRC change as the original bytes that were not in error.
I'm sure there are other fun examples.

To finalize, by putting a little twist on your analogy: TELECOM Digest
is a zoo of the unusual.  In a zoo, zebras are just as likely as
horses.


Nick Simicich (NJS at WATSON, [e-mail]) ---SSI AOWI #3958, HSA #318


[Zookeeper's Note: Thank you very much for an unusual and different
response.  PAT]

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Future Projections of Area Code Growth
Date: 3 Dec 90 16:22:55 GMT
Organization: (I don't speak for) Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL


Thanks to [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) for posting a very informative and
entertaining history of area code changes!

Now, does anyone have any projections as to the rate at which area
code changes will be required in future? Seems to me from recent
history that the frequency with which new area codes are required has
been increasing in recent years - a trend which, I suspect, will only
accelerate with the proliferation of cellular, fax, and related
technologies.

If anybody has Bellcore's (or anybody else's) projections for new area
codes beyond 1992 and/or planned changes to basic NANP
syntax/structure, I'd appreciate their sending it to the Digest.


Subodh Bapat              [e-mail]     OR           ...uunet!rm1!bapat
MS E-204, PO Box 407044,  Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340  [phone]

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

From: Roger Clark Swann <![e-mail]>
Subject: Need Help Finding AT&T Proto Magazine
Date: 3 Dec 90 21:27:39 GMT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


I just received a copy of {Proto Magazine} from AT&T that I did not
request. This is the first and only copy and I want it to be the last!
I want the thing turned off as it is just more junk mail to me. My
problem is that I can't find a phone number to call and get removed
from the mailing list. There is no info regarding circulation, etc. in
the publication itself except for the address of Bell Labs in N.J.
that publishes Proto and this address looks rather general and not
related to circulation.  I looked in the AT&T business edition 800
directory, nothing there. I would call 800 DA but what AT&T group do I
ask for?  Bell Labs, Network Systems?  (It says the magazine is
published for them.)

If anyone knows how to stop this thing, please let me know too.

    Roger Swann               |    uucp:  uw-beaver!ssc-vax!clark
         @                    |
The Boeing Company            |



[Moderator's Note: Why don't you try calling AT&T Labs in New Jersey
and asking for the Public Relations Department?  I'm sure they could
help you. At the same time, take the label from the cover of the
magazine and return it to the address given to the attention of the
Public Relations Department and ask them to remove it from the
mailing. I'm sure they don't feel like wasting copies of their
magazine where they are not wanted.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 02 Dec 90 11:17:06 EST
From: Jeff Scheer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Do You Need an Answering Service?


[Moderator's Note: I am making *this one exception* to the usual rule
of no commercial advertising on the net. This fellow could probably
use the support of netters, and telecom readers in particular. Respond
direct to him, not to the Digest. Please do not send other commercial
messages here unless your circumstances are like those described.   PAT]

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

If anyone is interested in a low cost telephone answering service,
please don't hesitate to call GRAND CENTRAL TELEPHONE ANSWERING
SERVICE IN COUNCIL BLUFFS IOWA.  I am a disabled man in a wheelchair,
that is tired of living ( HAHAHA) off of social security and own my
own home.  With no employees, with the exception of a roommate, that I
have answer on the night shift, we can provide TELECOM users with
answering service/ wake up service/ and Word Processing using Word
Perfect 5.1.

If you are interested in such a service, please give me a call at
712-325-0443 voice/modem.  After January, I will list the number that
the telco gives me as a primary pilot hunt group number.

For rates and services, please call.

Thanks!     Jeff Scheer, GRAND CENTRAL TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICE.

 The .COMmand Center  (Opus 1:5010/23)

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

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

From: Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pizza Pizza Toll-Free Cellular Number
Date: 4 Dec 90 03:25:01 GMT
Reply-To: Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurw02![e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC


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

> (I think someone said that *NC will get you the North Carolina
> Highway Patrol).

It might be *HP.  It at least belongs to one of the following: NC, VA,
MD, WV, or PA.

Cheers,

chip


* Work:  2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609  [phone]
* (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || ([e-mail]) ||
* ([e-mail]) || ([e-mail])
#include <disclaimer.h>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #862
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13667;
          5 Dec 90 5:58 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04824;
          5 Dec 90 4:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22146;
          5 Dec 90 3:10 CST
Date:     Wed, 5 Dec 90 2:19:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #863
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Dec 90 02:19:36 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 863

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New York Automated Credit System [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    New GTE Mobilnet / SF "Feature" [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Theft of Phone Service [Van Gale]
    AT&T Calling Card Blocking [Jack Dominey]
    NXX's per NPA [Dave Esan]
    Unanswered Trunk Enhancement (was: Dialing Own Number...) [Steve Rhoades]
    Stupid AT&T Ad [Erik Naggum]
    California SXS Touchtone Refund [Ed Hopper]
    Use of 10732 For LD Calls [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: New York Automated Credit System
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 05:19 EST


I just noticed that if you dial NY Tel's credit office for the New
York Metro area, you get a recording that says:

"You have reached New York Telephone's automated credit system. To
receive credit for calls on which you experienced service
difficulties, simply hang up after you hear the tone. For other
credit, please stay on the line, and a representative will help you.
<Beep>"

So when you dial 211 (credit office), you no longer have to hear:
"Number called, pleasemmmm ... Credit has beennnnn arAYenGEDD ...
Thank you".

Sort of miss it, in a way ... but you can still talk to a live person
if you made a Calling Card call and need credit, etc.

Also, if your call was out of state, or just any INTER-LATA call,
after you call 211 and tell them the number, they connect you with
AT&T. I wonder if they do this for Sprint, MCI, et. al.?? (Probably
not -- they would quickly run out of lines if they had customers
holding for Sprint credit for the usual hour or so! :-) )

This sort of reminds me of GTE Mobilnet SF's system: If your call gets
cut off and you call back in less than a minute (?), you automatically
get credit for the cut off call. Your initial / "cut off" call may
also have some time limit on it (ie, not longer than one minute), but
I'm not sure about this.


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!! :-)   )

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

Date: 3-DEC-1990 22:56:52.20
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: New GTE Mobilnet / SF "Feature"


Although many non-GTE/San Francisco Customers who have Cellular
service in California and Reno, NV may allready have this, GTE/SF now
claims that the newer version of "Follow Me Roaming" is now working
for its customers.  Information and rate schedules for this feature
are to be sent to customers in their January bills.

Since Follow Me Roaming has many activation delays, and due to the
fact that frequently after 9PM, Pacific Time, (12AM Eastern, when the
previous day's activations are erased) one can not use the system for
a good part of the evening, the California "B" systems have had, for
some time, a system that automatically follows you around. GTE/SF has
NOT been allowing its customers to use this system (because of
testing?) until now.

I don't think it is in the nature of a DMX (like the "A" systems tend
to have between, let's say, Boston and Rhode Island), and thus I am
told one can not use call-forwarding, etc., while in the roam/foreign
market, as roamers in many of the DMXed areas can.

BUT, on the positive side, it doesn't cut-out at 9PM, and there is NO
activation delay!

All you need to do is press *28 to activate and *29 to deactivate. (I
THINK those are the right numbers ... haven't tried it yet, but a
friend of mine in Sac told me it worked for Pac*Tel customers.)

An added bonus is that unlike FMR, if you have your calls *72/Forward
to voicemail, you can press *28/*29 as often as you need to, and
whenever the system is in a *29 ("don't follow me") mode, all callers
will get your voicemail. FMR didn't work this way, and after you hit
*18 there was no way to get back to your voicemail until you got back
to the GTE/SF area. (You could, however, use *71 to your voicemail,
which seems to stay active after a FMR deactivition, ie, *19.)

Also, since I mentioned a DMX, do any Cell One or LA Cell. customers
know if there is a DMX between "A" carriers in CA? Can, for example, a
Cell One/Sacramento customer forward calls and/or get call-waiting
while roaming in, let's say, Santa Barbara? San Francisco? etc?

Guess that's it.


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: Van Gale <[e-mail]>
Subject: Theft of Phone Service
Date: 4 Dec 90 21:54:40 GMT
Reply-To: Van Gale <[e-mail]>
Organization: Online Computer Systems, Inc.


I've just had a horrifying experience and need some advice.

Around September 21 my wife and I moved into our new house.  Since I
didn't want call waiting on the modem line, etc., I told her I would
take care of contacting C&P for the new service.  She then assumed I
would contact Contel to disconnect our previous service from the home
we were renting.  I assumed she would since she was disconnecting the
other services.

Well, last weekend we received a bill from Contel for several thousand
dollars!!!!!  Is this horrifying or what?

Apparently, someone knew the house was empty, entered the home with
their own phone and spent MANY hours calling some 900 date service.
My god.

What makes this (especially) surprising is that the house was on a
(very) remote farm where all the neighbors know each other.  In fact,
the entire year we lived there we never locked the door.

Anyway (aaargh), anybody have a good recommendation?  I've already
started talking to Contel and they are "investigating."

Has this kind of thing happened before?  Should I uncross my fingers
and head for the lawyers office?


Van Gale
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Dec  4 14:49:26 EST 1990
Subject: AT&T Calling Card Blocking


Most readers have seen multiple articles here, from our Moderator and
others, about international calling card calls being blocked by AT&T
from certain pay phones.  Pat, especially, has repeatedly said that
this blocking may constitute an illegal denial of credit.  No one has
been able to get a definite answer from AT&T about the matter.

Being a conscientious AT&T employee, I made some inquiries, and here
is the response I received:

            ------------- Begin Attached Message -------------

  To: bsga05!jdominey
  From: attmail!walkerp (Paul A Walker )
  Date: Mon Nov 26 04:52:57 GMT 1990
  Subject: Card Blocking


Mr. Dominey,

I hope the following will clear up any confusion on calling card
blocking from payphones.

1. AT&T does, from time to time, block collect, calling card and third number
   calls in an effort to control fraud.

2. The blocking of calls is a legal practice in that AT&T has an existing
   tariff (TARIFF F.C.C. No. 1, 8th Revision of page 43, section 2.9.4)
   which states:

        In order to control fraud, the Company may refuse to accept
        Collect Calling, Calling Card and/or Third Number Calling which
        it determines to be invalid and/or may limit the use of these
        billing options to or from certain countries or areas including
        all or part of the United States, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin
        Islands.


Paul Walker
Int'l Card Product Mngt

                                ----------

My own opinion: Blocking of this kind should be legal as long as the
LD company can demonstrate that blocking is the only means available
to stop a documented pattern of fraud.


Jack Dominey|AT&T Commercial Marketing|800 241-4285|AT&T Mail: !dominey
standard disclaimers apply


[Moderator's Note: Thank you very much for going to the trouble to get
this response for us. AT&T has not yet responded to my inquiries on
this however I had not made any recently.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]>
Subject: NXX's per NPA
Date: 4 Dec 90 20:37:22 GMT
Organization: Moscom Corp., E. Rochester, NY


It is time for my quarterly posting of the total number of exchanges
in each NPA.  It will give you some idea of why NPA's are getting
split, and which NPA's are likely to be split soon.  The count is
based on the BellCore V&H tape of 10/15/90, and does not include
Mexican codes (52x) or other place codes (88x).  I have include as
known or potential NPAs.

The top ten are:

213: 709        212: 653        919: 611
214: 705        404: 642        416: 609
201: 682        415: 629        512: 608
301: 679

Of these:

213 is scheduled for a split (to 310).
214 has split but still has permissive dialling of calls to 903.  Its count
    should drop substantially when this ends.
201 has split but still has permissive dialling of calls to 908.  Its count
    should drop substantially when this ends.
301 is scheduled for a split (to 410).
212 is scheduled for a split (to 417).
404 is, to the best of my knowledge, not scheduled for a split.
415 is scheduled for a split (to 510).
919, 416, and 512 are not scheduled for a split at this time.

Interestingly, 714 is number 18 on this list.  While its growth may
be more explosive than save 215 (#14), I can't imagine that it is more
that much faster than 416 in Toronto, 404 in Georgia, or 919 in North
Carolina.  Perhaps being a right coast person has me prejudiced.


The entire list is as follows:

213: 709  405: 525  816: 436  204: 341    908: 301  309: 253  906: 109
214: 705  713: 515  913: 428  818: 339    819: 301  709: 252  302: 106
201: 682  615: 511  412: 412  219: 338    505: 294  806: 251  807: 105
301: 679  314: 505  317: 404  519: 336    905: 293  315: 251  917: 0
212: 653  503: 500  312: 399  502: 332    915: 290  808: 248
404: 642  612: 499  402: 398  406: 331    815: 282  518: 242  910: 0
415: 629  303: 486  907: 396  207: 330    408: 282  608: 236  909: 0
919: 611  809: 481  916: 395  605: 328    702: 278  509: 229
416: 609  803: 480  515: 395  419: 326    218: 275  603: 227  810: 0
512: 608  708: 480  614: 388  318: 325    409: 273  901: 216
313: 605  813: 476  601: 385  704: 324    208: 269  417: 192  710: 0
205: 604  904: 470  718: 382  914: 321    613: 267  308: 191
403: 585  817: 470  407: 364  319: 321    812: 266  802: 174  610: 0
215: 580  619: 468  617: 362  304: 321    712: 265  707: 171
602: 579  203: 467  616: 362  618: 316    805: 263  506: 171  510: 0
202: 576  514: 466  508: 359  504: 316    609: 261  706: 169
501: 559  717: 464  418: 356  801: 315    705: 260  607: 159  410: 0
714: 551  804: 455  716: 354  209: 314    606: 259  719: 153
206: 542  305: 443  516: 354  912: 312    903: 258  307: 146  310: 0
604: 540  414: 442  316: 353  517: 311    902: 257  413: 129
216: 532  306: 441  217: 344  715: 306    814: 254  401: 128  210: 0
703: 531  513: 438  701: 343  918: 302    507: 253


David Esan      [e-mail]

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

From: Steve Rhoades <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unanswered Trunk Enhancement (was: Dialing Own Number...)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 05:57:35 GMT


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

>Pac*Bell Weenie Note: In the Pac*Bell implementations of the 1AESS
>(W.E.  should never have provided them with the source!), you would
>still get busy, even when dialing through Telecom*USA. PB's generic
>will not allow CW or 3W until the first call is supervised. Pac*Bell
>had some lame reason for doing this, but I forgot what it was.

I believe it's called Unanswered Trunk Enhancement.  As you know, it
was phased into all of Pac*Bell's generics a few years ago.

Their logic for doing this:

When a person with three-way calling dialed a number which was busy,
the calling person would flash momentarily, then retry the call.  The
problem was the person wouldn't get a "new" dialtone but a three-way
dialtone.  No problem if the number being called was still busy - both
connections would disconnect when the calling party hangs up.  But, if
the call attempt made with the three-way dialtone was successful
(person being called answered and a long conversation ensued) the busy
signal would still be on hold tying up Pac*Bell's precious resources.
We know what THAT can lead to :-).


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


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

Date: Tue,  4 Dec 1990 10:29:12 +0100
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stupid AT&T Ad


I don't know if this is of interest to the readers of TELECOM Digest,
since they may have read it elsewhere, already.  Nonetheless, I found
this to be utterly bogus and in clear contradiction to the high
quality I have experienced with AT&T products and services.

The text of the ad goes like this:

I'm sitting in a corner office on a round planet and I'm thinking
about my son and how last night he looked at the crescent moon above
our house and said, "Daddy, broken moon, broken moon."  And I told him
that the moon would be fixed soon by a silent and unseen hand;
however; the PBX that I bought for the corporation from some unknown
company might not be fixed any time soon at all, and my little boy who
is only five said, "Dad, AT&T has a REMOTE MAINTENANCE lab in Denver
set up to detect any problems that might come up with their DEFINITY
System and fix them before they actually happen.  You see, Dad, a full
1/3 of the memory of a DEFINITY switch is devoted entirely to self-
maintenance."  And I told him thanks for the tip and he looked up at
me said, "Straighten up and fly right, Dad, because no silent and
unseen hand is going to pay for me going to college."

I found this ad in the November-December 1990 issue of {Harvard
Business Review}, inside back cover, two pages, with a somewhat
vertically stretched picture of a young kid sans clothes, from waist
up, text running across the two pages.  Yes, I did notice it and read
it.

However, does AT&T think their customers are complete idiots?  I mean,
a five year old kid having the vocabulary and knowledge to say that,
or have a clear grasp of the cost of going to college.  Gimme a BREAK!
And "I bought from ... some unknown company" -- sound decision-making.
No, I didn't find this charming, even though that all too clearly was
the intent.


[Erik Naggum]
Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway

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

Subject: California SXS Touchtone Refund
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 90 21:54:50 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


I spent a week recently in the San Jose area.  I noticed an ad by
PAC*BELL in one of the local papers (the Chronicle or the much-loved
San Jose Mercury News :-)) offering refunds to customers of SXS
offices who paid for Touch Tone(tm) during a particular period.

What is the history of this matter?  Why should SXS subscribers
receive a refund and ESS or XB subscribers be denied?


Ed Hopper

Ed Hopper's BBS 713-997-7575 - Houston - Free Access to AT&T Employees
USENET - ILink - Smartnet     PC Board - Markmail Offline Reader System

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 11:53:46 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Use of 10732 for LD Calls


I called from an AT&T pay phone on 301-272, and made credit card call
to time and weather service in Delaware by punching in
10732-0-302-633-1212 and after I punched in my credit card number, it
went thru as if I had punched in 10288 instead of 10732.  (i.e., via
AT&T)


[Moderator's Note: I did almost the very same thing from a payphone on
the 312-743 exchange. I dialed 10732-0 and asked the operator how much
change I would need to get for the coin box to place a call to
Kalamazoo and Timbuck, too.  She had never heard of Timbuck, so it
took her awhile to find the rate for that one. I mentioned to her that
my five year old grandson down in Timbuck had recommended routing all
my DDD traffic over 10732 in the future and escrowing the savings into
his college fund since it was unlikely the salary I'm paid as a
mild-mannered reporter for that great metropolitan daily TELECOM
Digest would ever be enough to buy a pot to cook in, let alone pay for
his tuition. The operator said she had never heard of 10732 and was
that one of those new alternate carrier services ... Really, the only
thing I've found different between 10288 and 10732 is the latter won't
complete a call to 700-555-4141.Other than that, they are identical in
how they operate, it seems. But are the rates lower on 10732? Do the
Reach Out Plans do their thing?  My next bill will tell the answer.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #863
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02297;
          5 Dec 90 23:06 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08687;
          5 Dec 90 21:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21352;
          5 Dec 90 20:21 CST
Date:     Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:15:15 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #864
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:14:58 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 864

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: The "Bell" Logo [Glenn R. Stone]
    Re: The "Bell" Logo [Tad Cook]
    Re: The "Bell" Logo [Dave Levenson]
    Re: The "Bell" Logo [Larry Jones]
    It's a Trademark not a Copyright [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Two Line Turnbutton Phones [Mike Berger]
    Re: Two Line Turnbutton Phones [David Brightbill]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Spyros C. Bartsocas]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Bob Clements]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Joel B. Levin]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Tom Lowe]
    Re: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number [Dave Levenson]
    Re: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco? [John Ellson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Glenn R. Stone" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
Date: 4 Dec 90 21:48:03 GMT
Organization: Dead Poets Society


In <[e-mail]> mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]
(Subodh Bapat) writes:

>Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that,
>once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the
>copyright expired and they forgot to renew it? The story I heard was
>that they had to pay a lot of money to get it back from some smart
>entrepreneur who, in the meantime, sneaked in and got the copyright
>for himself.                                              ^^^^^^^^^

The use of the word "copyright" itself renders the entire rumor at
least partially bogus ... A logo or word is subject to *trademark*,
not copyright; once either is lost (trademarks are good so long as the
company chooses to enforce it; copyrights have a definite lifetime)
the mark or work is Public Domain and no one can acquire exclusive
rights to it anymore. (Trademarks don't "expire"; they lose their
exclusivity when a company chooses not to enforce them.  Once this
occurs, the company cannot then chose to again start enforcing it,
however.)  Moreover, the "Bell" logo would qualify as a "famous"
trademark (like the Golden Arches of McDonalds or the Checkerboard
Square of Ralston Purina) and the Patents and Trademarks Office would
disallow registry in the first place, even for something totally
unrelated.

So on a purely legal argument, I'd say you've got yourself an urban
legend.


Glenn R. Stone ([e-mail])

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

Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 2 Dec 90 17:40:00 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Douglas Scott Reuben) writes:

> US West (at least the ex-Pacific Northwest Bell BOC) USED to use it,
> until maybe about January, 1990. I have a Bend, Oregon directory from
> 1989, and it has the logo, but the newer 1990-1991 book does not. If I
> remember correctly, there was a small passage in the newer book
> stating that PNB was changing its name to "US West", or something to
> that effect.

My latest bill from US West has the old Bell logo on it.  I guess they
still like to be identified as a "real" phone company.  It is also on
the Seattle 1990/91 directory covers.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
Date: 5 Dec 90 02:55:35 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat
(Subodh Bapat) writes:

> Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that,
> once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the
 ...

I have heard this story, but I regarded it as urban legend.  In the
version I heard, somebody in Texas opened an answering service
bureau called 'Blue Bell Answering Service' using the familiar
Bell-in-a-Circle logo.  The story goes on to say that he sold the
rights to his logo to AT&T, and with the proceeds, shut down his
service bureau and retired -- at age 25 or so.

Anybody else heard this one?


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

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 14:15:56 EST
From: Larry Jones <sdrc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo


Doug Reuben asks:

> Anyone know what Cincinnati Bell (not a "real" BOC, and certainly not
> an RBOC) uses? Maybe they borrowed SNET's! (or more likely, SNET
> borrowed Cincinnati Bell's! :-) )

Well, they may not be a "real" BOC (AT&T never owned more than a
minority interest and was not forced to divest it), they are still
using the Bell logo as befits their name.  So no, they didn't lend
their logo to SNET (although they have sold their billing system to a
LOT of other phone companies!).

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

Subject: It's a Trademark not a Copyright
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 90 19:04:43 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail] (Subodh Bapat) writes:

> Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that,
> once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the
> copyright expired and they forgot to renew it? The story I heard was
> that they had to pay a lot of money to get it back from some smart
> entrepreneur who, in the meantime, sneaked in and got the copyright
> for himself.

> Anyone have any facts to substantiate/dispel this rumor?

> [Moderator's Note: I've never heard that story before. Readers?   PAT]

I don't believe this is the case.  The Bell logo is not protected by
copyright but rather by trademark law.  It is held (at the direction
of Judge Green) by Bellcore.

A trademark doesn't, to my knowledge, expire unless it is no longer
used by the holder.  A copyright, on the other hand, will eventually
expire.  Some movies, for example, are in the public domain as their
copyrights have expired.


Ed Hopper

Ed Hopper's BBS 713-997-7575 - Houston - Free Access to AT&T Employees
USENET - ILink - Smartnet     PC Board - Markmail Offline Reader System

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

From: Mike Berger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two Line Turnbutton Phones
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 22:29:20 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: No. I wish I was ... but the two-line, one-button
>phones were specifically *not* for sale during divestiture. They were
>then categorized as PBX equipment even though they were frequently

Illinois Bell was willing to sell me mine - a wall model - for $ 55.


    Mike Berger
    Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
    AT&TNET     217-244-6067
    Internet    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: At the time of divestiture, although Illinois Bell
was selling some phones, they told me the two-line turnbutton phones
were being 'taken over' by AT&T for some reason. AT&T has been sending
me the bill ever since. The funny thing is, about three months into
divestiture, I had to have it repaired. We were still being told to
call 'repair service' at the time for phone repairs. A guy came over
from the IBT stockroom at 1212 Carmen St. (the Edgewater CO) and
brought me a reconditioned phone. I asked him how come, since it was
supposedly AT&T now ... he said they had not yet completed the
transfer of inventory ... and that he worked for AT&T but was still
physically located in an IBT building.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 11:21:48 -0500
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: Two Line Turnbutton Phones


Two line turnbutton phones are available from Graybar.  The part
number is 2575**-MBA-60M.  A color code goes in the ** space.  The
phones are made by ITT.  The catalog description is: "The 2-line model
(2575) includes manual hold and a turn-and-push key for line selection
and signaling."

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 10:51:06 -0500
From: "Spyros C. Bartsocas" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?


Our Moderator notes:

>[Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number
>for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little
>else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses
>something like 555-8111, but that is about all.  Other examples?

NET uses the 555-1611 and 555-1515 (actually 1-555-1611 and 1-555-1515)
for repair service as follows:

Residence    1-555-1611
Business     1-555-1515
Public (coin)1-555-1611

555-1611 is the same as 611 in other places.

Also from the telephone directory 1-555-1717 is the "Public Service
Center", where "business customers who have or would like to apply for
public or semi-public coin telephone service", should call.

"There is no charge for these calls".


Spyros Bartsocas
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 90 10:26:28 -0500
From: [e-mail]


The Moderator asks:

>Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number
>for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little
>else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses
>something like 555-8111, but that is about all.  Other examples?

 From the New England Tel (Boston suburbs) phone book:

    Repair service
    Residence:  1-555-1611
    Business:   1-555-1515
    Public(coin)1-555-1611

    and

    If you are a business customer who has or would like to
    apply for public or semi-public coin telephone service,
    call the Public Service Center at no charge, 1-555-1717.

Bob Clements, K1BC, [e-mail]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 08:34:47 EST


>From: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>

>[Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number...
>I think one AT&T business office uses
>something like 555-8111, but that is about all.  Other examples?

This varies by local telco.  We have repair service on 1-555-1611 for
residence and coin and 1-555-1515 for business; the "Public Service
Center" (for dealing with public and semi-public coin phones -- not
COCOTS I think) is at 1-555-1717.  I don't know how out of area 555 is
handled; 700-555 is a per carrier option, except that [phone]
seems to have become the standard "carrier ID" number.

>... 700 numbers
>are by carrier, meaning an AT&T customer usually cannot directly
>access the services of other carriers on 700 numbers, etc.

Not strictly correct; an AT&T customer may access other carriers' 700
services by prefixing the appropriate 10XXX prefix, just as customers
of other carriers may access the AT&T services by using 10288.  (And
obviously this only applies to locations with equal access and service
available from the desired carrier.)


JBL

nets: [e-mail]    |    BBN Communications
  or: ...!bbn!levin    |    M/S  20/7A
POTS: [phone]  |    150 Cambridge Park Drive
  or: [phone]  |    Cambridge, MA  02140

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

From: telpc![e-mail]
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 20:12 EST
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?


AT&T uses 700 numbers for their ISDN service.  Apparently, if you get
a PRI ISDN line from AT&T for switched data (64 or 384 Kbit), you can
get one or more 700 numbers assigned.  I doubt you can call these 700
numbers from a regular phone, but I have never tried it.  Next time I
get a look at the patch panel in one of the labs, I will try calling
and see what I get.

When we were trying some data calls, we had to "dial" the 700 number
to place the call.  When I say dial, I mean the dial string that goes
over then D channel has the 700 number as the destination.

That's all I really know right now.  I will soon be learning more
about this stuff!  I'll pass on anything that I learn.


Tom Lowe       AT&T      [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number
Date: 5 Dec 90 03:27:24 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon
Sreekanth) writes:

> What are the specs on that tone? Frequency (single, or mixture of
> frequencies), envelope, duration, etc.

 From "Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks" Bellcore, 1983:

Calling Card Service-Prompt Tone:

941 Hz + 1477 Hz for 60 milliseconds, at -10 dBm0/frequency at -3 TLP
(-7 dBm0) followed by 440 Hz + 350 Hz for 940 milliseconds
(exponentially decayed from -10 dBm per frequency at -3 TLP at time
constant of 200 milliseconds).

Note that the initial 60 milliseconds of 941 + 1477 is the equivalent
of the touch tone # symbol.  This is done because the # will disable
the tone-to-pulse translators used on some older central office and
PBX equipment.  A caller using a tone-dial phone behind a tone-to-
pulse converter will thereby be allowed to send the calling-card
number using tones.

The rest of the tone (after the # symbol) is a decaying dial-tone.


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

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Tone That Prompts For Calling Card Number
Date: 5 Dec 90 00:37:11 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jon
Sreekanth) writes:

>  From a public phone, for example, to make an operator assisted call,
> or to make a calling card, one might dial 0 - area code - number. Then
> there's a pause, and a sound best described as a 'boiiiing', or a
> 'pinnng', and after that, one enters the calling card number (or after
> time out, operator comes on line.)

> What are the specs on that tone? Frequency (single, or mixture of
> frequencies), envelope, duration, etc.

I can't quote all the specs to you (and can't look them up, because
I'm in a hotel room in Florida rather than in my office), but I CAN
tell you where to find the info:

    Notes on the BOC Intra-LATA Networks-1986
    TR-NPL-000275 Issue 1, April 1986
    Page 6-180
    Table AQ, Item 24
    Calling Card Service Prompt Tone

If you don't have this TR, you can order it from Bellcore.


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,  4 Dec 90 15:02:47 EST
From: John Ellson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Does AT&T Supply ISDN Instead of Local Telco?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


From article <[e-mail]>, by amdcad!netcom!feustel@
ames.arc.nasa.gov (David Feustel):

> I've tried to find out about ISDN offerings from GTE of Indiana, but
> no one there (that I've talked to) knows what ISDN is.

That's funny.  I just tried the same thing with US West in Phoenix and
they hadn't heard about it either.

Now I was serious in my request - I need extra services so that I can
telecommute effectively (155 Mbits would be nice :-) ), but my office
mate thought that was so funny that he tried New Jersey Bell.  Guess
what: "What's ISDN?"!.

So ISDN really does stand for: "I Still Don't Know."

To be fair to US West, it was the residential service office that
hadn't heard of ISDN and they have passed me on to their small
business office, who passed me on to their Engineering Department, who
had heard of ISDN.  Still waiting to find out what they can provide me
at what price.


John Ellson   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #864
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03149;
          6 Dec 90 0:01 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10127;
          5 Dec 90 22:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08687;
          5 Dec 90 21:26 CST
Date:     Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:47:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #865
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:47:04 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 865

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [John Slater]
    Re: Note: UK City Codes to Change [Richard Jennings]
    Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [snowgoose![e-mail]]
    Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Answering Machine and Call Waiting [Dave Levenson]
    Re: EED Caller ID Specs [John McHarry]
    Re: Finland Wants 37!! [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling [Erik Naggum]
    Re: Public Access to CCITT Bulletin Board [Jim Breen]
    Re: Why Are They Called 'Generics'? [Kevin W. Williams]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Mark D. Fisher]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Sean Petty]
    Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Herman R. Silbiger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago
Date: 5 Dec 90 14:57:30 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Barry
Mitchell) writes:

|> When I lived in England in 1970 ... a telephone
|> number (area code, etc) was not the same throughout the country.  From
|> one city, your home number would be something totally different from
|> what it would be in another city.

Not true. The 6D or 7D number is constant. Only the code varied (and
not much - see below).

|> The result being that if you were
|> out of your home town and wanted to call home, you couldn't just dial
|> it from memory ... you had to find a local telephone book with all the
|> right codes.

You exaggerate. The dialling code (STD code) was the same for the
whole country except in the area local to the number (where no
dialling code was required) and immediately adjacent areas (where a
short one or two-digit code was used). These short codes served two
purposes: they saved time and finger-ache when dialling, and they
bypassed the trunk network.

Today most local codes have been abandoned, and STD codes work to
anywhere from anywhere, including within the local dialling area. Much
simpler.

|> I don't know if they have updated the system since then

Of course they have! Do you think we've stood still for twenty years?

|> but it made
|> me appreciate the convenience and value that we receive here in the US
|> and North America.  Where else can you order a pizza from a cellular
|> phone while driving home and have the delivery person be there waiting
|> on you when you arrive home?

I don't know what prompts you to make this insular assumption. Of
course we can do this: we have pizza delivery services, and we have
one of the best and most successful cellular setups in the world.


John Slater      Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 11:55:36 gmt
From: Richard Jennings <hpopd![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Note: UK City Codes to Change


The report on Channel 4 news last night implied that this isn't likely
to happen until 1994.


 Richard Jennings,  Software Development Engineer
 Pinewood Information Systems Division,
 Hewlett-Packard
 Nine Mile Ride                              Voice: (+44)/(0)344 763738
 Wokingham                                   Fax:   (+44)/(0)344 763526
 Berkshire  RG11 3LL                         E-mail: [e-mail]
 England                                     or  ...!hplabs!hpopd!richi

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 04:10:24 -0500
From: snowgoose![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol


The user's manual asserts that NAPLPS, North American Presentation
Level Protocol Standard, is the communications protocol.

But, it seems the tech support people at PRODIGY don't know this.
They assert, wrongly, that the downstream communications is compressed
bit-maps.


Dave    uunet!snowgoose!dave    [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal??
Date: 4 Dec 90 13:25:46 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, csense![e-mail] (John
Boteler) writes:

> Does any currently available PBX transmit the loop interrupt signal
> through to its POTS (2500-type) stations? Assume, for the sake of

AT&T's System 25 does propagate the loop current interrupt signal
toward its tip/ring stations when a trunk releases the PBX.  The
propagation is delayed by a few seconds.

Systems 75 and 85 also propagate the loop interrupt, but it is delayed
by up to 60 seconds.

Can anybody answer John's questions for Merlin, Spirit, and Partner?


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answering Machine and Call Waiting
Date: 4 Dec 90 13:40:40 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

[ regarding the loop-disconnect-interval switch on a Panasonic
answering machine.]

> This is a loop current timing selector. It determines whether the
> answering machine will disconnect on a short loop current interruption
> or whether it requires a longer one. The longer one is used for
> call-waiting. This will prevent the machine from unceremoniously
 ...

On the 1AESS's here in NJ, a short ( < 100 msec) open-loop interval is
caused by call-waiting, and also by various call-state-changes that
occur during outbound call setup.

We get a 500 msec open-loop interval only when the far end
disconnects.

We strap our key telephone and PBX systems to recognize the long open
as a disconnect, and to ignore the shorter ones, when we use
loop-start trunks.

In the areas where we still have 5-Xbar, we strap the same devices to
recognize the short open loop (100 - 200 msec) as the disconnect
signal.  These switches don't generate the long interval.  (They also
don't offer call-waiting.)


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

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

From: John McHarry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: EED Caller ID Specs
Date: 4 Dec 90 13:34:05 GMT


David Tamkin notes that one can get around the defect in CLASS that it
will not block the class of callers blocking transmission of their
number by simply not answering when the display so indicates.  This
sounds to me like an opportunity to add a feature to the clid box: If
the caller is blocking, don't even ring, or better yet, answer with an
announcement that you don't take such calls.  In the latter case, the
caller has to pay for the announcement, if the call was toll or
message unit.

Note that one must distinguish between blocked and out-of-area calls,
unless one wants to block all inter-lata calls.  Unfortunately, most
boiler room calls are probably in the latter class.  I would like a
feature that would route most calls to an answering machine, but ring
for certain known numbers.  If this worked (when it works?)
inter-lata, I could leave my answering machine on and not irritate my
mother, who does NOT want to leave a message if I am not home.  I
would guess such boxes are not too far in the future since they would
not be at all hard to build.

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 13:05:11 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Finland Wants 37!!


Kauto Huopio <[e-mail]> writes in a submission which I
haven't seen, but which had a follow-up I have seen:

> I've heard that our [Finnish] PTT has made a request to obtain the
> former country code of the former East Germany [+37]

I understand that the three Baltic states have asked the CCITT for
their own separate country codes.  Given the possibility that new
codes will be needed for these countries, and for any other parts of
the USSR that break free, wouldn't it make more sense to give them
three-digit country codes of the form "37X" once Germany retires 37?
And anyway, why should Finland be unhappy with 358?  Is it merely
envious of the high-falutin' two-digit country codes owned by Norway,
Sweden and Denmark? :-)


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

Date: Tue,  4 Dec 1990 21:13:10 +0100
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling

> Try dialling 19 44 81 603 xxxx, and see if you get a French intercept.

As has been pointed out, this is probably only valid from France.

SS#7 has language bits, but they seem to be used mainly to indicate to
the called country's operators in which language they should reply to
calling operators.  I don't know whether this is used in any other
part of SS#7, but it's the only place I've seen a reference to
languages in SS#7 proper.  There is a pointer to Q.104, which I don't
have access to, titled "Language digits or discriminating digits", to
which the 001001 code below refers.  For curiosity, the following bit
patterns and languages are supported with the calling party category
field of the initial address message:

    000000 unknown source
    000001 operator, language French
    000010 operator, language English
    000011 operator, language German
    000100 operator, language Russian
    000101 operator, language Spanish
    000110 \  Available to administrations for
    000111  > selecting a particular language
    001000 /  provided by mutual agreement
    001001 reserved  (may be used to indicate national operator)
    001010 ordinary calling subscriber
    001011 calling subscrier with priority
    001100 data call
    001101 test call
    001110 spare
    001111 payphone
    010000 \
     thru   > spare
    111111 /

(This is CCITT recommendation Q.723 (1988) section 3.3.1 d).)

Ah, the wonders of reading specs from start to end... :-)


[Erik Naggum]
Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Public Access to CCITT Bulletin Board
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 22:09:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Herman R
Silbiger) writes:

* The ITU (International Telecommunications Union), parent body to the
* CCITT, now has a public bulletin board for information retrieval.  The
* service is called TIES, Telecom Information Exchange Services.

* The Username INFO, with no password, can be used by any person for the
* access to the Public Information available on the ITU Info service.

Any chance of this service being attached to the Internet?

I have world-wide telnet/ftp capability without additional fee (above
the $70k my university pays to belong to AARNet).  Unfortunately
accessing TIES by PSTN or PSDN cost real extra money.


Jim Breen     ARNet: [e-mail]
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology.
Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
(ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]     JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J

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

From: "Kevin W. Williams" <asuvax!proto17![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are They Called 'Generics'?
Date: 1 Dec 90 22:20:08 GMT
Organization: gte


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (William F
Thompson) writes:

>  From article <[e-mail]>, by Jeff Wasilko <jjwcmp@
>  ultb.isc.rit.edu>:

> > As I was catching up on my Digest-reading, a thought occured to me --
> > why are switch programs called 'generics'?

> I always wondered that too (and I even develop software for them).
> But wonder no more - they're now called Software Releases.
> Bill Thompson   AT&T Network Systems    att!ihlpf!foz

Well, I also develop software for them, and still call them generics.
The "generic" portion of the load is that part which is identical in
all machines, i.e. it is generic. This contrasts with the "Office
Dependent" sections of the load, i.e. the database, and the "dynamic"
sections of the load, i.e stacks and other unprotected data. In common
usage, the new release of the program became a new generic.


Kevin Wayne Williams
     UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk

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

From: Fish Dude <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Date: 4 Dec 90 13:38:12 GMT
Organization: Georgia Tech: Home of the Ubiquitious Bricks


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John R.
Covert 29-Nov-1990 1017) writes:

>>4.  Has anyone tried a ringback or number announcement from the phone
>>?  I know the phones aren't capable of actually receiving a call or
>>ringing, but it would be interesting to see what happens.

>Those sort of numbers are blocked.  The phone accepts only
>NPA-NXX-XXXX or 011+CC+...

What about 1-800 numbers?  What will an ANI display show as the orgin
of the call?

As Always,

Mark D. Fisher   [phone]
GT Box 36392, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
[e-mail]

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

From: Sean <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Date: 4 Dec 90 23:48:34 GMT
Organization: A civilization beneath the Earth, The Underground Empire.


> 1.  How is the credit card verified ?  Are they all stored on board
> and downloaded after the airplane lands, or is it real-time ?

  Dan-

    When you insert your credit card, the information (number, exp.
date, etc. ) is sent via 300 baud signal to a ground station. (REAL
TIME). The ground station then confirms or denys usage, and proceeds
from there.  Actually, the handset is not released until then card is
approved.

> 2.  What happens if everyone wanted to place a call at the same time?
> On the jet I was on, that would be 56 phones in use at the same time.
> Quite a multiplexer/transceiver, if that's how it's done.

 The transmitter section of the setup is IMPRESSIVE. Everyone could
concievably use thier phone at the same time, as there are 400
channels available for use. This concept applies only, however, to one
ground station. There are 80 ground stations in the U.S., though.

> 3.  How is frequency assignment done for numerous planes in the same
> local area (i.e. 20 planes backed up, waiting for takeoff at O'Hare)?

Frequency assignment goes something like this:

     894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same
     manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the
     ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation.

> 4.  Has anyone tried a ringback or number announcement from the phone
> ?  I know the phones aren't capable of actually receiving a call or
> ringing, but it would be interesting to see what happens.

This would give the same result as doing it from any other phone, as
in the end, you are connected with the P.S.T.N.

> 5.  Is there a nationwide cellular-like network for these phones, i.e.
> the ground station hands off the call(s) to the next station when the
> plane leaves the service area ?

You are absolutley correct. Handing off and signal comparison is done
in much the same way. Really, however, you would have to talk for
quite a while in order to leave a service area. Consider transmitting
with high power, at 35,000 feet. Most planes out of Philadelphia can
hit Atlanta radio right after takeoff, with good/excellent quality.


Hope this helps.


Sean Petty
INTERNET: [e-mail]
UUCP:     ...{rutgers|uunet|etc..}!cbmvax!amix!undrground!seanp

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

Date: Tue,  4 Dec 90 22:28:37 EST
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> you would write to: 'internet!fido.address!username. Always use the
> bang (!) style of addressing from ATT Mail; never use '@'.  PAT]

Not so!  I regularly use @ in my mailings from attmail, however,
attmail always shows the From: in !style.


Herman Silbiger
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #865
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05313;
          6 Dec 90 2:05 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27077;
          6 Dec 90 0:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12288;
          5 Dec 90 23:31 CST
Date:     Wed, 5 Dec 90 22:30:37 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #866
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 5 Dec 90 22:30:05 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 866

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID [Erik Naggum]
    Re: Return*Call Humor [Bob Yasi]
    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Herman R Silbiger]
    Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions [Paul S. R. Chisholm]
    Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Stupid AT&T Ads [Lou Judice]
    Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID [Erik Naggum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue,  4 Dec 1990 22:39:16 +0100
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID


John Higdon <[e-mail]> writes:

> When I receive a wrong number, I always assume error on the part of
> the caller, not in the switching network. To quote a well-known radio
> doctor, "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

Well, I can relate a weird story.  A girlfriend of mine, Deb, lives on
Long Island, NY, local number 798-xyxx.  In May this year, something
happened which I have not been able to find a good explanation for,
and it annoyed one poor man a lot.  Well, I call Deb, get some person
whose voice I don't recognize, ask for Deb, and get a very polite "I'm
sorry, there is no Deb, here.  You must have dialled the wrong
number."  Sorry to bother the man, I apologize and hang up.  Then I
very carefully dial the same number, again.  Same result.  He is a
little less polite this time, but I explain that I was careful this
time, and that I'm as annoyed as he is.  I try a third time.  Same
result.  I apologize profusely and he understands that I'm not trying
to bug him.  This is clearly a case for Operator Assistance, expensive
as it is in this country.  She, of course, doesn't have any problems
at all.  Being called by the operator from Norway, specifically asking
for her, made her parents very nervous (they have family here).  Not
being home the situation wasn't resolved.

Next day, I call again, this time from my office.  Same result.  Dave,
as I learn the poor man's name is, is willing to call Deb's number to
see if something is wrong there.  Three-way calling is nice.  No
problems.  I give up that day.  The third day, I try calling from a
payphone, only to annoy Dave even more, but this time he tells me what
his phone number is, provided that I don't call again.  I say that's
OK, and I'll go hunt for the problem.  His number is 798-qrqq.
There's a pattern to this.

I call maintenance, and raise a veritable hell, having wasted more
than $15 on failed calls, which I know are not my fault.  I imagine
that in the U.S. it would be relatively easy to get this refunded; not
so in Norway.  Two days later, a service engineer calls me to confirm
that the problem has gone away, and asks me if I had called the wrong
number many times.  They had apparently had to call Dave both direct
and indirect to trace the call, several times, and he was extremely
pissed, according to the service rep.  The problem was local to parts
of Oslo, and the operator I called was not in Oslo.  What exactly the
problem was, I never learned.  Subscribers don't know anything about
internal things in the phone system by definition, and no exceptions
to this rule are allowed to exist.  The service rep didn't want to
even try to tell me what was going on.  Sigh.

When things worked again, it took some effort to clear the problems
caused by the operator calling, as well.

I don't know what the problem was, but it wasn't the caller (me), it
wasn't some fancy run-away special function invoked at the callee
side, and it wasn't anything the telco people would admit to be their
fault.  I don't see what it could be if not some switching network
problem.


[Erik Naggum]
Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway

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

From: Bob Yasi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor
Date: 5 Dec 90 01:41:39 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles


I believe there remains a point to be made in the call-back-the-
annoyance-caller-but-he-used-call-forwarding-so-now-what-happens
saga.

If A is the annoyer he can 1) fwd to B, then 2) call up and annoy C.

If C returns the call with call*return, is the annoyer's call
forwarding ignored, ringing A's phone?  If not, and the return*call to
A is forwarded to B, the spleen-venting victims could *69 each other
all day!  This could be what happened to the original poster of this
dilemma.


   Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: They'll need to fix it so that *69 overrides call
forwarding.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue,  4 Dec 90 22:37:39 EST
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> All in all, ALLIANCE is a convenient, and easy service to use. If
> anyone desires more {printed} information regarding ALLIANCE, I have a
> limited number of brochures and/or wallet cards available.

ALLIANCE is actually about ten years old, but it is still
technologically quite advanced.  It has echo cancellation on the
ports, and uses level equalization, so there will not be level
differences between talkers.  It also allows two or three talkers to
be active simultaneously. The ALLIANCE bridges are located at some
4ESS toll switches, but I don't know how many have been installed.


Herman Silbiger    [e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North
Date: 4 Dec 90 04:00:31 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> interesting device called a Telefreeze.  It connects to a phone line
> and makes the line go "off hook" when the ambient temperature goes
> below a preset limit.  The idea is that you would periodically call

That is an OLD trick, but a slight modification may make sense.

You may prefer to NOT have your summer home line be busied out, but
instead let it answer the phone and hang up very fast, probably faster
than answer supervision can propagate back. Even if it does cost you
for the call, when it happens, you will be glad to know there is a
problem.

Instead of having the low temp thermostat simply short the line, have
it connect a pair of back to back zeners across the line. 68 volt ones
normally work well when the CO battery is 48v. If you are on a DLL ckt
with 72 or 96 volts, pick diodes a bit higher.

Ringing superimposed on battery will trip when a zener fires, but the
line will then go on hook instantly.

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

Date: Wed,  5 Dec 90 01:03:52 EST
From: Paul S R Chisholm <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Mail Info and Questions
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, wsrcc![e-mail]
(Wolfgang S. Rupprecht), in response to a question about how to get
form the Internet from AT&T Mail, replies:

> psuvax1.psu.edu!WOLFSYS!attmail!<username>

Well, no; it's not WOLFSYS.  But please *don't* follow Mr. Repprecht's
suggestion.  (I'm sure his suggestions was made helpfully, and I don't
mean to criticize; but it does have problems.)

Yes, some systems are registered with AT&T Mail and reachable via the
Internet.  It's possible to send e-mail through those systems, thus
causing them to be billed by AT&T for your e-mail messages.  That
makes our customers unhappy.  When our customers are unhappy, I'm
unhappy.  You wouldn't want to make me unhappy, would you?  (There are
ways for administrators to limit pass-through traffic.)

This is the kind of problem that could be solved by someone funding an
AT&T Mail/Internet gateway.  I have discussed this with AT&T Mail
management at length.  At, in fact, great length.  However, AT&T has
not announced any such gateway.  I won't discuss any unannounced AT&T
products or services.

Is the suspense killing you, or what?


Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!mtunq!psrc, [e-mail], AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

Pat (an open note): Yes, I did ask product management to send you an
announcement for a new feature of AT&T Mail.  That is, to send the
announcement to you after it had been announced, or with an embargo
date and a request not to say anything until just after we make an
official announcement.  Sorry for the confusion.  --Paul


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Chisholm is the person who arranged for the
Digest to be delivered to ATT Mail readers, and the person who asked
that I not discuss it further until an official announcement came out.
I assumed (from the note he alludes to above) that the memo I was to
receive (but still have not received) was regarding the gateway.  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal??
Date: 4 Dec 90 03:28:39 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.

> Does any currently available PBX transmit the loop interrupt signal
> through to its POTS (2500-type) stations? Assume, for the sake of
> sanity, that the telephone company central office does provide a loop
> interrupt signal to us on POTS subscriber loops when the calling party
> releases the call.

PBX trunks should be ground start. Your switch WILL notice when the CO
hangs up their end of a G/S tk.

> According to our research so far, neither the Vodavi nor the Mitel
> SX-100/200 line provides this.

I have been told, but have never verified, that an SX-200D with
Generic 1003 can give the interrupt signal to the extension. It may be
possible with earlier generics, too, but the situation this came up in
had 1003 as an existing assumption. The person saying this was a Mitel
internal tech support type.

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

Date: 5-DEC-1990 02:19:07.75
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?


Hi-

re: 555-1212 and what other services "555" goes to other than Directory
Assistance:

In New England Tel territory, 1-555-6611 (or is it -1611?) gets repair
service.  I've tried "611", which is more standard, and it doesn't
work.

800-555-5000 was the old Bell System "Let's Talk" number, which was
basically an information service set up just before divestiture so
that people wouldn't get "scared" about the breakup, etc. (Although in
retrospect maybe they should have! :) ). Now it seems to go to the
local Bell that is serving you, ie, in New York it goes to NY Tel, and
in CT it goes to SNET, or just dies at their recording, etc. This
seems to change from time to time, or rather, from place to place. I
California (San Jose) I gave it a try last summer, and got the AT&T
Phonecenter Info line, but I tried it a few months later and got
Pac*Bell. Maybe it just cut over in the interim?

Some other Bells have 1-555-xxxx for coin-telephone repair, etc. I
think Pacific Northwest Bell had something like this (now USWEST),
although I can't be sure about this either. A good place to look is on
the instruction card at a Bell payphone, or in the front of the White
Pages.

Note that 1-617-555-6611 will get you NE Tel repair if you dial it
Long Distance. I always thought that 1-Area Code-555-xxxx will ALWAYS
get DA, but I guess not.


Doug

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!! :-)   )


[Moderator's Note: 555-anything here cuts to DA. At least I have not
seen any exceptions.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 07:57:57 PST
From: Peripheral Visionary 05-Dec-1990 1030 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Ads


Although I use AT&T and I'm totally happy with the choice, I must say
that a lot of their advertising (on US television) is pretty stupid.

* A current campaign targets small business. Small business people are
asked repeatedly why they chose to use another long distance carrier.
After they say "lower rates" a "bong" sounds, sort of indicating that
anyone who doesn't choose AT&T is an idiot who isn't getting the point
that their rates are competitive.

* Shaky cameras shot at stange angles showing people having difficulty
making telephone calls on MCI, Sprint and non-AT&T PBXes.

* Massively overproduced commercials, like the TV reporter who uses
fax to find the resturant where his parents were married, and then
flies them over to France as a surprise (all apparently taking place
within a matter of days). This was especially stupid, since the entire
premise of the commercial would be lost if he had just remembered to
take a print of that photograph with him.

I seem to remember the good old days of the Bell System when AT&T
advertising was at it's height, and you just got the feeling of an
organization that exuded technical and marketing competence. The new
ads trade content for visual impact -- something you don't HAVE to do,
since I'm sure there is a lot of potential for great visuals and great
stories based on real stuff at AT&T!


ljj

[Moderator's Note: Do you remember when AT&T sponsored "The Bell
Telephone Hour" on radio? Their ads on that program were very elegant
and low-key. Techincal excellence was the whole idea.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed,  5 Dec 1990 16:20:28 +0100
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Forwarded Calls and CallerID


Recently there has been much discussion about a prank with forwarded
calls, and several very complex theories of why it works have been
forwarded.  I may be missing something, but isn't the point as simple
as this:

    -    Prankster, A, forwards his calls to random third party, C
    -    Prankster calls someone, B
    -    B return*call prankster, A, _which_forwards_to_C_

Seems so obvious to me.  Also reminds me of a couple nice stories from
when "new services" came to Oslo.  Norway uses the CEPT standard for
function invocation, and therein lies part of the fun.  To order
waking or some other ringing at some later time, dial *55*HHMM#.

Interestingly, a lot of people dialled *55*0700#, but all the ads for
the new services didn't say anything about where this was available,
except that you needed touch-tone phones, that * should break the dial
tone, etc, so a huge number of people actually called 550700, a
grocery store at the ground floor of a compartment building.  The
owner was hard of hearing, and had the phone ring out LOUD!  Hundreds
of users called this number after people went to bed in this building,
every night.  I have no idea how it all ended, but this made it to the
newspapers, who were very anti-new-technology, as expected.

Another fun thing was to use this with call forwarding, which is
enabled with *21*number#.  Here's how to do it: Order waking with *55*
for some very inconvenient time, and forward your calls to someone you
don't like very much.  Be sure to enable the forwarding at a time no
one will call you.  No more than two months went by before the waking
service was redefined to override call forward.

Now, the third fun thing with call forwarding was related to me.  Call
forwarding is free in Norway, and thus is limited to certain local
areas, the pager service, and stuff like that.  (Forwarding your call
to the time of day service is a nice hint to people who call you too
late at night...)  Bugs in the software happen every now and then, so
at a place outside Oslo, call forwarding outside your local calling
area was enabled, but the forwarder payed for the non-local call.
This was also true for payphones.

So, the bright young telephone users discovered that they could
forward calls from payphones to BBS'es all over the world, and then go
home and call the payphone.  Voila.  (Although it took me almost two
hours on the phone, this incident was confirmed by a telco rep, who
insisted on calling me back before telling me anything.  He said it
was one of the more serious blunders they had made, but declined to
give any indication of the extent of lost revenue.  They would not
attempt to find out who did it, since they couldn't prove who had
called.)


[Erik Naggum]
Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #866
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06716;
          6 Dec 90 3:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17859;
          6 Dec 90 1:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27077;
          6 Dec 90 0:36 CST
Date:     Thu, 6 Dec 90 0:08:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #867
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Dec 90 00:08:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 867

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Stupid AT&T Ad [Adam V. Reed]
    Re: ACD Headset Vendors Needed [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: It's a Trademark not a Copyright [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: California SXS Touchtone Refund [John Higdon]
    Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialing [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Bernie Roehl]
    Re: Two-Line Turnbutton Phones [Sean Goggin]
    Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Tim Oldham]
    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: NXX's per NPA [Carl Moore]
    Re: What is MFJ a TLA For? [Eric Black]
    10xxx in Twin Cities; Lists Anyone? [Arun Baheti]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed,  5 Dec 90 19:05:39 EST
From: Adam V Reed <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Ad
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Erik Naggum)
writes:

> However, does AT&T think their customers are complete idiots?  I mean,
> a five year old kid having the vocabulary and knowledge to say that,
> or have a clear grasp of the cost of going to college.  Gimme a BREAK!
> And "I bought from ... some unknown company" -- sound decision-making.
> No, I didn't find this charming, even though that all too clearly was
> the intent.

Congratulations, pardner, you have just been introduced to that
distinctive genre of North American humor known as "pulling your leg".
And, while I don't speak for the company, I'd bet some flunkey is
going to catch flak for not realizing that not all readers of the
{Harvard Business Review} are familiar with such nuances of our
perhaps unique local culture. So lighten up, will ya? I bet even you
Norwegians have some things a lot of us foreigners would find
bewildering.


[e-mail]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ACD Headset Vendors Needed
Date: 4 Dec 90 04:33:52 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, daysinns![e-mail] (Bill
Crane) writes:

> We are looking for another supplier of Headsets for our sales agents.

You didn't say who your current supplier is.  I just grabbed an Alltel
Supply catalog off the shelf, but North, Anixter, Graybar, etc would
have been just as good.

They show units by ACS,Audiosears, Automation Electronics,
Plantronics, Unex, etc. They don't show Roanwell, but they do carry
their Confidencers(tm).

I would assume Days Inns must have a supply division that gets good
discounts for your hotels. I certainly now other chains that do, and
generally they have deals with SEVERAL large scale communication
suppliers. Check your own internal channels.

There are plenty of options to look at, and you may find it quite wise
to not impose one model on everyone. Some may LIKE a custom moulded
ear insert type, and others may prefer a big binaural earmuff style.
In general, you want to get mike booms that cancel as much of the
background noise as possible so the caller doesn't think he has called
a sweat-shop. One lost reservation would often pay for that special
custom headset that kept an agent just a tad more
efficient/friendlier.

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: It's a Trademark not a Copyright
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 03:56:55 GMT


[e-mail] (Ed Hopper) writes:

>A trademark doesn't, to my knowledge, expire unless it is no longer
>used by the holder.

A trademark expires every ten years, but can be renewed indefinetly.
(Of the 1.1M trademarks registered in the US< about 700K are still
renewed.)  Of course, you can lose a trademark by it becoming the
generic name for an item.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP       Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.              Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd            FAX:   [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 10:08:35 PST
From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal??
Organization: Info Connections, West Los Angeles


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

>Does any currently available PBX transmit the loop interrupt signal
>through to its POTS (2500-type) stations? Assume, for the sake of
>sanity, that the telephone company central office does provide a loop
>interrupt signal to us on POTS subscriber loops when the calling party
>releases the call.

>According to our research so far, neither the Vodavi nor the Mitel
>SX-100/200 line provides this.

Ahh, the subject over which I would love to hit some PBX designers
over the head.

In my searches, I came up with a few.  The NEC NEAX2400 has an
optional analog line card that does provide CPC.  Their normal one
doesn't, so you have to be sure to get the cards that do.  But I hate
the feature implementation and the sets that the switch uses along
with the fact that it will not let you send long touch-tones.

The AT&T switches all provide CPC.  They also allow long touch-tones.
Something that AT&T got right.  But their switches tend to be a bit on
the expensive side.  Prices in the used market aren't that bad though.

I am told that the ITT 3100 series also provides it.

And that's all I know.  Now wouldn't you think that a CO switch
manufacturer like Northern Telecom would know enough to have this
feature?  But then they screw it up in their CO switches too.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: California SXS Touchtone Refund
Date: 5 Dec 90 11:03:16 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ed Hopper <[e-mail]> writes:

> What is the history of this matter?  Why should SXS subscribers
> receive a refund and ESS or XB subscribers be denied?

Maybe because there haven't been any SXS offices in the metro area for
years and Pac*Bell can look charitable without actually putting out.  :-)

Seriously, I can't believe I missed this one. Unfortunately my copies
of both the Comical and the Murky News go to the Recycler each week
(not the classified ad newspaper, but the environmentally-correct
garbage man). Did the ad give any exchanges? Were there any other
pertinent details?

When was the ad printed? I'm dying to check this out.


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

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: US Sprint Offers Conference Calling
Date: 4 Dec 90 04:42:01 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.
News-Moderator: Approval required for posting to comp.dcom.telecom


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

> How can someone access this Alliance Teleconferencing?

> [Moderator's Note: Alliance is an AT&T service for setting up

>         0-700-456-1000.

N.B. That 700 number MUST be dialed on ATT. If your default
carrier is someone else, you MUST use 10288 up front. Each carrier has
its own ENTIRE areacode 700 (unlike 800). What may be free dial-a-
prayer on one carrier could be costly dial-a-porn on another -- same
700 number.

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

From: Robert J Woodhead     <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Codes and Intl. Dialling
Date: 4 Dec 90 12:42:59 GMT
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


[e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:

>But, although the quoted sentence refers to France and an
>earlier part of that message did pertain to France, the country where
>the above number would be (if it existed) *is* one where English is
>spoken. Well, a sort of English, anyway... :-)

Ahem!  Not to get pedantic (much though I love it), but you, sir, are
hardly in a position to make such cracks.  You are not a native
speaker of English.  You are a native speaker of Canadian, a, if I may
be permitted the liberty of a cheap crack at your expense, degenerate
creole of the language.  You may think you are speaking English, but
rest assured, you are not.

Similarly, it is most probable that our esteemed Moderator is also
laboring under the delusion that he is an english speaker, whereas in
reality, he speaks American.  American and English have diverged just
enough so they are barely mutually unintelligible.  This explains why
Monty Python is so popular in the US -- Americans think it is funny,
whereas Britons know that the whole point was that it isn't!

In point of fact, true English is only spoken in a small area in
Cambridge, England.  This is sort of the Zero Meridian for English.  I
myself speak a mildly (0.56%) degenerate form of the language, as I
was born (alas!) about 50 miles from there.

You may take some solace, however, in the realization that however
degenerate _your_ native tongue is, you are way ahead of the
Australians.  Nobody understands Australian -- even other Australians!

Oral member still firmly emplaced in cheek,

I remain your faithful correspondent,


Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor [e-mail]


[Moderator's Whine:  Well, ex-cuuuuuuuuuuse me!  I believe we here in
the colonies speak English with one of about fifty American accents.  PAT]

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

From: Bernie Roehl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 18:41:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert S.
Maier) writes:

>There have been a good many articles in TELECOM Digest complaining
>about Prodigy.  Besides Prodigy's policies, many posters are irritated
>by their inability to capture Prodigy output to a file.

>Has anyone done anything about this?  I gather Prodigy uses a
>proprietary communications protocol, but is it possible to
>reverse-engineer it?  That would open the door to custom-designed
>Prodigy clients, running on any architecture.  And it would facilitate
>the addition of new features, such as capturing text and graphics
>output.

Hmm.  Isn't Prodigy using NAPLPS?  If so, it should be easy enough; in
fact, the software that Bell Canada is distributing for users of its
Alex system should do the job quite well.


Bernie Roehl, University of Waterloo Electrical Engineering Dept
Mail: [e-mail] OR [e-mail]
BangPath: {allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watserv1!broehl
Voice:  [phone] x 2607 [work]


[Moderator's Note: Because the gateway to comp.dcom.telecom was off
line for a couple of days, we have a lot of late replies coming in.
But again I must ask that we conclude the Prodigy thread at this time.
There is little more to add to the discussion.   PAT]

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

From: Sean Goggin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two-Line Turnbutton Phones
Organization: Computer Science Club, University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 09:18:57 GMT


>Is it possible to buy one of these phones? I assume it's a
>500-style...

>[Moderator's Note: ... I do not think they are selling the one
>button, two-line phones. In fact I am almost positive you can only
>lease them, and that you must be in the USA to do that.    PAT]

Bell Phonecentre (Canadian MaBell retail phone shop) has leased phones
and not leased phones. You can not buy phones they lease so they can
know if a phone is theirs.  All the leased and most of the sold phones
are Nortern Telecom and you can buy very similar NT phones as the
leased versions.


Sean
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tim Oldham)
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago
Organization: BT Applied Systems, Birmingham, UK
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 16:45:40 GMT


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

>Where else can you order a pizza from a cellular
>phone while driving home and have the delivery person be there waiting
>on you when you arrive home?

Well, the only things that might stop you doing that in the UK are
either living in a pizza wilderness or the pizza people having a
toll-free number.  My phone number is always the same whether I'm
calling from next door, from the other end of the country, or from a
cellphone. So is everybody else's. I can optionally leave off the area
code from within the area, and sometimes there are local (shorter)
codes from one area to adjoining areas, but you can *always* use the
Standard Trunk Dialling area code.  Yes, and International Direct
Dialling to 140-odd countries is available from every phone.

The only limitation I can think of, offhand, is that you can't phone
0800 (toll-free) numbers from a cellphone. Our local pizza emporia
don't have 0800 numbers.


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

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

Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 14:20:37 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Something has always bugged me about AT&T's Alliance Teleconferencing
service. Why is it that automated access is only available during
business hours, yet operators are available 24 hours a day?

Seems backwards!


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


[Moderator's Note: I've always wondered that myself. Does anyone know
of some technical or tariff reason for it?   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 11:04:58 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NXX's per NPA


Dave Esan <moscom![e-mail]> or <[e-mail]> writes:

>212 is scheduled for a split (to 417).

No, you mean area 917 instead of 417.  417 is in Missouri.


[Moderator's Note: Yes, that is what he meant, and the fault is mine
for not catching it when proof-reading that issue as carefully as
usual before releasing it.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 10:59:29 PST
From: Eric Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is MFJ a TLA For?


>> OK, I give up.  What's MFJ a TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for?
>[Moderator's Note: MFJ = Modified Final Judgment ...]

I always thought it was "Mother F****** Judge"   :-)


Eric Black      Not a big fan of the breakup.
Atherton Technology, 1333 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA, 94089
  Email: [e-mail]     Voice: [phone]


[Moderator's Guffaw: Whew! I hope you don't mind the asterisks in your
message, but this is a family Digest -- I have to keep it clean.  One
of the rules around here for a long time during my predecessor's
tenure in the middle eighties was 'Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of
Judge Greene in Vain'. Jon Solomon did not set that rule, but he
tended to observe it rather than answer to the high-priests of telecom
for publishing heresy in the Digest. I get a lot of mail like yours --
far more than I print -- from people angry at what is finally
beginning to become quite obvious: the telephone network in the USA is
going to (bleep) in a handbasket. What took a century to build and
refine, a judge killed with the stroke of a pen.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 21:51 CDT
From: "Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10xxx in Twin Cities; Lists Anyone?


Does anyone have a comprehensive list of the 10xxx's for the Twin
Cities area (US West)?  US West (business office and/or various
residential offices) says that they can NOT provide me with the actual
codes.  I have, however, received no fewer than three (yes THREE)
hand-written (yes, HAND-WRITTEN on notebook paper) lists of the
companies that are available with nice notes saying that the companies
themselves may provide the codes.

When I was/am back in Pacific Bell land (SoCal), the business office
is always willing to send me a small half-page size pamphlet with a
current listing of the available companies, so this strikes me as odd.

To their credit, all three or four US West service reps who have
spoken to me have sent out those hand-written lists the same day;
usually in my mail box the next morning.  Too bad they don't have the
information I want! :-)


Arun

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #867
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08062;
          6 Dec 90 4:14 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30968;
          6 Dec 90 2:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17859;
          6 Dec 90 1:40 CST
Date:     Thu, 6 Dec 90 0:53:03 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #868
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 6 Dec 90 00:52:47 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 868

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [snowgoose![e-mail]]
    Caller*ID and Unanswered Phones [Dan Hepner]
    Switching Office Open House [Jim Rees]
    Automated AOS, or What-is-it? [Barton F. Bruce]
    "Copyright" of the Bell Symbol [Jerry Leichter]
    Norway: Automatic Car Liabilities Info via Phone [Erik Naggum]
    V&H / Area Code Table Needed [Chuck Huffington]
    Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN [Bill Huttig]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 04:14:11 -0500
From: snowgoose![e-mail]
Subject: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges


    I know that both AT&T and Sprint offer the "feature" of dialing
another LD number without disconnecting from the LD carrier via the
"#".

    I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel
with my LD calling card.  The voice mail system wants me to enter "#"
to be prompted for my password.  Guess what happens?  That's right,
the LD carrier disconnects that call and prompts me to make another.
Both AT&T and Sprint suggested, they really did, that I tell Bell
Atlantic they should pick a different key!

    I suppose a DLE key is beyond the computer communications protocol
sophistication of the LD carriers.


    Dave    uunet!snowgoose!dave    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: But don't you have to hold the # key for at least a
couple seconds to get a carrier disconnect?  Most voice mail systems
require far less. That is, you could probably just give a half-second
of # and access voice mail without it being long enough to trigger the
network disconnect.  Sprint and ATT both indicate in their literature
to hold down the # key for a couple seconds to make it work right.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 90 11:54:56 pst
From: Dan Hepner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID and Unanswered Phones


>From: [e-mail] (David Tamkin)

>| The proposed Pac Bell scheme doesn't allow for easy
>| limiting of incoming calls to only those which contain CID info.

>It's easy enough: look at your CID display, and if it says "blocked,"
>"private," or "refused," don't pick up the phone.

Case 1: You're awakened by a call at night, turn on the light, see the
"blocked" indication, and decide not to answer the phone.  Contrast
that to having slept through the entire event because the phone never
rang.

Case 2: It's now near morning, and case 1 has now just occurred for the
18th time. Contrast that to having missed the entire event because the
phone never rang.


Dan Hepner

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Switching Office Open House
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue Dec  4 20:56:35 1990 GMT


I just went to an open house at the Ann Arbor office of Michigan Bell.
If you ever get a chance to do this, I highly recommend it!  This
office has a 1ESS serving five exchanges, a 1A serving four, and a
5ESS serving eight.  The 1A is four times the size of the 5 and serves
half as many lines.  The 1 is already considered obsolete (it's 17
years old, same as my Buick) and is slated to be replaced by the 5 in
six months.

I won't go over the mundane details.  The things that surprised me
were the small size of the battery backup, the large size of the cable
vault (one city block long, filled with 300 pair cables), the extreme
small size of the dry air supply for the pressurised cables, and how
much space is devoted to distribution bays.  I expected the switches
to be small compared to all the cables and wires, and they certainly
were!  The 5ESS has a capacity of 160,000 subscriber lines (not all on
local loops, most come in on SLC-96) and would almost fit in my living
room.  Well, maybe my basement.

I was disappointed that the people we got to talk to didn't know much
about the equipment, they were mostly business office types.  But I
had a nice long talk with an outside plant guy who was full of stories
about cable breaks and how to splice a 1200 pair cable.

I knew that offices were being consolidated but was a little surprised
to learn that this one office covers almost the entire county except
for an island of GTE.  They seem to be tearing out individual 5xbar
switches and replacing them with muxes to the 5ESS.  There is still
one SxS in S.E.  Michigan, in the New Boston office.  In spite of the
concentration of switching equipment in Ann Arbor, there is no one on
duty here at night.

As a computer guy, one thing intrigued me.  Can anyone tell me about
the "1ESS memory card" that is just a piece of aluminum the size of a
sheet of notebook paper?  It doesn't seem to have any electrical
contacts, but you can see little squares on it that might be
individual bits of magnetic memory.

After nearly ten years of reading TELECOM Digest I finally got to see
what some of this stuff looks like.

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Automated AOS, or What-is-it?
Date: 4 Dec 90 05:59:15 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


A customer (a hotel) got a call from someone selling a service that I
am curious about.

My first opinion is that it is an automated AOS, but maybe it has some
merit, and maybe we should look at it.

They provide 'free' hardware that sits on each outgoing trunk. I loath
the idea of 'advertising' for an AOS, but here goes. I am basically
copying from the blurb they faxed to me.

"Product Summary

The Automatic Call Processor (APC) is designed to operate with any
telephone system. Initially the unit is totally passive while it
monitors local and long distance calling. It then intercepts only
those calls which are dialed as 'operator assisted calls', such as
'calling card and collect calls'. The APC then stores billing
information, which is forwarded to a billing agent.  The hotel
receives a monthly commission.

Product Features

- Routes operator assisted calls to 'local telephone company'/AT&T, or the
operator service of choice.
- Site owner or manager can determine rates.
- Produces detailed reports for all calls processed.
- Provides for validation of calling card and phone numbers.
- Automated operator voice prompts the user through the steps to complete
collect or credit card calls.

Product Benefits

- Significant increase in 'bottom-line' revenue.
- No change in present equipment.
- No change in present service.
- No cost or charge to install and use.
- Service may be canceled at any time with no obligation."

Well there it is. Apparently the 'machine' asks you to enter you
credit card or whatever, and then just dials the call on the trunk as
a plain 1+ ddd call. The captured billing info is later polled for and
used to bill the customer.

Obviously I need to find out a lot more details about their billing
algorithm, and what the machine's options are, and how current
customers like/dislike it.

They claim it is nice for the customer to be able to put the calls on
whatever credit card they want, rather than just AT&T's (this hotel is
on AT&T SDN and all 10xxx access has to be blocked simply cuz there is
NO SAFE WAY to do otherwise. 950 works, and 800 calls are free). But
most customers use a credit card to pay for the room and getting the
charges posted to the guest's account is quite automatic for DDD calls
now, and definitely at lower rates than AT&T CC service.

Sure this would let them use a different credit card, but they won't
see the bill for a month, and if there is some dispute (NO ans
supervision is available) it is a hassle to deal with it that much
later. It is better to have them squawk the next morning. They claim
to be collecting what the LD carrier (e.g. AT&T) would have been
getting for handling CC service, and spliting it with the property. If
the property wants to ream the customers, fine, or the property can
take almost nothing other than the cost of the call. They will bill
and send commission checks accordingly.

Could they be getting billing done on an AT&T card while the call went
DDD, or are they letting those calls go straight through to ATT as 0+
calls?

The sales person spoke of a 'window of opportunity' of 12 to 18
months.  Does this just mean there will be many competitors offering
this by then, or that AT&T and others will be charging less and
kicking back equivalent amounts by then for operator services? She was
new, and couldn't answer all my questions. By now she probably has
learned more answers.

The equipment was "Teltronics". There was a company by that name in
Lakeland Florida years ago the made toll restrictors and coin phone
add in gagetry for the independant market ( this is pre COCOT era
knowledge of them).

Is that who it is? Anyone know more?

Anyone curious could call the company offering the service and see
what you think. I assume you should 'be' in hotels (or other similar
resale situations) or a consultant...

(I have NO connection with these folks at all.)

Try:

Liz Bourikas    Atlantic Phone   200 Walnut Street; Suite D
Saugus, MA  01906           phone [phone]
phone [phone]        fax   [phone]


If anyone has any knowledge of the company or their product I would
love to hear it. Send me mail, and I will summarise what is found out.
I will not quote anyone directly without their permission.

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

Date: Tue,  4 Dec 90 09:53:37 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Copyright" of the Bell Symbol


Subodh Bapat writes:

>Talking about the Bell logo, [it's rumored that] AT&T lost its right
>to use the Bell logo, as the copyright expired and they forgot to
>renew it? ...  [T]hey had to pay a lot of money to get it back from
>some smart entrepreneur who ... sneaked in and got the copyright.

This rumor is nonsense just on the basis of the legal issues involved;
you don't even need to check any details of the facts:

1.  It's very unlikely that a logo could be copyrighted.  It could be
trademarked, and you could get a design patent on it (though design
patents are way too recent an innovation to be relevant to the Bell
logo).

2.  Trademarks never expire.  Generally, you lose a trademark only if
you let it become generic - i.e., if it is in common usage refering to
a class of things, not just the thing YOU sell, you will eventually
lose the ability to claim that it refers only to your product.

3.  Once a trademark is generic, no one can use it AS a trademark, at
least for the same kind of thing it previously described.  ("Kleenex"
might become a generic for facial tissues.  You couldn't reclaim it to
describe YOUR brand of facial tissues - if it's not generic, Scott
still owns it! - but you MIGHT be able to use it to describe your
brand of carburator cleaner.)

I suppose a trademark could become "free for the picking" if the
company owning it went out of business or just decided to stop using
it.  The latter is unlikely, and in the former case a valuable
trademark will be sold to satisfy the company's debts.

4.  Copyright protection lasts for 50 years beyond the life of an
individual author, or the last surviving author of multiple authors;
or for the earlier of 75 years from the date of publication or 100
years from the date of crea- tion in the case of a variety of works
where there is no identified author.  Copyrights cannot be renewed.

5.  You are generally required to include a copyright notice with each
copy of a copyrighted work.  Anyone ever see a "Copyright" next to the
Bell logo?

6.  Copyright prevents others from making COPIES.  If the Bell logo
were pro- tected only by copyright, I could cut my copy out of a phone
book I owned and paste it to the "green pages" I sell.  Hardly useful
protection!

7.  Patents do expire, and can be renewed (once); but once a patent
expires, it's gone forever - there's no way for the inventor, much
less a third party, to re-create the patent.  Actually, I'm not sure
how this works for design patents, but then again there's little
precedent so far for anyone enforcing a design patent in any useful
way.  A design patent on the shape of a tele- phone handset might make
a lot of sense; a design patent on a logo, hardly.


Jerry

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

Date: Tue,  4 Dec 1990 14:38:07 +0100
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Norway: Automatic Car Liabilities Info via Phone


New in Norway!  You can now find out whether the car you're looking at
buying has any economic liabilities tied to it, such as fines, is
mortgaged, and other relevant things, by phoning the central registry
for motor vehicles.  Previously, you had to call a person, or write,
to get this information, which cost the registry a lot of money.  It
was, as far as I know, still a free service.  However, you could spend
hours on the phone waiting to get through to the limited number of
personell devoted to this task.

What's new is that you call a special number (086-21777 to those who
understand Norwegian :-), and using your DTMF dialer (phone), get the
information you need.  Registration numbers in Norway consist of two
letters and five digits (four for motor cycles).  The letters are
encoded as the positional number they have in in the alphabet, 1
through 29 (we have three "national characters"), preceded by an
asterisk.  E.g. BL 56789, is encoded as "*02*1256789".

The procedure is simple:

    You dial the number.

    A pleasant electronic voice tells you to type in the
    registration number, followed by #, or press # for assistance.

    The number is read back to you and you are asked to confirm
    with # or enter the correct number, followed by #.

    The system searches for information, and reports it (very fast)

    You can repeat the information by dialling 9, ask for a new
    number by dialling 1, and terminate the session by dialling *.

Of course, I tried 0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and #, but all give "wrong
choice", but the fourth attempt just throws you out, as if you had
dialled * (darn, cost me three tries to find that all were like this).

The system has type-ahead features, and does syntax checking on the
registration number.  You can get the information you need in a matter
of twenty seconds if you dial fast or have an autodialer.

According to a representative of the Norwegian Telecom, automated
telephone services like this (available for bank account information
and a few other services like the above) produces enormous amounts of
traffic, and since the interaction lasts for only a few seconds, while
the minimum charging time is three minutes (at NOK 1.03 -= $.17), the
Telecom revenue is huge for even small capacity systems.

Patrick, do you think more information on what goes on in Norway,
telecommunicationally speaking, would be interesting?  The whole
country is less populated than Minnesota and 44% larger, but we still
have quite interesting telecommunications facilities, and a very
technologically advanced state-owned (monopoly) telephone company.
There are several readers of Telecom DIGEST in Norway, who may also
have the time and knowledge to contribute.


[Erik Naggum]
Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway


[Moderator's Note: Certainly, Erik. I'm sure many people would be
interested in hearing specific details of telecom service there.
Please send along more articles.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Chuck Huffington)
Subject: V&H / Area Code Table Needed
Date: 5 Dec 90 20:51:34 GMT
Organization: Apex Computer Co., Redmond WA


I need to locate a table to translate area code and prefix to a city
name.  A V&H table would also be helpful.

Does anyone know where to get/buy such a beast?  A subscription
service with updates would even be better.


Chuck Huffington
Apex Computer
uunet!apex!chuckh

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN
Date: 5 Dec 90 21:02:04 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


A few weeks ago some wrote about resellers of SDN's where AT&T does
the billing.  I was curious if anyone out there is a reseller using
SDN's and what the legal and financial requirements are.


Bill

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #868
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12418;
          7 Dec 90 8:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21953;
          7 Dec 90 4:01 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae06694;
          7 Dec 90 2:55 CST
Date:     Fri, 7 Dec 90 2:32:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #869
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 7 Dec 90 02:31:41 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 869

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    "Hackers" Steal $12 Million in Free Phone Calls From NASA [E. Krell]
    Sprint Giving Credit For Calls [David Dodell]
    Telephone Conferencing in Norway [Erik Naggum]
    MCI Personal 800 - Why the Four Digit PIN [Bill Huttig]
    Phone System Recommendation Needed [Gary Long]
    Cordless Headset Telephone [Mark J. Bailey]
    PSC Considers Fines in Southern Bell Scam [Dr. Tanner Andrews]
    Telecom Lewdness [David Barts]
    Permanently "Broken" Numbers [Laird P. Broadfield]
    PSC Approves Caller ID Trial Period for Southern Bell [Glenn F. Leavell]
    Houston Cellular Trunk Charge Pass Through [Ed Hopper]
    Return*Call and Forwarding [Arnette P. Baker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 15:31:48 EST
Subject: "Hackers" Steal $12 Million in Free Phone Calls From NASA


The {Houston Chronicle} reported that computer hackers have stolen
some $12 million in free telephone service from NASA's Johnson Space
Center.

This is said to be one of the biggest thefts of telephone service
ever, with hundreds of people using the system for at least two years.

NASA couldn't determine precise loss figures. The $12 million figure
was calculated by law enforcement agents specializing in computer
crime.

The service was stolen through the use of a stolen calling card number
and direct use of NASA's phone lines. The credit card fraud was
discovered by AT&T when the use of that number exceeded typical
patterns.  Four lines in NASA's phone system were involved in this
scheme and they have been deactivated.

This comes after in was reported on November 17 that hackers have
stolen phone service worth millions through the Houston office of the
Drug Enforcement Aadministration.

In both cases, the intruders gained access to the Federal Telephone
System, where there's no per-call billing. This accounts for such
abuses to go undetected for so long.


Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 05 Dec 90 07:11:04 mst
From: David Dodell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sprint Giving Credit for Calls


 From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>

>Also, if your call was out of state, or just any INTER-LATA call,
>after you call 211 and tell them the number, they connect you with
>AT&T. I wonder if they do this for Sprint, MCI, et. al.?? (Probably
>not -- they would quickly run out of lines if they had customers
>holding for Sprint credit for the usual hour or so! :-) )

Actually I have had very good luck getting credit from Sprint lately,
ever since the Sprint Operators are the ones giving the credit.  Just
dialing 0-0 reaches the Sprint operator fairly instantly, and asking
for credit on a misdialed, bad connection, etc. call has just taken a
couple of seconds.

And the credits have been showing up on my bills.

On another note, I asked the Sprint operator if they could see my
number on their console and they claimed they could only tell what
area code I was calling from, and if I was a 1+ customer, but that
they did not get the telephone call that I was calling from displayed.
I know AT&T has that capabilities, even if I'm dialing them with
10288+, is Sprint telling me the truth, or did they not implement the
caller number display?


David

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

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

Date: Wed,  5 Dec 1990 17:51:55 +0100
From: Erik Naggum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Conferencing in Norway


With all the discussion on telephone conferences lately, I thought the
CEPT way of initiating telephone conferences, at least in Norway,
would be of interest to Telecom readers:

Given that you need to have a direct line to your CO (no PBX's), a
touch-tone phone with flash button, and your CO needs to be all
digital, only 10% of those who could use this feature can use it.  I
guess the procedure eliminates 90% of these, as well.

There is a maximum of four people in the "meeting".  The initiator
pays for all connections, which are at the same rates as if they were
individual connections.

To initiate a telephone meeting, dial *70#, get a new dial tone, dial
the first participant, ask him to wait, flash, dial *70#, get a new
dial tone, dial the second participant, request his participation; if
OK, flash, dial *70#, you have a three-way call; if not, flash, dial
*71#, you're back in the meeting.  For the third and fourth
participant, flash, dial *70#, get dial tone, dial participant, talk,
flash, *70#.

So, let's say I want to talk to three friends of mine to arrange a
dinner, and they have numbers 112233, 445566, and 778899, I have to
dial this sequence, where R is flash, : is wait, --- is talk to one,
and === talk to all:

*70#:112233---R:*70#:445566---R:*70#===R:*70#:778899---R:*70#===

The most annoying thing is that I can't initiate a meeting unless I
start off with *70#, and we don't have three-way calling.  The meeting
is over when the initiator screw up the dialling sequence or hangs up
of his own choice.  Recovery from misdialling is absent, i.e. you lose
the entire meeting if you don't follow the rules.  Someday, I'm going
to call and ask them to send me the SDL spec with state transition
diagrams for this thing.


[Erik Naggum]
Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Personal 800 - Why the Four Digit PIN
Date: 5 Dec 90 20:59:18 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


 I talked to a representative at MCI/Telecom*USA (800-726-7000) and he
said that they will be having about 3000 PIN's per 800 number.  He
also said that all Personal 800 service is on the 484 exchange (used
to belong to Teleconnect).

I still did not receive my packet of information. Also they still
don't have my second 800 number working (I set it up to ring into my
aunt's house). I think it is strange that the number I have that rings
into my home 407-952-xxxx is 800-484-2037 and was issued on 11/28 and
the number that rings on 813-952-xxxx issued on 11/30 is 800-484-2012.
I wonder if they are assigning the by area's? The operator center for
the 800 numbers when dialed from FL is in SC.  I wonder if they center
you reach is based on the 800 number dialed or on the area dialed from?


[Moderator's Note: You'd have been better off simply getting the 800
service offered by Telecom*USA itself.  $2.75 per month is not a bad
deal and you get a personal, individual 800 number. None of this
nonsense about PINS to be dialed. I certainly hope MCI does not start
tampering with the existing Telecom*USA system and ruin it for all of
us who like it as it is.  PAT]

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

From: =Lil King= <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone System Recommendations Needed
Date: 6 Dec 90 00:34:34 GMT
Organization: College of Engg., Univ. of Cincinnati


I was wondering if anybody out there could recommend a reasonably
priced phone system for the fraternity that I am in.  What we would
like to do is have one phone in all rooms of the chapter house.  Two
lines coming into the house. The main thing is that we would like to
have long distance turned off, so as not to have to worry about
running around trying to find out who made what call.  Is there a
phone system that will allow people to enter a code before they dial
long distance, that way we would be able to tell who made what call
and who should pay for the long distance calls.  Or does anybody have
any suggestions?

We would really like to get a system that would put one phone in all
rooms, instead of each room having to get there own line.  We could
just have long distance coded through AT&T, but the complaint that
everybody has is that they do not want to have to find the President
or Treasurer when they want to call home.  They would much rather pick
up the phone in there room and dial.

Thanks in advance.


Gary Long
[e-mail]
Phi Gamma Delta

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

From: "Mark J. Bailey" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Headset Telephone
Date: 5 Dec 90 21:41:12 GMT
Organization: JobSoft Design & Development Co, Murfreesboro, TN


Can someone please email me and tell me where I can find a cordless
headset telephone?  I recall seeing one that "Plantronics" made that
was sold by DAK for a while.  I think Service Merchandise had it too.
Was that one a real lemon?  But there *has* to be some others around
as well.

What I am looking for is a brand name and model number (if possible),
and maybe even some phone numbers of places that carry them.  Our
receptionist has been bugging me for six months now, so I finally
turned to you people.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance,


Mark J. Bailey, N4XHX
USMAIL: 511 Memorial Blvd., Murfreesboro, TN 37129 |         JobSoft
VOICE:  [phone]                            | Design & Development Co.
UUCP:   ...!uunet!mjbtn!mjb, ...!raider!mjbtn!mjb  |  Murfreesboro, TN  USA
DOMAIN: [e-mail]      CIS: 76314,160
<KA9Q-UNIX-USERS Mailing List-Subscribe: [e-mail]>

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

Subject: PSC Considers Fines in Southern Bell Scam
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 20:29:58 EST
From: "Dr. Tanner Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


[From the DeLand _Sun-News_ 05-Dec-90; dateline Tallahassee(AP)]

The State Public Service Commission will investigate the unauthorized
switching of customers' long-distance service and plans to fine US
Sprint $50,000 for the practice.

That fine would be the largest ever levied by the PSC.

Widespread consumer complaints prompted the commission on Tuesday to
order a probe into the practice of ``slamming'', in which
long-distance carriers sign up customers without their consent, and
regulation of marketing practicees used by carriers.

[ 5 PP omitted ]

US Sprint decided to fight the PSC's proposed $50,000 fine after
company representatives initially indicated they would accept it in
order to end the dispute.  The company had proposed paying $10,000,
but the PSC on Tuesday said that was inadequate.


 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 14:44:21 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Lewdness


The Moderator writes:

> And in those instances where it is not a valid ending to a
> phone number the intercept lady is *so* funny to listen to as she
> tells us of our error: "The number you have dialed, NXX oh! OH! OH!!! Oh!
> is not a working number." All those 'oh!' noises could be interpreted
> in a lewd way by someone with a dirty mind. (Not your Moderator!) :)  PAT

Well, the lady on the 206-880 exchange in Redmond, WA ends up sounding
more like she stubbed her toe :-( .

On a related note, a few weeks ago I discovered with amusement that
the Sea-Tac strip (a section oh Highway 99 near Sea-Tac airport that
is also a red-light district) is served by none other than the CHerry
central office!  PAT has already pointed out thet the Chicago Police
Department is in the PIG exchange; I wonder what other examples of
amusingly-named CO's and prefixes are out there.


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

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

From: "Laird P. Broadfield" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Permanently "Broken" Numbers (was: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?)
Date: 5 Dec 90 03:15:19 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter Anvin)
writes:

>I know 555-1212 is the information number, but there must be something
>else that is special with it, or no?  Is there a reason for it being
>used as a "foo" for phone numbers (no one takes number 555-1234
>seriously, no?)

>[Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number
>for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little
>else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses
>something like 555-8111, but that is about all.  Other examples?

Does the NANP have a "guaranteed" broken number?  I used to use
555-1212 sometimes to spoof equipment (e.g. strange gadgets that have
no reasonable way to disable outcalling) but it has come to mean DA in
some parts (maybe it always was, but I didn't used to get out of
PacBellLand much.)

I have a nice "out of order" number in West Berlin (I think) but
sometimes the equipment doesn't like 19 digits either.

(P.S. Pat, re your recent mention of getting "bounced back" to an
AT&T out-of-order message on an international call: this number has
given the usual three-tone code, and a German-language message from
every place I've tried it in the last ten years.  The recording has
changed a few times, but it's always been German.  ("Kine-uh swa
bindoonk un de dezuh swuhbal!"  it says.  Actually, until recently it
said "Kine und schloos un de dezuh-noomber" in a much more polite
voice; something to do with the unification maybe?  (Sorry folks, I
don't speak German.)))


Laird P. Broadfield    UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: [e-mail]

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

From: "Glenn F. Leavell" <[e-mail]>
Subject: PSC Approves Caller ID Trial Period for Southern Bell
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 15:13:52 GMT


A cover story in yesterday's (December 5) {Atlanta Journal} reported
that the PSC has approved with a 5-0 vote Southern Bell's Caller-ID
for a one year trial period.  A spokesperson for Southern Bell said
that the service will be available in Atlanta by February, and it
should be abvailable to the rest of Georgia by April.  The cost will
be $6.00 per month.

Does anyone know the average cost of buying or leasing the device that
allows me to use Caller-ID on my current phone?  Are there already
phones available for residential use that can be used with this
service so that no extra device is required?

Thanks,


Glenn F. Leavell  Systems Administrator  [e-mail]  404-542-3488
 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602

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

Subject: Houston Cellular Trunk Charge Pass Through
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 06:25:58 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


A letter in my latest phone bill from Houston Cellular states that "in
order to continue to provide you with high quality service" (are these
guys looking out for me or what?), they will begin passing through
their trunk charges from Southwestern Bell at the rate of 1.3 cents
per minute.

Do other cellular companies have such separately identified trunk
access charges?


BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
coming soon:[e-mail] ????!!!!!  :-)

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

From: Arnette P Baker [phone] <ihlpf![e-mail]>
Subject: Return*Call and Forwarding
Date: Thu,  6 Dec 90 10:33:00 GMT


Bob Yazz ([e-mail]) writes:

>If A is the annoyer he can 1) fwd to B, then 2) call up and annoy C.
>If C returns the call with call*return, is the annoyer's call
>forwarding ignored, ringing A's phone?  If not, and the return*call to
>A is forwarded to B, the spleen-venting victims could *69 each other
>all day!  This could be what happened to the original poster of this
>dilemma.

Well according to Bellcore requirements this should never happen.
Because, when you Return*Call (*69 or *66) to any number a status
check of that far end line is made for busy/idle status and for other
information on the line.  If the line you are trying to Return*Call
has Call Forwarding (this includes the Selective Call Forwarding
option but not Call Forward on Busy or Call Forward No Answer) active
then the Return*Call will be denied with a short term denial message.
Something telling you to try the call again later.

This may not be implemented this way by all switch vendors, but these
are Bellcore's requirements.


Arnette Baker
[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #869
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04467;
          8 Dec 90 4:56 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22450;
          8 Dec 90 3:23 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00288;
          8 Dec 90 2:16 CST
Date:     Sat, 8 Dec 90 1:35:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #870
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Dec 90 01:35:08 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 870

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Conversation With MCI Telemarketer [Joel B. Levin]
    Wroclaw Cardphone System [Richard Budd]
    POP Server Advice Needed [Tom DeBoni]
    Calls to and Within Australia [Carl Moore]
    Long-Distance From Canada to U.S. [David Rabson]
    Is a $12 Million Ripoff Credible? [Jim Thomas]
    Voice Mail Hackers [David Hoisve]
    East German Telephony (Two Tin Cans and a String?) [Richard Budd]
    Modem Recognizes Boing? [J. Philip Miller]
    Telephone Wanted [Robert M. Hamer]
    Fourth Inmarsat Code [Greg Monti, via John R. Covert]
    AT&T Service Cut, Then Restored [Wash. Post / John Keator, via J. Covert]
    Worldwide Toll Free Code [Network World / Greg Monti, via John R. Covert]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conversation With MCI Telemarketer
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 08:38:58 EST


I actually had an informative conversation with an MCI salesperson
last week.  Some background: they had earlier called to push their
Reach Out America clone.  My wife, who hates solicitation calls, got
them off the phone by agreeing to receive some information by mail and
a return call later.  I got the mail (out of the blue, I thought it
was an ordinary promotional mailing) and also answered the return
call.  I am a Sprint customer, though I usually use AT&T for credit
card calls.

When I told the salesperson that I didn't want their ROA clone, she
asked why.  When queried she said she really wanted to know.  I
explained that my Sprint Plus plan is a discount on actual calls
(subject to a monthly minimum) while their plan, like ROA, is a
distance independent flat-rate-per-minute plan (subject to a monthly
minimum).  Further, most of our calls are 40 miles or less over a
single state line (southern NH to Boston area).

She not only took my point right away, but told me that in response to
a similar comment from another prospect she had analyzed his calls and
the tariffs.  She had determined that the breakeven was around 900
miles; in other words, only for calls greater than 900 miles is their
per-minute rate cheaper than the Sprint Plus discounted rate.  She
then agreed that sticking to Sprint Plus was my best option and we
terminated the call pleasantly.

I don't remember asking, but it seems clear to me I was probably
talking to an actual MCI person and not an employee of one of those
third party telemarketers.


JBL

nets: [e-mail]     BBN Communications
  or: ...!bbn!levin     M/S  20/7A
POTS: [phone]   150 Cambridge Park Drive
  or: [phone]   Cambridge, MA  02140

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

Date: THU, 06 DEC 90 16.16.43  EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wroclaw Cardphone System
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY


tuvie!!iiasa.local![e-mail] (Wolf Paul) writes:

>Actually those {payphones in Wroclaw} probably don't accept credit
>cards, but pre-paid phone cards....

[e-mail] (Deryck Fay) writes:

>there seems to be three systems in use:...

>* a magnetic card system used in Italy.  I think the Mercury phones
>in the U.K. also use a magnetic system

I believe the cardphones in Wroclaw are also using the same system.  I
recall seeing a magnetic strip on the back of the cards that were to
be used with the Wroclaw telephones.  Because it resembled the back of
my VISA credit card, I assumed they were credit cards.  Now having
read Wolf and Deryck's messages, I can understand they probably were
pre-paid cards using a magnetic system.


Richard Budd   [e-mail]   Marist College   Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

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

From: Tom DeBoni <[e-mail]>
Subject: POP Server Advice Needed
Date: 7 Dec 90 16:34:16 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


I need advice from the cognoscenti.

What's the best/cheapest/easiest-to-deal-with POP server software for
a Sun fileserver (3/280) ?  I've got one; I need a POP server; and I
don't know what to do about it.

Replies by postings will be appreciated. Replies by email will be
summazrized in the future.

Thanks in advance!


Tom DeBoni ([e-mail])

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

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 14:38:55 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calls to and Within Australia


David Wilson <[e-mail]> writes (w/r to Australia):

>All cellular phones are in their own prefix (018).

The understanding is that the leading zero is stripped off when
calling from outside of Australia.  (This is also the case in Italy,
UK, West Germany, and elsewhere -- but NOT in the USSR.)

>It is not possible to tell if a call is local (but to an adjacent area
>code) or within an area code but at STD rates (disjoint charging
>districts) without knowing a little bit of geography and which
>exchanges are where.

How are local and long distance calls made within Australia?

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

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 17:34:37 EST
From: David Rabson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long-Distance From Canada to U.S.


In preparation for moving to Vancouver in a month, I called all the
big U.S. long-distance companies to price calls placed on their cards
from Canada to the United States.

I assume Bell Canada is still the monopoly AT&T was down here until a
few years ago.  Several US long-distance carriers, however, have set
up their calling cards to work from Canada for calls to the United
States.  AT&T and Sprint quoted me US33c/min plus a surcharge of
75c-89c for a call from Vancouver to New York, but MCI quoted me
US12c/min.  I suspect that MCI was really quoting me the rate in the
other direction, NY -> Vancouver.  What does the monopoly charge?  Are
there any other possible carriers?


David Rabson     [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 07 Dec 90 16:19 CST
From: jt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is a $12 Million Ripoff Credible?


There was a post on The Well, citing a wire story, that indicated that
the yearly *total* phone bill for the Johnson Space Center is only
about $3 million. According to the story, NASA went public to deny
that hackers could have possibly run up such a sum over two years:

     "It's simply not so," said NASA spokesman Brian Welch.
     "There is no universe you can find in which this set
     of math will hold up."

If there were four lines being abused (as the {Houston Chronicle}
indicated), and if those lines were used *only* be hackers every
second of every day, it means that charges were calculated at over
$2.80 a minute. Disputing exaggerated claims of losses isn't simply a
technical quibble. We have seen consistent distortion by law
enforcement, and the result is creating a pseudo-reality that inflames
public images, leads to erroneous claims in indictments, and, in the
case of the three Atlanta Hackers, contributes to the writing of a
sentencing document filled with hyperbole, over-statement, and false
reasons for imposing incarceration.

Law enforcement, as documents from various legal proceedings indicate,
insist on holding people (whether suspected of wrong-doing or not)
accountable for every nuance of comments made on BBSs and elsewhere.
When will law enforcement agents become accountable for their cavalier
disregard of reality? Or, perhaps they expect the rest of us to share
the rich fantasy life that they accuse hackers of. (Sorry -- I know a
preposition is a bad thing to end a sentence with). The credibility of
any agency that, despite netinfo and other sources, can still confuse
a $79,000 "program" with a $13.95 public document, diminishes.

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

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 1990 19:08 MDT
From: David Hoisve <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail Hackers


I am in the process of tracking down what might be a voice mail
hacker.  The situation is long and twisted, involving stolen
equipment, a local computer company, and the only lead is a voice mail
box.  According to the voice mail company, the box is not in use.
Hmmm.

I've heard several stories of folks hacking voice mail systems
(including changing greetings and, in one case, resale of services)
but I don't have any solid information.

Does anyone out there know more about this problem?  If you'll EMAIL
responses, I'll post a summary to the list.

Thanks!


David Hoisve      University of Utah Computer Center    [phone]

NSFNet:   [e-mail]  or...  [e-mail]
BitNet:   [e-mail]

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

From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Date: THU, 06 DEC 90 15.03.10  EDT
Subject: East German Telephony (Two Tin Cans and a String?)
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY


While staying in Potsdam on what is turning out to be an incredibly
educational bicycle trip in the former Soviet bloc, I learned that
there were in September, 1990 only two telephone lines available
between Potsdam and West Berlin.  According to a fellow traveler, it
was easier for a West Berliner to reach New York City, over 4,000
miles away, and get a clear conversation, than to call Potsdam, on
Berlin's southwest border, and even get through to the other party.  I
would be interested in hearing about improvements in this situation.

Also, the telephone books in the booths in Potsdam and at the youth
hostel in East Berlin were dated 1986.

Two weeks earlier (August 24, 1990), my travelling companion tried
from a youth hostel in Konigstein, Saxony to make a collect call to
upstate New York.  He used his AT&T account number as identification.
I managed with the help of the hostel warden to reach an AT&T
operator, but he refused to complete the connection when he discovered
we were in East Germany.

My friend later was able to telephone (not collect and cash, not
credit card) from the Hotel Newa, an Inter-Hotel where Western
tourists were forced to spend the night in the bad old days.  I saw
his receipt for the call.  It cost him DM210 for five minutes.


Richard Budd   [e-mail]   Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem Recognizes Boing?
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 5:31:28 CST


In TELECOM Digest Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]> writes about
the credit card boing:

> I can't quote all the specs to you (and can't look them up, because
> I'm in a hotel room in Florida rather than in my office), but I CAN
> tell you where to find the info:

Hey Toby, when is Hayes going to introduce an AT command to "wait for
boing" -- it sure would make it easier to write scripts for signing
onto my computer system from hotel rooms around the country (including
Florida :-)


     J. Philip Miller, Professor, Division of Biostatistics, Box 8067
     Washington University Medical School, St. Louis MO 63110
         [e-mail] - Internet  [phone]
uunet!wuarchive!wubios!phil - UUCP [phone](FAX)  C90562JM@WUVMD - bitnet

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 14:48 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Wanted


A friend of mine would like to find what he calls an "Agency Unit"
telephone.  Upon questioning he says that is a plain old black Western
Electric pre-divestiture Bell dial desk phone.  (I never heard the
term "Agency Unit."  Preferably with a modular plug, he says.  Anyone
know where he can get one?  Thanks.


[Moderator's Note: I've never heard that term either, but every Bell
Phone Center store in the USA has a huge stock of black rotary dial
phones hey'll be happy to sell him.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 07:36:04 PST
From: "John R. Covert  06-Dec-1990 1035" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fourth Inmarsat Code


 From:    BETTY::GMONTI
 Subj:    Fourth Inmarsat Code

Inmarsat, which provides telephone and Telex service to ships at sea
and to land-based portable ground stations in remote areas, has
altered the positions of its satellites.  Formerly, there were three
"regions" in which Inmarsat provided service: The Atlantic Ocean
Region (AOR), The Pacific Ocean Region (POR), and the Indian Ocean
Region (IOR).  Each has a country code.  The three are 871, 872 and
873, I don't remember which order.

Now, the AOR has been divided into two regions, East and West, served
by two separate satellites.  This eliminates a gap in land coverage in
the middle of North America where instant-gratification satellite
services like transportable telecom stations, are in demand.  The
country code for AOR West is 874.  Its Telex country code is 584.  No
change in the other three.  Note that you must now know which AOR
satellite a particular ship is pointed at before you can dial it.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 08:05:27 PST
From: "John R. Covert  06-Dec-1990 1105" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Service Cut, Then Restored


 From: John Keator, NPR
 Subject: AT&T USA Direct Cut/Restored
 Organization: National Public Radio  202-822-2800

    From the {Washington Post}, 4 Dec 90

    AT&T Service Cut, Restored

    BRUSSELS, 3 Dec -- The international talks here are supposed
to be about opening up international trade and making it more
competitive, but somebody forgot to tell the state-run Belgian phone
company.

    As U.S. officials and business executives arrived here for the
talks this weekend, they found that a special program by American
Telephone & Telegraph Co. that allows cheaper calls to the United
States had disappeared from their hotel rooms.

    An angry Randolph Lund, AT&T's vice president for government
relations who is here for the talks, called it blatant protectionism
on the part of the Belgian telephone monopoly.  He said that AT&T
service representatives found that the telephone company had shut of
the service, called AT&T USA Direct, in the two hotels in which the
American delegation was housed in order to collect higher service
rates.

    The service was restored early this morning, after complaints
to the Belgian phone company and an official protest to Belgian
authorities by the U.S. embassy.

            ---------

    I have also has this experience, but the blockage ocurred in
the hotel.  In several London hotels, they now bill a call to the USA
direct number a flat charge of 2.50 pounds (@$4.85).  Other hotels in
London, including one in which I often stay, encourage the use of USA
direct and charge nothing for its use.  In many countries the call to
the USA direct number is billed at local call rates, which can also be
fairly excessive from hotel rooms expecially where the call is timed.

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 07:36:45 PST
From: "John R. Covert  06-Dec-1990 1036" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Worldwide Toll Free Code


 From:    BETTY::GMONTI
 Subj:    Worldwide Toll Free Code

According to an article in _Network World_, there's a move afoot in
Western Europe to implement a worldwide toll free numbering plan.  The
need for such a plan was raised by Hans Fraasen of an ad-hoc carrier
committee examining international toll free calling.  Apparently, the
problem in the European Economic Community is that continent-wide
television ads must list a toll-free number for each country from
which the advertiser accepts calls.  The confusing list of numbers
must be displayed on the screen so viewers can write down the correct
one.

Fraasen proposes that the concept of a toll free area code in each
country be expanded one level to a toll free "country code."  There
wouldn't actually be a "toll free country" just like there is no
specific land area in the US where "area code" 800 resides.  Fraasen
proposes that the toll-free country code be 800, followed by 7 digits.
That should hold the planet until more than 10,000,000 numbers are
needed.  From the UK, it would be dialed as 010-800-XXX-XXXX.  From
the US, it would be 011-800-XXX-XXXX.  From France, 19-800-XXX-XXXX.
The only thing a consumer would have to add to the number would be his
country's international access code.

Using 800 has two advantages: it's not currently used as a country
code and it's familiar to dialers in some countries as "the toll free
area code."

After studying the matter, Fraasen's group will make a recomendation
to the CCITT.  They expect approval in two years and implementation
about one year after that.

Not mentioned in the story: whether individual international 800 users
could restrict their +800 number to being dialed only from certain
countries or only from certain area codes within those countries.


Greg Monti, Arlington, Virginia; work [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #870
******************************











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17493;
          8 Dec 90 20:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00315;
          8 Dec 90 17:50 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30517;
          8 Dec 90 16:25 CST
Date:     Sat, 8 Dec 90 15:55:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #871
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 8 Dec 90 15:54:57 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 871

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Mark W. Wheatley]
    Re: Use of 10732 for LD Calls [Bill Crane]
    Re: Use of 10732 for LD Calls [Eduardo Krell]
    Re: What is MFJ a TLA For? [John Higdon]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Tony L. Hansen]
    Re: Theft of Phone Service [Mark Van Buskirk]
    Re: Stupid AT&T Ads [David Gast]
    Re: Stupid AT&T Ads [Lou Judice]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Jim Rees]
    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Randy Borow]
    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Doug Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 00:56:32 -0600
From: Mark W Wheatley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing


This may have been already metioned, but you dan dial into any of the
four switches you want. When you call 456-1000, you are routed through
Dallas.  2000, 3000 and 4000 each route through one of the other
centers -- at least that's how it was explained to me and it worked
when I had occasion to use the service about three years ago.


Mark Wheatley
[e-mail]

[Moderator's Note: Are you sure it is 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 or is
it 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, etc. ?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Crane)
Subject: Re: Use of 10732 for LD Calls
Date: 6 Dec 90 20:51:00 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Crane)
Organization: Days Inns of America


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>I called from an AT&T pay phone on 301-272, and made credit card call
>to time and weather service in Delaware by punching in
>10732-0-302-633-1212 and after I punched in my credit card number, it
>went thru as if I had punched in 10288 instead of 10732.  (i.e., via
>AT&T)

>[Moderator's Note: I did almost the very same thing from a payphone on
>the 312-743 exchange. ...

I questioned our AT&T SDN rep, who initially responded that 10732
would block non-subscriber traffic.  I was able to stage a
demonstration to the contrary, and he looked deeper into the matter
for me.

Currently, almost anyone can complete a call using 10732 (except
perhaps in high fraud areas where the service is turned on for each
specific user).  At the end of each billing period, the SDNCC verifies
that each call carried by 10732 is a valid SDN call.  Those calls that
were not placed by SDN subscribers are then billed at regular rates
(no savings).  Due to the processing time for this verification, the
call may not appear on your bill for up to 60 days.

Eventually, only SDN subscribers will be able to complete calls on
10732.


Bill Crane                     ...!gatech!daysinns!bill
Days Inns of America Inc       [e-mail]
2751 Buford Hwy NE             Atlanta GA 30324

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Use of 10732 for LD Calls
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 10:38:42 EST


Patrick,

  I think the original poster said the rates were lower if you had SDN
(Software Defined Network). I doubt you'll get lower rates without
SDN.


Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: [e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is MFJ a TLA For?
Date: 6 Dec 90 09:18:57 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Dec 6 at  0:08, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> the telephone network in the USA is
> going to (bleep) in a handbasket. What took a century to build and
> refine, a judge killed with the stroke of a pen.  PAT]

There are obvious examples confirming your point of view, but there
are (IMHO) many more examples of benefits that most certainly would
never have seen the light of day if stodgy old AT&T was still the head
of the church.

I know my bank account is a little fatter as a result of the MFJ. When
"The Phone Company" did EVERYTHING, non-telco designers,
manufacturers, and consultants were unheard of. So how have we
benefitted? Well, I'd like to compare your two-line "twist knob" phone
to my Panasonic KX-T1232. Or maybe a "Dataphone" 300bps modem to one
of my Trailblazers (which would have been forbidden for me to hook up
in the old days).

My long distance calls go through faster, more reliably, and sound
better then in the pre-MFJ era. Is this the stuff of which handbaskets
are made? Pac*Bell, as bad as it is, is MUCH more responsive to my
wishes and needs than it ever was as Pacific Telephone. (Repair is
faster, needed less often, and the people are much more open about how
it all works.)

AT&T now BEGS for my business. In the pre-MFJ their arrogance knew no
bounds. In fact, I use several long distance companies--each providing
certain benefits.

Does all of this require more public education to reap the benefits?
You bet. What doesn't these days? But with the exception of COCOTs, I
find telephone service now to be superior by a quantum leap to that
which existed before the gospel of the famous Judge.


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

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

Date: Wed,  5 Dec 90 22:44:00 EST
From: Tony L Hansen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


< [Moderator's Note: 555-1212 was simply adopted as a universal number
< for directory assistance, and to the best of my knowledge very little
< else has been assigned on 555. I think one AT&T business office uses
< something like 555-8111, but that is about all.  Other examples?

I've been told that whenever the film studios out in Hollywood want a
phone number for use in a movie, TV show or commercial, they go
through a special liason office with the phone company. (I think AT&T
used to run this, but it's probably done through BellCore now.) The
numbers which the studio receives are always 555-****, taken from a
special pool set aside for this purpose. I think that the liason
office even tries to recycle the number slowly enough so that they
won't seem to be the same too often. The next time that you see a
phone number given in a commercial or movie, it will almost certainly
be a 555 number.


Tony Hansen
att!pegasus!hansen, attmail!tony
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Dec  6 13:30:31 CST 1990
Subject: Re: Theft of Phone Service
Organization: AT&T


As a billing representative who has investigated many fraud cases my
advice to Mr/Ms Van Gale would be:

  1) Ask Contel for a one time goodwill adjustment (assuming they have no
     previous claim history).

  2) Check with your insurance agent to see if this type of loss is covered
     under your homeowners policy.

  3) If the first two fail cross your fingers and head for the lawyers
     office.


Good Luck!


Mark Van Buskirk       Rolling Meadows Il     708-228-7075

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

Date: Wed, 5 Dec 90 23:16:26 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Ads


Stupid ads is certainly one category that AT&T does not and never did
monopolize.  In fact, I can't think of any ad I don't think is
manipulative, but that is a topic of discussion for another newsgroup.

> * A current campaign targets small business ... their rates are competitive.
                                  -----------
In adver-speak competitive always means ``more expensive, but not so
much more that YOU the consumer should mind.''  As another example,
consider ``a competive rate'' versus ``the lowest/highest rate''.  (It
depends whether you are paying or receiving interest).


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

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 07:36:57 PST
From: Peripheral Visionary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Ads


I'm a bit too young to remember the Bell Telephone Hour on radio, but
I do remember what I think was the ultimate OLD AT&T ad ... After the
2nd Av fire in NYC, they ran a VERY impressive series of ads with the
ending message "the system works" (or something like that). The ad
itself was titled, I believe, "Miracle on Second Avenue". Anyone else
remember it?


ljj

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 16:56:11 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>,  seanp%undrground@amix.
commodore.com (Sean) writes:

>The transmitter section of the setup is IMPRESSIVE. Everyone could
>concievably use thier phone at the same time, as there are 400
>channels available for use.

I doubt very much that the airplane is able to transmit on 400
channels, or even 56 channels, at once.

>894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same
>manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the
>ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation.

AM on 5KHz spacing?  Are you sure?  I would guess companded SSB, just
based on the age of the system, but I don't know.

We have now had one person claim that there is no hand-off, and
another claim that there is.  What's the real story?  Airfone
pre-dates cellular, right?

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Dec  6 11:03:08 CST 1990
Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing


K. Jongsma and our esteemed moderator both wondered why ALLIANCE's
automated capabilities "shut off" for the weekend, while their
operators are there all the time. Got me to thinking, too, so I
chatted with a few of Ma Bell's (oh, am I allowed to say that, Judge
Greene?) operators and found out -- nothing.

I haven't found a thing in any tariffs, guides, etc., and the response
from the operators I talked to was a simple "I don't know." All the
operators do not seem too bothered by this, however -- probably
because it gives them work to do in an increasingly automated business
where these workers are being replaced by some diabolical machines.
(Has anyone been the victim of those obnoxious automated, personless
payphones which supposedly help you to place collect, third party and
calling card calls? Illinois Bell here has plenty of them, and I hate
'em! They also don't work well, anyway. Wait till you get your bill in
and look at those "collect calls" you supposedly told the talking
computer you would NOT accept.)


Randy Borow
attmail!internet!bcm1a09!rborow

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

Date: 6-DEC-1990 13:36:31.47
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing


Re: Alliance being available 24 hours a day only via the 800 number...

 From what I gather from use and conversations with AT&T, Alliance 700
access *used* to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This was
around 1984 or 1985, when AT&T was just started to promote the
service.

A number of things happened when 700 access was started: The first,
and easier to correct, was that many payphones actually allowed you to
dial 700 Alliance, and place conference calls around the world for
free!. Many people at my school had figured this out pretty quickly
(or heard about it on some BBS), and I can recall that ALL of the
payphones on my hall were perpetually in use because people were
calling and conferencing all of their friends.  After I figured out
what was going on (I had never heard of Alliance before), I found out
that you could transfer calls, by hitting "#6", to another location,
and that location could then control the conference, without being
billed for it.

This explained why many of the payphones were always left off the
hook, with signs saying "DO NOT *EVER* HANG UP". If someone came to
the payphone and needed to use it, there was a code you could enter
(can't recall, maybe #9?) that would let you break away from the main
conference and go back to being a controller. You could then make a
call to another location, let the person who needed to use the
payphone complete his/her call, and then rejoin the conference or
transfer control back to someone else.

Needless to say, AT&T didn't like this too much, and they quickly
disabled Alliance 700 access from payphones. They also killed the "#6"
transfer feature from 700 access around the same time. (Interestingly,
right after they killed 700 Allaince access from payphones, a number
of Charge-A-Calls suddenly got three-way calling! Maybe that was
supposed to be some sort of consolation? :) )

Anyhow, after all this died down, AT&T's second problem was that
people were using Alliance from PBX's. IE, you dial into a PBX, enter
"1234" which was all too often the access code, and then dial out
Alliance 700, and presto! -- more toll-free conferencing. And since
Alliance had such good connections (this was before AT&T was fiber),
people would call into the PBX, get a hold of Alliance, and then call
to their SECOND line.

They would leave this in place until they needed to make a call
(usually a modem call which was affected by noisy lines), at which
time they enter a third number to Alliance, thus connecting their
SECOND line to the new number. In other words, callers would call
Alliance via PBX, and then call themselves back, and "park" the call.
When they needed a clean line to some LD number: get out of "park"
mode, call your desired number, and you have now set up an ultra-clean
connection between your (non-controller) SECOND line and whatever
number you want to add to the conference via Alliance. (Got that? :) )

So the PBX owners and AT&T didn't like this too much either, and some
time in 1986 if I recall correctly, AT&T dropped 700 access on
weekends. Their reasoning for this was that there was very little
*legitimate* business use on weekends, and that customers who needed
to use Alliance at such times could afford the slight annoyance of
having to go through the 800 number and then get called back. This
*did* substantially cut down on fraud.

So that's basically why (as I am told) there is no 700 access during
weekends.

Also, I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but if you are planning a
conference call via Alliance, and know that all your conferees will be
in, let's say, New York, but you are in LA, it MAY be cheaper for you
to SPECIFY that you want to use the New York (White Plains) center
rather than the default of LA. Dialing 0-700-456-1000 gives you the
nearest center, yet as the above example demonstrates, this may not be
the most economical way to do things.  So, you can dial 0-700-456-100x,
where x=1,2,3 or 4, each of which forces a call to a different center,
regardless of where you are. (It's been a while since I've used
Alliance, but I think -1001 is LA, -1003 is White Plains, and I don't
remember the other two.) This system of specifying which system you
want should also work for Alliance 2000 (audio-graphic?), ie,
0-700-456-200x, X=0, 1,2,3,4. There used to be a "test" or
non-published Alliance 3000 service, ie, 0-700-456-3000, which was for
mixed audio/video services, but I've never bothered finding out about
that.

Back in 1988 when I was using it, they were having a lot of billing
problems.  Most of them seemed to be problems with detecting when the
controller hung up. So if I called Alliance 1000 and didn't add anyone
and hung up after one minute, I would frequently get a bill that said
I was on for fifteen minutes!  I called AT&T each time this happened,
and they were glad to take these charges off my bill, and apologized
for any problems it may have caused me. Towards the end of 1988 they
appeared to have corrected the problem, but I haven't really used it
much since, so I can't really tell.

Finally, has the "LA" center been moved to Reno, NV? Dialing
0-700-456-1001 would always result in the message "This is Alliance
Teleconferencing in Los Angeles"... However, from the postings, it
seems that the center is in Reno now...is it new, or are they just
being more exact with their announcements?

Guess that's it.

Doug

[e-mail]  [e-mail]
(and just plain old "dreuben" to locals...!! :-)   )

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #871
******************************






DUE TO TRANSMISSION DELAY ISSUE 875 APPEARS NEXT. THEN FOLLOWS ISSUES
872, 873, AND 874, FOLLOWED BY 876.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11867;
          9 Dec 90 21:06 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31701;
          9 Dec 90 18:36 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20302;
          9 Dec 90 17:21 CST
Date:     Sun, 9 Dec 90 16:42:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #875
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Dec 90 16:42:01 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 875

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cellular Accessories Catalog [TELECOM Moderator]
    10xxx Codes Detective Work [Ed Hopper]
    Len Rose Seeking Expert Unix Witnesses [Jim Thomas]
    How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY? [Phil Molloy]
    Cellular Telephone Comparisons Wanted [Dan Veeneman]
    Photonic Switching Information Wanted [Mohamed Zaki]
    Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [Steve Thornton]
    Re: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones) [Richard Budd]
    Re: LD vs. Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Dick Rawson]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Arun Baheti]
    Re: Return*Call Humor [Dana Paxson]
    Re: Return*Call Humor [Paul Gauthier]
    Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol [Herman R. Silbiger]
    MCI Starts 900 Service; Limits Charges to $4.00 [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 15:17:56 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Accessories Catalog


It had to happen, I suppose. As cellular telephones become more and
more commmon, the need for accessories, alternate antennas, batteries
and other gimmicks has followed close at hand.  A company is now
operating, via mail order, with a small catalog of accessories for
your cellular phone.

Cellular Products Distributors of Los Angeles sent me their catalog of
items. Included are a variety of antenna connectors, SMA < --> TMC
adapters, mobile mounting devices, extra batteries, battery
eliminators, NAM programmers, and more.  They offer several types of
antennas to replace existing ones as desired.

They claim to stock the above accessories for several manufacturers of
cellular phones, including but not limited to Panasonic, Audiovox,
Oki, Mitsubishi, NovAtel, Motorola, Uniden, NEC, Technophone and
Nokia-Mobira / Radio Shack.

Their prices seem to be reasonable, and their delivery service is
good. I ordered two items:

      Item ULPAO   1/8 Wave Ultra Low Profile Antenna         $17.88
      Item NMCG    Battery Eliminator for Radio Shack CT-301  $28.88

The first item is a little *tiny* antenna, all of one-inch long,
intended to replace the "standard" antenna on my CT-301. Now I know a
little about antennas, and I know that the antenna is probably 75
percent of what makes *any* radio good or bad. I was skeptical of this
item, which appears to be too good to be true (my original antenna was
frequently abused and getting bent under my jacket), since only
certain fractions of a wave are the most receptive to a good signal.
In many (most?) radio serviuces, 1/8 wave does not do very well. But
I've found the Chicago area is so well covered that the slight
degradation of signal (I've measured it) using the little stub-like
thing is minor.  It also works nicely with my Technophone MC-915-A
that I have operating on Cellular One/Chicago.

The second item is a 'dummy battery' which attaches to the CT-301 just
like a regular battery, but has a cigarette lighter adapter plug on
the end of a five foot coiled cord such as on the receiver of a
telephone. This allows the CT-301 to be used in the car without the
bulky 'mobile adapter' recommended by Radio Shack. The cigarette-lighter
plug can be easily removed by a technically inclined person and any
adapter of choice installed instead, such as to a 12-volt power supply
you plug into an AC line, etc, meaning you could plug the phone into
an electrical outlet anywhere there is electricity and you want to use
the phone.  Caution: the 'dummy battery' is NOT the AC/DC adapter ...
it is just a way to connect the wires to the phone.

The little catalog I received has dozens of little charms like this,
and I would recommend you at least order the catalog itself and look
it over.  They take VISA/MC of course, as well as COD orders. Open
account may be possible with established credit; I can't say for sure.

They ship next-day air for a few dollars more. I put my order in by
phone on Thursday, December 6 and had my purchase Friday morning at
the office.

Cellular Products Distributors
1616 Cotner Avenue
Los Angeles, CA  90025

Orders:  1-800-654-3050  Nationwide except CA
         1-800-443-9889  CA orders only
         1-213-312-0778  Technical inquiries / calls from outside USA
         1-213-473-7782  Fax line for orders, inquiries, etc.


Patrick Townson

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

Subject: 10xxx Codes Detective Work
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 22:21:34 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


[e-mail] (Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>) writes:

> Does anyone have a comprehensive list of the 10xxx's for the Twin
> Cities area (US West)?

One time, when I was *very* bored, I compiled a list of 10xxx codes
the hard way -- I sat and dialed 1-700-555-4141 preceded by EVERY
three digit number from 100 to 999.  It really doesn't take that long
if you have the 700-555-4141 number in speed calling.  Now, those
numbers that do not have toll billing agreements with the RBOC are
probably not reachable, but if you can't use them, who cares what
their number was?

It was very useful on Black Monday trying to find out what the hell
happened.


Ed Hopper

 BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
 coming soon:[e-mail] ????!!!!!  :-)


[Moderator's Note: 'ncr.att.com' you say? The hell you say! Not
everyone at NCR would agree with your assessment, nor your smiley
notation. To some at NCR, the situation looks quite grim. I'll reserve
judgment for now -- such a merger might be a good deal. Who knows?
But more to the point: if you 'tried every number from 100 through
999' then you overlooked the ones from 001 through 099 didn't you?
There are carrier access codes down there also I believe.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 00:44 CST
From: Jim Thomas <[e-mail]>
Subject: Len Rose Seeking Expert Unix Witnesses


Len Rose is beginning to prepare for his defense in Baltimore in
February. He is looking for Unix experts/gurus who would be willing to
provide general technical testimony about Unix.  If anybody is willing
to consider it, or can provide the names of others who might be
willing, call Len at: [phone].


Jim Thomas
Computer Underground Digest


[Moderator's Note: Poor Len. He's a great subject-candidate for the
old negro spiritual song, "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen".   PAT]

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

From: Phil Molloy <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY
Date: 8 Dec 90 00:48:14 GMT
Organization: Teradyne Inc.


A friend of mine would like to be able to contact her brother who has
a TTY connected to his phone line.  She has access to various modems
and computers to dial her bother's phone, but doesn't know if it is
possible to communicate with this piece of equipment.  I don't know
what kind of modulation/demodulation scheme is used by the TTY.  Does
anyone out there know if what she wants to do is possible or should
she simply by another TTY and do it that way?  The ability to do it
from a modem would broaden here access to him, allowing her to call
from home via a PC or work via her workstation.

E-mail of any help would be greatly appreciated.

(BTW I don't know if TTY is a brand name, reference to Teletype, or
what.  It's all she gave me for info).

Thanks,


Philip E. Molloy  H71        | Internet:  teradyne![e-mail]
Teradyne Inc.                |            difrel![e-mail]
321 Harrison Ave.            | UUCP:      {csun, ism780c}!teradyne!molloy
Boston, Ma. 02118            | Phone:     [phone] x 3678

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 15:01:20 CST
From: Dan Veeneman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Telephone Comparisons Wanted


I know this subject comes up repeatedly, but does someone out there
have a relatively recent comparison of both transportable and pocket
cellular telephones?  Price, features, battery life, horror stories,
etc, would all be welcome.

Please e-mail so as not to take up any additional bandwidth.

Thanks,

Dan   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Don't be mislead by the extremely low prices some
dealers are offering. You can spend whatever you like, but good
quality phones are available in the $100-200 price range. Stay away
from places offering almost free phones, ie. Fretters; the strings
attached are pretty expensive. A local advertisement here is offering
cell phones for *twelve cents* -- yep, $ .12 -- provided you pay the
obligatory $149.88 'installation charge' and agree to put a thousand
bucks up front with Ameritech as advance payment for services during
the lifetime of the contract. Fretters had a really nice looking
portable on sale a year ago for around a hundred dollars; it was only
when you were in the store, expressed interest and were in the middle
of choosing a 'service agreement' that the sales people would spring
the good news on you: Ameritech was 'making this special deal
available' to persons who committed to $1000 worth of service by
paying for it in advance, of course!  PAT]

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

Date: 8 Dec 90   13:21 IDS
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Photonic Switching


I am interested in the subject of photonic switching on academic
level.  Could any one tell where to get more info about the subject?
(papers, periodicals, books, etc.)

Any help would be most appreciated.


Mohamed Zaki

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

Date: Thu, 06 Dec 90 17:52:34 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements


I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid,
insulting ads. I also change the channel whenever they come on. I
don't know exactly what it is about them, but I have a strong visceral
reaction against them.


Steve

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

Date: THU, 06 DEC 90 15.55.09  EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones)
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY


<[e-mail]> Deryck Fay in Telecom Digest #857 writes:

>I had no problems making international calls from payphones in
>Czechoslovakia this autumn.

Neither did I in late August from Praha.  International calls to the
USA could be made either from the hotel switchboard direct dial or
from a payphone and it was relatively inexpensive (about Kcs100 for
three minutes, about $4.00).  However international service was
difficult to obtain or unavailable in the provinces, where payphones
themselves were scarce!


Richard Budd        [e-mail]
Marist College   Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

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

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 09:47:21 PST
From: Dick Rawson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges


Aspen (by Octel) lets me type * instead of # initially when dialing
in, for just this reason.


Dick Rawson

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

Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 19:29 CDT
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?


I'm glad that they at least use 555- numbers now.  I remember about
ten years ago when a muscial group (the B-52s?) did a song about
someone's phone number.  All over the country, the poor owners of
xxx-xxxx were driven batty by fans just trying out the number to see
if anything would happen.  I'm not sure how they phone company (at
that time it was just Ma Bell) dealt with it.


ab

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

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 13:59:16 EST
From: Dana Paxson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor
Organization: Computer Consoles Inc. an STC Company, Rochester, NY


One of the first things I do when I see an array of features supplied
in a system is ask myself: What collisions or 'cross- products' of
features yield newly emergent effects?  It seems to me in the rush to
tantalize with new services and collect new revenues, the telephone
companies are rushing some not-well- thought-out combinations to
market.  The call-forwarding plus call-return combination should have
been better analyzed before setting them out for the already-dazed
subscriber.

A nuisance caller who has unsupervised access to a telephone providing
call forwarding can set call forward on that phone to target someone,
then dial through the forwarded phone with a nuisance call.  This
example is a kind of inverse of the one discussed earlier.  Disabling
of call-forward when executing a call-return in this situation simply
leaves the unsuspecting owner of the forwarded phone with an irate
victim confronting him/her.  It is a complicated situation to resolve
in any case unless the call forwarding is somehow 'visible' to the
recipient of the call.


Dana Paxson    Computer Consoles, Inc.  97 Humboldt Street
Rochester, NY  14609   716 654-2588     [e-mail]

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

From: Paul Gauthier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Return*Call Humor
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 1990 13:52:13 -0400


    People keep mentioning *69 as the code which invokes return
call. Has anyone noticed the possible sick humor this number could
cause. You would be 'reciprocating' a call, so to speak. :-)

 From the warped mind of,

      PG
      [e-mail]
      [e-mail]
      [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I agree that was a very warped thing to say.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri,  7 Dec 90 08:12:41 EST
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Communications Protocol
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> The user's manual asserts that NAPLPS, North American Presentation
> Level Protocol Standard, is the communications protocol.

> But, it seems the tech support people at PRODIGY don't know this.
> They assert, wrongly, that the downstream communications is compressed
> bit-maps.

NAPLPS is the North American Presentation Layer Protocol Syntax.  It
is not a protocol, but a syntax for the image coding.  NAPLPS is
resolution independent, and controls a variety of methods to actually
produce the image.  There are two other standardized videotex coding
syntaxes, the European CEPT, and the Japanese CAPTAIN.  All are
standardized in CCITT Rec. T.101.  A method for Videotex systems to
interwork has been standardized and uses ODA (Open Document
Architecture) as an interchange method.  ODA uses ASN.1 (Abstract
Syntax Notation One) as a syntax.

I have no idea what the actual communications protocol is that Prodigy
uses to communicate with the PC.


Herman Silbiger
[e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 15:30:10 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Starts 900 Service; Limits Charges to $4.00


MCI announced recently they will be starting to offer 900 service
after the first of the year. A variety of programs will be available
from a variety of information providers, making their 900 service
similar to all the others. There is one exception: MCI has said they
will arrange to limit charges to $4.00 on services pertaining to
children, in an effort to anticipate and limit losses to parents whose
children call without permission, i.e. Santa Claus messages, etc.

MCI is to be congratulated for making this responsible effort to
mitigate the expense otherwise incurred by unwitting users of 900
services. It was not clear to me if they intend to place the $4.00
limit on each *call*, or on total calls per billing period, or what.
If one of our MCI readers has more information, they might like to
pass it along.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #875
******************************






NEXT COMES 872, 873 AND 874, THEN 876.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15904;
          10 Dec 90 1:37 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09479;
          9 Dec 90 13:18 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25232;
          9 Dec 90 11:54 CST
Date:     Sun, 9 Dec 90 11:31:10 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #872
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Dec 90 11:30:37 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 872

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Switching Office Open House [Raymond C. Jender]
    Re: Switching Office Open House [Ken Abrams]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Norman Yarvin]
    Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Wolfgang S. Rupprecht]
    Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Brian Kantor]
    Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [John Higdon]
    Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Patrick Tufts]
    Re: The "Bell" Logo [John Macdonald]
    Re: The "Bell" Logo [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN [Mark Oberg]
    Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal?? [Dave Levenson]
    Re: "Copyright" of the Bell Symbol [Andrew Hastings]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Nathan Glasser]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri,  7 Dec 90 12:09:22 EST
From: Raymond C Jender <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Switching Office Open House
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
writes:

> As a computer guy, one thing intrigued me.  Can anyone tell me about
> the "1ESS memory card" that is just a piece of aluminum the size of a
> sheet of notebook paper?  It doesn't seem to have any electrical
> contacts, but you can see little squares on it that might be
> individual bits of magnetic memory.

> After nearly ten years of reading TELECOM Digest I finally got to see
> what some of this stuff looks like.


The 1E Memory Card is 6 5/8 x 11 1/4 inches.  Each card stores 64
words of 44 Bits. A 45th bit in each word is not used for data
storage.  When a memory card is placed in the module, there are 64
solenoid loops associated with it, one for each row of 45 bar magnets.
A pulse in a solenoid loop interrogates simultaneously the
corresponding row of 45 magnets on the card.

Clear thing up a little?

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Switching Office Open House
Date: 8 Dec 90 23:55:35 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

>As a computer guy, one thing intrigued me.  Can anyone tell me about
>the "1ESS memory card" that is just a piece of aluminum the size of a
>sheet of notebook paper?  It doesn't seem to have any electrical
>contacts, but you can see little squares on it that might be
>individual bits of magnetic memory.

Those are indeed very small magnets on the aluminum cards.  This is
something like EPROM on a huge scale.  It is really quite a feat of
precision mechanical engineering.  To change the memory, the cards are
put on a tray and "written" with a 44 head card writer mechanism.  The
whole process is a mechanical nightmare but it has proven to be very
reliable over the years.  The little magnets slide in against a mylar
strip with very fine "read wires".  On the other side of the mylar
strip is a device that produces a weak magnetic pulse across a row of
44 bits.  The ones where the adjacent magnet on the card is "off" will
send the pluse through and produce a "1".  If the little magnet is
"on", then the pulse is blocked and a "0" is the result.  The "words"
come out 44 bits at a time.


Ken Abrams         uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell      [e-mail]
Springfield        (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?
Date: 6 Dec 90 20:24:23 GMT


555 numbers are also used in movies, in scenes where a phone number is
spoken.  The assumption is that 555 numbers will either be unassigned
or will be assigned to a telephone company number (such as directory
assistance) which can handle large amounts of calls.


[Moderator's Note: None of this would be needed of course if it were
not for the nuts who go to the movies then try to actually call one of
the numbers to 'see who they get' when they dial.  PAT]

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

From: "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <wsrcc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North
Organization: Wolfgang S Rupprecht Computer Consulting, Washington DC.
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 17:02:50 GMT


[e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce) writes:

>That is an OLD trick, but a slight modification may make sense.
>[...]  Instead of having the low temp thermostat simply short the
>line, have it connect a pair of back to back zeners across the line.
>68 volt ones normally work well when the CO battery is 48v. If you
>are on a DLL ckt with 72 or 96 volts, pick diodes a bit higher.
>Ringing superimposed on battery will trip when a zener fires, but the
>line will then go on hook instantly.

Ahem.  Old trick is right.  Didn't TAP recomend an NE-2 bulb?

Isn't this blatently illegal, just because is does interfere with call
progress detection in old exchanges?  I thought there were tight specs
on how fast you were allowed to go off-hook after the ring.


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

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

From: Brian Kantor <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North
Date: 6 Dec 90 20:33:53 GMT
Organization: The Avant-Garde of the Now, Ltd.


Hook one of those $99 radio shack alarm dialers to a thermostat and
water sensor.  If a pipe breaks or the heat fails, you'll get called.


Brian

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges
Date: 6 Dec 90 12:35:24 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


snowgoose![e-mail] writes:

>     I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel
> with my LD calling card.  The voice mail system wants me to enter "#"
> to be prompted for my password.  Guess what happens?  That's right,
> the LD carrier disconnects that call and prompts me to make another.

Did you actually try this with AT&T, or are you just theorizing? This
is exactly why the '#' will not work for "recall" while the call in
progress is supervised (distant end off-hook). I check my voice mail
regularly with an AT&T calling card. My VM system requires the
entering of the '#' key up the wazoo and I have yet to be disconnected
by AT&T.

BTW, I just tried accessing my VM using the Sprint 800 access. Even
with the copious entering of '*' and '#' to put the VM through its
paces, I was not disconnected.

Methinks you are making big noise about no problem. If you are
actually having difficulty, have your 'right coast' people call the
'left coast' to find out how it's done.


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

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

From: Patrick Tufts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago
Date: 6 Dec 90 21:00:56 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University


John Slater writes:

[in reply to the assertion that, in the US (but not the UK) you can
order a pizza via cellular from your car and get it just as you arrive
home.]

I don't know what prompts you to make this insular assumption. Of
course we can do this: we have pizza delivery services, and we have
one of the best and most successful cellular setups in the world.

Not to nitpick, but :-) :-)

Few pizza places in England have heard of delivery service.  When I
was at the University of Essex, the local pizza place said `of course,
we deliver' ... to the central loading dock of the school, that is.

Not a one of my flatmates (20 of them, all Brits) had ever heard of
having a pizza delivered.

ObPhone question: Why is it that a UK -> US phone call is much more
expensive than a US -> UK call?


Pat

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

From: John Macdonald <eci386![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
Reply-To: John Macdonald <eci386![e-mail]>
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 1990 16:27:23 -0500


In article <[e-mail]> mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat
(Subodh Bapat) writes:

|Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that,
|once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the
|copyright expired and they forgot to renew it? The story I heard was
|that they had to pay a lot of money to get it back from some smart
|entrepreneur who, in the meantime, sneaked in and got the copyright
|for himself.

|Anyone have any facts to substantiate/dispel this rumor?

I don't know about the Bell Logo, but before it gets dismissed as an
urban legend, I can cite a somewhat similar case that definitely did
happen.

In the late 1970's (and possibly still today) there was some
difference about registering copyrights in the province of British
Columbia compared to the rest of Canada.  There was at least one person
in BC who made use of this fact to pre-register trademarks of
companies that seemed likely to eventually want to start operating in
BC.

For that reason, at that time, Perkin-Elmer Data Systems used a
different company name within BC than they used in the rest of Canada
and the USA.  This was just after they changed their name from being
Interdata (and there was a different operating name for Interdata in
BC too).


John Macdonald   jmm@eci386

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 20:19 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


Before the former Bell System adopted the stylized bell logo that
Bellcore and some operating companies still use, AT&T and its
associated companies used a more natural-looking bell-in-a-circle. You
may notice this on some older manhole covers.

Bell Canada used the older bell-in-a-circle logo for a long time (with
the accompanying text "local and long distance service", I believe).
It never adopted the stylized bell of the former Bell System. Rather,
it replaced its old logo with a wordmark, the word "Bell" in a bold
sans-serif face, normally reproduced in blue.

A year or two after divesture, I was shopping in one of the grungier
areas of Toronto, where merchants use the cheapest possible shopping
bags, which often are ones bearing the name of a store that went out
of business (and so the store's liquidators sold the bags for
relatively little). One of the plastic bags bore the American variant
of the Bell logo and the name "Bell Phone Center", or whatever the
storefront outlets of the Bell System were called divesture. I assume
the bags were sold for very little (and made their way to Toronto)
after AT&T was forced to stop using the Bell logo and replaced it with
its present "Death Star".

Bell Canada's parent company, BCE Inc. (formerly Bell Canada
Enterprises) uses a stylized BCE in brown, to avoid any confusion with
Bell Canada.

Bell Canada and its affiliates avoid using the word "Bell" as part of
the name of their U.S. operations. Bell-Northern Research is the
research arm of Northern Telecom (with a minority shareholding by Bell
Canada); the company's U.S. subsidiary is simply BNR Inc. Similarly,
Bell Canada International's U.S. unit is just BCI Inc. (although I
think some BCI installation activities may have been transferred to a
company called Protocol, which may or may not be a Bell Canada
affiliate set up a few years ago to franchise telephone answering
services).


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

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

From: Mark Oberg <grout![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN
Date: 7 Dec 90 04:47:32 GMT
Reply-To: Mark Oberg <uunet!hadron!lsw!grout![e-mail]>
Organization: Erics PC, Beltsville MD


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

>A few weeks ago some wrote about resellers of SDN's where AT&T does
>the billing.  I was curious if anyone out there is a reseller using
>SDN's and what the legal and financial requirements are.

There are still a few companies left who have reseller contracts with
AT&T for SDN service, but as I understand it AT&T is not providing any
new contracts of that type and is not renewing any of the old ones.
The company that I work for is a reseller of Long Distance services
and was originally trying to get that sort of contract, where we sell
the service and AT&T does the billing.  MCI and US Sprint also do not
have that type of contract available.

What you *can* do is to become a reseller that does their own billing.
I can tell you from personal aggravation that it is not an easy thing
to do.  AT&T and MCI do not have reseller programs.  You may find that
other carriers offer you the ability to resell their services but that
the minimums and deposits required may be excessive depending on the
scope of your venture.  Then, you have to come up with a billing
system ... not exactly off-the-shelf.

Still, it can be done and if you are persistant and resolute you may
find it to be an interesting business.  Good luck!


Disclaimer: I suppose there ought to be one, so here one is!

Mark Oberg    uunet!hadron!lsw!grout!mark

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Does *ANY* PBX Supply Loop Interrupt Signal??
Date: 7 Dec 90 13:03:24 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Gottlieb) writes:

[Regarding PBX switches that pass the open-loop disconnect signal
from the CO through to their analog station ports.]

> The AT&T switches all provide CPC.  They also allow long touch-tones.
> Something that AT&T got right.

Early-vintage Merlin and System 25 do not allow arbitrarily long
touch-tones from their 'ATL' proprietary multi-button sets.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: "Copyright" of the Bell Symbol
Date: 6 Dec 90 18:32:50 GMT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI


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

>least for the same kind of thing it previously described.  ("Kleenex"
>might become a generic for facial tissues.  You couldn't reclaim it to
>describe YOUR brand of facial tissues - if it's not generic, Scott
>still owns it! - but you MIGHT be able to use it to describe your
>brand of carburator cleaner.)

Kleenex is NOT a trademark of Scott (maker of "Scotties" brand facial
tissues.  It is a trademark of Kimberly-Clark Corporation of Neenah, WI.


Andy Hastings            [e-mail]            412/268-8734

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

From: Nathan Glasser <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!eddie.mit.edu!nathan>
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Reply-To: Nathan Glasser <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!nathan>
Organization: MIT EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 04:56:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> "Curtis E. Reid" <CER2520@ritvax.
isc.rit.eduwrites:

>I recall many, many issues ago that someone was interested in knowing
>if there is a valid phone number ending with all zeros i.e.,
>xxx-xxx-0000.

Obviously it's not such an uncommon thing to have four 0's at the end
of a phone number.  In addition to the numbers listed in the above
article, across the street from me is Zero's Pizza, with phone number
on their sign, [phone].

Is there some particular reason why such numbers are perceived as
being rare?


Nathan Glasser  nathan@{mit-eddie.uucp, brokaw.lcs.mit.edu}
Nate on IRC, Forum, and Bitnet Relay    Pulsar on Abermud

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #872
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20000;
          10 Dec 90 5:31 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac00285; 10 Dec 90 3:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03103;
          9 Dec 90 14:52 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09479;
          9 Dec 90 13:18 CST
Date:     Sun, 9 Dec 90 12:47:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #873
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Dec 90 12:47:03 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 873

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Dave Levenson]
    Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Laird P. Broadfield]
    Re: Permanently Broken Numbers [John R. Covert]
    Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think? [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones Revisited) [Andy Rabagliati]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Kevin A. Mitchell]
    Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Fritz Whittington]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges
Date: 7 Dec 90 13:13:54 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I know that both AT&T and Sprint offer the "feature" of dialing
> another LD number without disconnecting from the LD carrier via the "#".

> I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel
> with my LD calling card.  The voice mail system wants me to enter "#"
> to be prompted for my password.  Guess what happens?  That's right,
> the LD carrier disconnects...

The AT&T network is only sensitive to the # when the far end is on
hook.  You may # out of the current call before it has been answered
(of if it is busy) or after the far end had hung up.  If you voice
mail system is still off-hook when you enter the # to terminate your
password, it should not disconnect you.

The MCI network, on the other hand, does disconnect on # on calls in
the talking state (i.e. both ends off hook).  I don't know about
Sprint.

Most voice mail systems demand a longer-than-standard # or any other
touch tone used when they're listening to speech, as a way of avoiding
the occasional momentary similarity between the # and random speech
sounds.  If they shorten the minimum # duration, some voices will
sound like # and cause unintended feature activation.  This is
commonly called 'talk-off' in that industry.


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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 14:54 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Charges


In an article dated <Tue, 4 Dec 90 04:14:11>, <snowgoose!dave@uunet.
uu.net> (Dave) writes:

>I know that both AT&T and Sprint offer the "feature" of dialing
>another LD number without disconnecting from the LD carrier via the
>"#".

>I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel
>with my LD calling card.  The voice mail system wants me to enter "#"
>to be prompted for my password.  Guess what happens?  That's right,
>the LD carrier disconnects that call and prompts me to make another.

Now the Moderator responds with the following:

>But don't you have to hold the # key for at least a
>couple seconds to get a carrier disconnect?

With my local Telco (Michigan Bell) and AT&T calls, just a touch of
the '#' button (not even a quarter of a second) is enough to
disconnect, but my experience has been that '#' only works before a
call is answered (i.e.  you hear ringing but you just realized you
dialed a wrong number), during a telco or LDC recording, or after a
call when the other party has hung up.

>Most voice mail systems require far less [than 2 seconds -SJR]. That
>is, you could probably just give a half-second of # and access voice
>mail without it being long enough to trigger the network disconnect.

Where I am, I don't have to worry about that.  Once the other party
answers (assuming the call is through AT&T or MichBell, you can lean
on the '#' symbol indefinitely and it won't disconnect.  You have to
wait for the other party to disconnect before you can use '#' to
disconnect yourself.  (I just tried this with my credit union
bank-by-phone system just a moment ago -- which uses # -- and it works
as described.)

Either there's a computer glitch where you are, Dave, or the call
isn't going through AT&T.  Try 102880 + the number (assuming the hotel
phones don't block 10xxx calls -- I understand many do).


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

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

From: "Laird P. Broadfield" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges
Date: 7 Dec 90 20:50:47 GMT
n

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

[stuff about pressing # to enter voicemail....]

>[Moderator's Note: But don't you have to hold the # key for at least a
>couple seconds to get a carrier disconnect?  Most voice mail systems
>require far less. That is, you could probably just give a half-second
>of # and access voice mail without it being long enough to trigger the
>network disconnect.  Sprint and ATT both indicate in their literature
>to hold down the # key for a couple seconds to make it work right.   PAT]

Nope.  From _numerous_ locations throughout the ConUS I have made the
mistake of hitting the # key to sign on to our voicemail system too
soon and had AT&T dump the connection.  The "key" here is to _wait_
about three or four seconds into the answer message, at which point
AT&T is apparently no longer listening.  I haven't tried a LONG # at
all; only short ones.  Perhaps the call-progress is significant to the
tone-recognizer; before it has "realized" the connection, or after it
has recognized a hangup, maybe any # works, but during a connection
only a _long_ #?  Just guessing....


Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 12:50:30 PST
From: "John R. Covert  07-Dec-1990 1538" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Permanently Broken Numbers


>The recording has changed a few times, but it's always been German.
>("Kine-uh swabindoonk un de dezuh swuhbal!"  it says.

That's "Keine Verbindung unter dieser Vorwahl" and it means "No
connection under this (long distance) prefix."  It is, indeed, a new
recording, possibly unique to Berlin.

>Actually, until recently it said "Kine und schloos un de dezuh-noomber" in
>a much more polite voice; something to do with the unification maybe?

That's the standard recording, "Kein Anschluss under dieser Nummer"
which means "No connection under this number."  It is still in use,
and I haven't had a chance yet to determine the conditions under which
you get one and not the other.  My guess is that you get the "No
connection under this prefix" recording in Berlin when you have
dialled a valid East Berlin exchange using the West Berlin prefix.


john

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

Date: Fri, 07 Dec 90 23:13:20 EST
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: *Long* Phone Calls -- What Does Ma Think?
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <30 Nov 90 18:30:56>, John Higdon writes:

>Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01![e-mail]> writes:

>> but in Raleigh, every time this happens the phone company
>> disconnects his line and charges him $35 to reconnect his line.

>> Is this standard practice for phone companies to react so strongly to
>> off-hook lines?

>No, it is not. And there is absolutely no reason, given any switch
>other than SXS to behave in this manner. It is a scam to increase
>revenue and nothing else.

AAAAAArrrrgh!  I'm certainly glad they do not do that here.  Not only
do I have the BBS set to 'busy out' during the daily maintenance
'batch' processes, our cats have been known to knoch the receiver of
the voice phone off the hook and onto the floor.  Sometimes we'll hear
the 'clanking' and hang it up, but it's been off hook overnight.  I
wonder if the telco in Raleigh would tromp on that ??

Also, one time when we had a temporary line at our just-finished
house, we found that the former user of that number received all kinds
of calls (long distance, from the sounds) at all hours.  The first
night we had that, we had to take the phone off hook to get some
sleep.  I wonder if that telco has the [fill in an anatomic part,
'guts' will suffice] to charge $35 for that ??

Good Day!        JSW


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

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

Date: Sat, 8 Dec 90 09:42 EST
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed About Reseller Using SDN
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]>:

>A few weeks ago some wrote about resellers of SDN's where AT&T does
>the billing.  I was curious if anyone out there is a reseller using
>SDN's and what the legal and financial requirements are.

AT&T SDN (and their Tariff 1 services, too) can be resold.  In fact
AT&T offers the billing services required to bill users of aggregated
or resold services directly.  There are several companies in this
program at this time.

This has been a controversial offering from AT&T.  Even AT&T's own
employees don't much care for it.  I'm told it was intended to allow
AT&T to capture the lower end of the market where their own marketing
might not overcome the price competition.

I'm also told that a minimum commitment of $ 3,000,000.00 per month
must observed, along with a subatantial cash deposit, unless you are
able to show very strong creditworthiness.

Many of these resellers are called aggregators.  They then contract
with agents to sell their services around the country.  There are
specific tariff and contract requirements that they must observe to
comply with the program ... which some of the agents, in their zeal to
make a buck, sometimes forget about.

If you call your AT&T business office or service rep, you will be told
that resale does not exist, or is, at best, done by dubious
organizations.  AT&T major account reps greatly fear aggregators
because they will lose sales credit if a client signs with at
aggregator.  You will sometimes hear account reps utter half truths
about the service.  Since AT&T has trained almost noone inside AT&T
about the resale and aggregation programs, factual information is hard
to find...kinda like AT&T Mail, but this threatens the account reps,
so you get a negative response.

AT&T also had considerable difficulties with the billing system in the
early stages of the program, which gave it a bad reputation both
inside and outside AT&T.  Those problems are now solved. (Sounds a
little bit like Sprint, eh?)  If the aggregator uses AT&T billing
services, and most do, AT&T billing reps work directly with the end
users in resolving problems.  No sweat here.

I have worked with one aggregator recently.  I still do not understand
all the tariffs, politics and legal issues involved.  My personal
opinion thus far is cautious optimism.  The single largest problem has
been the continuing reluctance of AT&T staff to cooperate with us on
service, configuration and support issues.  AT&T staff members do not
receive any credit, strokes or support from management when dealing
with an aggregator.  The message is something like: "Well, its AT&T,
but its not real AT&T, so we won't help you.", as if a stigma is
attached to resale aggregation.

My impression that the fundemental financial and marketing concepts
upon which the resale/aggregation program is built are quite sound.
AT&T could litterally be selling on both sides of the street if they
manage this program well.  So far, they've done about as good a job on
this program as they have done with AT&T Mail, though.

Poor aggregator performance and AT&T's undermining of the program have
contibuted to the low visibility of the program.  This may eventually
change.  I would tell someone who is approached by an AT&T reseller/
aggregator to deal with them like any other long distance vendor:
Listen to the pitch, but get the rates, tariffs and promises in
contract form.

If the aggregator shuts down, or fails, AT&T will not interrupt
service.  In fact AT&T will happily return the customer to one of the
standard plans handled directly my them ... usually at higher rates.
So the risk is neligible.

The fact is there are real savings for the end user under the program.
And AT&T's SDN and tariff 1 services work very well.

I will update the Digest on this topic as I become more knowledgable.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr.     [e-mail]
[e-mail]  uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy

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

From: Andy Rabagliati <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cardphones (was: Polish Payphones Revisited)
Organization: INMOS Corporation, Colorado Springs
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 05:41:48 GMT


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

>The use of card phones is becoming increasingly common: in France
>coin-operated payphones (without a queue) can be hard to find.  I
>think the reason for their absence in the U.S. is their dependence on
>meter pulsing for billing.

Remember that the UK (and possibly the continent) has only recently
moved over to tone dialling.  I think the introduction of cardphones
was because credit card calling is a non-starter without tone.

Cheers,

Andy.

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Date: 7 Dec 90 16:30:48 GMT
Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
com (Sean) writes:

> When you insert your credit card, the information (number, exp.
> date, etc. ) is sent via 300 baud signal to a ground station. (REAL
> TIME). The ground station then confirms or denys usage, and proceeds
> from there.  Actually, the handset is not released until then card is
> approved.

Is the data encrypted? It sounds like a massive security leak,
broadcasting sensitive information about a card like that. I know all
the arguments about privacy, not listening to certain frequencies,
etc., but a credit card pirate with an all-band receiver isn't going
to be "nice" about it.

>      894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same
>      manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the
>      ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation.

This is different from what I've heard. Popular Electronics has a
scanner column, and reported several 470 MHz band frequencies where
you can pick up air phone calls. I've found some there.


Kevin A. Mitchell       [phone]
Datalogics, Inc         Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron            UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam
Chicago, IL  60610      FAX: [phone]

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

From: Fritz Whittington <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North
Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 17:54:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter G.
Capek) writes:

>interesting device called a Telefreeze.  It connects to a phone line
>and makes the line go "off hook" when the ambient temperature goes
>below a preset limit.  The idea is that you would periodically call
>home (or your ski house..) and if you get a busy, call a
>neighbor/plumber/heating contractor to investigate before the pipes
>freeze.  Available through dealers and plumbers.  The manufacturer is

Could someone explain to a life-long Southerner why this terribly
complicated system which depends on human intervention on both ends is
better than simply having the thermal device in the 'Telefreeze'
simply turn the heater on?


Fritz Whittington


[Moderator's Note: Even if for some reason the device was not able to
turn the heater on, if it can go off hook it could surely dial your
number and recite some sort of pre-recorded spiel. At least you would
think so. What does merely going off-hook solve? What if you forget to
call it for a couple days? And why should you waste several calls on
it for nothing when it (or a similar device) should be able to make
ONE important call to you?  You are correct; this device sounds like a
total piece of junk.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #873
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27265;
          10 Dec 90 12:07 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad17472; 10 Dec 90 10:46 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20302;
          9 Dec 90 17:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20959;
          9 Dec 90 15:52 CST
Date:     Sun, 9 Dec 90 14:25:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #874
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 9 Dec 90 14:25:31 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 874

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    JSC $12 Million Phone Ripoff: Fact or Fiction? [Bob Izenberg]
    900-Number Support For IBM/4.3 Unix Being Considered [Eric Brunner]
    Harrassing Phone Calls [Murray S. Kucherawy]
    My Phone Bill - A Subtle AT&T Error [Steve Kass]
    CLID, CLASS, and One Way Trunks [Andy Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Izenberg <balkan!cs.utexas.edu!balkan!dogface![e-mail]>
Subject: JSC $12 Million Phone Ripoff: Fact or Fiction?
Date: 8 Dec 90 22:43:11 GMT
Organization: Bob Izenberg's PC


 From the 12-6-90 {Austin American-Statesman}:

NASA Bilked of $12 Million in Phone Calls, Paper Says

HOUSTON (AP) -- Computer hackers have pilfered $12 million in
telephone charges from the Johnson Space Center over the past two
years in what at least one expert said was the biggest such theft in
the nation.

The {Houston Chronicle} reported in a copyright story on
Wednesday that possibly hundreds of people made illicit use of the
system over at least two years.

"It's the biggest one I've heard of, and certainly the longest-running
one I've ever heard of," said Detective Jim Black, computer crime unit
coordinator of the Los Angeles Police Department and a leading
authority on telecommunications theft.

NASA issued a statement late Wednesday calling the Chronicle story "an
extraordinary exageration of federal telephone misuse."

Spokesman John Garman said that the entire annual charges for its
Federal Telephone Service, a dedicated service like a WATS line,
amounts to about $3 million.

"There has been no apparent changes to FTS call statistics from JSC,
nor indication of significant abuse of the FTS system over the last
several years," Garman's statement said.

It added that the FTS system cited in the article was discontinued
Nov. 16, when JSC officials discovered that the service had been
published in computerized "hacker's bulletin board."

"Any abuse of the FTS system at a level anywhere near the size
asserted in the {Chronicle} article would have been impossible to miss
and would have been immediately investigated," the statement said.

The figure of $12 million is extracted from costs of similar break-ins
around the nation described by law enforcement agents specializing in
computer crime.

Hackers frequently try to gain access to free phone service to charge
off regular conversations and computer contact with popular electronic
bulletin boards.  Because these boards may be located in homes
throughout the world, the cost of calling them can quickly become
prohibitive.

The phone line pilferers typically find PBX numbers by trial and
error.  PBX numbers, or private branch exchanges, are telephone
switching systems commonly used in medium to large companies.  NASA's
system is one form of PBX.

At NASA, spokesman Steve Nesbitt told the Chronicle said the service
was stolen in two ways: by using a long-distance credit card number
and by direct use of NASA's phone lines.  The credit card fraud was
discovered by AT&T when use of the credit card number exceeded typical
patterns.

Black and Gail Thackeray, an assistant Arizona attorney general and an
expert in telecommunications, said such penetrations typically cost
from $100,000 a month for a small company to $500,000 per month at a
large firm.

The heavy losses at NASA were sustained through four lines in the
space center's regular phone system.

[ end of article ]

When I was shown this article last night, I experienced a mix of
dismay and pleasant surprise.  Here was somebody digging a little
deeper into a story that had been given a cursory examination on the
first try.  After I'd had a few hours to think about it, I became a
bit less happy with the way the story was put together.

The first and third paragraphs contradict NASA's statement first
mentioned in the fourth paragraph.  Either NASA is right, or the
Chronicle is.  Apparently some money was taken.  The NASA spokesman
says that the figure of $12 million is incorrect.  Okay, what's the
right number?

I read a particular quoted source's name with interest.  Sun Devil
axe-grinder Gail Thackeray (and the LAPD detective) give figures for
what small and large businesses lose per month to phone fraud.  In the
context of the AP story, the figures sound like a bill that Phreaks R
Us sends every business in the country.  We're in headline territory
here, so we shouldn't expect figures to mean anything.

I hassled a friend in the news business about this last night (a poor
repayment for his letting me hang out for a newscast.)  Why do some
reporters let officials write their stories for them?  My friend put
it down to deadline pressure, which I can surely believe.  But, having
been on both sides of the good-natured (?) ribbing broadcast
journalists take for doing superficial treatment of news stories, I
don't have much sympathy for a print reporter (even in a daily) who
doesn't ask a few more questions than were asked here.  To Joe
Abernathy (the Chronicle reporter) and to the AP reporter, I would say
that I'm still waiting for the facts.


Bob Izenberg [phone] [ ] cs.utexas.edu!{kvue,balkan}!dogface!bei


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for presenting this excellent rebuttal. If
you wait on Joe Abernathy to come up with the facts, you are going to
be waiting a long time. As an example, look at the hatchet job he did
in the Internet story. Have any corrections been offered? I agree that
any amount of theft of services (from computer site, telco, etc) is
too much theft.  But as others have pointed out, the figures flying
around these days in the incidents brought to our attention have been
total fabrications -- like much of Abernathy's 'reporting'.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 900-Number Support For IBM/4.3 Unix Being Considered
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: IBM AWD Palo Alto
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 90 23:04:01 GMT


I'm considering a change in how IBM's version of Berkeley Unix for the
PC/RT is supported and some of the questions I need to answer have to
do with phone support and billing. Before describing what we are
discussing let me describe what it is that I do.

IBM/4.3 (aka "AOS" and "ACIS") began as a port of 4.2bsd to the RT,
done by programmers at IBM's Page Mill Road, Palo Alto facility, then
part of the ACIS organization (now generally known as the IBM part of
the NSFNET group).  Broadly speaking, IBM/4.3 is a faithfull port of
4.3bsd to the RT, with two significant non-IBM added features, CMU's
Andrew File System (AFS) and X11.  It runs on the RT and the PS/2
model 60, which also runs DOS, with what is referred to as the "cross
bow" (RISC) processor card. It is _only_ available in source form to
Academic sites (over 100). Bottom line, this is Berkeley Unix with the
best of CMU and MIT (as of 1988), on IBM gear.

When I began what was a six month contract to support this release and
to aid the user community prior to and during their transition to
IBM's strategic product -- AIX 3.1 on the RS/6000, the customers were
supposed to maintain a uucp link to a machine at Palo Alto, and bug
reports (APARS) and their fixes were propogated via notes (see User
Contributed Software for details on notes and notesfiles). Updates of
third party compiler binaries were also propogated via uucp.

For several reasons I decided to utilize the comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt
newgroup for bug reporting and for distribution of forward context
difference patches and complete minor source trees (shar files). This
was well recieved by the IBM/4.3 users.

In June of this year IBM announced the withdrawal of support for this
product, effective 22 December. Since the introduction of AIX 3.1 and
the RS/6000, and in particular during the past two weeks, the case has
been made that some or all of the existing IBM/4.3 RT sites have not
yet fully transitioned to AIX 3.1 on the RS/6000, and some limited
support may be offered.

It is accidental that I seem to be the key person in this activity, my
contract began in May 1989, and was extended twice. The other
contractors who had "corporate knowedge" have since gone on to other
work, and the original Palo Alto developers have since taken up other
work and cannot be allocated to this task. I could be replaced, but it
wouldn't make a lot of sense one way or the other.

We are agreed that some sites may be willing to pay a flat fee for a
year's further support, $1,000 is the figure under consideration.
Getting X11.r4 is the sweetener for these sites, as is the possibility
that IBM may allow me to distribute some new work (e.g., 4.3 RENO
networking, device driver improvements, etc.) to be distributed,
somewhat to the detriment of the RS/6000 transition plan. For sites
which do not choose to pay a flat fee, a 900 number has been proposed.
For those that do choose the flat fee, an 800 number will be
available.

Several questions associated with 900 number service arise, which is
my reason for making this posting.

If we set up a 900 number for non-flat-rate-payers, incoming support
calls are easy, but what about email and phone calls from me to the
college which originated the email? Can I generate a sort of reverse
900 billing? How can I set up a system that will both satisfy IBM's
requirements and best meet my user's needs, while opperating what is
in a sense, a mini-version of mt.  Xinu? What telecom gear will I need
to obtain to support this -- for the functional portion of support,
modems and a uucp/internet addressable host, my present knowledge is
sufficient -- but not for the proposed billing system .

As a pre-post-script, it is not obvious that a large number of
customer sites will be willing to allocate money for support of a
machine so broadly depricated (I like the RT, and there is a growing
"home market" for RT's displaced by RS/6000's and other boxes, but
that is irrelevant), and it is rather unfortunate in my mind at least,
that it presently seems unlikely that I will be able to offer 4.4bsd
next summer in binary form to the RT owners who are not source
licensed by AT&T and the Regents of UC Berkeley, so I'm not asking a
"big business" question. Nevertheless, I suppose the same set of
concerns and questions would arise for anyone considering setting up a
smallish support business.

I've been sitting on a series of APAR closures (bug fixes) and
enhancements, the absence of which may have lowered my user's
expectations, for almost two months, mostly because personal family
matters have been something of a distraction. I wish I could let the
IBM/4.3 users know, but I'll make these distibutions via the news
group comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt prior to 22 January, which is the final
cut-off date for fixes and quiet enhancements (e.g., current AFS and
X11 release levels).

I'm located either in Palo Alto, internal to IBM and behind their ROLM
gear, or in some sunny small office leased in Mountain View, within a
few hundred yards for an 1ESS equiped CO (PacBell is the IEC), and
less than a mile from Alternet's "point of presence". If external,
I'll use Telebit's T2500's for data at 19.2kbs for running AFS over
slip to several local sites and uucp for the obvious links, perhaps a
"Net Blazer" which my friends and former fellow IBM/4.3-contractors
Charlie Slater and Mark Lewis have worked on, as well as seeking
decent connectivity (56Kb) to either Alternet or the local NSFNET
regional, BARRNET.

While this isn't terrifically relevant, IBM/4.3 with some
modifications (Tahoe networking and a better token-ring driver) is
what runs on the present generation of NSFNET Nodal Switching Systems,
which are clusters of RT's. NSS13 is at Stanford.

Thanks in advance all telecom readers! Your answers to my obvious
questions and to questions not obvious to me are appreciated.  Please
help keep IBM's most user-appreciated (academic) Unix product alive in
1991!  It is not strategic, simply appreciated.


#include <std/disclaimer.h>
Eric Brunner, Consultant, IBM AWD Palo Alto    [phone]
inet: [e-mail]        uucp: uunet!ibmsupt!brunner

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

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 1990 18:10:26 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Subject: Harrassing Phone Calls


Many of you may recall a posting from me earlier this year about a
friend who was receiving harrassing phone calls, and asking for
advice.

Perhaps the editor has copies of my original posting and could re-post
it?  Well, anyway...

A quick recap for those who missed the discussion: My friend and a
friend of hers were receiving harrassing (and frankly, terrifying)
phone calls from someone for a long period of time.  They tried to
nail the caller using taps and so forth, but he always seemed to know
when the taps were on the line, because the calls would stop.

Users around the continent sent in recommendations - answering
machines, freon horns, changing the number, getting one of those
phones that shows the caller's number, etc., but for one reason or
another, they either didn't work or were not possible to implement in
my friend's situation.

Well, I just saw her last weekend, and she tells me that just a couple
of weeks ago, a tap was implented again, but this time they managed to
get successful traces on nearly 30 calls, all from the same number.
The police are investigating, and will release the number and name of
the caller when they lay a charge.  The calls were originating from an
exchange in her own neighbourhood.

Many thanks to members of the Usenet community who offered their
valuable advice.  Best wishes.


Murray S. Kucherawy
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada       2A Mathematics/Computer Science
Internet: mskucherawy@<machine>.UWaterloo.ca  UUCP: uunet!watmath!mskucherawy


[Moderator's Note: Readers will recall that when this matter was first
discussed here, there was some speculation that the reason the taps
were not successful was because perhaps the calls were being made by
someone at telco or the local police department; someone who would be
in a position to know when the taps were put on / taken off the line.
I hope we will get a follow-up on this when the culprit has been
identified and prosecuted.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 6 Dec 90 20:48 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: My Phone Bill - a Subtle AT&T Error


Check out this weirdness on my latest AT&T bill:

DATE    TIME            PLACE           AREA-NUMBER     RATE    MIN     AMOUNT
NOV 11  6:40PM          SAN DIEGO, CA   619-NXX-XXXX    D       48 #    7.28
NOV 11  8:45PM          PASADENA, CA    818-NXX-XXXX    D       54 #    8.17

Get this.  Rate code D means DAY (see the time).  The amounts are
correct for rate code E, evening, which is when the calls were placed,
anyway.  BUT, the # means that my Reach Out America discount applies,
and that discount is 10% for day calls and 25% for evening calls.
Looking at the summary page, these two calls were discounted at 10%,
since the rate code field in the record is D (even though the amount
doesn't match that).  So I should get another 15% off of each of these
calls, or a credit of $2.31.

Try explaining that to an AT&T representative.  An occasional two
bucks here and there could amount to big money for the
telecommunications giant.  Or maybe a programmer is getting very rich
somewhere.

I still like AT&T, but I have to wonder how often I miss things like
this.


Steve Kass-Math & CS Dept-Drew U-Madison NJ 07940-(201)[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 05 Dec 90 23:38 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLID, CLASS, and One Way Trunks


All this talk of CLID has raised a number of questions I have not seen
addressed in these sundry bytes.

What sort of CLID will an outgoing WATS line generate? If it is out
only, what would happen if you tried the CLASS auto call-back with it?
As "boiler room operations" would be likely to operate by out-WATS,
would CLID really benefit the recipient of the call? There are a
number of other one-way type lines that would also render the CLID
useless, such as pay phones that don't accept incoming calls, cellular
outgoing trunks, Airfone trunks, (and many PBX's). What about special
services like the marine operator, or the LD or local operator for
that matter? Anyone have experience with these, or any design folks
care to comment?

Andy Jacobson<[e-mail]> or  <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #874
******************************






ISSUE 875 APPEARS THREEE ISSUES BACK, AFTER 871 AND BEFORE 872. NEXT
IN THIS ARCHIVES IS 876.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12325;
          11 Dec 90 5:19 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19844;
          11 Dec 90 2:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04505;
          11 Dec 90 1:48 CST
Date:     Tue, 11 Dec 90 1:22:36 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #876
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 11 Dec 90 01:22:20 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 876

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Payphones in Australia [Brendan Jones]
    Small TAS IN Iowa [Jeff Scheer]
    Eastern Bloc Phone Hookups [Peter Trei]
    Florida Coinslots and Equal Access [David Lesher]
    Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [John Slater]
    Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Adam Gorman]
    Re: Calls to and Within Australia [Jim Breen]
    Southwestern Bell Buys Telefonos de Mexico [TELECOM Moderator]
    Southwestern Bell Tidbits [Eric Dittman]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Payphones in Australia
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 13:16:20 +1000
From: [e-mail]


With the current discussion on various payphone systems around the
world, perhaps the system in Australia may be of interest.  Australia
still has a fairly regulated telecommunications environment with the
main carriers owned by the government, although there are plans to
introduce privately owned competing carriers.

However, this 'monopoly' enivronment has led to a high degree of
network uniformity, integrity, and standard service provision
throughout Australia, including both primary and basic rate ISDN,
EFTPOS provision, itemised billing, and provision of advanced digital
exchanges.

There are three main types of payphones in Australia with a fourth
(using pre-paid cards) to come.

COIN PAYPHONE (PUBLIC)
======================

The first type is the public coin operated type, familiar to all of
us, in boxes in the street.  Telecom Australia (the domestic carrier)
installs and maintains these creatures, which are really quite
advanced.

After a few years of increasing vandalism levels (especially in
Sydney) around 1986, the coin payphones were completely redesigned to
make them vandal proof.  The public payphones in Syndey are now made
of 243 Stainless Steel, with the coin box door milled out of a solid
plate, and is 30 mm thick.  The locking mechanism has an industrial
drill proof guard around it and has a failsafe chamber mechanism such
that any mechanism tampering results in an irreversible mechanical
lockout.

Since this redesign, sucessful coinbox theft in Sydney has decreased
from around 2000 per year to two per year.

Although the redesigned units cost around A$3000 to make, the coinbox
holds around A$300 and hence the payback period through preventing
theft is quite fast.

The first successful break in was achieved by a gang cutting out the
entire payphone unit from the phone box and taking it away on a truck.
The whole unit weighs around 80kg and so would require at least two
people to take it away.  The unit was dumped in a park and later
discovered (after break-in), and post analysis indicated it would have
taken at least two days for the gang to cut into the coin box using
diamond drills and industrial angle grinders.

Besides mechanical integrity, these coin payphones have operational
integrity.  Coin recognition is based on a three stage electronic
measurement of coin weight, size and appearance using advanced
processors.  Introduction of new coins (such as the A$2 coin) are no
problem as it simply requires a ROM change in the unit.

Advanced signalling between the payphone and the local exchange at all
times ensures that line misuse does not occur.  The line cannot be
tapped into and free calls made as the local exchange expects the
payphone to signal with its unique ID at all times.  If this
signalling is absent, calls are not able to proceed.

This signalling is also used to provide fault reporting and
operational and maintenance information.

COIN PAYPHONES (PRIVATE)
========================

Coin payphones may also be purchased by small businesses (shops etc)
for their premises and provide extra revenue for the shop owner by
customers making calls.

CREDIT PHONE
============

Introduced three years ago, this phone can accept a variety of
standard credit and debit cards for making telephone calls.  Cards
accepted include American Express, Mastercard, and cards from local
national banks (such as the Commonwealth, Westpac, NAB etc) plus state
banks and credit unions.

Due to Australia's advanced EFTPOS network (Australia has the highest
EFTPOS penetration in the world) these cards can be accepted by the
Credit Phone anywhere in Australia.  EFTPOS is currently accessed
through the X.25 packet switched network, with plans to use ISDN in
some areas.

Unlike the United States, savings accounts with electronic access can
usually be accessed anywhere in Australia through the bank's dedicated
Automatic Teller Machines or through machines that the institution has
a access agreement with.  Hence standardisation of card access for the
Credit Phone was no problem.

[ Australia's two major banks (Westpac and Commonwealth) each have
2500 Automatic Teller Machines throughout Australia.  The other major
banks, building societies and credit unions have thousands of ATMs
between them.  Also, most supermarkets, shops, petrol stations and
other institutions accept purchase payments via EFTPOS terminals at
the store, with funds directly transferred from your savings account
to theirs. ]

The Credit Phone is usually installed side by side with public
payphones in areas with high payphone usage, such as shopping malls,
post offices, airports, or other major sites.

The right hand side of the phone has the card reader plus keypad for
PIN entry (if required) and is directly connected to the X.25 network.
This unit is actually separate internally from the rest of the phone
(the phone has a separate keypad) to ensure integrity and security of
the card information.

Once the card is accepted, a call can be made, with funds directly
debited (for Debit Cards) or provided by credit on Credit Cards.  The
minimum charge for a call is A$1.20 (to offset the X.25 transaction
cost) but it is *not* a surcharge, ie if the call would normally cost
$2.50 then that's all you pay.


CARD PHONE
==========

Telecom Australia plans to introduce pre-paid card phones, similar to
those used in Europe and the UK.  You would buy a card from a
newsagent or shop with a pre-paid amount of call credit on it, then as
you make calls, this credit is deducted until there are no credits
left.

Due to the widespread use of EFTPOS, this type of phone has not been
seen as particularly urgent to introduce as people can use their
ordinary credit cards and debit cards with the Credit Phone, however
it is expected to fill a niche market.


Brendan Jones        ACSnet:  [e-mail]
R&D Contractor          UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan
Services R&D         Phone:  [phone]   Fax:  [phone]
|||| OTC ||          Snail:  GPO Box 7000, Sydney  2001, AUSTRALIA

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

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 23:09:17 PDT
From: Jeff Scheer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Small TAS IN Iowa
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: Command Center, Omaha

As most of you know, I own a small Telephone Answering Service in
Council Bluffs, IA and was wondering if anyone knew if an Inbound
Secretarial DID Trunk could be "re-routed" to a voice mail card in my
PC?  I am not available to answer client calls during doctor's
appointments and playing the organ for church, (usually one hour or
so), so I thought I could re-route my DID to my PC for voice mail
messaging, then retrieve all client calls, and do the old paper
messaging system.

I can't afford to hire another person even part time for the time
being, so I can get away.  I don't expect alot of calls during my
"down" times as most people in Iowa go to church on Sunday. (Unless of
course you're a doctor).

Also, can TAS's (Telephone Answering Services) "come up with" separate
names with different pilot numbers ?  ie: Grand Central TAS/
Physican's Exchange/ with both names actually being the same place?

Will AT&T "READY WATS" work behind my inbound business lines, or do I
need to call my service rep (Des Moines) and order nationwide inbound
wats line?  Certain details I have to work out .  Anyone have any
ideas?

Please respond ASAP as it is costing me money either way I go.  To
those of you who helped me the last time ... THANK YOU!!! I got the
spec's for the 555 cord board.  It's up and working as I key in now.

Where would one pick up a 1A2 key system?  Have been looking around
the metro area, but no one seems to want to put those in anymore.  I
enjoy the new, but stick with the old, as this area is prone to power
outages during the summer (tornado alley).

Thanks again!


Jeff Scheer: Grand Central TAS Council Bluffs IA .

The .COMmand Center  (Opus 1:285/23)

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

From: Peter Trei <[e-mail]>
Subject: Eastern Bloc Phone Hookups
Date: 10 Dec 90 19:38:17 GMT


     What is required to hook US phone equipment (eg, answering
machines, modems) to phone lines in Eastern Europe and the Soviet
Union?  Do you just need to change the plugs and/or sockets, or are
there electrical differences too (aside from the 110/220 VAC supply)?

     Does anyone know of a source for Soviet-compatible hardware in
NYC?

Thanks,

Peter

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Florida Coinslots and Equal Access
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 20:53:10 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


Sometime in the last month or so, Southern Bell's one_arm_bandits in
this area have stopped accepting 950-1022 as a free call, and demand
$.35 (?!) for the call. They DO, however, take 10222-0-NPA-card# just
fine. This is on SBT phones listing ITI as the default carrier.

But "People's Telephone Service" COTCOTs do take 950, and block 10222.
Me thinks confusion shall prevail.


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

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

From: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago
Date: 10 Dec 90 11:58:43 GMT
Reply-To: John Slater <[e-mail]>
Organization: sundc.East.Sun.COM


|> Few pizza places in England have heard of delivery service.  When I
|> was at the University of Essex, the local pizza place said `of course,
|> we deliver' ... to the central loading dock of the school, that is.

|> Not a one of my flatmates (20 of them, all Brits) had ever heard of
|> having a pizza delivered.

How long ago was this? Two large chains (Perfect Pizza and Domino)
have offered delivery services for, oh, three years at least. It *is*
a relatively new phenomenon, though.

|> ObPhone question: Why is it that a UK -> US phone call is much more
|> expensive than a US -> UK call?

I would dearly like to know the answer to this. From 1 December
Mercury cut their economy rate to the US by 15%, so it now costs 40p
per minute (plus tax, which makes it 44.5p). Reach Out World comes in
at 59c per minute to the UK, with an additional 5% discount afetr the
first ten minutes of each call.  Despite the rate cut it's still more
than 50% more expensive westbound than eastbound.


John Slater    Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 10:16:31 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago


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

>The only limitation I can think of, offhand, is that you can't phone
>0800 (toll-free) numbers from a cellphone. Our local pizza emporia
>don't have 0800 numbers.

On the Racal Vodaphone Cellular Network you can now dial toll-free
numbers and pay for the privilage by dialing *0800-xxxxxx.

I note Tim works for British Telecom who own most of Cellnet the other
cellular network. Vodaphone have always been technically superior to
Cellnet in these terms and in mobile data transmission so maybe
Cellnet haven't cottoned on yet :-).

Before the *0800 feature was implemented I was able to dial BT's
billing enquiries 0800 number but most other numbers gave the message
"You may not call this 0800 number from a cellular phone", or
something similar.


Adam Gorman, Solstice Systems Ltd
on contract to Schlumberger Technologies ATE Division Ferndown Dorset UK

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calls to and Within Australia
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 02:42:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> David Wilson <[e-mail]> writes (w/r to Australia):
> >It is not possible to tell if a call is local (but to an adjacent area
> >code) or within an area code but at STD rates (disjoint charging
> >districts) without knowing a little bit of geography and which
> >exchanges are where.

> How are local and long distance calls made within Australia?

The same as in most other countries, i.e. you have an area code
(invariably beginning with a 0) and a local number. The area code is
only necessary when dialing from another area.

David Wilson is referring to the fact that you cannot rely on the
presence/absence of an area code to tell you whether a call is
"local", i.e. flat rate (22c) or "trunk" i.e. timed. We have some
areas about the size of US states or European countries. You do get a
"pip-pip-pip" sound at a start of a call to warn you that it is
time-charged.


Jim Breen     AARNet:[e-mail]
Department of Robotics & Digital Technology.
Monash University. PO Box 197 Caulfield East VIC 3145 Australia
(ph) [phone] (fax) [phone]           JIS:$B%8%`!!%V%j!<%s(J

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 0:54:15 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southwestern Bell Buys Telefonos de Mexico


An international consortium whose principal investor is Southwestern
Bell Telephone Company has paid $1.76 billion for controlling interest
in the Mexico Telephone Company (Telefonos de Mexico) under a
privatization program started by the Mexican government, the present
owner of the phone network in our neighboring country to the south.

This $1.76 billion turns out to be $2.03 per share, and gives
Southwestern Bell and associates a 20.4 percent stake in the Mexican
telco.

The Mexican phone system, which has about 4.1 million subscribers has
long been plagued with all sorts of trouble, not the least of which
has been creditors looking for payment. The equipment is old and worn
out, the billing practices are obsolete and in general, Telefonos de
Mexico is a mess.

Southwestern Bell's partners are Cable & Radio, a French company; and
Grupo Carso, a Mexican firm.

All I can say is if they paid $1.76 billion for a mere 20.4 percent of
the company, they got ripped-off good. I don't think the entire
Mexican phone network is worth a billion dollars, let alone a
'controlling interest' through 20.4 percent ownership. But that's life
and big business, I guess.

SWB Tel and associates have not yet announced any major changes. Maybe
they are still shaking their collective heads and wondering if it is
too late to back out of the deal.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Eric Dittman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southwestern Bell Tidbits
Date: 8 Dec 90 15:30:18 CDT
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility


Yesterday I called Southwestern Bell to add Call Waiting.  While I was
on the line I asked when we would get CLASS.  According to the
representative, SWB is hoping to expand CLASS availability to Dallas
sometime around the middle of '91.  Currently CLASS is available in
Austin and two other places as a test market (required by the state
reg. agency).  The rep. did say that selective call forwarding and
selective call busy would be offered in Dallas (I didn't ask about the
rest of SWB land) before the end of the year (barring any
complications).  The rep will call me when the two new features are
available.

I also asked about SWB's intention towards Caller ID.  The rep said
SWB was waiting to see what happens with some legal actions pending in
other states before requesting permission to provide Caller ID.


Eric Dittman   Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility
[e-mail]         [e-mail]

Disclaimer:  I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test
             Facility.  I don't even speak for myself.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #876
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13897;
          11 Dec 90 6:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08956;
          11 Dec 90 4:02 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19844;
          11 Dec 90 2:58 CST
Date:     Tue, 11 Dec 90 2:14:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #877
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 11 Dec 90 02:13:54 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 877

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live Up North [John Stanley]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [David Albert]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [John Higdon]
    Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [Robert J. Woodhead]
    Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Steve Kass]
    Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [Mike Richichi]
    Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges [David Lesher]
    Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [David Link]
    Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [John Higdon]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Bob Goudreau]
    LMOS -- Obscure CuD Reference [A. J. Annala]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live Up North
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 90 17:18:13 EST
Organization: One Man Brand


[e-mail] (Fritz Whittington) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter G.
> Capek) writes:

> >interesting device called a Telefreeze.  It connects to a phone line
> >and makes the line go "off hook" when the ambient temperature goes
> >below a preset limit.  The idea is that you would periodically call

> Could someone explain to a life-long Southerner why this terribly
> complicated system which depends on human intervention on both ends is
> better than simply having the thermal device in the 'Telefreeze'
> simply turn the heater on?

   If the gas pipes freeze, or break, or the electricity goes off,
turning the heater on will do absolutely no good. If the cold is
because someone has broken in your front door, turning the heater on
will do absolutely no good. And, finally, if the reason it is cold is
because the heater is broken, there is nothing to turn on.

> [Moderator's Note: Even if for some reason the device was not able to
> turn the heater on, if it can go off hook it could surely dial your
> number and recite some sort of pre-recorded spiel. At least you would
> think so. What does merely going off-hook solve? What if you forget to
> call it for a couple days? And why should you waste several calls on
> it for nothing when it (or a similar device) should be able to make
> ONE important call to you?  You are correct; this device sounds like a
> total piece of junk.   PAT]

   Obviously, Pat, you have never travelled to a distant city and
stayed in a hotel. Do you really know the number for the hotel before
you get there? If you do, do you really trust them to give you a
message from what will sound to them like a crank phone call? ("Hey,
listen to this, someone's THERMOSTAT is calling them here. What was
that name ... Roderick Thompson?") How about when you travel to
multiple places? Now we are talking about a relatively expensive piece
of hardware -- remote programming of both called number and message.

   As long as there is no answer, there is no cost to any of the calls
to it. It simply takes some time.

   A simple device to go off hook would cost about $0.10 to produce,
in quantity, if that much. Just a bimetallic strip. An autodialler,
remotely programmable costs, what, $100? $50? Still a far cry from
what this dohickey could sell for. There are still some simple
solutions to problems, and some problems that don't require computer
solutions.

   It would be better to have something that answers and hangs up
right away. Like a good old NE-2 neon bulb across the line. Busy could
be because someone else is calling you. Immediate answer and hangup
would be a unique signal.


[Moderator's Note: No, I don't always know the number where I am going
to be, but if I were using such a device I'd have it call my pager, or
leave a message in my voicemail which would in turn call my pager,
etc. It still makes better sense than calling it every couple hours in
the winter months.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 16:57:05 EST
From: David Albert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Organization: Aiken Computation Lab, Harvard University


mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!nathan writes:

>Obviously it's not such an uncommon thing to have four 0's at the end
>of a phone number....

>Is there some particular reason why such numbers are perceived as
>being rare?

Sure!  Only about one number in 10,000 has four 0's at the end.  That's
pretty rare, isn't it?


David Albert
UUCP: ...!harvard!albert
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Date: 10 Dec 90 12:29:09 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Nathan Glasser <mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!eddie.mit.edu!nathan> writes:

> Is there some particular reason why such numbers are perceived as
> being rare?

Well, for one thing, there can only be one per prefix :-) But another
thing is that some telcos, including Pnac*Bell, use the 00XX series for
CO test numbers. If you try to get a '0000' assignment, every excuse
in the book will be trotted out to keep from giving it to you.

"This is a special-case number and cannot be assigned."

"This is a test number and you will receive many wrong numbers from
telco personel."

"We are not assigning numbers in the oh-thousands."

"This is part of a DID assignment."

"Blah, Blah, Blah."

The truth of the matter is that if you rattle enough cages, and yank
enough chains, you can get one of these. A local "celebrity" has
always had '0000' assignments for his home number. Someone at Pac*Bell
described the noises he made, all the way to the PUC, before his first
one was issued. In addition, someone I know at Pac*Bell has one at
home.


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

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing?
Date: 10 Dec 90 00:56:24 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> Hey Toby, when is Hayes going to introduce an AT command to "wait for
> boing" -- it sure would make it easier to write scripts for signing
> onto my computer system from hotel rooms around the country (including
> Florida :-)

Company policy forbids me to comment on unannounced features.
However, in my role as chairman of TIA TR-30.4 (the USA standards
committee on DTE-DCE Protocols), I will say that the current draft of
SP-2120 (the US national AT command set, still under development)
includes a proposal for a "$" dial modifier, defined as "Wait for
Credit Card Prompt Tone".  I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or
more modem manufacturers took this cue and included such a feature in
their modems.

In the meantime, I've found that the "@" dial modifier (Wait for Quiet
Answer) often works well, particularly with AT&T (if you can get into
a hotel that actually lets you use AT&T without speaking to a voice
operator -- an increasingly rare occurrence these days, it seems! [I'm
now in New Jersey for ANOTHER meeting, and in my second hotel in two
weeks that has a god-awful AOS with 10288 blocked]).  "@" will usually
trigger on the boing, but the key to it working is if the operator
stays off the line for the five seconds it takes for "@" to time out.


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: Robert J Woodhead <biar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing?
Date: 9 Dec 90 22:18:52 GMT
Organization: Biar Games, Inc.


[e-mail] (J. Philip Miller) writes:

>Hey Toby, when is Hayes going to introduce an AT command to "wait for
>boing" -- it sure would make it easier to write scripts for signing
>onto my computer system from hotel rooms around the country (including
>Florida :-)

I have the same problem from time to time, but find that 5 or 6 commas
between the phone number and credit card number do the trick.  For any
particular hotel PBX and carrier, the time between the last touchtone
of the called number and the "boing" is quite consistant, and you have
a window of about 10 seconds before it gets sent to the human
operator.  So:

    ATDT 1XXXYYYZZZZ,,,,,,AAABBBCCCDDDDEEEE

works fine.  The trick is to start with, say, four commas, and listen.
If the modem blurts out the card number before the boing, add commas
until the timing is right.  You shouldn't be charged for the failed
attempts anyway.

BTW, this reminds me to give kudos to Motel 6.  Free local calls, and
all long-distance via calling card with no surcharges.  All that and a
good room cheap?  What more can any travelling telecommunicator ask
for?


Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc.  !uunet!biar!trebor [e-mail] |

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

Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 21:28 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges


Laird Broadfield writes:

> In <[e-mail]> snowgoose![e-mail] writes:
> [stuff about pressing # to enter voicemail....]

>>[Moderator's Note: But don't you have to hold the # key for at least a
>>couple seconds to get a carrier disconnect? [...]

> Nope.  From _numerous_ locations throughout the ConUS I have made the
> mistake of hitting the # key to sign on to our voicemail system too
> soon and had AT&T dump the connection.  The "key" here is to _wait_ [...]

This is my experience with AT&T.  The literature that came with ASPEN,
our voicemail system, warns users to wait until the welcome message
has finished before pressing #.  Short vs. long doesn't matter.  Soon
vs. late is the key.  I get disconnected every time I'm too hasty,
never when I wait.

On the same subject, does anyone else find that ASPEN or other systems
have particular trouble hearing the number 3?  I often have to hold
the 3 key down for longer than the others for it to be recognized, and
from some phones, I can't enter my mailbox number at all because the 3
isn't heard.


Steve Kass-Math&CS Dept-Drew U-Madison NJ 07940-(201)[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 00:38 EDT
From: Mike Richichi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Charges

> I often wish to call my Bell Atlantic voice mailbox from a hotel
> with my LD calling card.  The voice mail system wants me to enter "#"
> to be prompted for my password.  Guess what happens?  That's right,
> the LD carrier disconnects...

A quote from the "Aspen Voice Processing System User's Guide" (the
system, I believe, Bell Atlantic uses):

"Credit Card Calls: Don't hit # too quickly when entering the system
using an AT&T credit card.  The phone company stays on the line, and
will think that you want to place another credit card call.  You
should wait until Aspen's initial entry prompt has finished.  You can
also press * to enter as a subscriber."

There you have it.  I came across the same problem when trying to use
Drew's Aspen system from a friend's house over break with my Universal
Card.  I just pressed * and all was well.


Mike Richichi, Drew Univ.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: LD vs Voice Mail / Lower Hotel Phone Charges
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 19:03:25 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


>[stuff about pressing # to enter voicemail....]

Re: # for call drop not working with answer supervision

Users have described different behaviour from different parts of the
country. This sound to me as if not everyone has the same grade of
answer supervision. That's nothing new, as we've talked about that in
years past.

We may THINK we have 100% FCD or the equivalent, but do we?

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

From: "David Link - Lenoir-Rhyne College" <lrc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements
Date: 10 Dec 90 10:37:22 GMT
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC


> I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid,
> insulting ads. I also change the channel whenever they come on. I
> don't know exactly what it is about them, but I have a strong visceral
> reaction against them.

AMEN.  I don't like the AT&T ads.  One would think they have something
better to do.  I asked AT&T to put it in writing and they did not!
They said they would, but never did.  I asked SPRINT to put it in
writing and they gave me a list of the rates the next week.  I have
NEVER gotten a call from ANY other telephone company asking be to
switch.  I have AT&T and like the service, but HATE their ads.  I am
thinking about switching to another company in hopes AT&T will stop
the ads.


David J. Link                 UUCP: lrc![e-mail]
Lenoir-Rhyne College          I make no claims.
Hickory, NC  28603 (USA)

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements
Date: 10 Dec 90 22:51:50 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Thornton <[e-mail]> writes:

> I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid,
> insulting ads.

I agree that some of AT&T's advertisements (as well as many others,
including other LD companies) are stupid and somewhat insulting. But
never lose sight of the purpose of advertising: the sale of products.
AT&T's agency could probably produce much evidence that these
commercials are effective in increasing count and volume for its
client.

If you allow your emotions over advertisements to override your
logical and practical decision-making process, you may deprive
yourself of real benefits. As a person who is perhaps closer than most
to the world of advertising, I would exhort all and sundry to never
allow commercial messages to be the basis for any action concerning
contracting or purchasing. This goes for both commercials you may
enjoy and those you hate.

> I also change the channel whenever they come on. I
> don't know exactly what it is about them, but I have a strong visceral
> reaction against them.

I can accept that. But you don't really believe that your reaction to
these spots make AT&T's service bad and wrong do you?

Also it is discovered in a good many cases that people hold prejudices
for or against a particular company's goods or services. When they see
advertisements for those goods or services, the reaction that ensues
becomes justification for those preconceived notions.

Someone please tell me that readers of the Digest base purchasing
decisions on price, service, quality, suitability for intended use,
and value and not on what some ad agency produces to brainwash the
public.  Someone please tell me that.


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

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

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 13:21:15 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Arun Baheti)
writes:

> I remember about ten years ago when a muscial group (the B-52s?) did
> a song about someone's phone number.  All over the country, the poor
> owners of xxx-xxxx were driven batty by fans just trying out the
> number to see if anything would happen.

Ah, yes, the song "Jenny" by Tommy Two-tone (sp?).  The refrain was
Jenny's number as listed on a bathroom wall: "eight six seven five
three oh nine".  No, *don't* go ahead and call it :-).


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: A J Annala <[e-mail]>
Subject: LMOS -- Obscure CuD Reference
Date: 9 Dec 90 23:27:02 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


The most recent issue of CuD mentioned something called the LMOS used
to monitor voice telephone conversations.  What is this system -- and
why wasn't it adequately secured against routine hacker intrusions?


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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #877
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11257;
          12 Dec 90 4:10 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17983;
          12 Dec 90 2:37 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28765;
          12 Dec 90 1:32 CST
Date:     Wed, 12 Dec 90 0:58:28 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #878
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Dec 90 00:58:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 878

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Patrick Tufts]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [[e-mail]]
    Re: Caller*ID and Unanswered Phones [John Macdonald]
    Re: My Phone Bill - a Subtle AT&T Error [Jack Dominey]
    Re: Worldwide Toll Free Code [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Randy Borow]
    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Bryan M. Richardson]
    Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Adam J. Ashby]
    Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Peter da Silva]
    Re: The "Bell" Logo [Julian Macassey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Patrick Tufts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Date: 10 Dec 90 16:05:00 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University


Additional Musings on the GTE Airfone.

According to the original post, it sends your credit card info at
300 baud somewhere for verification.

Additionally, it transmits calls between 894MHz and 896 MHz (5kHz
spacing).

Does this mean that anyone with a scanner and a modem can grab
hundreds of credit card numbers, expiration dates, ...

Or is the card info encoded before transmission?


Pat

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

From: Sean <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Date: 11 Dec 90 00:26:48 GMT
Organization: A civilization beneath the Earth, The Underground Empire.


> >The transmitter section of the setup is IMPRESSIVE. Everyone could
> >concievably use thier phone at the same time, as there are 400
> >channels available for use.

> I doubt very much that the airplane is able to transmit on 400
> channels, or even 56 channels, at once.

If they weren't able to do it, then they would limit the number of
phones that were placed aboard the plane. If, however, four planes on
the same runway all tried to use all of thier phones, a SERVICE
UNAVAILABLE message would be generated, much like cellular.

> >894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same
> >manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the
> >ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation.

> AM on 5KHz spacing?  Are you sure?  I would guess companded SSB, just
> based on the age of the system, but I don't know.

Yes, AM is used on the following ranges (Newer AIRFONES use 6 KHz space)
     849 to 851
     894 to 896
     899 to 901
and  944 to 946

And, for future reference, it is COMPANDORED. As in, AMPLITUDE
COMPANDORED SINGLE SIDEBAND. Really, this technology would be
unrealistic for air use. With the ever changing conditions, ACSSB
would be extremely difficult to maintain a tuned carrier. This was the
case when United Parcel Service considered implementing ACSSB. The
company selling them the radios concluded that that technology would
require too much operator control and tuning, thus requiring more
in-depth training about the radios. And this was for GROUND use, AIR
is even worse.

> > When you insert your credit card, the information (number, exp.
> > date, etc. ) is sent via 300 baud signal to a ground station. (REAL
> > TIME). The ground station then confirms or denys usage, and proceeds
> > from there.  Actually, the handset is not released until then card is
> > approved.

> Is the data encrypted? It sounds like a massive security leak,
> broadcasting sensitive information about a card like that. I know all

> > 894 - 896 MHz (5 KHz spacing). Assignment is done in the same
> > manner as cellular. It picks an available frequency from what the
> > ground station tells it. AM mode is used for modulation.

I never attempted to decipher it. I would imagine it should be, but
stranger things have happened!

> scanner column, and reported several 470 MHz band frequencies where
> you can pick up air phone calls. I've found some there.

I have yet to hear of AIRFONE signals in that band. Perhaps you are
thinking of the 415.7 MHz frequency for government VIPS? If not, tell me
what frequencies and modes, please.


Sean

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

From: John Macdonald <eci386![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller*ID and Unanswered Phones
Reply-To: John Macdonald <eci386![e-mail]>
Organization: Elegant Communications Inc.
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 1990 10:56:32 -0500


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

|>It's easy enough: look at your CID display, and if it says "blocked,"
|>"private," or "refused," don't pick up the phone.

|Case 1: You're awakened by a call at night, turn on the light, see the
|"blocked" indication, and decide not to answer the phone.  Contrast
|that to having slept through the entire event because the phone never
|rang.

|Case 2: It's now near morning, and case 1 has now just occurred for the
|18th time. Contrast that to having missed the entire event because the
|phone never rang.

In case anyone thinks that case 2 is stretching the imagination
somewhat, consider that it just might be the *same* caller every time
 -- and that caller is wondering "Just when is he going to get home?".
There is a big difference to the caller (and to the amount of telco
resources and to the number of calls that must be ignored) between an
intercept explaining the choice of not accepting anonymous charges and
an unanswered phone.


John Macdonald
jmm@eci386

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Dec 10 11:58:00 EST 1990
Subject: Re: My Phone Bill - a Subtle AT&T Error


In Digest #874, Steve Kass <[e-mail]> writes about an error on the
billing for some AT&T calls under Reach Out America.

>Try explaining that to an AT&T representative.  An occasional two
>bucks here and there could amount to big money for the
>telecommunications giant.  Or maybe a programmer is getting very rich
>somewhere.

>I still like AT&T, but I have to wonder how often I miss things like
>this.

Much as I hate to defend something as inexcuseable as a billing
error ... most AT&T residential billing is still done through the
local company (NJ Bell, in this case).  It would be darn hard for AT&T
to make an illegal buck off this sort of thing.


Jack Dominey|AT&T Commercial Marketing| 800 241-4285 | AT&T Mail: !dominey

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

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 14:04:27 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Worldwide Toll Free Code


> Fraasen proposes that the concept of a toll free area code in each
> country be expanded one level to a toll free "country code."  There
> wouldn't actually be a "toll free country" just like there is no
> specific land area in the US where "area code" 800 resides.  Fraasen

> proposes that the toll-free country code be 800, followed by seven
> digits. That should hold the planet until more than 10,000,000
> numbers are needed.

It's a good idea, but I hope they don't limit themselves to just seven
digits.  I believe that the CCITT's recommended maximum number length
(including country code) is twelve digits, so why not leave room for
expansion by permitting up to nine digits after the +800?

Another interesting issue is the allocation of numbers.  Unless CCITT
wants to get into a situation analagous to Bellcore's role in the US
as the official registrar of 800 prefixes among the various LD
carriers, it might want to just use country codes as the next level
after the +800.  I.e., toll-free calls to France would all be dialled
to +800 33 <something>.  Each country could then decide for itself how
it wanted to allocate and handle its portion of the +800 number-space.
This also makes it easier for each local or national telco to route
+800 traffic; they need merely look at the destination country code
(33) and ship the call off to that country (France) for final routing.
The only routing that, say, Ireland would need to worry about would be
for its own incoming (+800 353) calls.

The above scheme actually handles the number length problem as well:
the more populous a country is, the shorter its country code is, thus
leaving more digits available for the +800 numbers it owns.  The
smaller countries have 3-digit country codes, so +800-CCC-XXXXXX
leaves one million possible +800 numbers for *each* such country.  In
contrast, the bigger countries have two-digit codes, and therefore
could have ten million +800 numbers apiece.  And the NANP and the USSR
would each get one hundred million possible +800 numbers.


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Dec 10 11:08:28 CST 1990
Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing


ALLIANCE's conference centers are as follows: Reno, NV (Los Angeles is
history, and no, we're not talking earthquake here [yet]) at
0-700-456-1001; Chicago at 0-700-456-1002; White Plains, NY at
0-700-456-1003; and Dallas at 0-700-456-1004. Dialing 0-700-456-1000
does indeed get you to the nearest center (default location). By the
way, passing control via #6 is still possible whether you use the
automated service or the operator's help.

I leave you with one simple thought: remember our new motto here at
AT&T (particularly in light of the NCR takeover): "Reach Out and Grab
Someone."


Randy Borow    Rolling Meadows, IL.    attmail!internet!bcm1a09!rborow

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

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 17:07:07 EST
From: Bryan M Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> This may have been already metioned, but you dan dial into any of the
> four switches you want. When you call 456-1000, you are routed through
> Dallas.  2000, 3000 and 4000 each route through one of the other
> centers

> [Moderator's Note: Are you sure it is 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 or is
> it 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, etc. ?   PAT]

Here's what I found with a little legwork.  I'm also trying to
determine an answer (internally) to the question about why automated
dialing is a business day-only capability.  The fraud posting
explained a plausible solution -- I'll post an answer if there is more
to add.

0-700-456-1000 Reaches the nearest T/C bridge.
          1001 Reno, Nevada
          1002 Chicago, Illinois
          1003 White Plains, New York
          1004 Dallas, Texas

The reason for this is if you are dialing from Chicago, but most of
your conferees are in New York, it is cheaper (because you pay leg
charges from the bridge location) to specify through your dialing that
you want the White Plains bridge instead of the Chicago default
bridge.


Bryan Richardson     AT&T Bell Laboratories

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

From: "Adam J. Ashby" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago
Date: 11 Dec 90 16:36:41 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick Tufts)
writes:

->John Slater writes:

->[in reply to the assertion that, in the US (but not the UK) you can
->order a pizza via cellular from your car and get it just as you arrive
->home.]

->I don't know what prompts you to make this insular assumption. Of
->course we can do this: we have pizza delivery services, and we have
->one of the best and most successful cellular setups in the world.

>Not to nitpick, but :-) :-)
>Few pizza places in England have heard of delivery service.  When I
>was at the University of Essex, the local pizza place said `of course,
>we deliver' ... to the central loading dock of the school, that is.
>Not a one of my flatmates (20 of them, all Brits) had ever heard of
>having a pizza delivered.

I think that perhaps you (and your 20 Brit flatmates) led a very
sheltered life.  All over England a small pizza delivery chain is
springing up, you may recognise the name: Dominos.  They are the
latest competition that Pizza Express is experiencing, having had it
pretty much their own way for at least the last four years.  Of
course, I may be presenting a very distorted view, as I am basing my
experiences on where I lived over the last four years, which were
major metropoli such as Gloucester, Maidenhead and Wokingham.

>ObPhone question: Why is it that a UK -> US phone call is much more
>expensive than a US -> UK call?

Very basic economics should provide the answer to that one, but if you can't
work it out I'll give you a few pointers....

The two markets involved:

U.K. approximately 50 million people
U.S. approximately 250 million people

The market suppliers:

U.K. British Telecom plus a very small %ge by Mercury
U.S. AT&T, MCI, Sprint et al. desperately vying for customers.

Of course, one could always argue that price difference reflects the
need for the service, the U.K. can learn very little from calling the
U.S. thus the service is doesn't need to be cheap.


    Adam Ashby  ...!uunet!motcid!ashbya  [phone]

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago
Date: 12 Dec 90 00:20:37 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Patrick Tufts) writes:

> John Slater writes:

> ObPhone question: Why is it that a UK -> US phone call is much more
> expensive than a US -> UK call?

Simple.  Rotation of the Earth.  They have to pump more electrons into
the line going to the U.S., and each electron costs MONEY! :-)


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

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 23:22:30 GMT


Oh FGS, they even have Pizza delivery in Moscow now.


Peter da Silva    [phone]    [e-mail]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Bell" Logo
Date: 12 Dec 90 05:50:05 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dave
Levenson) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 864, Message 3 of 14

>In article <[e-mail]>, mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat
>(Subodh Bapat) writes:

>> Talking about the Bell logo, is there any truth to the rumor that,
>> once long ago, AT&T lost its right to use the Bell logo, as the

>I have heard this story, but I regarded it as urban legend.  In the
>version I heard, somebody in Texas opened an answering service
>bureau called 'Blue Bell Answering Service' using the familiar
>Bell-in-a-Circle logo.  The story goes on to say that he sold the
>rights to his logo to AT&T, and with the proceeds, shut down his
>service bureau and retired -- at age 25 or so.

>Anybody else heard this one?

    All I can add to this is that the twenty-five year old Texan
must have had lotsa cash and savvy to go to Bass & Yeager on Sunset
Boulevard, Hollywood and pay them several thousand - possibly a G or
so to do him a logo.

    Bass & Yeager do corporate logos (Exxon, AT&T Death star etc)
and movie titles. So the old Bell bought a logo from a Texas kid
rather than a company that makes 'em to order? As far as I know, Bass
& Yeager did the Bell in a circle logo. I am not sure who did the old
black silouette "Bell System" logo. That is my favourite.

    Maybe we should have a telecom archive of "telco urban
legends". We could include the psychic dog that knew when the phone
was ringing.  The lifetime credit-card number that Paul Newman was
tired of having.  And the one the telcos perpetuated, how you can
"Damage the network with foreign equipment".


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #878
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12260;
          12 Dec 90 5:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28625;
          12 Dec 90 3:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17983;
          12 Dec 90 2:37 CST
Date:     Wed, 12 Dec 90 1:48:36 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #879
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 12 Dec 90 01:48:26 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 879

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [William Degnan]
    Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Steven King]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Tad Cook]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Lance Ellinghouse]
    Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [Roger Fajman]
    Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [John S. DeVere]
    Re: Southwestern Bell Tidbits [David Lemson]
    Re: MCI Starts 900 Service; Limits Charges to $4.00 [Bill Cerny]
    Re: EED Caller ID Specs [H. Shrikumar]
    Re: Switching Office Open House [H. Shrikumar]
    Re: What is MFJ a TLA For? [Eric Black]
    Colonial Data Technologies [Bill Berbenich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 09:42:27 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North


On <Dec 06 17:54> [e-mail] writes:

U> Could someone explain to a life-long Southerner why this terribly
U> complicated system which depends on human intervention on both
U> ends is better than simply having the thermal device in the
U> 'Telefreeze' simply turn the heater on?

You are missing some important information, no doubt due to the fact
that you don't have a second home in, say ... Vermont.

The heat is left "on", likely set around 50 degrees (f). The
predominant fuel is "oil" (similar to #2 Kero and I suppose JET-A).
Normally the fuel supplier refills the tank (often 250 gal.) based on
projections involving degree/day calculations and the history of the
house.

If the heating plant should fail for whatever reason, it might not be
noticed until: a) Spring, b) when the fuel tank won't take the
estimated delivery amount or c) when the ice from the frozen pipes
pushes the walls out a little.

The heat can "go out" while commercial power is lost, if water
condenses and settles in the fuel line, if the nozzle plugs, if the
blower shaft shears, if a leak develops in the fuel system, if the
electrodes burn out, if ...

There are _lots_ of things to go wrong. Most of them have happened to
me but _I_ was around to fix them. If you are absent, you can have
your fuel dealer call your house to make sure everything is fine, on a
regular basis.

One dealer told me that a product similar to the telefreeze was yanked
from the market since it went off-hook when the temperature was below
the preset limit. This was viewed as harmful to the network and, the
unit was not FCC registered as it did not meet requirements (as I
recall) for isolation and since "make busy" is a "no no". There were
many SxS offices in Vermont and sometimes not enough dialtone to go
around.

One of the toys with which I have played is the Sensaphone. When I
worked for an interconnect company, we sold some for vacation homes.
The homeowner could select four (I believe) telephone numbers, which
are called in sequence until somebody calls the unit back to
acknowledge the voice message.

We also had one hooked up to the alarm contacts on a PBX. It would
call and report the alarm condition of the switch and the switch room
environment.

It alerts based on dry-contact input, variance from temperature preset
limits, high sound-level, loss of power, and with external sensors a
variety of conditions.

Paraphrasing the synthisized voice: "Attention. Atttention. This is
telephone number 8 0 2 5 5 5 8 1 1 1. Alert condition two exists. The
electricity is off. Sound level OK. The temperature is 92. Listen to
the sound level for fifteen seconds ... indicate you have heard this
message within two minutes by dialing 8 0 2 5 5 5 8 1 1 1. Have a nice
day. <click>"

It has been a while so I don't remember exactly. You get the idea.

I had also been know to program one in the office with four extension
numbers and set the temperature limit around 60 degrees. Around 03:00,
when the temperature in the office was at it's lowest, it would start
calling around looking for help. Call-forward no answer would make it
ring at other stations and finally the boss, who lived upstairs would
come downstairs and rip it out by the wires. Some people just don't
appreciate technology.


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: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North
Date: 11 Dec 90 20:02:13 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


>[Moderator's Note: Even if for some reason the device was not able to
>turn the heater on, if it can go off hook it could surely dial your
>number and recite some sort of pre-recorded spiel. At least you would
>think so. What does merely going off-hook solve? What if you forget to
>call it for a couple days? And why should you waste several calls on
>it for nothing when it (or a similar device) should be able to make
>ONE important call to you?  You are correct; this device sounds like a
>total piece of junk.   PAT]

I think I understand the rationale behind the Telefreeze device and
why *IT* doesn't call *YOU* if something's wrong.  Say you lived in
the Northlands, anyplace where it regularly gets cold enough for your
pipes to freeze if your heater craps out.  And say you travel a lot in
the winter.  If you move around (not at any one location very long,
you're a travelling salesman maybe) you can't really give it a number
to call you at.  And it can't just turn on the furnace either; the
only reason for the ambient temperature to drop below the preset level
is because the furnace is broken!

I don't know if I'd spend my money on one of these devices, but I can
see where it could be useful.  (No, I don't have anything to do with
this company, disclaim disclaim.)


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

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 90 18:53:10 PST


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

> I recall many, many issues ago that someone was interested in knowing
> if there is a valid phone number ending with all zeros i.e.,
> xxx-xxx-0000.

Well, I found one:

In Seattle, you reach Al-Anon (support groups for family members of
alcoholics) at 206-625-0000.


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: Lance Ellinghouse <unigold![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 8:23:16 PST


Well I always thought it was kinda strange we have the number we do.
And now with all this talk it is even stranger.

Our number is 'X00-0000'.


Lance Ellinghouse      E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]   hermix!unigold![e-mail]

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90  20:10:54 EST
Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing?


As long as we are asking for new modem commands, how about one to
restore the saved settings without resetting the modem?  The problem
with the Z command is that it cannot be followed by other command
letters.  Thus it is not possible to say things like "restore saved
settings and dial xxx-xxxx."  ATZ also requires a delay before further
AT commands may be issued.

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

Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 22:19 EST
From: "John S. DeVere" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing?


Re: Modem wait for Boing, Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
writes:

> I will say that the current draft of SP-2120 [...]
> includes a proposal for a "$" dial modifier, defined as "Wait for
> Credit Card Prompt Tone".  I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or
> more modem manufacturers took this cue and included such a feature in
> their modems.

Good idea, except maybe another character would be more compatible ...
US Robotics uses the $ for help screens on all (as far as I know) its
modems ... other "Made-in-Taiwan" modems use this symbol as well.


John DeVere - Research Triangle Park, NC
<@[e-mail]>  <[e-mail]>

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell Tidbits
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 14:34:32 GMT


[e-mail] (Eric Dittman) writes:

>I also asked about SWB's intention towards Caller ID.  The rep said
>SWB was waiting to see what happens with some legal actions pending in
>other states before requesting permission to provide Caller ID.

SWBT does provide caller ID on their tens of thousands of ISDN lines
that they provide to corporate clients.  Several large corporations
(within SWBT five-state area) have ISDN service, and this includes
Caller ID.  So just remember that even though they tell you it isn't
available (to the home user) yet, someone you call might have Caller
ID.  (Or more likely, a corporation you call might have it)

An example is the AAA (American Automobile Club) regional headquarters
in St. Louis, MO.  SWBT provides them with Caller ID.  (I noticed it
when I was in getting some travelers' checks I was pretty surprised to
see the LCD displays on the phones.)


David Lemson    U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]   University of Illinois, Urbana

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

Subject: Re: MCI Starts 900 Service; Limits Charges to $4.00
Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA
Date: 11 Dec 90 05:36:23 PST (Tue)
From: Bill Cerny <[e-mail]>


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

>MCI announced recently they will be starting to offer 900 service
>after the first of the year.

MCI's 900 service has been available since May from service bureaus.
In fact, ValueLine (Amarillo, TX) is reselling MCI 900 service, and
providing it on a switched termination basis from the DSC DEX 400 (but
the per minute costs to the information provider are too high: $0.65!)
This announcement concerns general availability to non-service bureaus
(e.g., boiler rooms and garage operations).

>A variety of programs will be available from a variety of
>information providers, making their 900 service similar to all the
>others.

Variety, indeed!  Since May, MCI has provided the greatest number of
new dial-a-porn programs (and you thought Telesphere was sleazy).
Check out all those ads in adult magazines with prefixes 226, 446,
776, 980 and 990.

>There is one exception: MCI has said they
>will arrange to limit charges to $4.00 on services pertaining to
>children, in an effort to anticipate and limit losses to parents whose
>children call without permission, i.e. Santa Claus messages, etc.

This will apply to a narrow segment of programs, as you pointed out.
At one time Sprint said they wouldn't bill more than $10 per call, but
gave out waivers freely to information providers.

>MCI is to be congratulated for making this responsible effort to
>mitigate the expense otherwise incurred by unwitting users of 900
>services.

MCI has a black eye from their adult programs, and is trying to mend
their sullied reputation.

>If one of our MCI readers has more information, they might like to
>pass it along.

Rather, if any of the MCI information providers have any more actual
proof of MCI's arbitrary doubling of uncollectible withholdings from
10% to 20% (initially 4% in May), please post.

Rumor: MCI is providing a twelve second grace period during which you
can hang up and avoid all charges for the call.  I'll find out when my
phone bill arrives in a couple weeks...  ;-)


Bill Cerny        [e-mail]   |   attmail: !denwa!bill

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

From: "H.Shrikumar" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: EED Caller ID Specs
Date: 12 Dec 90 05:55:42 GMT
Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar " <[e-mail]>
Organization: National Centre for Software Technology, Bombay, INDIA


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

>sounds to me like an opportunity to add a feature to the clid box: If
>the caller is blocking, don't even ring, or better yet, answer with an
>announcement that you don't take such calls.  In the latter case, the
>caller has to pay for the announcement, if the call was toll or
>message unit.

   And (shudder!) if I were to call from here in India, to such a
number. Surely my caller id will not show up, so will all my calls be
diverted to a bit-bucket ?

   And I'd pay toll too !! .. at about a day's pay per such a call !!!

   Please do remember the rest of the world :-)


shrikumar ( [e-mail] )


[Moderator's Note: The distinction would be in the phrasing on the
read out: 'ID refused' would be an entirely different scenario than
'ID not available' or 'ID not provided by other telco', etc. I think
almost any of us would accept the latter type of call in good faith
where we might be inclined to reject the first type.  PAT]

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

From: "H.Shrikumar" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Switching Office Open House
Date: 12 Dec 90 06:22:29 GMT
Reply-To: "H.Shrikumar " <[e-mail]>
Organization: National Centre for Software Technology, Bombay, INDIA


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

>I just went to an open house at the Ann Arbor office of Michigan Bell.

>were!  The 5ESS has a capacity of 160,000 subscriber lines (not all on
>local loops, most come in on SLC-96) and would almost fit in my living
>room.  Well, maybe my basement.

  Does some one have figures in re the economics of the SLC-96 ? I don't
remember having seen any hard numbers in TELECOM Digest.

  I mean, how much does a SLC-96 cost (equipment + installation +
maintenance) to the telco? And more to the point, how does this cost
compare with (equipment+installation+maintenance) cost of 96
local-loop pairs ?

  Or perhaps, at what point does this break even ... a community of 96
subscribers X (??) miles away are better served by SLC-96 than 96 pair
cable.

  Another question, I recently read about an SLC-120 in an Indian
telecom magazine. They were referring to the US. Any SLC-120s in
service ?


shrikumar ( [e-mail] )

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

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 10:15:45 PST
From: Eric Black <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is MFJ a TLA For?


In TELECOM Digest V10 #867, I wrote:

>I always thought it [MFJ] was "Mother F****** Judge"   :-)

And the Moderator wrote:

>[Moderator's Guffaw: Whew! I hope you don't mind the asterisks in your
>message, but this is a family Digest -- I have to keep it clean.

I'd like it noted that my original posting indeed had the asterisks
(and the smiley).  Contrary to the impression given by the Moderator's
comment, no editing of my message was required, and none was made.  I
assumed that TELECOM readers could count asterisks as needed.

Also, the "J" could stand for either "Judge" or "Judgment", depending on
the listener/reader...


Eric Black            "Garbage in, Gospel out"
Atherton Technology, 1333 Bordeaux Dr., Sunnyvale, CA, 94089
Email: [e-mail]     Voice: [phone]


[Moderator's Confession: Mr. Black is correct. No editing was required
of his earlier message, but I couldn't resist the temptation for a
little fun.  Actually, everyone knows MFJ means Modified Final Joke.  PAT]

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

From: Bill Berbenich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Colonial Data Technologies
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 21:34:07 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Anyone got a location and/or phone number for Colonial Data
Technologies, makers of the Call Identifier (tm), which is used with
Caller-ID?  Either e-mail or a reply here is acceptable.  If you reply
by e-mail, please use the address given below in my .sig.


Bill Berbenich       [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #879
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09741;
          13 Dec 90 5:18 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12232;
          13 Dec 90 3:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14738;
          13 Dec 90 2:49 CST
Date:     Thu, 13 Dec 90 1:56:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #880
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 13 Dec 90 01:56:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 880

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Future High-Speed Transmission/Switching Standards [Robert Jacobson]
    Old Telecom Archives Located on Tape! [TELECOM Moderator]
    Auto-Call Back [Roy Smith]
    NCR and AT&T [Ed Hopper]
    Call Setup With Sprint [Dennis G. Rears]
    A Problem With C & P [Dheeraj Sanghi]
    Modem vs LD Carrier; a Data Point. [Tony Olekshy]
    Beware! MCI 800 Inquiry Causes Switch [Paul Schleck]
    "Mary had a Little Lamb" [Paul Schleck]
    MCI Conks Out [John R. Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Future High-Speed Transmission/Switching Standards
Date: 10 Dec 90 06:30:15 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


I have heard word, rumor mostly, that 1992's T3 standard will be
implemented much sooner than that, on a North American basis; and that
future services of many tens of times faster will be implemented by
1993-4.  Is this true?

And, if so, what type of switches will be necessary to handle such
high loads of traffic?  I'm astounded by this prediction.


Bob Jacobson     Human Interface Technology Laboratory    Seattle

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

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 2:34:21 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Old Telecom Archives Located on Tape!


Long time readers will recall that the archives for TELECOM Digest
used to be located at Boston University when Jon Solomon was the
Moderator here and an employee of BU. About the time of his departure
from BU, the archives were moved to MIT where they are presently
housed.

The problem that came up was in the compression/uncompression of the
old files to save space at BU, where space was at a premium. During
1988, Volumes 1 through 7 were compressed to save space on bu.edu.
Later, in early 1989, the first part of Volume 8 was also compressed
*at bu.edu*.

For some reason, the compression technique was faulty, and we were
unable to satisfactoily uncompress much of the old stuff. What we were
able to get was put up at MIT, and you will note in your index to the
Archives that Volumes 1 through 8 are spotty; various issues are
missing. In addition, Volumes 4 and 5 were poorly handled from the
start, and numerous issues never made it to the Archives, or got there
in a bizarre, mixed up order.

As my late friend, Gabriel Heater would say, "There is good news
tonight!" ... for some long-forgotten backup tapes were found at
waterloo.edu which filled in many of the gaps in Volumes 4 and 5. The
same tapes had stuff from Volumes 2 and 3 also, but unfortunatly it
was duplicated with what I already had on file.

The main thing is, Volume 4 has been almost doubled in size. Many
missing issues from Volume 5 have been restored. In addition, there
were (as you very, very old timers will know) a number of messages
sent out loose, in non-digest format during the fall of 1985, during a
period when Jon Solomon was unable to care for the Digest due to some
personal problems. Changes in mailing procedures, digesting procedures
and other kinks also made Volumes 4 and 5 sort of messy, but at least
we now have almost all the missing issues in custody once again from
1984 and 1985.

Over the next month or so, as time permits, I will go through and try
to weed out the duplicates, and organize the remainder into some kind
of logical order. For now, you'll see some duplicate and overlapping
files if you visit the Archives.

We still need help from backup tapes with some of the old issues:
Volumes 1, 2, and 3 are missing some issues. Volume 8 is missing quite
a few from early in 1988. Of particular interest is Volume 1, issues 1
through 3, most of which is lost, except for the file
'first.issue.cover'.

My very grateful thanks to waterloo for keeping those old tapes all
this time!  Anyone else have any dusty issues of TELECOM Digest in
storage at their site?


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 09:17:20 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Auto-Call Back


    I'm not sure I have the right name, but I'm referring to the
(new?)  service whereby if somebody calls you and you don't get to the
phone before it stops ringing, you can just press some code to
automatically generate a call back to the person who called you.  My
question is, does the system filter out any numbers?  If somebody from
Europe called me, will it dial back an international call for me?
What if some slimey 900-type called me?  Neither of the above
scenarios would be appreciated.

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

Subject: NCR and AT&T
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 06:40:13 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


Pat was sharp in noticing my humorous "[e-mail]" mail
routing.  A few thoughts on that subject from someone sure to be
affected.  I am part of AT&T's Computer Systems Division.

NCR has done a lot of public posturing about how much they oppose the
merger.  Of course, as AT&T's offer price approachs $125, these
objections will evaporate.

Charles Exeley (NCR President) is doing his job correctly in assuring
that NCR stockholders get the most possible $$$ out of AT&T.  Until
the deal is done, it's in NCRs interest to bellow long and loud about
their objections.

I should point out that the memoranda distributed on the subject and the
external statements go out of their way to provide assurances to NCR
employees of continued employment.  No such assurances are offered to
the AT&T employees, in fact, several statements presume fairly massive
upheaval in the AT&T ranks.  Certainly NCR employees are upset.  I would
be too, if the situation were reversed.  For that matter, I feel, for
various reasons I won't burden everyone with here, that the business was
on track to success without the addition of NCR.  If I had my choice,
they would have left us alone.  Of course, for those who assume
automatically that AT&T will screw up anything it touches, this is
another disaster.  I don't think the situation was a disaster nor will
it be one if the merger is consumated.

My own prediction is that the deal will be done before the end of
December for a price in the range of $100 to $110 a share.


Ed Hopper

 BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
 coming soon:[e-mail] ????!!!!!  :-)

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

Date: Mon, 10 Dec 90 12:30:04 EST
From: "Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Setup With Sprint

  I have been a subscriber to Sprint for about a year now.  I am
generally satisified with their service but I have been having trouble
with some things.  First, it takes so long to set up a call.  On calls
to Austrailia, It takes 40-60 seconds from the time the last digit is
dial until the connection is actually made.  On stateside calls maybe
a full 10 seconds.  Is this normal?  Also about 30% of the calls to
Austrailia, the quality is terrible; there is a terrible echo.  Is
this the fault of Sprint or Austrailia Telecom?  On bad calls, I hang
up immediatley and call the LD operator.  She reconnects me and the
sound is great.  How can the Sprint LD operator connect me so fast but
I can do it myself.

  On a unrelated note ... Is there anyway I can get the local phone
company (NJ Bell) or anyone to give me a list of all the unassigned
numbers for a particular prefix?  I actually need such a list for
three prefixes.  Failing that is there a service where I can get the
assigned number for a particular prefix.


dennis

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

From: Dheeraj Sanghi <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Problem With C & P
Date: 10 Dec 90 19:41:49 GMT
Reply-To: Dheeraj Sanghi <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742


I am having a dispute with C & P) ?Bcregarding some credit that is due to
me. I have tried to solve it with them for last one year, but to no
avail. Would someone on the net-land suggest where all I can take my
case so that a settlement is reached fast.

Here is a description of my case:

    I was a C&P customer for 3 years until Dec. 89, when I asked
them to disconnect my service. (I was moving out of that apt.) I kept
getting bills for next six months. Currently, the situation is that
they have removed charge for all the bills after Dec 89, but not given
me credit of the amount I have paid them in advance.

    I have called them at least 25 times in the last one year, and
I have heard all kinds of lies and excuses. For the first few months they
maintained that their computers are having some problem, and as soon
as that problem is rectified they will issue a final bill and a check for
whatever is due to me. In fact, on an occasion, one representative asked
me angrily why I keep wasting C&P's time when I have been told ample number
of times that it is a computer problem. What I finally got was a threatening
letter that if I did not pay the six month's telephone charges, I will
be taken to court.

    When I called them after that, they started a pack of lies. In
one day, I talked to this rep for FOUR hours (three of them on hold while
she talks to her superviser, the billing dept. and whoever else), who
first told me that I never gave any disconnect order. When I informed her
that the number had been issued to another person, and that that person
is also getting his regular bill for the same telephone number, and asked
if C&P is so careless as to give an in-service number to another person,
she immediately found the disconnect order on file. She then said that
C&P cannot give credit for AT&T charges (Reach Out America charges for
first hour every month for six months), even if it was C&P 's mistake.
After a long while she agreed to remove all charges for the six months.
Then she told me that even though I had service in Dec for only 2 days
(and I had paid for whole 31 days), I would be charged for the whole month.
In a very rude fashion, she asked me if I expected C&P to keep track of
every hour of service provided. I reminded her that I was not asking for credit
for hours, but for 29 days out of 31. Another of her lies was that since
I had not called C&P for over six months and it was not possible to do
anything about it now. I had kept a log of all calls and read that out to
her, and she also found a similar log on her terminal now. Finally, she told
me how much do I think C&P owes me. I said, a little over $24. She promised
that I would get a check for 24$ in 5-6 weeks.

    This is when I did a few dumb things. I believed that
representative.  I did not call C&P for two months. I threw away the
log of all calls. When I called again after two months, a similar set
of lies were tried again, but finally they promised to "look into my
complaint." I have kept calling them, but every time they are waiting
for a duplicate copy of the bill from their archives.

    The amount is not a whole lot, and the recovery process has
already cost me scores of hours. Is there some way I can get some
payment for my time. Even at the minimum wage, it would be a handsome
sum for a graduate student.

Thanks in advance,

dheeraj


Dheeraj Sanghi            (h):301-474-3592    (o):301-405-2723
Internet: [e-mail]    UUCP: uunet!mimsy!dheeraj

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

Date: Mon Dec 10 06:58:38 1990
From: Tony Olekshy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Modem vs LD carrier, a data point.
Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Verstegen) writes:

| On a related note, I recently did an experiment with our connection to
| UUNET with respect to through-put rate. Previously we had been using
| MCI and got throughput (logged by HDB uucp xferstats) of about 800
| bytes/sec. I then changed the UUNET number to include the 10288 AT&T
| selection prefix, and now we're getting 1050 bytes/sec throughput.
| The 30% increase certainly makes up for the few percent difference
| in cost.

Conclusion: when considering long distance carriers for data
transmission using adaptive modems, you should to measure each
carrier's success with the actual modem and factor it into the cost
per unit time before sorting.


Yours etc., Tony Olekshy.       Internet: [e-mail]
                  BITNET: [e-mail]
                    uucp: alberta!oha!tony


Blowing is not playing the flute, you must make use of your fingers.--Goethe


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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 09:51:59 PDT
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Beware!  MCI 800 Inquiry causes switch!


Reply-to: [e-mail]

A friend of mine called the 1-800 number to inquire about personal 1-800
service.  At the end of the call, she clearly stated that she did NOT
want to sign up for the service.  A few days later, she tr--i6ed to place an
operator-assisted call and got an MCI operator.  Further inquiries and
calling of the 1-700 number indicated that she had INDEED been switched
from AT&T to MCI!  The charges were about the same per call, so she
didn't raise a stink about it after they graciously switched it back.

Anyone else have any experience with this?  Is this a deliberate effort,
or simply some bungling MCI telemarketer putting her down for service?
It is my understanding that you can wind up with any old carrier at the
whim of the phone company, so one should be ever vigilant of what service
is doing their long-distance and make damn sure it's the right one.

This is just one more strike against MCI, in my opinion.  First they come
up with this screwy "Personal 800" service that THEY don't even
completely understand, then they engage in other questionable marketing
tactics (Is this called "slamming", or do I have the terminology
confused?).

My friend is quite happy with AT&T for its calling card and I am partial
to Sprint for its audio quality.  One thing we do agree on is that MCI
stinks!


Paul W. Schleck
[e-mail]

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5
 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0)

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

Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 09:53:07 PDT
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Mary had a Little Lamb"
Reply-to: [e-mail]


I'm sure we all remember from our elementary school "playing with the
phone" dialing "Mary had a Little Lamb" i.e. 321-2333.  In some area
codes, it's a valid number, in others it connects to dead air.  In yet
others, you get a busy signal or a "not in service" intercept.  Hmmm...

assigning of numbers with obvious musical value?  Did many recipients
complain after getting *LOTS* of phone calls?

Just curious (yeah, I know what you're thinking, GET A LIFE....).  I
guess my parents ignored me when I was young causing me to seek solace in
the telcom equipment within my reach.....:)


Paul Schleck

 --- Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5
 [1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0)

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

Subject: MCI Conks Out
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 0:54:46 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


MCI is suffering from a service outage here in Cambridge Mass.  Any
attempt to make a call via 10222-1-number, call an MCI 800 number, or
even get the MCI operator via 10222-00 fails either with a fast busy
or a rather funky sounding recording saying that all long distance
circuits are busy.

I have two lines which happen to be on different switches in the same
CO, on one I get mostly recordings, on the other I get either fast
busy or silence.  I can't call MCI customer service, since they only
have an 800 number, and the local telco operator was clueless.  AT&T
and Sprint work fine.  I don't much care whether 10222 works, but
without their 800 service I can't get to MCI Mail.

Anyone else have any idea what the problem is?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #880
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27429;
          15 Dec 90 0:20 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14420;
          14 Dec 90 22:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08773;
          14 Dec 90 21:12 CST
Date:     Fri, 14 Dec 90 20:14:31 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #881
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 14 Dec 90 20:14:19 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 881

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T, MCI and PTI Settle [William Degnan]
    Don't Pay For Slamming [Ed Hopper]
    Playing Songs on Tone Telephones [Jerry K. Wagner]
    The Wrong Way to Keep Phones on the Hook [David Leibold]
    What If? [Lou Judice]
    Still Another Phone Scam [David Ptasnik]
    Alarm Autodialers [Robert Wier]
    SID/BID List Now in Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
    NCR and AT&T: An NCR Employee's Perspective [Mike Wescott]
    Quick Word on the "Cellular Products Catalog" [Sam Lipson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 12:06:46 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T, MCI and PTI Settle


We received the following news release concerning "slamming":

Pioneer TeleTechnologies, Inc.

For Immediate Release

SERGEANT BLUFF, Iowa -- Pioneer TeleTechnologies, Inc. (PTI), and MCI
Communications Corporation today announced that they have reached an
out-of-court settlement with AT&T in a lawsuit involving telemarketing
practices.

Terms of the settlement agreement were not disclosed.

The three firms also agreed to propose adoption by the FCC of
mandatory industry standards to protect consumers against being
switched to a long distance carrier without authorization.

"With this agreement, the consumber benefits through standardized
telemarking practices, and the industry benefits since both companies
can get on with the business of serving consumers in a competitive
marketplace," Bert C. Roberts, Jr., MCI president and chief operating
officer, said.

PITI, MCI and AT&T said they will urge the Federal Communications
Commission to adopt mandatory telemarketing standards as quickly as
possible to ensure that consumers are switched to a carrier only with
their permission. Those standards would permit long distance carriers
to confirm that a customer has agreed to a switch in anay one of four
different ways. The four ways include:

   -a customer-initiated call to an 800 number of the carrier to which
    the customer is switching;

   -independent third party confirmation;

   -signed letter of authorization;

   -a call placed by the customer to their local or long distance
    telephone company.

MCI and PTI said they plan to implement the safeguards as quickly as
possible. "We view the proposal as extremely positive for consumers,
the industry and everyone involved in these proceedings," said Jon
Winkel, President and CEO of PTI.

On October 10, 1989, MCI sued AT&T for false and deceptive advertising
under the Lanham Act, and on October 26, AT&T counterclaimed with the
same allegations. On January 10, 1990, AT&T sued MCI and PTI for false
and deceptive telemarketing practices.

PTI is a privately held corporation based in Sergeant Bluff, Iowa.

                        ###

(Special disclaimer: We have no connection with any of these firms although
we know people who do.)


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]

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

Subject: Don't Pay For Slamming
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 05:58:08 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


[e-mail] (Paul Schleck) writes:

> A friend of mine called the 1-800 number to inquire about personal 1-800
> service.  At the end of the call, she clearly stated that she did NOT
> want to sign up for the service.  A few days later, she tried to place an
> operator-assisted call and got an MCI operator.  Further inquiries and
> calling of the 1-700 number indicated that she had INDEED been switched
> from AT&T to MCI!  The charges were about the same per call, so she
> didn't raise a stink about it after they graciously switched it back.

No, no, no!  The fact that charges may be the same are irrelevant.
These are ill-gotten gains.  I cannot speak to the legalities,
however, when I was slammed some years ago from AT&T to Sprint, I
refused to pay for the Sprint portion of the bill AT ALL.

I suspect that if one bellows long enough one can get the calls
written off.  In my case, I refused to even begin dealing with a
service rep.  Slamming me was a grevious wrong committed against me by
Sprint.  As such, I insisted in dealing with a management person.
Keep going up the ladder until you are satisfied.

Perhaps if everyone insisted on free service after slamming, the
practice would stop.


Ed Hopper

 BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
 coming soon:[e-mail] ????!!!!!  :-)


[Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming
carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount
you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust
enrichment to yourself. Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you
place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue
the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service.
After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance
carrier of choice, did they not?   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 11:40:22 -0500
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: "Jerry K. Wagner    Internet: [e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Playing Songs on Tone Telephones


In V10 #880, Paul Schleck writes:

>I'm sure we all remember from our elementary school "playing with the
>phone" dialing "Mary had a Little Lamb" i.e. 321-2333.  In some area
>codes, it's a valid number, in others it connects to dead air.  In yet
>others, you get a busy signal or a "not in service" intercept.  Hmmm...

>Just curious (yeah, I know what you're thinking, GET A LIFE....).  I
>guess my parents ignored me when I was young causing me to seek solace in
>the telcom equipment within my reach.....:)

Does anyone remember {The Pushbutton Telephone Songbook}?  This was
published by Price/Stern/Sloan (Los Angeles), copyright 1972, ISBN:
0-8431-0258-6. I bought my copy about 1981 after my roommate made me
aware of it.  I don't know if it's still in print and whether they
would be more in demand now that more people have "pushbutton"
(shouldn't that be tone?)  phones or if fewer people would play songs
on them now that the novelty has worn off.  The book contains about 36
songs, and, of course, says "to play pushbutton phone songs properly,
always call up a nearby friend and tap out your songs to him or her."
It warns, "If you just pick up the receiver and immediately begin
tapping out Strangers In The Night, you might find yourself connected
to someone in Nome, Alaska."  This I doubt, since the first "notes"
are 4-8-8.


Jerry Wagner
[phone], Fax: [phone]
Internet:  [e-mail]

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Wrong Way to Keep Phones on the Hook
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 23:22:59 EST


Each year, the Thunder Bay (Ontario, Canada) telephone directory
contains the following curious notice with the latest 90-91 directory
being no exception:

"THE WRONG WAY TO 'FOIL BURGLARS'"

"Leaving the telephone off the hook may alert burglars that you're not
home. A continual busy signal is a give-away. Lights activated or
turned on and off by a timer are better ways to discourage break-ins."

Now let's see if this comes through straight ... a "continual" busy
signal (whatever that means) will indicate to someone that you're not
home, as opposed to an unanswered series of rings on just one dial...
does the average robber really think that a busy signal would indicate
that someone is not home as opposed to having a conversation (or one
in a series)? Is there a Deep Concept of logic at work here, or did I
stumble onto something quite laughable?

Needless to say, there are good technical reasons to discourage people
from leaving their phones in an off-hook state, although one presumes
that new electronic exchanges will counteract some of the problems of
the past.  However, there are more straightforward ways of getting
that message across than the one above.

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 13:51:50 PST
From: Peripheral Visionary 14-Dec-1990 1002 <[e-mail]>
Subject: What If?


The AT&T/NCR deal is an interesting development ... Wasn't the primary
motivation behind AT&T's settlement of the antitrust suit a desire to
enter the computer industry? AT&T is still a great company, but it's
hardly made a ripple in the computer business since divestiture. I
think it's pretty sad, again thinking back to the old AT&T ...

Question - suppose AT&T had decided NOT to split up - and to remain
the Great American Wire and Cable Co. (as some have called it). What
would today's telecom domain be like in: long distance, local service,
new technology, hardware (consumer and business), etc.  Go on
telecom-readers: oraculate!


ljj

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Still Another Phone Scam
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 16:46:13 PDT


Heard on GMA -

A California company called Flat Rate was offering long distance users
unlimited long distance calling for a flat rate of $195.00 per month
per line.  They required a hefty advance payment and hookup charge
(surprise, surprise) and for a while were actually placing calls.
Presumably most of this money was going into some nice fat bank
account, because the telqi pulled the plug fairly quickly.  A legal
document was shown, stating that Flat Rate owed Pac*Bell $300,000; GTE
$140,000; and MCI $1,400,000 (ouch).

GMA also stated that Flat Rate had applied for a business license in
Florida, and had already received one in Georgia.

They went on to hit small long distance companies pretty hard (there
are a few good ones, but ...) and stated that the FCC really didn't
have the time or staff to regulate companies smaller than AT&T, MCI,
and Sprint.  They ended with the standard warning - "If it sounds too
good to be true, it probably is!."

*ARRRRRGH*

I've been in a telecom career for several years now, and it really
annoys me when jokers like Flat Rate pull a scam like this.  I feel
that the telecom industry is getting a real reputation for sleazy
operations.

 I appreciate forums like the Digest.  They seem one of the better
ways for the industry to clean itself up, and help keep tabs on
miscreants like the AOS's or Flat Rate.  I don't really have a point
with this last bit, just wanted to air some frustration.  Stay
vigilant.  Don't let the bastards get you down.  Crime doesn't pay,
etc. etc. etc.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I agree with your premises. So what next? The
industry will get a lot worse before it gets better, believe me.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 01:35:49 -0700
From: Robert Wier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alarm Autodialers


In article <[e-mail]>, William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.
fidonet.org (William Degnan) writes:

> One of the toys with which I have played is the Sensaphone. When I
> worked for an interconnect company, we sold some for vacation homes.
> The homeowner could select four (I believe) telephone numbers, which
> are called in sequence until somebody calls the unit back to
> acknowledge the voice message.

Heathkit (if they are still in business when you read this - one
wonders). Sells a unit very similar to this.  I have one in my house
in Colorado (at 8000' in the winter, it gets COLD!).  It monitors and
alerts on high temp, low temp, excessive noise, power off, and include
a connection to an alarm system.  It will dial out up to four numbers
to give an alert.

My major gripe is that it's not remotely programmable. So, if I close
up my house in September, and don't get back till Christmas I can't
make any changes.  The first winter I used it (last winter) I THOUGHT
I was going to leave the heat on at 55 degrees.  However, propane (my
fuel) went up in price from about 82 cent/gal to $1.40 cents/gal, so I
decided to shut the house down (off furnace, drain pipes, etc).
Forgot to reprogram the low temp setting before I left.  It was
calling my real estate agent, insurance agent, et al.  Finally just
had to have them go over and shut the thing off.

This winter, I have it on the line, but programmed NOT to call out.  I
periodically check it to make sure things are still working. It
doesn't give the same security as the call out feature, but not being
remotely programmable, it looks like the best compromise for now.

The Heath units (not a kit - already assembled) run around $140 and
are HARD to get - I had to place a backorder for about three months.

If anyone knows of a similar unit which is remotely programmable and
at a reasonable cost, I'd be very interested.


Thanks,

Bob Wier

insert favorite standard disclaimers here
         College of Engineering
Northern Arizona University / Flagstaff, Arizona
Internet: [e-mail] | BITNET: WIER@NAUVAX | WB5KXH
     or   uucp:  ...arizona!naucse!rrw

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 19:22:55 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: SID/BID List Now in Archives


Randolph J. Herber <[e-mail]> has kindly passed along a
very comprehensive listing of cellular carrier ID codes to us. These
are the five digit codes programmed in the NAM of your cellular phone
which identify the 'home' carrier, i.e. 00001 being Cellular One in
Chicago, 00020 being Ameritech, etc.

This list is far too long for a Digest, so it has been put in the
Telecom Archives under the title 'cellular.carrier.codes'. Look for it
there if you want a copy for reference purposes.

My thanks to Mr. Herber for this donation to the archives. The Telecom
Archives can be accessed by anonymous ftp at lcs.mit.edu.  Once logged
in, then 'cd telecom-archives'.  The archives mail server method can
also be used to access these files:  [e-mail] or
[e-mail].


Patrick Townson

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

From: sauron!micky![e-mail]
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 07:47:21 PST
Subject: NCR and AT&T: An NCR Employee's Perspective
Organization: E&M-Columbia, NCR Corp, W Columbia, SC


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

> I am part of AT&T's Computer Systems Division.

I am part of NCR's Multi User Products Division.

> I should point out that the memoranda distributed on the subject and the
> external statements go out of their way to provide assurances to NCR
> employees of continued employment.

Common consensus around here is that those promises are good for about
a year after takeover. But I figure that once a year has gone by those
assurances will succumb to more and more overt meddling.

> No such assurances are offered to
> the AT&T employees, in fact, several statements presume fairly massive
> upheaval in the AT&T ranks.  Certainly NCR employees are upset.  I would
> be too, if the situation were reversed.

All things considered, I'd rather be here at NCR than at AT&T's
Computer Systems Division.

> I don't think the situation was a disaster nor will
> it be one if the merger is consumated.

Possibly not.  It depends on how much disruption this causes. There
are definite market windows in this business which are catastrophic to
miss.  The transition period could be uncertain enough to delay
development and product releases until they miss the window.

> My own prediction is that the deal will be done before the end of
> December for a price in the range of $100 to $110 a share.

Rats...

I was hoping to get a little more than that for my few shares of stock.


Mike Wescott
[e-mail]


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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 12:02:30 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Quick Word on the "Cellular Products Catalog"


Patrick,

    I called the number you supplied (800-654-3050) - I just
thought I'd share that these folks claim to be a wholesaler, which
makes having a company name to ship the catalog to mandatory.  They
didn't seem to be enforcing wholesale type rules beyond that.


Sam Lipson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #881
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05280;
          16 Dec 90 13:57 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05977;
          16 Dec 90 12:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12741;
          16 Dec 90 11:23 CST
Date:     Sun, 16 Dec 90 11:00:03 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #882
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 16 Dec 90 10:59:52 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 882

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    On Who You Owe When Slammed [Jerry Leichter]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [John G. Dobnick]
    Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago [Mark Steiger]
    Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Call Setup With Sprint [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Running Your Own Long Distance Company [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Auto-Call Back [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [Tony Olekshy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 09:58:56 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: On Who You Owe When Slammed


The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you
still should have to pay for the calls you make, at least at the
minimum of the rate charged by your chosen carrier and the one who
slammed you.

This is wrong.  Let's consider a simple analogy: I have a Federal
Express envelope that I want delivered overnight.  I leave it on top
of the nearest FedEx box - assume the box is full, or that what I'm
sending doesn't fit inside.  I include a billing number for FedEx to
charge.

You come along, see the envelope, pick it up, and deliver it to its
destination; you get it there at least as early as FedEx would have.
You now try to bill me for the delivery, at the same rate as FedEx
would have.

Your claim, of course, is that you provided exactly the same service
as FedEx, so are entitled to the same fee.  However, the claim is
nonsense: I chose to use FedEx, rather than Pat's Delivery, because I
have much greater confidence in them.  Sure, this time Pat's Delivery
got it there safely; but maybe next time Pat will get lost, or get
delayed, or hit by a truck.  Coverage for the things that might have
happened, but didn't, is part of the service that I'm buying from
FedEx.  Pat's hasn't delivered that service.

Now, you can argue that after all the service available from MCI or
Sprint is really essentially the equal of that from AT&T.  But that's
not your argument to make.  *I* am the one who has made the choice of
services, and I am the one who is entitled to decide the value of the
different services to me.  Whether my decisions are rational or
irrational is of no importance.  The service I have contracted for is
AT&T's, and no matter what MCI may be able to provide in the way of
long-distance connections, they are inherently incapable of BEING
AT&T.  I owe MCI nothing.


Jerry

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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 10:26:58 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed


Jerry raises a good point in the message before this one, which if I
understand correctly is that by paying the unauthorized carrier of
your package or your phone call, you are in effect encouraging them to
continue the act of diverting things not intended for themselves.

This is only partly correct. There is a third party involved who
actually caused the misdelivery, i.e. your local telco.

In Jerry's example above, the analogy should be like this: You give a
package to an employee and tell them to take it to the 'express
office' for shipment. You neglect to say *which* express company, and
your employee was under the impression -- because of instructions
received at some time or another, or a misunderstanding of your
instructions -- that you wanted the package delivered to Pat's
Delivery Service instead of Federal Express. So, your employee drops
it off at Pat's, and Pat delivers your package in good faith. After
all, your package was brought to them by your agent/employee.

When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your
employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight
with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service
did as instructed.

When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand
for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the
10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or
another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did
legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on
the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat
mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service.

If the carrier deliberatly did this, then we have different
circumstances than if the local telco did it in error. In the latter
case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact
under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you,
although it is unlikely one would do so for a few dollars.

And although I am not certain, I think if Pat picked up your express
package from a common drop off point where all tenants in your
building left their express mail, and if precise routing instructions
for your package were ambiguous, i.e. a 'generic' freight airbill as
opposed to one specifically saying 'Federal Express' that Pat could
also sue you to get paid if he took what he believed was an unrouted
delivery.

The answer lies in forcing the local telco to *confirm* these changes
in writing or otherwise rather than by some petty method of
withholding fees for services in fact rendered.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 01:46:23 -0600
From: John G Dobnick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming


[e-mail] (Ed Hopper):

> No, no, no!  The fact that charges may be the same are irrelevant.
> These are ill-gotten gains.  [...]
> I refused to pay for the Sprint portion of the bill AT ALL.

> [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming
> carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount
> you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust
> enrichment to yourself. Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you
> place. This is required by tariff. ...  PAT]

Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft?  Theft of
long distance business from one carrier by another?  (In this case,
theft of AT&T business by Sprint?)  It seems to me that if anyone has
a complaint here, it is AT&T -- they are the ones who lost business
through what I would consider misrepresentation, if not outright
fraud.  (Anyway, why should I sue Sprint?  AT&T has more lawyers that
I do. :-) )

While I tend to agree that the caller owes *someone* for long distance
service, it isn't Sprint.  If this were my problem, I would be willing
to pay AT&T (at AT&T rates) for the long distance service consumed,
since that is what I originally expected to pay, but I would certainly
resist paying Sprint one red cent.


John G Dobnick  (JGD2)
Computing Services Division @ University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
INTERNET: [e-mail]             ATTnet: [phone]
UUCP: uunet!uwm!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!jgd

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

From: Mark Steiger <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu Dec 13 90 at 15:37:40 (CST)
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Two Decades Ago


Speaking on Pizza in Moscow, I tried some there and it left much to be
desired.  :)


[ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142  300/1200/2400/9600 (HST/Dual)]

ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo                          America Online: Goalie5
UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin                    MCI Mail......: MSteiger
Internet:[e-mail]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY
Date: 14 Dec 90 10:29:56 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Phil Molloy)
writes:

> A friend of mine would like to be able to contact her brother who has
> a TTY connected to his phone line.  She has access to various modems
> and computers to dial her bother's phone, but doesn't know if it is
> possible to communicate with this piece of equipment.  I don't know
> what kind of modulation/demodulation scheme is used by the TTY.  Does
> anyone out there know if what she wants to do is possible or should
> she simply by another TTY and do it that way?

Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) are sometimes called
"TTY" because the earliest ones were indeed based on Teletype
hardware; the newer ones are sleek, compact, battery-powered, with LED
or LCD displays and quite portable.

TDDs use a special, unique half-duplex modulation scheme at 45.45
baud, which is unlike any that are used in commonly-available modems.
The carrier is turned on and off for each character as it is typed,
rather than being continuously on all the time, and both TDDs on the
line use the same frequencies. Therefore, you can't use a standard
modem to communicate with a TDD.

Also, TDDs use five-bit Baudot code rather than 7- or 8-bit ASCII
code, so most standard comm software won't work, either.

There _are_ TDDs in existence which use Bell 103 modulation and ASCII
code, but they aren't very common.  And, you can also find special
modems (from companies such as Krown and Ultratec) that support both
Bell 103 and TDD modulation schemes and also automatically translate
between ASCII and Baudot, but these cost as much as many 2400bps
modems.

Telecommunications Industry Association committee TR-30.1 has a
project open to define a standard method for automatic interworking
between data modems and TDDs.  Once this standard is developed, we may
see many more modem companies begin to include TDD modulation in
standard PC-class modem products.

Your friend will need to either buy a TDD (they're not all that
expensive; $300-$500), or buy her brother a PC and a modem (which
would be a nice Christmas gift, and open up to him the whole world of
BBSing).


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]


[Moderator's Note: For further information, readers are referred to
the file on this subject in the Telecom Archives mentioned earlier.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 13 Dec 90 20:07 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Setup With Sprint
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


[e-mail] (Dennis G. Rears (FSAC)) complains that call
set-up time on calls to Australia is too high.

This may not be Sprint's fault. The local telephone exchange is
probably causing some of the delay, because it only forwards the
dialled number to Sprint once it is convinced that all the digits have
been dialled.  This is not a problem with North American calls, since
U.S. and Canadian telephone numbers are all the same length, but for
overseas calls, the local switch waits until a few seconds have
elapsed since the last number was dialled (this is called waiting for
"time-out"). However, the local switch will recognize the # character
as meaning that you have finished dialling, and will forward the
number to Sprint immediately on receiving the #, assuming that you
have dialled a plausible number of digits.

(In other words, 011-44-71-xxx-xxxx # will go through, but 011-44-71 #
may be rejected by the local switch as being too short. I realize that
the example is for a number in London, England, not Australia.)

This is not specific to Sprint.  It should work with any long distance
carrier with overseas calling facilities (or, strictly speaking, it
should work with any sufficiently modern local switch, since you're
talking to the facilities of the local carrier, not to Sprint.)

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Your Own Long Distance Company
Date: 14 Dec 90 18:40:28 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

>The {St. Louis Post Dispatch} this morning carries a story about
>William Outten, the owner of an answering service in surburban St.
>Louis who is now offering "free" long distance calls from Jefferson
>county into St. Louis.

    An acquaintance of ours who is well known in the Seattle area
as a telecom entrepreneur was recently unsuccessful in his efforts to
lobby the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission for
permission to operate this sort of business.

    I don't know the details. My wife speaks to this fellow much
more often than I do, and she's not well versed in the technology.


Jeff Carroll   [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Auto-Call Back
Date: 14 Dec 90 13:36:35 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

>     I'm not sure I have the right name, but I'm referring to the
> (new?)  service whereby if somebody calls you ...
> automatically generate a call back to the person who called you.  My
> question is, does the system filter out any numbers?  If somebody from
> Europe called me, will it dial back an international call for me?

For today, the calling number is available for automatic call-back (I
think they call the service Return*Call here in NJ) only on intra-LATA
calls between SS7-connected central offices.  This limits your
liability to the maximum rate for a call within your LATA.  900
numbers only allow inbound calls -- if they called you, then the
calling number is not their 900 number but some other number (which
may or may not be equipped to receive incoming calls).

In the far future, when SS7 connectivity includes the inter-LATA
carriers, you'll probably be able to Return*Call places more distant.
The best defense, probably, is Caller*ID.  It will show you the number
you're about to call with Return*Call, if the last call you received
was from a properly-connected CO.  If the number was not available for
display, it probably won't be available for Return*Call, either.


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

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

From: Tony Olekshy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements
Date: 14 Dec 90 16:34:42 GMT
Organization: Olekshy Hoover & Associates Ltd., Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.


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

> Steve Thornton <[e-mail]> writes:

> > I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid,
> > insulting ads.

> I agree that some of AT&T's advertisements (as well as many others,
> including other LD companies) are stupid and somewhat insulting. But
> never lose sight of the purpose of advertising: the sale of products.

John then goes on to write a set of items I agree with.

Now, on to advertising.  I used to complain about it, until a friend
with a graphics arts and literature background asked me why I didn't
"study" it, instead.  After all, this would give me something to do
while waiting for the commercials to end.  With a little help, I was
on my way.

The AT&T advertisement campaign of the last two or three years has, as
you know, consisted of a series of phased advertisements on particular
themes.  When the campaign summary spot came out a few months ago, and
I saw it for the first time, I was awestruck by the technique: slowly
builing a public image, responding to market shifts and competitor's
counter-attacks, challenging competitor's counter-claims, and then
pulling it all together.

You (the reader of this group) know way to much to be softsoaped by
these ads, but their *purpose* is *not* to sell more telephony to
comp.dcom.telecom readers.  I doubt that any other LD ad campaign is
as familiar to the average USA consumer.

The ad campaign, is, IMHO, a candidate for an advertising award.


Disclaimer: I tend to watch only PBS and CNN from the USA, except for
        Letterman, of course.  This posting is an amateur's opinion.

Yours etc,

Tony Olekshy       Internet: [e-mail]
          BITNET: [e-mail]
               uucp: alberta!oha!tony

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #882
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06519;
          16 Dec 90 15:01 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19556;
          16 Dec 90 13:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05977;
          16 Dec 90 12:28 CST
Date:     Sun, 16 Dec 90 11:58:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #883
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 16 Dec 90 11:58:36 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 883

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Some Missing Archives Issues Restored [TELECOM Moderator]
    Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Scott R. Myers]
    Non-Payment Disconnects [Andy Jacobson]
    Looking for Programmable Dialer [[e-mail]]
    Re: Alarm Autodialers [Mike Olson]
    Re: Alarm Autodialers [John Higdon]
    Re: Playing Songs on Tone Telephones [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: A Problem With C & P [William Degnan]
    Query About Answering Machines in Greece [David Durand]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 20:49:24 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Some Missing Archives Issues Restored


Long time readers of the Digest will recall that the Archives (and the
Digest) were formerly located at Boston University. During 1988,
because the archives was beginning to grow quite large (but only about
one-third as large as it is now!) Jon Solomon was requested by
management at bucs.bu.edu to compress the archives as much as
possible. We did this on all the very old issues.

When the archives was moved to MIT last year, many of the old files
which had been compressed at bucs.bu.edu were somehow damaged, and we
were unable to uncompress them. We were able to only recover about
half of the old issues. Beginning late in 1988, the method of storage
was changed, and all issues from the last part of Volume 8, plus all
of Volumes 9 and 10 are intact. Through trial and error since, several
more old issues have been reconstructed, but the early issues from
Volumes 1 through 6 (and part of 8) are still spotty, with several
missing issues.

I am happy to announce the recovery of several more issues from Volume
4. It turns out that a reader, Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
had a lot of the old issues on tape storage from Volumes 2, 3 and 4.
I've scanned through those and picked out several dozen issues mostly
from Volume 4 which we had not previously been able to reconstruct.
They are now filed away for your reference.  Volume 5 was kind of
messy in the way it was archived to begin with, and it has also been
reconstructed where possible.

My thanks to Ken Dykes for this contribution to the Archives. Still
needed are copies of issues from Volume 1 (especially issues 1, 2, and
3), and copies of issues from Volume 2, 3 and 8.


Patrick Townson

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

From: "Scott R. Myers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas
Date: 16 Dec 90 05:01:17 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University


I need an education on antennas.  I'm purchasing a transportable and
want to install an antenna on my car for greater signal strength when
driving.  I have a fair understanding of the different types (roof
mount, trunk mount, glass mount, etc.).  What I want to know is the
layman's explanation of Db's.  I see ads for 3db trunk mounts and 5db
glass mounts.  The impression I'm given is the 5db glass mounts are
very acceptable for signal strength.  How do they compare to roof and
trunk mounts?  Just what are Db's anyhow?

I have a second part to this question.  I have read about the cabling
used in antenna installs (RG-58).  Based on what I'm reading, there is
significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie.
trunk to front passenger side seat.).  Would using another guage of
coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable?  Any other
recommendations to cut down on signal loss as well as the best antenna
configurations.  Thanks in advance.


Scott R. Myers
Snail:    26 Stiles Street        Phone:[phone]
        Apartment 18               Elizabeth, NJ 07201
Arpa:    [e-mail]        Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm


[Moderator's Note: In any form of radio service, antennas are 'where
it is at' when discussing the overall performance of the radio.
Antennas are, IMHO, 75 percent of the radio's performance. The least
expensive radio will talk like a million dollars when the antenna is
properly tuned. In long-ago days, when I ran, again IMHO, a *very
good* CB site involved with Northern Illinois REACT, I fretted about
the antenna constantly. With cellular though, and the saturation of
cell-sites in metro areas, I dunno how much you need to worry. I had a
5db antenna on my handheld (which could easily be used on the bag
phone also) and it poked me in the ribs constantly, and was always
getting bent and banged around. I swapped it for a tiny little 1/8
wave antenna which is barely noticeable. The difference is miniscule,
but that is the Chicago cellular scene. Where you're at may be a lot
different. Reader comments?   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 05:59 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Non-Payment Disconnects


Two days ago one of my POTS lines was disconnected by GTE California
for supposed non-payment. Generally when this happens anywhere else
I've encountered, the line still has DC on it, but no dial tone.  All
incoming calls reach a recording explaining that the number has been
temporarily disconnected, and you have to go deal with the service
office.  Here however, GTE does things differently. You have dial
tone, and can dial any number you want. As you enter the last digit
though, instead of a pause or a ring (if the same switch), you
instantly get this stern but mellow low key recording saying something
to the effect that "Your number has been temporarily disconnected.
Please call the GTE billing office at 1- 800-223-6177" Click. Dialing
in to my number, you get the standard GTE "The number you have reached
is not in service, please check the number ..." No mention of it
being temporary, or ever having been in service for that matter.

Well I tried a few things out. You can call 611, and also get your
number read back to you (1223), but you can't call 0, 411, or any
seven or 10 digit number except the one for their billing office. I
decided to try 611, as they seem to have access to at least read your
service records, and they don't suffer from additude problems like the
service office people.  The operator explained that I could also have
gotten 911 if needed, and explained they have been doing things this
way for at least four years.

When he explained the problem, and I explained that the bill had been
paid promptly, over two weaks before (I got no warning written or
otherwise that there was any problem at all). He seemed to actually
believe me!  "...Um....er....can you hold on a minute?...." After a
brief delay, he returned and said the problem had been taken care of
and said the service would be back on by 8:00 pm. It was 5:00 at the
time, and it was back on by 6:30. No further explanation.

Though I found it interesting to deal with GTE's sort of soft
disconnect, I wonder how many people get put through this by them.
Maybe they're fishing for added revenue with reconnect charges. I
really think common carriers should be licensed by the FCC like
broadcasters are. If they were subject to periodic license renewal
reviews, both technical and operational, they would probably have
quite a different additude about performance for their captive
customers.


Andy Jacobson<[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: I've never had my phone disconnected in that
manner, but IBT leaves battery on the line and nothing else. You can
always distinquish a credit disconnect from other types here by the
intercept message. For a credit disconnect the message says, "The
number you dialed, ABC-DEFG has been temporarily disconnected." If the
temporary disconnect is due to a customer request, then the phrase "at
the customer's request" is prepended to the above message.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 03:43:38 -0600
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking for Programmable Dialer


Hi all, I was wondering if anyone knows where I could acquire a simple
dialer with wait-for-dialtone/pause capabilities.  I plan to install
an alarm system soon, which will trigger a relay when the alarm is
"set off".  The alarm dialer should be set up so that it detects the
relay trip, and dials a phone number, waits for a second or so, blasts
out a code I specify, and hangs up.

Oh yeah, it *has* to be touch tone (tm), because I plan to have the
alarm system page me.

And yes, I know that most good alarm panels have built in dialers, but
they all want to connect to a central station's receivers, and as such
speak some type of "modem-type" protocol, and my pager ain't gonna
like that!

Please respond directly, as I dont get to read this list all that
often.

Greeny

BITNET: MISS026@BOGECNVE   Internet: [e-mail]
GEnie: GREENY (about once a week)   AOL: GREENY1 (whenever)
Disclaimer: #include<std_legal_mumbo_jumbo.h>

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

From: Mike Olson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alarm Autodialers
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 12:14:17 PST


In <[e-mail]>, Bob Weir notes that environmental monitors
like the Sensaphone are not remotely programmable.  I am moving out of
the domain of telecom, here, but thought you might be interested in a
solution I have used to this problem.

We used a Sensaphone in a computer room that had to be online for
about 48 hours at the end of every month to print bills and paychecks.
During the 48 hours, a sequence of programs ran on a tight timeline --
they took about 45 hours to run, so any delays were a major problem.

We bought a Sensaphone, pulled the speaker out of a terminal connected
to one of our computers, and wrote a daemon program that would watch
the active process table and compare it to a list that we prepared of
what should be going on at any time.  The speaker wires were connected
to one of the three "external alarm sensor" inputs on the Sensaphone.
If anything funny happened, the daemon program would ring the terminal
bell, the Sensaphone would trigger, and the operations staff would get
woken up by the Sensaphone's voice synthesizer reporting that ALARM
CONDITION ONE EXISTS ALARM CONDITION ONE EXISTS.

We could generally dial up and fix whatever was broken (although
groggy naked programmers making software changes to production code at
3AM did give my boss the screaming heebie-jeebies).  For under a
hundred bucks, this Rube Goldberg solution was a major win.  We went
from an average of 1.5 days late to 0.5 hours early with the end of
month-end processing.

Granted, we didn't make the Sensaphone itself remotely programmable,
but with a cheap computer and a screwdriver you can pull off some
pretty remarkable things.


Mike

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Alarm Autodialers
Date: 15 Dec 90 00:02:43 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Robert Wier <[e-mail]> writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, William.Degnan@f39.n382.z1.
> fidonet.org (William Degnan) writes:

> > One of the toys with which I have played is the Sensaphone.

> My major gripe is that it's not remotely programmable.

It does have a couple of other drawbacks. It is rotary dial only, the
"acknowledgement" comes, not from the callee entering TT, but from him
calling the unit right back after being called. Being called by one of
these units was quite a treat, which reminds me of an amusing incident
I had with one.

The Sensaphone monitored temperature, ambient sound level, if the AC
was on, and a two sets of contacts. None of these conditions could be
"bypassed". You could set ridiculous temperature limits and you could
bypass the contacts, but the built-in microphone was nasty.

I set one of these things up in my living room behind my left speaker.
I put four numbers in it to call friends, but hadn't informed them of
this device yet. The next day, during a Shostakovich symphony the my
phone kept ringing. Finally, I couldn't ignore it any longer. It was
my business partner (at the time) who asked how I was enjoying my
music.  It seems the Sensaphone was triggered by the stereo system and
called the list, announcing to all that "the sound level is HIGH", and
then played a fifteen second realtime sample.

At least that was amusing. What my friends didn't seem to think was
funny was the 3:30 AM call announcing that "the power is OFF"! That
thing soon found its place in a big box in the garage.


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Playing Songs on Tone Telephones
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 1990 07:53:00 GMT


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

>In V10 #880, Paul Schleck writes:

>>I'm sure we all remember from our elementary school "playing with the
>>phone" dialing "Mary had a Little Lamb" i.e. 321-2333.  In some area
>>codes, it's a valid number, in others it connects to dead air.  In yet
>>others, you get a busy signal or a "not in service" intercept.  Hmmm...

>It warns, "If you just pick up the receiver and immediately begin
>tapping out Strangers In The Night, you might find yourself connected
>to someone in Nome, Alaska."  This I doubt, since the first "notes"
>are 4-8-8.

Well that isn't that far off.  488-nnnn might get you...  North Pole!
For Nome try a 443-nnnn number.  (The area code is 907.)

I don't mean to be commercial about it (heh heh) but if a few thousand
call records show on account of this I may ask for a raise.


Floyd
(Fairbanks Toll Center, Alascom, Inc.)

Floyd L. Davidson                             [e-mail]
Salcha, AK 99714                    paycheck connection to Alascom, Inc.
 When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.

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

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 90 11:01:43 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Problem With C & P


On <Dec 10 19:41> Dheeraj Sanghi ([e-mail] ) writes to All:

DS>I am having a dispute with C & P) ?Bcregarding some credit that
DS>is due to me. I have tried to solve it with them for last one year,
DS>but to no avail. Would someone on the net-land suggest where all I
DS>can take my case so that a settlement is reached fast.

You can write to John Glynn, Office of People's Counsel, American
Building - 9th fl., 231 East Baltimore St., Baltimore, MD 21202.

The phone number is [phone]. However I suspect that a letter
will actually be faster.

This is an agency of your state goverment that acts as a consumer
advocate for residential and small-business utility ratepayers.

I suspect that the C&P will dread a call from the OPC almost as much
as they would a call from me.

Let us know how you make out.


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]


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Degnan is generally correct that 'commission
complaints' get relatively fast resolution with telco. Many telcos
have a representative working full time with the state commission; or
they may have a telex/fax linked to the commission at all times. For
many years, maybe still, IBT's order of priorities was (1) commission
complaints, (2) management complaints, (3) walk-in and telephoned
customer complaints. I'd say try contacting the commission.   PAT]

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

From: David Durand <[e-mail]>
Subject: Query About Answering Machines in Greece
Date: 16 Dec 90 01:07:53 GMT
Reply-To: David Durand <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer Science Department, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA


   I need to know if American answering machines will work in Europe,
specifically Greece. From experience. We know the that normal
instruments will work, but not whether ring detection would be the
same. Please reply via mail to [e-mail], as I do not normally
read this list. Thanks for any help you can offer.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #883
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18352;
          17 Dec 90 3:10 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02521;
          17 Dec 90 1:39 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27713;
          17 Dec 90 0:34 CST
Date:     Mon, 17 Dec 90 0:17:56 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #884
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 17 Dec 90 00:17:40 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 884

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Boss Fined for Wiretapping Employees [Dave Levenson]
    Sun Devil Article in _Reason_ Magazine [Stephen J. Friedl]
    COCOT's on the Corner [John Stanley]
    Pac*Bell Delivers (Well, Almost) [John Higdon]
    Pac*Bell's Advertised Refund [John Higdon]
    Telecom News From Washington State [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Payphones in Australia (and Elsewhere) [Colum Mylod]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Larry Rachman]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Marc C. Poulin]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Evelyn C. Leeper]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Boss Fined for Wiretapping Employees
Date: 15 Dec 90 17:16:33 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


Exceprted from the {Newark Star-Ledger} December 15, 1990

H. J. Koehler, owner of an Elizabeth [NJ] armored car service who
pleaded guilty to illegally wiretapping his employees, yesterday was
placed on probation for five years, fined $25,000 and ordered to
perform 250 hours of community service.
 ...

Koehler, 61, his brother and New York electronics consultant Robert
Scios all pleaded guilty last September.  Scios is awaiting
sentencing.
 ...

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Lacey said the government found "a
pattern of illegal wiretaps over two decades by Koehler and people
entrusted to him."
 ...

Rodriquez pointed out that "corporate America" must be told that
illegally wiretapping employees is a crime for which they will be
punished.


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

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

Date: 15 Dec 90 00:54:01 PST (Sat)
From: "Stephen J. Friedl" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sun Devil Article in _Reason_ Magazine
Date: 15 Dec 90 08:53:58 GMT
Organization: VSI*FAX Tech Ctr, Tustin, CA


Hi folks,

     The latest issue of _Reason_ magazine (Jan 1991) has an article
entitled "Closing The Net" with a subtitle called "Will overzealous
investigations of computer crime render freedom of the press
technically obsolete?", and I found it very well done.

     The article, written by Greg Costikyan, mentions the case of
Steve Jackson Games, Len Rose and that of Neidorf/Riggs, all with the
angle of freedom of speech and goverment gone overboard.

    _Reason_ is a monthly magazine promoting free markets and free
minds; *highly* recommended reading for all lovers of freedom.


Disclaimer: I have no connection with free speech except as a
        very satisfied customer :-)


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

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

Subject: COCOT's on the Corner
From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 20:02:17 EST
Organization: One Man Brand


   I have just had the amazing experience of seeing the birth of a
COCOT. From a hole in the ground, to a slender metal pole, to the cozy
blue box with magic inside.

   At first glance, it looks just like a NY Tel payphone. Nowhere does
it say NY Tel. The top insert has all the normal info, with the
additional "For emergencies, dial 911". Syracuse does not have 911
service implemented, even though we pay a surcharge for it. I didn't
try it to see if the phone was programmed.

   The insert where the phone number goes is blank. The lower insert,
where the info on who provides what LD service is supposed to be, is a
generic panel with fill in the blanks. Directory assistance.
Emergency.  Operator. Repair.

   The only two blanks filled in are the Emergency number (211,
different than the upper insert says), and Operator. There is nothing
for repair, nothing that says the LD carrier. Nothing that says who
the owner of the phone is.

   Aha! I will dial the operator and see who the AOS is. I pick up the
handset, and hear, in addition to dialtone, McGruff the Crimefighting
Dog talking about neighborhood watch and taking a bite out of crime.
How unique -- PSA's on COCOT's. I dial 0. Country music comes on. So
does the operator. She shouts at me. I shout back. The country music
plays on.  "What number are you at" she shouts. "Don't know". "What
city are you in?"  "Syracuse." "What state is that?" How convenient in
an emergency, dial the operator.

   I find out she works for Oasis. She asks me the number I was
calling.  I wasn't, just her. Why she thinks I would try to complete a
call with Kenny Rogers playing loud enough that I have to shout is
beyond me. She wrote a trouble ticket. How they will find the phone, I
don't know.  There are a lot of them in Syracuse.

   I think I know who owns the phone. I am going to call him tomorrow.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell Delivers (Well, Almost)
Date: 15 Dec 90 12:05:42 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Remember back around August of 1989 when Pac*Bell hustled its new
"regulatory" package through the CPUC? Among other things, in exchange
for what is euphamistically described as "streamlined regulation" the
company promised a wider local calling area and the elimination of
touch tone charges.

Oh, you notice that you are STILL paying for touch tone? And you
notice that you STILL pay through the nose for calls in the 9-12 mile
department? That's not a mistake; you are still paying. And you will
continue to pay for touch tone until February of 1991. And you will
still continue to pay for "Zone 2" calls until June of 1991, nearly
two years after Pac*Bell got what it wanted from the PUC.

Just keep all this in mind the next time Pac*Bell wants something from
the PUC and promises something in return. Except for the billing
department, things have a tendancy to move quite slowly at the living
telephone museum.


        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: Pac*Bell's Advertised Refund
Date: 15 Dec 90 22:27:47 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


It turns out that the refund in the {San Jose Mercury} promised to
subscribers served out of SXS offices is real. And it further shows
how slimy Pac*Bell really is.

There have been a number of Pac*Bell COs located in out-of-the-way
places (such as Felton and Boulder Creek in this region) that were
never equipped for touch tone. No receivers or converters were ever
installed. This did not stop our wonderful telephone company from
CHARGING many of these customers for touch tone service (you know,
that charge that Pac*Bell promised to remove a year and a half ago and
haven't yet for people that actually have touch tone service).

Well, it appears they got caught. And now they have to give back all
the money they collected for non-existant service. Of course, only a
fraction of the people ripped off will respond. Looks like the scam
will have at least netted Pac*Bell a small windfall, no?


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

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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 14:05:15 -0800
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom News From Washington State


The WA Utilities and Transportation Commission, often considered
"progressive" in various areas, issued a statement 11/30, disagreeing
in large measure with recently-released recommendations by its staff.
E.g., a recommendation not to allow Caller ID for the time being,
which was based on a legal analysis and a sampling of public opinion.
The Commission initiated neither a rulemaking nor legislative
recommendations; instead, inviting telcos to propose trials, to
include both per-call and line blocking. The first such is expected
from a Pacific Telecom subsidiary, at the apparent instigation of
Northern Telecom.

On the other hand, a formal complaint at the WUTC against US West for
allegedly "selling" an unlisted number to entities including a Sprint
900 service, is thought likely to provide more focus here on IXC use
of ANI in the state.

WA also apparently has its first e-mail privacy case, via a legal
action filed several months ago by the WA Federation of State
Employees against the state Dept. of Labor and Industries. With no
relevant state policies in place, and with this suit still in process,
new policy being developed via the Governor's Cabinet is expected to
be reflected in a forthcoming Executive Order.

Another possible "first" for WA, under its still relatively new and
largely untested Computer Trespass statute, is the recently-concluded
case in Kitsap County of State v. Riley. In the first case of its kind
in this county, tried by a new judge and a controversial and outspoken
prosecutor, yet remininiscent of other such cases discussed in the
Digest, the defendant, a 41-year-old neurosciences Ph.D., was
convicted on charges of computer trespass and possession of stolen
access devices, for allegedly entering several LD reseller systems,
and elements of sentence very similar to what has occurred in more
well-known cases. The case is now in appeal, with a jail sentence
stayed pending appeal.

Interestingly, the EFF seems interested in both this case the e-mail
privacy case above.

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

From: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphones in Australia (and Elsewhere)
Date: 14 Dec 90 09:53:40 GMT
Reply-To: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Organization: Oracle Europe


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes about
Aussie payphones. Seems theft there of the whole box is not unusual...

>After a few years of increasing vandalism levels (especially in
>Sydney) around 1986, the coin payphones were completely redesigned to
>make them vandal proof.  The public payphones in Syndey are now made
>of 243 Stainless Steel, with the coin box door milled out of a solid
>plate, and is 30 mm thick.  The locking mechanism has an industrial
>drill proof guard around it and has a failsafe chamber mechanism such
>that any mechanism tampering results in an irreversible mechanical
>lockout.

The payphones in Holland are operated by the monopoly PTT Telecom,
come in green boxes and work! My first experience of them was having
to collect lots of one guilder coins for international calls before
getting a private phone. What I will never forget is the sound made
after the call was finished. To prevent the criminal element from
making a living by extracting coins from the phone, all coins collected
are piped down to a coinbox under the payphone. This occurs on hangup.
So after a long international call all coins collected are dropped
down, resulting in an audible feedback on how much the PTT has made on
the call. It's also quite a shock to hear the first time.

>Telecom Australia plans to introduce pre-paid card phones, similar to
>those used in Europe and the UK.
               ^^^^^^         ^^
As Mrs T. is now out to pasture and the channel tunnel has linked up, we
can now speak of the above two as one item!

The cardphones in NL are also the magnetic variety with a visual
indication burned in giving a %age used on the front. Personal
experience of these is bad. Mostly I've found that units "disappear",
i.e. an international call runs up most of the card but time*cost
calculation indicates the card was eaten faster than should be the
case. Payphones taking credit cards are now in use in the main
airport.  Usage of payphones here is quite low as private phones are
much cheaper: a local call is 15ct against 20ct in a payphone. For one
call a 25ct coin is the minimum you can pay. The excess doesn't go to
charity...

Does any country other than Switzerland charge equally for payphone
and private phone calls?


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

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

Date: 16 Dec 90 09:21:04 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?


A few earlier entries in telecom have speculated on why 555-1212 is
often used as the equivalent of 'foo'.

Well, back when I was a kid, all the Bell System (!) ads that showed a
phone showed the phone number:

                       311-555-2368

I remember a pre-DDD advertisement that just showed the NNX, and
someone told me about an *old* phone book that gave as an example:

              "...ask the operator for MAIN 2368"


At the ripe old age of 12 or so, a friend and I spent hours in his
photo darkroom, creating the perfect

                     --------------------------
                    |   AREA CODE              |
                    |      311        555-2368 |
                     --------------------------

dial cards for our phones. It seemed like a good idea at the time.


Larry Rachman
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: '2368' with variations was always the number used
for example purposes in advertising, along with 'area code 311'. There
were a few ads which also made use of QUincy as an exchange. You know
how far people got calling that!  I think one of the very old ads I
remember had Mr. Jones at QUincy 2368 trying to make a long distance
call to Mr. Smith at ZEigfield 8632. It explained how he would go
about doing it, and what to tell the operator.  PAT]

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

From: "Marc C. Poulin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?
Date: 17 Dec 90 05:43:48 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo, Biophysics Dept.


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

|I'm glad that they at least use 555- numbers now.  I remember about
|ten years ago when a muscial group (the B-52s?) did a song about
|someone's phone number.  All over the country, the poor owners of
|xxx-xxxx were driven batty by fans just trying out the number to see
|if anything would happen.  I'm not sure how the phone company (at
|that time it was just Ma Bell) dealt with it.

Actually, the B-52's song in question is "6060-842", which is from
their first, self-titled album, which came out in 1979.  Back then, I
don't believe there were any valid seven-digit numbers of the form
N0N-XXXX.


Marc      poulin@{acsu.buffalo.edu|softvax.radc.af.mil}

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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 20:12:54 GMT
From: Evelyn C Leeper <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand
> for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the
> 10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or
> another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did
> legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on
> the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat
> mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service.

> If the carrier deliberatly did this, then we have different
> circumstances than if the local telco did it in error. In the latter
> case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact
> under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you,
> although it is unlikely one would do so for a few dollars.

No, in the latter case, the local telco can damn well pay the LD
carrier.  As an example, my parents have AT&T as their LD carrier
because I work for AT&T.  (Whether this is a good reason is not at
issue.)  They authorize their local telco to pay AT&T for default LD
calls.  If their local telco screws up and routes their calls via
Sprint, why the hell should my parents have to pay Sprint -- the
"competition" -- money for the telco's mistake -- particularly since
the telco is a monopoly?!

The break-down in the employee analogy is that if the employee screws
up enough, you can dump him.  You're stuck with your local telco.


Evelyn C. Leeper  |  [phone]  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #884
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20640;
          19 Dec 90 13:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06507;
          19 Dec 90 11:44 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01403;
          19 Dec 90 10:38 CST
Date:     Tue, 18 Dec 90 1:52:41 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #885
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 18 Dec 90 01:52:34 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 885

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Bob Yazz]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Patrick Tufts]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [John Higdon]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [[e-mail]]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Mike McNally]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Charles Hawkins Mingo]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Michael P. Deignan]
    So What Next? [David Barts]
    AT&T : The Wrong Choice [NCR Advertisement in WSJ via Werner Uhrig]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Date: 17 Dec 90 01:32:33 GMT


I'm the kind of person who will allow a waiter or waitress's tip in a
restaurant to be affected (up or down) by, for example, how good the
food tasted (which is the cook's job) rather than isolating just the
waitress's actions to guage her tip.  A crummy dining experience
doesn't put anyone in a generous mood; perhaps I'm more honest than
most in my admission.

Then again, maybe I'm just an SOB.

If I'm ever slammed, I'm NOT paying for a SINGLE second of the stolen
calls.  If no one else did either, slamming would stop pretty quick.
Relevant catch-phrase: "Taking the profit out".

Another simple anti-slamming idea is to have all long distance
companies announce their name as each call is completed, like AT&T and
maybe some others do when credit card calls are placed.  Relevant
catch-phrase: "Early detection".


Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

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

From: Patrick Tufts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Date: 17 Dec 90 15:48:10 GMT
Organization: Brandeis University


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

> This is only partly correct. There is a third party involved who
> actually caused the misdelivery, i.e. your local telco.

   [local telco as employee analogy]

> When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your
> employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight
> with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service
> did as instructed.

The problem with this analogy is that the local carrier is _not_ your
employee - you are not responsible for its mistakes.  If the long
distance carrier slammed you without your consent, you owe them
nothing.  If the local telco switched your carrier without your
consent, _they_ should foot the bill.

If you ask for carrier X to handle your LD calls, you want the rates
and the _service_ of that carrier.  Just because Y got the job done
does not matter.  You wanted X, asked for X, and expected X.


Pat

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Date: 17 Dec 90 10:33:51 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Evelyn C Leeper <[e-mail]> writes:

> No, in the latter case, the local telco can damn well pay the LD
> carrier.  As an example, my parents have AT&T as their LD carrier
> because I work for AT&T.

Ok, what about this situation (a real one, only the names are changed,
etc.)? You are a high-ranking executive with XYZ Enterprises. Your
company, which is among other things a long distance carrier, provides
your home long distance for you at no charge. You make calls, and you
never get the bill. Then one day, you get an MCI bill, either as part
of your local statement or a separate bill in the mail. You have been
slammed.

Now, who owes who what? Do you expect your company to pay the MCI bill
when the deal was that IT provided your long distance? Do YOU pay MCI
when you expected not to pay for LD at all? Do you pay MCI what you
would have expected to pay your selected carrier ($0)?

In this case, I would very much expect that the slammee would tell the
slammer to take a hike.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Date: 18 Dec 90 11:21:05 +1100
Organization: The University of Melbourne


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Leichter)
writes:

> The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you
> still should have to pay for the calls you make, at least at the
> minimum of the rate charged by your chosen carrier and the one who
> slammed you.

Jerry goes on to give an example of why you owe the unauthorized
carrier nothing.  Legally, in at least English and Australian law,
since you have no contract with the unauthorized carrier, they cannot
enforce charges for unsolicited services rendered.

Perhaps the best way to meet one's "moral obligation" to pay someone
for services rendered, and at the same time rile the slammer, is to
pay your chosen carrier for the calls and tell the slamming carrier
that you have done so.

Let the default carrier accept it as a donation, or whatever, but at
least you have paid for your calls, to the person you *thought* was
providing them, and you don't let the slammer get away with it.

What does US law have to say on payment for unsolicited services?

Danny

[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mike McNally)
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DEC Western Software Lab
Date: Mon Dec 17 18:04:55 1990 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jerry Leichter)
writes:

|> The Moderator continues to opine that, even if you are "slammed", you
|> still should have to pay for the calls you make

|> This is wrong. . . .

I agree with Jerry, primarily on the basis of laws in existance
covering un-ordered packages delivered to one's door.  If Sears sends
me a new refrigerator without my asking for it, my understanding is
that I get to store twice as many Tupperware containers full of slowly
rotting leftovers and I don't owe them a dime.  I don't know why
slamming is really any different.

I am of course a non-lawyer, and even if I weren't there's in general
little relationship between rational lines of thought and what is
decided in a civil suit.


Mike McNally   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through
the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the
service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number.
Granted, it was not delivered by the carrier you thought you had
requested to do it, but you did solicit the connection and you did, I
assume, benefit from the connection. I think your hassle is with the
local telco for making the change without confirming it with you. You
can always ensure your call is routed as desired by using the 10xxx
codes when dialing.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 06:09:54 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


Understand that I do not advocate blithely failing to pay the bill.
Rather, to contact a management person at the offending carrier and
demand that the calls be written off as compensation for the wrong of
improperly assigning the line to the carrier.  Hence the reason that I
advocate *IMMEDIATELY* dealing with a management person who has the
authority to negotiate compensation.

Should such negotiations fail, I would explore the disputed charges
options available under local PUC rules and finally court action.

Admittedly, in my own case, I had the additional lever of being an
AT&T employee.  I could accurately claim that I anticipated paying
nothing due to AT&T management benefits.  This arguement, plus
possibly some sense of "professional courtesy" undoubtedly motivated
Sprint to write off the calls.  However, I believe that any slammee is
entitled to this form of compensation.  One should, at least, attempt
to receive it.


Ed Hopper

BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
coming soon: [e-mail] ????!!!!!  :-)


[Moderator's Note: I left Ed's cute pseudo address attached again this
time for one reason: As a plug for the final message in this issue
dealing with 'The Wrong Choice'.  PAT]

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

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming
Date: 17 Dec 90 23:04:16 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In article <@accuvax.nwu.edu> [e-mail] (John G. Dobnick)
writes:

>[e-mail] (Ed Hopper):

>> These are ill-gotten gains.  [...]

>> [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming
>> carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount
>> you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust
>> enrichment to yourself.  PAT]

>Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft?

    Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you.
(No property right --> no theft.)

>While I tend to agree that the caller owes *someone* for long distance
>service, it isn't Sprint.

    At least you agree you shouldn't get service for free!  There
is a well-established contracts doctrine, known as quantum meruit,
covering exchanges of services in the absence of a contract.  For
example, if a doctor renders aid to an unconscious person, the
beneficiary of the aid must pay for the reasonable value of the
services received.  Somewhat closer to our case, if you had arranged
to have your gall-bladder removed by Surgeon X, and (owing to hospital
oversight) it was removed by Surgeon Y, you would still have to pay Y
for her services.  Paying Surgeon X for an operation performed by Y
would only shift the unjust enrichment, without paying the person who
did the work.


Charlie Mingo            Internet:  [e-mail]
2209 Washington Circle #2    [e-mail] Washington, DC
20037     CI$: 71340,2152    AT&T: 202/785-2089

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming
Date: 17 Dec 90 12:09:12 GMT
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917


(Moderator says unjust enrichment if you fail to pay what you
anticipated paying for the calls.)

I'm not sure I'd agree entirely with this.  I'd much rather agree with
Ed's statement of not paying for calls at all, but...

For example, if I have AT&Ts ROA program, and am paying $8.50/hr.,
then MCI slams me, and I place two hours of calls at their rates (say
it comes out to $9.00/hr,) I believe that the individual should only
have to pay the cost that s/he would have incurred under their
existing carrier.

The difference, if any, should be eaten by the slamming company. In my
example, MCI would only get $8.50/hr from me, and they would have to
eat the difference (one dollar).


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


[Moderator's Note: This has been the point I've been trying to make
all along. You cannot profit from the mistakes and/or crimes of
someone else. As in your hospital example, if the switch was in error
and accidental, then you still owe for services rendered if you
benefitted from them. If the switch was done fraudulently, then you
need to deal with the fraud as a separate issue. Of course every
carrier and every telco is going to claim it was a clerical error, and
I have no reason to doubt the telcos, since what does it profit them
either way?  What ahout those folks who call 700-555-4141 and know for
a fact that their service was changed, so they run up a big bill on
purpose and then later claim the switch was unauthorized? When you find
out about a fraud or some other crime committed or in progress, you
have some obligation to stop it or notify others who can stop it, but
you cannot go along for a free ride. Isn't the real solution and the
ethical way to pay *what you expected to pay* and at the same time
continually confront the regulators to obtain relief from this problem
in the future?   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 15:58:58 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: So What Next?


The Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: I agree with your premises. So what next? The
> industry will get a lot worse before it gets better, believe me.  PAT]

Hmmm.  How about:

Slimy AOS's getting even slimier.  Now they're in on the slamming game
too.  Charges even more inflated than before.  "Yes, Mr. Barts, we
realize that you deny calling our 800 number and requesting our
service.  However our records show that we followed FCC-approved
telemarketing practices and that you did."  "But 29.73 for a five
minute call from Seattle to Pasadena?!?  I could call *JAPAN* for five
minutes on ATT and pay less than that!!"  "Sorry, our records show you
requested our service.  The moment you picked up your phone and
dialled `1` you entered into a voluntary contract for long distance
service with us.  Now send us the check for last month's charges of
$256.34 if you wish to protect your credit rating.  >click<"

An AOS calling itself the "Emcee Eye Service Corp."  They specialize
in slamming MCI customers.  Naturally, their 1-700-555-4141 recording
sounds just like MCI's (surprise, surprise, isn't it a shame that MCI
subscribers have to wait for sticker shock in the phone bill before
they can tell they've been slammed).

The local telco selling an "insert caller ID of your choice" service.
So I get a harassing call at 3am, and do a return*call and get
connected to 1-900-TOO-MUCH.  Ding, $75.00 please.

I agree that the old Bell System needed some reforming.  However IMHO
the MFJ was blindfolded surgery with a chainsaw when a simple
appendectomy was all the patient needed.

Silly me, I keep forgetting.  The purpose of the US phone system is no
longer to provide the best service to the greatest number of people,
its goal is now to maximize profits, and no more.  Guess I need to
reform these outdated, deviant opinions of mine ;-).


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


[Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I quite agree the MFJ (whatever that
means around here :) wink! wink! ) was a bit of an overkill.  Throwing
the baby out with the bathwater, one might say. The judge would have
been more ethical had he allowed AT&T to stay intact while at the same
time authorizing unlimited competition *in all forms of phone service*
 -- local, long distance and equipment sales -- and ordering AT&T/Bell
to interconnect with all competitors fairly. An impartial panel would
ajudicate disputes regards technical standards or other reasons AT&T
might resist interconnection. It was completely unfair of the judge to
rip off AT&T of a century's worth of experience and investment in
telephony. He should have said to the others, "Yes, you may compete,
and AT&T is forbidden to refuse interconnection at any level.  Spend a
hundred years in the business as they have done and see if you can do
as well or better."  *That* would have been the fair way.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 1990 19:17:54 CST
From: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T : The Wrong Choice


    [full page ad, page 13 in WSJ of Dec 17]

            AT&T: The Wrong Choice

NCR's Board of Directors has unanimously rejected AT&T's predatory
attempt at a hostile takeover because it is grossly inadequate and NOT
in the best interests of our shareholders and other important
stakeholders.

Now, we'd like to be left alone so that we can continue to develop and
deliver the leading-edge products and responsive support programs you
have come to expect from us.

Apparently, the folks at AT&T can't recognize a busy signal when they
hear one.
                    NCR


[ gee, Ma, what do you mean "No Chrismas for YOU this year"... ?  ;-)]

Internet:    [e-mail]
        [e-mail]
        [e-mail]
BITnet:        werner@UTXVM
UUCP:     ...!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!werner   OR  ...!utastro!werner

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #885
******************************






ISSUES 886 AND 887 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 886 WILL FOLLOW
AFTER 887 WHICH COMES NEXT IN THIS ARCHIVES.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20657;
          19 Dec 90 13:27 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac06507;
          19 Dec 90 11:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01403;
          19 Dec 90 10:38 CST
Date:     Wed, 19 Dec 90 0:30:39 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #887
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Dec 90 00:30:28 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 887

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes (Yeah, Right) [Cliff Olling]
    Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Mike Newton]
    Still Another Phone Scam [William Degnan]
    Bang, Zoom! (Was Space Flight) [Dave Levenson]
    Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Chris Ambler]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Eric Hughes]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Avi E. Gross]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Ron Heiby]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [John Stanley]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Robert E. Stampfli]
    Fuzzy Logic [Aaron Paul Williams]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Cliff Olling <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes (Yeah, Right)
Date: 19 Dec 90 02:39:54 GMT
Reply-To: Cliff Olling <[e-mail]>
Organization: Japan National Oil Corporation, Chiba City, Japan


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

>    The company has a contract with the Soviet space bureau to put an
>American aboard a Soyuz space capsule with two cosmonauts and fly him
>or her to Mir, the [Soviet] space station...

Hmm, I believe it was just a week or two ago that Tokyo Broadcasting
System Corporation did just that for one of their journalists.  They
reportedly paid between $12-15 million to get him up to Mir for eight
days.  They showed lots of real-time video from the space station (at
least I think it was real-time).  For example, I saw the docking of
the journalist's Soyuz with the space station live after dinner one
evening.  Funny how the other networks in Tokyo never mentioned a peep
about any of this :-).

So at $3 per call, Space Travel Services will break even after they
receive about five *million* calls :-) :-).  I'd say this means "keep
dreaming".


Clifford Olling  Japan National Oil Corporation    $@@PL}8xCD(J
Technology Research Center  $@@PL}3+H/5;=Q(J  Chiba City, Japan
[e-mail]    $@KkD%K\6?1X(J   24hrs/day=>81+472-73-5831

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize!
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 1990 15:36:09 GMT


Before everyone enriches them with 2.99, be aware, that to meet many
state laws, they also allow mail entries. (At no charge except the
25 cents postage to mail the entry.)


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP      Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.             Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd           FAX:   [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 04:39:38 -0800
From: Mike Newton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize!


Remember that for the offer to be valid in most states, a way of
entering that does not cost money (except for postage -- and with that
going to 30 cents, well ...) must be offered.  Time to buy up a stack
of postcards!

Lost in Space and Time,

mike

[e-mail]  Caltech 256-80   Pasadena CA 91125

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

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 12:26:20 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Still Another Phone Scam


On <Dec 14 23:46> David Ptasnik ([e-mail] ) writes to
All:

DP>A California company called Flat Rate was offering long distance
DP>users unlimited long distance calling for a flat rate of $195.00 per
DP>month per line.

A similarly named company in Texas had an interesting operation. They
had DIDs in Austin, Houston, Dallas/FtWorth and San Antonio which went
via tandem switching and T-1 to those cities. You could get a virtual
FX from them. They also had store-and-forward dialers which were
installed on their customers' outgoing lines to capture traffic to the
local calling areas of their served cities.

Sure looked like a narrow "window of opportunity" to me. It was.

The price reflected their low overhead and as I understand it, did not
permit them to continue those rates when SWB told them they were
violating the access tariffs (a lot).

I keep asking, "What ever happened to Flat Rate Communications?". They
seem to have quietly dissappeared.


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: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bang, Zoom! (Was Space Flight)
Date: 18 Dec 90 23:55:53 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> [Moderator's Note: Sorry folks, I just couldn't resist printing this
 ...
> you? This guy is gonna get a lot of calls, for sure!   PAT]

Tonight's broadcast of "All Things Considered" (on National Public
Radio, as heard from WNYC, New York) included a story about the folks
in Texas who are using a 900 number to raffle off a trip to Space
Station Mir with some comrades from the Russian space program.

According to the story, the Russian Space Agency has never heard of
these guys, and claims to know nothing about their 'prize' being
available to them to raffle off.

> [Moderator's Note: For the first time in a long time, I'm actually
> tempted to call a 900 number. Either this is a fantastic scam or there
> is a glorious day ahead for some lucky person.   PAT]

Pat: Do let us know what you find ... but be warned -- ATC seemed to
be implying that this may be a scam.


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


[Moderator's Note: Indeed, a scam is what it appears to be. Read the
next message and my footnote.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones)
Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize!
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 3:19:55 GMT


Whoooa, Pat, it's a SCAM. Moscow reported this afternoon that they
don't know who these people are, but there is NO PLAN to send anyone
to Mir, through a sweepstakes or otherwise. Please check this out
further if you can.


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


[Moderator's Note: Consider it done.  About 4 AM Tuesday morning I put
in a phone call to Moscow and spoke with a public relations person in
the responsible agency. He said exactly what you said, and was pleased
that the 'American media' (who me? !) was calling to find out '.. the
truth about that rumor some Americans have started ...' The phone call
cost me about twenty dollars, but I'd rather spend it on that call
than give $2.99 to those greedy con-artists in Texas who are
perpetrating this scam. The Moscow person said he believed it had been
or was being brought to the attention of the (United States) Federal
Bureau of Investigation by his superiors.  That's all those vultures
need: a visit from the Federal Bureau of Inquisition!  :)    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Hughes)
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Organization: ucb
Date: 9 Apr 08 12:46:31


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

>   [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through
>   the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the
>   service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number.

This confuses the service as a whole, as a contractable object, and an
instance of the fulfillment of that service.  You do not solicit
service from a company by dialing a phone; you do, however, avail
yourself of a previously agreed to service when you so dial.


Eric Hughes     [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 15:04:56 EST
From: Avi E Gross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Ok, what about this situation (a real one, only the names are changed,
> etc.)? You are a high-ranking executive with XYZ Enterprises. Your
> company, which is among other things a long distance carrier, provides
> your home long distance for you at no charge. You make calls, and you
> never get the bill. Then one day, you get an MCI bill, either as part
> of your local statement or a separate bill in the mail. You have been
> slammed.

Actually, this is very close to the truth. As a Bell labs employee, I
get reimbursed for the first $35.00 of my long distance phone bill
within the continental USA, and half of the next $65.00. So, if I got
slammed by another company, I would be asked to pay for something I
usually got for free! Since I rarely go over $40.00 per month, I
certainly have no motivation to not use AT&T, especially when I find
the service to be great.


Avi E. Gross @ AT&T LZ 3B-211 [phone]
attmail!avigross  or  att!pegasus!avi

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

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Date: 18 Dec 90 21:54:30 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL


Patrick raises a few good points in pointing out that there's that
pesky third party in there.  I think he's still missing the central
point, though.

>package to an employee and tell them to take it to the 'express
>office' for shipment. You neglect to say *which* express company, and

Ah, but we all chose a particular LD company to be our one + default
carrier, so the local operating company *has* been told how to direct
our calls.  If the LOC uses the wrong LD company, then one of two
things happened.

    1)  They made a mistake.
    2)  Some LD company slammed the customer.

>When you get the bill from Pat, you can't refuse to pay because your
>employee/agent took the package to the wrong place. Get it straight
>with your agent/employee instead ... the interstate delivery service
>did as instructed.

Ok, let's examine each of the two possibilities.  I say that in case
number 1, the LOC owes the LD carrier for the entire amount of the LD
calls improperly placed.  Routing of my LD calls is part of what I'm
paying outrageous monthly sums to the LOC for, anyway.  I say that in
case number two, the LD carrier shouldn't get paid by anybody.

>case the LD carrier is not at fault and should be paid, and in fact
>under the law they can force you to pay if necessary by suing you,

As I say above, if the LD carrier is not at fault, then the LOC *is*,
and it is *they* who should pay for their mistakes.

If LD carriers had to eat the cost of their slamming, they would find
that it was no longer profitable to slam.  If the LD carriers are
"victims" of their direct marketing companies, then they should fire
those companies that are slamming and seek to recover the lost LD
revenues from the slime-balls.  If the LOCs had to eat the cost when
they made such mistakes, they would quickly figure out how to make
fewer such mistakes.


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

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

From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 10:14:56 EST
Organization: One Man Brand


[e-mail] (Mike McNally) writes:

> I agree with Jerry, primarily on the basis of laws in existance
> covering un-ordered packages delivered to one's door.  If Sears sends
> me a new refrigerator without my asking for it, my understanding is
> that I get to store twice as many Tupperware containers full of slowly
> rotting leftovers and I don't owe them a dime.  I don't know why
> slamming is really any different.

> [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through
> the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the
> service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number.
> Granted, it was not delivered by the carrier you thought you had
> requested to do it, but you did solicit the connection and you did, I

   So, some wiseguy lives down the street from you, and hears you call
Sears on your cordless phone. He calls Sears back and cancels your
order with them, and then calls K-Mart and orders a cheap replacement
refrigerator to be sent to you. The wiseguy is the, often third party,
telemarketer who told your telco to switch service.

   The piece of junk (not to slam K-Mart, but you ordered the
top-of-the-line Sears and got the bottom of the line K-Mart) shows up
on your doorstep. It is not as pretty, and it has a shorter warranty,
and a shorter mean time between failures, but it keeps just as much
food just as cold as the Sears would i.e., this fridge provides the
same service as the one you asked for. (The shorter MTBF does not mean
this one will break down sooner, just like a high disconnect rate for
a carrier does not mean this call will disconnect.)

   Who do you owe, and how much?

   1) You owe K-Mart what you expected to pay Sears. This is the "owe the
      slammer what you expected to pay to your chosen LD carrier" argument.

   2) You owe Sears what you expected to pay. This is the "pay your chosen
      LD carrier anyway" argument.

   3) You owe K-Mart what K-Mart wants you to pay. This is the "telco is
      your employee argument."

   4) You owe nobody anything. This is the "owe nobody anything" argument.

   The service was provided. The place you wanted to provide the
service did not do it, they deserve nothing. You did not ask K-Mart to
provide any service, but it did. If you think K-Mart should be paid
for providing service you did not ask them to, then please provide me
with your address and I will have a refridgerator there tomorrow. You
will, of course, pay me what I want for it, even though you did not
ask me to send you one.

   You owe K-Mart the chance to come pick its refridgerator up. That's
all. If they choose not to pick it up, or are unable to, you have a
free fridge. Yes, you indeed, legally and ethically, benefit from
someone elses mistake. You owe the unchosen carrier the chance to
retrieve its service.

   So, which payment option is correct? Only number 4.

   Now consider if the third party above was a K-Mart employee. How
does this change things? K-Mart is now guilty of fraud. Other than
that, who you owe for what does not change.

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

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 23:19:31 EST
From: Robert E Stampfli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> Somewhat closer to our case, if you had arranged
> to have your gall-bladder removed by Surgeon X, and (owing to hospital
> oversight) it was removed by Surgeon Y, you would still have to pay Y
> for her services.

If Surgeon Y charged twice the fee that you had previously arranged
with X, I would not think you liable for the difference (though
perhaps the hospital might be).  Furthermore, if there was substantial
evidence that Surgeon Y had instigated the "oversight" for her own
pecuniary interests, I would think this would not only represent an
ample reason to refuse said payment, but would constitute an excellent
reason to pursue other legal remedies against her.


Rob Stampfli    att.com!stampfli (uucp@work)
kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio) 614-864-9377
osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res  (uucp@home)


[Moderator's Note: If this last group of messages on slamming did not
leave you as thoroughly confused on the subject of slamming as I am,
then nothing printed here will do so.  PAT]

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

From: Aaron Paul Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fuzzy Logic
Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 00:45:48 GMT


Could someone either mail me or post what exactly is fuzzy logic.
Thanks.


Aaron P. Williams    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: That's what they say is wrong with my thinking most
of the time, particularly when discussing slamming.  Care to come over
and do a brain scan to get more background on the matter?  The grey
matter, that is.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #887
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20762;
          19 Dec 90 13:29 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab06507;
          19 Dec 90 11:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01403;
          19 Dec 90 10:38 CST
Date:     Tue, 18 Dec 90 2:26:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #886
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 18 Dec 90 02:26:37 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 886

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Tad Cook]
    Re: Running Your Own Long Distance Company [Tad Cook]
    900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Rikhit Arora]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Julian Macassey <bongo![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas
Date: 17 Dec 90 14:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: Politically Correct Thought Division U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Scott R.
Myers) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 883, Message 2 of 9

>I need an education on antennas.  I'm purchasing a transportable and
>want to install an antenna on my car for greater signal strength when
>driving.  I have a fair understanding of the different types (roof
>mount, trunk mount, glass mount, etc.).  What I want to know is the
>layman's explanation of Db's.  I see ads for 3db trunk mounts and 5db
>glass mounts.  The impression I'm given is the 5db glass mounts are
>very acceptable for signal strength.  How do they compare to roof and
>trunk mounts?  Just what are Db's anyhow?

    First of all, 'Db' is a Deci-Bell. Simply speaking 3dB
represents a doubling of power. When discussing antennas (or anything
else for that matter) you need to know "dB over what?" A half decent
antenna can be 12dB better than a wet noodle. So to put it another
way, a three watt cellular phone has 3dB more output. So yes, with 3dB
more antenna, you could get away with a 1.5 watt output radio. But now
consider that antenna gain (what the Db thing is discussing) applies
to reception too. So a gain antenna will hear the site better too.
Same goes for coax loss which is also measured in dB. If I had some
coax that had a loss of 3dB per hundred foot at 800 Mhz (Cellular
frequencies), then if I pumped three watts in one end, only 1.5 watts
would come out the other. Alas coax loss is much higher than those
figures which are just an illustration.

I assume that the cellular industry judges its antennas as dB over a
1/4 wave ground plane antenna. But there are already several "fudge
factors" in here. First of all, there is loss caused by coupling an
antenna to the feed coax through a glass window, that is worth a few
dB. Next there is the feeder loss (long run of RG-58. Then crummy
connector assembly can loose some more. But the biggy is antenna
position. If you put the antenna on the trunk, especially with a wimpy
"no holes" mount, and the cell site is in front of the car, you are
going too loose even more dB (power loss). The stickum on the glass
antennas are often below the roof line of the car and so also exhibit
loss.

    What I am leading up to is this: If you want maximum signal
out of your antenna, bite the bullet, drill a hole in the middle of
the car roof and put a real antenna in there. That way, you will have
an antenna that does not have its own vehicle shadow it. You will also
have the most height so it will see the cell site better. I realise
you may be shunned by yuppies for not having a trendy stickum on the
glass antenna, but that is the price you pay for performance.

    You may have to go to a real two-way radio shop to get this
done.  Many of the "cellular to go" shops don't have the tools or
expertise to do this. They will waffle and lie telling you that their
10dB licky sticky special is much much better than a real antenna in
the middle of the roof.

>I have a second part to this question.  I have read about the cabling
>used in antenna installs (RG-58).  Based on what I'm reading, there is
>significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie.
>trunk to front passenger side seat.).  Would using another gauge of
>coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable?  Any other
>recommendations to cut down on signal loss as well as the best antenna
>configurations.  Thanks in advance.

    Yes, coax matters, but usually in a car you do not have long
runs.  The guts of the radio are usually in the trunk - that is just
the control head up front - so a run to the roof is six to ten feet.
Also cable with better loss characteristics is thicker and stiffer so
harder to route to the antenna. Yes, you can check it out, look at
RG-8 and Belden 9913. Belden 9913 is like a garden hose full of ice.
RG-8 can bend to a radius of maybe nine inches - the specs are
available.

    One final thing: The cell site will adjust the power it sends
to you depending on its received signal strength. So you with your
100% super duper install may be doing no better into a nearby cell
site than the guy using a hand held unit next to you. Where you will
notice the difference is in the fringe areas. It is because of the
power adjustment circuitry and density of cell sites that so many poor
installations work "good enough". How bad can they get? A friend had
an installation done where the antenna connector was shorted, he put
up with it for months. What told him that something was wrong was poor
performance in the suburbs.

Sorry it rambles, there is much to say on this subject, I have tried
to be brief. I wish we could get questions like this in rec.ham-radio.


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 10:24:32 PST


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

> I need an education on antennas.  I'm purchasing a transportable and
> want to install an antenna on my car for greater signal strength when
> driving.  I have a fair understanding of the different types (roof
> mount, trunk mount, glass mount, etc.).  What I want to know is the
> layman's explanation of Db's.  I see ads for 3db trunk mounts and 5db
> glass mounts.  The impression I'm given is the 5db glass mounts are
> very acceptable for signal strength.  How do they compare to roof and
> trunk mounts?  Just what are Db's anyhow?

'Dbs' are decibels.  It is an expression of a ratio of two power
levels.  The db gain figure is against a reference antenna, which is
probably a 1/4 wave (about three inches long at cellular freqs) ground
plane.

Decibels are on a logarithmic scale.  For power, you can figure it as
decibels = ten times the log of the ratio of the two powers.  So 3 db
gain is the same as doubling your power output.  5 db is the same as
multiplying your power by about 3.16.  But remember that antenna gain
also helps the received signal.

There is quite a bit of loss through the glass on the glass mounted
type, particularly if it is near any defrosting elements.  The best
mount is in the center of the roof with a hole drilled in the roof.
The worst is when you use a glass mount on one of those side windows
on a van, so that the antenna is below the roof line.

I like the looks of these trunk mount ones that are on a long sleeve,
that puts them high above the trunk of the car.

> I have a second part to this question.  I have read about the cabling
> used in antenna installs (RG-58).  Based on what I'm reading, there is
> significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie.
> trunk to front passenger side seat.).  Would using another guage of
> coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable?  Any other
> recommendations to cut down on signal loss as well as the best antenna
> configurations.  Thanks in advance.

RG58 has quite a bit of loss at 900 MHz.  RG8/U would be better,
although it is larger and harder to install.  There is a mil spec
grade of RG8 that is best, although with just a few feet of line it
may not make much difference.  At 900 MHz there can be a lot of loss
in improperly installed fittings and antennas, so best to use a
professional installer.  I wonder about some of these deals that I see
for phones "$200, installed" at the local auto supply.


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: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Running Your Own Long Distance Company
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 9:44:56 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, bcsaic![e-mail]
(Jeff Carroll) writes:

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

> >The {St. Louis Post Dispatch} this morning carries a story about
> >William Outten, the owner of an answering service in surburban St.
> >Louis who is now offering "free" long distance calls from Jefferson
> >county into St. Louis.

>     An acquaintance of ours who is well known in the Seattle area
> as a telecom entrepreneur was recently unsuccessful in his efforts to
> lobby the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission for
> permission to operate this sort of business.

>     I don't know the details. My wife speaks to this fellow much
> more often than I do, and she's not well versed in the technology.

I know who this is.  A local dial-a-porn operator (in fact, they are
one of the largest in the USA) was operating a service that was very
popular with folks in the suburbs.

Seattle has very wide Extended Area Service.  From my house in the
city I can call almost to Tacoma and Everett, and many miles east, at
no charge.  But folks outside of the city who I can call, many of whom
are served by GTE, have very limited calling.

So what this "telecom entrepeneur" did was start charging for a
service that I have done casually for my friends ever since I got
residential Centrex.  What he did was ordered up a few lines in the
city that had the ability to do Call Transfer.  He sells account
numbers to folks in the suburbs.  They call his number, his box
answers with a tone, they dial their PIN followed by the number they
want to call (which is non-toll from the box, but toll from the
suburbs).  Then the box does a hookswitch flash, gets second dial
tone, dials the number and hangs up, and bills the account 10 cents
for the call attempt.  When he started this service, customers got
billed for each attempt.  I heard that after awhile the box was
modified to listen for ringback and busy tone, and stayed on the line
long enough to determine whether or not to bill.  This must have been
a little tricky, because what does it do if the called party answers
before the first ring?

Of course this was a goldmine for our friend, and hell for the telco.
With only one line, the box could process LOTS of calls, because the
calls do not tie up the line.  As soon as one call is transferred, the
line is ready for the next call.

GTE hated it because they were losing toll from the suburbs.  US West
hated it, because this thing was tieing up one incoming and one
outgoing trunk with each call.  Eventually they got the PUC to change
the tarrif so that they were paying for each call on these lines.  You
can still do this without paying the new tarrif, as long as you are
not selling the service.

Which makes me wonder ... could I legally set up a CO-OP here in the
city to help my friends in the suburbs with this?


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize!
Date: 18 Dec 90 00:35:02 CST
Organization: University of Houston


[Moderator's Note: Sorry folks, I just couldn't resist printing this
one. Do any of you watch the old Honeymooner's shows on TV? Do you
remember all the times Ralph Kramden would point his finger skyward
and say, "The moon, Alice ... I'll send you to the moon ... bang!" and
he would slap his fist, scream and carry on? Well, the message which
follows is almost as funny. And yet -- yet, there is something sort of
exciting about it. I'd *dearly love* to be on a space flight, wouldn't
you? This guy is gonna get a lot of calls, for sure!   PAT]



THE ULTIMATE                         For immediate release:
                                         10 am Mon. Dec 17 1990
  ADVENTURE

1-900-258-2MIR


       THREE TEXANS SEND "ORDINARY AMERICAN" TO SOVIET SPACE STATION

    Less than a year from now, someone will get the word he or she has
been selected to go into space to visit Mir, the Soviet space station
orbiting the Earth.

    It's the first time virtually everyone has a chance to become an
astronaut. The astronaut doesn't have to be a test pilot ... or a
scientist ... or compete against other candidates. It could be almost
anyone from almost anywhere.  It could be you.

    The three men who've made it happen are Texans, all from suburban
Houston.

    Their company, Space Travel Services Corp., is headquartered in
the Clear Lake area of Houston, right across NASA Road 1 from the
Johnson Space Center, where the US manned space program is planned and
managed.  All three have close ties to the space program and share
it's commitment to putting and keeping people in space.

    David J. Mayer, president and chief executive officer of Space
Travel, studied physics at the University of Houston, where he was
president of both the University Space Society and University of
Houston Students for the Exploration and Development of Space. David
has worked in computer system development and construction in the NASA
area. He lives in Webster, adjacent to the NASA complex.

    His Space Travel co-founder, Howard L. Stringer, of Stafford, also
has a background in computer systems and other high-tech fields. He
graduated cum laude from the University of Texas and his Masters of
Business Administration is from UH. Howard, too, is active in
organizations which support space programs. He's a director of the
Houston Space Society and has served as its president, secretary and
treasurer.

    The third member of Space Travel's management team is James E.
Davidson, senior vice president for marketing and business
development, of Friendswood.  Jim graduated from Columbia University,
then earned his MBA from Rice. He's been working for companies
planning commercial launches of space vehicles.  Davidson shares
Mayer's and Stringer's commitment to keeping men and women in space.
He is, like Howard, a former treasurer and president of the Houston
Space Society and serves as a director of the group. Jim's a former
director of the National Space Society and is a senior associate of
the Space Studies Institute.

    The company has a contract with the Soviet space bureau to put an
American aboard a Soyuz space capsule with two cosmonauts and fly him
or her to Mir, the space station in orbit 400 kilometers above the
Earth. (400 km is about the distance from Space Travel's office to
Dallas, but without the traffic.)

    Anyone interested in the trip to space can call the Space Travel
information number, 1-900-258-2MIR for details. There is a $2.99
charge per call. Callers who wish to be considered as potential guest
astronauts for the flight may stay on the line and register at no
additional charge.

    The selection will be made next December, when an independent
judging organization selects one person at random from among the
registrants. That person will have the option of taking a
million-dollar cash prize or, sometime in late 1992 or early 1993,
riding a Russian rocket to the space station, Mir. He or she will
spend about a week in orbit and then return ... a permanent part of
space history.

    "We don't know who that person will be," Mayer said, "and we've
turned over complete control of the selection to an outside firm. But
it sure wouldn't disappoint us any if that person turned out to be a
fellow Texan."

                .............                    |       Rikhit Arora
 And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod  |    [e-mail]
    The high untrespassed sanctity of space,     |       [e-mail]
  Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.  |    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[Moderator's Note: For the first time in a long time, I'm actually
tempted to call a 900 number. Either this is a fantastic scam or there
is a glorious day ahead for some lucky person.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #886
******************************







ISSUES 886 AND 887 WERE REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. 887 APPEARS BEFORE
886 IN THIS ARCHIVES. ISSUE 888 FOLLOWS NEXT.






Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20870;
          19 Dec 90 13:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad06507;
          19 Dec 90 11:51 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad01403;
          19 Dec 90 10:39 CST
Date:     Wed, 19 Dec 90 1:49:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #888
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Dec 90 01:49:09 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 888

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Southwestern Bell Tidbits [Eric Dittman]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [David Schachter]
    Phony Sounding Named Exchanges [Jack Winslade]
    Re: MCI Conks Out [John David Galt]
    Printed Telephone Number Format [Peter G. Capek]
    Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan [Dan Veeneman]
    New Area Code for New York City - Plans Change [Eduardo Krell]
    Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements [Scott Coleman]
    Let Your Modem do the Walking [[e-mail]]
    Unanswered Trunk 'Enhancement' in Southern Bell [John Boteler]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [John David Galt]
    Re: Alliance Teleconferencing [Ken Jongsma]
    Voice Mail vs Message Center [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eric Dittman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Southwestern Bell Tidbits
Date: 16 Dec 90 16:11:49 CST
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility


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

> SWBT does provide caller ID on their tens of thousands of ISDN lines
> that they provide to corporate clients.  Several large corporations
> (within SWBT five-state area) have ISDN service, and this includes
> Caller ID.

I guess I forgot to point out that I was talking residential and not
corporate.


Eric Dittman    Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility
[e-mail]          [e-mail]

Disclaimer:  I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test
             Facility.  I don't even speak for myself.

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

From: [e-mail] (David Schachter)
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Organization: Greenwire Consulting
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 23:32:56 GMT


A long time ago (1982), [phone] was a realtor in Westport or
Weston, Connecticut, USA.  They were surprised I thought their number
was "special", even though they had purchased a advertisement on the
spine of the local non-Telco phone directory.


David Schachter

voice phone: [phone]
internet:    [e-mail]
uucp:        ...!{decwrl,mips,sgi}!llustig!david

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 22:20:58 PDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phony Sounding Named Exchanges
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <16 Dec 90 09:21:04>, Pat writes:

>There were a few ads which also made use of QUincy as an exchange.
>I think one of the very old ads I remember had Mr. Jones at QUincy 2368
>trying to make a long distance call to Mr. Smith at ZEigfield 8632. It
>explained how he would go about doing it, and what to tell the operator.

In the 60's, prior to the conversion to all digits, for a while they
had some new prefixes with made-up letter combinations that did not
correspond to any name or familiar word.  The worst I remember was a
Bronx prefix beginning with XX (XX7, I think ???).  The most
publicized was probably WABC's at LT1-7777.  They made no sense at
all, and didn't have that air of normalcy that was found in such
things as PLaza, MUrrayhill, SPring, CIrcle, BUtterfield, and even
some of the out-of-the-way ones such as GEdney and ULster.

(Imagine the scenario.  Young man asks young lady for phone number.
She replies with '..yeah, call me at XX7-9901'.  That sounds almost as
phony as KLondike 5-2368. ;-)

BTW: Pat, on this old set I have here, it's quite possible to dial the
ZEigfield prefix.  <big grin>

Good Day!       JSW


[Moderator's Note: Several points: There were some 'out-of-the-way'
named exchanges here also. How about RODney, MULberry, INTerocean,
FINancial, HOLlycourt and GRAceland (named after the cemetery by that
name here, not Elvis' home). BITtersweet was another good one. I've
also got an old 1930's phone with a 'Z' on the final hole on the dial,
sharing space with the Operator. But no, ZEigfeld was not and could
not be valid simply because a zero as the first pull *always* meant
the operator. There were brief experiments in those days with
exchanges like EZra, allowing the zero to be the second pull, however.
I guess it was not a very popular idea at the time since I have not
seen 'Z' on any phones manufactured in the past fifty years. This old
phone of mine by the way has the staight (not curled) *brown cloth*
cord from the receiver to the base of the phone and from the back of
the phone to the wall jack. Two thin 'fingers' on each side of hook
serve as cradle to hold the handset; the base is oval with no bell
inside, meaning a side-ringer had to be used. The bottom is completely
covered with the brown felt they used to use, and a peek inside shows
a stenciled notation: Manufactured by Western Electric Hawthorne
Works,  5-1-1930".  And it still works just fine with a modern
microphone / earpiece.  PAT]

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt
Subject: Re: MCI Conks Out
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 90 10:22:34 PST


To my knowledge, 10222 has never worked for MCI.  It may be
theoretically "assigned" to them, but their instructions tell you to
use 950-1022 (or if that fails, 800 950-1022).


[Moderator's Note: Funny you should say that. 10222 works just fine
all over this area, as does 950-1022, etc.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 11:24:26 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Printed Telephone Number Format


Is there a CCITT or other recommendation about how the printed form of
a telephone number should indicate --

  (a) Pause and wait for dial tone or other signal before dialing the next
      digit.

  (b) Ask operator orally for the extension whose number follows.


Peter Capek

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

From: Dan Veeneman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 10:35:15 CST


Netters,

     Recently I received in the mail a "Request for Change in Billing"
from AT&T (my default LD carrier), and would like to get the opinion
of the readers of TELECOM Digest.  The letter begins:

"A review of your AT&T account indicates that you could save money by
choosing an alternate AT&T billing plan.  This package includes your
opportunity to do so.

Your present AT&T Long Distance accounts shows that you are currently
being charged standard prices for your out-of-state, direct-dialied
AT&T Long Distance calls, and that you frequently make calls to area
code (301) in Maryland.

We recommend that you consider the AT&T Select Saver(TM) Plan.

For just $1.90 per month, this plan will provide with low per minute
rates each and every time you call anywhere in the (301) area code.
24 hours a day.  7 days a week."

     The letter goes on to explain the 12 cents/minute rate effective
M-F 5pm to 8am and weekends, and 20 cents/minute rate M-F 8am to 5pm.

They'll also throw in a 5% discount on all LD calls to other area codes.

There is an 800 number for me to call to sign-up, and if I order now,
they'll waive the normal $5 sign-up fee.  Gee !

My questions are:

1.  If I sign up for this, am I making it easier for AT&T in the
    future to get a different (and more expensive) LD rate
    structure approved ?

2.  If not, why is AT&T so wont to help me save money ?

3.  When 301 splits, my calls may go to both 301 and 410.  How will
    this effect the rates ?

4.  More generally, what can I expect as far as rate increases under
    this plan ?

I have two lines coming in to my house, a main line and another line I
use for intra-LATA data calls (i.e. no LD, but AT&T is listed as the
default carrier).  This letter lists my home number as the data line
number, *not* the line on which I make (301) calls.


Dan    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 09:17:14 EST
Subject: New Area Code for New York City - Plans Changed


New York Telephone changed its mind and it's now saying that it won't
assign the 917 area code to the Bronx, but instead the Bronx will join
the 718 area code (Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island), leaving area 212
for Manhattan only.

The 917 area code will be used for cellular and paging devices. About
20% of the 2.5 million numbers in the 212 area code are used for these
purposes. A task force will study whether to extend the 917 area code
to fax machines and whether such services from the sorrounding 516 and
914 area codes should also be assigned to 917.


Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Stupid AT&T Advertisements
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 90 19:02:44 GMT


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

>Steve Thornton <[e-mail]> writes:

>> I specifically changed service *from* AT&T because of their stupid,
>> insulting ads.

>I agree that some of AT&T's advertisements (as well as many others,
>including other LD companies) are stupid and somewhat insulting.

>I can accept that. But you don't really believe that your reaction to
>these spots make AT&T's service bad and wrong do you?

>Also it is discovered in a good many cases that people hold prejudices
>for or against a particular company's goods or services. When they see
>advertisements for those goods or services, the reaction that ensues
>becomes justification for those preconceived notions.

>Someone please tell me that readers of the Digest base purchasing
>decisions on price, service, quality, suitability for intended use,
>and value and not on what some ad agency produces to brainwash the

How about this: In the minds of many people, AT&T provides service
which is essentially equivalent to MCI and/or Sprint. AT&T costs more
than either.  AT&T has to resort to insulting advertising to woo
customers. Perhaps it's little things like this which "break the
camel's back," and provide just enough weight on AT&T's
"disadvantages" column to cause people to switch to another LD
carrier.

As you point out, it would be stupid to base a purchasing decision
solely upon the advertising. However, I strongly suspect that nobody
intelligent enough to subscribe to this digest would ever do such a
thing! ;-)


Scott Coleman                [e-mail]
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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

Subject: Let Your Modem do the Walking
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 09:01:13 -0800
From: [e-mail]


Excerpts from an article in the {San Jose Mercury} published on
December 12:

Let your modem do the walking; Computer Directory has all listed
phones in US.

"Compuserve Information Services, a consumer-oriented electronic data
base in Columbus, Ohio, has introduced the first computerized national
phone book.  It includes the name, address, ZIP code and phone number
of everyone in the country with a listed number -- more than 80
million households in all.

The directory, called Phonefile, offers the 725,000 Compuserve
subscribers unprecedented access to information about others,
including powers that surpass those of directory assistance operators,
such as the ability to search by last name and state, by ZIP code and
by phone number."

The article goes on to discuss the privacy issues and claims that the
directory was designed to "discourage the compiling of marketing
lists".


Malcolm


[Moderator's Note: Compuserve also noted this new service in a recent
issue of their magazine. I've tried it and it is quite good. 'Privacy
issues' are a nice red-herring here, but since all they do is list
numbers already listed in public records elsewhere, i.e. telephone
directories and courthouse records, privacy is not a consideration.
The proprietors of the service being sold through Compuserve have
stated they will remove your phone number and address from their data
base on your request if it is *non-published* and unavailable to them
in public records elsewhere. They will not remove it from their data
base if you are listed in a telephone directory somewhere and/or in
some other public records. You can search three ways through the data
base when using Compuserve: Put in a phone number and get the name and
address it is associated with; put in an address and get the phone
number(s) and names; or put in a name and address to get the phone
number listed.  So finally, a single national electronic cross
reference directory. About time!  CIS gets a hefty surcharge to use it
though; about ten bucks an hour in addtion to regular charges.  PAT]

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

Subject: Unanswered Trunk 'Enhancement' in Southern Bell
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 90 4:06:33 EST
From: John Boteler <csense![e-mail]>


David Lesher, et al note:

Lu reports from West Palm Beach that they, too, now have Unanswered
Trunk Enhancement (I love that kind of talk!).  He just discovered it
very recently, say within the last week.

Your first call must supervise before you can flash, or you will be
arrested for flashing.  :?


John Boteler   bote@csense                {uunet | ka3ovk}!media!csense!bote
SkinnyDipper's Hotline: 703 241 BARE | VOICE only, Touch-Tone(TM) signalling

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 90 22:05:00 PST


I have seen several things done with 700 numbers.  My understanding is
that, unlike all other phone numbers in the US/Canada system, 700
numbers are not unique.  That is, when you dial 1-700-xxx-xxxx, what
you get (if anything) depends on your long distance carrier as well as
on the number itself; different carriers can use the same 700 number
for different things.

The original 700 number, of course, was 700 555-4141, which is free
and gets you a recording telling you what LD carrier you are on.  If
you get any other 700 numbers, check them out with your LD company
before using them.  Not all of them are free on all carriers.

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

Subject: Re: Alliance Teleconferencing
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 13:09:09 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


I just got off the phone after setting up an Alliance Teleconference
with two sites in the United States, one in England and one in Saudi
Arabia.

This was the first time I had a chance to use the automated version of
Alliance. To say I was impressed with the sound quality would be an
understatement.

All parties could hear each other at an equal volume. The Saudi
connection was a little lower volume than the others, but no different
than when I call them direct.

The key procedure was a bit awkward, but I had one of those cards AT&T
has been attaching to Forbes & Bus Week advertisements that helped a
lot.

Very impressive...


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail vs Message Center
Date: 17 Dec 90 10:10:39 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


 From the Pac*Bell Upsell(tm) department:

Falling prey to the major advertising campaign Pac*Bell has been
running in print, radio, and TV ads, I inquired of my business office
regarding the MessageCenter(tm). This is $5/month voice mail for the
very small user, available to businesses and residences.

Bzzzzzt. Sorry. "Not available in your area." Not really surprising
since my CO equipment survived the quake (1906, not 1989). However, I
was offered an alternative: Voice Mail (at $20/month). Now how do you
suppose Pac*Bell can provide $20/month Voice Mail out of an office
that can't provide MessageCenter (a voice mail-type product)?

Is the MessageCenter real? Or is it a way to get the telephonic foot
in the door for Voice Mail? I didn't bite.


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


[Moderator's Note: For the difference they are asking, you could get a
nice voice mail box from Centel here and call LD each day to get your
messages. For details on Centel voicemail: 1-708-518-6000.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #888
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01699;
          20 Dec 90 0:25 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11037;
          19 Dec 90 22:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31425;
          19 Dec 90 21:54 CST
Date:     Wed, 19 Dec 90 21:42:27 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #889
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Dec 90 21:42:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 889

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY [Tad Cook]
    Pac*Bell Delivers (Well, Almost) [Charles Buckley]
    410 Area Code [Craig Myers]
    Phone Call -> Involuntary Contract? [Jay Vassos-Libove]
    Re: The Wrong Way to Keep Phones on the Hook [Clayton Cramer]
    Re: Payphones in Australia (and Elsewhere) [David Leibold]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Modem Recognizes Boing? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers? [Carl Moore]
    Problems with Southern Bell [Bill Huttig]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 10:04:31 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, hayes![e-mail] (Toby
Nixon) writes:

> Your friend will need to either buy a TDD (they're not all that
> expensive; $300-$500), or buy her brother a PC and a modem (which
> would be a nice Christmas gift, and open up to him the whole world of
> BBSing).

I have found that several of my hearing impaired friends have TDDs
from Krown and UltraTech which will support 300 bps ASCII.  They tell
me that many of the newer Terminal Devices for the Deaf have an "ASCII
switch."

I helped a hearing impaired friend shop for a computer, and I
installed a 2400 bps modem and terminal software for her.  She found
modem communications in the chat mode quite liberating.

With a TDD, it is really a simplex operation.  At the end of your
thought, you type "GA" (for go ahead), and the other party starts
typing.  Then when they are through, they type GA and you type.

In chat mode with the computer, the screen was divided with the
sending end displayed on the bottom, and the receiving end on the top.
Not only that, but you get a full character set, rather than Baudot
code with caps only.  We could both type at the same time, and we soon
found ourselves having more of a "normal" conversation ... interrupting
each other and everything.


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, 17 Dec 90 20:41:24 PST
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell Delivers (Well, Almost)


John Higdon wrote:

>Remember back around August of 1989 when Pac*Bell hustled its new
>"regulatory" package through the CPUC?

<remainder of well-aimed Higdon electronic bomb to Pac Bell deleted>

In another bit of PacBell stupidity, I recently tried to get
distinctive ringing on my single line (no, it's too much trouble to
get two) so people could send me faxes.

Found the detector box and all that, and I call up PacBell, where I am
told that I can't get distinctive ringing unless I get a service
package called ComStar Plus (or something like that), which required,
in addition to buying speed dial and other things I don't want, that I
get two lines (not two numbers, but two lines!).

Is this Catch-22 idiocy nationwide, or is it only PacBell that has
this problem?


[Moderator's Note: ComStar, also known as Intellidial in some areas and
Starline in others is tariffed as a service for 2 or more actual lines
in a group. Many or most of the features in ComStar would not work
with just one line. In fact having only two lines makes ComStar a
little bit of an overkill. It may be that PacBell only has Distinctive
Ringing available through ComStar at present. I know Illinois Bell
could not offer Distinctive Ringing until recently when they upgraded
their software. They did offer it in Centrex and Starline service, but
not on single residential lines until ahout two months ago.   PAT]

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

From: Craig Myers <[e-mail]>
Subject: 410 Area Code Prefix Locator Service
Date: 17 Dec 90 21:44:03 GMT
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD


I have just found out about an interactive 800 number for information
on the 301-410 split: 800.477.4704, but I don't know if it is
available outside of Maryland.  It offers general information about
the split and will tell you which area code an exchange will reside
in.


Craig Myers   [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 11:15:06 -0500
From: Jay Vassos-Libove <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phone Call -> Involuntary Contract?


In several articles seen here discussing whether one should pay for
services rendered but unsolicited we've seen an interesting opinion
come from the Moderator - that you are entering in to a contract, that
is, soliciting service, just by picking up the telephone and dialing.

Quoth:

>[Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through
>the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the
>service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number.

Now the problem comes in here: When you pick up the telephone and
start dialing, you are soliciting service from the vendor that you
expect to be connected to your dial-1 service. You requested that
vendor and that is the vendor you expect to get. If someone else,
anyone at all, changes that vendor on your dial-1 service, then that
someone is indeed providing an unsolicited service. When I pick up my
telephone and dial 1 ... I am soliciting an AT&T call. If MCI slams me
and I pick up my phone and dial 1 ... and get MCI, they have provided
an unsolicited service.

Look at it this way: you drive up to a McDonald's restaurant
drive-thru window and order some food. The competitor has tapped in to
the wires running from that drive-up ordering station and promptly
fills your order, shoves the McDonald's employee out of the way at the
order-fulfillment window, and expects payment. Would you take that
Hardees' hamburger and pay that Hardees' employee? Of course not! You
ordered McDonald's food from a McDonald's employee!

But in the case of telephone service slamming, you aren't told that
Hardees' has just usurped your dial-1 service at the order-taking
station, and by the time you figure it out, you are ten miles down the
road having taken the first bite of that hamburger ... which you didn't
order and don't want.

I don't see why this is any different? If you didn't contract with XYZ
to carry your long distance, and they place theirself on your dial-1
service without your permission, they have provided unsolicited
service, and you need not pay them for it.

To quote one more message giving an example of this:

| minutes on ATT and pay less than that!!"  "Sorry, our records show you
| requested our service.  The moment you picked up your phone and
| dialled `1` you entered into a voluntary contract for long distance
| service with us.  Now send us the check for last month's charges of

Yeah, right.


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

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

From: Clayton Cramer <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The Wrong Way to Keep Phones on the Hook
Date: 18 Dec 90 18:48:21 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> "THE WRONG WAY TO 'FOIL BURGLARS'"

> "Leaving the telephone off the hook may alert burglars that you're not
> home. A continual busy signal is a give-away. Lights activated or
> turned on and off by a timer are better ways to discourage break-ins."

> Now let's see if this comes through straight ... a "continual" busy
> signal (whatever that means) will indicate to someone that you're not
> home, as opposed to an unanswered series of rings on just one dial...

I used to see it claimed that professional burglars (of which there
are darn few -- most are teenagers supporting drug habits) would call
a home they intended to burgle to see if anyone was home.  A busy
signal, of course, would be interpreted as, "Someone's home -- let's
not break in."  I can see how a permanent busy might be interpreted by
a burglar as "No one's home, and the phone's off the hook", but it
could also be interpreted as "teenager at home".

My solution?  Well, you can always leave the following message on your
answering machine: "Hi, we're not home right now, or if you're a
burglar, we might be home, sitting in the living room in complete
darkness, with a shotgun.  'Do you feel lucky today, punk?'"  (Not
applicable in Canada or Britain).


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

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphones in Australia (and Elsewhere)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (woody)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 05:23:51 GMT


My sister went to Australia not too many months ago and reported that
payphones in certain areas could place overseas calls for free, or
something to that effect. This hole in the fabric of Australia's
payphones was fixed up sometime during her stay, though.

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

From: [e-mail] (The Juggler)
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?
Date: 18 Dec 90 01:21:59 GMT
Organization: Hale Telecommunications San Diego CA


> |I'm glad that they at least use 555- numbers now.  I remember about
> |ten years ago when a muscial group (the B-52s?) did a song about
> |someone's phone number.  All over the country, the poor owners of
> |xxx-xxxx were driven batty by fans just trying out the number to see
> |if anything would happen.  I'm not sure how the phone company (at
> |that time it was just Ma Bell) dealt with it.

> Actually, the B-52's song in question is "6060-842", which is from
> their first, self-titled album, which came out in 1979.  Back then, I
> don't believe there were any valid seven-digit numbers of the form
> N0N-XXXX.

I remember another "phone" song by an artist I have forgotten the name
of. I believe the title of the song was "Jenny", and they kept
repeating her supposed phone number, which was 867-5309. This was from
the early 80's ...


[Moderator's Note: One example which has stuck in my mind since this
thread began was the use of BOWery 9-1000. A 'crime on the waterfront'
type movie from the 1940's (title long forgotten -- anyone remember
it?) has a closing scene in which we see a dimly lit, very cluttered
office in the wee hours of the morning. The area is deserted, and a
phone on the desk is ringing incessantly. After it has rung perhaps a
dozen times, from a distance we see the back of a man as he shuffles
down the hall and goes up to the phone to answer it.  He mumbles into
the phone, "Bowery nine one thousand". An indignant woman is on the
other end and her shrill voice demands, "Is Mr. Johnson there?". The
man replies, "Yes, Mr. Johnson is here."  (woman) "Put him on the
phone this minute! That no-good husband of mine!"  (man) "I'm sorry
madame, he can't speak to you on the phone."  (woman) "What! Did you
hear me?" ... then suspicious, she demands, "Say! What tavern is this
I have reached? You send my no-good husband home right now! I don't
want to come there and get him myself!!!"  (man) "This is not a
tavern, madame."  (woman) "What? What number is this?"  (man) "Boweryp
nine one thousand. You're connected with the city morgue. Your husband
is dead, madame; you'll have to come and get him, I'm afraid."  PAT]

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Modem Recognizes Boing?
Date: 17 Dec 90 10:47:10 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> Re: Modem wait for Boing, Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
> writes:

>> I will say that the current draft of SP-2120 [...]
>> includes a proposal for a "$" dial modifier, defined as "Wait for
>> Credit Card Prompt Tone".  I wouldn't be at all surprised if one or
>> more modem manufacturers took this cue and included such a feature in
>> their modems.

> Good idea, except maybe another character would be more compatible ...
> US Robotics uses the $ for help screens on all (as far as I know) its
> modems ... other "Made-in-Taiwan" modems use this symbol as well.

USR has been an active participant in the drafting of this proposed
standard since Day One, and has not objected.  Why?  Because there is a
clear differentiation between command characters and dial-string
modifiers.  It's no problem to use the same character to mean two
different things, because the context is different.  There's already
several characters that are "re-used":

CHAR       Command                Dial-String

A          Answer                 DTMF "A" tone
B          Select Modulation      DTMF "B" tone
C          Carrier Control        DTMF "C" tone
D          Dial                   DTMF "D" tone
S          Select Register        Dial Stored Number
W          Extended Results       Wait for Dial Tone

Of course, some things mean the same in BOTH contexts, such as T, P,
and comma; and some dial-modifiers causes ERROR results if used as
commands, such as "@", "!", "*", "#", digits, etc. (but this depends
on the manufacturer of the modem).


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, 18 Dec 90 9:40:05 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are 700 and 555 Numbers?


In 1979, the only possible N0N-XXXX phone numbers would be in area 213
(now 213/818, with 310 on the way).

But back around 1962, there was a song BEechwood 4-5789, which turns
up occasionally on oldies programs.


[Moderator's Note: Back in the 1950's here, there was a rather famous
bordello which specialized in servicing wealthy and influential
citizens from out of town. Their number was HAymarket 1 - 5111. Around
election time one year the cops raided the joint and shut it down for
good. The phone was disconnected, but it remained in the little black
books of unsuspecting out-of-towners for *years* afterward. IBT was
unable to assign the number for ten years without having the new
subscribers complain about wrong numbers and frequently lewd long
distance calls.  PAT]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problems with Southern Bell
Date: 18 Dec 90 16:58:37 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I have been having problems with my local phone service for six months
now.

Everytime I report it, it seems to get worse.  The problem is that on
outgoing calls (local, long distance, 800, etc) there is a two to five
second period (no more than once per call) where I hear nothing (or a
pop/click) and the person I am speaking with hears someone dialing
(rotary phone).  The phone company said it is my phone or answering
machine (both Panasonic two-line units; the phone is cordless).  I
talked to a Maintanence Center Suprvisor today and she read back the
reports that I phoned in since June (four of them) and they were all
inaccurately written.

I still think the problem is in Southern Bell's equipment ... one of the
repair guys said that they have fiber from down the street to the main
office ... they have (I think) a SLC-96 for the fiber.

How can I get this problem fixed?


Bill


[Moderator's Note: First, isolate your answering machine and cordless
phone from the network. Take them both off line and try making a few
calls. If you do not have the disturbance, then chances are either
your answering machine or cordless phone are at fault. Cordless phones
tend to go off hook and talk to themselves and dial numbers randomly
when someone with a strong CB or ham radio is nearby.  If you still
have the problem with those devices off line, then try isolating it by
removing all phone instruments except one. By a process of elimination
if you still get the disturbance and nothing else is on line call the
telco and tell them you have tested at the demarc and it must be their
problem, not yours since all other equipment has been removed.  Let us
know what happens. PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #889
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02750;
          20 Dec 90 1:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24439;
          20 Dec 90 0:01 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11037;
          19 Dec 90 22:58 CST
Date:     Wed, 19 Dec 90 22:24:03 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #890
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Dec 90 22:23:50 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 890

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [[e-mail]]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Charles H. Mingo]
    Slamming Technique? [Greg Hackney]
    Re: Don't Pay for Slamming [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Don't Pay for Slamming [Ed Hopper]
    Re: COCOT's on the Corner [Gary Segal]
    Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY [Mark Steiger]
    Re: Photonic Switching [Brian Daly]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Subodh Bapat]
    Re: Fuzzy Logic [Bill Gundry]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 17 Dec 90 23:45:57 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


The employee carrying the package to the express company is an
excellent analogy.  Instead of carrying it to Fred Ex, he carrys it to
Pat's express, and now we must decide if we will pay Pat's bill.
Similarly, the local phone co carries my call to the chosen carrier.

If the employee went there at my (possibly unclear) direction, then it
seems that I have very little cause for complaint.  Not only did the
package get there, but the service price is ``about'' what I expected,
and Pat may have a cause of action if I fail to pay.

Now, let us examine ``slamming'' : In the best light, someone slides
my employee/agent $5 or local ``change default carrier'' fee to divert
the package to Pat's express without my knowledge, after I have told
that carrier to carry it to Fred Ex.  That agent has behaved
corruptly, disregarding my instructions.  Should I pay for the
shipping?

We can take a more dim view of the situation.  Let us say that Pat is
hard up for business; his only phone line is clogged with complainers
so no one can actually call and order his services.  He sends a guy
out with a fake note from me to my agent, saying that I decided that
agent should use Pat's Express instead of Fred Ex.  My agent believes
him, and carrys the package to Pat.  Now, Pat delivers the package.
Pat has made a fraudlent representation (to my agent) in order to
induce me to (unknowingly) buy his services.  Should I pay for the
shipping?


{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 10:19:12 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


Does anyone know what the position of the FCC or PUC's is on this
issue ?


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com!mingo
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 16:06:19 PST


[e-mail] (John Stanley) writes:

>   So, some wiseguy lives down the street from you, and hears you call
>Sears on your cordless phone. He calls Sears back and cancels your
>order with them, and then calls K-Mart and orders a cheap replacement
>refrigerator to be sent to you. The wiseguy is the, often third party,
telemarketer who told your telco to switch service.

>   Who do you owe, and how much?  [...]

>   4) You owe nobody anything. This is the "owe nobody anything" argument .

>   The service was provided.

    The "service" [i.e. the fridge] was *offered*, and you
rejected it (as you were entitled to do because it wasn't what you
asked for).  Suppose, however, that you had *accepted* the fridge, and
used it for its entire useful life (without noticing that it was
K-mart).  Or suppose, in a restaurant, the waitress delivers the wrong
meal, which you consume without complaint.  You can no longer reject
something as not being what you wanted *after* you've consumed it.

>   You owe K-Mart the chance to come pick its refridgerator up. [...]
>You owe the unchosen carrier the chance to
>retrieve its service.

    You owe the restaurant the opportunity to pump your stomach?
You asked for something, you got what appeared to be what you wanted,
you consumed it without complaint, and now you won't pay anything for
it?  You won't even pay what you would have paid if they had served
what you ordered?

    If you were unable to detect that the service wasn't AT&T when
you consumed it, what reason do you have to complain now?  If you had
inadvertedly been served Folger's Crystals when you thought you were
getting fresh-brew, how were you injured?  A classic case of "pearls
before swine."

>   So, which payment option is correct? Only number 4.

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

From: Greg Hackney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Slamming Technique?
Date: 18 Dec 90 17:10:43 GMT


After reading in netnews and the newspapers about the 'slamming' wars
going on, I felt a bit 'on the alert' when I got a phone call from
Sprint, which went something like this:

"Sir, do you know that your local telephone office is NOW providing
the capability of long distance service for you via U.S. Sprint?"

They have always provided options to all the carriers, but I figured
that if I said "yes", that would be taken as an affirmative to slam.
So, to make it *perfectly* clear, I said:

"No! I do not want U.S. Sprint service. I have AT&T service, and I DO
NOT want it changed. I DO NOT want U.S. Sprint service. I want AT&T
service".

"But, sir, do you know that your local telephone office is NOW
providing the capability of long distance service for you via U.S.
Sprint?"

"Did you hear me?"

"But, sir, do you know that your local telephone office is NOW
providing the capability of long distance service for you via U.S.
Sprint?"

"DID YOU HEAR ME!!! ?"

"Thank you." click.

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 13:34:32 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles
Hawkins Mingo) writes:

> >Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft?

>     Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you.

Like hell they don't! They have a contract with you, via your local phone
company.


Peter da Silva    [phone]    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Don't Pay for Slamming
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 22:18:09 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


I promise, this is my last post on this!

well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes:

> services received.  Somewhat closer to our case, if you had arranged
> to have your gall-bladder removed by Surgeon X, and (owing to hospital
> oversight) it was removed by Surgeon Y, you would still have to pay Y
> for her services.  Paying Surgeon X for an operation performed by Y
> would only shift the unjust enrichment, without paying the person who
> did the work.

I would only point out one thing, if there had been a continuing
pattern of "Doctor slamming" at that hospital, and the same doctor
continued to receive the benefits of these little accidents, you might
view the situation differently.  There has been a pattern of fraud in
relation to slamming and *THAT* is a highly relevant factor in my
position.

Also, remember that I pointed out that one should demand an adjustment
from the slamming carrier as compensation for being slammed.  I think
they DO owe you something for your trouble.  In my case, it was poorer
quality (even with those MAGIC fibers!) and the inability to reach
Disneyland East (Basking Ridge) on the phone.

True, there is a potential for abuse, but that's the risk that
carriers run when they don't get written documentation.

Ed Hopper

 BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOT's on the Corner
Date: 18 Dec 90 19:05:52 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


[e-mail] (John Stanley) writes:

>   Aha! I will dial the operator and see who the AOS is. I pick up the
>handset, and hear, in addition to dialtone, McGruff the Crimefighting
>Dog talking about neighborhood watch and taking a bite out of crime.
>How unique -- PSA's on COCOT's. I dial 0. Country music comes on. So
>does the operator.

Is this a case of YASC (Yet Another Slimey COCOT :), or could there
actually be another type of problem?  A former friend of mine in
Bloomingdale Illinios had the unfortunate problem being served by a CO
that is close to the transmit tower for a FM radio station.  Somehow
the radio program found it's way into the local loops.  Don't ask me
how; I haven't been able to figure it out either.  All I know is that
when I called, I would hear the radio station very faintly in the
background (My guess would be about 8-10dB below talk level.)
Apparantly Illinios Bell claimed that this was a problem for the FCC,
but the bureaucrats had been taking years to sort out the problem.  I
haven't called the line recently, but I doubt if it has been fixed.

But did Mr. Stanley experience a case of COCOTery gone bonkers, or did
the phone get bitten by it's proximity to someone's transmitter?  I'd
love to blame the COCOT too, but don't forget that there could be
something else wrong outside of the phone.


Gary Segal    ...!uunet!motcid!segal        [phone]
Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004
The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue
the opinions of Motorola INC.


[Moderator's Note: Sometime take a drive out near Wheaton, IL where
two powerhouse radio stations (WGN - 720 AM and WBBM - 780 AM) have
their transmitters within about a quarter-mile of each other. The area
is *so saturated* with RF that no matter where you tune the radio dial
all you hear is those two for a half mile in any direction. All the
telephones in the area have special filters on them provided by IBT.
The hetrodyne from those two beating each other constantly is
something to hear! And the harmonics are incredible. I've picked up
WBBM at 2x (1560 kilocycles), 3x (2340 kilocycles) and even 4x (3120
kilocycles) just as plain as at 780. No one lives very close; they'd
go crazy if they did.  Probably the COCOT is getting the same thing.
Either that or the serving CO has some Muzak circuits which need a
little cleaning up.  A grocery near me several years ago had some
problem with their Muzak circuits once. For a couple days it was
bleeding all over the CO.  PAT]

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

From: Mark Steiger <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon Dec 17 90 at 20:16:25 (CST)
Subject: Re: How Does One Access a Hearing Impaired TTY


The old Apple-Cat modems can also be used to connect to TTY machines.
Also to TDD machines.


[ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo 218/262-3142  300/1200/2400/9600 (HST/Dual)]

ProLine.:penguin@gnh-igloo                          America Online: Goalie5
UUCP....:crash!gnh-igloo!penguin                    MCI Mail......: MSteiger
Internet:[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Do you mean they had a switch-selectable setting
allowing them to work both ways?  I had one and don't remember it.  PAT]

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

From: Brian Daly <asuvax!godzilla![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Photonic Switching
Date: 18 Dec 90 16:05:56 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> I am interested in the subject of photonic switching on academic
> level.  Could any one tell where to get more info about the subject?
> (papers, periodicals, books, etc.)

GLOBECOM 90 had several papers presented on photonic switching. Each
paper also has a list of other references. Check the proceedings from
GLOBECOM 90; you might also want to check the GLOBECOM proceddings
from other years.

Also look at the International Switching Symposium (ISS) proceedings,
or the ICC proceedings.


Brian K. Daly WB7OML @ AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
UUCP: {...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!dalyb
Phone: [phone]    FAX: [phone]

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

From: Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Date: 18 Dec 90 20:10:53 GMT
Organization: (I don't speak for) Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL


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

>If you try to get a '0000' assignment, every excuse
>in the book will be trotted out to keep from giving it to you.

>"This is a special-case number and cannot be assigned."

>"This is a test number and you will receive many wrong numbers from
>telco personel."

>"We are not assigning numbers in the oh-thousands."

>"This is part of a DID assignment."

It's not just 0000 numbers, they'll make excuses if they don't want to
assign you just any number you ask for. When I added two additional
numbers on my residential line for Southern Bell's distinctive calling
service, I wanted to pick the numbers I added. (Southern Bell's charge
for doing so: $5 to search for up to three numbers, then $20 if you
pick one of them).

Since one of the prefixes available in my area was 305-384, I asked
for 305-384-3763 (my trusty "telefun" program told me that
305-ETHERNET was one of the words I could make up with from the
305-384 prefix!). Of course, to maximize my chances, I had called this
number ahead of time and made sure I got a "not-in-service" intercept.

Much to my chagrin, however, Southern Bell told me I couldn't have
this number because it was "reserved for business use". The same was
true of some of the other numbers I asked for. In fact, the only
numbers that seemed to be available were in the 7000-8000 range.

My question is: how do the LECs decide what range of numbers in each
prefix to reserve for whom? Are there different blocks of numbers in
each prefix pre-reserved for, say, residential, business trunks, DID,
and Centrex (even if such services aren't actually connected)? 305-384
is a new prefix in the rapidly expanding West Broward county area, and
it's not even clear that the demographics have developed enough to the
point of presenting a well-defined customer mix profile.

Can anyone with any LEC background or knowledge shed any light on such
number allocation policies?


Subodh Bapat              [e-mail]     OR           ...uunet!rm1!bapat
MS E-204, PO Box 407044,  Racal-Milgo, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33340  [phone]

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

From: Bill Gundry <hitachi![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fuzzy Logic
Date: 19 Dec 90 18:22:52 GMT
Organization: Hitachi America - Semiconductor & IC


 From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail]
(Aaron Paul Williams):

> Could someone either mail me or post what exactly is fuzzy logic.
> Thanks.

> [Moderator's Note: That's what they say is wrong with my thinking most
> of the time, particularly when discussing slamming.  Care to come over
> and do a brain scan to get more background on the matter?  The grey
> matter, that is.  PAT]

Fuzzy Logic is design methodology originated at UC Berkeley. It
basically attempts to solve problems by making decisions based on
input's value "degree of membership" in a defined set. An example is
that of an air conditioning system. The input value, temperature,
would be evaluated as HOT, COLD or WARM, not so much as a absolute
value above or below a set point. The designer defines the parameters
of HOT, COLD, and WARM using the X axis for the input value and the Y
axis as the "degree of membership" of the value for the particular set
on a scale of zero to 1.  An input value of 68F may evaluated as .9 in
the WARM set, and a control condition may then be activated. These
rules are usually "anded" together for different input values to
evaluate and respond to conditions.

Proponents of fuzzy claim faster and smoother response to stimula
resulting in better system effeciency, less energy, smoother operation
etc.

There is much more to it, but I don't think this is the right group
for detailed discussion(as much as I enjoy reading it!). As this is
more popular in Japan than in the US I don't think that there is
newsgroup for it, perhaps comp.misc.


Bill Gundry
Hitachi America - Semiconductor & IC Div.

 ...uunet!hitachi!billg

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #890
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03709;
          20 Dec 90 2:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30586;
          20 Dec 90 1:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24439;
          20 Dec 90 0:02 CST
Date:     Wed, 19 Dec 90 23:13:47 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #891
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 19 Dec 90 23:13:04 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 891

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Brian Daly]
    Re: Information Needed Ahout Cellular Antennas [Lou Judice]
    Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Let Your Modem do the Walking [John Ruckstuhl]
    Re: So What Next? [John Higdon]
    To the Moon, Alice.... [Ed Hopper]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brian Daly <asuvax!godzilla![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas
Date: 18 Dec 90 17:14:02 GMT
Organization: gte


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

> I need an education on antennas.  I'm purchasing a transportable and
> want to install an antenna on my car for greater signal strength when
> driving.  I have a fair understanding of the different types (roof
> mount, trunk mount, glass mount, etc.).  What I want to know is the
> layman's explanation of Db's.  I see ads for 3db trunk mounts and 5db
> glass mounts.  The impression I'm given is the 5db glass mounts are
> very acceptable for signal strength.  How do they compare to roof and
> trunk mounts?  Just what are Db's anyhow?

> I have read about the cabling
> used in antenna installs (RG-58).  Based on what I'm reading, there is
> significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie.
> trunk to front passenger side seat.).  Would using another guage of
> coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable?


First, let's tackle the dB question:

Say I have two radio transmitters. Transmitter A has an output power
of ten watts, and transmitter B has an output power of one watt. One
way of representing the ratio of transmitter A 's power to transmitter
B's is using the decibel. The decibel is defined as:

                   db = 10 log (P2/P1)

So, in my example, the ratio of transmitter A's power to B's is:

                   db = 10 log (10/1) = 10 db

(note that the log is to the base 10)

So, a 10db ratio represents a 10:1 power ratio. Now suppose
transmitter A had a power output of two watts; now the db power ratio
is 10 log (2/1) or 3db. thus a 2:1 power ratio represents a 3db power
ratio. If I do this for other values of transmitter A power, I find
that every time I double transmitter A's power (keeping B constant), I
increase the db ratio by 3 db. Thus, doubling the power is the same as
a 3db increase.

Now, how does this apply to antennas? A measure of antenna efficiency
is the gain (which is a power quantity). To identify the gain of a
particular antenna, you have to have something to compare it to; as
the above example demonstrated, the db is a measure of power ratios.
Usually we refer to the gain of an antenna as compared to an isotropic
source (an isotropic source is a lossless antenna that radiates power
uniformly in all directions). The isotropic source has a unity power
gain, or 0db. This is the reference.

Looking at the two antennas you mentioned, a 3 db trunk mount and a 5
db window mount -- these measurements are against the same reference.
From the above discussion, the 3 db antenna has twice the gain as the
reference, and the 5 db has 3.16 times the gain.

How are db's used? Let's say your transmitter (cellular phone) has a
5db power output, and you have 2 db loss in the coax running from the
phone to the antenna. With the 3 db antenna, your overall system
performance is: 5db - 2db + 3 db = 6 db. With the 5 db antenna: 5 db -
2 db + 5 db = 8 db.  So, keeping everything else constant, the 5 db
antenna will give better performance than the 3 db.

Another important factor with the antenna is the placement of the
antenna on the car. This will have an effect on the antenna pattern --
the pattern is a "picture" of how the electromagnetic energy is
transmitted. An antenna will not radiate uniformly in all directions;
the antenna might transmit better in one direction, and worse in
another. This pattern is affected by the metal body of a car. To get
the best pattern, I've usually had success with placing the antenna
directly in the center of the roof. Placing the antenna on the rear
window or trunk will change the pattern.

On the subject of coax, you need 50 ohm cable for your cellular
system. RG58 is by far the most common, and least expensive. It has an
attenuation of about 20db per 100 feet, which is not great. However,
the distance from the trunk to the front passanger side of a car is
less that ten to fifteen feet, so you should be OK. There are better
cables available, but these are usually larger in diameter which might
not be good for automotive installations. I'd recommend RG-58A/U
(specify this type -- it contains not only a copper braid, but an
aluminum foil shield). At 900MHz, it has a loss of 13.8 db per 100
feet.

There is one possible flaw in this however. I assume that both
antennas in question were measured against an isotropic source.
However, as one of my colleagues here at AGCS pointed out, you need to
make certain of that fact....

> Looking at the two antennas you mentioned, a 3 db trunk mount and a
> 5 db window mount -- these measurements are against the same
> reference. From the above discussion, the 3 db antenna has twice the
> gain as the reference, and the 5 db has 3.16 times the gain.

Ah, but therein lies the rub - sometimes these AREN'T measured against
the same reference.  Sometimes dBi (dB gain relative to an isotropic
point source) are used, and sometimes it's dBd (dB gain relative to a
dipole at that frequency).  I believe a dipole has about 1 dB gain
over a point source.  So it's more attractive for manufacturers to
quote dBi if others quote dBd.  I've seen this with ham and CB
antennas, don't know if the cellular folks are doing it or not.

Thus, when you read antenna specifications, make certain you are
comparing apples to apples!


Brian K. Daly WB7OML @ AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
UUCP: {...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!zardoz!hrc | att}!gtephx!dalyb
Phone: [phone]    FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 08:20:11 PST
From: Peripheral Visionary 19-Dec-1990 1050 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Antennas


Clever antenna designs produce radiation characteristics better than a
vertical piece of wire cut to the proper length. This is essentially
what the dB figures indicate - 3dB gain would be an antenna with a
radiation pattern three times more powerful than "unity gain".

However, there are tradeoffs, and 5dB gain antennas have a radiation
pattern that's wider and closer to the ground - perfect for a desert,
but not so good for hilly or mountainous areas. Since the base note
was written from here in hilly New Jersey, I would suggest sticking
with 3dB gain antennas, mounted as high as possible on the car. I'd
point out that my experience with through-the-glass window mounts is
as good as body/trunk mounted (drilled hole). The best
antenna/installation would be a permanent mount in the center of yonur
car's roof (see any NJ State Police car - their radio system is in a
band near cellular).

But then who wants to drill a hole in their roof?


ljj


[Moderator's Note: My thanks for the several good messages on antennas
which have appeared recently. I think it is important to remind our
less techically sophisticated readers who are considering their first
cellular phone purchase for use in a metro area that any of the
several antennas available commercially should work okay. Don't get
too bogged down with antenna and coax considerations.  PAT]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: For Telecom-ers Who Live up North
Date: 18 Dec 90 20:17:14 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

>Hook one of those $99 radio shack alarm dialers to a thermostat and
>water sensor.  If a pipe breaks or the heat fails, you'll get called.

    For not much more than $99 you can get the guts of a complete
burglar alarm system that will provide the functionality you describe.

    I paid $140 for an Arrowhead Spartan alarm controller that is
capable of running six alarm "zones", one of which could easily be
connected to pipe freeze sensors.

    Of course, you can't get them at Radio Shack, and they aren't
meant to be installed by consumers (though anyone who graduated from
the fifth grade has the requisite technical skills).


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <bcsaic![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Date: 18 Dec 90 20:09:51 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle


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

>In article <[e-mail]>,  seanp%undrground@amix.
>commodore.com (Sean) writes:

>>The transmitter section of the setup is IMPRESSIVE. Everyone could
>>concievably use thier phone at the same time, as there are 400
>>channels available for use.

>I doubt very much that the airplane is able to transmit on 400
>channels, or even 56 channels, at once.

    I would also doubt that you could operate 400, or even 56,
independent radio channels from the same bird. Even doing 25 (as we
have on AWACS) results in horrendous self-jamming and elaborate
frequency allocation software, not to mention hundreds if not
thousands of pounds of antenna couplers.

    On the other hand, a recent conversation with the manager
responsible for integrating the equivalent of AirFone into our next
generation airplane left me with the impression that there was quite a
big chunk of bandwidth required. One obvious solution would be an
onboard DS1 mux which performs upconversion at its output to an IF
frequency of the UHF set (most likely 70 MHz). I don't know whether
such a beast exists today, but I doubt that that's what is used in
most AirFone installations (i.e. one phone in the back of the plane).


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]

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

From: John Ruckstuhl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Let Your Modem do the Walking
Date: 19 Dec 90 22:33:25 GMT
Organization: UF CIS Dept.


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

> The directory, called Phonefile, offers the 725,000 Compuserve
> subscribers unprecedented access to information about others,
> including powers that surpass those of directory assistance operators,
> such as the ability to search by last name and state, by ZIP code and
> by phone number."

> [Moderator's Note:
> some other public records. You can search three ways through the data
> base when using Compuserve: Put in a phone number and get the name and
> address it is associated with; put in an address and get the phone
> number(s) and names; or put in a name and address to get the phone
> number listed.  So finally, a single national electronic cross

Wouldn't it be easy for them to define another key?  Some
(geneologists?  detectives?  credit bureaus?) would want to search by
name or lastname only.

I am unfamiliar with CompuServe -- could you submit a request, direct
output to a personal file, logoff while request is processed, then
download output during another session?

Best wishes for the holiday season,


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


[Moderator's Note: And my best wishes to you and other readers also.
I received a couple other lengthy replies in this thread today and
because they are primarily privacy issues rather than telecom issues I
passed them along direct to the Telecom Privacy mailing list. I have
not plugged that list in a while, so here goes: For a continuing
discussion on Caller*ID and other matters concerning privacy and the
use of the telephone, subscribe to our companion journal which was
established just for the purpose of handling the overflow of messages
on these controversial topics. To subscribe, write to the moderator at
'[e-mail]'. And for discussions pertaining
to the social and legal aspects of computer piracy, hacking and
phreaking, subscribe to our other related mailing list, 'Computer
Underground Digest' by writing the moderartors: '[e-mail]'.
CuD, as it is known for short, is also available as an altnet news
group if you prefer.  PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: So What Next?
Date: 19 Dec 90 12:36:54 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Dec 18 at  1:52, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Like yourself, I quite agree the MFJ (whatever that
> means around here :) wink! wink! ) was a bit of an overkill.  Throwing
> the baby out with the bathwater, one might say. The judge would have
> been more ethical had he allowed AT&T to stay intact while at the same
> time authorizing unlimited competition *in all forms of phone service*
>  -- local, long distance and equipment sales -- and ordering AT&T/Bell
> to interconnect with all competitors fairly.

This is where your argument falls apart, Pat. I challenge you to name
one single problem with the MFJ that isn't a result of improper or
inadequate regulation. You say that AT&T should have been left intact
and that some regulatory board would "make" them treat competitors
fairly? Would it also "make" it release all specifications, practices,
procedures, and technical standards so that the competition (and we
ordinary folk) could make best use of the telephone network?

I give you a living, contrary example. Pac*Bell. In every area that
Pac*Bell has been allowed to compete with others, the company has
pulled out every sleazy stop and managed to skirt the regulators. In
cellular, Centrex marketing, equipment vending, you-name-it, I could
give you a list of borderline tactics that unfairly harm its
competition. IMHO, Pacific Telesis should be absolutely and positively
prevented from participating in any business activity other than
providing local exchange service. Owning that network gives it a
supreme advantage in almost any technical arena you can name.

> An impartial panel would
> ajudicate disputes regards technical standards or other reasons AT&T
> might resist interconnection.

Oh, you mean something like the CPUC? We in CA can daily see how it
would be if Mother still owned the local exchange system. Pacific
Telesis has become the new AT&T, and the CPUC seems to be completely
powerless to do anything about it. The company sells Centrex by
messing up the prospective victim's trunks on its PBX and then
claiming that "Centrex is maintain in OUR office and never has these
problems." They provide free landline calls to Cellular One (partially
owned by PT), while denying them to GTE Mobilnet. PacTel intimates
that if equipment comes from them, somehow the customer's exchange
service will be a little more reliable. The list (of verifiable case
histories) goes on.

Instead of blaming the MFJ for all of these inconveniences, why not
ask why the appropriate regulatory board isn't doing its job? AOS,
COCOTs, 900 IP, all of these things fall under someone's jurisdiction.
So seeing how these boards are falling down on the job, what makes you
believe that your "impartial panel" would do any better?


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

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

Subject: To the Moon, Alice....
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 22:03:33 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


Tonight, the day after the "to the Moon via 900 Service" Press
Conference, the local district attorney and grand jury have decided to
have a chat with these "entrepenuers".  They claim they're on the up
and up, TASS (the Soviet press agency) says they've never heard of
these guys and the DA says it sounds like an illegal lottery to him.


Ed Hopper

(PS: The ncr.att.com sig goes away tomorrow, I promise.)
BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
coming soon:[e-mail] ????!!!!!  :-)


[Moderator's Note: But John Higdon begs your pardon: He says the local
radio station in his town confirmed it is for real. We are out of
space in this issue, so in 892, John will lead off and tell us what is
really going on.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #891
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05053;
          20 Dec 90 3:41 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32166;
          20 Dec 90 2:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab30586;
          20 Dec 90 1:05 CST
Date:     Thu, 20 Dec 90 0:50:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #892
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 20 Dec 90 00:49:59 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 892

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [John Higdon]
    Re: New Area Code for New York City - Plans Changed [Carl Moore]
    Re: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan [Carl Moore]
    215 Area Code Loses "1" says Newspaper 'Reporter' [Bill Berbenich]
    Caller ID in Atlanta [Bill Berbenich]
    Collect Call from AT&T to: AT&T Employees [Werner Uhrig]
    Call for Discussion: comp.org.Boston Computer Society [Barry M. Porter]
    Payphones and DTMF Dialling [[e-mail]]
    Visual Telephone Needed [Shyue Chin Shiau]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize!
Date: 19 Dec 90 17:33:50 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


On Dec 19 at 00:30, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Consider it done.  About 4 AM Tuesday morning I put
> in a phone call to Moscow and spoke with a public relations person in
> the responsible agency. He said exactly what you said, and was pleased
> that the 'American media' (who me? !) was calling to find out '.. the
> truth about that rumor some Americans have started ...' The phone call
> cost me about twenty dollars, but I'd rather spend it on that call
> than give $2.99 to those greedy con-artists in Texas who are
> perpetrating this scam.

Looks like you might not have received your money's worth. Just five
minutes ago, KGO (TV) News reported that THEY had checked with Moscow
and received confirmation that the Soviet space agency had indeed
contracted with an American firm regarding a contest to send a lucky
winner into space.

I suspect that even in this Post Cold War era, one must still be a
little skeptical about any information casually obtained from
unidentified spokespeople. Remember, the Soviets invented bureaucracy
and it is most likely that the right hand doesn't know what the left
hand is doing.

In any event, KGO cautioned viewers that each call (number posted on
screen) cost $2.99.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well now I don't know what to think. The {Chicago
Sun-Times} in the Wednesday editions had a picture of the men involved
with the firm and a short story saying the Soviets had DENIED the
report that arrangements had been made to take an American with them
on the trip and that the men involved were under investigation for
starting a scam.  So now we have KGO saying it is true and a couple of
government investigators saying it is false and they are investigating
the fellows involved. I'm told it is false in a phone call and a
message here yesterday made similar claims.  Wait and see, I guess.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 15:49:45 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Area Code for New York City - Plans Changed


Questions:

Are there prefix duplications between the Bronx and the current 718
area (Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island)?

You have written that about 20% of the 2.5 million numbers in area 212
are used for cellular and paging.  How much of that 2.5 million is
taken up by the Bronx?

When is it proposed to put the Bronx in 718 (which obviously must have
the room to add the prefixes used by the Bronx)?  And how does that
push back the 212/917 split (given the recovery of the prefixes now
used in the Bronx)?

The change means that the Bronx-Westchester line will become the
border between 718 and 914.  Putting Bronx in 917 would have put 914
and 917 along that line instead.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 16:00:09 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan


My understanding is that long-distance rates are not changed by an
area-code split (but that is based on my reading the {Washington Post}
1973 article -- now long ago -- about the 703/804 split in Virginia).
I am still assuming that recent splits would be taken into account,
say, for the upcoming Maryland split; and I have read in this Digest a
while back that there was some sort of charge waiver for directory
assistance calls between two area codes (one of which areas just
having been formed by splitting the other).

You might also consider where in Maryland you are calling.


[Moderator's Note: In Chicago, the 312/708 split had no affect on
billing whatsoever. Local calls remained local.  PAT]

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 11:48:31 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I realize this next article sounds stupid. But do
not blame Bill ... don't flame the messanger; but rather, the message
itself and the original author. Read it and we'll chat about it
afterward.   PAT]

UPma 12/12 1156   215 area code loses ``1'', gains millions of numbers

By SUE MORGAN

   PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- Telephone numbers aren't a limitless
resource, and phone customers in eastern Pennsylvania will soon feel
the consequences of that fact of life, Bell of Pennsylvania said
Wednesday.

   Beginning Jan. 14, customers in the 215 dialing area -- which
includes Philadelphia and its suburbs, Reading, and Allentown -- will
no longer have to dial a "1" before dialing a long-distance number in
that area.

The elimination of the digit will allow Bell to squeeze another 1.6
million new telephone numbers in to the growing area, said Bell
spokesman Tom Duddy.

"People used to think that this (telephone numbers) was a bottomless
resource, like the ocean or the sky, and we're finding out that's not
true," Duddy said. "You use enough of something and you can run out of
it, whether it be the ocean or the sky or telephone numbers."

There are already about 6.4 million telephone numbers assigned in the
215 area, Duddy said.

   He said the ubiquitous fax machine and cellular telephone are
partly to blame for the number crunch.

   "If you look four or five years ago, how many people had fax
machines? Now everybody has a fax machine. The same thing with
cellular telephones. All these things add more telephone numbers."

   The elimination of the "1" for long-distance numbers in the 215
area will only forestall the inevitable -- creation of a new area code
in eastern Pennsylvania, possibly as soon as the mid-1990s.

   A new area code was created earlier this year in New Jersey, where
a chunk of the 201 area was split off to form area code 908.

   Duddy said the governing body which oversees area codes will not
grant new area codes to local telephone companies until they take all
possible steps, including eliminating the "1."

   Customers in the 215 area will be able to dial with or without the
"1" between Jan. 14 and Sept. 23, when the change will become
mandatory.

   The spokesman said the phone company is hoping the long transition
period will make customers comfortable with the change. Letters will
be going out next week to residential customers, and the company plans
to do other advertising.

   Bell will spend about $1 million to make the change.

   Duddy said customers in Pennsylvania's other three calling areas
don't have to worry -- there are plenty of numbers to go around in the
717, 412 and 814 areas.

"Most of those are good way into the 21st century and we don't foresee
having to do anything with those," Duddy said.

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

I've heard of ADDING a "1" to dialing in order to create more NXX
possibilities, but ELIMINATING it to create more numbers?  How can
this be?

    Not long ago, Southern Bell started to require 1 + 404 for
long-distance calls within the same area code.  This allowed them to
use NXX prefixes which were once "area codes" (i.e. 607, 415...).
They were able to get many thousands more numbers.  But taking the "1"
out????

Sign me "puzzled",

Bill Berbenich             [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Dear Puzzled -- so am I. If there was ever a
dumber article in the papers I have not seen it, except possibly the
stuff Joe Abernathy writes about the Internet. Talk about misleading
and false information!  I wonder how she could have gotten so mixed up
in her report? Assuming that it was a 'typographical error' (ha ha,
blame it on printer's deviltries!) I guess what she was trying to say
was that '1' would be required henceforth in order that area codes
could be used as prefixes. I guess ??  Hopefully the paper will run a
correction soon, but knowing how most papers operate they will
probably brazenly ignore it. Geeze, even I devote entire issues to
correcting my mistakes sometimes.  PAT]

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID in Atlanta
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 16:14:22 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I had a chance to speak with the Southern Bell PR folks earlier and
have some word of note to pass on.  Mention may have been made here on
Telecomm Digest about Ga. Public Service Commission approval to
Southern Bell for the implementation of Caller ID for a one-year trial
period.

According to SBT&T, "Caller ID is expected to be on-line for
SS7-equipped COs no later than February 14 for the metropolitan
Atlanta area.  Outlying areas of Georgia are expected to be on-line by
mid-1991."  The monthly charge will be $6.00 for residential customers
(I have no word on the rate for a business line).

By granting approval for a one-year trial period, the Georgia PSC has
permitted Southern Bell to get on-line with the service with a
minimum of pre-deployment wrangling in the courts.  Others' personal
opinions notwithstanding, I think this is a wise and prudent decision.
The "trial" period will bear out whether or not any of the alleged
shortcomings of Caller ID will actually emerge.  I'll encourage others
to respond to the moral/ethical/other implications of Caller ID by way
of the Telecom-Privacy mailing list.


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


[Moderator's Note: Telecom Privacy can be subscribed by writing to the
Moderator:  [e-mail]    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 1990 18:17:28 CST
From: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Collect Call from AT&T to: AT&T Employees


            [ ad in WSJ of 12/18 ]

Has AT&T management told you what will happen to AT&T if its
acquisition of NCR succeeds?  They have said they would shut down
AT&T's computer operations, after NCR hand-picked the best employees.
Frankly, WE are loathe to participate in that kind of a process.  And
we told them so.  Evidently, they weren't listening to us.  Perhaps
they ought to hear from YOU.

We told your Board and management that the combination they propose
does not make sense.  They simply cannot expect NCR to salvage AT&T's
computer business without AT&T employees and AT&T customers and AT&T
shareholders getting hurt in the process.

How many AT&T employees would be disposed of? 1,000?  3,000?  5,000?

Then ask yourself: Why has AT&T launched its $6.2 billion hostile
takeover bid for NCR?  They can arrange financing, but, in the end,
WHO WILL REALLY PAY?

               The question is:

             WILL YOU ACCEPT THE CHARGES?


            IF NOT, LET AT&T KNOW.  CALL:

                   .......

                 NCR


[ I told them in 1985 to buy Apple, but they wouldn't listen to me ... ]


[Moderator's Note: I am sorry the phone number was not sent along with
the article. I didn't remove it ... I did not receive it!  Please send
this number so that AT&T employees and stockholders who read the
Digest can use if if they wish.  PAT]

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

From: Barry M Porter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call for Discussion: comp.org.Boston Computer Society
Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 00:30:01 GMT


This is the second call for discussion on creating a newsgroup for the
Boston Computer Society. The name of the group was tentitively to be
comp.org.bcs, but the name is up in the air so the group will not be
confused with the British Computer Society. The group will be
unmoderated, and will serve as a focal point for the BCS to
communicate with computer users world wide.

The BCS has interest groups for most PCs (both current and orphan) and
many other special interest groups covering topics like ham radio to
database to email.  It would be a place for meeting notices, meeting
transcripts, minutes of important committee meetings and on line
newsletters to be sent and shared with all interested. In February, if
the group gets created, we will possibly be able to take on line
membership info ... There are many other interesting things, like live
meetings on line that can be done on internet and discussed in this
group. If you are interested and would like to support this effort,
please post your comments to news.groups with a copy to:

                  [e-mail]

Thanks!

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Payphones and DTMF Dialling
Date: 20 Dec 90 12:35:20 +1100
Organization: The University of Melbourne


As I described earlier, Telecom Australia has begun installing debit
card telephones, which have fancy LCD displays and pushbutton keypads,
instead of rotary dials (my, we are backward, aren't we.)

I have been trying to discover why these payphones do not have DTMF
dialling enabled.  I accosted an installer yesterday and grilled him
as much as he could take.  The payphones *do* have DTMF capability (I
saw the internal switch) but orders are that all are to be left on
'pulse'.  I asked for a reason.  First reason was that the exchange
did not have DTMF enabled.  I pointed out that the phone was connected
to the 899 exchange which is totally computerised, and thus DTMF was
available on all lines.  The installer answered that it is there "at
customer request, and we (TA), as the customer, don't want it."

On further grilling, it appeared that TA was afraid of fraud, and so
disables DTMF from all payphone lines (except those of COCOTS whose
owners ask for it.)  The latest COCOT, the Blue Phone, apparently has
some sort of device which prevents fraud from being perpetrated
whether DTMF is enabled or not.  Or perhaps TA just charges the owner
for all calls anyway.  What TA is afraid of, I believe, is someone
(lots of people) with tone senders, available from the major banks,
coming along and bypassing the payphone's dialling system to place
calls.

What I would like to know is: How do the American and Swedish telcos
avoid fraud of this type? (They are the only two countries I
personally know to have DTMF payphones. Comments from elsewhere are
also welcome.)  Is it possible to use a tone-sender to dial from a
payphone in USA or Sweden or elsewhere?

If this is indeed TA's worry, how effective would such a simple fix as
disabling the handpiece microphone until answer supervision be?  The
phones *do* listen for answer supervision: they must as they don't
take your money or card-credits until the call is supervised.

Help appreciated, (I shall summarise and post e-mail in the New year.)

Thanks,

Danny

[e-mail]
Above is IMHO.  Nothing to do with Telcom Australia, or Uni. of Melbourne


[Moderator's Note: Disabling the mouth until supervision would prevent
the phone from being used to call directory enquiries or the operator;
both of whom answer unsupervised, no?  PAT]

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

From: Shyue Chin Shiau <shiau@ka>
Subject: Visual Telephone Telephones
Date: 20 Dec 90 02:12:00 GMT
Reply-To: Shyue Chin Shiau <[e-mail]>
Organization: NOVELL, Inc., San Jose, Califonia


I don't know if this is the right group to post this inquiry.  But
seems you people in this group are the best resources I can bet on.

I need one PAIR of:

BLACK/WHITE
STATIC SCREEN
VISUAL TELEPHONES

Any party interested in this inquiry can reach me by E-mail or call
408-473-8240 between 10-5 Pacific Time.


Engineering Dept, NOVELL, 2180 Fortune Dr., San Jose, CA 95131
UUCP: {ames,sun,apple,mtxinu,cae780,sco}!novell!shiau  Chin Shiau
BARRNet/Internet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #892
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27869;
          21 Dec 90 3:49 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20362;
          21 Dec 90 2:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07878;
          21 Dec 90 1:15 CST
Date:     Fri, 21 Dec 90 0:46:02 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #893
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Dec 90 00:45:08 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 893

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Gihan Dias]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Scott Barnes]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Carl Moore]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [A. Alan Toscano]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Leland F Derbenwick]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Gihan Dias <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Date: 20 Dec 90 22:13:25 GMT
Reply-To: Gihan Dias <muztag![e-mail]>
Organization: E.E.C.S. Dept. -  U.C. Davis.


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

>   Beginning Jan. 14, customers in the 215 dialing area -- which
>includes Philadelphia and its suburbs, Reading, and Allentown -- will
>no longer have to dial a "1" before dialing a long-distance number in
>that area.

>The elimination of the digit will allow Bell to squeeze another 1.6
>million new telephone numbers in to the growing area, said Bell
>spokesman Tom Duddy.

>I've heard of ADDING a "1" to dialing in order to create more NXX
>possibilities, but ELIMINATING it to create more numbers?  How can
>this be?

>    Not long ago, Southern Bell started to require 1 + 404 for
>long-distance calls within the same area code.  This allowed them to
>use NXX prefixes which were once "area codes" (i.e. 607, 415...).
>They were able to get many thousands more numbers.  But taking the "1"
>out????

What's the problem here? It sounds like what most area codes have to
go through before introducing NXX prefixes.

For example, when I was in 805-land a few years ago, local calls were
seven-digit, long distance calls within the area code were 1 + 7-digit
and LD calls outside the area code were 1 + 10 digit.

Then GTE (and I presume PacBell) changed the rules so that long
distance calls within the area code were no longer preceeded by 1 but
consisted of just the seven digits. This seems to be exactly what is
happening in 215 now.

I assume that this was to allow N [01] X prefixes in the area code to
be distinguished from area codes. If a dialled number begins with a 1
then the switch expects 10 more digits, and if it begins with 2-9 then
it expects seven more digits for either a local call or a LD call
within the area code.

The main loss is to subscribers, since now we can no longer
distinguish a long distance call within the area code from a local
call.


Gihan

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 00:02:28 EST
From: Scott Barnes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'


> [Moderator's Note: Dear Puzzled -- so am I. If there was ever a
> dumber article in the papers I have not seen it, except possibly the
> stuff Joe Abernathy writes about the Internet. Talk about misleading
> and false information!  I wonder how she could have gotten so mixed up
> in her report? Assuming that it was a 'typographical error' (ha ha,
> blame it on printer's deviltries!) I guess what she was trying to say
> was that '1' would be required henceforth in order that area codes
> could be used as prefixes. I guess ??  Hopefully the paper will run a

Sorry, Pat, but I believe the newspaper reporter was correct.  Allow
me to quote from an article that appeared here in the Digest three
months ago (Volume 10, Issue 685):

> The {Philadelphia Daily News} reports on Sept. 18 (and Bell of PA's
> Newsline confirms today) that 1+ will be prohibited within 215 after
> May 20, 1991.  You all know the rest of the story - running out of
> prefixes, needing to use prefixes that look like area codes,
> forestalling the introduction of a new area code.  And, of course,
> after 5/20/91 we won't know if we're making a toll call within 215 or
> not.

I have heard from a different source that Bell of PA intends to
implement exchange codes of the type "XXX", so that exchanges such as
131 will now be possible.  It is certainly not a case where 1+ dialing
is being more stringently enforced.


Scott Barnes
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Where the problem comes up is that for many of us,
we never used one plus at all until the need for additional prefixes
came up, then we had to start using it on long distance calls in order
that area code number combinations could be used as local prefix
number combinations. Think of it that way and see how dumb it sounds
to say 'forbidding the use of 1' rather than 'you must now use 1'.   PAT]

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 15:38:56 GMT


The Inky  (local name for it) is not know for its technical savvy, but,
in one case she's right.

In B of PA 215 land, any call with a 1 was a toll call and without a 1
a local (free or metered as message units call).  Ok, now not all of
215 was in your local area. (In fact the map is so lopsided I can call
30 miles south or 2 miles north and stay free, more than 2 miles north
is toll).  Anyway if I were to dial to that toll it would have been
1+7digits, thus their software treated the N0/1X as a/c and no N[^01]X
as non area code.  The in 215 no N0/1X exchanges were possible.  Now,
they are changing to 1+ = 11 digits and no 1 = 7 digits, and thus by
dropping the 1, we gain more numbers in 215.

Gee, didn't she make that hard.

Don't worry, on the Inky could have told us in a Major story that no
wonder we feel poor, food prices have been rising at the rate of 7.7%
per month since 1982.  You figure what rate of inflation that is.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                          Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd                        FAX:   [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 10:59:56 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'


Puzzled?  Should not be.

When an area has prefixes of NXX form instead of NNX (as has happened
with 404 etc., and is to happen in 1991 with area 215), long distance
calls take this form:

Within that area: 7D or 1 + NPA + 7D (yes, your own NPA) to other
areas: 1 + NPA + 7D.

1 + 7D and NPA + 7D can no longer be used in such cases.  They would
require timeout.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 19:43 GMT
From: "A. Alan Toscano" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'


In TELECOM Digest Vol 10, Issue 892, bill <[e-mail].
edu> quotes from a UPI article written by Sue Morgan...

>Beginning Jan. 14, customers in the 215 dialing area -- which
>includes Philadelphia and its suburbs, Reading, and Allentown -- will
>no longer have to dial a "1" before dialing a long-distance number in
>that area.

Subsequent comments by bill and our Moderator suggest that the article
should have said that a '1' would now be REQUIRED instead of being NO
LONGER ALLOWED. I disagree.

It's my recollection that most, if not all, of Pennsylvania is
accustomed to prefixing *ANY* long distance call with a '1' prefix.
The article refers to the elimination of a '1' prefix on *INTRA-NPA*
calls only.  It's confusing because of the vagueness permitted by our
English language.  "In that area" refers not to the callers location,
but to the destination long-distance number.  Inter-NPA dialing will
not change.  A '1' will still be required.

Let's recall that in many areas once populated by Step-by-Step
switching, a '1' prefix has been used to access equipment able to
complete a long distance call. In these areas, the '1' has, over time,
taken on the meaning "indicates a Long Distance toll call."  Or, to
put it another way: "I agree to pay extra money for this call, which I
realize is to a location outside of my toll-free calling area."  This
way of thinking is so deep rooted in my home state of Texas, that,
when Southwestern Bell began charging for Directory Assistance, they
changed its access number from 411 to 1411.  And, subscribers here
have complained, after being billed for rather excessive 976 charges,
that the Phone Company should require a '1' if it's going to cost
extra.

The new meaning of '1' as "an area code will follow" will take some
getting accustomed to in much of America.


A. Alan Toscano               Voice:  713 236 6616     MCI Mail:  ATOSCANO
[e-mail]        Telex:  6975956AAT UW    CIS:       73300,217

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 12:58:35 EST
From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Apparently, neither "Puzzled Bill" nor our Moderator has ever lived in
an area where an initial "1" meant _any_ toll call.  That is, where a
"1" would be followed by 10 digits for numbers in another area code,
or by 7 digits for toll numbers in your own area code.  A straight 7
digit number, with no leading "1", was a local, free call.

The advantage of this scheme is that you could never make a call that
you thought was free, talk for an hour, and then find out on your bill
that you were being charged by the minute.

Of course, this has the exact same problem as _never_ having to dial
"1": the the first 3 digits after the "1" must distinguish an area
code from an exchange, so exchanges must all be of the pattern NNX (in
regular expression form, [2-9][2-9][0-9]).

So dropping the "1" before 7-digit toll calls allows a "1" to be
interpreted as "10-digit number follows", which means that "1" always
precedes an area code, and a dialed string without a "1" is always a
7-digit.  This allows exchange prefixes to use the NXX pattern, adding
all the exchanges with a 0 or 1 in the second digit.


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


[Moderator's Note: That's right, I have never lived in such a place.
Here in Chicago, what is local to me is toll to a person a few miles
away but still within the city. There is no longer any local free
calling zone which takes in the whole city. We never could have used
the '1 means toll charge' arrangement here since who is to say ahead
of time which prefixes would have a '1' in front. The difference
between a free call and toll call here is entirely dependent on which
central office area you live in.  PAT]

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

From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 19:42:29 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, bill@gauss (bill) writes:

| [Moderator's Note: I realize this next article sounds stupid. But do
| not blame Bill ... don't flame the messanger; but rather, the message
| itself and the original author. Read it and we'll chat about it
| afterward.   PAT]

It makes perfect sense to me.  If I "lose" the "1" for long-distance,
I can have a number within 215 that has an exchange that looks like an
area code (has 0/1 for second digit).

Old system (trying to call 516-7772 number as long distance).

1-516-7772 = system waits for rest of number, thinking it is the beginning
             of 1-516-777-2nnn, so this number is illegal.

New system (still trying to call 516-7772 long distance).

516-7772 = system now knows that this is a complete number.

See, I've "lost" the "1" for "long distance".  And gained it for "area
code follows".

I guess living in an area where 1 means long distance gives me the
advantage at understanding these statements.  For those of you who
haven't had "1" mean long distance, taking those statements out of
context from the newspaper article must have looked really funny.  And
since the general population *for that area* has it firmly entrenched
that "1 means long distance"... that's indeed what they are losing!

(I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when
a differing area code is *not* long distance.  Do you dial the "1" or
not?  Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long
distance.)

Just another person who dials 1 for long distance still,


Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn


[Moderator's Note: Is Portland, OR to Vancouver, WA a long distance
call? What about Troutdale, OR to Camas, WA?  What about Ontario, OR
to Fruitland, ID?  And yes, we dial 1 whenever we change area codes,
even though several suburban 708 points are local to me in 312, and
are part of my 'eight mile from CO to CO' local free calling area.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 0:03:59 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'


Listen, all you people are doing it exactly the *opposite* of what
happened here in Chicago ...

For all the years I can remember we did not have to dial '1' before
anything we did. Our prefixes were always of the form:

               (2 through 9)  (2 through 9)  (1 through 9)

Area codes were the same everywhere:

               (2 through 9)  (0 or 1)       (2 through 9)


Special codes were 211 - long distance operator
                   411 - directory service
                   611 - repair service
                   811 - long distance from PBX's, hotels, etc.
                   911 - Chicago Emergency Services

There was no conflict since a second digit of zero or one was always a
long distance call or a special code. A second and third digit of one
was always a special code. A second and third digit of zero was always
for services like 700, 800 and 900 calls.

Then they decided they wanted an extra 130 or so prefixes so they
said we would ADD the digit 1 at the start of a call when calling long
distance -- not just any old call within 312 regardless of what it
cost -- but only outside of 312.

Immmediatly after starting 'you must dial one plus the area code' we
began seeing odd prefixes like 606 and 415 (which serves my cell
phone).

We must dial 1-708 or 1-312 when crossing the line from city to
suburbs although it may in fact remain a local toll-free call if that
is what it was before the split.

I guess since the reporter was writing mainly for the Philadelphia
readers her story sort of makes sense.

But generally you ADD 1 -- not delete it -- in order to gain more
prefixes, since by using 1 in front of an area code you are able to
recycle area codes into local area prefixes without having to time out
the dialing after the last digit is entered.

I still think she should have done a better job on that story, and
explained what was going on.


Patrick Townson

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #893
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04683;
          21 Dec 90 11:20 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04860;
          21 Dec 90 9:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02985;
          21 Dec 90 8:26 CST
Date:     Fri, 21 Dec 90 7:44:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #894
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 21 Dec 90 07:44:02 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 894

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Help Wanted at the FCC [Nigel Allen]
    Mysterious Item Found on Phone Bill [Dave Burke]
    Radio Saturation (was: COCOT's on the Corner) [Peter Anvin]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Norman Yarvin]
    Information Needed About TeleFiberNet [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Christopher Ambler]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [John Higdon]
    System-X Exchanges [Andrew Morley]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Mike Riddle]
    Distinctive Ringing [Pete Ahrens]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 18:32 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Wanted at the FCC
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


{Communications Week}, December 17, 1990 reports that the Federal
Communications Commission plans to hire "at least 20 people during the
next few months" for its Common Carrier Bureau. "The agency is looking
for junior-level and senior-level lawyers, engineers, and computer
programmers to serve in all the bureau's divisions. Resumes should be
sent to Bureau Chief Richard Firestone."

I won't be applying. I assume that FCC salaries are significantly
lower than what good people can make elsewhere, but the question is
probably academic since I don't have U.S. citizenship or a "green
card" (authorization to live and work permanently in the U.S.

I think the FCC's address is Washington, D.C. 20554, but that's from
memory.

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

From: "VAXB::DBURKE" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Mysterious Item Found on Phone Bill
Date: 15-DEC-1990 15:03:49


After three years of reviewing telco bills, I've been calling for info
on a semi-annual basis about a $60 monthly charge from AT+T.  Every
time I call, I get someone (usually different) that explains to me
that without this $60 "rental" equipment, I wouldn't have long
distance. The other day, I made my semi-annual call, but this time I
was told the installation address of the termination.  We moved out of
there over five years ago.

This part was easy.  Now the hard part.

The rental charge was for equipment on three in-state FX lines,
serviced by NYNEX (NET) from the start.  I have a number for the gear
(obviously an AT+T #) but no onw I've spoken to yet can tell me
exactly what the box does.  We had three FX trunk lines going into a
ROLM switch back then, and when we moved, we took them with us.  I've
hunted around, and have yet to find anything that looks like a trunk
termination box.

To compound this problem, AT+T says the install date was 3/86.  We
moved out in 5/85.  I'm currently awaiting a decision from AT+T (they
are researching it), but I would like responses from other to see how
they handle things like this.

BTW - in 1985 when we moved, we also switched LD to MCI.

Comments?


Dave Burke    [e-mail]

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

From: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail] (Peter Anvin)
Subject: Radio Saturation (was: COCOT's on the Corner)
Date: 20 Dec 90 05:41:32 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University


>A former friend of mine in
>Bloomingdale Illinios had the unfortunate problem being served by a CO
>that is close to the transmit tower for a FM radio station.  Somehow
>the radio program found it's way into the local loops.

>[Moderator's Note: Sometime take a drive out near Wheaton, IL where
>two powerhouse radio stations (WGN - 720 AM and WBBM - 780 AM) have
>their transmitters within about a quarter-mile of each other.

WMAQ-AM (670 kHz) has their tower in Glendale Heights, IL, next town
from Bloomingdale.  I never had any problems while living in
Bloomingdale, but every time I call my girlfriend in Itasca, IL (about
eight miles from WMAQ) I get WMAQ in the background.  She has two
phones (on the same line).  If both are unhooked for some reason (e.g.
family gettign annoyed over the phone line beig tied up), the
interference gets so powerful I can hear nothing *but* the radio.
When only one phone is off-hook, it is bearable, probably around the
8-10 dB under voice level you mentioned.


H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++
INTERNET:  [e-mail]   FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
BITNET:    HPA@NUACC                 RBBSNET:  8:970/101.4

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

From: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Date: 20 Dec 90 06:38:54 GMT


> If you were unable to detect that the service wasn't AT&T when
>you consumed it, what reason do you have to complain now?

The possibility that you might not detect the change, but still not
have received equal service, is is not nonexistent.  You might have
been using a Trailblazer, and getting 30% lower transmission rates on
newsfeeds.  You might have had to spend more time on a conversation,
because of crosstalk, and written it off to the rainy weather.  You
might have been overheard, because of crosstalk or because of bad
security practices on the part of the long distance company.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on TeleFiberNet
Date: 18 Dec 90 17:07:15 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Has anyone heard of the Long Distance Company TeleFiberNet? Their
10xxx code is 10008. Causual calls get blocked. If anyone has
a Customer Service Number for them please let me know.

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

Date: Wed, 19 Dec 90 22:58:55 -0800
From: Fubar's Carbonated Hormones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'


>If you try to get a '0000' assignment, every excuse
>in the book will be trotted out to keep from giving it to you.

Really? I have a relative with a 0000 number... then again, he works
for the phone*company. But he assures me he pays the personalized
number fee and applied for it just like a subscriber.

>It's not just 0000 numbers, they'll make excuses if they don't want to
>assign you just any number you ask for. When I added two additional
>numbers on my residential line for Southern Bell's distinctive calling
>service, I wanted to pick the numbers I added. (Southern Bell's charge
>for doing so: $5 to search for up to three numbers, then $20 if you
>pick one of them).

>Much to my chagrin, however, Southern Bell told me I couldn't have
>this number because it was "reserved for business use". The same was
>true of some of the other numbers I asked for. In fact, the only
>numbers that seemed to be available were in the 7000-8000 range.

When I wanted my current BBS number (805) 54-FUBAR, I called the
number to see if it was available. It was not. I asked the party at
the other end, after explaining that my company is "Fubar Systems", if
they would give up the number, perhaps for a small gift (read: I'll
bribe you with $50 if you let me have your number). No go. So I waited
until it was available.  The first day that it was available, I
*grabbed* it. (Of course, it's off right now because of the inanity of
the phone*entities and their inability to understand that I ordered
call*waiting on the OTHER line (no, not THAT one, the OTHER OTHER line
[we have 4])). But at least I got it. No hassle.

>My question is: how do the LECs decide what range of numbers in each
>prefix to reserve for whom?

I've always been told it's random ... they'll take what they need from
where they have it available ... in Santa Maria, all numbers 97xx and
98xx are pay phones. Trivia.


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

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Date: 20 Dec 90 01:26:48 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]> writes:

> It's not just 0000 numbers, they'll make excuses if they don't want to
> assign you just any number you ask for.

Ok, here are the legitimate reasons for refusal to assign numbers:

In mechanical offices (through #5 Crossbar), the following may apply:

1. The number falls in a thousands group that simply isn't equipped.
Mechanical switches assign numbers by physical positions on the
equipment. If the equipment doesn't exist, you can't assign a number
on it. For instance, years ago in West Yellowstone there was one SXS
prefix for the whole town. It had two thousands groups installed, 9000
and 4000. If you wanted a number other than 9XXX or 4XXX, it was sorry
Charlie.

2. The number falls in an anticpated hunting growth area of a large
customer. If XYZ Corporation has been adding many lines per year in
its incoming hunt group and the number you want is right in the middle
of where telco expects it to expand, they will withhold the number
from assignment to others. This only applies to mechanical switches
(don't let them trot this out if you are dealing with an ESS).

3. The number falls within a bank of test numbers reserved for telco
use.

For all switches, reasons for denial include the following:

1. The number falls within a DID group, current or anticipated.

2. The number falls within an exchange that is GENERALLY used for DID
or other large-user specialty use.

3. The number is actually reserved by a business for future use (yes,
large customers can get away with this).

4. The number is in an electronic switch and you have ordered service
that can be provided on a mechanical one (and numbers on the
electronic one are in short supply). Tip: If this is the case, ask for
900/976 blocking. This can only be done (in Pac*Bell Land anyway) on
electronic switches and they have to give it to you if
requested -- free.

5. The number falls in an exchange that is about to cut to new
equipment and number assignments are frozen.

6. The number, while out of service, may have only recently been
disconnected and the "dead" time has not expired. If you agree to
accept any wrong numbers, this can be negotiated.

The above are the legitimate reasons. Nonsense reasons include:

1. That number is reserved for business. (There is no functional
difference between a business line and a residential line.)

2. That number is reserved by telco. (Telco can "unreserve" any number
it likes.)

3. That number is in a reserved hunt group (in an electronic switch).
(An electronic switch can jump-hunt anywhere it likes.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
Subject: System-X Exchanges
Date: 20 Dec 90 17:35:13 GMT


I have found a new command on my local system-X exchange:  175

Does anyone know what it does? I get a message telling me what number
I'm calling from then some sort of test starts.

Replies via email if possible, thanks!  I'll summarise if anyone
wants.

On another note, I ordered a couple of star services (by phone of
course!)  and got then in under an hour! Well done BT!


Andrew Morely

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael H. Riddle)
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 11:16:13 GMT


In <[e-mail]> bcsaic![e-mail] (Jeff
Carroll) writes:

>    I would also doubt that you could operate 400, or even 56,
>independent radio channels from the same bird. Even doing 25 (as we
>have on AWACS) results in horrendous self-jamming and elaborate
>frequency allocation software, not to mention hundreds if not
>thousands of pounds of antenna couplers.

>    On the other hand, a recent conversation with the manager
>responsible for integrating the equivalent of AirFone into our next
>generation airplane left me with the impression that there was quite a
>big chunk of bandwidth required. One obvious solution would be an
>onboard DS1 mux which performs upconversion at its output to an IF
>frequency of the UHF set (most likely 70 MHz). I don't know whether
>such a beast exists today, but I doubt that that's what is used in
>most AirFone installations (i.e. one phone in the back of the plane).

When I flew on the SAC airborne, we had UHF mux with 15 channels, and it
was /old/ technology.  While I agree that 400 would be overkill, I'd think
standard telephone switch-sizing techniques would lower the anticipated
service requirements down considerably.  A designer might want to adjust
for projected load-mix, such as a business shuttle vs vacation charters.

Back in the old step-by-step telephone days, most installations only had
line-finders for 10-15% of the phones in service.  My guess is that for
airfones, something less than that would be adequate.  Ever had to wait
for dialtone on your regular phone?  It /does/ happen occasionally.


            <<<< insert standard disclaimer here >>>>
[e-mail]                  |   University of Nebraska
[e-mail]   |   College of Law
[e-mail]  |   Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 11:04:13 -0800
From: pacbell!pb2esac![e-mail]
Subject: Distinctive Ringing
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, San Francisco, Ca.


Recent dicussion has produced:

>In another bit of PacBell stupidity, I recently tried to get
>distinctive ringing on my single line...

>Is this Catch-22 idiocy nationwide, or is it only PacBell that has
>this problem?

>[Moderator's Note: ComStar, also known as Intellidial in some areas and
>Starline in others is tariffed as a service for 2 or more actual lines
>in a group. Many or most of the features in ComStar would not work
>with just one line. In fact having only two lines makes ComStar a
>little bit of an overkill. It may be that PacBell only has Distinctive
>Ringing available through ComStar at present. I know Illinois Bell
>could not offer Distinctive Ringing until recently when they upgraded
>their software. They did offer it in Centrex and Starline service, but
>not on single residential lines until ahout two months ago.   PAT]

Once again, I write as an interested reader of your newsgroup, not as
a representative of any telecommunications company.

Your note is essentially correct.  The intended purpose of
"Distinctive Ringing" is to provide a difference in the alerting of
intragroup vs.  intergroup (i.e., incoming from the outside world)
calls, together with bells and whistles* -- actually additional
ringing patterns -- to distinguish attendant calls, etc.  This is
implemented in 1/1A ESS via Centrex, so calls from outside the Centrex
group are distinguished from those from within.  The current
generation of digital switches require a different strategy to obtain
this business objective.

The RBOC's are making a serious effort to deliver "Centrex-like"
services to smaller users.  Commstar (and I presume Intellidial) were
the earliest efforts to accomplish this.  Now RBOC's are making a
business decision to make Centrex available to POTS customers ... even
when the transition is transparent to the user, this usually entails
assigning the formerly POTS line to a Centrex group.  (As an aside, I
expect that ISDN will experience a similar "downward evolution" by the
turn of the century.)

In the case of your poster, notice he has only one line.  The presence
of an intragroup call is thus illogical (from this feature's point of
view) and there is no basis for distinctive ringing as the vendors
have defined it.

I would humbly like to point out that the RBOC's do not in general
design these features.  Rather, the features are the result of
consultation, discussion, and review among the Bellcore Client
Companies, vendors such as Northern Telecom and ATT, and so on.  Quite
often, the feature the user "sees" is a set (some would say "kludge")
of these design-by-committee features.

*Pun intended.


Merry Christmas,

Pete Ahrens

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #894
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21138;
          22 Dec 90 5:14 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04989;
          22 Dec 90 3:41 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21958;
          22 Dec 90 2:34 CST
Date:     Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:43:35 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #895
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Dec 90 01:43:00 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 895

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    TELECOM-PRIV Mailing List [Telecom Privacy List Moderator]
    The MessageCenter [Kenny J. Hart]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Rick Ace]
    Phones and Radio Broadcasting [David E. Bernholdt]
    Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling [John Higdon]
    Telebit T1000 For Sale [Eric C. Bennett]
    Re: Non-Payment Disconnects [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas [Gary Skaggs]
    Distinctive Dialing Plus Call Fwd - How do They Combine? [Jerry Leichter]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Jim Rees]
    Re: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 17:48:21 EST
From: Telecom Privacy List Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: TELECOM-PRIV Mailing List


Pat:

   Can you relay the following message to readers of the TELECOM
Digest: Due to your recent plugs in the Digest I have recieved a lot
of requests to be added.

   I have recently received about forty requests to be added to the
telecom-priv list.  I am in the process of doing it.  I do list
maintenance on my own time not company time so there might be a
day or two delay due to the Christmas holidays.  If you don't receive a
message from me within a seven day period please resubmit.  I have recieved
one request with the address of "attmail!internet!bcm1a09!rborow" which I
can not respond to.  Will the sender please send me an alternate path.

[Telecom Moderator's Note:  try using bcm1a09![e-mail]   PAT]

   For those readers who haven't heard of telecom-priv, it is an off
shoot of the TELECOM Digest.  It was originally set up to handle the
topic of Caller-ID and has been expanded to discuss topics dealing
with telecom privacy issues.  Next week I will introduce a thread that
scared me when I found out how to do it; which is getting (legally)
unlisted phone numbers for fun and profit :-).

   There are two ways to receive it, the normal way is through a
digest each day or directly recieving each message as they come in.  I
prefer that people get it in a digest form but some people gateway it
into their local news system.  If you want each article individually
you get everything including the misdirected requests to be
add/deleted from the list.

  To subscribe send to [e-mail].  If you
want to receive it as individual articles, please state that you want
telecom-priv-news instead of telecom-priv.


Dennis

INET: [e-mail]       UUCP:  ...!uunet!fsac1.pica.army.mil!drears
ALT:  [e-mail]     Home: 201-989-5272
AT&T: 201-724-6639         USPS:    Box 210, Wharton, NJ 07885
Work: SMCAR-FSS-E, Bldg 94, Picatinny Ars, NJ 07806

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

From: "Kenny J. Hart" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The MessageCenter
Date: 20 Dec 90 15:01:33 GMT
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


I would like to respond to some of Mr. Higdon's remarks:

The five dollar/month voice mail is residential *only*, not both
business and residential.  The $20/month VM was business VM.  We offer
two different voice mail packages.  Also, the residential VM boxes
would reside in your CO, but the business VM is not located in your
CO, thus the offer you received was for business VM.

Yes, Mr. Higdon it is for real, and an excellent product, and you
should bite.  The thing I can't understand is why you have to
continually think Pac*Bell is out to screw you!!

BTW, I work in the non-reg arm of Pac*Bell that offers the
MessageCenter along with other innovative, enhanced services product.


Kenny Hart

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 14:08:39 PST
From: Rick Ace <pixar![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming


> [Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming
> carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount
> you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust
> enrichment to yourself.

Does this mean one would have to haul out the tariffs and calculate by
hand what the bill would have been with the correct long distance
company?  That's quite a bit of work for Joe Customer.  Someone else
screwed up and that someone else should do the work.  I wouldn't pay
the part that is in dispute until the problem was resolved to my
satisfaction.

> Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you
> place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue
> the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service.
> After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance
> carrier of choice, did they not?   PAT]

You forgot the :-).  Didn't you?  No?  You can't be serious about
suggesting that we clog the already overburdened courts with a lawsuit
of such little importance.


Rick Ace      ucbvax!pixar!rick

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

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phones and Radio Broadcasting
Date: 20 Dec 90 17:46:13 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] (Gary
Segal) writes:
>X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 890, Message 7 of 11

>A former friend of mine in
>Bloomingdale Illinios had the unfortunate problem being served by a CO
>that is close to the transmit tower for a FM radio station.  Somehow
>the radio program found it's way into the local loops.

>[Moderator's Note: Sometime take a drive out near Wheaton, IL where
>two powerhouse radio stations (WGN - 720 AM and WBBM - 780 AM) have
>their transmitters within about a quarter-mile of each other.

>All the telephones in the area have special filters on them provided by IBT.

There is also a WBBM/AM transmitter in Elk Grove Village, IL.  A
friend of mine lived (essentially) across the street from it.  When
you picked up his phone, you heard WBBM instead of a dial tone, but
once you dialed an made a connetion, the line was quite clear.

Can anyone tell me why once the connection was completed the line
would be so clear?  I have no idea if there were any special filters
on the phone or anything like that.  This was about ten years ago, if
that makes any difference in technology/equipment.

P.S.  He could also get WBBM on his toaster.  Lots of RF around there!


David Bernholdt             [e-mail]
Quantum Theory Project        [e-mail]
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL  32611        904/392 6365

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling
Date: 20 Dec 90 02:02:32 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> Is it possible to use a tone-sender to dial from a
> payphone in USA or Sweden or elsewhere?

> If this is indeed TA's worry, how effective would such a simple fix as
> disabling the handpiece microphone until answer supervision be?

> [Moderator's Note: Disabling the mouth until supervision would prevent
> the phone from being used to call directory enquiries or the operator;
> both of whom answer unsupervised, no?  PAT]

Remember, we're talking COCOTs here. They GUESS at supervision, so
while DA, Repair, or the Operator do not supervise, this is irrelavent
to the COCOT. It hears a voice and then assumes supervision. Also,
most COCOTs don't present "real" dial tone to the user, but an
internally generated one. The user dials the number and the COCOT uses
its internal ARS tables to redial the call, sometimes adding codes to
use an AOS.

The fact of the matter is, virtually all COCOTs in the US are
installed on DTMF equipped lines. While it is possible to spoof most
of them in manners not to be mentioned here, the straightforward use
of a hand dialer is not one of them. Either the COCOT equipment is
weenie, or the owners/installers are ignorant to the built in security
it employs.


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

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

From: "Eric C. Bennett" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telebit T1000 For Sale
Date: 20 Dec 90 09:10:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Eric C. Bennett)
Organization: Abode Xenix Restricted Access System
Lines: 12


The above title says it all. The modem is around one (1) year old. It
does have MNP 5 (it is not one of the older ones that just has MNP 4).
It also has the manual. Asking price is $450 (obo).

Please send Email if interested.


Eric C. Bennett     uucp: {elroy|cit-vax}!wciu!abode!eric
El Monte, Ca         Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 03:50 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Non-Payment Disconnects


Just a brief addendum to my note in Vol. 10, #883:

I had a chance to play with this non-payment disconnect a little
further with a friend's line. It seems that calls are not limited to
one number, but to two 800 prefixes. You can call to 800-223, and
800-482, which are both used as far as I can tell only by GTE for
various customer service type lines (local in NPA 213). From what I
surmise from talking to reps at the residential service office, the
customer service numbers are and handled by some kind of ACD, and
translated to regular seven digit numbers at the locations of their
various service centers. For West L.A./Santa Monica, its in prefix
310, (which is definitely used only by GTE, kind of like 312-727 with
IBT). You can not call these directly as 310- XXXX, only as the 800
numbers.  You can get ring back (195n-nnnn), and as mentioned
previously, you can get your number read back to you (1223) and call
611, 911 (supposedly), but not 411, or any operator.

Our esteemed Moderator writes:

>intercept message. For a credit disconnect the message says, "The
>number you dialed, ABC-DEFG has been temporarily disconnected." If the
>temporary disconnect is due to a customer request, then the phrase "at
>the customer's request" is prepended to the above message.   PAT

Not that I need to reinforce the sleaziness of GTE's image, but when
you disconnect, move, or change your number they will _not_ put a "The
number you dialed, ABC-DEFG has been ... " type message on your line
at all unless you beg and plead with them, (They strongly discourage
this sort of thing), and then you only get thirty days. If you raise
absolute hell, you might get sixty days, but that's only for the
extremely persistent. You can get more of course, but they charge you
a price comparable to regular service! When your time is up, no matter
how long, you get the "I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is not in
service, please check the number and dial again... " recording.

When I left Evanston, Il. (IBT) I had a forwarding message on my line
(312-492) for _4_years_!  I never asked for it, but I sure appreciated
it!


Andy Jacobson<[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>

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

From: Gary Skaggs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed About Cellular Antennas
Organization: National Severe Storms Laboratory
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 14:18:46 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> asuvax!godzilla![e-mail]
(Brian Daly) writes:

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

>> I have read about the cabling
>> used in antenna installs (RG-58).  Based on what I'm reading, there is
>> significant signal loss with that type of coax run long distances (ie.
>> trunk to front passenger side seat.). Would using another guage of
>> coax reduce the amount of signal loss from the cable?

>First, let's tackle the dB question:

An excellent discussion of db by Brian deleted ...

Brian metions the use of RG-58A/U cable in the installation.  In fact,
the Larsen 800-900 Mhz antennas use a double copper braid in their
coax.  If you were going to do it yourself, I would recommend Belden
9311.  It has a layer of "Duobond(r) II" (aluminum foil) with a braid
of coax around it.  Its loss is much less compared to standard
RG-58A/U.  My Belden book says: RG-58A/U (Tinned copper braid, 96%
shield coverage) 20.0 db/100ft @900 Mhz.

This is Belden code 8259: RG-58A/U (Duobond, etc, 100% shield) 12.5
db/100ft @900 Mhz.

One caveat: 9311 is cellular polyethylene.  Be careful with heat, do
your soldering hot and FAST.  And don't run it through door seals,
trunk lip seals, etc.  It will compress more easily than standard and
cause an impendance 'bump' at that point.


Gary Skaggs - WB5ULK    [e-mail]    DOC/NOAA/ERL/NSSL

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 09:17:33 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Distinctive Dialing Plus Call Fwd - How do They Combine?


If I have both distinctive dialing (two or more numbers ring my single line,
with different rings) and call forwarding, does forwarding apply to all the
numbers on the line?  Just the primary number?  Can I choose?


Jerry


[Moderator's Note: I have the situation you describe here in Chicago.
When you order distinctive ringing here you choose one or two
additional numbers to be associated with the main number. You can
either have the main and additional numbers move together on call
forwarding or you can have the main number only on call forwarding
with the additional line 'ringing through'. This is not a subscriber
programmable option. It has to be done in the CO when you order it.
My service is set up so that the main or primary number forwards as I
set it, but the auxiliary number always overrides call forwarding and
rings here. We also get distinctive call waiting tones to tell us if
the waiting caller has dialed the main number or the other ones(s). I
have my 800 numbers come in via the auxiliary line so that I get a
distinctive ring letting me know who is paying for the call.
Otherwise, calls on either number work the same: calls screened are
blocked from entering either way; return last call returns calls to
either number.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 16:05:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, mailrus!uflorida!rm1!bapat@
uunet.uu.net (Subodh Bapat) writes:

>Much to my chagrin, however, Southern Bell told me I couldn't have
>this number because it was "reserved for business use". The same was
>true of some of the other numbers I asked for. In fact, the only
>numbers that seemed to be available were in the 7000-8000 range.

Last time I ordered a phone line (residential), I tried to get the
suffix 7337 (spells my last name), in any prefix.  The agent was very
nice about it, said there was no charge, but that this suffix was not
available in any of the local prefixes.  I found this hard to believe
since there are about a dozen prefixes serving this area.

Then I did some math.  Out of about 10000 numbers in any given prefix,
only about 4000 (8^4) will be "desirable" (in the sense that you can
spell something with them).  Of these, not all are really usable,
since you need a certain number of vowels, for example.

Two possibilities come to mind.  Either the phone company reserves
these numbers, or they have all been snatched up by businesses.  It
would be interesting to find out whether business users pay extra for
vanity phone numbers.

I'm in Michigan Bell land, NOrmandy-5 exchange.

On a completely unrelated subject -- in the mux room of our local CO
there are three BBN C-30s sitting in one corner.  Any idea what they
might be doing?  Did BBN have a clearance sale when the Arpanet went
out of business?  Are my phone calls being routed by IMPs?

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 11:02:46 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Information Needed on AT&T Select Saver Plan


To respond to Moderator's Note:

I was not talking about local calls.  Yes, local calls are NOT
affected by an area code split -- except that some of them may have to
be dialed differently.  (That toll free number regarding 301/410 split
said that local calls across 301/410 boundary will require ten digits,
as is the case with local calls to DC and Virginia suburbs of DC.)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #895
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23056;
          22 Dec 90 7:19 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13432;
          22 Dec 90 5:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10322;
          22 Dec 90 4:42 CST
Date:     Sat, 22 Dec 90 3:41:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #896
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Dec 90 03:40:57 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 896

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Steve Schallehn]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [David Cornutt]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Lyle A. McGeoch]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Leland F Derbenwick]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Michael S. Baldwin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Steve Schallehn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Organization: Kansas State University
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 10:42:12 GMT


[e-mail] (Randal L. Schwartz) writes:

>(I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when
>a differing area code is *not* long distance.  Do you dial the "1" or
>not?  Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long
>distance.)

Southwestern Bell provides the answer in Kansas City (a 1+ "toll call"
area).  Kansas City is situated right on the boarder of Kansas (913)
and Missouri (816).  In Kansas City, you can call free to anywhere
else in the Greater Kansas City area.  A seven digit telephone number
is all that is required for any call in the Kansas City Area.  For
long distance calls in your home state, 1+ 7 digits works fine, and
for in the adjacent state, the normal 1+ area code + 7 digits.

I have often wondered about the wizardry in assigning prefixes.
Prefixes have to be unique for the entire Kansas City area.  You can't
have a 262 prefix on the Kansas side as well as a second 262 prefix on
the Missouri side.


Steve Schallehn           | Internet : [e-mail]
Kansas State University   | UUCP : ..!rutgers!ksuvax1!ksuvm.bitnet!steve
Manhattan, Kansas 66506   | Bitnet   : STEVE@KSUVM

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

From: David Cornutt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Organization: MSFC
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 13:54:30 GMT


This sounds like it's just a variation on the rule, which is becoming
standard in a lot of places, that you must dial 1 + areacode for *all*
long distance calls, and all calls that are not in your areacode
(whether toll or not).  The difference here is that they are allowing
abbreviated dialing within the areacode by just dialing the 7-digit
number; if the equipment sees a number 2-9 as the first digit, it
assumes that the number begins with "1-215".  It was confusing the way
the newspaper article worded it.

BTW, there's a twist to the 1 + areacode rule that I don't recall
seeing discussed here.  If a leading 1 means that "area code follows"
for all numbers, then presumably, in addition to making NNX-style
number available as exchange numbers, it would make NXX-style numbers
available as area codes, provided that the whole NANP area could be
switched over to this style of dialing.  This would seem to solve our
areacode shortage problem for many years.  Does anyone know if this
has been considered?


David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL  [phone]
([e-mail]; some insane route applies)
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 15:54:23 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Scott Barnes) writes:

> I have heard from a different source that Bell of PA intends to
> implement exchange codes of the type "XXX", so that exchanges such as
> 131 will now be possible.

I think you must have mis-heard this one.  NXX, yes; but I won't
believe XXX.  Using your "131" example above, there would be ambiguity
when the telco received the dialling sequence 1312555.  Unless it used
a timeout (yuck!), the switch would be unable to distinguish between a
local call to 131-2555 and a LD call to Chicago of the form
1-312-555-XXXX.  The whole point of cleaning up dialling rules (as
Bell of PA is doing now in 215) is to allow NXX exchanges *without*
ambiguity or timeouts.


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: "Lyle A. McGeoch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Date: 21 Dec 90 03:44:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Bell Atlantic is clearly going to be using the same dialing rules in
215 as it currently uses in North Jersey (201 and 908).  All calls
within 215 will be dialed with seven digits.  All calls to other area
codes will use a 1+ prefix.  So the reporter is right ... 215 is
losing 1+ dialing on long distance calls within the area code.  This
change will allow N0N and N1N exchanges within 215.  If someone in 215
dials 1+N0N or 1+N1N, the call will be routed to the appropriate area
code.  Without the 1+ prefix, the call will go to the right exchange
in 215.

I don't like this system very much ... it makes it too easy to make
toll calls that you think are local.  Of course the local phone
company doesn't mind that.  The alternative system, using the area
code on all long distance within your own area code, isn't so great
either.

The newspaper article certainly wasn't very clear.


Lyle McGeoch   Rutgers University   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 09:41:26 EST
From: Leland F Derbenwick <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, I wrote (and the moderator
commented):

> Apparently, neither "Puzzled Bill" nor our Moderator has ever lived in
> an area where an initial "1" meant _any_ toll call.  ...

> [Moderator's Note: That's right, I have never lived in such a place.
> Here in Chicago, what is local to me is toll to a person a few miles
> away but still within the city. There is no longer any local free
> calling zone which takes in the whole city. We never could have used
> the '1 means toll charge' arrangement here since who is to say ahead
> of time which prefixes would have a '1' in front. The difference
> between a free call and toll call here is entirely dependent on which
> central office area you live in.  PAT]

That's exactly the sort of situation where 1+7 digits can be very
helpful.  You've stopped off at a friend's house, and decide to call
another friend.  Both of them are in _your_ local calling area, but
friend two is (unbeknownst to you) a toll call from friend one.  With
just a seven-digit number, you only find out that it was a toll call
when ex-friend one tells you to pay up.  With 1 + 7 digits, you know
immediately: the 7-digit call gets a "your call cannot be completed as
dialed" message.  If you still want to call, you put the "1" in front,
but you _know_ that it's being charged by the minute.

(Admittedly, this sort of thing was a _lot_ more important back when I
was a teenager.  :-)

So how you have to dial a given number will vary depending which
central office's area you're in, but it always is based on what's a
toll call from there.

Perhaps it's an east/west split?  This is how it was in Southern New
England Telephone territory (Connecticut) and it's just being changed
in Pennsylvania.  But when I lived in California, it took me a while
to get used to _not_ dialing a 1 first.

Speaking strictly for myself,

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

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

From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 16:18:41 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, merlyn@iwarp (Randal L. Schwartz)
writes:

| (I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when
| a differing area code is *not* long distance.  Do you dial the "1" or
| not?  Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long
| distance.)

| [Moderator's Note: Is Portland, OR to Vancouver, WA a long distance
| call? What about Troutdale, OR to Camas, WA?  What about Ontario, OR
| to Fruitland, ID?  And yes, we dial 1 whenever we change area codes,
| even though several suburban 708 points are local to me in 312, and
| are part of my 'eight mile from CO to CO' local free calling area.  PAT]

Yes, Portland OR to Vancouver WA has *always* been an LD call.  And
Troutdale OR to Camas WA (and I suspect Ontario to Fruitland, although
I don't know that for a fact).  I mean, it makes sense to me.  It
crosses an Area Code Boundary, therefore I have to dial 1, therefore
it is long distance!  (The thought of someday having no correlation
between 1 and long distance still shocks me as bizarre.)

A while back, there was talk of putting Vancouver in the 503 area code
so that we Oregonians could call it locally.

And, in another message, you speak of "local to me is LD to some guy
next to me" as a justification for "why 1 means toll is dumb".  That
happens all the time in Portland.  I can call local from Beaverton to
Portland.  Portland can call local to Gresham and Oregon City.  But
it's LD for me from Beaverton to Gresham or Oregon City.  So the
people in Portland know they can call Beaverton, Gresham, or OC
directly, and the people in the suburbs have learned more or less what
"too far away" is.

I'm *glad* I have the "1 means toll", or I'd probably be shocked by my
phone bill each time I had to return a call to an unknown number.
(They've added a lot of prefixes in the last five years.)  "Hmm...
return this call to 526-9922.  Wonder where it is ... 5-2-6-9-9-2-2
 ... [boop bop beep... please dial 1].  Aha.  Long distance.  Better
call it from my client's phone. :-)".

Pat, what do you do when returning a call?  Do you have all the local
prefixes memorized?  Do you call the operator each time for a
name-place and LD rate?  See, it's much simpler here in Oregon. :-)

Just another native Portlander,

Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn


[Moderator's Note: Surprisingly, I do know a few hundred 312/708/815
prefixes in my head. But until your call goes to somewhere outside
northern Illinois there is no 'toll charge' as such. Everything here
is northern Illinois is rated as 'minutes of use'. Local calls -- that
is, calls within your switching center and the switching center
immediatly next to yours on any side make up your local 'free' calling
area. Regardless of the total minutes used, you are charged only about
 +/- five cents for the call. Calls to other switching centers in
northern Illinois are timed, and 'minutes of use' cost anywhere three
or four cents per minute. When you get your bill, you see the total
number of minutes tallked during the month.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 17:35:54 EST
From: Michael Scott Baldwin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


This discussion is rather amusing because it shows how ingrained
the two different meanings of "1" are.  I happen to be at an
advantage because I grew up in Maryland (1 == long distance) and
live in New Jersey (1 == 10 digits), both of which are going through
area code splits (201/908, 301/410) and changing from NNX to NXX.
I've had intimate contact with all possible permutations, I think!

Here's the deal: Ten years ago, this was the situation:

            Maryland        New Jersey
Local            nnx-xxxx        nnx-xxxx
Long, same npa        1-nnx-xxxx        nnx-xxxx
Long, another npa    1-npa-nxx-xxxx        npa-nxx-xxxx

In NJ you never dialed "1" and in MD you dialed it for *all* long
distance calls, in or out of your area code.  As in other areas "1 ==
toll" became very ingrained in Maryland.  NOTE: you simply had to know
which exchanges in MD (area 301) were local and which were long,
because you could *not* dial them the other way.  For instance, 721
and 490 are long distance, but 721 and 224 are not.  If I dialed
"490-xxxx" from 721, I got a recording ("dial 1").  If I dialed
"1-224-xxxx" from 721, I also got a recording ("don't dial 1").  If
presented with a number [phone], you would typically dial "1"
if you didn't recognize the exchange ("must be far away" you thought).
If that was wrong, well, you tried again without the "1".  There were
not that many exchanges in the local area, even though it was quite
large, so it wasn't a big deal.  However, I can imagine lots of simple
folk getting confused by this.

MAJOR ANOMALY: Maryland (301), DC (202) and Virginia (703) are all
very close, and they had overlapping local calling areas.  and yes,
you guessed it, to dial a local (202) exchange from (301), you JUST
DIALED 7 DIGITS!  No 1, no area code.  And to further hose things up,
that same exchange might be used elsewhere in (301)!  You see, if
301-335 were really far away from DC, then I would have to dial
"1-335-xxxx" to get it.  So "335-xxxx" could be reused, but only near
DC, to mean "202-335-xxxx".  So if I were 301-255-xxxx (near DC) and
needed to dial 301-335-xxxx, if I just dialed 335-xxxx, I might
accidentally get DC (but it was free!).  Also, if I needed to dial
202-342-xxxx, I COULD NOT dial 1-202-342-xxxx, because it was local!
I had to dial just 342-xxxx.  Bleah!

Now, when the time came to use NXX exchanges, New Jersey had a simple
job: simply force "1" for long distance calls.  It didn't mean
anything particular, so nobody cared.  This caused some unfortunate
confusion.  A friend of mine visited from Maryland and asked if they
had to dial "1" to call [phone] (whatever it was).  Well, since
it was in area code 201, of course you don't.  So my friend called and
talked for a while.  *I* knew it was a long distance call (quite far
away), so when he hung up I mentioned this -- he was shocked.  He
equated "dial 1" with "toll call" so he thought he was talking for
free.  Oops for me.  Here's NJ now:

            New Jersey
same npa        1-npa-nxx-xxxx      or    nxx-xxxx
another npa        1-npa-nxx-xxxx

Note how it is pleasant that I can *always* dial 1-npa in front of any
number.  This is nice for autodialing modems that you have to carry
around with you.

In Maryland the situation, unfortunately, has gotten even more hosed.
still clinging to the "1 == toll" philosophy, but needing more
exchanges, this is the "compromise":

            Maryland
Local, same npa        nxx-xxxx
Local, another npa    npa-nxx-xxxx
Long, any npa        1-npa-nxx-xxxx

So now you dial "1-301-335-xxxx" to dial your own area code,
a '1' 202-335-xxxx" to get the local DC number.  How extremely gross.
Now people in Maryland are so confused they (and even I) can't
dial anyone anymore.  I had friends try to call my Baltimore number
from Gambrills.  It is long distance, but they didn't dial 1-301.
They got some recording that didn't tell them to dial 1-301, so
they gave up.  And I was in Virginia (703) trying to call DC.
Well, the hotel phone said "8" for long distance and "9" for local.
8-1-201-nxx-xxxx worked for New Jersey, but 8-1-202-966-xxxx failed
for DC (remember I'm in NPA 703).  I try 9-966-xxxx: it fails.

Finally, 9-202-966-xxxx works.  I was about to puke.  Note that this
new "scheme" actually opens up lots of exchanges.  I presume they'll
start using NXX exchanges where NXX != 301/410/703/202 because the
only conflict is in local calling, and there are only four NPA's in
the area.  Of course, your poor autodialing modems are seriously out
of luck.  You move it a few miles and you might need to totally
reprogram it.  (Those hand-held DTMF-ers are also hosed, of course.
Oh well, I thought there were cute!)

By the way, I'm strongly in favor of New Jersey's scheme and it's
time for "1 == toll call" to die a timely death.  I hope this
long message was amusing (maybe horrifying) to some of you.


[e-mail] (bell laboratories)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #896
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00983;
          22 Dec 90 17:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12146;
          22 Dec 90 16:00 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01533;
          22 Dec 90 14:51 CST
Date:     Sat, 22 Dec 90 14:10:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #897
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Dec 90 14:10:08 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 897

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Paul Gauthier]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Gordon Burditt]
    Re: Avoiding Slamming [Pat Barron]
    Re: Slamming Technique? [Roy Smith]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming Charlie Mingo]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming [Jeff Sicherman]
    MCI Tries to Slam US West Employee! [Jim Redelfs]
    Ill-Gotten Gains [Robert M. Hamer]
    Re: 410 Area Code Prefix Locator Service [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:52:22 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now


Beginning at this time, the Digest will be winding down for about a
week while I take a few days of needed rest and relaxation as the year
comes to an end.

The Digests you will receive from now through Christmas are made up of
articles currently in the queue waiting for distribution. When those
have been printed, I'll be off line for a few days.

**  PLEASE DO NOT SEND MESSAGES TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM / TELECOM DIGEST
UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR. **

Messages received between Christmas and New Year's will be carefully
screened and if they say something newsworthy and important will
be held for the start of the new year. If not then I'll return them
unused.

Let's have all fresh topics to start the new year. No further 'Re'
messages on existing subjects after this weekend please.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Paul Gauthier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 13:13:09 -0400


> [many people offering parallels from fast food outlets, to refridgerators,
>  to the Folger's crystals taste test.]

Let's assume that when a person places a slammed call that they can
not tell the difference between the line quality of the slammer and
that of their regular carrier. If they could decisively tell they were
being slammed from the line quality they could hang up immediately and
avoid all but minimal charges. (How much can the first minute cost you
regardless of where and when you call?)

All the parallels have assumed that you receive an almost identical
product from a company/source other than that which you expected. The
point missed in most of these analogies is the most important: The
difference in costs. I assume that most people so loathe being slammed
because they are getting a better price from their current carrier.
These parallels also break down in that when you buy a burger, fridge,
etc, you get billed up front and know the cost and the biller's
identity BEFORE you can make use of their product.

The parallel that is most accurate is the one mentioned in which you
go into a restaurant, order a meal, receive one that seems to be what
you ordered but costs much more. Say I order a hamburger and actually
receive the wonder-super-steak-burger with escargot and truffles on
the side. You may simply think "Wow, look at all I got and it was only
$2.95 on the menu!"  and happily chow down. When you go to pay your
bill it rings up at $49.95 and you have a coronary. Almost any
reputable restaurant would agree that if you ordered the cheapo-burger
you should only pay for the cheapo-burger regardless of what your
waitress decided to bring you.

While in the case of LD carriers you might not receive a product which
is really far superior to what you ordered, the rest of the parallel
seems to apply. You should pay for the service at the rates which you
expected to pay (those which you ordered) regardless of what the
slammer wants to charge you. Who do you pay? The slammer, after all
they _did_ provide the service. But _they_ should be willing to pay
for any charges above and beyond those incurred for the call such as
any costs to switch back to your proper carrier, etc. Since _they_ did
incur those costs without your permission.

It also seems fair that they should offer you some further
compensation for the inconvienience they've caused you. Often times,
in the run of a single monthly billing period, this compensation might
cancel out the fair price you would have paid for the LD calls; in
such cases you would be just in not paying the slammer for their
service. Conversely, if you ring up $2,500.00 worth of LD calls while
being slammed it is unreasonable to expect the slammer to give them to
you as a freebie.  Fine, you deserve to pay the price you expected to
pay from your normal carrier minus reasonable compensation for your
trouble, but chances are that would still leave you in a hefty bit of
debt to the slammer. Think of the abuse if someone figured out they
were being slammed early in the billing period and then went berzerk
calling LD numbers knowing that it was expected that the slammer would
have to waive all the charges.

Just as an aisde: When ISDN comes in why not have your LCD screen show
you which carrier is completing the call for you? Is this possible?
Seems like this would close the door on slamming in a big way.


Paul Gauthier                                     | [e-mail]
President, Cerebral Computer Technologies         | [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]    Fax: (send email first)   | [e-mail]

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

From: Gordon Burditt <sneaky![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Date: 21 Dec 90 08:14:09 GMT
Organization: Gordon Burditt


>When calling long distance, your local telco uses a form of shorthand
>for your instructions: 1+ will be considered an abbreviation for the
>10xxx of your choice until you tell them differently. Somehow or
>another they get those instructions incorrect. Maybe someone else did
>legitimatly ask to use Pat, but the telco got the digits transposed on
>the work order and mistakenly thought you wanted to use Pat. Maybe Pat
>mistakenly or deliberatly told them you wanted to use his service.

What would it take to slam, say, 10288, over a large area (say, all of
Pac*Bell territory) to route to the carrier normally specified as
10976 (International Pornophone and Pornograph - even 0, 411, 611, and
911 act like a 900 number)? for a major fraction of a month?  Would
this, done in a fairly simple way, also take everyone with AT&T as a
default with it? (If the default carrier is stored as '288', it
probably would).

Do you still think I have to pay IPP for phone calls dialed with 10288
(assume that somehow I could prove it) but I got IPP instead of AT&T?

Technically, how difficult would it be for a local phone company to do
this by accident?

How difficult would it be for an outsider employed by IPP to do this
remotely from, say, West Germany, assuming somehow he managed to bribe
someone for necessary numbers and access codes?  How about using a
midnight visit to a few (not all) CO's in the area?  How about a
carefully forged memo or piece of code supposedly from someone at
PacBell or Bellcore?  If local phone companies are so easily taken in
by outsiders changing default carriers, they probably can be talked
into re-arranging carrier codes by outsiders, too.

I suspect that at least two weeks would pass before any customers got
past Standard Customer Service Excuse #487 and any technical people
would start investigating unauthorized programming changes.  Part of
that would be the delay before anyone got their bills and noticed the
difference.

>The answer lies in forcing the local telco to *confirm* these changes
>in writing or otherwise rather than by some petty method of
>withholding fees for services in fact rendered.

The answer lies in requiring the local telco to accept change requests
from the subscriber, only the subscriber, and no intermediaries
claiming to act for the subscriber (allowance may be made for the
legal representative with power of attorney to act for someone
incompetent).  AND they should confirm the changes.


Gordon L. Burditt
sneaky.lonestar.org!gordon

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 1990 11:57:49 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Avoiding Slamming


This seems like the obvious solution for avoiding being slammed.  I
called up my LEC's customer service number, and told them that I
*never* wanted to have my long distance carrier switched without
*written* authorization from me, personally.  They said "fine", and
noted my records to that effect.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 13:08:05 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Slamming Technique?
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


    I got an interesting call from Sprint a couple of weeks ago.
One evening, a woman called to thank me for using my Sprint card.  I
informed her that I had never done so.  The conversation went
something like, "You do have a Sprint card, don't you?", "Yes, but
I've never used it".  "Do you ever use Sprint?".  "No, never."  "Have
you ever used it in the past?"  "No, never".  Still very polite on
both sides.  Then, the really strange thing was she said in a puzzled
voice, "Hmmm, that's very odd ..." and then, cheerfully, "Well, have a
nice evening" and she hung up.

    Is this a first?  A telemarketer voluntarily (and politely!)
ending the phone call before you hang up on them?


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

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

From: ames!ames!claris!portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 15:39:32 PST


[e-mail] (peter da silva) writes:

>well.sf.ca.us!well!mingo (Charles Hawkins Mingo) writes:

>> >Why is "slamming" not considered, and treated, as theft?

>>       Because AT&T doesn't "own" the right to do business with you.

>Like hell they don't! They have a contract with you, via your local phone
>company.

    The contract you have with AT&T governs *how* you will pay for
service *if* you place LD calls using AT&T.  You never agree to place
*all* your calls with AT&T.  In fact, you don't even have an operative
contract *until* you place a call.  (Why?  In order to have a
contract, each side must, at the very least, promise to do something
specific.  Since you haven't promised to make any specific level of
calls (or indeed any calls at all) you have no performance obligation
WRT AT&T.  And if you don't have any obligation WRT them, they don't
WRT you -- this is known as mutuality of obligation.)

    I don't think you want to claim that consumers shouldn't have
the *right* to switch carriers (which they wouldn't, if AT&T "owned"
the right to their business).  You're upset because some incompetent
or evil third- party has usurped the consumer's right to choose.  But
from AT&T point of view, it matters little whether the decision to
switch originated with the consumer or someone else.


Charlie Mingo        [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 10:53:14 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming


>> Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you
>> place. This is required by tariff. But you also have the right to sue
>> the carrier for tampering / interfering with your existing service.
>> After all, they caused you to get disconnected from your long distance
>> carrier of choice, did they not?   PAT]

>You forgot the :-).  Didn't you?  No?  You can't be serious about
>suggesting that we clog the already overburdened courts with a lawsuit
>of such little importance.

  The other problems with a suit is the amounts are rather trivial,
suitable mostly for small claims court (are regulated operations
immune from suits in that venue ?) where you generally can get
compensation only for actual losses plus costs (usually minimal - your
lost time in resolving and correcting the matter, mostly). In this
case, the financially most agrieved 'person' is the carrier who was
removed from your 1+ service. They would be the most likely one to sue
but of course that's unlikely since they all participate in the
borderline marketing activities to one degree or another.  They would
*all* get tarred by the discovery process and publicity if it were
taken to court.

  Therefore, the most likely legal solution is a class-action suit by the
people who have been slammed, where some of the other issues of fraudulent
marketing can be raised and the court can be used in an efficient manner
collectively, rather than individually.

Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 21:18:34 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Tries to Slam US West Employee!
Reply-to: [e-mail]


They tried to SLAM me!  HA!

I am a Network Technician for US WEST Communications in Elkhorn, NE
(just outside of Omaha).  Part of my job involves low-level Central
Office work in my HOME exchange (Elkhorn), including wiring on the MDF
and "babysitting" the paper-spewing Service Order printer.

Not too long ago, as I sorted the orders, I came across one bearing my
service.  It was a PIC change order, removing me from AT&T to MCI!

I never received a call from MCI prior to the order.  Since I have
tried in the past to trace the origin of such bogus orders, I did not
bother in this case.

I just cancelled the order!  What a bunch of bums!


JR

Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.12 r.5
[1:285/27@fidonet] Neb. Inns of Court 402/593-1192 (1:285/27.0)

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 14:33 EDT
From: "Robert M. Hamer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ill-Gotten Gains


Ed Hopper <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> calling of the 1-700 number indicated that she had INDEED been switched
>> from AT&T to MCI!  The charges were about the same per call, so she
>> didn't raise a stink about it after they graciously switched it back.

>No, no, no!  The fact that charges may be the same are irrelevant.
>These are ill-gotten gains.  I cannot speak to the legalities,

to which the Moderator replied:

>[Moderator's Note: They may be 'ill-gotten gains' to the slamming
>carrier as you point out, but your failure to pay *at least the amount
>you anticipated paying for the call you placed* is an unjust
>enrichment to yourself. Strictly speaking, you must pay for calls you

Pat, you've taken this position before, and I have had trouble
understanding it before, and am still having trouble.  If I am slammed
without my knowledge, and get a phone bill from some company I've not
given permission to carry my calls, I would like the legal situation
to be such that I owe them no money for the calls.  I did not give
them permission to carry my traffic.  I would consider it analogous to
a situation in which some company delivered an unrequested product to
my door and presented me with a bill.  U.S. mail regs say I am
entitled to keep the package and pay nothing for it as I did not ask
for it.  Not being a lawyer, and not being familiar with the tariffs,
I can't address whether or not the tariffs allow it.

If one were being really fussy, I would consider it more morally
defensible for me to be required to pay the company I was slammed
_FROM_ the money they would have charged me had they carried my calls,
and owe the company slamming me nothing.

If I got slammed, I would in fact refuse to pay and let them take me
to court.  I suspect that even if they had the legal backing to force
me to pay, they would choose not to because of bad publicity.  (Of
course, I only make $10 or so long distance calls a month, so they
wouldn't be losing lots of money.)

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 14:36:42 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 410 Area Code Prefix Locator Service


I checked out some prefixes in the Columbia & Laurel areas:

596 Columbia (Laurel local service) stays in 301
792 Laurel (Baltimore-metro local service) goes into 410
776 Laurel (the "default" local service, which includes DC but not Va.)
     stays in 301
992 Columbia (the "default" local service, which includes Baltimore city
     but not all of Baltimore metro) goes into 410

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #897
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01054;
          22 Dec 90 17:47 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12146;
          22 Dec 90 16:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab01533;
          22 Dec 90 14:51 CST
Date:     Sat, 22 Dec 90 14:44:15 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #898
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Dec 90 14:44:06 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 898

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize! [Steven King]
    Re: To the Moon, Alice... [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling [Tom Gray]
    Re: System-X Exchanges [Martin Harriss]
    Re: Switching Office Open House [Kevin W. Williams]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [John Higdon]
    Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000' [Ed Hopper]
    Re: Phone Service in the UK Today [Ian Phillipps]
    Carrier Code 10207 [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:52:22 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now


Beginning at this time, the Digest will be winding down for about a
week while I take a few days of needed rest and relaxation as the year
comes to an end.

The Digests you will receive from now through Christmas are made up of
articles currently in the queue waiting for distribution. When those
have been printed, I'll be off line for a few days.

**  PLEASE DO NOT SEND MESSAGES TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM / TELECOM DIGEST
UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR. **

Messages received between Christmas and New Year's will be carefully
screened and if they say something newsworthy and important will be
held for the start of the new year. If not then I'll return them
unused.

Let's have all fresh topics to start the new year. No further 'Re'
messages on existing subjects after this weekend please.


Patrick Townson

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

From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize!
Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 19:44:16 GMT


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

| [Moderator's Note: Well now I don't know what to think. The {Chicago
| Sun-Times} in the Wednesday editions had a picture of the men involved
| with the firm and a short story saying the Soviets had DENIED the
| report that arrangements had been made to take an American with them
| on the trip and that the men involved were under investigation for
| starting a scam.  So now we have KGO saying it is true and a couple of
| government investigators saying it is false and they are investigating
| the fellows involved. I'm told it is false in a phone call and a
| message here yesterday made similar claims.  Wait and see, I guess.  PAT]

And today's edition of the {Oregonian} said that Soviets admit that
they do indeed have a contract with the company.  But now the
controversy is over Texas State Law about charging $2.99 for entrance
into a lottery.

Just another space ace,

Randal L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

From: Steven King <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Sweepstakes, Space Flight is Prize!
Date: 20 Dec 90 14:21:56 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


My local radio station confirms John's report.  Apparently the Soviets
have confirmed this sucker.  Of course, this is a local rock station
(WABT) and their news source is unknown; they're probably just pulling
KGO's report off the wire.

They also noted that there's some question of violation of Texas law.

Me, I'm gonna wait another day or two and see which way this thing
falls.  If it falls jelly-side-up, you better believe I'll be calling
and/or writing in!


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

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

Subject: Re: To the Moon, Alice...
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 20:21:09 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


[e-mail] (Ed Hopper) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: But John Higdon begs your pardon: He says the local
> radio station in his town confirmed it is for real. We are out of
> space in this issue, so in 892, John will lead off and tell us what is
> really going on.  PAT]

True enough, however, statements were accurate *WHEN THEY WERE
WRITTEN*.

However, the investigation continues despite the new Soviet
affirmation of the deal with these guys.  A grand jury is looking into
it.


Ed Hopper

BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: And the last word I've heard on this as of late
Friday night was that the grand jury concluded there were no
violations and that the sweepstakes was valid. Apparently everything
is okay.  PAT]

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling
Date: 21 Dec 90 13:47:34 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

>As I described earlier, Telecom Australia has begun installing debit
>card telephones, which have fancy LCD displays and pushbutton keypads,
>instead of rotary dials (my, we are backward, aren't we.)

>I have been trying to discover why these payphones do not have DTMF
>dialling enabled.  I accosted an installer yesterday and grilled him

>[Moderator's Note: Disabling the mouth until supervision would prevent
>the phone from being used to call directory enquiries or the operator;
>both of whom answer unsupervised, no?  PAT]

Disabling the mouth piece would prevent the customer from placing an
operator assisted call or conversing with an intercept operator.  In
any event supervision is provided to the originating office by the
CAMA office. The CAMA office does this to instruct the originating
office to perform the ANI spill. Only then will the customer be
connected to the operator. Thus a local office has no way of knowing
that the call has been completed.

Operators may converse with a payphone before or after supervision is
given. Operators may have to request extra payment on an existing call
etc.

Fraud is prevented by disablng the DTMF pad when the customer is
connected to an operator. This is done by either reversing the
battery to the set or by providing +48v supervision.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 14:11:26 -0500
From: "Martin Harriss (ACP" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: System-X Exchanges


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 894, Message 8 of 10

>I have found a new command on my local system-X exchange:  175

On BT's mechanical exchanges, 175 is the code for the Subscribers
Automatic Line Test (SALT).  You have stumbled on the System-X
equivalent of this.

The way it works for mechanical exchanges is this:

Dial 175 X(XX) YYYY where YYYY is the last four digits of your number.
You may also need the access code X(XX), depending on where you're
doing this from.  Possible codes are 1, 2, 3,... 8, 9, 01, 02,... 09,
001, 002,... 005.  (Yes, the SALT machine counts pulses on a
25-position uniselector!)

Wait for the announcement "Start Test".

Hang up and wait for the phone to ring you back.

Pick up the phone and dial 1305.  You will now hear an announcement of
the test result.  If all is ok, you will hear "Testing OK".  There are
other announcements if something is wrong.

Other 130X combinations will do things like switch you to the test
desk or to the regional repair centre.

The reason for the access code and the last four digits of your number
is to tell the SALT machine which exchange and line you want tested.
(One SALT machine does for many echanges.)

Since System-X is electronic, that information is available to the
switch.

I suggest you try the following:

Dial 175, wait for the "Start test" announcement.  Hang up, wait for
the phone to ring.  Pick up, dial 1305.

Let me know if this works.

Note: In director areas you don't need the access code, since the
director generates it for you as part of the translation.  However,
some director exchanges use 185 or some other 17X or 18X as their SALT
code to distinguish between two or more exchanges using the same
director.


Martin Harriss    [e-mail]

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

From: "Kevin W. Williams" <asuvax!proto17![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Switching Office Open House
Date: 22 Dec 90 00:52:40 GMT
Organization: gte


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

>   Does some one have figures in re the economics of the SLC-96 ? I don't
> remember having seen any hard numbers in TELECOM Digest.

>   I mean, how much does a SLC-96 cost (equipment + installation +
> maintenance) to the telco? And more to the point, how does this cost
> compare with (equipment+installation+maintenance) cost of 96
> local-loop pairs ?

 You won't see numbers, because there are no numbers. If you are
serving a rural area, a mode 2 SLC-96 running in 2:1 concentration
becomes economical at a fairly close range (2-miles or so).

If you are serving a major metropolitan area, and are weighing the
difference between digging up multiple millions of dollars worth of
real estate to lay in new facility, or reusing a few old analog pairs
to do T1 over, the crossover point can be 50 or 60 feet. I have heard
of SLC-96s being used in the upper floors of buildings just to save on
premises wiring costs.

>   Another question, I recently read about an SLC-120 in an Indian
> telecom magazine. They were referring to the US. Any SLC-120s in
> service ?

I find it difficult to believe that there are SLC-120s in the U.S. The
SLC-120 is based on the European 30+2 scheme (4*30=120, just like
4*24=96).


Kevin Wayne Williams   UUCP : ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!williamsk

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
Date: 20 Dec 90 01:26:48 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Subodh Bapat <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]> writes:

> It's not just 0000 numbers, they'll make excuses if they don't want to
> assign you just any number you ask for.

Ok, here are the legitimate reasons for refusal to assign numbers:

In mechanical offices (through #5 Crossbar), the following may apply:

1. The number falls in a thousands group that simply isn't equipped.
Mechanical switches assign numbers by physical positions on the
equipment. If the equipment doesn't exist, you can't assign a number
on it. For instance, years ago in West Yellowstone there was one SXS
prefix for the whole town. It had two thousands groups installed, 9000
and 4000. If you wanted a number other than 9XXX or 4XXX, it was sorry
Charlie.

2. The number falls in an anticpated hunting growth area of a large
customer. If XYZ Corporation has been adding many lines per year in
its incoming hunt group and the number you want is right in the middle
of where telco expects it to expand, they will withhold the number
from assignment to others. This only applies to mechanical switches
(don't let them trot this out if you are dealing with an ESS).

3. The number falls within a bank of test numbers reserved for telco
use.

For all switches, reasons for denial include the following:

1. The number falls within a DID group, current or anticipated.

2. The number falls within an exchange that is GENERALLY used for DID
or other large-user specialty use.

3. The number is actually reserved by a business for future use (yes,
large customers can get away with this).

4. The number is in an electronic switch and you have ordered service
that can be provided on a mechanical one (and numbers on the
electronic one are in short supply). Tip: If this is the case, ask for
900/976 blocking. This can only be done (in Pac*Bell Land anyway) on
electronic switches and they have to give it to you if requested --
free.

5. The number falls in an exchange that is about to cut to new
equipment and number assignments are frozen.

6. The number, while out of service, may have only recently been
disconnected and the "dead" time has not expired. If you agree to
accept any wrong numbers, this can be negotiated.

The above are the legitimate reasons. Nonsense reasons include:

1. That number is reserved for business. (There is no functional
difference between a business line and a residential line.)

2. That number is reserved by telco. (Telco can "unreserve" any number
it likes.)

3. That number is in a reserved hunt group (in an electronic switch).
(An electronic switch can jump-hunt anywhere it likes.)


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

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

Subject: Re: Last Four Digits of Phone is '0000'
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 07:24:54 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail] (Subodh Bapat) writes:

> My question is: how do the LECs decide what range of numbers in each
> prefix to reserve for whom? Are there different blocks of numbers in
> each prefix pre-reserved for, say, residential, business trunks, DID,
> and Centrex (even if such services aren't actually connected)? 305-384
> is a new prefix in the rapidly expanding West Broward county area, and
> it's not even clear that the demographics have developed enough to the
> point of presenting a well-defined customer mix profile.

> Can anyone with any LEC background or knowledge shed any light on such
> number allocation policies?

Well, my LEC background is getting ancient (1982), but here goes.

Assume that Megacorp's DID PBX uses NNX-1000 to NNX-2500.  You want
NNX-2754.  The next 500 numbers could easily be "reserved" for
Megacorp.  I know I made exactly those sorts of "reservations" for my
customers several times.  Mountain Bell (now AKA US West) did not
charge for these, of course, that was a simpler time.


Ed Hopper

BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 17:01:41 GMT
From: Ian Phillipps <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phone Service in the UK Today


>When I lived in England in 1970 .... A telephone
>number (area code, etc) was not the same throughout the country.  From
>one city, your home number would be something totally different from
>what it would be in another city.  The result being that if you were
>out of your home town and wanted to call home, you couldn't just dial
>it from memory ... you had to find a local telephone book with all the
>right codes.

Well, that's what they want you to believe. Just dial the code, as
given with a leading "0", and one of two things happen:

    (1) you get through - and I'm told aren't charged any more.

    (2) in the "big city" areas with 3+3+4 pattern numbers (e.g.
    London, Manchester, Glasgow), you may get a rcorded message
    telling you to leave off the area code.

You can ignore the "dial 9 for Clacton" instructions if you like.

It's an interesting fact that eight out of ten Americans are confused
by telephone numbers being different lengths.  If you're one of these,
don't even try to talk to Germany (W) where numbers differ by several
digits on a single exchange!

>I don't know if they have updated the system since then ... yes -
>It's noticably improved in the last five years or so.

>and North America.  Where else can you order a pizza from a cellular
>phone while driving home ... ?

Well, in Cambridge, England for one - call Flying Pizza on 0223 244874.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 16:02:57 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Carrier Code 10207


While I was in New Market, Va. recently (served by 703-740, along I-81
in the Shenandoah Valley area), I stopped in a restaurant and looked
at a 1989 call guide for that area.  There were a few long-distance
carrier codes listed there, and I noticed 10207 listed as
"Shenandoah".  I don't know if that's available anymore; I tried it on
a call from a pay phone on 703-896 (nearby Broadway, Va. exchange) and
got a message saying that that carrier code was not in service.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #898
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01984;
          22 Dec 90 18:55 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac01807;
          22 Dec 90 17:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac12146;
          22 Dec 90 16:07 CST
Date:     Sat, 22 Dec 90 15:20:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #899
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Dec 90 15:20:38 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 899

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Phones and Radio Broadcasting [John Higdon]
    Re: NCR and AT&T: An NCR Employee's Perspective [Ken Thompson]
    Re: Collect Call from AT&T to: AT&T Employees [Ed Hopper]
    Re: The MessageCenter [John Higdon]
    Re: Voice Mail vs Message Center [John Temples]
    Re: COCOT's on the corner [Marc T. Kaufman]
    Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Don't Pay For Slamming! [John Stanley]
    International Commercial E-Mail Connectivity [Artch Griffin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:52:22 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now


Beginning at this time, the Digest will be winding down for about a
week while I take a few days of needed rest and relaxation as the year
comes to an end.

The Digests you will receive from now through Christmas are made up of
articles currently in the queue waiting for distribution. When those
have been printed, I'll be off line for a few days.

**  PLEASE DO NOT SEND MESSAGES TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM / TELECOM DIGEST
UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR. **

Messages received between Christmas and New Year's will be carefully
screened and if they say something newsworthy and important will be
held for the start of the new year. If not then I'll return them
unused.

Let's have all fresh topics to start the new year. No further 'Re'
messages on existing subjects after this weekend please.


Patrick Townson

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phones and Radio Broadcasting
Date: 22 Dec 90 10:05:19 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


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

> Can anyone tell me why once the connection was completed the line
> would be so clear?  I have no idea if there were any special filters
> on the phone or anything like that.  This was about ten years ago, if
> that makes any difference in technology/equipment.

Mechanical switching equipment (particularly crossbar) is notorious
for imbalancing the customers line while accepting digits. When the
call completes, the customer is connected to an intra or inter CO
trunk unit which presents the proper load and longitudinal balance to
the line. A properly balanced audio line is much less suceptible to
any type of external interference (including RF). That is why radio
stations are very careful to use balanced audio circuits if the studio
is co-located at the transmitter. (And why consumer audio gear is so
suceptible with its unbalanced audio cables.)

I remember some relatives that lived some distance out of Bellevue,
WA, that had a phone served out of a #5 crossbar office. The hum on
the line was deafening during dialing, but it would go away with the
"ka-plunk" that came after dialing. Originating registers are
apparently a very bogus termination.


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

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NCR and AT&T: An NCR Employee's Perspective
Date: 20 Dec 90 16:05:47 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Thompson <entec![e-mail]>
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS


Hmmm  NCR & ATT?

Need a name.. hmmm...

C ash
R egisters
A nd
P hones !



If I wanted to work for the ding-a-lings, .....


Ken Thompson     N0ITL
NCR Corp.  3718 N. Rock Road
Wichita,Ks. 67226  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Collect Call from AT&T to: AT&T Employees
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 20:48:24 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


[e-mail] (Werner Uhrig) writes:

> [ I told them in 1985 to buy Apple, but they wouldn't listen to me ... ]

There were serious discussions with Apple, and: Atari, DEC, DG, Unisys
and pretty near everyone else except IBM.  (Hmmm..buy IBM, combine
bureaucracy and cock-eyed technology!)  The DEC deal almost happened.
Olsen said no deal at the end.

> [Moderator's Note: I am sorry the phone number was not sent along with
> the article. I didn't remove it ... I did not receive it!  Please send
> this number so that AT&T employees and stockholders who read the
> Digest can use if if they wish.  PAT]

They (NCR) listed the office numbers of all AT&T board members
(including the ones who are officers of other corporations and not
full-time AT&T employees).  I don't have the original ad, hence no
phone numbers. At least two of the numbers were wrong.  The press (USA
Today) reported that very few (i.e., under five per board member)
calls were received.

The CWA is deeply involved in fighting this.  Being a UNIONIZED
computer company has been a massive handicap.  Good people get laid
off because they are young, older, former PBX installers, who often
can't spell "C", are retained.

After a VERY poor start, AT&T-CS management has made a major
(internal) public relations effort to alleviate sagging morale in
Computer Systems.  The continued cheap shots from NCR, the press, and
our "friends" in other AT&T departments are hard to take.  We know
better, but still.  Last week, in an Alliance call with the Southern
Region sales staff, our VP told us "We don't think every NCR employee
walks on water and our people are pond scum."

Last Friday, Allen, Kavner and Rich McGinn (president of Computer
Systems) held a 2 1/2 hour live video teleconference with all CS
employees.  They aren't promising everyone a job, they are promising
to be fair.  One bright spot: in 1990, AT&T hired 22,000 people.
Total AT&T Computer Systems employment is 7,000.  There is a corporate
wide restriction on hiring now in order to manage this situation.
We'll see.

Personally, I'm not going to worry about it.  I've been through this
before and it isn't worth wasting your stomach lining on.  I figure
that when I reach the Pearly Gates, I can say "I'm an AT&T employee
who's been through divestiture and the NCR merger, I've spent my time
in hell."


Ed Hopper

BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The MessageCenter
Date: 22 Dec 90 10:24:05 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Kenny J. Hart" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Yes, Mr. Higdon it is for real, and an excellent product, and you
> should bite.  The thing I can't understand is why you have to
> continually think Pac*Bell is out to screw you!!

Well, you sort of asked, so I'll tell you. When the non-reg arm of
Pac*Bell offers a product that depends on CO access, doesn't that sort
of tilt the playing field for that product's competitors? What service
bureau would be able to compete with MessageCenter?

Now the reasonable person would ask, "Why not just use Pac*Bell's
product and forget the competition?" Well, for one thing, if there was
competition to the MessageCenter, I could have it now. As it is,
Pac*Bell can't even give me a date when it might be available in my
area. And what happens when Pac*Bell decides to raise the (non-reg)
price? If you're hooked on the service, they have you by the bells.

Like many who read the Digest, I am a service junkie. But everytime I
call my friendly rep about this new service or that, it's, "I'm sorry,
that service is not available in your area." There is no SS7 in my CO,
so that automatically excludes CLASS. "*70" gets a recording on my
line with Call Waiting. In short, I'd love to check some of this new
stuff out but living in the only CO in the Bay Area that doesn't offer
ANYTHING makes one wonder. Ok, I know Pac*Bell didn't plan it that way
just to get back at me, but really...


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

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

From: John Temples <jwt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Mail vs Message Center
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 02:25:00 GMT


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

>I inquired of my business office
>regarding the MessageCenter(tm). This is $5/month voice mail for the
>very small user, available to businesses and residences.

I'm not sure if this would be of any help to you, but United Telephone
has a low-cost voice mail system.  Their basic package offers a
mailbox with seven message capacity and four day retention for $4.45
per month.  Here in Orlando, we are served by both United Telephone
and Southern Bell.  I've got a United message line even though I'm a
Southern Bell customer.

There was no setup fee, and the first three months were only $3.00
each.  United's number is 1-800-347-9990.


John W. Temples -- [e-mail] (uunet!jwt!john)

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

From: "Marc T. Kaufman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOT's on the Corner
From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 05:30:36 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> motcid![e-mail] (Gary
Segal) writes:

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

->How unique -- PSA's on COCOT's. I dial 0. Country music comes on. So
->does the operator.

-A former friend of mine in
-Bloomingdale Illinios had the unfortunate problem being served by a CO
-that is close to the transmit tower for a FM radio station.  Somehow
-the radio program found it's way into the local loops...
-Apparantly Illinios Bell claimed that this was a problem for the FCC,
-but the bureaucrats had been taking years to sort out the problem.

Radio amateurs are particularly sensitive to the charge of
interference, so we try to keep up with the regs.  To my knowledge, if
a device which was not designed to be a radio receiver is receiving
and demodulating radio signals, then it is NOT the responsibility of
the radio station to fix it.  It is the responsibility of the
manufacturer or user (in this case, the phone company) to use "good
engineering practice" to insure that their lines do not receive radio.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: peter da silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: On Who You Owe When Slammed
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 18:31:47 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: The point is, your long distance connection through
> the public switched network was NOT unsolicited. You solicited the
> service as soon as you went off hook and started dialing the number.

That sounds a *lot* like that particular perversion of contract law,
the infamous shrink-wrap license. What's the latest on the validity of
shrink wrap licenses?


Peter da Silva    [phone]    [e-mail]

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

From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Don't Pay For Slamming!
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 14:23:54 EST
Organization: One Man Brand


[e-mail] (USENET News System) writes:

   Fascinating. A News System is WRITING news.

> [e-mail] (I) write:

> >   Who do you owe, and how much?  [...]

> >   The service was provided.

>     The "service" [i.e. the fridge] was *offered*, and you
> rejected it (as you were entitled to do because it wasn't what you
> asked for).

   The fridge is sitting on your front porch. Why? The delivery people
left it there. Were you aware that UPS leaves packages at rural
destinations without obtaining signatures? (The fridge was a small,
dorm sized one.) How about this -- the box says refridgerator on it,
but not K-Mart, and you know you ordered one, and you have no way of
knowing it is K-Mart until you opened the box.

> Or suppose, in a restaurant, the waitress delivers the wrong
> meal, which you consume without complaint.  You can no longer reject
> something as not being what you wanted *after* you've consumed it.

    She will set the plate in front of you. (The box arrives on your
porch.) If you do not complain (you just open the box and use the
fridge) you owe the bill. If you complain as soon as you know the
error, you do not. When you get slammed, you do not know the error
until several months later. If the food is not cooked properly, you
will probably not know it until you start to eat it. If the middle is
still raw, you will have to eat at least half to find that out. Do you
think you owe half the bill?

    And actually, there is a good argument that you do, indeed, owe
nothing even after eating the food. You are allergic to specific
foods, or are prevented from eating them by religious fiat. You
specify this to the waitress. The food arrives. You believe it to be
free of allergen, or prohibited contents. It is a soup, or exists in
some state that it is impossible from looking at it to tell exactly
what it contains. She leaves the check, and you see that what she
charged you for was exactly what told her you could not consume. You
are either bound for the hospital or (insert unhappy afterlife of your
choice). There is a very good chance that not only do you not owe them
for the food, but that they may be open to a hefty lawsuit. (I.e. they
owe YOU money.)

> >   You owe K-Mart the chance to come pick its refridgerator up. [...]
> >You owe the unchosen carrier the chance to
> >retrieve its service.

> You owe the restaurant the opportunity to pump your stomach?

   You owe the restaurant the chance to pick up the wrong order when
you notify them of the mistake. Do you expect them to ask to pump your
stomach when you complain of uncooked food?

> You asked for something, you got what appeared to be what you wanted,
> you consumed it without complaint,

   You have consumed nothing in the fridge example. It is sitting
happily, still in most of the box (you cut a corner to look at it),
waiting for pick up. If K-Mart declines the chance to pick it up, it
belongs to you, you may use it as you wish, and you owe K-Mart
nothing.  And, since telecom is a renewable resource, you consume
nothing there, either. The slammer is perfectly able to sell the same
service you used to someone else.

> If you were unable to detect that the service wasn't AT&T when
> you consumed it, what reason do you have to complain now?

   The service was provided from a source from which it was not
ordered.  The payment will go to enrich the source, whom you will be
involuntarilly enriching. You have made a choice of product, based on
price or other consideration (e.g. political activity), and have
received a product which you consider inferior, without any way of
telling.

> If you had inadvertedly been served Folger's Crystals when you
> thought you were getting fresh-brew, how were you injured?

   If you caught a restaurant advertising "fresh-brewed coffee" and
serving Folger's Instant, that is certainly a case of false
advertising and fraud. You were injured in that you were paying for
one product and receiving another. Did you notice, when some of the
major restaurants changed brands of cola, how they bent over backwards
to make sure you knew what you were going to get? "Give me a large
Coke." "Will Pepsi be ok?"

   Of course, I don't expect a computer to understand the differences.

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

Date: Thursday, 20 Dec 1990 13:54:35 EST
From: Artch Griffin <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Commercial E-Mail Connectivity


I would like to informally test the international connectivity of
commercial E-mail systems, e.g., AT&TMail to any of several European
or Asian PTTs.  However, I do not know any non-internet international
addresses.  If some European or Asian readers of this would be willing
to let me attempt to send them an E-mail test message between
commercial systems, please reply to [e-mail] with their
commercial mail address.  If any one else would like to comment on
their experience, I will summarize and post.  Thanks.


Artch

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #899
******************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02794;
          22 Dec 90 19:53 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20205;
          22 Dec 90 18:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01807;
          22 Dec 90 17:08 CST
Date:     Sat, 22 Dec 90 15:55:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V10 #900
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 22 Dec 90 15:54:37 CST    Volume 10 : Issue 900

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Dave Close]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Paul Fuqua]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Dave Levenson]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Scott D. Green]
    Distinctive Ringing, Another Application Appropos FAX [Pete Ahrens]
    Re: Distinctive Ringing [Charles Buckley]
    Re: Running Your Own LD Copmpany [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Caller ID in Atlanta [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: Caller ID in Atlanta [Peter Marshall]
    Ohio's Caller ID and Call*Trace [Stan Brown]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 1:52:22 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Vacation Time: Stop Sending Messages Now


Beginning at this time, the Digest will be winding down for about a
week while I take a few days of needed rest and relaxation as the year
comes to an end.

The Digests you will receive from now through Christmas are made up of
articles currently in the queue waiting for distribution. When those
have been printed, I'll be off line for a few days.

**  PLEASE DO NOT SEND MESSAGES TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM / TELECOM DIGEST
UNTIL THE START OF THE NEW YEAR. **


Patrick Townson

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

From: Dave Close <shared!shared![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 05:36:09 GMT
Organization: Shared Financial Systems, Dallas, TX


In article <[e-mail]> Randal L. Schwartz <merlyn@
iwarp.intel.com> writes:

>I guess living in an area where 1 means long distance gives me the
>advantage at understanding these statements.  For those of you who
>haven't had "1" mean long distance, taking those statements out of
>context from the newspaper article must have looked really funny.  And
>since the general population *for that area* has it firmly entrenched
>that "1 means long distance"... that's indeed what they are losing!

>(I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when
>a differing area code is *not* long distance.  Do you dial the "1" or
>not?  Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long
>distance.)

This relates to a message I posted a month or two back.  Here in DFW
(north Texas), toll calls always start with a 1, free calls always
start without a 1.  This includes inter-area code calls: a free call
from Dallas to Fort Worth is dialed 817-xxx-xxxx, NOT 1-817-xxx-xxxx
which is only used for toll calls.  Obviously this reduces the number
of possible exchanges in each area slightly.

SWB's solution to the problem in PA: Instead of dropping the 1 for
intra-area code calls, they require you to dial your OWN area code.  A
toll call from Dallas to a far suburb in the same area is dialed
1-214-xxx-xxxx.

Personally, I prefer the PA solution, but SWB's works.  My primary
complaint is that I have no way to determine --reliably-- before
calling, if a number is a toll call.  Therefore, I dial 1+number (with
or without area code) and hear, "We're sorry, it is not necessary to
dial a one or zero when dialing this number."  Sorry, indeed!  Why not
let the call go through anyway?  --


Dave Close, Shared Financial Systems, Dallas
[e-mail]       vmail [phone]
uunet!shared!davec       fax [phone]

My comments are my opinions and may not be shared by Shared.

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90  13:25:01 CST
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'


merlyn at iwarp.intel.com (Randal L. Schwartz)  writes:

> I'm still baffled at what the "1 means long distance" people do when
> a differing area code is *not* long distance.  Do you dial the "1" or
> not?  Around here, if it's a different area code, it's definitely long
> distance.

Well, I'm a "1 means long distance" person, living in Dallas
(214-340), and the article totally confused me.  Here, to call a local
number in a different area code, one dials ten digits -- no 1+.  If
it's a long-distance number, it's always eleven digits.  (Actually, I
only know this to be true for the 214/817 boundary; I don't know what
is done about local cross-area-code calls elsewhere in the state, or
even if there are any.)

It wasn't always this way -- until a couple of years ago, certain
exchanges were reserved for "metro" service, and these numbers were
local to both Dallas and Fort Worth.  They started the ten-digit hack
to free up those exchanges for duplication along the boundary.  SWBell
printed a notice on top of every page in the phone book, listing the
affected exchanges.  Well, it listed most of them: they left out the
GTE exchanges.

Area-code-split note: A couple of months ago, there was a newspaper
article describing the 214/903 area-code split.  It contained one odd
fact: there are more than two dozen phone companies serving the area
now in 903.


Paul Fuqua                     [e-mail], ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Date: 22 Dec 90 20:42:15 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> BTW, there's a twist to the 1 + areacode rule that I don't recall
> seeing discussed here.  If a leading 1 means that "area code follows"
> for all numbers, then presumably, in addition to making NNX-style
> number available as exchange numbers, it would make NXX-style numbers
> available as area codes, provided that the whole NANP area could be
> switched over to this style of dialing.  This would seem to solve our
> areacode shortage problem for many years.  Does anyone know if this
> has been considered?

It has not only been considered, it's been planned.  It appears in the
Bellcore "Notes on the Intra-LATA Networks".

The plan is that all intra-NPA calls will be dialed with seven digits,
whether or not a toll charge applies.  Moreover, all inter-NPA calls
will be dialed as 1 + 10 digits.  Non-conforming areas are expected to
implement these procedures during the 1990's.

It would seem that the 215 area code has just announced such an
implementation.  In NJ, we've had this in effect for several years.
When it has become universal, then there need be no distinction
between area codes and 'office' prefix codes.  That will allow many
existing NPA's to be further sub-divided without exhausting the supply
of possible area codes.

Note that this numbering plan has worldwide consequences: Any country
which permits customer-dialed calls to the US or Canada must implement
changes in its dialed-number validation translations before we can
move forward with this.


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

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 12:54 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'


It's true.  I believe I reported it to the Digest when the story first
broke several months ago.  The issue, of course, is using
NPA-appearing prefixes.  If one uses 1+N0/1X-xxxx the switch needs to
time-out to realize it's not getting another three digits (and an
inter-NPA call), right?  So, the 1+ will only be used for inter-NPA;
anything within 215 (local or long-distance) will be seven digits
only.  I assume that to place 0+ calls within 215 will require
0+215+xxx-xxxx for a similar reason.


Scott

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

Date: Fri, 21 Dec 90 14:47:39 -0800
From: pacbell!pb2esac![e-mail]
Subject: Distinctive Ringing, Another Application Appropos FAX
Organization: Pacific*Bell ESAC, San Francisco, Ca.


For the sake of completeness, I would add to my remarks of 12-20-90 in
my reply to you that there is a way to obtain distinctive ringing on a
single line (other than "Home Intercom" or "Intercom Plus" where the
line is calling itself - revertive trunking - in order to ring
distinctively another extension; this feature probably goes by other
names in other RBOC's).

This would be a feature known as "Multiple Directory Number" or "Teen
Service", where supplementary directory numbers are assigned to a
master directory number (the original LDN).  This application would be
ideal for FAX, etc.  It is offered in some RBOC's; Bellsouth, I
believe.  One tariff issue would be whether the feature would be
available to business lines as well as residence.

Alas, it is not currently available in Pacific Bell's serving area --
so your correspondents from California do have a point when they
complain about a certain lack of robustness in feature offerings.  I
have often made this very point in discussions formal and informal
with my colleagues.

I wholeheartedly sympathize with and understand their complaints, but
I, to quote Mongo, "am only a pawn in the game of life."


Merry Christmas,

Pete Ahrens

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

Date: Sat, 22 Dec 90 01:08:37 PST
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Distinctive Ringing


Recently I wrote:

>In another bit of PacBell stupidity, I recently tried to get
>distinctive ringing on my single line...
>Is this Catch-22 idiocy nationwide, or is it only PacBell that has
>this problem?

To which Pat Townson, the mMderator, replied:

>[Moderator's Note: . . . [IBT]
>could not offer Distinctive Ringing until recently when they upgraded
>their software. They did offer it in Centrex and Starline service, but
>not on single residential lines until ahout two months ago.   PAT]

And to which Pete Ahrens of PacBell, wrote (ex-officio), that
Distinctive Ringing was part of a market strategy aimed at Centrex
customers, to distinguish outside calls from within.  He then went on
at length, essentially about RBOC's like PacBell making serious
efforts to bring Centrex to the masses.  He finished by writing:

"In the case of your poster, notice he has only one line.  The presence
of an intragroup call is thus illogical (from this feature's point of
view) and there is no basis for distinctive ringing as the vendors
have defined it.

"I would humbly like to point out that the RBOC's do not in general
design these features.  Rather, the features are the result of
consultation, discussion, and review among the Bellcore Client
Companies, vendors such as Northern Telecom and ATT, and so on.  Quite
often, the feature the user "sees" is a set (some would say "kludge")
of these design-by-committee features."

To which I respond:

Well gee, let's all just wallow in apologism!  Seriously, do you think
anyone ever imagined that anything else was going on?

What you're saying is that PacBell depends primarily on Bellcore and
their hardware vendors to describe consumer demand to them.  This is
like collecting military intelligence by waiting for history books to
be published, and then reading them.

Any army that does this will lose.  You won't even catch Saddam doing
something so dumb.  The only reason PacBell gets away with it is that
it is a protected monopoly.  If the Japanese could sell dial tone
here, PacBell would fare even worse than GM and Ford have.

PacBell should clean up its act, and be responsive to customer
requests, period.  Sandbagging with saccharine politeness and
browbeating the customer by defining his requests as illogical are no
substitute, especially when others are willing to (but barred by law
from) fulfilling them.  These blocking strategies seem particularly
misplaced when they exist only to protect intra-organizational
political traditions.

Merry Christmas to you too.

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

Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 10:57:30 -0800
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Running Your Own LD Company


Seattle does not have "very wide Extended Area Service" as such. In
doesn't need it, as in fact what Seattle does have is an extensive
local calling area.  Unaware of "local telecom entrepreneur" effort to
lobby the WA PUC in this regard as such, but we did have a collection
of now-concluded cases with US Metrolink, etc. squaring off against
GTE-NW and US West, where those coming out on the short end were these
so-called "EAS resellers."  Since then, the PUC, like some others, has
redone their EAS policies, a long- overdue step, and now the state
"independents" association is said to be considering a bill for the
upcoming legislative session here that would deal with local exchange
boundary questions and suchlike.

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID in Atlanta
Date: 21 Dec 90 21:01:39 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


A one-year trial will not be enough to expose the profound effects of
Caller ID...for example, building telemarketing lists, getting enough
customers on the system to build these lists, their use by
telemarketers for return calls, etc.

I suggest that separating "moral/ethical/other" issues in another
conference caters to technological determinism: implement the
technology, then let others try to fix things in its aftermath.

But there is active discussion in both Risks and the new eff.org.talk
newsgroups.


Bob Jacobson


[Moderator's Note: And don't forget the discussion going on in the
Telecom-Priv Digest as well.     PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Caller ID in Atlanta
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 90 11:40:32 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News


Re: Bill Berbenich's 12/19 post in Digest #892--

"Getting online with a minimum of pre-deployment wrangling" seems
euphemistic and equally problematic. Such a notion of Caller ID trials
also seems to be premised on an all-too-unsceptical assumption about
trials in general, and this kind in particular. It might also be
observed that PUC approvals of this kind can involve an interest in
ultimate buck-passing to the courts anyway. Thus, so much for the
evils of "pre-deployment wrangling."

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

Date: 21 Dec 90 09:41:00 EDT
From: "CONTR  BROWN,STAN" <abvax!iccgcc.DNET![e-mail]>
Subject: Ohio's Caller ID and Call*Trace


I was intrigued to hear how far one regulatory agency appears to be in
bed with a regulated utility.

Ohio Bell (part of Ameritech, an RBOC) wants to offer caller ID.  I'm
told that Ohio Bell has inserted things in bills asking people to
write to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) supporting
caller ID.  (I don't know that for sure because the first thing I do
with the phone bill is throw away the advertising inserts.)

In Ohio, the Consumers Counsel is a publicly funded watchdog agency.
I sent them a copy of my letter to the PUCO against caller ID as
proposed.  They called me to verify that I truly had sent the original
to the PUCO, because the PUCO haad not logged it.  According to the
Consumers Counsel, this appears to be a widespread pattern.  I
mentioned to the officer I talked to that I wouldn't have thought the
PUCO to be so biased, but perhaps I was naive.  His response, "You're
naive."

So, if you have written to the PUCO about any telecom-related issue, you
may want to send a copy to:

           Mr. Robert Ceisler
           Consumers Counsel
           77 South High Street/15th floor
           Columbus OH 43266
           ([phone]).

Other telecom-related tidbits:

Last summer the Consumers Counsel proposed requiring phone companies
to offer subscribers a free listing indicating "telemarketers don't
call".  The PUCO has taken no action, and the Consumers Counsel is
considering proposing legislation at the state level.

Call*Trace (if I've got the right name) is also not available.  It was
proposed last summer but the PUCO is sitting on it too.  (Whatever the
name, this is the service where you get a harassing call and punch a
few numbers to lock it into the phone company's computers but you
yourself don't get the number.)

Please do not attribute these remarks to any other person or company.
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V10 #900
******************************