Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss001-050

Text File | 1991-01-20 | 893KB | 21,241 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00679;
          1 Jan 91 7:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32392;
          1 Jan 91 5:44 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05098;
          1 Jan 91 4:39 CST
Date:     Tue, 1 Jan 91 3:46:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #1
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 1 Jan 91 03:46:40 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Ed Hopper]
    Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry [Dag Spicer]
    Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? [Tad Cook]
    Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Another Year Finished [Richard Budd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Michigan Bell vs BBSs
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 23:49:03 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


(Note: I am sending this on behalf of Bruce Wilson.)

 From the FACTS BBS in Flint, Michigan, by way of the Vehicle City
BBS in Davison, Michigan:

    On January 15, 1991, an administrative hearing will be held before
the Michigan Public Service Commision to discuss a complaint filed
against Michigan Bell Telephone Company.

   Early this year, a private bulletin board in Grosse Point, called
the Variety and Spice BBS, was ordered to pay an increased charge for
phone service because it was discovered he was accepting donations for
use of his BBS.

    This BBS ran on an IBM, and supports sixteen separate lines.
Although a portion of the BBS was open to the public, most of the BBS
(including an "adult file" area, were restricted to those who sent a
donation to the BBS.  The money collected didn't even come close to
the actual cost of running such a BBS.

    Michigan Bell claims that placing any condition on the use of a
BBS constitutes a business, and that the sysop must pay a business
rate for his phone line, plus pay a $100 deposit for EACH LINE in use.
This means the Variety and Spice sysop would have to pay a $1600
deposit, plus about $50 additional each month if he wanted to continue
his BBS.

    The sysop refused to pay this fee, so Michigan Bell disconnect his
lines.  The sysop filed a complaint with the MPSC.  Until this case
was heard, he decided to re-install the phone lines (at a considerable
cost to himself).

    If Michigan Bell wins this case, they will require every BBS sysop
to pay business rates for each of their lines, if it is determined
that the BBS is accepting fees or donations.  The Variety and Spice
sysop claims that MBT considers requiring users to upload files or
post messages (ie upload/download ratios) the same as a donation, and
will require the sysop to upgrade his line to a business line whether
money was exchanged or not.  However, in an interview I did in March,
I talked to the chief spokesman of MBT, who claimed that this was not
the case.  Only if money is accepted will MBT demand the sysop pay
business rate.

    The important thing here is that AT THIS TIME, these are the rules
that MBT believes is in the tariff.  If Variety and Spice loses this
case, it is conceivable that MBT can request further restrictions to
be placed.

    At this hearing, the public will be allowed to voice their
opinions and comments.  This applies to both sysops and users.  If MBT
wins this case it can cause serious restrictions to be place on BBS's,
and will set a precedence for other phone companies around the country
to follow.

    Your help is urgently needed!!  Please try to attend this hearing.
It will be held at the Public Service Building, 6545 Merchant Way,
Lansing, Michigan.  The date is January 15.  I do not have the exact
time but I assume this hearing will last most of the day.  You do not
have to testify, but it would really be helpful if you can attend as a
show of support.  The MPSC does not think the Michigan public even
cares about BBS's.  But we can certainly jar their thinking if we can
pack the room with sysops and users!

    For more information, please contact Jerry Cross at 313-736-4544
(voice) or 313-736-3920 (bbs).  You can also contact the sysop of the
Variety & Spice BBS at 313-885-8377.

    Please!  We need your support.

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

Notes from Ed Hopper:

In our case against Southwestern Bell, the same cockeyed logic was
applied.  For a brief period, Southwestern Bell also maintained that
the requirement of file uploads was, in and of itself, cause for them
to declare a BBS to be a business because it required something "of
value" for access.  We were able to force Southwestern Bell to see
things in a more moderate tone.

Recently, I had the opportunity to testify before the Texas PUC
regarding the Texas BBS case.  In that testimony, I stated that the
telcos draw all sorts of extreme scenarios in which the provision of
residential service to BBS systems is against the public good.  Their
argument goes: "If we allow them to have residential service, it will
upset the equations and raise the cost of telecommunications services
to everyone."  However, there is not a BBS on every block, or even one
in every subdivision, and no rational observer would ever expect that
to be the case.  There is, however, cause for most rational observers
to believe that the increased cost of business service, including it's
increased burden in the area of deposits and installation charges,
could cause the closing of many BBS outlets.  This, truly, would not
be in the public good.


Ed Hopper

President
The Coalition of Sysops and Users Against Rate Discrimination

BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The problem of course is that the telephone company
only has two basic rates: a rate for residence/personal communications
and a rate for all else, which they term 'business phones'.  Where
Ed's counter-argument fails is that while there are not BBS's on every
block, neither are there churches and charities on every block -- yet
they pay full business rates, as do social service hotline, information
and referral services. Are BBS information providers to be treated
differently than dial-a-prayer lines which run on business phones, or
the proverbial "Battered Women's Shelter outgoing phone line where the
calls can't be traced" which also pays business rates?

Here are some questions you may wish to give response to: Should there
be a third rate category made available, covering charitable and
religious organizations?  Should this third rate category be available
to all not-for-profit phone services such as BBS lines and social
service referral numbers or hotlines?  If BBS operators who charge
money got such a rate, should Compuserve or GEnie also be allowed to
use the same rate?  Should telco be the one to audit the revenues and
decide which computer sites should be treated as 'business' and which
should be 'charitable organization'?  Is it the fault of telco if the
BBS operator does not charge enough money to make a profit?  Where is
the line to be drawn? Answers?  PAT]

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

Date: 30-DEC-1990 23:03:56.80
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements


A while back I asked that anyone who has experienced unusually long
delays with GTE's Follow Me Roaming to send some mail, so that I could
find out if the problem was not specific to me. After receiving a lot
of letters about such delays, especially at night during the
"automatic deactivation" period, I wrote to GTE/FMR in Tampa to
complain about the deficiencies in their service.

The following is the response I received from them, on Dec 24,1990:


Dear Mr. Reuben:

Thank you for your interest in GTE's Follow Me Roaming Service and for
taking the time to write to us about problems you have had with
activations during the early morning hours. This letter is to explain
the system's operation, and to let you know what GTE Telecommunication
Services is doing to improve our service.

The FMR service we provide to cellular carriers is a very complex,
state-of- the-art system. It is comprised of a connection to each
carrier's cellular switch, a control host computer, and a nationwide
data network interconnecting the elements. The overall response of the
system depends on the response of the cellular carriers' switches,
which is impacted by volume and time of day. Therefore, longer
activations can occur.

The system's current design is for deactivations to occur at midnight,
local time, for the system in which roaming is to take place. This
enables FMR to complete a large number of deactivations during the
local switch's least active time; unfortunately, this can create the
situation described in your letter.

Since assuming full responsibility for FMR operations and product
engineering in August, 1990, we have significantly improved overall
response time by taking the following actions:

o The FMR system was moved from shared computer resources and placed
  on its own computer. This increased the capacity and allowed us
  greatly reduce activation times in some heavy markets. The FMR
  application was later migrated to a larger, more powerful computer.
  This move is expected to decrease activation times and provide
  the capacity for future growth.

o Enhancements have been installed to improve priority of post-
  midnight activations and to allow simultaneous two-way
  communications between the FMR central processor and the
  processors at the switch sites. These enhancements are expected
  further reduce activation times in heavy markets.

We are continuously developing additional enhancements to further
improve FMR. We are proud of the advances we have made with our Follow
Me Roaming service, and look forward to continued improvements in the
future. This service is currently available in more than 200 U.S.
metropolitan areas, and 46 Canadian cities, making it as convenient as
possible for you to use you mobile telephone anywhere.

All of us here at GTE Telecommunication Services are deeply committed
to providing strong, reliable, and timely services to cellular
carriers. We regret any difficulties you may have experienced, but
please be assured we shall continue working to constantly improve FMR.

Once again, thank you for your interest. We look forward to serving
your needs in the future.


Sincerely,

Devora DeMarco
Customer Services Manager

GTE Telecommunication Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 2924
Tampa, FL 33601-2924

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

A few things I noted:

*The FMR deactivation is local to the switch you are ROAMING in,
rather than at 12AM Eastern time (or Central time while GTE was in
Houston), as had been my experience over the summer in California and
Nevada. It is also not dependent upon your "home" switch's
deactivation cycle. Thus, a customer from NYNEX in Mass, for example,
who is roaming in GTE's San Francisco system, will not be deactivated
any sooner than a Pac*Tel customer from Nevada roaming in the same
GTE/SF system.

*What is so special about two-way signalling between the host system
at GTE/FMR in Tampa and the processors at the switch sites? Prior to
August could communication only take place one way? IE, would all
deactivations from a system be sent to GTE/FMR, and in the meantime
while this was taking place no activations could take place since the
FMR system could not communicate with the switch sites? I'm not sure I
understand exactly how simultaneous two-way communications really
helps out all that much.

Overall, though, a rather thorough response. I was particularly
impressed with speed of the response, as I had mailed my letter to
them only two weeks before I received theirs. (Not to be petty, but
compare this to Metro Mobile/Connecticut, my "A" carrier, whom I wrote
to 2 MONTHS ago and have not received anything from as of yet! Which
company appears to be more concerned with the satisfaction of their
customers...? Hmmm...  That's a hard one! :) )

I'd like to also thank everyone who responded to my initial posting.
Your letters did indeed help me out a lot!

One final thing: Although this doesn't have anything to do directly
with FMR, California and Nevada "B" customers can get all of the
Custom Calling features anywhere in CA or Nevada now. I heard on GTE's
customer service recording (the one they play while you wait twenty
minutes to talk to someone! :) ) that the new *28/*29 system will
allow you to use your feature packages anyhwere. I wonder how they
work out rates for Call- Forwarding and similar features...From your
home site? Or from your local/ Roaming site?  In any event, this
system will hopefully lessen the amount of CA-based activations and
activation times for those roaming outside of California and Nevada.


Doug

[e-mail]      [e-mail]

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

Subject: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry
From: Dag Spicer <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 10:58:55 PST
Organization: Questor: FREE Worldwide News & Mail Access => +1 604 681.0670


I suspect this has already been addressed, but could someone direct me
to previous discussions on this subject?  Have there been any studies
dealing with this surcharge (or lack thereof) in the US and around the
world?  Any help on this issue would be much appreciated.

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware?
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 8:30:08 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (M. Khan)
writes:

> Where can I get a box that recognizes and directs to a separate
> physical line the personalized ring that some telcos are offering.
> Cost? Experiences?

There is one in the current Hello Direct catalog.  Their number is
1-800-HI-HELLO.

I have used the AutoLine Plus made by ITS Communications.  They are at
1-800-525-4596.  It works fine.  Be sure to get the AutoLine Plus, as
the AutoLine is just a plain exclusion module.


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: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware?
Date: 30 Dec 90 23:13:24 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (M. Khan)
writes:

> Where can I get a box that recognizes and directs to a separate
> physical line the personalized ring that some telcos are offering.
> Cost? Experiences?

> What I am NOT asking about are the boxes that answer the call and then
> make FAX/voice/computer decisions based on what they hear.

The December 11th PC magazine, in a review of various voice/fax/data
switches, mentioned a fax/voice/data switch that is based on
distinctive ringing (known as RingMaster in BellSouth land).  The
manufacturer is Lynx Automation, Inc., 2100 196th St SW #144,
Lynnwood, WA 98036; [phone].  The "RingDirector/2", for $89,
supports two-number distinctive ringing, and the "RingDirector/4", for
$149, supports four-number distinctive ringing.

I have put in a purchase order for one of the four-number boxes, but
it might take a few weeks for me to get it.  If you get one, would you
please let me know what you think of it?


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: Mon, 31 Dec 90 16:10 CDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Year Finished
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY


TELECOM Moderator (Pat Townson) writes in Telecom Digest #908

>Another year is finished ... and the decade of the eighties is ending.

My solution to the dilemma of when decades and centuries is
semantical.  The 1980's obviously refer to the years 1980-1989 as the
1990's will be the years 1990-1999.  However, as Pat and others point
out, the Year of Our Lord began with the Year One, not the Year Zero;
ergo the 21st Century begins on January 1, 2001 (Arthur B. Clarke had
it right when he wrote 2001).  The 199th Decade ends tonight, December
31, 1990 and the 200th Decade begins tomorrow, January 1, 1991.

Wishing everyone a Happy New Year and Decade,


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1
****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18713;
          2 Jan 91 0:36 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21733;
          1 Jan 91 22:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25399;
          1 Jan 91 21:49 CST
Date:     Tue, 1 Jan 91 21:02:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #2
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 1 Jan 91 21:02:15 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 2

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: C/NA for 716 [David Leibold]
    Re: C/NA for 716 [Manwai Yip]
    Re: Apple-Cat Modem: Quite a Hacker's Toy [Gabe Wiener]
    Re: Apple-Cat Modem and TDD [Scott Coleman]
    Re: Speaking of Cheshire Catalyst [Robert Halloran]
    Re: Full Service Long Distance [Ken Abrams]
    Re: COCOT in GTE Land [David Tamkin]
    Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware? [Jack Winslade]
    MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Billing Errors [Bill Huttig]
    The Purpose of BBN C-30's [Joel B. Levin]
    What Are Secure Lines? [Joe Broniszewski]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C/NA Number for 716 Area Code?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (woody)
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 06:08:52 GMT


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

>[Moderator's Note: I do not know of any telco specifically offering
>CNA to the public except Illinois Bell (312-796-9600). Am I mistaken
>on this?   PAT]

I have just found out that there is a public CNA number in Florida NPA
813.  For one or two requests, the number is [phone]. For three
to fifteen requests, the number is [phone]. I didn't catch what
costs were involved, or whether or not this could be accessed outside
of 813 (St Petersburg/Tampa).

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

Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 02:34:38 -1000
From: Manwai Yip <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C/NA for 716


>[Moderator's Note:  I do not know of any telco specifically offering CNA to
>the public except Illinois Bell.  Am I mistaken on this?  PAT]

Yes, you are.  But nobody's perfect. :)

In Hawaii, GTE Hawaiian Tel offers "Telephone Cross Checking" service
by dialing 976-1212.  The same as CNA.  Each call costs 75 cents and
you get two inquiries per call, whether successful or unsuccessful.
Just like directory assistance.

South Central Bell provides public CNA for area code 502 (West
Kentucky ).  You can call directory assistance at 1-502-555-1212 and
they can help you with CNA inquiries in addition to regular directory
assistance inquiries.

I can't remember any others, but I've called 555-1212 operators in
other area codes besides 502 that could handle CNA inquiries.

The person asking for a CNA list was probably referring to the
infamous CNA list that has spread throughout the hacker community.  It
contained a list of all the internal Bell C/NA numbers, numbers not
available for use by the public of course...


[Moderator's Note: If someone wants to compile a complete list of
these numbers available for *public use* -- no internal telco numbers
please! -- we'll make an exhibit of it in the Telecom Archives.   PAT]

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

From: Gabe Wiener <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Apple-Cat Modem: Quite a Hacker's Toy
Organization: Columbia University Center for Telecommunications Research
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 19:15:56 GMT


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

>    45.5 baud -- "communications with the deaf network"; this last
>        required a "simple, no-charge hardware modification" from
>        the factory, probably a trace cut on the board.

The later models didn't even need a hardware mod to run TDD.  You just
popped it out of the box, shoved it into slot 2, and ran the "Deaf
Term" software that Novation included on the utilities disk.

THe Apple-Cat II had only one real problem, and that is it had so much
stuff packed onto one board that it used to overheat a lot.  Many
people (including myself) used to run their machines with the cover
off in order to protect the modem from blowing.

The modem in its fullest configuration had TWO cards, the second being
for 212 mode.  You could install the second card in a slot, or you
could run it in Slot Saver position.  Since the only thing the 212
card needed from the slot was electrical power, and since the slots on
the II were a high commodity, novation developed a nifty little trick
that let you mount the card on the flat surface of the power supply
(with special clips and an adhesive board, and then get the power
through a special Y-connector that'd intercept the power before it got
to the motherboard.

I'm only sorry no one makes something as good as the Apple Cat II in a
standalone serial configuration.  It really was a gem of a modem in
every way.  It had touchtone dialing (in those days, a very unique
feature), touchtone decoding (with one $30 chip added), an X-10
controller, a voice handset that was fully programmable, and best of
all, a D/A converter chip on board that could work wonders.  I had
software for mine that could synthesize eight-voice music, male and
female voices with great text-to-speech, and of course, all the TSPS
tones, 2600 Hz, payphone coin tones, etc.  The phreaks loved it.  I
miss it, though, because of its great answering machine capabilities.
Heck, people were writing automated telephone info services on those
things back in 1983!.

Oh well.  I wish I still had mine, but since I don't have an Apple II
anymore, it wouldn't do me much good!


Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.   [e-mail]
[e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Apple-Cat Modem and TDD
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 1991 01:10:48 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ralph W.
Hyre) writes:

>The Apple-Cat was a neat modem, you could run a crude voice-mail
>system on it and build an answering machine surpassing anything
>available commercially at the time.  I heard rumors (on Telecom, in
>fact) that the manufacturer was sued by AT&T because of the fraud
>potential.  (And perhaps because they heard that John Draper, aka
>Captain Crunch, designed it) The modem had an on-board D/A converter
>for touch-tone generation and voice synthesis, and some folks wrote
>programs to generate 2600hz and other signalling frequencies, TSPS
>being the most infamous.  It even had menu items for 'Quarter',
>'Dime', and 'Nickel'.

I'm confused about something here:

In Steven Levy's excellent book "Hackers," on p. 271, there is mention
of the modem (essentially a complete blue-box-on-a-card) that Draper
designed for Apple (note that the Apple Cat II was a Novation
product). It appears that Apple never actually marketed the board.
Chris Espinosa is quoted in the book as saying "When Mike Scott [of
Apple] discovered what [Draper's board] could do, he axed the project
instantly. It was much too dangerous to put out in the world for
anyone to have."

Did Draper also design the Apple Cat II (after Apple axed his earlier
project)? BTW, I saw a message from the Captain on the net (perhaps
even c.d.t) several months back - perhaps we can get the answer to
this question direct from the source ;-)


Scott Coleman   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Draper has written notes to the Digest in the
past. Perhaps he will see this and respond either to you or the entire
readership.  PAT]

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

From: Robert Halloran <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Speaking of Cheshire Catalyst
Date: 31 Dec 90 01:40:06 GMT
Organization: AT&T BL Middletown/Lincroft NJ USA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (F E Carey)
writes:

>I spotted the Cheshire Cat at one of the Computer Security Institute
>Conferences in Chicago in the mid-eighties - either '84 or '85.  He'd
>gotten in with a press pass (whose - unknown), was fairly well groomed
>(haircut), and seemed to be keeping a low profile.

My recollection was that Cheshire applies for press credentials to
these sorts of things using the name of the press bureau from the old
Darrin McGavin KOLCHAK:THE NIGHT STALKER series (Independent World
News?); the PR types weren't in the habit of checking up on this.
Last I'd heard, he'd gotten out of bit-pushing and was doing something
fairly mundane somewhere in Florida.  He's been keeping a VERY low
profile the last few years.


Bob Halloran
Internet: [e-mail]    UUCP: att!mtune!rkh
Disclaimer: If you think AT&T would have ME as a spokesman, you're crazed.

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Full Service Long Distance
Date: 31 Dec 90 16:05:00 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


>The complicated part in having other IECs handle coin-paid calls is, I
>think, as much an accounting problem as it is one of technology.  If

>[Moderator's Note: Why do you feel the accounting would be any more of
>a problem than it is now? At present, the collecting agent (here, it
>is of course IBT) still has to detirmine which coins were deposited
>for local calls and which coins were deposited for long distance

You are probably correct about the method used to divvy up the money.
I don't really know because I have never been involved in that part of
the business.  It COULD become much more complicated, however, if
there were, for instance, twenty players in the game instead of just
one.  I can't help but think of the "slamming" story.  What do you do
if the total "bill" from all the carriers adds up to more than what
you collected from the money box?  I sure wouldn't want to be the one
who had to try to figure out why that happened!


Ken Abrams        uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell     [e-mail]
Springfield       (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: David Tamkin <igloo.Scum.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: COCOT in GTE Land
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 19:00:56 CST


Stan Krieger wrote in volume 10 (yeah, back then), issue 908:

| While trying to place a call from a COCOT in Fort Myers, FL last week,
| after getting an "invalid number" synthesized message as I started
| pushing 10288, I pushed "0".  It took about 8 rings for the GTE
| operator to answer.

| So I wonder what exactly the interface between the COCOT and phone
| company is.  For example, in Bell Operating Company areas, the
| operators know that the line is a COCOT.

What amazes me is that you got a telco operator by dialing 0 at a
COCOT.  It amazes me that you could reach a telco operator by dialing
*anything* from a COCOT.  Stan seems not only to have reached a GTE
operator from the COCOT in GTE's satrapy but also to have reached
local BOC operators from COCOTs in Bell jurisdictions.


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


[Moderator's Note: The COCOTS in this area (I'm east of David T. by
about five miles) get the IBT operator from dialing zero. But there is
a class of service or treatment on the line which tells the operator
you are at a private pay phone and you need to make arrangements for
billing other than 'bill to this number', which the operator will
refuse to do. IBT is very sophisticated about this sort of thing. They
have numerous classes of service restricting incoming/outgoing calls;
the type of billing permitted on the line, etc. COCOTS pose no hassle
for them in this respect.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 01 Jan 91 14:51:57 PDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware?
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


In a message of <30 Dec 90 23:13:24>, Toby Nixon (200:30102/2) writes:

>I have put in a purchase order for one of the four-number boxes, but
>it might take a few weeks for me to get it.  If you get one, would you
>please let me know what you think of it?

I have used the RingDirector <tm> four-line box for about three months
and it works quite well.  The Hello Direct catalog only shows the
two-line box, but I got the four-line box by phoning Lynx Automation
directly.

Unlike the two-line box, the four-line model is powered by a plug-in
adaptor and it also has an 'exclusion' switch which works quite well
in preventing an accidentally pucked up voice phone on one line from
fouling-up a data or fax transmission on another.

There seems to be no delay in switching response, and no false ring on
the other lines.  In other words, the detection of ringing codes is
quick and solid.

Hope this gives you a better idea of what you will have when the box
comes in.


Good Day!       JSW

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Billing Errors
Date: 31 Dec 90 03:21:26 GMT
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Boy, I must have all the bad luck with phone companies. The latest is
with my NEW 800/Prime Time account. I received my first bill sometime
last week while away for the holidays (I still haven't received the
info/welcome pack.) It is a disaster.  I called today to get it taken
care of and the computers were down (9am ET) so I called back at 12:30
and they were still down. I called about 8PM and talked with the
supervisor. She said that she has to request the bill since she only
shows four calls. There were 124 calls (20 days) totalling over $59!

None of the calls were rated at the prime time rate (6.50/hr). I
calculated a $10.99 difference (that's prorating the monthly fees)
without tax. Subtract all the one minute busy/no answer calls and
the credit due me is much higher.

I asked what the current unbilled calls added up to (I got the info
before) but she said she did not have the info.  I called the SC
office and found out that it was $5.17 based on sixteen calls covering
12/8-12/26 ... the bill ended the 18th so the calls on the 8th (from
Walt Disney World to my answering machine) should have showed up.  To
make a long story short, I called the supervisor in IA back and told
here that the SC folk gave me the info ... she said that it was
illegal to provide details on unbilled calls ... that it is a federal
law. I was wondering if this is true ... she is going to call
Wednesday to discuss the billing errors.


Bill    [e-mail]

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Purpose of BBN C-30's
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 90 09:11:54 EST


[e-mail] (Jim Rees) wrote in TELECOM Digest Volume 10
Issue 895:

>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?

No.  It is well known that BBN packet switches are used for the Defense
Data Network, which includes Milnet and what used to be Arpanet among
other things.  But BBN has also for a long time sold wide area networks
to other government and commercial entities around the world.  Michigan
Bell's public X.25 packet switched network offering is built on BBN's
C/30 and C/300 switches.


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: Tue, 1 Jan 91 18:02:35 -0500
From: Joe Broniszewski <astph![e-mail]>
Subject: What are Secure Lines?


I read a very interesting book over the holidays titled "The Cookoo's
Egg" by Cliff Stol.  The book detailed a true story about computer
espionage.  In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure
line*.  When ever he called a government agency that meant business
(ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure
lines.  My questions:

1.  Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line
and a non-secure line?

2.  Are calls routed differently?

3.  Who are the LDC's for such lines?

4.  What role does the BOC play in such a set up?


Joe Broniszewski    Philadelphia Phillies   Systems Department

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #2
****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22044;
          2 Jan 91 3:21 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11158;
          2 Jan 91 1:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab19182;
          2 Jan 91 0:54 CST
Date:     Wed, 2 Jan 91 0:02:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #3
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 2 Jan 91 00:02:01 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 3

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Mail Merges With Western Union Easy Link [TELECOM Moderator]
    Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Brent Chapman]
    Programming/Parts Info for Mitsubishi 3000SPK and Audiovox BC-55 [L. Ware]
    Is This a New Record for Number Reassignment? [Michael P. Deignan]
    Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 23:02:54 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Mail Merges With Western Union Easy Link


Over the New Year's holiday, AT&T announced that AT&T Mail is being
merged with Easy Link, the older email / message service offering from
Western Union, which was recently bought by AT&T.

I'll provide more details here as I get them, but it appears the two
services may be operated as one in the near future. I think that will
be great when they get the merger complete, because Easy Link has
always offered many good services not presently available from AT&T
Mail, such as interactive, real time conversation with telex / twx
machines, and the FYI News Service.

All of the Western Union sales staff is now being relocated into AT&T
quarters, and the new phone number for inquiries is 1-800-321-MSGS.


Patrick Townson

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

From: Brent Chapman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Date: 1 Jan 91 23:00:18 GMT
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation; San Jose, CA


On a drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Northern Arizona and
back over the holidays, I was amazed by the extent of cellular service
coverage.  My phone was claiming there was at least intermittent
service almost the whole time I was in California.  The only place in
California where service got spotty was in the desert East and West of
Barstow, along California Highway 58 (between Bakersfield/Mojave
coverage and Barstow coverage) and Interstate 40 (between Barstow
coverage and Needles coverage); even there, though, I would estimate
that the phone showed coverage at least 75% of the time, and "No
Service" only 25% of the time.  I don't have a signal strength display
on my phone, so I'm not certain how good most of the coverage was, but
I successfully placed a few calls from these rather desolate areas,
and the quality didn't seem much worse than what I usually get in the
Bay Area.

What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service?  I was
under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a short-range
(i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this short-range
characteristic is fundamental to making the system work (because
shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total callers by
reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells).  How, then,
was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 miles from the
nearest cell?

On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and
that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown
San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order
to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase
the total capacity of the system.  Is this true?


Thanks!

Brent Chapman                    Ascent Logic Corporation
Computer Operations Manager      180 Rose Orchard Way, Suite 200
[e-mail]                  San Jose, CA  95134
                                 Phone:  [phone]

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

From: Lance Ware <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programming/Parts Info for Mitsubishi 3000SPK and Audiovox BC-55
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 20:54:11 GMT


Does anyone have the programming info for the new Mitsubishi 3000
handheld? I just got one, and will be travelling to CA later this year
where I will want to reprogram it for Cellular One, for a month or so.

In addition, I am looking for programming info on the Audiovox BC-55
Car Phone, as well as a place to buy a new handset. If anyone has any
info please reply to me.

Any information will be appreciated.


Lance Ware            Mac and IBM Reseller
[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Is This a New Record For Number Reassignment?
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 11:05:20 EST
From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Paul Schleck) writes:

>That brings up an interesting point.  Just how long does the phone
>company wait before reassigning numbers?  According to my mother,
>calls for the previous subscriber *never* happened in the past (my
>mother is 58).  In recent years, when she moves and/or switches phone
>numbers, she complains about receiving a significant number of calls
>for the previous owner of the number. "Stupid phone company doesn't
>give its numbers a chance to cool off anymore!" she complains.  Is
>this just my mother's imagination or has Ma Bell, in her hunger for
>numbers to assign in populated areas, shortened the "cooling off" time
>to less than ideal?

A few years ago, I called NET to get a second line installed in my
parent's home as a modem line.

After going thru the process, and being informed that the line would
be activated in a week, I called the number they assigned me.

Lo and behold, a human voice answered. We had a nice little chat.
Apparently, he was moving and was scheduled to have the phone
disconnected on Friday. I, in turn, was scheduled to have the phone
connected the following Wednesday.

I guess it really depends on the particular exchange. This was in the
city, where no doubt numbers are at a premium. In the middle of
Nebraska, you probably wouldn't have to worry too much.


Michael P. Deignan, President     -- Small Business Systems, Inc.
Domain: [e-mail]       -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917
UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit:  [phone]
XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix  Index: ~/SOFTLIST

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Praise the Lord and Pass the RF Filters
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 90 00:00:00 CST


[Moderator's Note: This article first appeared in TELECOM Digest on
Thursday, June 22, 1989. (Volume 9, Issue 208). I thought newer
readers would enjoy seeing it and older readers might enjoy a repeat
as we end one year and start another.  Since this was written, most of
the problems have been corrected.  PAT]


Indiana Bell service in the northeast section of Hammond, IN has gone
to hell, but the telco says its not their fault, and they are trying
to work with the people involved to correct the problem.

For instance, consider the case of Steve Gescheidler, a resident of
north Hammond, living just a few blocks from the Illinois/Indiana
state line: he shares a party line with Jesus. When he picks up his
telephone, a voice will often be on the wire reading from Ephesians,
or bellowing at him to repent before he Burns In Hell forever.
Sometimes the voice is trying to sell him spiritually enlightening
audio tapes -- Visa and MasterCard accepted, of course.

His neighbor around the corner, Judy Maruszczak, has a heavenly
instrument also: When she tries to make a phone call, it will often
times be drowned out by hand-clapping gospel music. Her VCR also likes
to preach to her.

The Hammond legal firm of Efron and Efron owns a pious dictaphone
machine.  When the secretary is in the midst of transcribing legalese,
threats of fire and brimstone suddenly are heard on the tape. In
addition, their phone system is electronic, and when they put calls on
hold, as often as not a few seconds later the hold is broken and the
call is lost. Several times per day the phone will ring, and no one is
on the line at all.

Linda Reynolds, another resident in the area said her television, her
VCR and her cordless phone all began urging her down the righteous
path last fall. She said sometimes at night the cordless phone begins
ringing by itself, and going off hook for no reason, tying up their
wire-line.

Nine year old Tommy Kotul learned how to find salvation while he was
trying to play 'Sports Baseball', an Atari game cartridge. He also
said that one day in school, a choir started singing hymns over the
school's public address system, which is in the form of speakerphones
connected to the intercom phone on each teacher's desk.

Although the sanctified interference shows up in the damndedest ways,
on all sorts of electronic gizmos, it invariably is on the phone lines
of the good (and presumably by now, God-fearing) residents of North
Hammond, an Indiana community which straddles the Illinois state line
with the communities of Burnham and Calumet City, Illinois to the
south and west, and Chicago at it's northwest tip on the state line.

So people began asking Indiana Bell, "what the heck is this,  anyway?"...

WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. ... that's what it is ... this
religious station, operating at 92.3 on the dial, licensed in Hammond,
IN, with transmitter facilities in Burnham, IL is the culprit.
Operating with an antenna height of 500 feet, and 50,000 watts of
radiated power, the folks at WYCA-FM Christian Broadcasters, Inc. are
literally *saturating* a two mile area around the northern end of the
Indiana/Illinois state line, 24 hours per day, seven days per week.

Gescheidler lives about four blocks from WYCA's transmitter. He first
began noticing the sanctified interference last fall, and it became
louder and louder as the months went on, always on his end. "It seems
like when I am in the middle of an important conversation, some
preacher always comes on and tells me I'm going to Hell," he said,
adding that the phone lines had already gone to hell, and no one
seemed to give a damn about it.

After complaining several times to Indiana Bell, Gescheidler and his
neighbors complained to the Federal Communications Commission, the
Indiana Utilities Regulatory Commission, and finally to the radio
station itself.  No one, he realized, least of all the radio station,
was willing to take any responsibility for the problem.

WYCA isn't breaking any broadcasting rules according to Paul Gomell,
an FCC Chicago office technician whose duties include periodic
examination of WYCA's equipment. "The home equipment is probably not
adequately filtered," he said.

"The problem has nothing to do with Indiana Bell's equipment," said
Delores Steur-Wagner, Indiana Bell's community affairs manager for
Hammond. "If there are complaints, they should go to the FCC."

Chris Alexander, Dallas-based Vice President-Engineering for WYCA-FM
Christian Broadcasters' parent corporation said, "The signal is so
strong, you expect this kind of interference in devices that are not
well-shielded. We try to advise people as best we can, and we have
worked closely with Indiana Bell and Illinois Bell to resolve
complaints."

In November, 1986, the station raised its antenna to 500 feet from 400
feet, and increased its power from 30,000 to 50,000 watts, Alexander
said. "We made these changes only after receiving permission to do so
from the Federal Communications Commission."  Alexander said that this
change in power and antenna height created a so-called 'blanketing
area' -- an area of about 1.7 miles in any direction of the
transmitter and antenna -- where the signal is so strong and so
permeating, it is literally everywhere, in everything.

"Indeed this is the case," said one neighbor five blocks from the
site.  "I have gone for early morning walks in the open field where
the antenna is constructed. In the crisp, early morning air, you can
almost feel the signal; smell that ozone; sense the corona."

Alexander said, "We operate completely within the law. We observe all
FCC regulations at all times." He noted that one condition for the
change in antenna height and power output being granted by the
Commission was that WYCA was ordered to assume responsibility for
correcting certain types of radio interference in an area 1.7 miles in
any direction of the station for a period of *one year* afterward.
Alexander said during that time they worked closely with the telcos
involved and "....anyone who complained about interference was given
free of charge the filtering devices they needed ... some of our
people helped install them ... just what the FCC said we had to do, we
did it, in the geographic area required, for the length of time
required...."

Alexander noted one of the first complaints about the increased power
came when prosecutors in a federal drug trial in Hammond tried to play
wiretap evidence for the jury: instead, the tape recorder offered up
hymns and homilies.

Paul Gomell of the FCC noted that they have received complaints about
the station relating to answering machines, speed-dialing equipment,
cordless phones, cheapie phones, hold buttons, Touch-Tone service, and
VCR's. These appurtenances and others -- like the preaching Atari game
 -- lend to the appearance that God is everywhere, at least in Hammond.

One Indiana Bell service representative spoke, on the condition that
she could remain nameless, saying that the telco had handled over 130
WYCA-related problems in the past year, but Bell spokeswoman
Steur-Wagner said the company does not keep track of such things and
she had no way of confirming this report.

The next step to reduce the interference -- with no guarentees that it
will completely end -- is to have all the interior phone wire shielded
in steel casings, said Tim Timmons, Indiana Bell's regional
maintainence manager for northern Indiana, "...plus of course have
good filtering where the phone lines come into the building..."

"What a deal!", said Gescheidler. He recently priced the job at $300
per phone from an independent contractor. "Indiana Bell said *maybe*
they could do it a little cheaper for us ... but they say it is not
their obligation to resolve the problem any further."  He mentioned
that, "...one day some guy from WYCA came here with a phone man; they
had some cheapie looking filter they plugged in ... it didn't seem to
do any good."

Although the parent corporation of WYCA in Dallas may have good public
relations, the neighborhood says local staff at WYCA-FM Christian
Broadcasters, Inc. isn't at all concerned any longer. "They have heard
so many complaints I guess they quit listening to them any longer,"
said a neighbor. "When I called one day -- one day when it seemed like
they were much louder than usual -- and asked them in a nice way
couldn't they modulate their signal a little better, a lady there told
me I was being blasphemous. She told me it was anti-religious to
complain. She said I should be thankful that I was able to hear the
Word of God, and she hoped I would someday realize I would Burn In
Hell without accepting Jesus as my Savior. That's the last time I
bothered calling *them* to complain. Now the FCC and Indiana Bell say
*they* can't do any more either?"

No madame, they cannot. As Chris Alexander, VP-Engineering has
explained time and again when asked, the Corporation follows all FCC
rules at all times. "We ALWAYS do exactly what the government tells us
to do," he said.

And Indiana Bell brings the wire to the drop by your house. They say
the line is as clean as it can be at that point. You do the rest.

An old folk-prayer says, "My Lord ... nothing is going to happen that
You and I can't handle together. Amen." But one can have too much
togetherness, as the residents of North Hammond will attest.

Said Steve Gescheidler, "On the radio, they are praying for me.
Meanwhile, I am praying for a phone line I can talk on without being
disrupted by the choir and the organist."


Radio Station WYCA-FM
Studios and Executive Offices
6336 Calumet Avenue
Hammond, IN 46301
92.3 on FM dial throughout northern Illinois and northern Indiana.



[Moderator's Note, appended 1/1/91: Shortly after this article
appeared, tbe FCC instructed WYCA to intensify their efforts to
resolve the problems of the Hammond residents. 'Better' RF filters
were devised and technical help was given in their installation. For
about a month, WYCA was required to announce over the air at intervals
that assistance would be provided freely on request to anyone within a
1.7 mile radius of the transmitter experiencing problems. There have
been no recent complaints, so I assume things are better now.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #3
****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa18998;
          3 Jan 91 5:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07907;
          3 Jan 91 3:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15199;
          3 Jan 91 2:48 CST
Date:     Thu, 3 Jan 91 2:20:50 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #4
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 Jan 91 02:20:42 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 4

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Business vs Residence (was: Michigan Bell vs BBSs) [David E. Bernholdt]
    Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [John Higdon]
    Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Robert Trebor Woodhead]
    Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Peter Marshall]
    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry [John David Galt]
    Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling [Julian Macassey]
    Re: SLIP Wanted [David E. Martin]
    Re: Is This a New Record For Number Reassignment? [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: CNA Bureau Phone Numbers [Randy Borow]
    Re: Prodigy Must Refund Fees to Unhappy Subscribers [Brian Gordon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs)
Date: 2 Jan 91 00:57:02 GMT
Reply-To: "David E. Bernholdt" <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Florida Quantum Theory Project


I have a few questions relating to the business/residence distinction:

1) Historically, what is the argument for charging businesses and
residences differently?  Do the businesses get better quality lines? :-)
Is it more expensive (to the telco) for someone at a business
location to pick up the phone and make a call?  To receive one?  In
the latter case, isn't the person _calling_ the business picking up
the tab?

2) Do these arguments still apply in the present day?  (For example,
most people say that tone dialing is now cheaper to the telco than
pulse dialing -- thus negating a major argument for the tone dialing
tariff.)

3) In the past, what has the criteria been for the telco to force
someone to pay business rates?  Are they looking at licenses which
might be required by the local authorities or registered
charitable/non-profit groups?  Is the installer looking for some sign
that I'm running a business when (s)he comes to hook me up?

4) Where will it end?  Will I have to pay business rates if I have a
terminal/modem at home which I use to dial up the computer at work
occasionally?  Will I have to pay business rates if I put an add in
the paper trying to sell my car?  How about if I casually start buying
and selling used cars, using newspaper adds giving my home phone
number in order to fund my hobby of collecting and restoring old
Yugos?


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: Michigan Bell vs BBSs
Date: 2 Jan 91 00:01:53 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ed Hopper <[e-mail]> writes:

>     At this hearing, the public will be allowed to voice their
> opinions and comments.  This applies to both sysops and users.  If MBT
> wins this case it can cause serious restrictions to be place on BBS's,
> and will set a precedence for other phone companies around the country
> to follow.

Well, maybe. In many cases, including California, major changes would
have to be made to the tariff structure. In CA, the opening assumption
concerning whether business or residence service is appropriate is
"where is the line to be installed?" If the line is installed in
someone's residence, residential service is assumed UNLESS certain
conditions apply. A line installed anywhere else is assumed to be for
business service. This would include churches, shelters, charities,
etc.

Pac*Bell would be hard pressed to charge business service for any BBS
installed in someone's home, regardless of "upload requirements" or
any other nebulous manifestations of "consideration". On the other
hand, if someone logged in and was presented with a rate card, that
could easily be construed as a business venture and the service would
be subject to regrading accordingly.

> The MPSC does not think the Michigan public even
> cares about BBS's.  But we can certainly jar their thinking if we can
> pack the room with sysops and users!

This may be the key. It has often been said that Pac*Bell would never
screw around with BBSes, or people who use modems in general because
of the high concentration of users and because of the high interest in
such matters particularly in the Silly Valley. The MPSC is banking on
public disinterest and only a demonstration by the people to the
contrary will carry any weight. It is a political fact of life that
the minorities and obscure factions take the brunt of laws and
regulations.  Computer users must make it clear to those in power that
as a group, such users are neither passive nor silent.


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

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

From: Robert Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs
Date: 2 Jan 91 16:47:06 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.   Tokyo Japan


Seems to me like a Solomon-like "cut the baby in half" solution is in
order.  It is unreasonable for MB to demand deposits, as all of the
traffic on the modem lines is incoming (and they can be flagged for
local outgoing calls only, most likely).  At the same time, modem
lines attached to BBSes do consume significantly more resources than
the average residential line, thus the extra $50 a month (for sixteen
lines thats $3/line/month) is not unreasonable.


| Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail] |

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 08:32:46 -0800
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs


Re: Ed Hopper's 12/31 post in V11,#1:

As seems unfortunately to be the case with a number of such posts, the
lack of relevant information doesn't exactly seem to facilitate the
purpose of such communications. Witness, for one other recent example,
posts re: GTE and Indiana BBSs.

In the current case, no case number or title is supplied; the issues
presented for hearing are not specifically identified. Nor is the
relevant tariff identified or the relevant tariff language cited.

On the other hand, as is frequently the case with such posts, claims
are nonetheless made about the significance of the case, etc.

Pat's comments do well in providing some other kinds of "corrective"
information here re: bus. rates for NPOs, but do not reach the broader
question of whether there's valid justification for some of the
alleged cost-based distinctions for bus-res rate differentials.

Suggest that if Ed et al are serious they do a second cut at this and
fill in some of the blanks noted, as simply stuffing a hearing room
with sysops and users doesn't seem particularly promising by itself.
To put it a little differently, if you have decided to play on the PUC
field, then play effectively; otherwise, it may be preferable not to
play at all.


Peter Marshall

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 1:01:55 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Joe Broniszewski <astph![e-mail]> queries:

> I read a very interesting book over the holidays titled "The Cookoo's
> Egg" by Cliff Stol.  The book detailed a true story about computer
> espionage.  In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure
> line*.  When ever he called a government agency that meant business
> (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure
> lines.  My questions:

> 1.  Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line
> and a non-secure line?

There is no such beast.  When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they
use special telephones, not special telephone lines.  There is a
modern version of the "scrambler" phone around and it uses regular
POTS, although a point-to-point setup is possible.

> 2.  Are calls routed differently?

They may be routed on FTS, which is essential just a bulk WATS-type
system that all the Federal agencies have access to.  FTS can be used
to call POTS or other FTS phones.  If it is a military agency, they
may use a network called AUTOVON.  They could also be routed in the
usual way that we civilians have our calls routed.  Basically all
they'd need is an RJ-11 connection, if that.  Secure cellular phones
are also used by the feds - remember Bush talking on a cellular from
his golf cart up in Maine?  That photo seemed to make quite a few
papers.

> 3.  Who are the LDC's for such lines?

> 4.  What role does the BOC play in such a set up?

Answer to 3: AT&T is the major contractor for FTS, US Sprint is the
minority contractor (60/40% share split, respectively).

Answer to 4: they may or may not provide the POTS line and dial tone,
depending on the individual setup.  Some military installations have
their own switching equipment, as I understand it.  I may not be 100%
on this answer.

FTS is a non-secure, general use, long-distance network which the
federal government uses for the bulk of its long distance telephone
and data traffic.  It is not some secretive, spooky set-up - just a
way for the feds to try to control their telephone costs and yet
maintain some versatility.

Cliff was inaccurate in his assessment of why the spooks wanted to
call him back, they may have just been in the middle of something else
at the time.


Cliff, do you read TELECOM digest? :-)


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

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 08:09:33 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> astph![e-mail] (Joe
Broniszewski) writes:

>I read ... "The Cookoo's Egg" by Cliff Stoll. ... In the book, Cliff
>mentioned what he called a *secure line*.  When ever he called a government
>agency that meant business (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on
>one of these secure lines.

I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for
the STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant.

>1.  Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line
>and a non-secure line?
>2.  Are calls routed differently?
>3.  Who are the LDC's for such lines?
>4.  What role does the BOC play in such a set up?

STU-III is an encryption protocol; essentially, the telephones switch
to "data mode" like modems. Any IEC may be used to carry such calls.


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

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com!John_David_Galt@
Subject: Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry
Date: Tue,  1 Jan 91 15:43:02 PST


Here in California, Pac Bell proposed to the PUC (notice in our 8/90
bills) to remove the surcharge for touch tone service.  However, I'm
still paying it.  Does anyone know if this proposal is still "in the
mill" or was abandoned?

If telco charges are supposed to be based on what it actually costs
them to provide service, then it seems to me that they should offer
tone-only service, and it should be cheaper than normal service (which
supports both pulse and tone dialing) because the CO equipment can be
simpler.  Right?

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Payphones and DTMF Dialling
Date: 3 Jan 91 05:51:01 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter
Anvin) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 902, Message 3 of 10

>jack.  (By the way: all the four RJ11 wires are mandatory in Sweden
>and are supported by the phone network: there are TWO
>twisted-pairlines (for a total of four wires) in the local loop to
>each line.  Maybe that has something to do with it.

    This must be something new. When I was in Sweden (1970s),
there were only two wires needed. Phones given to me by Ericsson and
Televerket in the 80s also only need Tip and Ring. The telephone ICs
made by RIFA (Ericsson) are also two wire devices.

    So what is the second pair of wires used for?

    Any Ericsson or Tele people care to comment?

    Silly trivia: Swedish phones have the world's lowest minimum
current spec - 12 mA. The U.S. is 20 mA although a 2500 set will
usually work fine at 14 mA.


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

Date: Wed,  2 Jan 91 12:19:50 EST
From: David E Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SLIP Wanted
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, IL


I posted an article some time ago looking for SLIP.  Thanks to
[e-mail] and [e-mail] I found the source
several places.

Namely:
ucdavis.ucdavis.edu, cs.toronto.edu and ucbarpa.berkeley.edu

I haven't had much chance to experiment with it yet, but I will post
my experiences when I do.


David Martin,  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL   [e-mail]

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is This a New Record For Number Reassignment?
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 13:25:00 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I just recently got a new unlisted phone number.  The order-taker gave
me the "new" number while I waited.  After we hung up, I tried the
number (even though it would be a week before it was to be connected).
I was surprised to be greeted by a real, live female voice when I
called.  I asked the female voice if she had just gotten new phone
service and she replied that no, she'd had that number for a few
years.  I told her that I had just ordered a "new" number and asked
her if her number was NXX-ABCD.  She said it yes it is.  So I called
Ma Bell right back and asked "What the hey?"  They looked up my "new"
number again and told me that it was really NXX-ACBD.  A simple matter
of transposed numbers made by a harried order-taker.

As yet, I have gotten one wrong number in about two weeks of service.
I don't know how long the number cooled off first, but it was not in
the phone database on Compuserve so maybe it was out of commission for
a while.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Jan  2 14:49:46 CST 1991
Subject: Re: CNA Bureau Phone Numbers


Lance Ware had asked for the new # for the 716 CNA Bureau. I'd be glad
to give it to him; however, because of proprietary restrcitions on the
company for whom I work, and because a security code (recently
changed) is necessary to use the CNA, I cannot pass on the
information.

        I can, however, let our Moderator Pat know that each area code
in the contiguous 48 states (as well as Canada, 809,and 808) has a CNA
bureau. A few, though, utilize LD directory assistance
(1-NPA-555-1212) as its CNA Bureau.  Most CNA's are great. All but a
couple (Illinois Bell's 312/708 one, for example) require use of
security codes/billing ID numbers. One CNA, in fact (Michigan Bell's),
is even completely automated.


Randy Borow     attmail.com!bcm1a09!rborow     Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 15:53:57 PST
From: Brian Gordon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prodigy Must Refund Fees to Unhappy Subsribers


The original article referenced only $P$ customers in TX.  I'm in CA
but, a refund was offered for my dropping off (in favor of GEnie for
the kids) as of their start date for "excess message" charges.  Except
for the fact that I had to send several (six or seven) messages
telling them to pull my plug as of the date they started their new
charges, quitting seems to be a reasonable process.  The first n-1
messages received responses asking that I reconsider, try it for a
while and see if the new charges really affected me, etc.  I'll be
sure when I see their check.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #4
****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20284;
          3 Jan 91 6:30 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24413;
          3 Jan 91 5:03 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07907;
          3 Jan 91 3:56 CST
Date:     Thu, 3 Jan 91 2:53:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #5
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 3 Jan 91 02:53:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 5

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [John Higdon]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Donn Pedro]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [David Lemson]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propogation Characteristics? [Jim Rees]
    Re: Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements [John Higdon]
    New California Telecom Laws [Marshall Clow]
    What to do About a Deceptive 900 Offer? [John R. Levine]
    What do You Pay for 64kb X.25? [Hank Nussbacher]
    Weatherman COCOTed Live on Radio! [Kevin Mitchell]
    Mysteries of Reach Out World [John R. Levine]
    Cheery New Year Thought [David Ptasnik]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Date: 2 Jan 91 01:10:45 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Brent Chapman <[e-mail]> writes:

> What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service?  I was
> under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a short-range
> (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this short-range
> characteristic is fundamental to making the system work (because
> shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total callers by
> reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells).  How, then,
> was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 miles from the
> nearest cell?

And what makes you think you were sixty miles from the nearest cell? I
have watched, over the past several years, as the PacTel Cellular has
been adding site after site to service the high desert area. There are
a couple of sites near Barstow, as well as a couple near Victorville.
Lately, the coverage has been improved on the Mojave to Barstow route
via 58 by the addition of more sites.

The main thrust has been the coverage of I15. It is now possible
(unlike in the past) to carry on a continuous conversation from
Newport Beach to some miles past Barstow on the way to Las Vegas. But
take my word for it, there are cell sites involved. It isn't magic
propagation.


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

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

From: Donn Pedro <uswnvg![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Date: 2 Jan 91 17:08:37 GMT
Organization: US West NewVector, Bellevue, Wash.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brent Chapman) writes:

: On a drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Northern Arizona and
: back over the holidays, I was amazed by the extent of cellular service
: coverage.  My phone was claiming there was at least intermittent
: service almost the whole time I was in California.

With the advent, and installation of Cellular RSA (Rural Service
Areas), I would not be surprised.

: coverage and Needles coverage); even there, though, I would estimate
: that the phone showed coverage at least 75% of the time, and "No
: Service" only 25% of the time.

Remember that the coverage could have been for carriers other than
your own if your mobile was set to scan both systems.

: I don't have a signal strength display
: on my phone, so I'm not certain how good most of the coverage was, but
: I successfully placed a few calls from these rather desolate areas,
: and the quality didn't seem much worse than what I usually get in the
: Bay Area.

You were most likely working off of one of the new RSAs.

: What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service?

Depends on the site. A cell can be tuned to serve almost any area.
This can exceed ten miles, especially if it is a repeater site.
Transmit power can be as high as 500 watts in some instances.  The
pattern of service can also be shaped to meet the needs of terrain and
traffic considerations.

: I was under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a
: short-range (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this
: short-range characteristic is fundamental to making the system work
: (because shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total
: callers by reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells).

This is especially true in a densly packed metropolitan area.  In a
rural area, where it is not ecnomical to have a site every few miles,
power is stepped up to conpensate.

:How, then, was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60
:miles from the nearest cell?

Sounds far away, but could have been if you were working off of a high
power repeater site.

: On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and
: that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown
: San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order
: to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase
: the total capacity of the system.  Is this true?

It is.  Cells can also be "tiered". That is: a single cell can
actually act like two cells.  An inner cell and an outer cell.  Cells
can also have "sides".  These can be tuned seperatly to deal with
traffic and terrain found in highly congested cities.

May I suggest a book.

    Mobile Cellular Telecommunications
    Author: William C. Y. Lee
    Publisher: McGraw Hill
    ISBN: 0-07-037030-3

It is pretty deep in places but should tell you almost anything you
would want to know about cellular, as of 1989.


Jenner    [e-mail]
*Disclaimer?  You bet!  I speak for myself only.*

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 1991 06:45:00 GMT


[e-mail] (Brent Chapman) writes:

>On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and
>that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown
>San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order
>to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase
>the total capacity of the system.  Is this true?

That is exactly right.  Cellular phones are directed to increase or
decrease power according to their distance (and thus, signal strength)
from the cell tower.  This allows more cell sites in a certain area,
and thus, more potential users in that same area.  This is the
principle behind the "Microcells" that will soon adorn the halls of
airports and office buildings.  A cell every few hundred yards.


David Lemson    U of Illinois Computing Services Student Consultant
Internet : [e-mail]   University of Illinois, Urbana

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 18:53:25 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brent Chapman)
writes:

>... What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service?  I
>was under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a
>short-range (i.e., less than ten miles) system...

At cellular frequencies (800 MHz) it's pretty much line-of-sight.  If
you are on one mountain top and the cell antenna is on another, you
could have a range of over a hundred miles even running very low
power.

I always get a kick out of the business droids on the subway in Hong
Kong, impatiently punching their cellphone buttons while the
no-service light is on in the tunnels.  They've been talking of
putting slotline (leaky coax) in the tunnels to extend the coverage.

Two questions: If I buy a cellphone in HK or Singapore, will it work
in North America?  And if I have no "home" cell service provider, or
my provider is in HK, can I get roaming service here in the US?

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Follow Me Roaming Response/Improvements
Date: 2 Jan 91 00:17:54 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]> writes:

> A while back I asked that anyone who has experienced unusually long
> delays with GTE's Follow Me Roaming to send some mail, so that I could
> find out if the problem was not specific to me.

I had a problem with FMR after my last trip to LA. While in southern
California, I daily set FMR on my handheld except on the day that I
drove home. Since I was going to be on the road, it didn't seem like
the thing to do. Since FMR cancels automatically at midnight each day,
I gave it no further thought.

I got back to the Bay Area and after a few days had gone by had a
situation where I needed to page someone and have them return the call
to my handheld. I waited and waited for the return call. Finally, my
pager went off and the number was that of the person I paged. He told
me that he had tried to call, but got the "away from the vehicle"
recording. I passed it off.

The next day, the same thing happened with someone else. I asked, "Was
the recorded voice male or female?" "Male", was the response. Well,
the GTE Mobilnet (San Francisco) recordings all feature a female
voice. You guessed it--FMR was still in effect nearly a week after I
had left LA.  The fix was simple: dial '*720' which cancels
forwarding. For all I know, it's still up in the LA system.

It might be a good idea for cellular providers to append their system
names to any recordings. It might reveal a stuck FMR or other
unintended situation more readily.


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

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

Date: Tue, 1 Jan 91 22:14:42 -0800
From: Marshall Clow <[e-mail]>
Subject: New California Telecom Laws


>From the {San Diego Union}, 1/1/91, in an article titled "New Laws in
'91 Protect Consumers", in a section titled Telephones:

Phone solicitors who use recorded messages must begin each call with a
live voice announcing the caller or organization represented and get
your consent before playing the message.

Telephone solicitors must maintain a $50,00 bond for the benefit of
anyone who was cheated by the phone solicitor, in the event someone
sues the phone solicitor and gets a court judgment.

In-state "900" and "976" information providers must present callers
with a price disclosure message at the beginning of each call, after
which callers can hang up without incurring a charge. ( Not
implemented intil July 1).

Information provided on the state government toll-free telephone lines
must be accessable to the public by both touch-tone and rotary
telephones.

Local telephone carriers are prohibited from making any change in a
telephone subscriber's long distance carrier unless so requested by
the subscriber in writing.

                         ------

Does anyone have any more infomation about these new laws?


Marshall Clow    [e-mail]

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

Subject: What to do About a Deceptive 900 Offer?
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 90 15:12:50 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


I just got a particularly deceptive automatic solicitation for a 900
number.  First it said that if the number that the computer read back
was my phone number and I could answer a trivia question I could be a
finalist in their fabulous Hawaiian sweepstakes.  Then it read out a
phone number which, astonishingly enough, was the one they'd just
dialed, and in the event that I didn't know who was the co-host of
Wheel of Fortune, gave me three possible answers, the most intriguing
of which was Barbara Walters.

Then "to make sure we have a clear connection, call me back within the
next nine minutes at 900-990-xxxx" and repeated the 900 number a
zillion times.  Then, obviously hoping I'd hang up, they started some
twangy Hawaiian music while blathering about what a swell time I'd
have in Hawaii.

Suspecting what was to come next, I got my pencil handy, in time for
them to say, as quickly as possible, that the call costs $9.95, no
call is needed to enter, I can write to:

    Hawaiian Sweepstakes
    316 California Avenue, Suite 987
    Reno NV 89509

which is obviously a mail drop.

This seems to me grossly deceptive, its sole goal being to get people
to spend ten bucks making a phone call for which they receive
essentially no value, even assuming that the sweepstakes is real.  (As
likely as not, it is hotel only, you have to get there yourself.)  To
whom do I complain?  The FCC?  The LD carrier (who handles 900-990?)


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 02 Jan 91 11:13:51 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <HANK@taunivm>
Subject: What do You Pay For 64kb X.25?
Reply-To: Hank Nussbacher <HANK@taunivm>


Our PTT is charging us $.435 per kilosegment (64Kbytes) for
transmission of data over a 64kb X.25 circuit.  There is no time
charge.  I'd be interested in hearing what other countries pay for
64kb X.25 usage.


Thanks,

Hank

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Mitchell)
Subject: Weatherman COCOTed Live on Radio!
Date: 2 Jan 91 04:31:59 GMT
Organization: Datalogics Inc., Chicago


Wow!

Last week (Thursday?), I was listening to WGN radio here in Chicago
(AM 720), and this unusual female voice was reading the weather. After
a bit of flap about the host handing the wrong weather report to the
substitute weather person ("first weatherman we've had in a long time
with a full head of hair "), Roger Triemstra, the usual weatherman,
called in.

He usually calls in from wherever he is around dinnertime. Problem
was, as he said, "I've never used a phone like this before. It looks
just like a normal pay phone, but it kept saying my credit card is
invalid."


Kevin A. Mitchell         [phone]
Datalogics, Inc           Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron              UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!kam
Chicago, IL  60610        FAX: [phone]

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

Subject: Mysteries of Reach Out World
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 0:15:51 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


I was perusing a flyer for AT&T's Reach Out World program, and some
aspects of it are extremely peculiar.  The general plan is that for $3
per month, you get reduced off-peak rates on many international calls
as well as 5% off all domestic calls.

Most of the rates and times make sense, but some don't.  For example,
the rate to Panama is slightly higher than that to continental Europe.
What's more the peak time for calls to Panama, Peru, and Uruguay is
2PM - 10PM (caller's local time.)  Panama keeps the same time as
Chicago, Peru keeps the same time as New York, and Uruguay is two
hours later than New York, give or take different daylight savings
schedules.  Does AT&T think that they all sleep late?  Peak hours of
2PM-10PM in California translate to 8PM-4AM in Uruguay since it's
summer there now.  The peak time to Brazil is 8-5, which makes more
sense, the same peak time as calls to Canada and the Bahamas.

Calls to Mexico are extremly expensive.  Calls cost 15 cents/min plus
a termination charge that depends on where you call.  Calling Mexico
City off-peak costs $1.26/minute, more than Pakistan or Ghana.  Is
that normal?

But the most obscure thing in the flyer was the footnote on calls to
Canada.  Calls to Canada cost 18 cents/minute off-peak, with off-peak
being before 8 AM, after 5PM and all day weekends.  But the footnote
says "There are additional charges when calling Atlin, Canada."  Where
is that?


Regards,

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

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cheery New Year Thought
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 17:06:30 PDT


Does anyone know if the new price cap legislation takes new services
into account?  I can see it now.  New voice mail and Caller*ID
services are introduced at deliberately inflated prices.  The are
placed into one of the price cap baskets.  The artificially overpriced
products are reduced, allowing the scoundrels to inflate existing
service prices, or at least not lower them as fast as they should.
Just a thought.


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #5
****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19018;
          4 Jan 91 6:12 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20237;
          4 Jan 91 4:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27863;
          4 Jan 91 3:38 CST
Date:     Fri, 4 Jan 91 3:04:15 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #6
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 4 Jan 91 03:04:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 6

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Brian McMahon]
    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Larry Chesal]
    Re: What are Secure Lines? [David Lesher]
    Random-Dialling Chilren [Dale Neiburg via John R. Covert]
    Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [Ed Greenberg]
    Who Wants an Obsolete ITT Key System? [Heath Roberts]
    ClassMate: A Review [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Another Year Finished [Bob Yazz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 8:57:22 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?


In response to a question from Joe Broniszewski <astph![e-mail]>
about "secure lines" referred to in Cliff Stoll's book, bill
<[e-mail]> says:

>There is no such beast.  When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they
>use special telephones, not special telephone lines.

But Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]> says:

>I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for
>the STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant.

Aha!  That sounds plausible.  I grew up an "overseas brat" on U.S.
Army bases in Germany.  AFN, the Armed Forces Network, was constantly
running radio spots about OPSEC (OPerations SECurity), which among
other things exhorted everyone to answer the phone with "this line is
not secure" whenever appropriate.  Since we were in Munich, home of
the 66th Military Intelligence Group HQ and assorted other spook
shops, some people actually took security seriously there.  :-)

Hardly everyone, though.  There was a wonderful cartoon in the _Stars
and Stripes_ newspaper for a while, called "Lt. Kadish."  This was one
of several "local" cartoon strips which appeared in the 'Stripes from
time to time.  In one cartoon, the left panel showed the Lieutenant in
a phone booth asking, "Hello, S-2?  Is this a secure line?" [Note: S-2
is the intelligence officer in a unit's staff] The middle panel showed
a Soviet officer with headphones, and the right panel showed the S-2
saying, "It sure is."  MI gets very little respect *within* the Army,
too...  :-)

This could lead into several other telcom-related stories ... you may
not want to get me started.  :-)


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

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

Date: Thu,  3 Jan 91 16:11:44 EST
From: Larry Chesal <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, astph![e-mail] (Joe
Broniszewski) writes about "The Cuckoo's Egg".

While I haven't gotten around to the book yet, I did see a TV version
of the story on the PBS "Nova" program.  VERY entertaining and
educational.  Folks that read this group would probably enjoy the
scenes where the hacker's calls are traced through the AT&T network
(we've got him to the [Sacramento?] 4E; this is C&P, we've traced him
to [Reston?] 4E) until they finally track the call back to Germany
where a technician has to check an old mechanical switch circuit by
circuit.  Cliff Stol does a great job of acting himself.

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 19:36:56 EST
Reply-To: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers


|In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure
|line*.  When ever he called a government agency that meant business
|(ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure
|lines.

There is no such thing as a "secure line" for a phone call. Once it's
out on lines in areas not totally controlled by your own trusted
people, it's public. There did exist a class of service called
"Special Service Protection" that BSP 460-110-100 discusses. It
consisted of special caps on the test points, held on with exotic
tie-wrap gadgets.  You had to cut the tie to get across the pair -- at
least it said that in the book. I figure it would take about thirty
seconds to find another place to tap the line.

If you need to discuss classified subjects on the phone, use a secure
phone. These encrypt your voice with an algorithm that is approved by
the appropriate federal agency. Possible sets include the old KY-3,
the KY-71/STU-11 and the current favorite: the STU-III (Secure
Telephone Unit). Before you ask, no - one model cannot call another.

The phone on the far end, when equipped with correct key, decrypts the
incoming data into (somewhat ;-} ) understandable voice.

So what WAS Cliff talking about? I can hazard several outright guesses
as to why the folks in the Intelligence Community would want to call
him back each time, but they are guesses -- I have no inside data.

1) If you call back, you have a number. If nothing else, that lets you
know where the Yo-Yo owner calling you is located. That's a good start
to finding out more about him. It never hurts to know a little about
the guy telling you your database is under attack;-}

2) It would take a LOT of manpower for the Bad Guys to collect and
transcribe all the traffic on EVERY trunk to one of those building in
Virginia or Maryland with the 10 ft barbed wire hedge. So I'd target
some offices by extracting and looking at the incoming PBX TT data
until I found a call to an extension of interest.

This can be defeated to some extent by having lots of OUTGOING trunks,
maybe from many locations interconnected by encrypted T1 trunks. When
Mr. Trenchcoat wants an outgoing line, he randomly gets one from
another site.

3) It sound more mysterious.

4) Some other reason.

I'd take 1,4,3,2 as the order on the finish line, but you readers can
make your own guess.

I'll close with a line a retired Community member told me years ago:

  Never say ANYTHING on the black {i.e. non-STU} phone you
  don't want to read about tomorrow in the {Washington Post}.


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

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 08:21:59 PST
From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Random-Dialling Children


  From: Dale Neiburg
  Organization: National Public Radio, Washington, D.C.

Here's another story on children dialling telephones.  This one
(heavily edited) is from the {Washington POST} for 17 November, 1990:

When the ringing telephone jolted Audrey Outzs out of a sound sleep
early one Sunday morning, she initially thought the crying voice on
the other end was a prankster.

Within minutes, though, she found herself reaching out to four-year-old
Marquita Davis, whose mother had just suffered a stroke, keeping the
little girl on the line while Prince George's County [MD] police
traced the call and rescued the woman.

Brendolyn Davis, 31, spent nearly two months ... recovering from her
stroke and now walks with a cane.

 ...

On the morning of Sept. 2, Marquita found her mother unconscious on
the bedroom floor of their...apartment with blood running from her
nose.  The girl began dialing random numbers looking for help.  After
the first person she reached hung up on her, she got Outzs.

Marquita "kept saying, 'My mommy won't wake up, my mommy won't wake
up,'" Outzs recalled yesterday.  "I told her not to hang up the phone,
that help was on the way."

Outzs woke her son and told him to keep Marquita on the line while she
used another phone line to call police.  For the next half-hour, he
tried to coax a phone number or an address while police dispatcher
[Rita] McClain-Farrow traced the call.

Leon Outzs said he kept the girl on the line by talking about cartoons
and coloring books.  When he heard police knocking on the door, he
told Marquita it was all right to let them in.

 ...

"I just did what the county hired me to do," McClain-Farrow said.  A
police dispatcher for three years, she added, "If Mrs. Outzs hadn't
believed her and had just dismissed her as another prankster, I
shudder to think what would have happened."

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

Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 08:53 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service


I tried out CompuServe's directory service, and, after a few false
starts, I got into it (It's NOT GO DIRECTORY, as you might think, and
I don't really remember what it is.)

When you access this service, CompuServe switches you off to another
host computer, operated by the information provider.  In other words,
only the help files appear on CompuServe, the rest is just a pass
through.

I tried about ten different listed numbers, and they had them all.  I
tried two unlisted numbers, mine, and they had neither, nor did they
know me by name at my current or previous addresses.

What's interesting is that I give out ONE of my unlisted numbers to
anyone who asks.  Most people who do business with me have it on file.
This includes utilities, charge cards and other creditors.  Even on
recent court papers, and therefore in the public record. Nonetheless,
it didn't make it into this service.


[Moderator's Note: The command is 'GO PHONEFILE'. And yes, the service
is great to have around although I think the surcharge is a bit steep.
I did not find any business numbers listed however; did you?  PAT]

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who Wants an Obsolete ITT Key System?
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 91 20:32:42 GMT


I have an ITT key system (1A maybe? before my time ... give me digital
any day) that's taking up space. I'd like to know if it has any value,
and if so, to whom.

It uses rotary five-line phones, and can handle three CO lines and one
intercom channel. It's wired for four phones (I have three) and was in
good working order when it was removed from service (April 1989).

Does anyone know of an organization that buys old equipment like this?
I realize that it's not worth much, but I hate the idea of throwing it
away. The whole thing's still wired, and mounted along with several
66-blocks on a piece of plywood. I want to get rid of the phones too.


Heath Roberts
NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: ClassMate: A Review
Date: 3 Jan 91 04:45:29 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


ClassMate is a device which allows your computer to read the caller's
phone number on inbound calls, when this information is supplied by
your telephone company if you have subscribed to Caller*ID service.

I ordered ClassMate(tm) from Bell Atlantic Business Supplies at
800-523-0552.  The price is $49.95.  The unit is manufactured by MHE
Systems Corporation of Tustin, CA.  Catalog number TCCM10.

It consists of a plastic minibox with two 6-pin modular connectors
(RJ-11) on one end (labeled LINE and PHONE) and a 25-pin RS-232
connector on the other end.

The two modular connectors are apparently wired together, allowing you
to use this box with your single-line telephone set without an
external T connector.

The RS-232 connector outputs the data to your computer.  The device
also obtains its operating power from your computer's RS-232 serial
port.  It draws power from the RTS or DTR leads (+12 volts) and from
the TXD lead (-12 volts).  It outputs data on the RXD lead.  The other
pins on the RS-232 connector, apparently, are not connected.  It looks
like a modem to your computer, which means that a standard modem cable
is all that's needed to attach it to a serial port on your computer.
Velcro(tm) fasteners are provided to attach the minibox to the side or
your PC.

Data from the device is output asynchronously at 1200 bps in ASCII,
one stop-bit, 8 data bits, no parity.

When the device is powered up (when the computer asserts RTS or DTR
and leaves its TXD signal in its normal idle (marking) state) it
outputs a power-up message, giving its firmware version number and
copyright information.

On each inbound call, the device outputs a call message of 31 bytes.
The message includes the date, time, complete phone number, a
single-character message validity indicator, and an ascii CR and LF.
A typical message looks like:

01/02  21:15  [phone] G

followed by \r\n.

If the message checksum does not match, the G is replaced by B.  If an
individual character is received with a parity error, it is replaced
by E.  Other messages which may be received from the unit are:

MM/DD  HH:MM   OUTSIDE call G
MM/DD  HH:MM   PRIVATE call G
*message WAITING*
*message CLEARED*

(The capitalization is as shown.)  These messages indicate that a call
from outside your Caller*ID service area was received, that a call has
arrived from a caller who used per-call or per-line ID-blocking, or
that your telephone company-provided voice mail service has set or
cleared the message-waiting status for your line.

There is no indication from the device that the call was answered, or
how many rings were received.  The device contains no buffering, and
appears not to recognize any hardware or software flow control.  The
application must be ready to accept a line of up to 31 bytes at any
time that the phone may ring.  Bell Atlantic's catalog indicates that
the device can store the last ten calls.  This appears not to be the
case, but the demo software (see next paragraph) does provide this
capability.

A demo program for the device came with it on a 5.25" MS-DOS-formatted
diskette.  The demo program is a DOS 'terminate and stay-resident'
background program that occupies 6K of RAM.  It emulates the Call
Identifier devices by displaying a 'pop-up window' on your PC each
time a call arrives.  In this window, you will see that last ten
calling numbers displayed.  The window will stay on the screen for a
user-administerable amount of time, or until you press the ESC key.  A
user-defined 'hotkey' (by default, ALT-D) recalls the display on
demand.  The program makes no use of the PC disk, so the history is
only maintained while RAM is valid.

Obviously, any computer with an RS-232 serial port capable of
asynchronous operation at 1200 bps can interface with this device,
though Bell Atlantic's catalog indicates that it requires an IBM
PC-compatible.  (The demo software does require this environment.)
The device may also be plugged directly into a printer's serial port,
if one merely wants a printed log of inbound calls.  The printer must
be capable of accepting 31-character lines to be printed without
requiring flow-control.

The documentation consists of a thirteen-page instruction manual.  The
manual gives the complete format of every message output by the
device, and also describes how to plug it in.  The description of the
RS-232 interface incorrectly labels PIN 4 as CTS (but they meant RTS
 -- CTS is pin 5) and indicates which leads contain data, and which are
used to supply power to the device.

I have not opened the device, because I want to preserve my rights
under the manufacturer's one-year guarantee.  (It appears that it can
be opened by removing the phillips-head screw located under the serial
number label.)  I guess that it contains a microcomputer, two uarts,
and a modem chip.


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: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Year Finished
Date: 3 Jan 91 02:03:42 GMT


In a few more years when the millenium turns over (watch out for
"Millenium Madness" as the fateful date approaches), I venture to
predict that there will be two camps:

     The Arthur C. Clarke camp (_2001: A Space Odessy_)

     The Prince camp (_1999_).

Who is right?  The Arthur C. Clarke people.

Who will have the biggest parties?  The Prince people.

The thought of the the 2001 people telling the 1999 people that the
"big event" won't happen for another year brings to mind Pee Wee
Herman scolding the bikers in the biker bar "Could you puh-LEAZE keep
it down, I'm TRY-ing to use the phone!"

   Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #6
****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15314;
          5 Jan 91 5:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09133;
          5 Jan 91 4:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32059;
          5 Jan 91 3:05 CST
Date:     Sat, 5 Jan 91 2:54:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #7
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 5 Jan 91 02:54:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 7

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cable Cut Between NY and NJ [Nicholas J. Simicich]
    AT&T Reports Major Cable Cut [Curtis Sanford]
    Cellular Roaming [Mark Jensen]
    Cellular Telephone Antenna Considerations [Phil Weinberg]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Tad Cook]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Paul Schleck]
    Cellular Compatibility Between Hong Kong and the U.S. [John R. Covert]
    Cordless Phone Info Wanted [Matt Simpson]
    Wireless Phone Jacks [Jeff Sicherman]
    Caller ID and Call Waiting [Michael H. Riddle]
    Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware [Sean Williams]
    Data Cost Comparison [Jeff Crowder]
    History of Telephony in Sweden [Robert Lindh]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 11:23:45 EST
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable Cut Between NY and NJ


I just heard that there was a major fiber cut in Newark, New Jersey.
24 T3's were cut, according to the phone company.  The circuits
affected terminated in or passed through New York City.  My wife's
company lost two circuits (they had just switched all of the rest of
their circuits to another supplier, otherwise they would have been
totally off the air).  I have no other details.


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

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

From: Curtis Sanford <aria![e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Reports Major Cable Cut
Date: 4 Jan 91 17:00:28 GMT
Organization: Ascend Communications -- San Francisco


I was just unable to complete a direct dialed call from San Francisco
to London.  When I contacted the AT&T operator, she also initially
failed ("Unable to complete your call as dialed.  Please check the
number or call your AT&T operator for assistance."), and told me that
they had a major cable cut near York, PA that was causing
difficulties.  With some additional effort, she was able to reach a UK
operator and complete the call.  This was at 9:40am PST.

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

From: Mark Jensen <claris!netcom![e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Roaming
Date: 3 Jan 91 16:21:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760}


I recently signed on with GTE Mobilnet for cellular service.  I have
heard that there are several different ways to obtain cellular service
while roaming in California, including " Follow Me Roaming".  I would
appreciate any thoughts or information that newsgroup readers could
provide on the diffrent types of roaming arrangements.

Thank you,

Mark Jensen


[Moderator's Note: Perhaps readers will correspond direct with Mark
and explain the different methods.   PAT]

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

From: Phil Weinberg SPS <hplabs!mcdcup![e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Telephone Antenna Considerations
Date: 3 Jan 91 21:34:33 GMT
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products, Sunnyvale , CA 94086-5303


I have just received a mail notice that public hearings will be held
concerning the application and awarding of a cellular telephone
antenna site about a block from my home.  I am curious if anyone has
ever attended these types of hearings and what kinds of questions have
been raised, or should have been.

Should I be concerned about rfi from this site?  Will it cause
"interference" on my TV and/or FM receivers, even though I'm sure the
cellular company will guarantee that their transmissions will be
within the allowable FCC limits?  What about pickup on my telephone
lines, which I think pass pretty close to the antenna site?

I would appreciate any information available, with suggested questions
to ask at the hearing.


<< Usual Disclaimer >>
Phil Weinberg @ Motorola Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA 94086-5395
UUCP:  {hplabs, mot,} !mcdcup!phil
Telephone:  [phone]

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

From: hpubvwa!ssc![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 15:49:59 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brent Chapman)
writes:

> On a drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Northern Arizona and
> back over the holidays, I was amazed by the extent of cellular service
> coverage.

(stuff deleted)

> What are the propagation characteristics of cellular service?  I was
> under the impression that it was tuned to be strictly a short-range
> (i.e., less than ten miles) system, and that in fact this short-range
> characteristic is fundamental to making the system work (because
> shorter range allows smaller cells, and thus more total callers by
> reusing the same frequencies in more non-adjacent cells).  How, then,
> was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60 miles from the
> nearest cell?

The size of the cell depends on the elevation of the cell site.  In
urban areas it makes sense to have a lot of little cells to handle a
large number of callers.  Out in the desert you could be served by
just a few cells at high elevation, or directional cells that cover a
whole lot of highway.

You also can't be too sure (if you are an average user without special
knowledge of the system) just how far you were from the nearest cells.
Over the route you travelled, there is probably plenty of incentive
for the cellular providers to have coverage at least along the main
highways.

> On a related topic, I've been told that cell size is not uniform, and
> that it is a common practice in densely populated areas (like downtown
> San Francisco, for instance) to reduce the power of each cell in order
> to reduce the cell size to the absolute minimum and thereby increase
> the total capacity of the system.  Is this true?

Yes.


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

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

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 21:35:40 PDT
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Cellular phone operates at about 900-950 Mhz.  This may be properly
termed microwave.  Propogation of waves at this frequency are
essentially line of sight.  They are so energetic that they (usually)
cannot be bent by the atmosphere, so hence no significant multi-hop,
over the horizon propogation.  Under conditions of tropospheric
inversion, i.e. higher layers of the atmosphere warmer than lower
ones, a phenomenon known as "ducting" may occurr, under which the
waves are made to conform to the curve of the earth.  Propogation
under ducting conditions may be up to several hundred miles.

It is true that usually microwave RF does not travel very far for a
number of reasons.  For one, it does not follow the curve of the earth
under normal circumstances.  For another, its short wavelenth means
that it is rapidly attenuated by foliage, walls, humid air, etc.

What is the height difference between where you were and the cell
sites back in CA?  If there was enough of a height difference to cause
an obstruction-free straight line path, that may be another
explanation.

One of the reasons that cellular technology works is "capture effect."
What that means is that only the strongest signal being received is
actually demodulated in an FM signal.  The reasons are beyond the
scope of this discussion group.  Also, cellular systems use a voting
system to insure that only the cell with the strongest signal is used
for the phone conversation.

In short, it is the combined reasons of line-of-sight paths, capture
effect, and cell voting that cellular systems work.

For another propogation anecdote, a friend of mine accessed the
Washington DC cell system from the middle of New Jersy under
conditions of tropospheric ducting, so it certainly can be done.  I
wonder what the phone company or the FCC thinks of these "long
distance" calls?


Paul W. Schleck, KD3FU

 --- 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: Thu, 3 Jan 91 22:06:06 -0500
From: "John R. Covert  03-Jan-1991 2151" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Compatibility Between Hong Kong and the U.S.


Jim Rees asks if he could buy a cellular phone in Hong Kong and use
it in North America.

Since he seems to be at U.Mich., I'm not sure why he would want to.

Cellular phone equipment prices in Hong Kong were much, much higher
(about US$1000 higher) than in the U.S. when I was there in November
1989.

Service, however, is very cheap.

Hong Kong has both TACS (compatible with England) and AMPS (compatible
with the U.S.) systems.  Three companies run TACS (or ETACS) sytems,
one of those runs the world's only combined TACS/AMPS system.

A U.S. or Canadian subscriber may sign up with Hutchison Telephone to
obtain service while in Hong Kong; a Hutchison Telephone subscriber
with AMPS equipment may sign up to roam while visiting the U.S. or
Canada.  Credit card signup is required, and, of course, when coming
to the U.S. from Hong Kong, signup is required with each separate
system you plan to visit.

TACS roaming between the U.K. and Hong Kong is provided only between
Racal Vodafone (in the U.K.) and Hong Kong Telephone/CSL.  U.K.
Cellnet subscribers cannot roam in Hong Kong, and Hutchison and
Pacific Link subscribers cannot roam in the U.K.  (At least as of last
summer.)

The only information I have on Singapore is that they have an AMPS
system there, which would be compatible with the U.S.  Whether roaming
is possible or not, I can't say.  I'm also not familiar with equipment
prices.


john

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

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 08:01:58 EST
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Phone Info Wanted


Sometime last year, I saw a magazine article entitled "Hot New
Electronics Items", listing products recently, or soon to be,
available.  One which seemed intresting was the following description:
Super cordless phone. Provides a clear signal up to four miles from
its base unit ... although you can use it ( with some distortion) for
up to eight miles. Pac Tel/Great Technologies. Model SST. Expected
availability, 1991. $149.  Does anybody have any info on this, or a
phone number/address for Pac Tel or Great Technologies?

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

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 91 10:58:31 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Wireless Phone Jacks


  The latest issue of the DaMark catalog has a pair of "wireless phone
jacks" by PHONEX. Actually they use household wiring. Does anyone know
anything about the reliability of these things, their safety when used
with faxes, modems, and other electronic phone equipment, and how much
noise they can be expected to introduce into the call ?


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 13:18:23 cst
From: "Michael H. Riddle" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID and Call Waiting


>From comp.modems, with obvious applicability to comp.dcom.telecom:

QUOTED TEXT FOLLOWS:

There's been a lot of talk about Caller ID in [comp.modems] lately, so
I thought I would add a Caller ID question, only indirectly related to
modems.

What happens if you have Call Waiting and Caller ID, and a call comes
in while your connected elsewhere? I presume what happens is you just
don't get any caller id info on the waiting call, whether or not you
accept it. My understanding is that the caller id info is part of the
ring signal, and if it doesn't ring you don't get the info.

The reason this is partly related to modems is my pet peeve with TB
modems in PEP mode. PEP mode generally retrains around the call
waiting beep, without ever letting you know about it.  This is what
many people want, but not what I want. I would rather drop the data
call and get the incoming call. If Caller ID worked with Call Waiting,
I could rig something up.


Originally posted in comp.modems by:

Ken Mandelberg      | [e-mail]          PREFERRED
Emory University    | {rutgers,gatech}!emory!km    UUCP
Dept of Math and CS | [e-mail]              NON-DOMAIN BITNET
Atlanta, GA 30322   | Phone: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I've wondered about this myself. How does the
Caller IB box get anything to dislay when the calls comes in via
call-waiting? If you hang up and let the new call actually ring in,
does the information pass at that time, or not?  Likewise, when your
phone is forwarded, we all know there is a single ring to remind you
of the forwarding, but you cannot actually receive the call no matter
how fast you pick up the receiver. Is the Caller ID sent to you on
those calls, or not?    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Jan  3 22:52:38 EST 1991
Subject: Personalized Ring Recognizing Hardware


[e-mail] (M. Khan) writes:

> Where can I get a box the recognizes and directs to a separate
> physical line the personalized ring that some telcos are offering?

Bell Atlantic Business Supplies has such a device in their catalog.
The article in the catalog reads as follows:

 |  Ring Leader interprets the ringing pattern set for each phone
 |  number on your single line (normal ring, 2 short rings, 2
 |  long rings, etc.) and sends the incoming call to the correct
 |  phone or accessory.  Privacy switch prevents interruption of
 |  important faxes or conversations.

The Ring Leader is listed as being produced by Tel Control, Inc.  The
list price in the catalog is $54.95, part #TC1081.  Bell's order line
is 1-800-523-0552, fax [phone].  Their address is:


            Bell Atlantic Business Supplies
                456 Creamery Way
                Exton, PA 19341-9988 USA



Sean E. Williams

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

From: Jeff Crowder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Data Cost Comparison
Date: 4 Jan 91 14:34:10 GMT
Organization: Va Tech Communications Resources



Hello,

I'm making a cost comparison for which I need a commercial alternative
rate for a campus CBX switched data connection.

To clarify, we currently have a Rolm CBX with data switching installed
to about 10,000 sets on campus.  Current data rate tops at 19.2 kbps
for users (the number is supposed to increase shortly).  Users attach
terminals or PC's with emulation to connect to mainframe and other
hosts.  We charge a monthly fee for each data connection.

I would like to compare our price to commercial alternatives which I
presume would be provided by a local telco.  Perhaps a CO lan
arrangement or tariffed ISDN service.

Can anyone suggest a reasonable comparison and provide some idea of
the current rates charged by the telco for the service identified?

Your suggestions will be greatly appreciated.  I can send a synopsis
to anyone interested or will post summary to net if swamped with
requests.


Jeff Crowder  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 16:19:17 +0100
From: [e-mail]
Subject: History of Telephony in Sweden


Source: 'Televerkets faktabok 1991' (Swedish Telecom book of facts
1991), published by Swedish Telecom (the telephone operating company
in Sweden).  Translation from Swedish made by me.

               History of telephony in Sweden:
               -------------------------------

1853 First telegraph line in use
1877 First telephone line in use
1880 First telephone directory
1881 First local telephone network
1924 First automatic telephone exchange in operation (500-selector switch)
1930 500.000 telephones in service
1942 1.000.000 telephones in service
1946 Automatic telex network operational
1949 First possibility to make long-distance call without operator assistance
1963 First modem is sold
1972 All telephone exchanges automatic
1980 First AXE-exchanges in service (stored program controlled switches)
1981 First automatic cellular network (cover Denmark, Sweden, Norway and
     Finland)
1982 7.000.000 telephones in service
1987 Country wide digital long-distance network is opened

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #7
****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16451;
          5 Jan 91 6:51 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17461;
          5 Jan 91 5:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab09133;
          5 Jan 91 4:10 CST
Date:     Sat, 5 Jan 91 3:17:28 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #8
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 5 Jan 91 03:17:11 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 8

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Calling Between the Eastern and Western Parts of Germany [John R. Covert]
    Conference Report: The Future of the Internet [Jane M. Fraser]
    Touch-Tone Specifications [Kari Hardarson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 22:06:00 -0500
From: "John R. Covert" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calling Between the Eastern and Western Parts of Germany


The information on the left is directly from the German Post Office;
translation (limited due to space) on the right is provided by me.

Abbreviations: ONKz: Ortsnetzkennzahl: City code (without "0")
           Rufnr: Rufnummer: Telephone number (without prefix)

Informationen zur Vorwahl                  Prefix information

Fuer Telefongespraeche in die neuen Bun-   For telephone calls to the new
deslaender gilt die Laendervorwahl 0037.   states use country code 0037.
Achtung: Von Berlin (West) aus nur 037.    Note: Just 037 from W. Berlin.

Bei Orten, die im Selbstwaehlferndienst    For towns which can be reached
vom ehemaligen Bundesgebiet aus zu er-     by direct-dialing from the
reichen sind, wird im ETB beim Teilneh-    western part of Germany, the
mereintrag die dafuer gueltige Vorwaahl    valid prefix is shown in the
angezeigt.                                 electronic phone book.
Ist keine Vorwahl angegeben, ist dieser    If no prefix is shown, then
Ort noch nicht im Selbstwaehlferndienst    this town is not yet directly
zu erreichen.                              dialable.

Fuer Telefongespraeche aus den neuen Bun-  The following prefixes are
deslaendern in das ehemalige Bundesgebiet  valid for calls from the new
gelten folgende Laendervorwahlen:          states into western Germany:

Nach Berlin (West):                        To West Berlin:

Berlin (Ost)                               East Berlin
nach Berlin (West)           8+49+Rufnr.   to West Berlin

Potsdam, Stadt und Landkreis               Potsdam, City and County
nach Berlin (West)           0+49+Rufnr.   to West Berlin

Kreise Koenigswusterhausen,                Koenigswusterhausen, Nauen
Nauen und Oranienburg                      and Oranienburg counties
nach Berlin (West)             07+Rufnr.   to West Berlin

Kreis Zossen                               Zossen County
nach Berlin (West)             04+Rufnr.   to West Berlin

Frankfurt (Oder), Stadt und                Frankfurt on the Oder, City
Landkreis nach Berlin (West)  092+Rufnr.   and County, to West Berlin

In das ehemalige Bundesgebiet:             To western Germany, from:

Berlin (Ost)           06+49+ONKz+Rufnr.   East Berlin

Rostock, Bezirk        00+49+ONKz+Rufnr.   Rostock District

Schwerin, Bezirk       00+49+ONKz+Rufnr.   Schwerin District

Neubrandenburg, Bezirk 00+49+ONKz+Rufnr.   Neubrandenburg District

Erfurt, Bezirk            07+ONKz+Rufnr.   Erfurt District

Suhl, Stadt und Landkreis 04+ONKz+Rufnr.   Suhl, City and County
uebrige Orte des Bezirks                   Remaining places in the
Suhl                    0004+ONKz+Rufnr.   Suhl District

Gera, Stadt und Land-                      Gera, City and County
kreis                  *) 07+ONKz+Rufnr.
uebrige Orte des Bezirks                   Remaining places in the
Gera                 *) 0015+ONKz+Rufnr.   Gera District

Saalfeld, Kreis Saalfeld                   Saalfeld, Saalfeld County
und Kreis Rudolstadt  *) 015+ONKz+Rufnr.   and Rudolstadt County

*) Selbstwaehlferndienst ist taeglich von  Direct dial service is allowed
   23.00 bis 06.00 Uhr zugelassen          from 11PM to 6AM daily.

Magdeburg, Stadt und                       Magdeburg, City and County
Landkreis              00+49+ONKz+Rufnr.

Halle, Stadt und                           Halle, City and County
Landkreis                 03+ONKz+Rufnr.

Leipzig, Stadt und                         Leipzig, City and County
Landkreis sowie Kreis                      as well as Delitzsch County.
Delitzsch (nicht nach                      (not to West Berlin)
Berlin (West))         06+49+ONKz+Rufnr.

Dresden, Stadt und                         Dresden, City and County
Landkreis                 07+ONKz+Rufnr.

Cottbus, Stadt und                         Cottbus, City and County
Landkreis (nicht nach                      (not to West Berlin)
Berlin (West))            04+ONKz+Rufnr.

Chemnitz, Stadt und                        Chemnitz, City and County
Landkreis              00+49+ONKz+Rufnr.

Bemerkungen:                               Notes:

Aus allen anderen Bereichen sind die Ge-   From all other areas, calls
spraeche ueber das zustaendige Fernamt     must be booked through the
anzumelden.                                operator.
Vom Bezirk Frankfurt/Oder ist z.Z. noch    From Frankfurt/Oder, no direct
kein Selbstwaehlferndienst in das ehema-   dial service to western Germany
lige Bundesgebiet moeglich.                is currently available.

Die Ortsnetzkennzahl (ONKz) ist grund-     Always dial the city code
saetzlich ohne die Null zu waehlen.        without the zero.

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

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 09:33:21 est
From: "Jane M. Fraser" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Conference Report: The Future of the Internet


[Moderator's Note: Jane M. Fraser wrote this article which will appear
in print later this month; she has kindly provided an advance copy to
TELECOM Digest for your consideration.   PAT]


[The following article will appear in the January CAST Calendar.  To
be added to the hard-copy mailing list for this newsletter reply to
this message or write: Center for Advanced Study in
Telecommunications, 210 Baker Systems, 1971 Neil Avenue, The Ohio
State University, Columbus, OH 43210]

The Internet is network of computer networks used primarily by
educational and research establishments.  The parts of the Internet
that have been funded by federal resources (for example, NSFNET) may
be used only for activities that support education and research.
Other parts have not been so funded, and usage is not restricted.
Various proposals have been made to extend the Internet to more
institutions, to allow commercial use on all parts of the Internet,
and to increase the bandwidth of the federally supported part of the
network.

On November 29 through December 1, I was one of approximately 150
attendees at a conference addressing various issues about the future
of the Internet.  I have always felt very confused about what is the
Internet, what are the restrictions on usage, what different parts of
the network are doing, and what options are open for the future.  I
learned one fact for certain at this conference: almost everyone else
is confused also.

I will report on some of the specifics of what happened at the
conference, putting emphasis on aspects I think will be of most
interest to the readers of the Calendar, but I am also confident that,
no matter how careful I am, this report will contain errors.

The conference, Information Infrastructure for the 1990s, was
sponsored by two programs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard University: Science, Technology and Public Policy and
Strategic Computing and Telecommunications in the Public Sector.  The
two primary organizers were Lewis Branscomb and Jerry Mechling.  The
two-and-a-half days were heavily packed with presentations of
commissioned papers, comments by panels of discussants, and open
discussion from the floor.

The main points the conference reinforced for me are, first, the
growing importance of computer networks for fast communication and,
second, the growing importance, for many users, of interconnectivity
of networks. The first needs little comment.  The second may be of
importance more to some sectors, especially academics, than to others.
Academics and researchers often want to communicate with a wide range
of people and, thus, want to be able to send electronic mail to people
on many different networks. Some companies may want their employees to
communicate only within the company, not with those outside it, but
others find interorganizational communication to be very important.
Some networks already interconnect (although not completely), for
example, AT&T Mail, CompuServe, and the Internet.  Others are
isolated, for example, Prodigy.  Many barriers, institutional and
technical, make it difficult to interconnect networks, but, I believe,
there will be increasing demand from users to do so.

At the federal level, a proposal has been put forth for federal
funding of NREN, the National Research and Education Network, which
would, roughly, be an extremely high bandwidth version of the
Internet.  (The latter sentence is undoubtedly not error free.) Most
uses of supercomputers, almost by definition, require and generate
huge amounts of data.  For example, at the conference, we viewed a
short tape of a simulation of the formation of a thundercloud.  Remote
access to supercomputers has always been cited as a justification for
investing federal money in the Internet, and this again is one of the
major reasons cited for the need for NREN.  Indeed, the ability to
create and manage a network at the data speeds being contemplated is
itself viewed as a research issue.

However, other participants argued that "low-end" use, that is, use
not requiring high bandwidth, is also an appropriate topic for
research. As the network expands and usage grows (which is happening
at an amazing rate), questions arise about the ability of existing
mechanisms to handle traffic.  These participants argued that the
networking of the large numbers of computers on the Internet (and its
affiliates) is also worthy of attention, even without the addition of
more bandwidth.  This discussion of the importance of low-end use was
naturally related to issues of allowing more general access to the
Internet, for example, for K through 12 educational institutions.

Currently, most academic users of the Internet receive access through
their institution's connection.  While the institution itself bears
considerable cost, most academic end users do not receive a bill for
usage.  Internet connectivity to researchers is viewed by many
academic institutions as being analogous to the library (for which
usage fees are generally not charged to the end user or to the end
user's academic unit), rather than analogous to the phone (for which
such usage fees are charged).  The user (or the academic unit) usually
must provide a terminal or personal computer.  Here at OSU, the
computer magnus provides Internet access for anyone who requests it.
(Actually, this is not quite accurate; magnus accounts will shortly be
available to all OSU users.) One paper, "Pricing the NREN: The
Efficient Subsidy," by Gerald Faulhaber, presented an economist's
arguments against current pricing and subsidization schemes.

Several commercial enterprises have been created (for example, PSI) to
provide Internet access for commercial enterprises.  Recall that
commercial use is allowed as long as the use is in support of research
and education.  For example, a researcher at a commercial enterprise
can communicate with researchers at academic institutions on research
topics.  A company can also communicate with researchers about its
products.  Two commercial users on different commercial networks must
be very careful, however, since their communication with each other
might traverse parts of the network on which commercial traffic is
forbidden. However, it is often difficult for the user to predict what
route a message will take.  If all this seems arcane and unclear, it
is.  Many people (including Alison Brown of the Ohio Supercomputer
Center) are working to make these aspects less arcane and more clear.
One paper, "The Strategic Future of the Mid-Level Networks," by
Paulette Mandelbaum and Richard Mandelbaum, explored various possible
models for relationships between commercial and educational
enterprises on the Internet.

A portion of the conference had an Ohio focus.  Jerry Mechling visited
Ohio this summer and interviewed many people in order to write a case
paper, which was presented and discussed at the conference, An
Information Infrastructure Strategy for Ohio.  Partly because of this,
we had a fairly sizeable Ohio contingent at the conference: Gerald
Anglin (Litel), Alison Brown (Ohio Supercomputer Center), Sally
Cousino (Ohio Bell), Nick Farmer (Chemical Abstracts), myself (CAST),
Jerry Hammett (State of Ohio), Don Olvey (OCLC), Tim Steiner (State of
Ohio), and Ron Vidmar (State of Ohio).  I found one of the most
successful parts of the conference to be our caucuses, both before and
after the conference.

Other papers presented at the conference included "Information
Infrastructure for the 1990s: A Public Policy Perspective," by Lewis
Branscomb; "Technology Issues in the Design of the NREN," by Leonard
Kleinrock; "Life after Internet: Making Room for New Applications," by
Larry Smarr and Charles Catlett; "A Coming of Age: Design Issues in
the Low-end Internet," by Ken Klingenstein; and "The NREN as
Information Market: Dynamics of Public, Private, and Voluntary
Publishing," by Brian Kahin.  Copies of all the papers are available
for loan from the CAST office.

There were also smaller sessions involving presentations on current
uses of the Internet.  One presentation was by Allan Weis, from
Advanced Network and Services, Inc., ANS, a "nonprofit organization
dedicated to the advancement of education and research." ANS is funded
by IBM and MCI to help build computer networks.

As with all conferences, some of the most important discussions went
on in the hallways and at meals and some of the most important results
were the contacts made.  Despite my dismay at finding myself at a
conference with presenters who were all white males (including one who
addressed the group as "gentlemen"), I think the conference was
excellently organized and run.  I applaud the organizers for focussing
us on such an important issue: information infrastructure for the
1990s.

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

From: Kari Hardarson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Touch-Tone Specifications
Date: 4 Jan 91 19:19:18 GMT
Reply-To: Kari Hardarson <[e-mail]>
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


I realize this must be a very elementary question, but I've gone
through the last 400+ messages and found no reference to it so here
goes:

I need a list that highlights the differences between telephonic
equipment in the U.S. and Europe (Scandinavia, actually). I'm
particularly concerned with whether the touch-tone features on a
Panasonic phone bought in USA will work in Scandinavia - or whether
the phone will work at all for that matter.  Will be waiting anxiously
for answers since I bought the phone already...  Many thanks in
advance,


Kari Hardarson
217 Jackson Circle
Chapel Hill, NC 27514

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #8
****************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24787;
          5 Jan 91 15:04 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11918;
          5 Jan 91 13:22 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23810;
          5 Jan 91 12:17 CST
Date:     Sat, 5 Jan 91 12:06:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #9
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 5 Jan 91 12:06:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 9

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business [Jack Winslade]
    More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Aimee Tweedie]
    Not For Profit Phone Service in the Netherlands [Ralph Noonen]
    Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Ralph Noonen]
    Incoming Calls Only ... Why? [Sean Williams]
    Answer*Call in Atlanta Area [Bill Berbenich]
    10-NJB in New Jersey [Jay Vassos-Libove]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 10:49:43 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People


Beginning February 1, phone companies in Illinois will reduce phone
bills by $6.72 per month for poor people, but raise bills 15 cents for
everyone else.  According to the brochure now being circulated to the
estimated 620,000 low-income residents in our state, this will appear
each month on phone bills as a 'reduction for low-income customers'.

To qualify for the program, called Link-Up II, a phone subscriber must
participate in a low-income program such as food stamps, the Illinois
general assistance program, or Aid to Families with Dependent
Children.

Half the funding for the monthly reduction will come from federal
funds, and half from a fifteen cent monthly charge imposed on the
other customers of the telcos.

The program is designed to ensure that everyone can afford basic phone
service. Illinois Bell estimates tbat about 95 percent of all
households in its territory have phones.

The amount of the subsidy and offsetting customer charge is detirmined
by a forumula set by the federal government. Illinois Bell states they
had nothing to do with setting the amount or the method in which the
subsidy would be collected.

Currently, the minimum monthly phone bill in Chicago and densely
populated suburbs is about $10 for a customer who does not have
Touch-Tone or custom calling services. The minimum charge is about
$12.50 in most other suburbs of northern Illinois. The $6.72 per
subscriber reduction will come off these amounts.

A second phone subsidy for low-income residents which is already in
effect pays for half ($27.50) of the $55.00 service installation
charge. This subsidy is funded by the federal government.

It seems like the more things change in the telecom industry, the more
they stay the same: Here we are coming back to the concept laid out by
Ted Vail at the start of the twentieth century, that universal
telephone service is a desirable goal.

But Vail and his associates said *all* residence service should be
subsidized by business service. The main reason that business service
has always been more expensive than residential service in the USA is
because of the belief of early telephone people that universal service
was desirable for all, and especially desirable from the point of view
of business subscribers.  Business places would find phone service
particularly useful if they could call residences.  So let the
businesses pay the subsidy to insure phone service for all, argued
Vail, and that thinking has prevailed since.

What happens when *I* can no longer afford my phone service?

Patrick Townson

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

Date: Thu, 03 Jan 91 19:25:16 PDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


 >The following cross-posted information is extracted from alt.cosuard.

I'm not gonna say that the ENTIRE article was bovine doo-doo, but ...

>area there are now at BUSINESS RATES. Which means $50 per month base
>rates, plus MUCH higher long distance charges.

The last clause of the last sentence definitely reeks, and this should
be obvious to readers of this conference.  Businesses often pay LESS
than residence users for some services, and long distance charges are
one area in which they can save, if they are large enough to negotiate
rates or if they get a few points off through an aggregator.  (Yes, I
know, most business calls are during the day.  So what. ;-)

Another area where businesses pay less than 'civilians' is cellular
services.  Corporate accounts (directly) with the carrier are often
substantially less than the extortive rates given with that <quote>
FREE <end quote> cellular phone with four new tires from Midnight Auto
Supply.

But again, back to my point.  {mounting high horse} I am getting sick
of this endless-loop 'the sky is falling' {modem tax | business rate |
BBS law} rumor that keeps playing ad nauseam.  In 1985 there was
supposed to be this New Federal Law coming Real Soon Now that would
put all kinds of clamps on BBS systems.  When the text of the bill
surfaced, it was nothing more than a well-intentioned kiddie-porn law
that included digitized video among the media with movie film,
videotape, and mimeograph on paper towels.  Since then, the same
story, altered slightly each iteration, keeps coming back regularly.

This (Indiana) affair may be a REAL concern of the BBS community, but
they (the ubiquitous 'they') have cried 'wolf' so many times that
people are thinking that all stories along the line are caca,
especially when they include a genuine road-apple like the 'higher
long-distance rates'.

{dismounting from high horse}

Any ideas ??

Good Day!        JSW

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

Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 12:31:42 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


It is riduculous to compare a BBS run out of a person's den to a
non-profit organization.  A non-profit is allowed to have a
substantial budget, a staff, and can fund-raise, as long as they do
not make a profit.

Now, how can a BBS be considered a non-profit organization?  Most of
the sysops I know do not have an operating budget, do not have a paid
staff, and pay out of their own pocked the expense of having an extra
phone line and a second computer.  Occasionally sysops will ask for a
donation [like I did when the hard drive blew up, but most users are
cheap :)], but most don't bother.  For most sysops, it is an expensive
HOBBY, like radio-controlled airplanes or model railroading.  Wouldn't
it make more sense for the phone company to WELCOME a sysop, because
of the extra line that is normally installed?  For the extra income?
And for the increased long-distance charges incurred when the sysop
has to call the support BBS for his/her particular software, which is
usually on the opposite coast from his/her location?

I received some good advice a year ago when COSUARD was still slugging
it out with SWB.  If the phone company calls you, the sysop, asking
about your BBS, tell them you are a HOBBYIST BBS, and not a
NON-PROFIT.  Non-profit means to them that you do have a large budget
to pay inflated business rates.

Another thing, GTE Michigan decided to go after Variety-N-Spice for
two reasons: it's the biggest BBS in the state, and it is an ADULT
BBS.  Set the legal guns on the biggest adult board in the state.
When it falls, so will all the rest.

Enough on the soapbox.  The precedent set by Michigan will no doubt be
taken up by NYTel; they tried it before; they'll try it again.  The
precident will have a very bad effect on hobbyist BBSs, that serve a
vital purpose to telecomputerists that are not fortunate enough to
have an account to Internet or Bitnet, or are too broke to call
Compu$erve.  Discussion on this topic is necessary, since who knows
how many phone company-types read this Digest?  Maybe they'll think
about what they do to modemers.


Aimee Tweedie         [e-mail]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  Troy, NY


[Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business'
phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define
what is a 'business' and what is not. If someone attaches a computer
to a phone line and charges money to access it and gain informtion
from it, why is he different than Compuserve, which attaches computers
to phone lines and charges money to access their system and gain
information from them? The one has a 'staff and a budget' you say?
Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and
what is not? There are many, many one-person businesses in the USA.
Lots of people work from home with no staff and litle budget.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 11:37 MET
Subject: Not For Profit Phone Service in the Netherlands


Regarding BBS's in the United States being charged a business tariff
for their phone lines, and the subsequent remark that perhaps
charitable and religious institutions should get a lower tariff:

In the Netherlands, all religious institutions that are officially
registered get a reduced tariff. I'm not sure on this, but I even
think they get all service for FREE!


Ralph Moonen    voice: +31.2155.24356   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 91 11:37 MET
Subject: Notes on the Phone System in Holland


The Dutch phone system is a monopoly of the Dutch PTT. They do not
allow reselling of lines, except on toll-free numbers. Regular Dutch
numbers consist of an area code, and a three to seven digit number.
Large cities have a three digit code, small places a five digit code.
All codes start with a '0' which is to be omitted when being called
from abroad.  Further we have special tariff numbers, that all start
with 06.

06 followed by a 3 are mostly chat-lines, and/or dial-a-porn kinda
lines.  (When in Holland try 06-320.320.69) This service costs $0.29
per minute.

06 followed by a 0 are toll free numbers, and generally these numbers
start with 06-022 followed by four digits.

06 followed by anything else can get you paging equipment, cellular
phones, special service operators, directory assistance etc, and can
cost anything between $0.00 and $0.29 per minute.

06-0410    is the Teleplus operator, the PTT service for collect calls,
card calls and other operator assisted calls. You can reach this
operator from the States by calling 1-800-432-0031. Beware: it can
take as long as ten minutes on hold before you are helped. This
outrageous long waiting time has caused me to write a letter of
complaint to the Dutch PTT, to which I have not yet received any
response. I'll keep you informed on this.

06-0418 is directory assistance for international calls.

Normal services include:

002 - speaking clock
003 - weather forecast
004 - has been  moved to 06-0410, see above.
006x- maintainance and service personnel numbers
007 - Help-desk & reporting of malfunctions
008 - normal directory assistance.
001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the
      06-041x range.

I'll be glad to answer any other questions you have on the Dutch
telephone system including technical questions on routing and
switching equipment.


Ralph Moonen    voice: +31.2155.24356   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Jan  4 15:59:39 EST 1991
Subject: No Outgoing Calls Allowed ... Why?


I recently acquired a job at a local pizza shop in Enola, PA.  They
have two phones which customers call to place orders.  The number is
732-4000.  When a customer calls, the first phone rings in a
"2-short-ring" pattern, similar to Bell Atlantic's "Identa*Ring"
service, I would assume.  When another customer calls, but the first
customer is still on the line, the call rings on the second phone,
with the same ring-pattern.

A few days ago, I needed to use one of the phones to make an outgoing
local call to a customer to verify something on an order.  I was not
permitted to do so (another employee stopped me).  He said that the
phones could not be used to make outgoing calls.  This seemed odd to
me, so I asked another employee.  The other employee told me that the
two phones were somehow linked with the payphone in the lobby (on the
same line), and that's why the two phones can't be used to initiate
calls.  I picked up the receiver on one of the phones, and there was a
dial tone.  I did not try to make a call, however.

The two phones are each typical AT&T wall-mount model type phone.  The
local telco is Bell of Pennsylvania (Bell Atlantic Company).  Does
anyone have any information about this?  Or can prove why the other
employees are incorrect?

Thanks!

Sean E. Williams

AT&T mail:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Semi-public (that is a billing distinction only)
coin phones can legitimatly have extensions on them for answering
purposes only. If what your co-worker said is true -- although it
seems to be an odd configuration -- then although you get dial tone
when the extension goes off hook, when a number is dialed money would
be demanded, and where would you insert it?  I say it is an odd
configuration because I've never heard of two payphones being arranged
to hunt each other when busy. Some incoming only lines do provide dial
tone when taken off hook (others -- most? -- simply have battery on
the line) but dialing anything but maybe 911/611 returns an intercept
message. Maybe your co-worker meant you should *use* the payphones to
make calls out. Try some calls and let us know what happens.  PAT]

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answer*Call in Atlanta Area
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 91 20:03:39 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


According to my latest phone bill, SouthernBell is now offering
Answer*Call service for the Atlanta area.  The cost according to the
enclosure is $3.95 per month, but when I called the business office I
was quoted $6.95.  I'm not really interested in the service since I
already have an answering machine - and isn't that all Answer*Call
really is?  It's an answering machine that you pay Ma Bell for in
perpetuity.  So anyway, I can't account for the difference in the
quoted rates - I'd call the business office back to pin them down for
a rate if I was really interested.

In order to have the service, you must also subscribe to Call
Forwarding, No-Answer Transfer, and/or Busy Transfer.  You would
simply forward your phone to the Answer*Call voice mailbox (or is it
voicemail box? :-).

Seeing as how one can get an answering machine fairly cheap and with
the "message transfer" whereby the machine will call you at a specific
number to tell you that there is a message waiting, why would anyone
want to get this Answer*Call?  The only reason I can see for getting
it is to take your calls while you are on the phone and don't want
Call*Waiting to beep you or you don't have Call*Waiting in the first
place.  Oh yeah, supposedly many people can leave messages at once to
you with this service - in essence it is acting as a multi-line
answering machine.  That might be another reason to get it, so that if
a hundred people call you all at the same time none will get a busy
and all can leave a message right then and there.

I don't fault Southern Bell for offering the service, I just think
that an educated consumer would avoid the service.


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


[Moderator's Note: It is a matter of individual taste and
application. I have voicemail from Centel here, and much prefer it
over conventional answering machines.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 01:16:46 -0500
From: Jay Vassos-Libove <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10-NJB in New Jersey


I was visiting my parents over the holidays and found that for certain
long distance _out of state_ calls they had found that using 10-NJB
was less expensive than using either AT&T or their default carrier
(ITT).

What I wonder is this: since New Jersey Bell offers the 10-NJB
service, but New Jersey Bell is a Bell Operating Company, how can they
offer an interstate service at all? I thought that a company was
either a local operating service or a long distance one, but not both?

Probably, I don't understand. Could someone in the know post a
clarification of exactly what the rules are (uh oh, BIG request
there!!) governing phone companies (what major types of services can
they offer, and what prohibitions come with offerings of particular
services)?

Thanks!

Jay

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #9
****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10007;
          6 Jan 91 6:00 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13811;
          6 Jan 91 4:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31571;
          6 Jan 91 3:24 CST
Date:     Sun, 6 Jan 91 3:15:27 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #10
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 6 Jan 91 03:15:12 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 10

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Service Interruption [Sean Williams]
    Cellular Systems Around the World [John R. Covert]
    Misleading AT&T Advertisement? [Paul Coen]
    Keeping the Faith in Technology [Robert W. Lucky, via TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Jan  5 14:24:21 EST 1991
Subject: AT&T Service Interruption


The following is a summary of several newswire stories about the
interruption in AT&T's long distance service which occurred yesterday:


   American Telephone & Telegraph Co. accidentally ripped apart one of
its own fiber optic cables, disabling major commodity exchanges and
disrupting service throughout New York City.

   The company revealed earlier this afternoon that its own
contruction crews had inadvertently severed an active cable under a
Newark avenue yesterday, while attempting to remove an inoperative
one. AT&T began investigating technical problems at 0930 EST creating
hours of havoc in long-distance calling to and from New York.  About
60 percent of the calls into and out of the metropolitan area were met
with a recorded message saying that all circuits were busy, said Jim
Messenger, a spokesman for the American Telephone and Telegraph Co.
The problem also disrupted some overseas calls, the company said.

    Hundreds of flights to and from Newark, Kennedy and LaGuardia
airports were delayed, and some incoming planes were diverted
elsewhere because air traffic controllers were unable to communicate.

    The loss of the cable, which could transmit more than 100,000
calls at once, underlined how society's rising reliance on new
technology carries a risk because it concentrates so much information
in one potentially vulnerable place.  A few years ago, that volume of
calls would have been spread over numerous, less efficient cables.

    "These failures don't occur very often, but when they do occur,
there's the potential to have an impact across a broad part of the
population," said Casimir Skrzypczak, vice president of science and
technology at the New York regional phone company Nynex Corp.

    Local service and long-distance service provided by other
companies, such as MCI Communications Corp. and US Sprint
Communications Co. (a unit of United Telecommunications Inc.) were not
affected.  In fact, An AT&T spokesman said that the company instructed
operators in the New York area to provide customers with access codes
to its long-distance competitors at about 1000 EST/1500 GMT.

    AT&T was criticized last year when it waited more than three hours
to distribute the special codes required for AT&T customers to places
calls on MCI or Sprint networks.

    Disruption was widespread, however, because American Telephone &
Telegraph Co.  is the United States's largest long-distance carrier,
handling about 70 percent of all toll calls.  AT&T began directing
calls away from the affected area at midmorning, and the company said
that service had been restored almost to normal by 5:30 p.m.

    The incident was a severe embarrassment for AT&T, which cultivates
an image of reliability but which a year ago suffered a virtual
shutdown of its network due to errant computer software. It depicted
yesterday's failure as a freak accident. "Despite the commitment that
(AT&T) people make day in and day out," said AT&T spokesman Herb
Linnen, "the dice roll against us."

    The disruption focused on lower Manhattan, where the U.S.
financial industry is headquartered. "The phones went down and you
could not make telephone calls out of New York City to just about
anywhere," said Richard Berner, director of bond market research at
the securities firm Salomon Brothers Inc.

    Not everyone was upset. "We've got almost no phone calls all day,"
said one secretary at a Manhattan company, who asked not to be
identified, "which was wonderful."

    In the 1980s, long-distance companies laid thousands of miles of
high-capacity optical fiber cables, which carry phone calls or data in
enormous volume as rapid pulses of light. But some research has raised
concerns that concentration of calling through single wires brings a
higher threat of disruption.

    Jeff Held, a telecommunications specialist at the Ernst & Young
accounting and consulting firm, said many long-distance companies,
because of cost, have not yet put in enough alternate cable routes to
handle potential problems. But he said that in view of the Newark
line's importance, "It's really pretty amazing to me that that route
would not be totally backed up" already.

    Jim Carroll, AT&T's vice president for network operations, said the
disruption dragged on in part because workers had to reprogram computers
and physically rearrange cables - tasks that soon will be done using new
software. "If this had happened this time next year," said Carroll, "the
length of this outage would have been in the range of 15 minutes."
                             ________

This article was compiled from various sources. Credits are as
follows:

Joanne Kelley, "AT&T Phone Outage Paralyzes Certain Markets" Reuter,
01/04/91

Bart Ziegler, "AT&T Problem" AP Business Newswire, 01/04/91

John Burgess, "Severed Cable Disables N.Y. Markets, Airports; AT&T
Accident Creates Telephone Havoc" {Washington Post}, 01/05/91


Sean E. Williams -- [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Sean is a new subscriber/contributor to the Digest,
and I want to thank him for an excellent report.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 12:43:49 PST
From: "John R. Covert  05-Jan-1991 1536" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Systems Around the World


The following chart lists the types of systems in use in each country
around the world and the carriers in each country (except where there
are too many to list).  The system in the U.S. is the "Advanced Mobile
Phone System (AMPS)" and is compatible with all other AMPS systems.
However, compatibility does not mean that roaming is permitted.

The systems in Algeria, Bangladesh, Czechoslovakia, Gabon, Guatemala,
Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Nigeria, Paraguay, Uruguay,
and Yugoslavia are not yet operational.

Algeria            NMT-900        PTT
American Samoa        AMPS        American Samoa Government (PTT)
Andorra            NMT-450        Telefonica of Spain
Antigua            AMPS        Boatphone of Antigua
Argentina        AMPS        Companie de Radio Commun. Mobiles (CRM)
Australia        AMPS        Australia Telecom (PTT)
Austria            NMT-450    & TACS    PTV
Bahamas            AMPS        Bahamas Telecomms Corp.
Bahrain            TACS        Bahrain Telecoms Co.
Bangladesh        AMPS        Hutchison Bangladesh Telecom Pvt
Belgium            NMT-450        PTT
Bermuda            AMPS        Bermuda Telephone Co., Ltd.
Brazil            AMPS        Telebras (in Rio & Brasilia)
British Virgin Islands    AMPS        CCT Boatphone
Brunei            AMPS        Jabatan Telecoms Brunei
Canada            AMPS        Cantel (A) or Local Telco (B)
Cayman Islands        AMPS        Cable & Wireless
Chile            AMPS        CTC,CIDCOM,VTR/Millicom, Telecom Chile
China (PRC)        TACS        PTT
Costa Rica        AMPS        Millicom and Comvik
Cyprus            NMT-900        Cyprus Telecom Authority
Czechoslovakia        NMT-450        Bell Atlantic and U.S. West
Denmark            NMT-450/900    PTT
Dominican Republic    AMPS        Codetel
Finland            NMT-450/900    PTT
France            Radiocom 2000    PTT
            NMT-France    (NMT-900 protocol on NMT-450 freqs)
Gabon            AMPS        OPT
Germany            C-Netz        Deutsche Bundespost Telekom
Grenada            AMPS        Grentel Boatphone
Guatemala        AMPS        Millicom
Hong Kong        AMPS & TACS    Hutchison Radio
            TACS        Hong Kong Telephone (CSL)
            ETACS        Pacific Link
Hungary            NMT-450        US West with PTT
            TACS        Contel Cellular
Iceland            NMT-450        PTT
India            TACS        selection in progress
Indonesia        AMPS        Perumtel
            NMT-450        Perumtel
Ireland            TACS-900    PTT
Israel            AMPS        Motorola Tadiran
Italy            RTMS & TACS    SIP
Jamica            AMPS        JTC
Japan            NTT/JTACS/NTACS    NTT, DDI, IDO
Kenya            TACS        Kenya PTC
Kuwait            TACS/ETACS    PTT
Luxembourg        NMT-450        PTT
Malaysia        NMT-450        STM
            TACS        Celcom
Malta            TACS        Telemalta/Racal
Mexico            AMPS        various
Morocco            NMT-450        PTT
Netherlands        NMT-450/900    PTT
Netherlands Antilles    AMPS        St. Maarten Boatphone
New Zealand        AMPS        PTT
Norway            NMT-450/900    PTT
Oman            NMT-450        PTT
Pakistan        AMPS        Paktel and Pakcom
Paraguay        AMPS        selection in progress
Peru            AMPS        Lima Parker Co.
Philippines        AMPS        1) PLDT 2) Express
Portugal        C-Netz        PTT
St. Kitts & Nevis    AMPS        CCT Boatphone
St. Lucia        AMPS        St. Lucia Boatphone
Saudi Arabia        NMT-450        PTT
Singapore        AMPS & TACS    The Telecommunications Authority
South Africa        C-Netz        SAPO
South Korea        AMPS        Korea Mobile Telecom
Spain            NMT-450    & TACS    La Co. Telefonica Nacional de Espana
Sweden            NMT-450/900    PTT
Switzerland        NMT-900        PTT
Taiwan            AMPS        PTT
Thailand        AMPS        CAT
            NMT-450        TOT
            NMT-900        Advanced Info Service Co.
Tunisia            NMT-450        PTT
Turkey            NMT-450        PTT
United Arab Emirates    TACS        PTT
United Kingdom        TACS        1) Cellnet 2) Vodaphone
United States        AMPS        various
Uruguay            AMPS        Abiatar
Venezuela        AMPS        CANTV
Yugoslavia        NMT-450        Zagreb PTT
Zaire            AMPS        Telecel

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

Date: Sat, 5 Jan 91 21:03 EDT
From: Paul Coen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Misleading AT&T Advertisement?


        I saw one of the newer AT&T commercials the other night, and
something about it bothered me.  I listened very carefully the next
few times, and came to the same conclusion -- the spot is misleading.

        The basic premise is that one of "those other" phone companies
calls just as the career woman is going out for a business trip.  She
tells them to bug off, because she wants to make sure that when she
calls home to say "hi" to the kids she wants them to sound just like
they're "next door."

        I could be mistaken, but this seems to be implying that the
default carrier on your home phone is the carrier that INCOMING calls
to your home are carried on -- which is wrong.  It would be much more
useful to have the commercial say that you should dial 10-ATT/10288
from any payphone (she's shown calling from one) to guarantee "good
AT&T service."

        Now, the question is that is this a deliberate attempt to make
people feel that if they switch, incoming calls will automatically be
of poor sound quality, or is it just the failure of someone in the ad
agency (or whoever else writes these things) to grasp that incoming
calls aren't normally determined by the default long distance service
of the party being called?  I'd be inclined to believe the latter.

        Any thoughts on this?  I could have misunderstood the
commercial, but I don't think that I did.

Disclaimer -- I like AT&T for the most part :-).

   The preceeding may not even be my opinions, never mind Drew U.'s
Paul Coen         Academic Computer Center        Drew University

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 2:41:20 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Keeping the Faith in Technology


[Moderator's Note: Robert W. Lucky is executive director of the
research communication science division at AT&T / Bell Labs and a
member of the National Academy of Engineering. He recently gave a
speech before the academy, and I thought you would enjoy sharing some
excerpts from that speech in this issue of the Digest.  PAT]

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

Feeling overloaded?

Many of us are, and not only from eating too much at holiday parties.
Fax machines, cellular telephones, electronic mail, voice mail,
telephone answering machines, phones in airplanes, pagers and other
devices have us drowning in messages and phone calls. Computers
bombard our lives with more information than we can absorb.

Listen to the groan of people as they program their VCRs or read
best-sellers like "Everything I Needed to Know I Learned in
Kindergarten," and one sees this anxiety about the stress of modern
life. Complexity is a fundamental residue of the Information Age, and
it is rising steadily -- in technology, business, social systems and
the daily rituals of life.

It is a trend that deserves more serious attention. The telephone
network was easily understandable and manageable only a decade ago.
Now it has slipped beyond the comprehension of any single person. The
collapse of a significant portion of the AT&T network a year ago
underlined the vulnerability mired in this complexity.

Other large interconnected systems are found in transportation, the
air traffic control system, and the military. Computers that
contribute to these systems also provide tools to control them, but
one of the most important problems of our time is whether we as human
beings can manage such extraordinary complexity successfully.

As an engineer who has helped develop the technologies of the
Information Age, I believe that our species is up to the task of
managing even a bewildering level of complexity.

That is an optimistic view, and an experience I had recently made me
painfully aware of how out of touch it may be with that of other
Americans. I appeared as a guest on a television talk show about the
future. After speaking glibly about a world made more pleasant by
robots, high-definition television and the like, I was roundly
criticized by the other guests, who insisted that the world's
prospects are bleak.

The environmentalist on the show was strident in his recitation of
statistics on pollution. The educator spoke of the decline of
literacy. The economist talked about global starvation, and the former
police officer sitting beside me on the sofa warned of the
inevitability of drugs and crime. When I held to my viewpoint that
technology would make the world better, the others looked at me with
scorn. What does a technologist know about such things?

That's a reasonable question for Americans to ask of people like me,
since we produced this technology and have a dubious record of
predicting its impact. Few of the engineers who developed the
videocassette recorder imagined that every town today would have a
video retail store. The inventors of optical disks concentrated on
video applications, never guessing that compact audio discs would
displace vinyl records.

So techology produces complexity and is unpredictable, yet engineers
like myself remain optimistic about its application. As a
consequence, we make progress where none is expected. Unaware that
cities are a hopeless cause, we design successful urban transportation
systems like BART in San Fransisco or the Washington Metro. Oblivious
to the hopelessness of the educational crisis, we pursue technological
aids to education.

This single-minded pursuit of solutions may be hopelessly naive for
the world of the future, and there's no question technology can
produce bad outcomes as well as good ones. But I think most Americans
would be better off if they shared our approach of viewing technology
as an ally in a world of creeping complexity rather than as the enemy.

Technology and simplicity are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I
believe technology increasingly will free us to focus on matters more
worthy of our human intellect, producing a world in which art,
religion, music and philosophy coexist with amazing technical
advances. Technological products are only tools, and they can be used
to make life less, as well as more stressful. The real solution to our
frazzled lives lies not with rejecting technology but with harnessing
it in new ways to manage information overload, quiet the beepers and
calm our nerves. We need to retain faith -- not so much in technology
as in our own power as human beings to make it work for ourselves.


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

[Moderator's Note: My thanks to Mr. Lucky for sharing his thoughts
with the National Academy of Engineering, and for permitting excerpts
to be presented in this forum.  There is very little I can add except
to stress his final words: Keep having faith, keeping looking forward
to the future. Telecom is not what it used to be, even a decade ago
when this Digest first began publication.  Who among you who are long
time readers here anticipated what we see around us today?  Who among
you can tell us accurately about the year 2000?  As Moderator of the
Digest, I find it extremely difficult to keep up with all the changes
in telecom -- and I should be keeping up.  But it is hard. Keep the
faith, keep looking forward to the solutions and understanding -- or
would you say wisdom? -- we'll need in this new decade.     PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #10
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29523;
          7 Jan 91 4:03 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05814;
          7 Jan 91 2:37 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11246;
          7 Jan 91 1:33 CST
Date:     Mon, 7 Jan 91 0:35:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #11
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 7 Jan 91 00:35:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 11

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Brett Jacobson]
    Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) [Bob Kusumoto]
    Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Wireless Phone Jacks [Dave Levenson]
    Re: 10-NJB in New Jersey [John Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Brett Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Michigan Bell vs BBSs
Date: 6 Jan 91 07:44:44 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin


(This message forwarded from [e-mail])

In article <[e-mail]> kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.
jp![e-mail] (Robert Woodhead) writes:

>Seems to me like a Solomon-like "cut the baby in half" solution is in
>order.  It is unreasonable for MB to demand deposits, as all of the
>traffic on the modem lines is incoming (and they can be flagged for
>local outgoing calls only, most likely).  At the same time, modem
>lines attached to BBSes do consume significantly more resources than
>the average residential line, thus the extra $50 a month (for sixteen
>lines thats $3/line/month) is not unreasonable.

I believe you miss the point that has been raised countless times in
the past, which is: Do the RBOCs have the right to charge you for your
use of the lines other than for voice?  They are obligated to provide
service, and unless the service is measured, they have no right to
complain about how much goes through.

Here in Texas the problem has occured several times between SWBT, and
the BBS operators of the state.  Basically the conclusion became: SWBT
is obligated to provide X quality service, whether you need it or not,
and they may NOT degrade the line below a set minimum.  They also have
no legal right, as common carriers, to listen to what is on the line,
other than to tell if there is a signal or not.

By saying that "$50 is not unreasonable," you open the door for rate
increases based on the excuse "we underestimated the burdon," (which
BTW, they have been bearing quite easily in the past).  Once you allow
the tarriff, you have opened yourself up to many rate increases at the
whim of the RBOC.  We are at-least semi-fortunate here in Texas that
SWBT doesn't gourge us too much (except on installation charges), and
the PUC doesn't let them raise rates much.


Chris Petrilli      [e-mail]    [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Kusumoto <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs)
Organization: University of Chicago
Date:  6 Jan 91 19:45:04 GMT


You'll have to forgive me since my experience with a business phone
line that my parent's switched to when they started a landscaping
business out in the burbs.  Our local Bell is Illinois Bell.

[e-mail] (David E. Bernholdt) writes:

>1) Historically, what is the argument for charging businesses and
>residences differently?  Do the businesses get better quality lines? :-)
>Is it more expensive (to the telco) for someone at a business
>location to pick up the phone and make a call?  To receive one?  In
>the latter case, isn't the person _calling_ the business picking up
>the tab?

The only differences tend to be that business get one small free
listing in the Yellow Pages.  Apart from this small fact and the
different rates that (small) businesses pay for service, there is
none.  (I mention small businesses since larger ones tend to buy or
lease their own PBX or cut some deal for the larger number of phones
lines they use, a la IN/OUT WATS.)  Businesses do have a larger
variety of services that are readily available to them though,
although I stress that these services tend to be for small businesses
and can be pretty useless to the typical BBS.

>3) In the past, what has the criteria been for the telco to force
>someone to pay business rates?  Are they looking at licenses which
>might be required by the local authorities or registered
>charitable/non-profit groups?  Is the installer looking for some sign
>that I'm running a business when (s)he comes to hook me up?

I'm not sure what the typical requirements are, basically anything
that is done for an extended period of time, running an actual
business, paying taxes or filing forms as a business, etc.  Hobby type
activities as far as I know are not charged business rates.  (I do
know that local chat lines a la Diversi-Dials, were under the gun to
pay business rates for all their phone lines because they were hitting
subscribers for monthly fees, like $10/month.)

>4) Where will it end?  Will I have to pay business rates if I have a
>terminal/modem at home which I use to dial up the computer at work
>occasionally?  Will I have to pay business rates if I put an add in
>the paper trying to sell my car?  How about if I casually start buying
>and selling used cars, using newspaper adds giving my home phone
>number in order to fund my hobby of collecting and restoring old
>Yugos?

The phone company usually lets modem lines go under residental rates
given that it's not being used to as a BBS to collect money (something
on the order of portal or maybe chinet might have to pay business
rates, prodigy probably has to pay business rates).  I think the point
is that you shouldn't have to be charged to access a particular phone
number or service charged by that number to qualify under residental
rates for BBSes.  Buying and selling used and/or reconditioned cars
probably doesn't fall under this catagory.

A final note: IBT charges a much higher rate than normal
residental/business rate for DATA QUALITY lines.  Supposedly, getting
DATA QUALITY lines guarentees a minimum level of quality between your
connection from your place to the central office (IBT does not
guarentee the wiring from the point where the wiring enters the
building box to your jack any more, although they do have services
where they will take care of the inside wiring for you for a small
monthly charge :-).  No one I know has actually gone out to do this
(although there have been times where I've been tempted to do this
myself).  I suspect this is mostly for businesses that use dedicated
lines, but then again, ISDN is also offered by IBT, which is a hell of
a lot cheaper.


Bob Kusumoto     Internet:  [e-mail]
Bitnet:    [e-mail]
UUCP:  ...!{oddjob,gargoyle}!chsun1!kusumoto

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology
Date: 7 Jan 91 02:53:24 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


Technology is easier to keep faith in when one has a hand in its
design and development.  When, as is most often the case in Western
societies, technology is invented by large, seemingly faceless
corporations or government agencies and foisted on the general public
for better or worse, "faith" is an understandably rare commodity.  I
appreciate Mr.  Lucky's optimism and self-confidence, but his examples
of technology that "works" -- BART as a remedy for transportation
congestion, and educational technology as a remedy for poor scholastic
performance among students -- are insupportable.  BART has complicated
the Bay Area transportation situation, not fixed it.  And educational
technology -- well, just visit any school (in a "good" part of town)
and see all the machinery strewn around, for purposes unknown.

Technology is not without its politics, and these are anything but
democratic.  I am surprised that the general public is as tolerant as
it is of we technologists' experiments with its world.


Bob Jacobson

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 01:28:06 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

>That is exactly right.  Cellular phones are directed to increase or
>decrease power according to their distance (and thus, signal strength)
>from the cell tower.  This allows more cell sites in a certain area,
>and thus, more potential users in that same area.  This is the
>principle behind the "Microcells" that will soon adorn the halls of
>airports and office buildings.  A cell every few hundred yards.

  When we all carry personal phones around, will their be enough
bandwidth capacity in the cellular system to handle all the phone
traffic. How will the assumptions that underly capacity estimates hold
up when more/most calls are made from/to callers static in a cell
instead of moving from cell to cell ?


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 02:01:55 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Reduces Rates For Poor People
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

>It seems like the more things change in the telecom industry, the more
>they stay the same: Here we are coming back to the concept laid out by
>Ted Vail at the start of the twentieth century, that universal
>telephone service is a desirable goal.

>But Vail and his associates said *all* residence service should be
>subsidized by business service. The main reason that business service
>has always been more expensive than residential service in the USA is
>because of the belief of early telephone people that universal service
>was desirable for all, and especially desirable from the point of view
>of business subscribers.  Business places would find phone service
>particularly useful if they could call residences.  So let the
>businesses pay the subsidy to insure phone service for all, argued
>Vail, and that thinking has prevailed since.

  It seems to me that the *real* problem is that phone service is
really a commodity that ought to be strictly priced based upon level
and time of usage but at a much lower unit cost. Then poor people
could easily afford to pay for low usage rates, BBS's could be free
but the callers would *all* pay for the time consumed (NOte I am
proposing that there be *no* free-calling areas, just very cheap per
minute charges) and the big users would pay their fair share for heavy
usage.

  I am obviously not an economist on phone system matters (or any
other for that matter) but it seems we are paying phone companies for
a lot more things than the real cost of providing phone service and
maintaining the system. I am with those who say that the wires ought
to be like sewers, water, etc. and be municipally owned and maintained
and the supplying of dialtone be deregulated and/or auctioned to the
lowest *qualified* bidder within an area.

>What happens when *I* can no longer afford my phone service?

  I guess you'll have to cut down on some of the curiosity-satisfying
calls that you make and report here, cancel some of the fancy features
you have opted for, and live with less lines. Living outside of means
does not entitle you to a subsidy, but a minimum level of service of a
utility which is essential for health and safety in our society at a
price affordable to those who would suffer either without it or at the
regular rates is a desireable and even cost-effective social goal.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting
Date: 6 Jan 91 18:46:07 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> What happens if you have Call Waiting and Caller ID, and a call comes
> in while your connected elsewhere?

> [Moderator's Note: I've wondered about this myself. How does the
> Caller IB box get anything to dislay when the calls comes in via
> call-waiting? If you hang up and let the new call actually ring in,
> does the information pass at that time, or not?  Likewise, when your
> phone is forwarded, we all know there is a single ring to remind you
> of the forwarding, but you cannot actually receive the call no matter
> how fast you pick up the receiver. Is the Caller ID sent to you on
> those calls, or not?    PAT]

I can answer two of the three questions raised here:

1. No Caller*Id information is presented on a non-ringing call, such
as one that arrives via call waiting.

2. No Caller*ID information is presented with the 'single-spurt' ring
that announces a forwarded call.

I don't yet know the answer to the remaining question, about the
call-waiting call that is subsequently allowed to ring after the
previous call in progress is disconnected.


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: Wireless Phone Jacks
Date: 6 Jan 91 20:46:49 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

>   The latest issue of the DaMark catalog has a pair of "wireless phone
> jacks" by PHONEX. Actually they use household wiring. Does anyone know
> anything about the reliability of these things, their safety when used
> with faxes, modems, and other electronic phone equipment, and how much
> noise they can be expected to introduce into the call ?

Jeff identifies some valid concerns about these devices.  I would like
to add another: security.  For some years, there has been home
intercom and lighting-control equipment on the market that uses
low-level RF to send audio or signaling information over your power
lines.  The RF signal used by these devices is conducted primarily by
the power wire.  There is also some radiation of this signal into the
air.  A nearby receiver, even if not connected directly to the power
line, can probably intercept the information.  A nearby transmitter,
perhaps part of another, similar, system can radiate into the power
line, and thereby interfere with the system.

The RF is mostly blocked by the step-down transformer that feeds your
house.  If there are several houses fed from the same transformer (as
is usually the case) these systems can easily communicate between
these nearby houses.  For this reason, there are a dozen or so
channels available.  Neighbors must reach an agreement on who uses
which channels.

In a large appartment building, there is typically a large transformer
feeding the entire building.  There are probably more appartments on
each phase of the local power than there are available channels.  The
likelyhood of interference, or of deliberate eaves-dropping, is very
high.  I would recommend against using RF unless it is truly
necessary, and then I would recommend caution in what you transmit!


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]

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

Subject: Re: 10-NJB in New Jersey
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 6 Jan 91 18:40:41 EST (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> appears:

>I was visiting my parents over the holidays and found that for certain
>long distance _out of state_ calls they had found that using 10-NJB
>was less expensive than using either AT&T or their default carrier (ITT).

NJ Bell has a waiver to offer long distance service between
northeastern NJ and New York city, and between the Camden area and
Philadelphia.  NY Tel and Bell of PA have matching waivers the other
way.  I gather this is because at the time of the divestiture the
phone networks in those area were too heavily intertwined to allow
separation of local BOC and LD AT&T lines in time for LD service to be
handled the normal way.

Since then NJ Bell has realized that they can make money from those
two busy traffic corridors and has heavily promoted the service,
particularly to businesses where an appropriately programmed PBX can
insert the 10NJB automatically on the calls that NJB can handle.


Regards,

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #11
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29729;
          7 Jan 91 4:15 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05814;
          7 Jan 91 2:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11246;
          7 Jan 91 1:33 CST
Date:     Mon, 7 Jan 91 1:24:56 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #12
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 7 Jan 91 01:24:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 12

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Roy Smith]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"? [Carl Wright]
    Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting [Michael Perka]
    Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World [Charles Hawkins Mingo]
    Interoffice Signalling [Bill Cerny]
    Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Eric Tholome]
    Telecom-Related BBSs - Request for Info [David Leibold]
    Singapore Goes Pay per Call [David Leibold]
    Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Dan Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 1991 09:04:49 GMT


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

>Joe Broniszewski <astph![e-mail]> queries:

>> In the book, Cliff mentioned what he called a *secure
>> line*.  When ever he called a government agency that meant business
>> (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on one of these secure
>> lines.  My questions:

>> 1.  Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line
>> and a non-secure line?

>There is no such beast.  When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they
>use special telephones, not special telephone lines.

End-to-end encryption makes a "secure" line.  Such beasties are
available to the military and other defense agencies.  The book gave
no indication that such was available to Cliff or that he was using
one.  He may or may not have been.

>> 2.  Are calls routed differently?

>They may be routed on FTS, which is essential just a bulk WATS-type
>system that all the Federal agencies have access to.  FTS can be used
>to call POTS or other FTS phones.  If it is a military agency, they
>may use a network called AUTOVON.  They could also be routed in the
>usual way that we civilians have our calls routed.  Basically all
>they'd need is an RJ-11 connection, if that.  Secure cellular phones
>are also used by the feds - remember Bush talking on a cellular from
>his golf cart up in Maine?

My bet is that one is definitely encrypted.

>Answer to 4:

>FTS is a non-secure, general use, long-distance network which the
>federal government uses for the bulk of its long distance telephone
>and data traffic.

It is likely that the spooks have encryption equipment on T streams
between them and whatever toll switch they connect to.  From that
point on it definitely is not a "secure" line, but...

Any FTS-2000 satellite link is encrypted.  Most autovon satellite
links are encrypted.

Chances are fairly good that a normal connection that you make calling
them could be monitored, chances are fairly poor that a call they make
to you could be monitored.  At least by accident.

The lines are not "secure", just a bit safer.  They keep the amatuer
spooks out of it, but not the pro's.


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.

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

From: [e-mail] (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 16:36:29 GMT


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

> An AT&T spokesman said that the company instructed operators in the New
> York area to provide customers with access codes to its long-distance
> competitors at about 1000 EST/1500 GMT.

    Ignoring for the moment the political problems involved, how
difficult would it be to implement automatic load-shedding without
having to have customers manually dial a different 10xxx code?  It
seems that all that would be needed is for the AT&T computers to tell
the local telcos' computers "OK, until further notice, take all [or
half, or whatever fraction is appropriate] of the calls you would
normally route to us because we're the default dial-1 long distance
carrier, and send them to Sprint or MCI instead".

    There would be some details to work out with the billing, but
that's not really a technical issue.  Callers might get billed
directly by the alternate carriers, or the carriers might bill AT&T
under some sort of treaty; AT&T could then bill the customer normally,
and they might never known what had happened (or, presumably, care).

    Assuming this could all be made to work (at worst, it's
probably a Simple Matter Of Programming), would it be a good idea?
Would the overall integretity of the long distance network be improved
by this, or would the greater coupling between the various pieces
generate the possibility of having a inter-carrier meltdown, making
things worse?


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 1991 09:52:14 GMT


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

>It is ridiculous to compare a BBS run out of a person's den to a
>non-profit organization.  A non-profit is allowed to have a
>substantial budget, a staff, and can fund-raise, as long as they do
>not make a profit.

>Now, how can a BBS be considered a non-profit organization?  Most of
>the sysops I know do not have an operating budget, do not have a paid
>staff, and pay out of their own pocked the expense of having an extra
>phone line and a second computer.  Occasionally sysops will ask for a
>donation [like I did when the hard drive blew up, but most users are

>[Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business'
>phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define
>what is a 'business' and what is not.

>Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and

1) is a big subject that I'll not debate...

2)  Seems simple enough.  Anyone required to have a business license
    is a business.

The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining,
or otherwise limiting other commerce or business.

One other note: I often see references to the idea that BBS's use or
require more resources than "normal" residential phones.  That just is
not so.  Business use does in fact impact the network in a rather
dramatic way (busy hours at 11AM and 1PM) which very much affects
network design (and cost), but BBS operations don't cause a single
digit worth of impact on any operational measurement applied to any
network that I know of.

If every BBS on any given switch shut down for one day there would be
no management meeting to decide what happened and why the switch
reports were off-normal.

Compare that to, say, if no teenagers were allowed to use the phone
for a single day, or if no ladies were allowed to call their mother on
a given day!

BBS's on the other hand generate revenue.  Long distance calls.  Just
the same as teenagers and calls to mom.


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.


[Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have
been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to
make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'.
Then what would you do?  Their thinking was people with these
instruments at home were apparently working out of their home in a
business-related activity.   PAT]

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"?
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 04:42:23 GMT


Re: prefix changes, the BellSouth Open Network Architecture Outlook
newsletter says the following:

"Estimates were that all available NPA codes would be in use by 1995.
However, the economic cruch of the 1980's and the current seven to
nine percent growth in telephone number usage moved that date up. As a
result, Bellcore requires any area code running short of numbers to
convert to Interchangeable Central Office Codes (ICOC).

Under this plan, converted NPAs may use "0" and "1" as the middle
digit of central office codes (the first three numbers of the seven
digit phone number).

This conversion creates 152 new central office codes, just over a
million phone numbers per area code, and extends the life of the
existing area codes."

They went on to say that Georgia converted to ICOC in October 1989,
North Carolina in March 1990, and Alabama should be converted by
January 1991.

Interested parties should also see the article in {Telephony} dated
12/24/90, page 11 titled "North America Faces Number Crunch".  It also
discusses how Mexico is losing its NPAs.

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 21:45:25 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID and Call Waiting
Organization: NeXT Computer, Inc.


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

>[Moderator's Note: I've wondered about this myself. How does the
>Caller IB box get anything to dislay when the calls comes in via
>call-waiting? If you hang up and let the new call actually ring in,
>does the information pass at that time, or not?  Likewise, when your
>phone is forwarded, we all know there is a single ring to remind you
>of the forwarding, but you cannot actually receive the call no matter
>how fast you pick up the receiver. Is the Caller ID sent to you on
>those calls, or not?    PAT]

The interactions of the Calling Number Delivery (CND) CLASS service
with other services such as Custom Calling are noted in the Bellcore
Technical Reference TR-TSY-000031, "CLASS Feature: Calling Number
Delivery".

Under section 3.8, Interactions:

"A. Call Waiting

CND data should not be transmitted duing of after a Call Waiting
(CW) tone.  Similarly, CND data should not be transmitted during
or after any switchhook flashes that may occur in response to the
CW tone.  Also, CND should not occur during ringback that results
 from the customer going on-hook in response to a CW tone."

Subsections B through J describe interactions with Multiparty Lines,
Three-Way Calling, various types of call forwarding, Distinctive
Ringing, Auto Callback/Recall, and Calling Number Delivery Blocking.

Ordering info for this TR has already appeared in TELECOM Digest.


Mike

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

From: Charles Hawkins Mingo <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World
Date: 7 Jan 91 05:09:09 GMT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA


In article <15775@> [e-mail] (John R. Levine)
writes:

>But the most obscure thing in the flyer was the footnote on calls to
>Canada.  Calls to Canada cost 18 cents/minute off-peak, with off-peak
>being before 8 AM, after 5PM and all day weekends.  But the footnote
>says "There are additional charges when calling Atlin, Canada."  Where
>is that?

    Rest assured that very few Canadians would know where "Atlin,
Canada" is (especially since a place-name is usually given with the
province, not the country).  A quick check reveals that Atlin is a
small mining town in the extreme NW corner of British Columbia, near
the Yukon border.  It's over a hundred miles NNE of Juneau, Alaska, so
you can imagine what the climate is like.

    I'm not sure why Atlin is singled out thus; however, I do know
that facilities to remote company towns (which Atlin appears to be)
are often provided by the company running the operation, and not the
usual LD provider (which is Telecom Canada).  Thus, even if AT&T has a
deal with Telecom Canada, it may have to pay extra to whomever owns
the lines to Atlin.  (I've also heard that that section of BC (behind
the Alaskan panhandle) sometimes gets phone service from Alaska, as
opposed to southern BC.)

    I'll bet that very few US residents have ever called Atlin,
and that there's some obscure legal reason why AT&T felt compelled to
use the footnote (after all, why not just tell us what the rate to
Atlin is, instead of suggesting it might be different?)


Charlie Mingo            Internet: [e-mail]
2209 Washington Circle #2    [e-mail]
Washington, DC  20037        CI$: 71340,2152    AT&T:  202/785-2089

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Interoffice Signalling
Date: 7 Jan 91 02:22:36 GMT


In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected
by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when
completing an interoffice call?  (assumptions: electronic offices,
inband signalling, same NPA, same telco)

Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID?


Bill Cerny     [e-mail]   |   attmail: !denwa!bill

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

From: Eric THOLOME <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pulse-Mode Frequencies?
Organization: Stanford University - AIR
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 19:07:57 GMT


Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when
dialing?

Thanks!

Eric THOLOME   [e-mail]   Stanford University


[Moderator's Note: I was unaware that 'pulse', or rotary dial phones
generated any frequencies or tones.   PAT]

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom-Related BBSs - Request for Info
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 1:08:16 EST


With the talk about TAP, there was mention of a BBS they had; could
someone please e-mail the BBS number to [e-mail]?

In fact, it would be interesting to compile a list of BBS numbers that
have telecom-related sections. There is a BBS operated by Jim Deputy
for telecom folks, plus MCI's Telecom Consultant BBS, Ed Hopper's BBS
(with Digest access at least). Mail all numbers to [e-mail]
and I'll send a summary along to the Digest in due time.

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Singapore Goes Pay per Call
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 1:10:42 EST


A Singapore member of the NEWLIFE BBS network recently mentioned that
Singapore has just switched from flat rate local calling to a pay per
call basis. This will undoubtedly have a big impact on BBSes there.  I
will try to get some more details on this, unless TELECOM Digest
readers have some more info on this themselves.

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

Date: Sun,  6 Jan 91 13:17:00 CST
From: Daniel Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Here is something I posted in chi.general.  Being ever so helpful, and
to make sure my golden keystrokes get maximum bong-for-the-buck, I am
posting it to TELECOM Digest, even though this might have been blabbed
about very recently.

"Why am I pestering you New Jersey people, etc. with this?"  Because
you might be able to do something similar with your local phone
company to prevent one day perhaps getting "slammed" from e.g., AT&T
to some other leading brand [---not that it ever happened to me much.]

> On Thu, 3 Jan 91 12:34:08 CST, motcid!void![e-mail] (Allan
> Bond) said via e-mail:

>I got a "Request for account restriction of long distance company
>form" (form 681-3) to protect from getting my favourite telephone
>company switched.  "Call your service representative for yours."

Allan> What is this?  Is Illinois Bell switching people's long
Allan> distance carriers at random?  Please provide a brief background
Allan> why I might want such a form.

Well, there's the practice of "slamming" (often mentioned in newsgroup
comp.dcom.telecom) where, say, Sprint might out of the blue tell
Illinois Bell that you want Sprint for your long distance carrier, and
next month you start getting bills from Sprint instead of say, AT&T,
which you had previously selected.  These forms are a way to protect
yourself from this shady practice.  Further questions on slamming in
general you probably want to direct to newsgroup comp.dcom.telecom.

By the way, I tried to get a whole ream of these forms for my pals at
work (we all chose AT&T, and getting an employee discount probably
being a significant factor, we don't want to be "slammed"), but I was
informed that each person has to call their Illinois Bell service
representative individually.

By the way 1-700-555-4141 is the number to dial to see who's your
current long distance carrier.


[e-mail]  Naperville IL USA  [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #12
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25080;
          8 Jan 91 4:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12197;
          8 Jan 91 2:48 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08244;
          8 Jan 91 1:44 CST
Date:     Tue, 8 Jan 91 1:30:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #13
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 Jan 91 01:30:06 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 13

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Interoffice Signalling [John Higdon]
    Re: Interoffice Signalling [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Interoffice Signalling [Tom Gray]
    Re: Interoffice Signalling [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Tom Gray]
    Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Dave Levenson]
    Tone-Mode Frequencies? [Eric Tholome]
    Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry [Steve Warner]
    Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [Bob Sherman]
    Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 0:36:54 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago


This seems to be the season for telecom disasters. Maybe it was the
Blue Moon last week or something. Following the AT&T cable cut in New
Jersey last week, all was quiet for a few days ... but Monday morning,
Sprint managed to chew up a fiber optic cable in northern Indiana
which served as a major gateway for traffic in and out of Chicago.

The cable went out about 9:00 AM CST, and service stayed out all
morning. Apparently crews were close at hand (I think it was a Sprint
crew which caused the problem, but they aren't saying), and
restoration got underway almost immediatly. By about 12:30 PM CST
service had been mostly restored.  AT&T seemed to handle much of the
overflow without difficulty. For over three hours, Sprint was totally
silent here: calls to double zero got fast re-order tone, and one plus
calls were intercepted after the 1-NPA-XXX had been dialed and met
with dead silence. Illinois Bell and Centel service representatives
and operators /repair clerks were instructed to advise complainers of
the problem and to use 10xxx routing instead through 'some other'
carrier.

If anyone gets more specifics, please send them along. Can you imagine
the irony of someone who at the end of last week, angry with AT&T
about their trouble decided to switch to Sprint because they were
'more reliable' :).

As AT&T spokesman Herb Linnen said last week, "we all roll the dice and
have bad days from time to time."

The Digest reader who suggested there ought to be a 'treaty' between
LD carriers and automatic, transparent re-routing in times of
emergencies spoke wisely. The sooner something like that is
implemented, the better off we will be. Another reader, in a letter to
be published soon points out that not all offices are equipped to do
that sort of thing easily, but it should be SOP (standard operating
practice) in offices thus equipped. Let's not wait until all of the
USA is on ESS before we implement it.


Patrick Townson

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling
Date: 7 Jan 91 03:00:42 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] (Bill Cerny) writes:

> In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected
> by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when
> completing an interoffice call?  (assumptions: electronic offices,
> inband signalling, same NPA, same telco)

It varies, but usually works out like this:

KP + Prefix code (one digit) + Number (four digits) + ST

for a total of seven tones. Omission of the prefix code would be
interpreted to mean the "0" prefix; possibly the first CG0 or MG0
prefix in the office. Since the stream is bracketed by KP/ST, variable
length is easy.

> Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID?

Absolutely. I remember many DID installations long before ESS had any
significant penetration. The "CHUNK-KA-TUNK" when connected into the
end office was unmistakable. Decades ago, the San Jose city offices
used DID on a very crossbar switch. The first digital pagers were
served via DID on crossbar here. There were some large Silly Valley
firms who also made use of DID long before their COs were equipped
with stored program equipment.

Mind you, virtually all DID in those days was rotary signaling from
the CO to the premise switch. In fact, when I put in an ITT 3100 for a
customer that had DID service, Pac*Bell tried to talk me out of using
DTMF. "Everyone uses rotary signaling." That was in 1984.  Now DTMF is
quite common.


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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling
Date: 7 Jan 91 13:02:35 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected
> by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when
> completing an interoffice call?  (assumptions: electronic offices,
> inband signalling, same NPA, same telco)

Anywhere from four to ten digits are sent between central offices as
described.  In most cases, five digits are sent.  Because most central
offices serve more than one prefix, but seldom more than ten, it is
customary to send a single-digit prefix-index followed by the last
four-digits of the called number.

> Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID?

Some #5 crossbar switches were, and indeed still are, capable of
providing DID service.  They generate dial-pulse signaling toward the
customer equipment, unlike some of the more recent switch designs
which can send DTMF over such trunks.


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: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling
Date: 7 Jan 91 17:09:45 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

>In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected
>by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when
>completing an interoffice call?  (assumptions: electronic offices,
>inband signalling, same NPA, same telco)

The answer is that as many digits are tranmitted as are requred to do
the routing in the distant office. The number of digits would or could
be different on different trunks between the same offices or for
different calls on the same trunk. Normal subscriber calls could
transmit different numbers digits than maintenance connections on the
same trunks.

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 1991 10:12:36 GMT


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

>In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected
>by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when
>completing an interoffice call?  (assumptions: electronic offices,
>inband signalling, same NPA, same telco)

>Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID?

I can't answer the xbar question.

Because you specified the same NPA they would most likely pass only
the last four digits.  But also it is unlikely that there would be two
switches and only one NPA.

With digital switching it can be arranged in almost any manner that
will uniquely identify the correct routing.  Usually the minimum
number of digits are sent (but not less than four).  There are times
when for some oddball reason more than the minimum required are sent.
Usually that is either future planning, or bad planning.

The same is true of toll trunks to end offices.  Inter-toll trunking
almost always requires all digits to be passed.

With mechanical switches there were other considerations because the
switch may not have been configured to handle some given set of
numbers.  Strange things could happen.  Before digital switches made
it impossible there was such a quirk here in the Fairbanks area.  The
Fairbanks telco (45x), the North Pole (488), and the Eielson AFB telco
all had EAS (Extended Area Service) trunks between each other.  But
there was a grand total of only six from Eielson to North Pole (one
way trunks, six went the other direction too).  From Eielson AFB if
you dialed 488-nnnn you most likely got an all trunks are busy signal.
But for those who knew about it (almost everyone), you dialed 458-nnnn
instead.  It went 26 miles up the road to Fairbanks, grabbed a trunk
to 488 land, and went ten miles back down the same road to North Pole.

It worked because the Eielson switch stripped the first digit,
selected N.P.  or FBK for a second digit of 8 or 5, and sent the last
five digits down the line.  The Fairbanks switch looked at the first
of those five digits and selected either itself (a 6), the other
Fairbanks switch (a 2), or an 8 would send it to North Pole.  For some
reason they did absorb a 7, so it could never be routed back to
Eielson (372 and 377).

Digital switching came in '82 and it became almost impossible to call
between North Pole and Eielson until more trunks were in place.  And
now the Fairbanks telco is using 458 for one of their remotes.


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.

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

From: Tom Gray <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies?
Date: 7 Jan 91 17:17:06 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

>Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when
>dialing?

The pulse frequency is nominally 10pps (in North America).  Most
switches will accomodate frequencies from 7 to 12pps.  The nominal
make/break ration is 60/40. Most swtches will accomodate make breaks
from 80/20 to 20/80.

Outside of North America the nominal pulse rates vary from country to
country but is most commonly 10pps with a 66/34 make/break.

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

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies?
Date: 7 Jan 91 17:46:11 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

>Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when
>dialing?


Dial pulses can be anywhere from 8 to 12 pulses per second and still
be recognized.

Some fast operators are specified to work up to 20 pps.

Who cares about dial pulsing any more anyway?


Rolf Meier                    Mitel Corporation

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies?
Date: 7 Jan 91 12:58:38 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric
THOLOME) writes:

> Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when
> dialing?
 ...
> [Moderator's Note: I was unaware that 'pulse', or rotary dial phones
> generated any frequencies or tones.   PAT]

The last time I checked, pulse-dial phones generate a 'frequency' of
approximately 10 Hz.  (Ten dial-pulses per second.)  Probably a bit
low to be called a 'tone' but definitely a repetitive event, and that
means that it has a frequency!


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: Eric THOLOME <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tone-Mode Frequencies?
Organization: Stanford University - AIR
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 21:36:06 GMT


Thanks to those who answered my last question. Unfortunately, I
confused the two modes !!! I am looking for the frequencies used in
tone mode phones. I know each key generates two frequencies more or
less based on C D and E music notes, but I would like something a
little bit more precise.

Thanks again !!!

Eric THOLOME    [e-mail]    Stanford University

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

Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 21:02:59 PST
From: Steve Warner <stables![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch Calling Surcharge Inquiry


>Here in California, Pac Bell proposed to the PUC (notice in our 8/90
>bills) to remove the surcharge for touch tone service.  However, I'm
>still paying it.  Does anyone know if this proposal is still "in the
>mill" or was abandoned?

My January, 1991 bill for two of my lines has an insert which says
that the TT charge will be dropped as of sometime in Feb, 1991.

They will also drop the installation charge for such service.  They
siad that recovery of part of the lost revenue will come in the form
of a decrease in one of the credits now being received on the bill.


Steve Warner   -  Fremont, CA, USA  etc...
replies to:  sun!indetech!stables!sw    (forget what the header says)

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

From: Bob Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 91 08:25:52 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: The command is 'GO PHONEFILE'. And yes, the service
>is great to have around although I think the surcharge is a bit steep.
>I did not find any business numbers listed however; did you?  PAT]

The service being offered on CIS as PHONEFILE is a much watered down
version of the Metromail service to which it is gatewayed.. If you
think the surcharge is a bit steep, try it with a direct account :-)..
they demand a $1,000 per month minimum billing for the full service
and each search costs between .45 & somewhere around $2.. When you
figure how many searches you could do in an hour on CIS, you could
come out way ahead even though most of the power on the real system is
not available on the CIS front end..

I know of other systems that also gateway to the Metromail system, and
one of them charges between $25-45 PER search hit..

You will NOT find any business addresses or phone numbers in the file
as it consists only of residential information. There are a couple of
exceptions to this rule, but once again, the watered down front end at
CI$ does not allow you to access them.

So while the $15 per hour surcharge may seem a bit high to you, it is
a real bargin compared to the cost if you were to subscribe directly..
The cheapest way to use the service is designed for mass mailers, who
can supply tape reels with their mailing lists on them, and for
something like .30 per hit, they get address corrections, nine digit
zip codes etc.

At last claim the database contained about 64 million residential
phone numbers, 80 million addresses, and around 114 million names.
They make no claims about having unlisted phone numbers, even though
they may well still have your name and address along with a phone # of
000-000-0000.  However once in a while, an unlisted phone can sneak
it's way into the file without them knowing it is unlisted. They use
many sources to collect the information, and try to keep it current.


[e-mail] | bsherman@pro-exchange | MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 21:15:50 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls


This recent talk about sent-paid coin calls got me thinking about
rates.  I did a little investigation, and here's what I found.  For a
call from 415-841 to 206-324, the initial rate for direct dial from
home was $.14 (over AT&T, evening rate).  AT&T Calling Card was $.94,
but sent-paid AT&T from a Bell phone was $1.95 for the same first
minute!  Doesn't that seem a bit high?  I would imagine it would be
higher than direct dial from home, but more than double the calling
card rate?  I mean, I'm paying cash up front, am I not?  No credit
risk.  I'm sure that Pacific Bell charges a certain amount for the
coin collection services, but this seems outlandish.  Anyone know why
it's like this?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #13
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20023;
          9 Jan 91 2:56 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04659;
          9 Jan 91 0:58 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07871;
          8 Jan 91 23:54 CST
Date:     Tue, 8 Jan 91 23:32:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #14
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 8 Jan 91 23:32:11 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 14

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Charles Buckley]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [David Ptasnik]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Aimee Tweedie]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [David Cornutt]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [William R. Pearson]
    Michigan Bell vs BBSs [Ed Hopper]
    Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business [Mike Riddle]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 01:53:25 PST
From: Charles Buckley <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


<much worthy commentary deleted>

>  Discussion on this topic is necessary, since who knows
>  how many phone company-types read this Digest?  Maybe they'll think
>  about what they do to modemers.

>  Aimee Tweedie         [e-mail]
>  Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute  Troy, NY

>  [Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business'
>  phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define
>  what is a 'business' and what is not.  . . .

No it's even simpler: Michigan Bell is trying to collect marginal
costs for high usage using a rate structrure which is blind to it.
This has nothing to do with the BBS line, but instead the lines which
call it.  These are also often flat-rate residential lines in the
local calling area whose subscribers derive enormous economic benefit,
since they make heavy use of a line tarriffed for only intermittent
calling.

I think Michigan Bell probably has a case, but they only look like
bullies when they try to solve their money problems by shaking down
the lonely sysop.  They should try instead for the introduction of
universal measured rate service.  This has been extremely unpopular in
the past, because the rates proposed each time it's been tried have
been quite high.  The concept itself is a good one.  I wouldn't mind
paying, $.30-$.40/hour for a non-stop local call, especially if my
subscription were only $3.00/month.

I don't believe this will work - unmeasured service is a sacred cow in
too many places.  Failing that, making special class of 976 number
available to the BBS sysops, perhaps on a pro bono basis, which
charged callers, say, $.40/hour plus any toll, would permit closing
this hole in the rate structure without substantially revising it,
give the LEC their due, and not unduly burden callers (it's certainly
cheaper than Compu$urcharge).  It would also take the phone company
and BBS sysops out of their current adversarial relationship, and make
them "partners in fostering computer literacy" (the final selection of
the warm fuzzy corp-speak phrase I leave to the minions).

In fact, I bet it's even possible to get 976 numbers at these per-call
rates now, and the only thing keeping sysops from doing this (apart
from lack of knowledge that they can) is a high subscription (fixed)
charge, which means that if no-one calls the BBS some month, the sysop
has to pay lots (the price of unpopularity!).  Anyone who deals in
`sin numbers' want to comment if and under what conditions a
subscriber can break even at such rates?

For sure, there are going to be sysops who rightly fear for the damage
to their reputation when *hundreds* jump to the typical conclusion
that it's just *got* to be a porno BBS (and be usuriously expensive to
call) since it has a 976 number ;'>.

And, maybe the sysops only wanted to raise hell anyway ...


[Moderator's Note: Well I can tell you that when unlimited local
service was eliminated here in Chicago a few years ago, it was in part
because of the tremendous hogs modem users were making of themselves.
We had a variety of umlimited calling plans here for set monthly
rates. Understandably telco wanted to make some money on the deal.
Some modem users were going through more than ten thousand 'message
units' per month on unlimited calling residential service plans,
paying $20-30 per month! The local Diversi-dial boards were linking up
with each other all over northern Illinois and staying connected for
the entire weekend, etc. Telco finally said enough already ... the
abusers ruined unlimited local calling for everyone.

When the local area 'free calling plans' were eliminated here and
people started paying only for they actually used, almost everyone
priased the new plan.  And who raised the biggest stink about the new
plan?  Why, the modem users and BBS sysops, of course! They'd have to
actually start paying for those several hours at a time on line to the
chat systems where they had previously stayed logged in while they
went out to eat, etc. What previously cost $20-30 per month started
costing $150 per month!  PAT]

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 9:37:02 PDT


[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson) writes:

>2)  Seems simple enough.  Anyone required to have a business license
>    is a business.

>The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining,
>or otherwise limiting other commerce or business.

I don't think it's quite that simple.  We have a licensed and
incorporated day care in our home.  We have two hunting lines.  We do
not pay business rates, nor do I think we should.  The two lines are
more a convenience for our evening modem use.  We do not want to
advertise in the business section of the white pages, or in the yellow
pages.  The volume of calls generated by the business is trivial.

The standard I have most often heard is the standard of zoning.
Commercial zoning, business rates.  Residential zoning, res rates.  If
you have a business in your home, and want to advertise in the phone
books, business rates.  Even this last is becoming more muddy with the
advent of non-telco yellow pages.  They will generally accept an ad
from anyone old enought to write a check, and don't really care what
kind of lines you have.

>One other note: I often see references to the idea that BBS's use or
>require more resources than "normal" residential phones.  That just is
>not so.  Business use does in fact impact the network in a rather
>dramatic way (busy hours at 11AM and 1PM) which very much affects
>network design (and cost), but BBS operations don't cause a single
>digit worth of impact on any operational measurement applied to any
>network that I know of.

In an residential neighborhood, usage patterns are quite a bit
different.  I agree that most board usage is probably evening/night
usage.  A cluster of boards in a residential neighborhood could well
have an impact on the way a CO switch is designed, and the hardware it
requires.  It is certainly a usage intensive service, using much more
of the CO's availability than a standard res customer.  When I asked
telqi representatives why they charge business more, and why they used
to charge PBX users more than Key System users, they always said it
was a question of system usage.  The more you use a line, the more you
pay for it.  A 16 line BBS probably does more traffic in an evening
than 150 residential customers.

Don't get me wrong, I like BBS's and hope that they continue to get
low rates.  Most CO's are mixed commercial and residential, and the
occasional BBS probably doesn't have an impact.  I just think that the
telqi have a justifiable position.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 15:49:34 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


In my post made 1/4/91, Pat replies:

> If someone attaches a computer to a phone line and charges money to
> access it and gain information from it, why is he different than
> Compuserve, which attaches computers to phone lines and charges money
> to access their system and gain information from them?

People who run a BBS as a hobby don't charge a fee for the service.
As I stated before, some sysops ask for small donations.  These
donations are not mandatory, but you get some extra goodie if you do
[like access to the game room, or extended prime-time access].  But I
fail to see how this would indicate a business.  However, a BBS that
charges a mandatory fee for access in another creature entirely, and
should be treated as such [and I won't discuss that particular can of
worms here :) ]

I think that hobbyist BBSs are special.  They're a place to talk about
different subjects, participate in friendly chats, argue about contro-
versial issues, down/upload files, and meet people in an atmosphere
where what you say, not who you are, is important.  It doesn't matter
who you are, if you are handicapped, a minority, or whatever.  Most
people do not have access to the Internet/Bitnet/Usenet, and
Compu$erve and GEnie are only good for some things, therefore many
people rely on the local BBS.  To quote Mike Riddle's paper, BBSs are
now the local equivalent of the political pamphlet of the 1700s and
are just as important.

A BBS is not a business; it is a hobby that involves a great deal of
dedication, both financial and personal.  So why should sysops have to
take it on the chin for providing a free forum for other people to
communicate with each other and express their own opinions at the
sysop's expense?  If a BBS had to be classified as a business, who
would run one?  We'd end up with the lowest common denominator, just
like television and even more boring.


Aimee Tweedie      [e-mail]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York


[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of
not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence,
suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory
(312-731-1100) and similar? These are most often one or two person
operations, run by people who enjoy what they are doing and who are
trying to serve the community out of goodwill. They pay business rates
for their service, and it comes from their own pocket and/or whatever
trivial donations people send them. What rates would you have them
pay?  Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to
trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill?
What about the TTY-to-voice translators serving deaf people?  PAT]

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

From: David Cornutt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: MSFC
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 19:27:04 GMT


[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson) writes:

[about whether a BBS qualifies as a business, and who makes the
determination...]

>2)  Seems simple enough.  Anyone required to have a business license
>    is a business.

>The telephone industry is not in the business of regulating, defining,
>or otherwise limiting other commerce or business.

There is a government agency who is: the IRS.  If you wanted to deduct
the costs of your BBS as a business expense, you would have to meet
some pretty stringent tests.  You would need, for example, a computer,
modem, phone line, and room in your house devoted *exclusively* to the
BBS, and you would need extensive documentation of your expenses and
labor.

Further, there is a nasty thing called the "three years out of five"
test that home businesses are subjected to.  Just charging for access
isn't enough; you have to demonstrate that you have turned a profit at
least three out of the last five years, or the IRS will declare your
business to be a hobby, and disallow all deductions resulting from it.

What's the point?  The point is that there is no way that any home-
operated BBS would ever meet the IRS tests for a legitimate businees
(for-profit or not).  So, in a rational world, there is no way that a
BBS could ever be charged business rates.  Whether such an argument
would cut any ice with a PUC or not, I don't know.  Has anyone ever
tried such an argument?

>[Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have
>been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to
>make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'.
>Then what would you do?  Their thinking was people with these
>instruments at home were apparently working out of their home in a
>business-related activity.   PAT]

Having an office at home is not the same thing as running a business,
according to the IRS.  It is damn near impossible to deduct a home
office, no matter how legitimately it may be related to your job.
Again, whether this would mean anything to a PUC, I can't say.


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."


[Moderator's Note: But again, neither would the dial-prayer / phone
counselors / recorded annnouncement givers of the world qualify under
the 'three out of five' rule. They pay business rates. Either there
should be a not-for-profit rate with telco *or* the BBS operators
should bite the bullet and pay the same as others of their kind.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (William R. Pearson)
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 14:38:39 GMT


Re: Business licenses for modems

    I do programming and program distribution from my home, as
well as have a full-time job.  Every year I get a form letter from my
local government, suggesting that since I have taken a business
expense deduction on my state taxes, I should get a business license.
Every year I explain that I do no business in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and, in any case, do almost no business with non-tax exempt
institutions.  I am then told that I don't really need a business
license, since I will not be generating sales tax revenue.

    Here in Charlottesville, at least, a business license is
something you need to collect sales tax.  I wonder if the BBS might be
well served by getting something in writing from the local government
stating that they do not need a business license, because they are not
conducting a business.  On the other hand, perhaps they do need one,
because they are.


Bill Pearson

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

Subject: Michigan Bell vs BBSs
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 91 21:53:49 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


[e-mail] (Peter Marshall) writes:

> Re: Ed Hopper's 12/31 post in V11,#1:

> As seems unfortunately to be the case with a number of such posts, the
> lack of relevant information doesn't exactly seem to facilitate the
> purpose of such communications. Witness, for one other recent example,
> posts re: GTE and Indiana BBSs.

> In the current case, no case number or title is supplied; the issues
> presented for hearing are not specifically identified. Nor is the
> relevant tariff identified or the relevant tariff language cited.
    ...
> Suggest that if Ed et al are serious they do a second cut at this and
> fill in some of the blanks noted, as simply stuffing a hearing room
> with sysops and users doesn't seem particularly promising by itself.

Please note that I was forwarding a message from Bruce Wilson.  *I*
did *NOT* compose the message (with the exception of my personal
comments at the end).  I agree that there is a fairly common
chicken-little phenomenom in these cases.  Amateur lawyering abounds
and lapses in logic are common.

The docket in Texas is 8387.  We expect a final hearing and settlement
in a few days at which time I will post a summary of the activity.
That post will also more clearly discuss the issues that I briefly
touched upon in the testimony I gave in the PUC hearing.


Ed Hopper

 BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 08 Jan 91 19:35:14 PDT
From: Mike Riddle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business
Reply-to: [e-mail]


In a previous post, Mr. Winslade discusses the allegations recently
that reclassification of BBSes as "businesses" for ratemaking purposes
would result in higher long distance charges as "bovine doo-doo."

Perhaps, but what exactly are the differences in the "FCC mandated
line access charges" between residences and businesses?  I may be
wrong, but thought that I heard, way back when this good-intentioned
but poorly-thought-out access charge business started, that businesses
got hit harder.

Anyone know?


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #14
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21015;
          9 Jan 91 3:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29004;
          9 Jan 91 2:02 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04659;
          9 Jan 91 0:58 CST
Date:     Wed, 9 Jan 91 0:44:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #15
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Jan 91 00:44:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 15

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Russ Kepler]
    Credit Limit on Cellular Phone Account [Alan Laird]
    Cellular Phone and Service Advice Needed [Scott R. Myers]
    Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Steve Forrette]
    Roaming in the High Desert [Steve Forrette]
    New Roaming System for A Carriers [Steve Forrette]
    Year of the Free Cellular Phone? [Gary D. Archer]
    Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Joe Francis]
    Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Peter Hayward]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Russ Kepler <bbx!bbx.basis.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Date: 7 Jan 91 17:11:16 GMT
Organization: BASIS International, Albuquerque NM


In article <[e-mail]> uswnvg![e-mail] (Donn
Pedro) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Brent Chapman) writes:

>:How, then, was I receiving service when I'm sure I was at least 60
>:miles from the nearest cell?

OK - shall we have a "largest cell" contest?

I wouldn't propose it unless I thought I had a good chance at winning.
In Albuquerque we have a cellular service and a mountain.  Said
mountain is about 5000' above the city, a in view of a lot of the
surrounding area.

I can hit the Albuquerque cell from as far west as Grants (90 mi),
north to Los Alamos (70 mi), south to almost Socorro (about 80 mi),
and east for Santa Rosa (70 mi, but not good coverage).  This is with
good signal quality.

I'm waiting to see what happens when the new service in Santa Fe
goes in this year - will my system decide to roam or will it stay
in a home cell?  I'll check it out when the new system is up.


Russ Kepler -  Basis Int'l  SNAIL:  5901 Jefferson NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109
UUCP: bbx.basis.com!russ                                 PHONE: [phone]

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

From: Alan Laird <[e-mail]>
Subject: Credit Limit on Cellular Phone Account
Date: 7 Jan 91 17:22:33 GMT
Reply-To: Alan Laird <[e-mail]>
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.


With my most recent cellular phone bill from Nationwide Cellular
Telephones I received an extra form saying that from January they
would be introducing a credit limit of 100 pounds per phone line. The
form was very brief and was so badly worded that it was possible to
interpret it that they were giving a 100 pound credit limit like a
credit card but I would imagine the correct interpretation is that
they'll let you run your bill up to no more than 100 pounds and then
deny you any further service until you give them some money.

I don't use my phone terribly much but I have been over 100 pounds in
one month and I certainly wouldn't want to be in the position of not
being able to use it just because it was near the end of the month and
my outstanding bill was too high. NCT already get paid by direct debit
from my bank account and they threaten that they will disconnect you
immediately on non-payment without so much as a reminder, so I don't
imagine they have much of a problem collecting their revenue at the
moment.

What I want to know is if there are any other UK (or elsewhere for
that matter) airtime providers who also operate credit limits ?  Are
NCT likely to be in violation of my airtime contract by doing this ?
I'll dig it out myself tonight and have a look.

The form did offer to let you increase your credit limit if you
thought that 100 pounds was not sufficient. I'm going to return it
asking for a rediculous limit of say 5000 per month and see what they
say.


Alan  I  M  Laird,   Department  of  Computer  Science,
University  of  Strathclyde,   Glasgow  G1  1XH,    UK.
[e-mail],  041 552 4400 x3081,  0836 320786

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

From: "Scott R. Myers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Celluar Phone and Service Advice Needed
Date: 8 Jan 91 04:25:17 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University


I have a mission to find a good inexpensive mobile cellular phone and
a transportable cellular phone for my company.  Along with that I also
would appreciate any comments about the local cellular services
(NJ-NY-PA areas).  Features I would like are outlined below:

Hands Free (Very Important)
Dual NAM (Not so important but nice)
Phone number storage
Backlit display
Signal Strength meter (Like something more than just "Weak Signal")
Lock out with 911 exception (Not so important but nice)
Call Timer (per call and total would be nice)
DTMF (Very Important)

I may have missed a few but the key things above are the hands free
and the DTMF.

On the transportable I would like a full three watts with switchable
power selection.  Also a hands free option would be great.

I'd also like comments specifically on the phones that Radio-Shack
offers.

        CT-102    Mobile Cellular
        CT-1033    Transportable Cellular

I have no real good reason for being interested in them and I have
looked at many others but they are cheap the do come with the
Radio-Shack Extended Service Plan Option but who knows.  Let me know
what you think out there in Netland.  Thanx in advance.

BTW  -- My budget is $300 for the Mobil and $500 for the Transportable.


Scott R. Myers
Snail:    26 Stiles Street    Phone:[phone]
        Apartment 18
    Elizabeth, NJ 07208
Arpa:    [e-mail]    Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:33:38 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports


This is something that has always bothered me.  Let's say that I'm
roaming into a far away cellular system where my calls don't
automatically find me.  Someone has to dial into the roamer port, then
enter my 10 digit number to reach me.  The problem is that if they are
calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt,
whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point
the secondary dialtone is provided.

Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby
the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the
supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered?  US
Sprint manages to do precisely this with their FONcard system,
overcoming any technical or legal hurdles.  You enter the called
number and your FONcard number, all without supervision taking place.

I guess part of the answer is that the people affected by this problem
are not the cellular carrier's home customers, but only associates of
roamers from other systems.  But whatever happened to just wanting to
do it right for the sake of it?  It seems that especially cellular
carriers are not apt to do anything that doesn't increase airtime
revenues.

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:34:23 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject:  Roaming in the High Desert


Over New Year's, I had the opportunity to take a road trip from the
Bay Area to Tucson to see the Copper Bowl (Go bears!), and thus got a
lot of first-hand experience in roaming.  The coverage of Cellular One
of Los Angeles is amazing.  Going south, tt starts at the first hill
of the Grapevine coming down I-5, and was present all the way along
I-10 to the Arizona boarder.  There was a brief area of "no service"
just east of Indio, but it didn't last long.  For those of you not
familiar with the area, I-10 going towards AZ is very much a desert
and sparsely populated.  Yet, service worked like a champ.

Coming back through Las Vegas down I-15, LA service started just into
CA along I-15, and continued along SR 58 until I we hit the
Bakersfield system.  I, being a telecom nerd, was on the lookout for
cell sites, and sure enough, every few miles or so, especially on top
of the passes near the highway, you could see the cell sites.

I believe that these are NOT part of the new Rural Service Area plan.
These are to be separate systems in rural areas, right?  Whereas these
cells along I-10 and I-15 are part of the very-urban Los Angeles
system.  I guess it's just lucrative enough to install these to
serivce LA people on the way to somewhere.

There's now continuous service on I-5 from Redding to the Mexican
border (passing through several systems), the better part of which is
quite rural indeed.  Based on my travels through Arizona, Oregon,
Idaho, Washington, and Montana, the California coverage is quite
amazing.  There must be an awful number of people just on the way to
somewhere but in the middle of nowhere here to justify the cost.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:35:42 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Roaming System for A Carriers


There seems to be a new roaming system that some of the A carriers are
using (is this perhaps "Roam Across America" or something similar?).
When you are outside of your local area and registered in another,
your callers will get a recording telling them what city you are in,
the roamer port number there, and instructions on how to use it.  This
is a vast improvement over what we had before (nothing), but still not
as neat as the call just going through by itself.  Based on my
experience and a call to Cellular One, here are some details:

 - Registration is automatic - all you have to do is place or receive
a call in a foreign system in order to activate it.

 - The foreign system doesn't need any special equipment.  All they
need is to be part of the Positive Roamer Verification (PRV) network.
When your home system gets a MIN/ESN verification request from another
system (which happens upon your first call), it knows where you are.

 - The referral resets at midnight, when you roam into another system,
or when you return home.

 - In California or Nevada, if you are roaming into another city
hooked into the Super Cellular System, your calls find you
automatically anyway, so this new system doesn't apply.

 - There's currently a bug in the system (at least in San Francisco),
in that the referral will take precedence over any call forwarding or
no-answer transfer you have enabled.  Cellular One admitted that this
was indeed a bug (and not a "feature" as I had expected them to say!),
and is working to fix it.

 - Some systems (speficially Cellular One of Seattle) appear to only
do the MIN/ESN verification every other day.  So, the second day in a
row that you're roaming there, it figures that it doesn't need to
verify, since after all you were valid just yesterday.  But, the home
system has reset at midnight, so the referrals stop.  Note that I've
not been able to confirm this, but my own experience would imply this
"every other day" configuration.

 - Before someone else brings this up, here's something that came to
mind that I don't think is a big deal, but I just know some will:
"privacy."  Now, someone always knows what city I'm in if I bring my
cellphone along.  Note that unlike the *18/*19 FMR of the "B"
carriers, this new referral service happens automatically when you
place your first call, and there's apparently no way to shut it off
(except to leave call forwarding on before you leave (once they get it
working properly, that is!), but then you have to pay their "No
Vaseline" full airtime prices for forwarded calls :=( )


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 14:26:36 PST
From: "Gary D. Archer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Year of the Free Cellular Phone?


Several months ago our esteemed Moderator mentioned getting a
transportable for $99.  Here is my story of getting one today for
$0.00.

As many of you know, CA has a law that forbids manditory cellular
service activation being packaged with phones, and the entire package
being sold at "low" prices.  This has resulted in CA phones either
being a bargain (ie some Radio Shack phones will sell for the same
price in CA as outside, but outside CA you must sign up for cellular
service) or for the same phone being "overpriced".  I am a first time
cellular buyer.  My brother has a Techno-phone MC915A three watt
transportable that I really liked ... imagine my shock when I found
that in CA it would cost me between $300-$499 depending on stores...
then I'd have to pay $25 to have the phone activated, plus monthly,
plus airtime ... all for the privilege to not be locked into a six
month contract.

Talking to my brother it turned out he bought the phone (w/ six month
contract) for $25.00 plus a $25 programming in Houston.  So I had him
buy me one when he returned.  This time it was FREE (but I had to pay
a $25 charge).  Also, GTE will automatically give me a 408 a/c number
if I wish, but I'd have to have the phone reprogrammed out here.  I'd
still remain under their 6month contract, but would be paying the
local peak/off-peak rates and wouldn't have to auto-roam every night.

Now, It's a lot to ask for but is it possible for me to program this
phone myself, and if so, what information do I need from GTE to
accomplish this? The form I got with my phone lists something called
ESN (equipment serial no?) and CSA.  Is this the stuff that is changed
when the phone is re-programmed?

Thanks,

Gary


[Moderator's Note: The Technophone MC915A is easy to program. It has a
dual NAM, meaning you can have two different numbers (carriers)
assigned for 'home' if desired. Here is the programming sequence to
use:

1)  Press CLR three times in rapid succession.
2)  Press # 000000 # # 953739 # STO 29 STO STO
3)  Press on/off to power down the phone.
4)  Press on/off to power up the phone.
5)  Display will ask "Which NAM?"    (Press 1 or 2 followed by STO)
6)  Display will ask "System ID?"    (Example 00022 for NY Nynex, then *)
7)  Display will read 888-888-8888.  (Enter 10 digit phone number, then *)
8)  Display will ask "O/Load Class?" (Enter two digit code, then *)
9)  Display will ask "Grp ID?"       (Enter two digit code, then *)
10) Display will ask "EXp?"          (Enter Extended Address Bit 0/1, *)
11) Display will ask "IPCH?"         (Enter Paging Channel 333/334, then *)
12) Display will ask "System ID?"    (Enter three letters for city name)

   Example: To store "NYC" press 6 key two times, and display
   will show 'N'.  Press # to step to next letter. Press 9 key
   three times to get 'Y'. Press # to step to the final letter.
   Press 2 key three times to get 'C'. Press the # key to end.
   Then, press the * key once again.

13) Display will ask "Save NAM?"     (SEND = save ; END = disgard)

To exit NAM programming, press the END key. This will save the changes
and power down the unit.  I hope this helps you out.    PAT]

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

From: Joe Francis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1991 00:40:21 GMT


I find slamming annoying and deceitful.  How often does this happen?
This happened to me in Boston under New England Tel.  I was using AT&T
and suddenly received an MCI bill.  I refused to pay it and told them
to switch back to AT&T.

Does anyone know more about the frequency of this practice (or
anything else about it, for that matter)?


[Moderator's Note: Do we?  DO WE ???  My goodness, wake up and read
the Digest with your coffee each morning!   PAT]

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

From: "Peter B. Hayward" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available
Organization: The University of Chicago
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:12:00 GMT


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

>> On Thu, 3 Jan 91 12:34:08 CST, motcid!void![e-mail] (Allan
>> Bond) said via e-mail:
>>I got a "Request for account restriction of long distance company
>>form" (form 681-3) to protect from getting my favourite telephone
>>company switched.  "Call your service representative for yours."

>I was informed that each person has to call their Illinois Bell
>service representative individually.

Strange. I just called my Illinois Bell service rep and neither he nor
his supervisor had heard of such. The alternative he offered me was to
have a password placed on my account so only people knowing the
password could initiate changes.


Peter B. Hayward                                               WX9T
University of Chicago Computing Organizations


[Moderator's Note: All business office reps are created equal, but
some are more equal than others. That's why your's had not heard of
the form yet, I imagine.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #15
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13020;
          10 Jan 91 0:47 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04586;
          9 Jan 91 23:16 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29610;
          9 Jan 91 22:10 CST
Date:     Wed, 9 Jan 91 21:20:44 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #16
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Jan 91 21:20:38 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 16

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Illinois Bill Reduces Rates For Poor People [John Higdon]
    Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs) [Adam Gorman]
    Gaijin Gets Phone in Tokyo ... and Lives! [Robert Trebor Woodhead]
    Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Hans Mulder]
    Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Marvin Sirbu]
    Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) [Ed Hopper]
    Re: What do You Pay For 64kb X.25? [Jim Breen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bill Reduces Rates For Poor People
Date: 7 Jan 91 02:41:29 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]> writes:

>   I guess you'll have to cut down on some of the curiosity-satisfying
> calls that you make and report here, cancel some of the fancy features
> you have opted for, and live with less lines. Living outside of means
> does not entitle you to a subsidy, but a minimum level of service of a
> utility which is essential for health and safety in our society at a
> price affordable to those who would suffer either without it or at the
> regular rates is a desireable and even cost-effective social goal.

So only the "poor" are entitled to live outside of means? This sounds
an awful lot like taxation and pricing to effect social change.
Whenever you start messing around with market pricing, you open a
complex can of worms that requires rules upon regulations to correct
the previous "injustice".

So how would you have telephone pricing? The same phone line might
cost anywhere from "free" to $100 per month based upon the person's
ability to pay? Why is this fair? Yes, a telephone is a current-day
necessity.  But one measured phone line is $4.45 per month in CA (plus
tax). This is hardly a crippling amount to anyone with a roof over his
head. (The "homeless" don't have telephones that I'm aware of.) Why
must we create a whole new rate structure to shave a couple of bucks
off of an already insignificant amount?

I may be misreading your intent, but what I hear is that everyone is
entitled to basic phone service. Anyone wanting more had better be
willing to pay through the nose, since wanting more is not in harmony
with the common good. Those that have trouble affording basic service
are entitled to be subsidized by those wanting something over and
above what has been declared "adequate".

But telephone service is hardly food, shelter, or clothing. If
"standard" telephone service costs $X, then ten times the standard
service should cost $10X, not $20X or $40X. If the ordinary
necessities of life carry a fixed cost, then what gives anyone the
right to use utility pricing as a vehicle for social influence?

For instance, I pay about twenty times as much for electricity than
someone in a small, one-room apartment. Do I use twenty times as much?
No, of course not. But our state regulators have decreed that the
price of electricity will increase with demand. The intent is to allow
low-income people to be able to afford electicity and to encourage
conservation. Very laudable, you say. But the real effect is to
penalize people who are sharing a house such as families, college
students, and yes, even poor people who are all living under one roof
(and one electric meter). The end rate that a residential customer
pays is considerably higher than the business rate.

I find it disconcerting that someone posting from an institution of
higher learning would dismiss the "curiosity satisfying" calls of the
Moderator so quickly. Is life to consist of subsistance? The tone
reminds me of the spiders in a box. The moment one tries to get out,
the others pull him back in. Thank heaven there are people who have
the curiousity and ambition to explore and experiment (activities that
I thought were supposed to take place in schools).

Because I am a heavy telephone user, there are many coffers that are
being enriched:

911
Lifeline (poor subsidy)
City, State, Federal governments

The one thing I DO get is a healthy discount on long distance due to
my volume and WATS lines. Do you call that a subsidy?


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

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 05:31:24 CST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Business vs Residence (was: Michigan vs BBSs)


In the UK you pay about ten pounds more per quarter per line for
business lines from British Telecom.

Current rates are 27.75 Uk Stg business and 17.13 domestic, excluding
VAT at 15% which most businesses may reclaim.

Basically this puts you one peg above the 'public' in terms of service
 - this means quicker installations and repairs.

They run a compensation scheme which provides a five pound a day
rebate for lines which are down for more than four days. For business
lines you may claim for loss of business - if you can prove it was due
to the loss of 'phone service.

Also as a business you get a BT account manager assigned to you and a
free entry in the Yellow Pages classified directories.

Some areas divide business and domestic customers in the directories,
so if you want potential customers to be able to find you you'd better
be in the right section!

BT's philosophy seems to be that if you want business class service
pay for it.  Although I don't think they'd allow a cheap skate company
to have 70 trunk lines as a domestic subscriber.

Mercury's 2300 indirect service make no distinction between business
and personal usage, though their application form asks you to tick
what you'll be using the service for.

Racal Vodaphone ( cellular ) assume everyone paying the 25 Uk Stg per
MONTH is a business user.


Adam Gorman, Solstice Systems Ltd
on contract to Schlumberger Technologies ATE Division Ferndown Dorset UK

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

From: Robert Trebor Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor>
Subject: Gaijin Gets Phone in Tokyo ... and Lives!
Date: 7 Jan 91 04:42:25 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.   Tokyo Japan


Today I had the most pleasant dealing with the phone company
experience ever.  Too bad I had to travel 14 time zones to get it.

Along with my new Tokyo apaato (just big enough, barely, to swing a
dead cat in) I of course needed a phone.  So off I went, with a
friend, to the local NTT office to order phone service.

We expected a big crowd, because today is the first real day of
business after the New Year's Holiday, during which the entire country
screetches to a halt for about 10 days.  Apparently, everyone else
figured there would be a crush too, and decided to go this afternoon,
because the place was deserted.  A half dozen dedicated NTT employees
looked plaintively at us, hoping against hope that we would give them
something to do.  Clearly, they were fed up with forced inactivity of
the holidays.

Of course, we couldn't just walk up to a service representative.  No,
that wouldn't do at all.  In a great imitation of David Brenner's
infamous "Getting a burger after midnight in LA" routine, we first had
to go to a special ticket machine and get a number.

I pressed the button, and in a second or two the machine printed a
shiny ticket bearing the number "1."  The NTT employees leaped for the
buttons that would indicate that their service station was available.
Ms. Yoshida, obviously a devotee of game shows, hit her button first.
A synthesized announcement invited us, in the most deferential
language, to visit her.  We were almost sorry we didn't have to wait,
as there was a comfortable lounge, stocked with magazines, not to
mention a coffee shop around the corner.

Having explained that we wanted a telephone, and given my address, Ms.
Yoshida attacked a stack of paperwork with same fervor that the
average salaryman reserves for his lunchtime noodles.  A flurry of
other employees held quick, impromptu meetings.  A consensus was
reached.  Yes, indeed, the foreigner could have a telephone.  It would
even be possible to get a second line for a fax at any time desired.
A large digital signboard displayed the possible times when the
lineman could come to connect the telephone.  Further checking
indicated that this would not be needed.

Next, a conference was held to determine which, of the myriad of
numbers available, would be best for me.  They could not decide, so
they presented me with four possible alternatives.  Which did I want?
I gave them careful consideration; to do any less would be insulting.
Although Japanese phones don't have the ABC DEF... on the numbers that
US phones do, I checked them for meaningul four letter combinations.
No such luck.  However, being a strange gaijin who didn't know any
better, I decided to ask if *I* could choose my phone number.  More
conferences.  The computer was consulted.  This was indeed a strange
request, but then, everyone knew that foreigners had wierd customs.

Ms. Yoshida came back and told me that, yes, I could choose my own
phone number, and if it was available, they would be glad to let me
have it.  She further told me that due to the recent expansion of
Tokyo exchanges to four digits, and the fact that my house was located
in an area that was using one of the new four digit exchanges that
start with five, almost all the numbers in my exchange were available,
including all numbers starting with 3,4,6 and 9.  A wonderful
discovery, I thought, as I decided which four letter word I would use.
I resisted the temptation to use an anglo- saxonism.  That would be
abusing their hospitality.  I was strongly tempted by SEXY, GAME, and
ROBT, but ended up going with the more pedestrian WOOD.

All choices made, Ms. Yoshida gravely ushered me to the cashier, where
I paid my deposit.  My phone service would be started that very night.
Amid a veritable hail of thank yous, we took our leave of NTT.  Yes,
they extracted 75,000 yen from me, but as god is my witness, it was
worth it!


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

From: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 14:52:13 +0100
Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands


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

[about he Dutch phone system]
>002 - speaking clock
>003 - weather forecast

Not anymore.  They moved to 06-8002 and 06-8003 on December 1st, 1990.
They still cost 1 unit, i.e. Dfl 0.15 (about US$ 0.08) per call.

When they announced the change, PTT Telecom referred to an
``international agreement'' to make 00- the prefix for international
calls.  Can anybody tell me what sort of agreement they meant?  Is
this an EC directive, a CCITT recommendation, or what?

>001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the
>      06-041x range.

Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11.  Like a regular
non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds.


Have a nice day,


Hans Mulder    [e-mail]  (machine currently down for OS upgrade)
        [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon,  7 Jan 91 10:57:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption


Instructing the local exchange carriers to reroute calls away from
AT&T would be easier if the local exchange carriers had an intelligent
network in place in which call routing decisions were made in
centrallized Service Control Points (SCP), as with AT&T's 800
translation database.

At the present time, however, there are still many electro-mechanical
offices, where programs cannot be easily changed, or stored program
control offices where the change would have to be made at each CO
rather than centrally.

Perhaps in five or ten years the solution you propose will be
feasible.  It should take AT&T much less time to increase the
redundancy and automatic rerouting capabilities of its own network.


Marvin Sirbu


[Moderator's Note: The thing is Marvin, throughout the history of
phones, we've nearly always been in a state of flux. Manual service
mixed with automation; crossbar with step; ESS with older offices,
etc. If we always waited until *everyone* was equally equipped, we'd
never get anywhere. Some subscribers could do things others could not
do. An example was equal access / 10xxx dialing. Is everyone finally
cut over on this?  Why not go with this suggestion *where it is
technically feasable at present* and add offices as they are otherwise
converted or brought up to date?  If only half the telephone
subscribers at present could be automatically and transparently
re-routed in the event of a major problem, think of the confusion and
congestion which would be eliminated. And frankly, I think the idea of
having all of our eggs in one basket -- as a manner of speaking --
where fiber optic is concerned is going to cause even more incidents
as time goes on. Trivia: The latest AT&T fiasco comes just before the
first anniversary of the January 15 software failure last year.  PAT]

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

Subject: Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World)
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 91 06:19:24 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


[e-mail] (John R. Levine) writes:

> Calls to Mexico are extremly expensive.  Calls cost 15 cents/min plus
> a termination charge that depends on where you call.  Calling Mexico
> City off-peak costs $1.26/minute, more than Pakistan or Ghana.  Is
> that normal?

I grew up in El Paso, Texas, along the Mexican border.  One of the
more unfortunate aspects of the MFJ is the removal of the LEC from
special international toll agreements.

Before the MFJ, calls to Juarez, Mexico (a city that is virtually
contiguous to El Paso on the south side of the Rio Grande) were
dialable via a "42" prefix to the five digit Juarez telephone number.
Costs were minimal.  They were handled via a cable that ran from El
Paso main CO across a bridge over the Rio Grande to Juarez main.

Then came the MFJ.  "Special deals" like this went away and the 905
NPA applied.  Rates went higher.

Now, Juarez calls are fully integrated in the international LD system.
011+Country Code+ etc.

Is this progress?


Ed Hopper
 BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Is this progress, you ask?  Well, Judge Green must
think so. There were numerous arrangements like you describe along the
Canadian border also in the past, allowing local calling between small
towns on the US side and the Canadian side. Friends communicating with
friends, without making an 'international issue' out of it.  PAT]

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What do You Pay For 64kb X.25?
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1991 01:49:32 GMT


[NB: I tried to reply to Hank by email but the address was inadequate.]

In article <[e-mail]>, HANK@taunivm (Hank Nussbacher)
writes:

> Our PTT is charging us $.435 per kilosegment (64Kbytes) for
> transmission of data over a 64kb X.25 circuit.  There is no time
> charge.  I'd be interested in hearing what other countries pay for
> 64kb X.25 usage.

Telecom Australia's Austpac service charges $A1.20 ($US0.93) per
kilosegment. There is a time charge also (low for permanent
connections and $A4.20/hr for dial). Permanent X.25 connections range
from $A3700 pa for 2400bps to $18500 pa for 48000bps (64K coming
soon).

Note that these are nation-wide, distance independent prices, and
Australia is nearly as big as the US or Europe.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #16
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13918;
          10 Jan 91 1:52 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31210;
          10 Jan 91 0:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04586;
          9 Jan 91 23:16 CST
Date:     Wed, 9 Jan 91 22:17:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #17
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Jan 91 22:16:37 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 17

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ClassMate: A Review [Eric J. Johnson]
    Re: Sent-Paid Calls From Coin Phones [Steve Forrette]
    Programming Code Needed for OKI Products Cellular Phone [Monte Freeman]
    Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Peter Anvin]
    Help Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Peter Anvin]
    Re: Misleading AT&T Advertisement? [Ed Greenberg]
    New Breed of COCOT [Steve Forrette]
    ANI Again [Rich Szabo]
    Re: Interoffice Signalling [Floyd Davidson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Eric J. Johnson" <btni!null![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ClassMate: A Review
Organization: U S WEST Communications
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 21:39:15 GMT


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

>ClassMate is a device which allows your computer to read the caller's
>phone number on inbound calls, when this information is supplied by
>your telephone company if you have subscribed to Caller*ID service.

[ an accurate review deleted ]

I just got mine in the mail last week after enduring a three month
back order.  I immediately tossed the software that came with the
device (not particularly useful for my application), and spent this
weekend writing my own TSR to monitor the serial port continuously and
log all the calls to a file on the PC's disk.  This was accomplished
using pieces of the UUPC communications package and a TSR development
library called TESS which is available on Compu$erve.  Send me e-mail
if you have any detailed questions.

Using the calling information stored by the TSR, my Natural
MicroSystems 'Watson' card answers the phone like a normal answering
machine, but delivers an individualized personal greeting to any
calling number it recognizes.  It also records the calling number plus
the caller's name, if known, on the Rolodex-style message cards
indicating messages.  This makes it simple to review 'interesting'
messages first.

Also, any caller blocking Caller*ID receives a terse message and is
disconnected without being given an opportunity to leave a message!


Eric J. Johnson      UUCP: [e-mail]
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and in
no way reflect the will of Landru.  (or U S WEST Communications)

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 15:22:54 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sent-Paid Calls From Coin Phones


Regarding long distance sent-paid calls from payphones (prepaid with
coins):

I had a talk with my Pacific Bell friend a few weeks ago, and just
this subject came up.  Apparently, the issue is somewhat a technical
one.  For the past few years, each carrier has been given equal access
to the technology to service sent-paid calls.  However, it requires
that the IXC have a point-of-presence at the payphone's CO - no
tandems allowed here.  So, for example, to service sent-paid calls in
California, a point-of-presence would be required at every CO in the
state that has payphones attached to it.  As we all know, there's only
one carrier that has gone to that trouble (they shall remain nameless,
but their initials are AT&T).  But the fact remains, that there is
indeed "equal access" to the technology for each carrier.

One of the reasons that the "other guys" aren't jumping to get into
this segment of the market is that it is a declining one.  However,
this may change soon.  My friend was involved in a trial in Reno of
some new technology that would allow control of the payphone's coin
mechanism through a tandem.  It would possibly require some extra
equipment on the IXC's end, but not a POP in each exchange.  So, in
the future, we may actually have a choice for sent-paid calls.

As for what the Moderator said about having competition in this area
in Chicago, has he actually tried this?  In Northern California at
least, there is a variety of carriers on Bell payphones, but only for
operator-assisted or calling card calls.  Sent-paid calls go over AT&T
always, regardless of the equal access default for that phone.

Another problem with sent-paid, particularly with international calls,
is that the totalizer in the payphones can only handle $3 or so.  For
some international calls, the initial rate may be more than this.  So,
what do you do?  If collect into the coin box after $3, then keep
counting until the initial rate is deposited, what do you do if the
call doesn't complete?  You can't return the first three dollars!
But, the only other option is to allow the call to complete with less
than the initial rate deposited.  Then, if the caller doesn't deposit
the rest, what can the carrier do?  I tried to call a number in Europe
somewhere, and apparently sent-paid international calls are always
handled by the operator - no automated coin collection here.  I was
told that I had to deposit $3, then they would dial the call.  If it
wasn't answered, my $3 would be returned.  If it completed, the other
party would be asked to hold while I deposited the remainder of the
initial rate, at which time the operator would let the call complete.


[Moderator's Note: With a couple of cell phones, calling cards from
Illinois Bell/AT&T and Sprint, and an 800 number attached to my home
line, I've had no need to deposit coins in the slot for years. I have
to admit to only reading instruction cards -- not actually following
the instructions.  When the initial rate is more than the table will
hold then the operators here place the call, and on successful
connection they tell the called party to stand by; split the
connection, collect their money and reconnect the caller.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:04:39 -0500
From: Monte Freeman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Programming Code Needed for OKI Products Cell Phone


Pat,

  Some time ago there was quite a bit of discussion here about
cellular telephones. One of the things that was mentioned was special
codes that the cellular phone retailer/installer could enter on the
phone to find out various pieces of information about it and/or change
that information.

  At the time, I didn't follow the discussion too closely since I
didn't own a cellular phone. Well, that has changed now. I am now the
proud(?) owner of an OKI Products hand-held cellular phone. What I
need to know is if you or one of the Telecom readers can provide me
with the code(s) for this particular telephone.

  I know that one exists, because earlier today I took the phone to a
repair shop. I accidentally LOCKED the phone, and didn't remember the
UNLOCK code.  I told the technician my problem. He turned the phone
on, held down the RCL and MENU keys at the same time, and then keyed
in a nine or ten digit sequence of numbers on the keypad. This string
of numbers started with about six zero's, but he was going so fast
that I couldn't keep up with him.

  Naturally, he refused to give me the code he used, mumbling
something about copyright laws and professional ethics. Personally, as
long as the phone belongs to me, I see no reason why I shouldn't be
allowed to look at any portion of it I want to. If that includes the
configuration information, so be it. If I screw it up, then I should
have to pay to have it put back in working order again. But I digress
here. We could debate this subject for quite some time I expect.

  Anyway, if you or anyone else could help me out with this it would
be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,


Monte Freeman
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!ccoprfm
Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Here's your message. Maybe someone will send us the
details on this specific phone.  As you may know, I fully favor the
right of cell phone owners to program their own instruments in a
lawful manner to cut expenses when roaming or changing numbers, etc.  PAT]

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

From: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications
Date: 8 Jan 91 04:04:37 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University


In article <[e-mail]> Kari Hardarson <hardarso@cs.
unc.edu> writes:

>I'm particularly concerned with whether the touch-tone features on a
>phone bought in USA will work in Scandinavia - or whether
>the phone will work at all for that matter.

Yes, the phone will work.  I have tried myself to use U.S.-bought
phones in Sweden.  However, a few things to keep in mind (this applies
to Sweden, and may or may not apply to the rest of Scandinavia):

1. Get a touch-tone phone.  If you have to use pulse dial, Sweden had their
   "0" where the U.S. "1" was, so you have to change all phone numbers
   around according to this cipher:
   for "0" dial "1", for "1" dial "2", etc, for "8" dial "9", for "9" dial
   "0".  This does not apply to touch-tone.

2. (This applies to all Europe): Do not bring a cordless phone!  Europe is
   in a different ITU region (1) than the U.S. (2), and have different
   frequency allocation.  It is illegal to bring in a cordless phone, being
   an unauthorized radio transmitter.

3. Swedish touch-tone phones have 13 buttons, "0".."9", "*", "#", "R".  I
   don't know what the "R" button does, but its functions are similar to
   the ones U.S. phone companies flash the hook for, so it might be exactly
   what it does.

4. The Swedish phone net provides a lower current level than any other
   phone system in the world.  Thus, a current-hungry foreign phone may not
   work properly.  It shouldn't matter for modern electronic ones.

5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow).
   Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may
   not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up.

6. Get a Swedish phone cord when you get there; Televerket has recently
   picked up on the rest of the world and started using RJ-11 modular
   plugs, so you can easily get a phone cord with a modular plug in one end
   and a Swedish phone plug in the other in any local Telebutik (Televerket
   shop).

Happy travelling!


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: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed
Date: 8 Jan 91 04:10:56 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University


Here is a problem that it takes the expertise of comp.dcom.telecom to
solve:

I live with a roommate in a room with only one phone outlet, in a
building only wired for one phone line per room.  I use my modem
frequently, and it has become a problem with the incompatibility of
the modem and a regular telephone; in other words it is easy to pick
up the headset when the phone looks free, just to ruin a modem
connect, and vice versa I don't want autodialing programs, such as my
FidoNet mailer, to try to call out while my roommate uses the phone
(it generates significant amounts of noise if it tries to pick up the
line).

Therefore, I would like to get a "first come, first serve" phone
switch to plug into the single phone outlet, and once *either* of the
two output lines goes off-hook, the other one should be automatically
disconnected from the main line.

ALSO, if possible I would like the device to capture distinctive
ringing and depending on type of first ring ring either the phone
(with answering machine) or the modem (with autoanswer).  This is not
as important, though.

If there is such a device on the market, or if someone knows how I
could build a device like this myself, I would like to know.

I wrote this article offline earlier; I saw something in the last
50-or-so messages about a device to capture Distinctive Ringing.  Could
that device handle the first part of this problem as well?


H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++
INTERNET:  [e-mail]   FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
BITNET:    HPA@NUACC                 RBBSNET:  8:970/101.4

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 09:45 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertisement?


Paul Coen <[e-mail]> writes about a possibly misleading AT&T
advert, in which is is implied that changing carriers will affect
incoming call quality.

I immediately associated the premise that changing LD carriers would
affect quality of calls home with the use of a calling card.

The problem here is that it isn't clear that one can have one LD service
and originate calls on any service, both at home and away.

The most important thing to remember though is that these ads are not
designed to educate and inform, but to create an emotional response.  By
training us to have an emotionally positive response to AT&T, and a
negative response to the concept of any other LD carriers, AT&T hopes to
have us suspend our skepticism with respeect to their claims, while
rejecting out of hand the claims and offers of others.


edg

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 22:32:49 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Breed of COCOT


I've not seen this one before.  It looks very much like the blue AT&T
coinless phones that they often have at airports or highway rest stops
in the middle of nowhere.  No screen or card reader, just the dialing
pad and receiver.  This one looked very much like the AT&T one, in
fact, I wasn't sure until I tried to dial 10288, which after about the
2, resulted in "This is not a valid number."  Looking closer, the logo
on the upper left corner looks much like the Pacific Bell asterisk,
except there are only five points instead of six.  I didn't fiddle
with it any further.  It was at the Taco Bell (I didn't realize the
humor in this until just now! :-)) in Mt. Verde, Arizona, which really
is in the middle of nowhere.


[Moderator's Note: There are some COCOTS here which require a careful
examination to detirmine that they are not 'genuine Bell'. So how come
if their 'alternate service' is so good they have to try so hard to
decieve the public to make them think it is a Bell phone?  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 01:50:58 -0500
From: Rich Szabo <[e-mail]>
Subject: ANI Again
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I understand from the definition in GLOSSARY.TXT that ANI info is
passed from the LEC to the IEC.  I can see how a 800- or 900- service
customer could get the ANI info, since his incoming calls are all
routed thru the particular IEC.

What I do not understand is, could a small business could get the ANI
info without buying an 800 or (heaven forbid) a 900 number?  Sorry to
re-hash this topic, but the subject has come up locally.


Rich Szabo


[Moderator's Note: At the present time, I do not think you can get
ANI without an 800/900 number. They of course can get Caller ID in
many places with regular lines, and the end result may be much the
same, but many here will hasten to tell you ANI is not Caller ID.  PAT]

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 1991 08:52:10 GMT


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

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

>>In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected
>>by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when
>>completing an interoffice call?  (assumptions: electronic offices,
>>inband signalling, same NPA, same telco)

>Because you specified the same NPA they would most likely pass only
>the last four digits.  But also it is unlikely that there would be two
>switches and only one NPA.

My statement above is a bit brain damaged.  I was thinking of office
codes, not area codes when I wrote that.  Guess I gotta stop posting
at 3 AM.


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.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #17
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14936;
          10 Jan 91 2:53 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18938;
          10 Jan 91 1:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31210;
          10 Jan 91 0:20 CST
Date:     Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:48:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #18
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:48:24 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 18

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [David Brightbill]
    Possible Contradiction by Moderator? [David Gast]
    Service Outages, Fiber, etc. [Lou Judice]
    Emergency Re-Routing [Jack Dominey]
    Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid and High Frequency Loss [Casey Leedom]
    How to Get a 900#'s Address [Douglas Scott Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 09:13:36 -0500
From: David Brightbill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service


Bob Sherman writes:

> So while the $15 per hour surcharge may seem a bit high to you, it is
>a real bargin compared to the cost if you were to subscribe directly.
>The cheapest way to use the service is designed for mass mailers, who
>can supply tape reels with their mailing lists on them, and for
>something like .30 per hit, they get address corrections, nine digit
>zip codes etc.

A little known FREE service of your US Postal Service is that they
will do the same thing.  You have to provide the data in a fixed
format on certain media (5 1/4 msdos format disks are one), fill out a
form, and send it in.  Several weeks later, you get back corrected
data, +4 zip codes, standard address codes, etc.  They will even
supply suite/apartment numbers for individuals or businesses in large
buildings.  Check with the commercial mailing rep at your local large
post office.


Davie Brightbill

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:16:25 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Possible Contradiction by Moderator?


One of the recurring questions asked in this forum is "What number do
I dial to determine what number I am calling from?"  The answer, of
course, is that it varies from location to location.  The Moderator
has noted that the number changes all the time and that it should
change frequently.  Presumably, he is concerned about fraud.  If I can
call some number to find out what number I am dialing from, it makes
it easy to plant a bug or to call collect to that number, for example.

The contradiction, it seems, comes from the Moderator's frequent and
outspoken support for Caller-ID.  With CID, the bad guy/gal just calls
his/her home phone with a CID box and records the information.  Thus,
the same information for the same illicit behavior will be available.
PAT will surely be mad if someone else accepts a collect phone call
from an AOS on his line in the basement of his building.


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


[Moderator's Note:  Moderators do not contradict themselves, but I
thank you for sharing your concern. I noted that the 'numbers to call'
are different from location to location, and that they change
frequently. I am not aware of saying I thought they *should* be
changed frequently. And yes, while I could go in the basement and use
someone else's pair to get a readback or call my own number and get a
CID reading, both of these actions are illegal on their face by
virtue of me burglarizing the basement phone box to begin with (if it
is not within my specific authority to wire, modify or examine the
box). On the other hand, it is not and should not be illegal for me to
ascertain my own phone number if I have forgotten it or gotten
confused by the wires in my possession. Neither should it be illegal
for me to ascertain the identity -- or at the very least the phone
number -- of the anonymous person calling me. Don't blame good and
useful technology just because some people abuse it.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 06:59:06 PST
From: Peripheral Visionary 08-Jan-1991 0951 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Service Outages, Fiber, etc.


We seem to be really plagued by telecom service outages recently.
Since I'm sure there's not a large increase in the number of cables
being accidentally cut, my suspicion is that more and more traffic is
being handled by fewer and fewer high capacity fiber routes.

Now of course building and maintaining a small number of very high
capacity trunks must make a lot of good economic sense (fewer
repeaters, less cable to maintain, etc.) But, the service outages say
that something is missing in terms of redundancy - which I always
thought was a major part of telephone system design.

Am I just naive to think that the system used to be more reliable????

A joke I've heard recently in telecom circles is "wouldn't it be funny
if fiber optic cable loses it's light transmission characteristics
after being buried for say, 25 years..." The line of reasoning is that
perhaps putting so many eggs in one basket may not be such a great
idea?

ljj


[Moderator's Note: Yes, the system used to be much more reliable.
There was a spirit of cooperation and a desire for excellence which
has been gradually fading away since divestiture.  Now, if a large
segment of the network goes out -- something that was unthinkable ten
or fifteen years ago -- they just say 'use someone else for the time
being', as though that settled the matter. Sad, isn't it.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Jan  8 09:47:11 EST 1991
Subject: Emergency Re-Routing


Someone suggested recently (and our Moderator concurred) that in cases
of cable cuts and similar disasters, LD carriers should provide
automatic re-routing of calls to other networks.  While the idea
sounds more reasonable as I consider it longer, one issue does stick
out.

If such a program were implemented, the people affected would be
placing calls, expecting service from their default carrier, but
actually receiving service from someone else.  Sound familiar?  It's
awfully similar to the discussions of slamming that have rolled around
in here for some time.  For that reason, the idea of transparent
re-routing bothers me somewhat.

The effect would be mitigated by announcing the policy well before any
emergency, with a bill insert or some such, and by making arrangements
so that I would be billed through my default carrier.  The latter,
however, would be incredibly difficult to arrange and execute.  In
fact, the carriers will probably decide that it's easier to identify
critical points in the network (such as the AT&T Newark cable) and
provide redundant and/or better-protected facilities. (It's hard to
protect against your own engineers and line people, though!)


Jack Dominey | AT&T Commercial Markets | 800 241-4285 | attmail !dominey
My own opinions except as noted.


[Moderator's Note: They would not be receiving service from 'someone
else'. They would be receiving service from their own carrier on lines
their carrier temporarily leased *from someone else*.  That makes a
big difference. Remember, for years prior to Sprint and MCI having
their own complete network they both leased circuits from AT&T and
from each other. The OCC's may in fact still parcel out a lot of their
international traffic to AT&T in a way transparent to their users. An
intercompany emergency re-routing system would say to the public,
"Don't worry about *how* we handle your call; it is our obligation to
see that it gets handled, period."   PAT]

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

From: Casey Leedom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Wanted: Telco Service has Mid and High Frequency Loss
Date: 8 Jan 91 19:05:42 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


  I just moved into a house in the Berkeley hills.  I plan on
tele-commuting to work several days a week using an X terminal and
V.32 over Telebit T2500s (GE7.00 PROMs.)

  Unfortunately, my V.32 connections keep on dropping after anywhere
from 45 minutes to an hour and a half.  When I examine the line
quality register, S78, it's 100 both before and after the connection
drops.  It appears that the T2500s can maintain a PEP connection
forever, but the ``instantaneous'' transmit and receive bit rates, S70
and S72, are very low, in the 12K-15K range.  When I look at the bit
assignments per PEP sub-carrier, I see a curve that looks like the
following:

    6   |   ------ - -----
    4   |  -              -------------------------
    2   |                                          ---------
    0   |--       - -                                       -----

whereas the typical PEP bit assignment curve I've observed looks more
like:

    6   |   ------ - -------------------------------
    4   |  -                                        -------
    2   |                                                  --
    0   |--       - -                                        ----

(Sorry I can't give you exact figures -- I need to hook up a PC of
some kind to capture the data from the modem but I haven't had to time
to borrow one yet.)

  I've been told that the two zero drop outs are for the PEP
retraining signals.  The big issue is that the mid and high frequency
sub-carriers don't seem to be up to snuff.

  I asked PacBell to come out and test the frequency response of the
line outside and inside the house to determine whether it was ``their
problem'' or my house wiring, but they don't seem to be able to do
that.  Amazing.  Apparently there used to be a PREFIX-00XX number that
the service technicians could call that would provide a 0DB frequency
sweep, but all they've got available now is PREFIX-0020 which provides
a 1004Hz tone at 0DB.  I can't tell whether the central office was
jiving the technician who came out (he made a real and very valiant
effort to help me -- this is my second great experience with PacBell
service technicians by the way) or whether they really don't have any
method of doing a frequency response test.

I suppose their attitude could be that there's really nothing simple
(read "cheap") that can be done if there is a frequency line
impairment, so why bother test -- besides, it would give the customers
something solid to bitch about (corresponding computer programming
maxim: ``Don't test for bugs you either can't fix or don't want to
deal with.'')

  The service technician who came out also mentioned that my house is
just about as far from the central office as I could get without being
assigned to a different CO.  However, he thought that all the street
wiring was fairly new.  By the way, the drop to my house is twisted
six-pair.

  The other possible source of these problems is the house wiring.
The wiring in the house is very old, untwisted aluminum three-pair.
Yes, I said aluminum!  Don't ask me -- everyone I've told of and
showed the wiring to says they've never heard of aluminum being used
for telephone wiring ... and some of them have been in the telephone
business for over twenty years!

  I'm running a voice circuit on line one (green/red -- tied to the
white-blue/blue-white pair in the three-pair) and the modem on line
two (black/yellow -- tied to the white-orange/orange-white pair of the
three-pair.)  The white-green/green-white pair of the three-pair is
unattached and unterminated.

  There's about forty feet of the wire strung between the drop box and
the telephone jack I'm trying to use.  It's also wired serially
through a jack about ten feet from the drop box.  That earlier jack
has a telephone set on line one, but nothing on line two.  The far
jack also has a telephone set on line one in addition to the modem on
line two.

  While in PEP mode, I can hear a very small amount of cross talk when
both the modem and voice lines are idling (very low level regular
clicking.)  As soon as the modems start up it becomes nearly
impossibly to hear the cross talk.  I don't think I can hear any cross
talk when using V.32.

  In any case, because I wasn't able to get anywhere with PacBell, I'm
left to simply replace the wiring in my house an hope that that clears
up the problems.

  So, the point of this article:

    1.    I welcome any comments about frequency response testing and
    getting PacBell to fix their wiring if it's the problem.
    And just what are the nominal levels of service that they
    do promise to provide?

    2.    I welcome any comments about the potential problems that very
    old, untwisted aluminum wiring might generate and in particular,
    does anyone think it could be responsible for my frequency
    response loss?

    3.    I think I remember hearing, perhaps in this group, that twisted
    pair wiring can actually *degrade* frequency response because of
    capacitance coupling.  Am I dreaming that up?  Will I be doing
    more harm than good by running copper twisted pair?

    4.    We're thinking of running twisted copper six-pair throughout the
    house to accommodate future expansion with an Ethernet, AppleTalk
    net, and up to three phone lines.  Does anyone see any problem
    with cross talk doing this?

  Thanks for any help you may be able to offer.  Since this is such a
broad question, may spark a lot of discussion, and be of interest to a
lot of people, I think that posting followups would be best rather
than sending me mail.

P.S.  I just learned about the ATJ6J0 command.  Here's the output of that
    command after one of my line drops.  Unfortunately I have no idea
    what the output means ... Is the interpretation of this output part
    of the ``Undocumented Features'' document by Telebit?

    ATJ6J0
    R000000 R000 N003 EC000
    T000000 F000000 R000000 M000000 E000000
    F000000 000000
    000 000 000
    001
    000 000 000 000 L L T000
    M000 L001 C000
    OK


Thanks,

Casey

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

Date: 6-JAN-1991 16:04:39.87
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Get a 900#'s Address


Hi-

John Levine recently posted a message about being called by an
automatic/ recorded solicitation for a 900 number, which gave a
mail-drop address but no other address to reach them at.

I've had this problem myself for a few months now. It seems that
someone in my local area keeps calling all the numbers in my exchange
(and the other nearby local exchanges) every few weeks with a silly
900 number solicitation. One of my numbers has Call-forwarding, and
they have always managed to call when my forwarding is set to some
toll number!

So I typed up a general letter, which more or less says that the
recorded solicitations are harassing and annoying, and that I am
giving them written notice to stop, and a reasonable period of time to
reprogram their equipment so that I no longer receive any calls at any
of my numbers. (I also mail it out registered, so I get confirmation
that someone actually received the letter.)

The problem was getting their actual addresses. After numerous futile
efforts, I called New York Telephone's Call Annoyance Bureau. At first
they told me it was something the "FCC had to investigate", and told
me to call a special office at the FCC about it. When I asked for the
number, the rep.  said "Oh, it is a private number, we can't give it
out." After pointing out how ridiculous this was, I told the rep. a
number at the FCC, she said she was surprised that the FCC gave out
their numbers, and said that I should thus call them. I told the rep.
that this was unacceptable, and that as NY Tel was the billing agency
for this 900 company (for NY Tel customers), and that NY Tel MUST be
sending them a bill somewhere, and that I wanted the address that NY
Tel used.

She refused to give this out, so I said, "Ok, let me start over. I am
getting calls that I consider harassing and annoying. Your phone book
states that you can take care of these calls. So take care of them.
YOU tell whoever is calling me to stop - I'll even give you a
pre-typed letter that you can send them with all the details." She
paused for a while, and no doubt realizing that this will mean a lot
of extra work for her, said, "Ok, what are the services you wanted
again?" and I read off the list of all the different 900 companies,
and she just read off the billing address from the computer.

All the addresses were in Nevada, but I did get the return forms in
the mail from four of the five companies that I mailed to, so perhaps
this will take care of the calls once they tell whoever it is around
my area with the solicitation machine to try some other set of numbers
(or just de-program my numbers from the machine, if such a thing is
possible.)

I would suggest that anyone having similar problems contact the call
annoyance bureau of their local telco and approach the situation as a
"call annoyance" problem, which got the right response in my case.

This has also worked with SNET (who were a bit more reluctant at
first), and NE Tel/Mass (who were actually very helpful and gave me
the addresses right away without an argument. )


Good luck!

Doug

[e-mail]   //   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Maybe you could share with us the names and
addresses of the ones you have located. Please?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #18
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16238;
          10 Jan 91 4:00 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26855;
          10 Jan 91 2:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab18938;
          10 Jan 91 1:24 CST
Date:     Thu, 10 Jan 91 1:00:11 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #19
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Jan 91 00:59:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 19

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New Jersey Bell and 10-NJB [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls [John Higdon]
    Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising [Roger Fulton]
    Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising [Michael Dorrian]
    Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Sean Williams]
    Catalog and Magazines Wanted [[e-mail]]
    Bogus AT&T Charges on my Local Phone Company Bill [Ronald Greenberg]
    Caller ID Online in Atlanta [Bill Berbenich]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7-JAN-1991 03:34:43.81
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: re: New Jersey Bell and 10-NJB


Hi-

I've heard numerous reasons as to why New Jersey Bell has the 10NJB
system for calling to New York City from North Jersey, and I'm not
sure any/all are correct, but here goes:

1. NY Tel and NJ Bell "historically" had a high degree of
interconnectivity between New York City and northern New Jersey, and
could not have AT&T take over all calls between these two areas for
technical reasons back in 1984. Callers on older exchanges in NY City
(mainly XBars that can't do "Equal Access" 10xxx dialing, although
many have been modified to do this) are automatically handled by NY
Tel to Northen Jersey, and are itemized as NY Tel toll calls. NY Tel's
"Hello" Magazine mentioned that the situation between NY Tel and NJ
Bell was analogous to having older equipment which couldn't be quickly
converted, which is why there is this special "transport corridor" (as
they called it) between NY and NJ.  (How does this account for the
Trenton and PA 10NJB/10BPA(?)  connection, though?)

2. NY Tel and NJ Bell got a special waiver from (his Lordship) Judge
Green, who allowed each other to handle calls between the two regions.
(Again, did he do the same thing for the South Jersey/PA system as well?)

3. NJ Bell and NY Tel have always provided service between these two
areas, so AT&T shouldn't get to serve it now. This is a bit like the
"historical" argument (#1), yet under this rationale NJ Bell and NY
Tel get to keep the service in perpetuity.

I tend myself to think #2 is correct, although #1 may have been
another reason back around 1984/1985.

In any event, the system as it is now allows callers calling between
NY City and sections of the North Jersey Counties (how many are there?
three?) to use the facilities of NY Tel or NJ Bell to make calls
across the state line at (usually) lower rates than AT&T. Calling Card
calls will also cost less, as NY Tel charges something like 40 cents
per call + toll, while AT&T starts off at 80 cents. (Note this does
not apply to Reach Out America Card Option customers during the plan's
hours, as there is NO surcharge for inter-state calls.)

NJ Bell even forces you to use 10NJB from some payphones. At Newark
International Airport, about ten miles from NYC, if you dial
0-212-xxx-xxxx, which is, of course, out of state, you will NOT be
routed over AT&T.  Instead, you can hear the payphone outpulse "10NJB"
and then the number, sort of like a COCOT would, but it is a real
Western Electric/NJ Bell payphone. It will only do this for calls to
NYC which would be applicable under 10NJB. You can, of course, dial
10288+0-212-xxx-xxxx to get to NYC via AT&T, which ROA-Card Option
callers may want to do DURING the plan's hours.

NJB advertises "10-NJB" as a cost-saving feature quite often on local
radio, and has special business plans to NYC as well. Also, any caller
in North Jersey who is on a local calling card call can "sequence
call" (press the "#"/octothorpe to make a new call(s)) to NYC, even
though this is in another state. However, if you try sequence calling
to an area outside of NYC, you will get the message "You may ONLY dial
another <pause> New Jersey Bell <pause> handled call, now." (Hmmm ...
looks like NJBel gave up on its pathetic calling card system and is
using AT&T's now ... at least in North Jersey. )

NY Tel is much less aggressive in marketing its 10NYT service,
although it works the same way. They do mail out letters to business
customers about special deals to North Jersey, but overall don't seem
to care about this as much as NJ Bell does. You can also make
"sequence"/# calls on NY Tel's pathetic Calling Card/automated
operator system to North Jersey.

One interesting note: You can use 10NYT to call Directory Assistance
in 201.  How are you billed for this? At NY Tel's rates? Or the
standard 60 cents that AT&T charges? I wonder if this counts in a
person's DA charge allowance, which in NYC is a big whole *three*
requests! :(

Guess that's it for now...

Please mail me any corrections/questions to alert me of them faster,
NEWS has been slow here lately.

-Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

P.S. Mike Jensen- I've been trying to mail you a reply that I typed up
                  to your question about GTE Mobilnet and the different
                types of roaming that are available to you. All my
          attempts bounced. Do you have another address that I
            may try? Thanks...

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies?
Date: 8 Jan 91 16:07:27 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


DTMF tones are defined in CCITT Recommendation Q.23.  The matrix looks
like this:

      Hz  1209    1336    1477    1633

      697   1       2       3       A

      770   4       5       6       B

      852   7       8       9       C

      941   *       0       #       D


The A/B/C/D tones are used in some feature phones on PBXes, and are
also available in some modems (including most from Hayes).

The transmitted frequency must be within +/- 1.8% of the nominal
frequency.  Total distortion products (harmonics, intermodulation)
must be at least 20dB below the fundamental frequencies.  The
transmitted level of the tones is not specified by the CCITT, and left
up to national requirements (I believe FCC Part 68 includes
restrictions, and EIA-496-A also has specs in this area).

See Recommendations Q.23 and Q.24 for more details.


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]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls
Date: 8 Jan 91 11:59:09 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> but sent-paid AT&T from a Bell phone was $1.95 for the same first
> minute!  Doesn't that seem a bit high?  I would imagine it would be
> higher than direct dial from home, but more than double the calling
> card rate?  I mean, I'm paying cash up front, am I not?  No credit

If you check that again, you will probably find that the initial coin
rate is for three minutes, not one minute. For a while, coin-paid
calls had an initial one minute rate and it was changed back to three
minutes "for your convenience". The explanation was that most calls
lasted at least that long and they wanted to minimize the additional
deposit requests. Actually, it undoubtedly enhanced revenues in that
larger amounts could be collected for short calls.

In any event, I also have always questioned the higher rates for
coin-collected calls. The stock explanation is that you are paying for
the instant convenience of making a call without prior arrangement.
(Someone has to pay to maintain the phone.) So apparently, you are
paying for convenience, and the lack of credit risk is irrelavent.
Not that I buy any of that, but that is the reasoning.

Tomorrow I leave for Japan. It will be interesting to observe
first-hand how they handle coin phones there.


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

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

From: Roger Fulton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising
Date: 8 Jan 91 21:43:44 GMT
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

<text deleted>

>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.

Do you really mean to say that AT&T is not responsible for what "some
ad agency" produces for them?


Roger Fulton     [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 7 Jan 91 23:46 GMT
From: Michael Dorrian <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising


Paul Coen writes concerning yet another telecom advertisement targeted
at the insecurity of your average caller.

A recent {Los Angeles Times} tells of another radio spot...

It's a typical weekday morning and you're driving to work, distractedly
switching from one radio station to the next.

First stop: A commercial seems to be playing. You're about to turn
to another station but something sounds a bit strange...

A man with an ordinary voice is saying: "So,it's three in the morning,
the phone rings. It's some guy from MCI tellin' me how AT&T charges
too much for long-distance, and how he can save me all kinds of money.
So I tell him put it in writing. Silence. I go back to bed and then
the phone rings again! Hello. This time it's a guy from AT&T. He says
that when an MCI operator is talkin' to me real friendly and all,
she's flippin' me the bird at the same time! She is? So by now it's
3:30, and just as I'm dozing off, the phone rings. Now I'm getting
steamed. What! It's the guy from MCI again.  He says, 'Sure AT&T gives
instant credit, but they're getting the money from widows and
orphans!" They are? So just as I'm about to slam the phone down on
him, somebody knocks on my door.  It's a guy from Sprint!  He says
AT&T is secretly shipping A-Bombs to Iraq, MCI is burning down rain
forests when they're not too busy killing dolphins ... and that all the
Sprint operators work in the nude. Why can't they leave me alone?"

The whole inanity associated with the Big 3's attempts to differienate
a commodity product caught the eye of some writers at DB
Communications, who produce parodies of commercials for radio jocks.

Faithful TELECOM Digest readers wouldn't have been fooled, since we
all know that Sprint operators dont't really work in the nude.
Unfortunately, it appears that we will continue to be subjected to
these ads as the LD marketing forces-that-be have decided that since
there is no advantage to continued price decreases (to build and
retain market share), funding will now be applied to marketing and
promotions.

So buckle yourself in for the next year or so.  I just got a mailer
from Sprint offering me a "FREE SOLAR CALCULATOR" if I sign up for
their service. It's a duplicate of a promotion I received about a year
ago.

Two days ago I would have viewed these mailers as a subsidy for the
postal service.  In light of the planned postal increase, maybe Sprint
is flogging the "FREE SOLAR CALCULATOR" as part of their recycling
campaign of tired old promotions.

Has any reader succumbed to this tempting offer?


              Michael Dorrian
        The RTP Group, Mid-Atlantic
     703-243-6000   MCI Mail 349-3915

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Jan  8 18:46:15 EST 1991
Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies?


Eric Tholome <[e-mail]> writes:

>> ...I am looking for the frequencies used in tone mode phones. I know each
>> key generates two frequencies more or less based on C D and E music notes,
>> but I would like something a little bit more precise.


    1209    1336    1477    1633 <- Hertz
     ___     ___     ___     ___
    |   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
    | 1 |   | 2 |   | 3 |   | A |    0697    When a  key is pressed
    |___|   |___|   |___|   |___|        a   single   frequency
     ___     ___     ___     ___        from   the  low  group
    |   |    |   |    |   |    |   |        and a single frequency
    | 4 |   | 5 |   | 6 |   | B |    0770    from  the  high  group
    |___|   |___|   |___|   |___|        are  generated  simul-
     ___     ___     ___     ___        taneously.        Both
    |   |    |   |    |   |    |   |        frequencies must exist
    | 7 |   | 8 |   | 9 |   | C |    0852    for the carrier equip-
    |___|   |___|   |___|   |___|        ment  to recognize the
     ___     ___     ___     ___        signal.
    |   |    |   |    |   |    |   |
    | * |   | 0 |   | # |   | D |    0941
    |___|   |___|   |___|   |___|


The frequency pairs shown above are used throughout the world where
tone signalling is utilized.  The tones have been carefully selected
so that the processing circuits in the central office will not confuse
them with other tones which may occur on the line.  The time required
for the central office to recognize any digit tone is 50 milliseconds
with an interdigit interval of another 50 milliseconds.  The term
"Touch-Tone(tm)" is a trademark of AT&T.

Sources:

"Understanding Telephone Electronics" Texas Instruments Inc., 1983.
"Data Communications: A User's Guide" Ken Sherman, Simon & Schuster, 1990.


Sean E. Williams     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Catalogs and Magazines Wanted
Date: 9 Jan 91 04:01:29 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana


Could some one please email me the name and how to get a copy of a
good telcom type magazine ... or is there one?  Help!


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: One that comes to mind is Teleconnect Magazine, and
the numerous other books and resources available from the publisher of
Telecom Library in New York City. They're listed with 800 and 212
directory assistance.  They even run an interesting BBS.  An
interesting catalog is the one put out by "Hello Direct", a telecom
equipment mail order house in California. Call 1-800-HI-HELLO. There
are many others: readers here who publish newsletters or newsletters
and/or produce seminars will no doubt send you direct mail advising
you of their things.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 00:21:02 -0500
From: Ronald Greenberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bogus AT&T Charges on my Local Phone Company Bill


Two months ago I got a charge from AT&T on my local bill (C&P
Telephone) for a call from Newark, NJ to Oxon Hill, MD.  I live in DC,
was not in NJ at the time, use ITT as my LD carrier, and have nothing
to do with AT&T.  I called the phone number for billing inquiries on
the AT&T page, and they said they would credit me; they haven't.  I
accidentally, ended up writing my check to C&P for the full amount, so
I probably would have never remembered that I wasn't credited, but
today I got another bogus charge.  This time, it is from S ORG (South
Orange, I suppose), NJ to a different number in Oxon Hill, MD.

Does anybody have any advice on actually getting AT&T to credit me?
Is there a way to get C&P Telephone to stop acting as a billing agent
for AT&T?  I would like to be able to just pay the C&P portion of my
bill without having to write any explanations to C&P and without
having them complain about anything unpaid.


Ron Greenberg   [e-mail]

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID Online in Atlanta
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:19:08 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I had occasion to speak with a friend today who works for Southern
Bell, concerning the implementation date for Caller ID in the Atlanta
area.  As you may recall from my previous postings, the Georgia PSC
approved Southern Bell's tariff request for Caller ID for a one-year
trial period.

The ordering information will be "in the system" on January 26 (a
Saturday, as it turns out), meaning that the service order people will
be able to take orders for it beginning that date.  I am guessing now
that since the 26th is on a Saturday, they won't actually be taking
any orders (practically speaking) until the following Monday.  We'll
see.  The Southern Bell people have promised to have the service
available in the Atlanta metropolitan are no later than Feb. 14.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #19
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17154;
          10 Jan 91 5:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03702;
          10 Jan 91 3:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26855;
          10 Jan 91 2:28 CST
Date:     Thu, 10 Jan 91 2:17:32 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #20
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Jan 91 02:17:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 20

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies? [Chris Klausmeier]
    Re: Secure Lines [Mike Tighe]
    Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago [Bud Bach]
    Re: Interoffice Signalling [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Colin Plumb]
    Questions About Caller ID [Jerry Bemis]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [John Higdon]
    N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Carl Moore]
    Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers [David G. Cantor]
    Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service [Peter G. Capek]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Chris Klausmeier <mixcom![e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 16:43:40 CST
Subject: Re: Tone-Mode Frequencies?
Organization: MIX Communications, Milwaukee, WI (Public access Usenet, Email)


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

> I know each key generates two frequencies more or less based on C
> D and E music notes, but I would like something a little bit more
> precise.

Here are the DTMF frequencies, according to _Understanding Telephone
Electronics_, published by Radio Shack.

                    HIGH GROUP FREQUENCIES (Hz)

                   | 1209   1336   1477   1633
               ----+--------------------------
               697 |   1      2      3      A
                   |
LOW GROUP      770 |   4      5      6      B
FREQUENCIES        |
(Hz)           852 |   7      8      9      C
                   |
               941 |   *      0      #      D

The A, B, C, and D are part of the extended keypad.

The percentage error allowed in the frequency varies from country to
country. In North America, +- 1.5% is acceptable for the DTMF
generator, and +- 2% is acceptable for a DTMF receiver.


Chris Klausmeier -- [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 18:11:58 -0600
From: Mike Tighe <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Secure Lines


<astph![e-mail]> (Joe Broniszewski) asks:

> 1. Technically speaking what is the difference between a secure line and a
> non-secure line?

<[e-mail]> (bill) responds:

> There is no such beast.  When the "spooks" want to talk turkey, they use
> special telephones, not special telephone lines.

Not true on both counts. There is a secure telephone network that is
used throughout the intelligence community.

Secure telephone units such as the STU-III are only rated up to a
level of top secret, and that is not high enough. In fact, government
regulations require that the STU-III not be used when the secure
telephone system is available.

However, this secure telephone network is not what was meant in the
book, since these phones are not connected to the public phone system,
and Stoll would not be allowed to use it anyway, nor would it be
installed at LBL. I think that was just an excuse they gave Stoll so
that they could call him back on their terms.

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

> I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for the
> STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant.

I doubt it. First, in order to have a STU-III, one would need a
security clearance, and a security clearance is usually only given to
those who have a need to access classified data. In his book, Stoll
admits that LBL has no classified data (page 11, paragraph 6,
hardcover). Second, from the manner in which Stoll writes about the
intelligence community, I doubt he has one, and his work in astronomy
is not likely to require one. Third, if he did have one, he would have
used the STU-III in the first place. Fourth, he would have known who
to call about the problem in the first place, instead of the bozos
that gave him the run-around.

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

From: Bud Bach <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago
Date: 9 Jan 91 01:00:45 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

>This seems to be the season for telecom disasters. Maybe it was the
>Blue Moon last week or something. Following the AT&T cable cut in New
>Jersey last week, all was quiet for a few days ... but Monday morning,
>Sprint managed to chew up a fiber optic cable in northern Indiana
>which served as a major gateway for traffic in and out of Chicago.

Not all was quiet; I believe there was a fairly significant outage in
East Central Florida on Thursday last week.  Seems a contractor hit a
line.  On Saturday, the Florida Today was reporting that Lottery
Machines and Bank Tellers were affected by the outage.  They also
stated that the emergency 911 services backup worked correctly.  I
don't remember the details of how big a service area was affected but
I believe it included all of Brevard County which about 250,000 people
in the 407 area.  I know I couldn't call my wife for at least an hour
(fast busy).


Bud Bach             c/o Motorola
708 632-6611            Cellular Infrastructure Group
 ...!uunet!motcid!bachww or    1501 W. Shure Drive
[e-mail]    Arlington Heights, IL  60004

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interoffice Signalling
Date: 8 Jan 91 22:38:35 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

>In the local switching environment, if two end offices are connected
>by interoffice trunks, how many digits are passed between offices when
>completing an interoffice call?

It varies.  The least I have ever seen is four.  Most common
arrangements are five and seven.  I think most companies are probably
migrating to seven since the difference in signalling time between
five and seven digits is minor and being equipped for seven digits
gives you more flexibility in unusual situations.

>Side trivia: were #5 crossbar offices capable of supporting DID?

Yes, if properly equipped.  I think the required feature is Line Link
Pulsing.  In my area, few were ever equipped this way.


Ken Abrams        uunet!pallas!kabra437
Illinois Bell     [e-mail]
Springfield       (voice) 217-753-7965

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:00:50 GMT


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

> 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.

But that's because customers demand conveniently placed instruments.
All the airphones I've seen are all in one bank, so it makes more
sense for there not to be an instrument n+1 than for it to be where
someone can pick it up and not get a dial tone.  If nothing else, the
physical "no more available" is more readily comprehensible to
passengers than bandwidth.

Two possible reasons for paying the weight penalty for more instruments
than channels:

1: Multiple banks (first class/economy) *if* the total number of
phones in use (A+B) is a more uniform number than A or B separately.
For three banks or so, with a dozen instruments each, it's hard to see
this being a significant issue.

2: People picking up an airphone and keeping it with them to make
occasional calls.  This may be an issue, but I expect the utilisation
is higher than my home telephone.

(P.S. Do airphones check that you've put back the right phone before
releasing the credit card?  It sounds like a great way to exchange a
stolen credit card for a good one.  Insert piece of junk, remove
handset, replace in cradle holding gold card dext door.  The getaway
offers problems, though.)


Colin

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

From: Jerry Bemis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions About Caller ID
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices; Sunnyvale, CA
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 1991 20:19:25 GMT


I want detailed info on how to decode the phone number of the person
calling when my phone rings.

I understand this is an old subject here but I just heard you exist.
Are there old articles I should read?

Are there any messages which explain the system?  Has the FCC written
an OST on the subject?


[Moderator's Note: First, you have to buy the service from telco
if/when they make it available in your community. Until you get to
that point there is nothing to decode because they don't send it. Once
it is coming in, you can buy a decoder for less than a hundred dollars
unless you really want to do the work yourself. Have there been any
articles here in the past? YES. So many in fact that most questions
and comments about Caller ID are now handled in our companion and
supplementary mailing list, 'telecom-priv'. To be added to that list
and participate in the discussion, write to the Moderator of the list:
[e-mail].  I do not know about the FCC, but
*everyone else* has written on the topic. :)     PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Date: 9 Jan 91 02:06:16 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Charles Buckley <[e-mail]> writes:

> No it's even simpler: Michigan Bell is trying to collect marginal
> costs for high usage using a rate structrure which is blind to it.
> This has nothing to do with the BBS line, but instead the lines which
> call it.  These are also often flat-rate residential lines in the
> local calling area whose subscribers derive enormous economic benefit,
> since they make heavy use of a line tarriffed for only intermittent
> calling.

Does Michigan have language in the tariff that specifies how much a
flat rate residential line can be used? Is it specified in percentage
of a day, a week, or a year? Why isn't it published? California has no
such specification so it would be pretty difficult to question proper
use of a residential line based on usage patterns alone. Or (as I
suspect) is this "intermittent calling" thing something that you made
up for the purpose of this argument?

Since the whole business/residential structure is totally arbitrary in
the first place, what we don't need is a lot of extraneous reasoning
thrown into the pot. The fact of the matter is, telcos don't need any
extra revenue from local service. The RBOCs are making so much money
they can't throw it away fast enough trying to fund an ever-increasing
number of side businesses. Telephone calls are not a limited commodity
that the telco has to stock and replenish same.

Try this on for size: Residential service is for residences, and
business service is for everything else. All the jawboning about who
you call, what you say (or modem), how long you talk, and how many
calls you make is irrelavant. Assigning significance to it in view of
the overall arbitrary nature of the principle is truly the spinning of
tires.


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

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 9:42:32 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D?


Of the areas I have listed as having (now or later) N0X/N1X prefixes,
215, as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by
removing the 1+ from toll calls within it (i.e., change from 1+7D to
just 7D).  I do understand (relying for now on the Digest) that 412
area, elsewhere in Pennsylvania, already has calling instructions like
those in store for 215 (why?), although 412 doesn't have N0X/N1X that
I know of.  I am assuming that area 213 (now 213/818, with area code
310 coming later) in California used the following for toll calls
before July 1973 (when it got N0X/N1X):

     7D within that area
     area code + 7D elsewhere

I had received apparently-erroneous information that 313 in Michigan
was changing 1+7D to 7D; later, I corrected this to read 1 + area code
+ 7D for toll calls within it (and then there was a recent note in
this Digest asking why use 1+313 within 313).

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

Subject: Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 07:51:04 -0800
From: "David G. Cantor" <[e-mail]>


The "billing insert" that I just received from GTE states:

"We can block [976 numbers in California and 900 numbers within and
outside the state] ... That means no one will be able to call
any 900 numbers or 976 numbers from your telephone.  Blocking won't
stop calls made to 976 numbers outside of California."

                           --------

Because of call-forwarding, tie-lines, private networks, foreign
exchanges, etc., you can't possibly be sure where the "other end"
(whatever that means when talking to a machine) of a telephone
connection is.  For example, a call placed through a long-distance
service to an area code within California could easily "terminate" in
Nevada or Oregon (or New York, for that matter) depending upon how the
long-distance service sets these things up (and perhaps private
parties with tie-lines, etc).

So, how does GTE know that a 976 number is "outside of California"?
and why can't GTE simply block ALL 976 numbers (I believe that the
following are all of the valid possiblities from this area: Numbers of
the form 976-XXXX, 1XXX-976-XXX, and 10XXX1XXX-976-XXX)?


David G. Cantor    Department of Mathematics   University of California
Los Angeles, CA 90024-1555    Internet:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It probably does not matter where the physical
termination is. All that matters is where they drop it (and someone
else picks it up), or where they bill it out to.  IBT now blocks all
calls to anything-976 not within 312, whether you want them to or not.
They do blocking to 312-976 and 900-xxx on request, and *no*
variations in dialing, i.e. 10xxx-1-312-976-xxxx, etc get past the 976
or 900 blockade, period.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 12:29:47 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service


What are the legal restrictions, if any, on an Inter-Exchange Carrier
providing service within a LATA, normally the province of a Local
Exchange Carrier?  When I try to force a call via AT&T, for example to
a number which is near where I'm calling from, I get a message about
the call not being able to be completed.  (I tried this by dialing
10288-0-914-762-xxxx).  I ask because if there is in fact some legal
restriction, what effect does it have on completing 800 calls which
happen to originate in the same LATA as the 800 number terminates?
(Same question could be asked for 900 numbers..)

Part of what got me thinking about this was musing about the
possibility of a "call by name" service, which would work similarly to
800/900 in that the dialed number would be translated by the IEC to a
local "called" number.  Since (at least) AT&T already provides the
ability to vary the translation of dialed number to called number
based on things like time of day, loading, and the calling number, it
seems like it would be only a small matter of programming to provide
the ability to let a person vary the translation dynamically.  Thus,
if I subscribed to such a service, I could publish my number as, say,
600-456-1234, for incoming calls. (I'll sidestep the billing issue for
the moment.)  Then, by dialing 500-456-1234-password, I could change
the translation of the 600 number to be the phone I was calling from.
Or with a slightly more complicated protocol, provide a "null"
translation for use when I was not reachable.

I've described this above using two new area codes (500 and 600) for
the purpose, but other implementations are of course possible and may
be easier.  I wonder if there's a value for such a service, and
whether anyone sees any technical feasibility problems with it.  It
seems like something which any of the IECs could easily offer (and
might be more generally useful than personal 800 numbers.


       Peter Capek


[Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA uses 'area code' 700 for this purpose.
Dial 700 + number in your own area code to make a local call billed
via Telecom*USA instead of Illinois Bell. Don't ask me how they
legally get away with it.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #20
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06744;
          11 Jan 91 0:20 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27709;
          10 Jan 91 22:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31164;
          10 Jan 91 21:40 CST
Date:     Thu, 10 Jan 91 21:12:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #21
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Jan 91 21:12:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 21

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [John Parsons]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Carl Wright]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Mike Godwin]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Scott Coleman]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [John Cowan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 91 17:20:06 mst
From: John Parsons <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


[e-mail] (Floyd Davidson) writes...

> >Should telco be in the business of defining what is a business and
> ......
> 2)  Seems simple enough.  Anyone required to have a business license
>     is a business.

> [Moderator's Note: But in reference to your point 2 above, there have
> been a couple instances where communities have made, or attempted to
> make people with modems and terminals at home get 'business licenses'.
> Then what would you do?....

Throw out the small-minded city council, that's what!  (I'll resist
flaming about the morality of forcing licenses *at all* upon people
who are engaged in entirely voluntary association.)

[Our Moderator continues...

> Their thinking was people with these instruments at home were apparently
> working out of their home in a business-related activity.   PAT]

And what other instruments would make it "apparent" that a person is
running a business in their home?  A fax?  Photocopier?  Typewriter?
All these were once "business-only" items.  What irks me is how
willing we are in this "free" country to hand over our lives to
two-bit politicians.


Harrumph!   John Parsons


[Moderator's Note: To some writers today, I'll have plenty to say. To
your post, which I specifically moved to the head of the queue, I can
add only one word:  Amen!     PAT]

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 04:45:06 GMT


If the BOCs charged forty cents per hour it would be a good deal. The
following is an excerpted table from <Telephony>, Decmber 31, 1990,
comparing the cost per minute of different utility services.

Utility service                        Cost per minute of use

Residential phone service              $0.03152

Residential electric service           $0.001163

TV with cable service and VCR          $0.0037
(includes power)

It sounds like there is still alot of opportunity to lower the cost of
communications.

The use of IRS rules to determine whether a BBS is a business may be
helpful, but the point should be whether the carrier is being
compensated for its services fairly.

Re: the "three years of five" rule from the IRS, I believe your
accountant will tell you that it is only one of more than twelve
alternative guidelines used to determining when a business is treated
as a hobby, not when a hobby becomes a business.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 23:16 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


>Moderator's Note: Well I can tell you that when unlimited local
>service was eliminated here in Chicago a few years ago, it was in part
>because of the tremendous hogs modem users were making of themselves.
>We had a variety of umlimited calling plans here for set monthly
>rates. Understandably telco wanted to make some money on the deal.
>Some modem users were going through more than ten thousand 'message
>units' per month on unlimited calling residential service plans,
>paying $20-30 per month!

Well Pat, in 1981, I had call-pak unlimited, which I believe was the
least of the unmeasured rate service classes available from Ill Bell
Telco. In Evanston, it cost $42 and some change for that and POTS. I
never used a modem or anything else on the phone except my voice, and
yes, I had one month where I ran up over 10,000 message units. I made
prodigous use of the phone, and I had a lot of friends in Waucaunda,
Addison and Harvey (and a few calls to Sherman Skulnick :-D). That was
the whole point of unlimited service. The phone company priced it so
high that you really needed to ring up a couple thousand units before
it paid for itself.


A. Jacobson <[e-mail]>or<[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: It is hard for me to remember the exact rates I was
paying in 1981, but as I recall I had what was known as 'extended
unlimited', meaning I got parts of 815 and *all* of 312. 'Unlimited
service' -- as opposed to 'extended unlimited' -- got parts of 815 and
most of 312, but there were a couple of coin-rated places in the far
western area. There was another unlimited service which extended 28
miles in any direction from downtown Chicago. All the unlimited plans
used downtown Chicago as their starting point, and they extended
outward in circles. Suburban people living near the circle's edge got
shafted. I was on the modem * a lot * in those days, running my two
BBSs and calling others, etc. The break-even point between measured
and the least comprehensive 'umlimited' plan was at 450 'units' per
month. Over 450 units, you saved money and telco kept making money.
Where telco started losing out was somewhere around 2000-3000 units.
But assuredly not at 10,000 + units per month!    PAT]

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

From: Mike Godwin <eff.org![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 17:17:55 GMT


The Moderator writes:

>[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of
>not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence,
>suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory
>(312-731-1100) and similar? These are most often one or two person
>operations, run by people who enjoy what they are doing and who are
>trying to serve the community out of goodwill. They pay business rates
>for their service, and it comes from their own pocket and/or whatever
>trivial donations people send them. What rates would you have them
>pay?  Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to
>trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill?
>What about the TTY-to-voice translators serving deaf people?  PAT]

One difference between BBSs and the other kinds of public-spirited
operations you mention is that BBSs are a means of association as well
as of communication. This implicates an additional Constitutional
interest.

The other services you mention do not -- for the most part -- create
or constitute virtual communities.

I have no trouble with Dial-A-Foobar services or counseling services
paying business rates. Some kinds of services may, by virtue of
government approval or subsidy, qualify for special exemptions to the
business rate.

The fact is that business rates for BBSs have the potential to
drastically limit the formation of online virtual communities.  In
contrast, business rates don't have a corresponding effect on rape
crisis centers, et al.

The extra cost of paying business rates is far more often the
threshold consideration when one decides to establish or maintain a
BBS than it is when qone is deciding to establish a rape-crisis
center.

I think virtual communities should be encouraged, and I despair at
contemplating a world in which such communities are operated only by
rich individuals, corporations, or RBOCs.

In answer to your last question, Pat: No, I don't think business
rates should be charged for TTY-voice translators for deaf people.


Mike Godwin, [phone]  [e-mail]
        Electronic Frontier Foundation


[Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual
community is what you find important, it should be okay, and
encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling
fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all,
they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual
chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also. And since the
Compuserve 'CB Simulator' has hangers-on who I suspect do not logoff
once in an entire weekend, and there have been entire wedding
ceremonies on-line, and the users even come together for parties now
and then, we'd have to say they have a virtual community also. So,
Compuserve now gets residential rates, at least for the CB/Compusex
mainframes, okay?  Why not? Because they charge $12 per hour and the
local sysop charges $10 per year if users can afford it?  Should the
'encouragement of virtual communities' be the key?  *Whose* community?
Again I ask, why are BBS sysops different?   PAT]

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

From: scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 18:51:38 GMT


Aimee Tweedie writes:

>A BBS is not a business; it is a hobby that involves a great deal of
>dedication, both financial and personal.  So why should sysops have to
>take it on the chin for providing a free forum for other people to
>communicate with each other and express their own opinions at the
>sysop's expense?

Pat responds:

>[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of
>not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence,
>suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory
>(312-731-1100) and similar?

Those other kinds of services you mention are *not* hobbies.
Practically all BBSs *are*.

>Why are BBS sysops so special and so different when it comes to
>trying to serve the community through a sense of charity and goodwill?

Why do you think BBS sysops are so special that they should be singled
out among all other hobbyists for higher phone rates? Why can't we pay
the same phone rates as everyone else who has a hobby?

Tell me, do you feel that people who dial out using modems should be
charged business rates?  What about point system(*) operators? After
all, they're doing the exact same thing the sysop is doing: using a
modem and computer to engage in electronic communication using the
phone lines. Each uses precisely the same amount of phone company
resources, so why should they not pay the same rates?

In case anyone was wondering, yes, I am a BBS sysop. No, I do not
charge any access fees, nor do I accept donations. If Illinois Bell
decided to start charging me business rates, I would be forced to shut
it down.

For those who didn't know:

(*) A point system is a sort of mini-BBS which has only one user, the
sysop.  A regular BBS (the "point boss") will bundle up new messages.
Then the point system's software calls the BBS, downloads the new
messages, and uploads any messages which the point operator has
entered since the last exchange. A point system does everything (WRT
the phone lines) as a full BBS does, with the sole exception of having
dial-in users.


Scott Coleman   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I do not think that *any* telephone user should be
charged business rates based on the media used. Voice, fax or computer
should all be treated alike *for casual, non-committed* use of the
phone. If 'business' rates are to be charged, they should be charged
to users who indicate the service is for business use, i.e. directory
listings using a 'business-like' name or phrase ** and to users who
specifically solicit the public to call them **. Maybe telco should
make new subscribers answer this question: "Will you solicit the
public to call this telephone number through other than ordinary
residential directory listings or occassional advertising of a
personal nature?" If the answer is yes, then a 'non-personal-use' rate
would apply; a rate we now call 'business service'.

To answer your question 'why should BBS sysops be singled out for
higher rates instead of paying what other people pay for their
hobbies', the answer is that your hobby by definition involves heavy
use of the telephone, and the solicitation of the public to call your
telephone. Stamp collectors, basket weavers and gourmet cooks are also
hobbyists.  PAT]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 22:53:31 GMT


Pat, I run a BBS from my bedroom. It's a Usenet node, and I'm dialled
into it right now posting this article. It's not a 16-line chat
system, or a for pay BBS, or anything. It's just a system I've set up
to let my friends get access to Usenet. That phone line is in use a
small fraction of the day ... mostly for my comp.dcom.telecom feed.

Why should I pay business rates? If BBSes are such a heavy load on the
system why was Southwestern Bell running the biggest BBS in Houston,
SourceLine, until they decided that you couldn't run a BBS for profit?
(and, I might add, it's apparent to most observors that SWBell decided
to crack down on BBSes to get rid of competition in advance before
putting SourceLine up ... I wonder what these other phone campanies
have waiting in the wings?)

As for measured rates, the marginal cost of a phone call is tiny. Why
should that marginal cost become the dominant part of cost recovery?
Particularly when SWBell's own advertisements and actions encourage
more calls? What do you get in the envelope with *your* bill? I got a
note saying they'd been overcharging and a credit on my bill.


([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note:  I don't think you should pay business rates, and
unless you go to telco on your knees and beg, it is doubtful you ever
will pay business rates, provided your operation is what you say it
is. I assume your operation -- for friends only! -- is not advertised.
You do not encourage strangers to call. You do not run sixteen lines
and you do not have total strangers (to you) linked in chat with other
strangers.   PAT]

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

Date: 10 Jan 91 17:07:25 GMT
From: John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


[much stuff about measured vs. unmeasured service deleted]

Here in New York City, we have universal measured service.  There are
no flat-rate lines available at any price.  However, modem users don't
seem to suffer that much.  Why?

There are two main classes of service available.  One is called "timed
service" and is the classic type of measured service.  This one costs
a few bucks a month in overhead, and you then pay for all intra-LATA
calls in a time- and distance-sensitive way.  You are charged more for
the first minute of each call.

However, this option is used only by people who don't make many calls
and don't have many $$$.  The far more common option is "untimed
service".  With this service, calls within one's local calling area
(there are seven such within the LATA) are counted but not timed.  You
pay a per-call charge of about $0.10 (less the usual kinds of evening
and night discounts), no matter how long the call lasts.  For New York
City, the local calling area is the whole city; the other calling
areas in the LATA are eastern and western Long Island and various
upstate counties.

Untimed service is available only to residential customers.  BBSes are
(implicitly) treated as residential by New York Telephone; at least, I
have not heard of any problems for NYC sysops.  The difference in the
base monthly rate between timed and untimed service is only a few
dollars; both include a calling allowance of $4.

Is this compromise in use elsewhere?  Should it be?


[Moderator's Note: Good question. Is there any single method of
charging for phone service and use which everyone would be happy with?
I'd personally like to see an intermediate category of rates applied
to lines used in a non-residence/not-really-business environment.  The
really poor (financially) public services could use a break also. When
you note that The Catholic Charities of Chicago has a phone bill of
several *thousand* dollars per month, and that having that trimmed by
even a couple thousand dollars per month through a special rate would
mean a dozen more homeless people could stay off the street at night
 ... It seems obvious that we need new definitions for the types of
service used these days. Maybe 'residence' and 'business' are no
longer adequate rate categories.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #21
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07740;
          11 Jan 91 1:26 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20065;
          10 Jan 91 23:50 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27709;
          10 Jan 91 22:46 CST
Date:     Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:22:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #22
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:21:49 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 22

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone [John R. Levine]
    Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea [Nigel Allen]
    Where Can I Sell My Old Dimension? [Hugh D. Meier]
    Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" [Sean Williams]
    Source of Dial-less Phones [Paul Schleck]
    D4 Channel Banks [William Yurcik]
    Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago [Bill Cerny]
    Eight-Digit Phone Numbers [Lee Bertagnolli]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Date: 10 Jan 91 16:33:12 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


I just got back from a one-day trip to Washington DC.  Both the trip
up and the return were on one of Eastern's newly-upgraded 757s, with
the huge first class cabin.  Every seat in First Class has an Airfone
imbedded right in the back of the seat immediately in front (the front
row seats have the phone mounted on the bulkhead in front of them).

As it turned out, we were required by an ATC computer outage to hold
on the taxiway at National Airport for about 45 minutes.  Being the
nice husband that I am, I decided to call my wife and tell her that
I'd be late for dinner.  Quite a few other folks decided to place
calls, too.

Unlike the older Airfones with sort of a curved handset and little
stubby antenna (cordless), these built-into-the-seat phones are
rectanglar, and attach to the seatback by a cord that is obviously on
a reel of some kind inside the seat.  To release the phone from the
seat, you press a credit card into a little vertical slot.  All this
does is depress a little mechanical hook, and the phone pops out.
Several folks were initially confused by this, assuming that the slot
in the seat was supposed to read their card, and got frustrated that
the card wouldn't go all the way in.  The flight attendants had
clearly had to explain this to folks before, since they handled it
nicely.

The magnetic stripe reader is built into the side of the handset.
Simply swipe the card through it.  It DTMFs your card number to the
control unit, apparently, since you can hear the tones in the
background; you can go ahead and put the card back in your pocket (it
doesn't retain the card like the older systems).  I notice some folks
having problems getting their cards to read, apparently because they
were swiping them through too slowly.  It doesn't say on the phone to
do it FAST, but you need to.

After reading your card and sending the info to the central
controller, an awful digitized voice says "Thank you for using
Airfone.  Please wait for the dial tone."  The first time I tried the
call, I got the dial tone almost immediately; the second time (when a
few other people were using phones), I had to wait a couple of
minutes.  When you get the dial tone, you punch in the number you're
calling.  The voice then says "Now processing your call; please wait."
After a period of time (which also varied from a few seconds to a
minute), the voice comes back on and reads you the number you dialed;
I assume this happens while it is delivering the number to the PSTN,
because almost immediately thereafter you start hearing ringbacks.

On my first call, I got our answering machine.  I used the telephone
keypad to command the machine to play messages and a couple of other
things, and it seemed to work fine (good news, since this means I
could also use it to check voicemail at the office).  I left a brief
message, and hung up.  This call was from the ground at National
Airport.

My second call was from the air, about 10 minutes outside of Atlanta
airport.  This time I got my wife on the phone.  I had to TELL her
that I was still on the plane; she told me that, except for a slight
bit of background noise (wind noise, she said), the line was as clear
as any payphone in the Atlanta airport.

Anyway, that's my experience with the new Airfone system.  It was very
nice to be able to use my corporate AT&T Card instead of my American
Express (as I'd had to do with Airfone before), because that way _I_
don't see the bill and _I_ don't have to account for it on an expense
report!  Nevertheless, it was also nice to read (on the instruction
card) that they'd reduced the rates to $2 setup plus $2 per minute;
really not bad at all.

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Colin Plumb) writes:

> All the airphones I've seen are all in one bank, so it makes more
> sense for there not to be an instrument n+1 than for it to be where
> someone can pick it up and not get a dial tone.  If nothing else, the
> physical "no more available" is more readily comprehensible to
> passengers than bandwidth.

This doesn't happen with the new system!  You really do end up sitting
there with the instrument on your ear, listening to dead silence.  It
would have been nice if there had been some repeated message to let
you know that it hadn't gone dead.  I did notice a couple of people
give up in frustration; my guess was that they didn't realize they
were having to condend with other passengers for circuits.  It would
be nice if the message explained the situation ( "all circuits now in
use; please hold until a circuit is available" ).

> (P.S. Do airphones check that you've put back the right phone before
> releasing the credit card?  It sounds like a great way to exchange a
> stolen credit card for a good one.  Insert piece of junk, remove
> handset, replace in cradle holding gold card dext door.  The getaway
> offers problems, though.)

The older Airfones would not release the card if you tried to put the
wrong phone back in a cradle.  Your card was locked in place to make
sure you didn't walk off with the phone, but at the same time your
card was protected because nobody else could get to it unless they
returned the right handset.  Of course, this isn't an issue with the
new system.


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]

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

Subject: Re: Questions About the GTE Airfone
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 10 Jan 91 13:59:38 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>But that's because customers demand conveniently placed instruments.
>All the airphones I've seen are all in one bank, ...

I've been on planes with one or two phones in the front and another in
the back, but the real telephonic traffic jams occur on the BOS - LGA
 - DCA shuttles.  On those planes, there is a phone in the back of
every middle seat in every row (except presumably the last.)  These
phones are lightweight plastic handsets with a retracting cord.  You
release the phone from the seat by sticking your card into a slot that
flips a simple mechanical latch, then run your card through a slot
that runs the length of the handset.

The reception is a little better than on the cordless model, but the
handset is so light and crummy that it's hard to press the earpiece to
your ear firmly enough to block out all of the background noise.

Regards,


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

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 2:23:43 EST


I saw the following ad in a Toronto newspaper, and I thought it might
interest anyone who is tired of shovelling snow.

Engineering Challenges in Papua New Guinea

The Post and Telecommunication Corporation of Papua New Guinea needs
qualified engineers to work on the National Five Year Plan to rebuild the
Analogue Network into a Modern Digital Network.

We need qualified engineers who can work on the following

 * Digital Transmission Radio - (VHF, UHF, and BHF)
 * Digital Switching - Particularly with regard to Bell System 12.
 [Note from NDA: I think this really means Alcatel's (formerly ITT's)
 System 12.]
 * Power Electronics - (UPS)
 * Data Transmission Customers Equipment and network design

The skills you need are: Project Management, Systems Design and
Specification, Advanced Maintenance Skills (Installation and
Commissioning). In particular, we are looking for engineers who
possess management experience and can demonstrate a proven rack record
in this area. Age is no barrier - we are looking for high achievers
with relevant experience.

For further information contact Mrs. Doreen Brew on + (675) 274 172 or
fax + (675) 274 628. Please send resume to: Mrs. D. Brew, C/Knightway
House, 20 Soho Square, London W1A 1DS, United Kingdom.

[Note from NDA: It's interesting that the PNG Post and
Telecommunication Corp.  is hiring people itself, rather than relying
on the international consulting arm of a telephone company, such as
Bell Canada International.]

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

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 15:41:28 EST
From: "Hugh D. Meier" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Where Can I Sell My Old Dimension?


I have a Dimension 2000 (FP8) that I want to get rid of.  (I also have
a System 75).  I am interested in selling the whole thing, or just the
cards, or just the cabinets, etc.  Has anyone any experience doing
this?  I think Farmstead and the likes would be interested, but do
they come and dismantle and take away?  Are there any other companies
that you know of?

I will forward a summary of replies that come directly to me:

[e-mail]

Thanks!

Hugh Meier

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Jan  9 15:51:14 EST 1991
Subject: Re:  Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account"


Joe Francis <[e-mail]> writes:

| I find slamming annoying and deceitful.  How often does this happen?
| This  happened  to me in Boston under  New England Tel.  I was using
| AT&T and  suddenly  received an  MCI bill.  I refused to pay  it and
| told them to switch [me] back to AT&T.

I had just the opposite happen to me.  When my mother and I moved into
our new house we were assigned to AT&T as our primary carrier.  We
received a ballot sent to us by our local phone company, United
Telephone of Pennsylvania.  We selected MCI from the ballot and
returned it to the phone company.  Several weeks passed, and we began
receiving mail from MCI thanking us for choosing them as our new
carrier.  However, we still received bills from AT&T, and when we
called the 1-700-555-4141 verification number we heard an AT&T
recording.

We contacted MCI, and their records showed us as being MCI
subscribers.  The MCI representative told me that she would contact
United Telephone the next day about the problem.  I received a message
on my voicemail the next afternoon from my MCI representative.  She
told me that United Telephone was very rude to her, and that United
told her that *I* would have to call them.  (This was obviously
United's attempt to make sure I really had selected MCI.)

I called United immediately, and asked them why they were rude to my
MCI representative.  The man on the phone apologized to me, and said
that their records showed that I *had* been connected to MCI for
several weeks.  He said that there must have been a programming error
and he contacted repair service about the problem.  I was on MCI the
next day.

There were contradictions in what each company told me, but everything
worked out as planned in the end.  But this raises a few questions:

1) When I chose MCI on the ballot, was I actually connected?

2) If I was, did AT&T then tell United I changed my mind and I should
   be reconnected to AT&T?

3) Was there really a programming error, or was United just trying
   to protect me?

Interestingly enough, a few days after we were connected to MCI, AT&T
began calling my house.  They were trying to get us back, and they
asked why we left.  According to my mother, they were quite forceful
at times, but I guess that's just how salespeople can be sometimes.

I have nothing at all against AT&T.  As you can see, I use AT&T Mail
as my primary connection to the electronic information world, and I
happily use AT&T's new Voicemark(sm) Messaging service, although MCI
has a comparable messaging system now available.


Sean E. Williams

[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 18:25:59 PDT
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Source of Dial-less Phones
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Saw some made-for-TV movie the other night about a husband and wife
CIA team.  The most noticable prop at the "headquarters" were red and
blue phones without dials.  These would be nice to have as extension
phones (no dials for kiddies to mess with) as well as interesting
props (fool your neighbors into thinking you are a spook!).  Anyone
know a good source?  I assume they are a dime a dozen?

Please reply to this group or E-mail.  Thanks.


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: Tuesday, 8 Jan 1991 16:32:47 EST
From: William Yurcik <[e-mail]>
Subject: D4 Channel Banks


I am looking for help with the following questions:

(1) I am looking for any documents that give specifications for
    D4 Channel Banks.

(2) What vendors sell D4 channel banks?

Thank you in advance for your help. You can post to the list or
respond to me directly using [e-mail].

[Any opinions are my own and not representative of my employer.]

William

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

Subject: Re: Another Fiber Optic Cut; This Time in Chicago
Organization: Sun, Surf 'n Sushi, San Diego, CA
Date: 9 Jan 91 20:26:43 PST (Wed)
From: Bill Cerny <[e-mail]>


This fiber cut affected a private line at a client's site.  The IEC is
Williams Telecom; but I don't know which company owns this particular
fiber cable: Sprint or WilTel.

The "treaty" between IEC's that you alluded to is called a protection
agreement, and has become commonplace in the long distance industry.
When two IEC's networks pass through a common point, they arrange some
type of interconnection to provide capacity (multiples of DS-3) to the
other in the event of an outage on the other carrier's network.  It's
"I'll scratch your back..." kind of business, and is being invoked on
an increasing frequency as carriers rely more heavily on fiber, and
backhoes continue to proliferate.  ;-)

I'm not sure how "automatic" these protection agreements are though.
I inferred from Monday's outage that even in extremis, there's a bit
of bureaucracy involved in activating the protection route(s).


Bill Cerny
[e-mail]   |   attmail: !denwa!bill

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

From: Lee Bertagnolli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Eight-Digit Phone Numbers
Date: 10 Jan 91 05:06:26 GMT
Reply-To: Lee Bertagnolli <[e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


I work for a company that handles payments for some of the various
Ameritech companies.  One of my recent charges has been to develop a
mechanized agent collection system on PC's.  The object is to put a PC
at the agent's office devoted to the task of collecting phone bills.
Said PC will be equipped with an OCR scanner, capable of reading the
scan line at the top of the payment stub.

In setting up the scanners and software, I have noticed that on the
newer Illinois and Indiana Bell payment stubs that there are *four*
digits for the prefix rather than three.  Although on the samples I
have seen (including my own Illinois Bell phone bill) the lead digit
has been a zero, I do not believe that this is a filler digit, but has
been put there for expansion purposes.

Would anyone care to comment on this?


Lee Bertagnolli                Voice: [phone]
West Lake Computers            Data:  [phone]
34 Hazel Lane                  UCP:  {uunet}!pallas!lbert359
Springfield, Illinois  62703   Internet:  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I think the intention is to use that as an area
code indication for billing purposes, i.e. 2=312, 5=815, 7=217, 8=708,
9=309, 1=618, etc. I'm not positive. There was some discussion awhile
back about how (once 708 kicked in) 'they now have more than one
ending in 8 ... and what adjustments had to be made in the software.'
Ameritech would not make such a drastic change (four digit prefixes)
without *lots* of consultation with other telcos, etc. I'm sure it
would be common news if it were planned.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #22
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09278;
          11 Jan 91 2:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16279;
          11 Jan 91 0:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab20065;
          10 Jan 91 23:51 CST
Date:     Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:55:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #23
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:55:37 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 23

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Michael C Nelson]
    Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Colum Mylod]
    Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers [Steve Forrette]
    Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers [Jeff Wasilko]
    ISDN to DDN, How? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Jon Sreekanth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 07:13:22 EST
From: Michael C Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I am posting this for soemone who has no posting capabilities, so
please reply to him, not to me.  M. Nelson

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

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

> [about he Dutch phone system]  002 - speaking clock  003 - weather forecast

> Not anymore.  They moved to 06-8002 and 06-8003 on December 1st, 1990.
> They still cost 1 unit, i.e. Dfl 0.15 (about US$ 0.08) per call.

> When they announced the change, PTT Telecom referred to an
> ``international agreement'' to make 00- the prefix for international
> calls.  Can anybody tell me what sort of agreement they meant?  Is
> this an EC directive, a CCITT recommendation, or what?

Well, you are right of course, but the old numbers still work. They
have not yet been disconnected.  BTW, the alternative routing to these
services still work for some old 00x services. This works as follows:

Dial for 00x:

0yz01-1xx where yz = the two digits identifying the Telecom District.
So, to call 008 in the place Leeuwarden, you would call 05101-188.
This works for all Telecom districts, except Utrecht.  (ID: 34)

> >001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the
> >      06-041x range.

> Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11.  Like a regular
> non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds.

True, but it will become toll-free in the near future. (Also from a
payphone.)

(Replies should go to:)

Ralph Moonen   [e-mail]   ([phone]

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

From: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland
Date: 10 Jan 91 13:55:14 GMT
Reply-To: Colum Mylod <[e-mail]>
Organization: Oracle Europe


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes in response
to the article from <[e-mail]>:

>When they announced the change, PTT Telecom referred to an
>``international agreement'' to make 00- the prefix for international
>calls.  Can anybody tell me what sort of agreement they meant?  Is
>this an EC directive, a CCITT recommendation, or what?

It's an EC-recommendation. The idea is to try to standardize some
codes across Europe. The European PTTs are not obliged to standardize
on 00 for IDD, but as most countries use 00 already, some of the
others are changing. The Dutch PTT will eventually, once current 00
users are moved.  Telecom Eireann use 16 for IDD but 00 now also works
in the Dublin area, though they haven't announced it.

>>001x- Used to be other services, now disconnected, and/or moved to the
>>      06-041x range.

>Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11.

0011 was the emergency number only in the Brabant and Gelderland
provinces.  This was a test to see if the one uniform number would be
an improvement on the myriad collection of numbers that were in use
and which few people knew in their own area, and no-one knew outside
their own area. It was considered a success, so they opted for a
national simple number, and 0611 was it. However the EC has decided on
112 for a standard emergency number, which would be inconvient in
Holland as local numbers begin with "1".

>  Like a regular non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds.

And what a shame this is. Profit made from misery. It's free in most
countries, so saving someone rummaging in pockets for a coin to call
from public phones. The PTT's excuse is charging reduces false calls.

And can I just say that all Amsterdam numbers (+31-20 code) will be
seven-digit from 1 March 1991. Prepend 6 to six-digit numbers beginning with
"2".

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


[Moderator's Note: Emergency calls (911 in the USA) are *not* free.
Usually the charge is automatically reversed to the receiver of the
call, i.e. the emergency agency, much like an 800 call, but without
the additional digits dialed.  *Someone* always pays for 911 calls:
telco does not handle them for free.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 01:36:24 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers


Thanks a lot for the information in RoamingAmerica.  I look forward to
trying out some of the codes the next time I'm out-of-state.  The odd
thing is, there hasn't been a peep from Cellular One that this new
service exists or is available.  I ran into it completely by accident.
But they did know about it when I called.  You'd think that there
would have been some mention in the newsletter, wouldn't you?

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

From: Jeff Wasilko <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 00:49:40 EST
Subject: RE: New Roaming System for A Carriers


RoamingAmerica isn't new by any means. The network was fairly large
when I still worked at Cellular One here in Rochester. In April of
last year, I wrote a fairly in-depth of the workings of
RoamingAmerica. It follows a few answers:

Steve Forrette wrote:

> - There's currently a bug in the system (at least in San Francisco),
>in that the referral will take precedence over any call forwarding or
>no-answer transfer you have enabled.  Cellular One admitted that this

It really isn't a bug. It stems from the switches different classes of
service. When RoamingAmerica fowards your number to the trunk that
will play the announcement describing how to reach you, it will change
your call forwarding to forward to the correct trunk. If you had call
forwarding set, it's current state is saved, and then restored after
RoamingAmerica is cancelled. If the switch has multiple
call-forwarding options, (such as forward on busy/no-answer and
immediate forward), RomaingAmerica makes the change to the class that
has higher precedence.

>cellphone along.  Note that unlike the *18/*19 FMR of the "B"
>carriers, this new referral service happens automatically when you
>place your first call, and there's apparently no way to shut it off
>(except to leave call forwarding on before you leave (once they get it
>working properly, that is!), but then you have to pay their "No
>Vaseline" full airtime prices for forwarded calls :=( )

Check out the *300 *310 *320 star codes in my article. As long as your
cellular company has chose to implement them, they should work. If
they haven't, call 'em up and scream at em (-;. If all else fails, you
can be removed from the Roaming America database by calling either:

1. Your home cellular company (they should have a 800-number for Roaming
America trouble calls).
2. The foreign cellular company.

Either company should be able to remove you from the RoamingAmerica
database temporarily or permanently if the *3x0 codes don't work.


Jeff

| RIT VAX/VMS Systems: |     Jeff Wasilko     |     RIT Ultrix Systems:     |
|BITNET: jjwcmp@ritvax +----------------------+ INET:[e-mail]|
|INTERNET: [e-mail]              |____UUCP:[e-mail]____|
|'claimer: I speak only for myself. Opinions expressed are NOT those of RIT.|


Here is a description of RoamingAmerica, the nationwide roaming system
that is used by the majority of the non-wireline carriers.

 ................

APPEX Corporation's RoamingAmerica System has been operating
successfully in over ten cities for several months. The carriers
operating in these markets have been offering RoamingAmerica to their
entire subscriber base. More than a dozen markets are scheduled to
receive RoamingAmerica service in the next couple of months. {The
number of participating cites is much higher now.}

RoamingAmerica provides both Transparent Call Forwarding (TCF) and
Caller Notification services.

Transparent Call Forwarding enables a subscriber to receive incoming
calls while roaming in a foreign area by conditionally transferring
these calls from the subscriber's home switch to the serving Cellular
Geographic Service Area (CGSA).

Caller Notification allows a roamer to have the incoming call
conditionally transferred to a voice announcement on the home switch.
The announcement tells the calling party what city the roamer is in
and provides instructions (including long distance phone number for
the foreign switch's roamer access port) for calling the roamer on the
foreign system.

RoamingAmerica provides several methods by which subscribers can
activate RoamingAmerica services. Carriers can elect to have their
subscribers activate the system by placing a call from a foreign
market. Alternatively, carriers can elect to have subscribers
explicitly activate and deactivate the system by dialing 'star' codes.
It is even possible to combine these methods so that a subscriber is
activated by placing a call, and yet can explicitly deactivate or
change service by dialing a star code. RoamingAmerica is very flexible
in this respect, and can be easily customized to fit a carrier's
specific needs.

The start codes that RoamingAmerica uses are:

         *31:   Activate TCF
        *310:   Deactivate TCF
         *32:   Activate CN
        *320:   Deactivate CN
        *300:   Deactivate All RoamingAmerica Service

To implement the above features, RoamingAmerica uses the stream of
call set-up data from the PRV port {PRV stands for Positive Roamer
Verification, the system that the majority of the non-wireline
carriers use for subscriber validation.} on the serving cellular
switch to initiate the automatic roamer registration and activate the
roamer's call transfer. On switches that provide the dialed digits as
part of this information, the star codes can be detected in this
manner. For switches that do not provide the dialed digits to the PRV
system, APPEX has developed the APPEX Voice Response System (AVRS),
which enables explicit activation and deactivation of RoamingAmerica
services.  The AVRS also provides the voice storage and retrieval
system for caller notification.

When RoamingAmerica detects that a subscriber is requesting activation
of RoamingAmerica service, the system checks the NPA/NXX of the
roamer's phone to identify the roamer's home switch. It determines if
the home system is a RoamingAmerica participant, and if the home
system's subscribers are to receive RoamingAmerica service in this
particular foreign market. Last of all, it determines what type of
service the subscriber has chosen to receive.

In parallel with the above activity, APPEX's PRV system performs a
check of the APPEX National Negative file and performs a positive
validation check on the subscriber. If the subscriber has not been
validated on the switch within 24 hours, an inquiry is performed on
the home switch to verify that he is active and has good credit. In
addition, PRV performs a MIN/ESN mismatch check to detect fraudulent
cellular phones. If any of these validation procedures fail, the
subscriber's RoamingAmerica service is immediately aborted and
deactivated.

Meanwhile, if the subscriber has chosen to activate transparent call
forwarding, RoamingAmerica sends a message to the serving switch
directing it to assign a temporary number to the roamer and insert
this number into the the serving switch's database.  The temporary
number is assigned from a block of temporary numbers that have been
reserved on the switch to serve roamers.  When RoamingAmerica receives
confirmation that the serving switch has assigned the temporary number
to the roamer, it sends a command to the roamer's home switch
directing it to deactivate any existing call forwarding and to
establish a conditional call forwarding {forward on no-answer/busy} to
the temporary number assigned by the foreign switch.

If the subscriber has chosen to activate caller notification,
RoamingAmerica sends a message to the home switch directing it to
conditionally transfer the subscriber to a contrived phone number that
consists of two parts: the routing prefix and the switch code
identifier. The routing code is common to all numbers used in caller
notification, whereas the switch code varies depending on the foreign
market in which the subscriber is currently located. When an incoming
call is received, it is transferred to this number. The routing prefix
directs the switch to route this call to the trunk group that connects
the switch to the AVRS, and outpulse the switch code identifier
portion of the number. The switch code identifier tells the AVRS which
message to play back to the calling party.

If a subscriber does not explicitly deactivate the system as described
above, RoamingAmerica will deactivate his service X hours after his
most recent call was placed form the foreign market. This time span is
referred to as the cancellation time, and can be set on a per carrier
basis.

When a roamer registers successfully on RoamingAmerica in a particular
serving system, he stays registered and continues to receive incoming
calls that are forwarded to his temporary number until one of the
following events occur:

1.  The roamer fails to place a call at least once during the
    cancellation time interval.

2.  The RoamingAmerica operations staff manually deactivates
    the roamer.

3.  The roamer dials one of the deactivation codes in any
    system. Deactivation will only occur from his home system
    if the home system provides an AVRS system.

4.  The roamer goes to another foreign system and places a
    call, thereby registering in the new foreign system (and
    terminating his registration in the previous foreign system), or

5.  The roamer fails any PRV validation check on any roamer
    call he places while active on RoamingAmerica.

Whenever RoamingAmerica is deactivated, the subscriber's originally
call forwarding and call transfer settings are retrieved from the
system's internal database, and restored on the home switch.

RoamingAmerica consists of application software that runs in a VAX/VMS
environment and uses the existing APPEX national network
{packet-switched} for communicating to switches across the country.

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 16:24:57 EST
From: Rick <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN to DDN, How?


Does any one know of any equipment which will allow an ISDN connection
to the DDN (Defense Data Network) either X.25 or TCP/IP?

Thanks much,

Rick

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies?
Date: 10 Jan 91 08:55:37


In article <[e-mail]> mitel!Software![e-mail]
(Rolf Meier) writes:

   Some fast operators are specified to work up to 20 pps.

I have a Uniden phone that I bought around 1986, and it has a three
position switch : DTMF, 10pps pulse, 20pps pulse. I've not had any
problems using 20pps in CA and MA (but in well populated suburban
areas).

   Who cares about dial pulsing any more anyway?

I understand it's still widely used outside North America.

On this topic, why do many voice mail and other phone operated
services insist on users having DTMF phones ? Is it really hard to
detect pulse mode digits? I can see that the low numbers might be a
problem, (can't distinguish it from a noise pulse), but if one saw
five to ten regularly spaced pulses, isn't that adequate for
recognition?

I've seen AT&T answering machines which say on the box that they
work with pulse phones (at the remote end, for checking one's
messages).  I haven't played with them. Does anyone know how they
work, or how reliable the detection is ?


Regards,


Jon Sreekanth

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


[Moderator's Note: The old Unitel (United Airlines) internal phone
network was able to recognize pulse dialing on the in-dial to their
call-extender here several years ago. Don't ask me how they did it. I
did note at the time that tone signals were more reliable.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #23
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09323;
          11 Jan 91 2:45 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16279;
          11 Jan 91 0:59 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae20065;
          10 Jan 91 23:51 CST
Date:     Thu, 10 Jan 91 23:46:09 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #24
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 10 Jan 91 23:46:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 24

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Louis Linneweh]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [John R. Levine]
    Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Jim Rees]
    Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Todd Inch]
    Re: What are Secure Lines? [[e-mail]]
    Calls To and From Japan [David Gast]
    TEHO in UK [Benny Lebovits]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10-JAN-1991 05:19:09.86
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports


Hi-

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

When roaming in a foreign system:

> ...[S]omeone has to dial into the roamer port, then
> enter my 10 digit number to reach me.  The problem is that if they are
> calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt,
> whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point
> the secondary dialtone is provided.

> Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby
> the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the
> supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered?

I'm by no means an expert on DID, but I can tell you that there WERE
many ports that did NOT return supervision, although few, if any,
remain.

For example, Cell One/San Francisco, until maybe mid-July this summer
(1990) did NOT return supervision until the called mobile party
answered. When they changed this, I called them to find out why, and
they told me: "Oh, so customers can press the "#" button down if they
make a mistake when dialing in the number. Otherwise, when you call
with a Calling Card, you will be disconnected." Quite true, but I
don't think this is the reason.

I recall discussion on the Digest about this in perhaps late-1987 to
early-1988. From what I gathered, AT&T used to allow this sort of
signalling to go through. IE, the talk path would be open BOTH ways,
even before supervision was returned. Thus, a caller calling a roam
port (or anything else, like an automated PBX attendant which accepted
Touch Tones), would hear the dial tone, AND be able to Touch Tone in
the desired mobile number.  When the mobile answered, supervision was
returned, a billing for the call commenced. If the mobile was
unavailable, then no supervision would be returned, and the caller
would not be billed for the call to the roam port.

However, according to the postings (and this is quite hazy, so please
DO correct me here), AT&T installed a new system in their 4ESS(?)
toll-switches, which didn't allow for the CALLED party (ie, the roam
port) to hear the calling party (ie, the person entering the touch
tones) UNTIL supervision was returned.  That is so say, TWO-way
conversations commenced AFTER supervision, not before, as had been the
case. You could still hear the party you were calling, but they
couldn't hear you until their end sent out a supervision "wink" (or
whatever).  I don't recall any stated outstanding reason for this,
although a few were presented.

Some mobile systems didn't seem to realize this. For example, Cell
One/South Jersey (New Jersey) used to have non-supervising ports at
201-715-7626 and I think the other was 609-575-7626. In the Spring on
1990, they changed the numbers (why I don't know), to 908-610-7626.
This new 908 port worked the same way the old ones did, ie, did not
return supervision UNTIL the called party actually answered. Yet for
some reason, the new port worked under the "new" AT&T "rules" (no
callING to callED party conversation until supervision), so if you
called via AT&T, you COULD NOT ENTER *ANY* TONES!

Callers in New Jersey for the most part were fine, as NJ Bell doesn't
seem to care about supervision. Also, callers over MCI and Sprint
didn't notice this, either, as they appear to work differently than
AT&T. It was VERY difficult to convince Cell One/South Jersey that *I*
was correct that their port was "not working", since each time they
called in locally (via NJ Bell, not AT&T) it worked just fine! And
they even had MCI (their LD co, it seems) call them to try it out, and
MCI reported no trouble. I finally had to three-way them to let them
hear what was going on. Eventually, they changed the port to
automatically return supervision.

This sort of spoiled it for non-AT&T customers, ie, those coming in
over NJ Bell or some non-AT&T LD Co. Previously, they could access the
port for free, unless, of course, the mobile was active and answered
the phone. Now, all calls are billed, regardless of an answer. The
Cell One/South Jersey port covers a wide area (DMX), from New York
City's Metro One system, to North Jersey (Metro One), to South
Jersey/Trenton (Cell One), to Atlantic City/Vinland (Cell One), to
Phil (Metrophone) and Wilmington, DE, (again, Cell One.) Thus, the
port was quite useful to me, as I could tell people to call me at ONE
roam port, and I could be reached from all of lower New York all the
way down to about 20 miles north of Baltimore, where the DC system
takes over. Now, since I may very well not be available, I don't want
people to keep trying to and paying for each call, which they wouldn't
have had to do otherwise.

In any event, it seems that such systems are fading quickly as they
are replaced by newer ports that appear to be subjected to the "new"
AT&T supervision rules.

I'd like to hear about any ports that still work the "old" way, and of
course, any corrections on my rather sketchy description of AT&T's
switching system.


Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

From: Louis Linneweh <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports
Date: 10 Jan 91 23:47:46 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] (Steve Forrette) writes:

>automatically find me.  Someone has to dial into the roamer port, then
>enter my 10 digit number to reach me.  The problem is that if they are
>calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt,
>whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point
>the secondary dialtone is provided.

Some suppliers of cellular switches do allow the system operator to
configure the ROAM trunk group to delay answer supervision until the
called party (or the voice message system or the party to which the
call was transfered) answers.  However, if the call is delivered by an
Inter-Lata carrier, the carrier may not cut through the forward audio
path (from caller to called) until answer supervision is received as a
method of fraud prevention.

This would prevent the End-to-End DTMF from being received by the
cellular system.  Therefore, the cellular operator must configure most
incoming trunk groups for immediate answer supervision since the
source of the call is normally not known.  When the cellular system
operator has a sufficiently sophisticated (read "large") operation,
they may be able to separate the incoming traffic on unique trunk
groups (such as with direct connections to the offending IC) so that
only those networks that require immediate answer supervision get it.

 From the carrier's point of view the caller reached the destination
that was requested (the ROAM port) and they feel justified in getting
paid.  Certainly, business arrangements could be reached between a
cellular operator and the carriers to avoid this problem if it was of
sufficient importance.

>Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby
>the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the
>supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered?  US
>Sprint manages to do precisely this with their FONcard system,
>overcoming any technical or legal hurdles.  You enter the called
>number and your FONcard number, all without supervision taking place.

Cellular service providers are at the wrong end of the connection,
i.e.  after the IC has done its thing, in the situation that causes
concern.  In the case of a FONcard, the cost of the call to the
carrier will be paid for by the carrier as soon as the carrier
connects.

>I guess part of the answer is that the people affected by this problem
>are not the cellular carrier's home customers, but only associates of
>roamers from other systems.  But whatever happened to just wanting to
>do it right for the sake of it?  It seems that especially cellular
>carriers are not apt to do anything that doesn't increase airtime
>revenues.

I'm sure something would be worked out if the cellular operator's
customers thought it was important enough to take their business
elsewhere.  The real "right thing" will only happen when the carrier
enters the process of finding the mobile (instead of being done when
the ROAM port is reached).

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

Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 10 Jan 91 13:53:50 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>OK - shall we have a "largest cell" contest?

Why not?  My entry is the cell on Tortola in the British Virgin
Islands.  Apparently boats 100 miles away can use it due to the
excellent ground provided by salt water that the fact that Tortola has
a fairly high hill on which the antenna is placed.  Perhaps some cell
with an antenna on a higher hill on another island is even bigger.


Regards,

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


[Moderator's Note: When I was visiting in Independence, KS this past
summer I had my Radio Shack CT-301 with me. In most areas of town
there was no cellular service, yet when I went to the second floor of
the home where I was visiting, the phone went out of NO SVC mode into
ROAM mode. Curious, I tried the 0 operator, and ask who she was:
Tulsa, OK -- sixty plus miles to the south!  Returning home on I-55,
Ameritech only guarentees service when you get 'close to' Morris, IL,
the southwestern-most point for Chicago area service. When HOME kicked
in on my unit, a nearby highway sign said we were 70 miles from
Morris. All that on a .6 watt handheld ... see why I don't concern
myself with the exact specifics of the antenna I use? Admittedly, I
had the 'standard' antenna for a handheld, not the little 1/8 wave
loaded stub I installed a month or so ago.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 18:49:35 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter
Anvin) writes:

> this applies to Sweden, and may or may not apply to the rest of
> Scandinavia ...

>5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow).
>   Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may
>   not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up.

I know of at least the following uses of the "second pair" (yellow/black):

 - 10 vac for the dial light in older Princess(tm) and Trimline(tm) phones.
 - Off-hook indication for key sets.
 - Ring voltage for party lines.
 - Ground on the yellow wire for shielded twisted pair.
 - Second line for two-line phones.

Which of these does the Swedish system expect/use?

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 20:37:41 GMT


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

>[Telephones built for US] will work [in Sweden]. ...
>However, a few things to keep in mind:

>5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow).
>   Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may
>   not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up.

What do they put ON the second pair? A reference ground for ground-start
lines? A signalling hookswitch closure?

Most *consumer* units that have the second pair connected these days
would expect to find a second line there!! Surely that is not what
Televerket expects?


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

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Organization: Global Tech International Inc.
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 91 09:56:07 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> PAT writes that the # button is often
the telephone equivalent of a "return key", and:

>There is no
>reason people couldn't be trained to stick it on the end of all
>dialing as a signal they are finished. Then, *any combination* could
>be a local number, no?    PAT]

Sounds good, but this couldn't happen until tone dialing becomes
mandatory and networks are no longer compelled to support pulse
dialing.  Anybody heard when that might happen?  I'm amazed that pulse
is still around - is support enforced by tariff?

(Remember: Do your kids know how to dial a rotary phone for
emergencies?)


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?
Date: Tue,  8 Jan 91 18:41:32 PST


[e-mail] (Lars Poulsen) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> astph![e-mail] (Joe
>Broniszewski) writes:

>>I read ... "The Cookoo's Egg" by Cliff Stoll. ... In the book, Cliff
>>mentioned what he called a *secure line*.  When ever he called a government
>>agency that meant business (ie. FBI, NSA, CIA) they would call him back on
>>one of these secure lines.

>I think Cliff was working for LLBL, i.e. DoE. They would qualify for
>the STU-III program, so I think that's what he meant.

>STU-III is an encryption protocol; essentially, the telephones switch
>to "data mode" like modems. Any IEC may be used to carry such calls.

Cliff worked at Lawrence Berkeley Labs (LBL) at the time.  LBL is
frequently confused with Lawrence Livermore Labs (LLNL), and although
they work closly on many projects they are definately two different
beasts.

I worked in the office next to Cliff for a couple of years and I can
assure you that neither of us had or wanted any special phone lines
other than the standard unsecured, government issue FTS lines.  I do
recall hearing of a special phone line at one point but I believe
there was only one of 'em at the whole lab.  I have no idea where it
is, and I doubt if Cliff would know about it.  LLNL on the other hand
is crawling with spooks and special phone lines.


Cheers,

dag

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:18:59 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calls To and From Japan


Whenever I call Japan, I cannot help but notice the poor quality on
the line.  It does not seem to matter if I am calling via AT&T, MCI,
or Sprint except that Sprint cut me off.  (Past tense on purpose).

Whenever I recieve a call from Japan, I cannot help but notice how
clear everything sounds.  I just received a call and it sounded as if
the person was in the same room.  Truely remarkable as many of my
local calls do not sound this clear.  Do you think GTE has special
processing for calls from Japan?  :-)


David Gast

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

From: Benny Lebovits <[e-mail]>
Subject: TEHO in UK
Date: 10 Jan 1990
Organization: Intel Electronics, Ltd


    I am working on a network design that is considering hubbing
out of the UK. Can anyone tell me whether TEHO (tail end hop off) or
off-net dialling is legal in the UK. I have received conflicting
reports. Through hearsay, Mercury has told one curtomer that it is
legal. I have read a magazine article that indicates lots of people
are doing it. Yet Intel's man on the spot claims it's illegal and that
he needs a permit to hook up any new equipment to the network.

    Any ideas as to how I can get a definitive ruling?

Benny

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #24
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11529;
          11 Jan 91 4:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17838;
          11 Jan 91 3:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22118;
          11 Jan 91 2:00 CST
Date:     Fri, 11 Jan 91 1:25:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #25
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 Jan 91 01:24:42 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 25

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Addresses for Recorded 900 Solicitors [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Information Needed on 900 Regulations [Emmanuel Goldstein]
    Alabama PSC Planning to Eliminate 900 Access? [Floyd Vest]
    Re: Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers [Carl Wright]
    Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Dave Burke]
    Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Toby Nixon]
    Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. [John Stanley]
    Emergency Re-Routing [J. Philip Miller]
    Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Chris Johnson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Date: 10-JAN-1991 03:56:00.47
Subject: Addresses for Recorded 900 Solictors


Pat asked that I post the addresses that I got from NY Tel, so here
they are.

[In case - (Heaven forbid! :) ) - you missed my initial posting, these
are the addresses that the Telco actually sends the bills to for those
900/976/local prefix for special features firms. Typically, they try
to induce people to call them with recorded solicitations, such as:
"Hi, I'm Jeff, and I've got a prize for you! So call me back at
900-555-1111 within the next 10 minutes, and see what I've got for
you.

<Begin fast talking>

717EJerichoTpkeHuntingtonStaNY11746,fitftydollarsperminute

<End fast talking>.  So call me now and see what you've won!" ]

"The New 9999 Line" -  540-9999 in NY Tel's NY Metro area.

  The address they give (locally) is:

    717 E. Jericho Turnpike
    Huntington Sta, NY 11746

  Their billing address:

     The New 9999 Line
    3702 South Virginia Ave
    Reno, NV 89503.

(The person who signed my certified mail card signed "C.T." ...
couldn't write the full name out, eh? )

900-999-0100 (?) and locally 540-0100. (They called my machine, and
mentioned both. The 900 number was poorly recorded, so maybe it is
900-909? I dunno.  The 540 number is definitely correct.)

    The Eagleton Group
    561 Keystone Ave, Box 305
    Reno, NV, 89503

These are the addresses that I got a response from, so I KNOW they are
valid. Additionally, I got a call from some Hawaiian vacation 900
number, but since I am quite careless at times, I didn't write the
address or # down as an additional note to myself for reference
purposes. When the certified mail (green) card comes back, I'll post
it if anyone cares.

For those of you who wish to call NY Tel to get addressess for firms
who are bothering you, call NY Tel's call annoyance # at: 800-522-1122.
I think this will work from out of NY state; it did from CT.

You may also call the NY Tel Executive offices (1095 6th Ave, NYC) at
[phone]. They were the actual people who told me the number,
after I spoke to the Annoyance number. The rep. I spoke with was Mrs.
Gordon, and her supervisor is Mrs. O'Mally.

I don't know how many of these calls NYTel gets, so they may not be
too familiar with the process (as demonstrated by their telling me to
call the FCC!).  But if you keep at it, they will give you the
addresses. Maybe mention me, I'm sure they (a) couldn't care less, or
(b) will hang up on you. :) It took a while for me to make my case to
them, but it did ultimately work. If you don't want to spend time
yelling at these people over the phone, send me the number that is
bothering you, IF you get these calls on a NY Tel line.  I have to
call them soon anyhow for more annoying numbers, and may as well get a
few more addresses (if I can) while I am at it.

I'd also be interested to know what similar experiences (if any)
people have had with their telcos in their attempts to do the same
thing.


Good luck!

Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: A check with 702-555-1212 showed no listing in Reno
for either the 'Eagleton Group' or the 'New 9999 Line'. But my trusty
criss-cross for Reno shows 561 Keystone Avenue to be simply a remail
service -- a mail drop -- where Mr. Eagleton picks up his mail,
probably in the middle of the night with no one around to spot him.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 9 Jan 91 23:41:16 pst
From: Emmanuel Goldstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on 900 Regulations


Can someone post a rough translation of the FCC laws regarding 900
service? What I'm interested in primarily are regulations concerning
announcement of charges, ANY rules for billing, and other items to
protect the public from fraud. Thanks.


[Moderator's Commandments:
1) Thou shalt read thy charge-per-call rapidly in a slurred voice.
2) Thou shalt operate behind mail drop services in far-away places.
3) Thou shalt refuse to respond to telco billing complaints/chargebacks.
4) If a customer refuses payment to telco, and telco charges it back
   to thee, then thou shalt forward it to a sleazy collection agency.
5) Thou shalt keep moving thy boiler-room from one location to another,
   a step ahead of the Postal Inspector; but preferably keep it in the
   midwest USA where WATS rates are the least expensive.
6) Thou shalt honor thy father and mother by trying to program your
   computer to not call their phone; but if you can't, that's okay,
   don't worry about it. They'll have to live with it.
7) Thou shalt not take the name of thy guardian angel, Harold Greene
   in vain.

Thou art welcome.  PAT]

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

From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alabama PSC Planning to Eliminate 900 Access?
Date: 10 Jan 91 02:20:45 CST


I have a friend that is a service provider for a third-party "900"
service.  This not a sleeze operation.  He is editor of a sports
magazine and offers a "hotline" for sports news updates.  The service
has been very well received.  He recently learned (and I not sure of
the reliability of his information) that the Alabama Public Service
Commission is proposing to remove 900-service access from all phones
in the state unless explicitly requested.  Since the major appeal of
his service is in-state this would probably force him to drop the
service.  My question is this: since the number terminates
out-of-state, does the APSC have the authority to restrict interstate
calling?  If not, what can my friend do?  He does not have the
resources (and the service is not profitable enough) to engage any
legal action or protracted appeals.

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Blocking "976" and "900" Numbers
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 05:22:59 GMT


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

>[Moderator's Note: It probably does not matter where the physical
>termination is. All that matters is where they drop it (and someone
>else picks it up), or where they bill it out to.  IBT now blocks all
>calls to anything-976 not within 312, whether you want them to or not.
>They do blocking to 312-976 and 900-xxx on request, and *no*
>variations in dialing, i.e. 10xxx-1-312-976-xxxx, etc get past the 976
>or 900 blockade, period.  PAT]

Might you be able to reach a 976 number with 950-1022 to get into MCI
or by dialling "10222#" and then dialing the 976 number in another
area code?

I guess that IBT can't be expected to block these since they never
hear the tones.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105


[Moderator's Note: IBT doesn't hear the tones, but MCI sure does!
Calls via 10222 or 950-1022 here to an anywhere-976 number return an
intercept saying 'at the present time, MCI does not connect with 976
numbers.' Sprint is the same way.  PAT]

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

Date: 10 Jan 91 08:29:00 GMT+109:13
From: "VAXA::DBURKE" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed


Responding to "hpa" <[e-mail]>:

  Your local Radio Shack has a box called Teleprotector (registered
trademark) R.S. P/N 43-107 for $7.95.  Just put one on the modem, and
a second one on the telephone.  It will then be first-come,
first-serve.

  AutoLine+ from ITS communications in N.Y. will do lockout and
distinctive ringing. The box works well.  If you need the phone # for
ITS, respond directly and I'll dig it out.


Dave

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed
Date: 10 Jan 91 15:33:48 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter
Anvin) asks about a distinctive ringing-based call director that can
also keep the attached devices from interrupt each others' calls.

My understanding is that the "RingDirector/4" box supports not only
distinctive ringing direction of incoming calls to specific ports on
the device (up to four numbers), but also handles exclusion (keeps a
device, once off-hook, from having its calls interrupted by another).
It wouldn't hurt to call the company and find out.  The manufacturer
is Lynx Automation, 2100 196th St SW #144, Lynnwood WA 98036; +1 206
744 1582.  The device costs $149.


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]

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

Subject: Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc.
From: John Stanley <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 10:41:40 EST


[e-mail] (Peripheral Visionary 08-Jan-1991 0951)
writes:

> We seem to be really plagued by telecom service outages recently.
> Since I'm sure there's not a large increase in the number of cables
> being accidentally cut, my suspicion is that more and more traffic is
> being handled by fewer and fewer high capacity fiber routes.

   Tuesday evening, about 4:10, the local PBS station lost the feed
for a program called "Fresh Air". After a few minutes, they came back,
using a poor quality phone feed.

   At the end of the show, we were told that the problem was caused by
a break in a fiber cable between New York and Philly. I don't know if
they get the feed in real time, but would guess that they must if they
put up with the poor feed just to carry the show.

   YACC (Yet Another Cable Cut)?

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Emergency Re-Routing
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 20:20:18 CST


> [Moderator's Note:
>.... Remember, for years prior to Sprint and MCI having
> their own complete network they both leased circuits from AT&T and
> from each other.

This reminds me of a question that I have had for some time.  Does
AT&T now do the reverse?  One of the reasons that I ask, is that near
my house (in the 1900 block of Chouteau) is a bunker type building
which was (at least since the divesture) labeled as an AT&T facility.
A couple of years ago there was the laying of a major fiber cable
under major streets in St. Louis and leading to this facility.
Several months ago, I noticed that now the bunker is labeled as
belonging to Sprint.  What is going on here?


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

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 16:23:03 GMT


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

>Technology is easier to keep faith in when one has a hand in its
>design and development.  When, as is most often the case in Western
>societies, technology is invented by large, seemingly faceless
>corporations or government agencies and foisted on the general public
>for better or worse, "faith" is an understandably rare commodity.  I
>appreciate Mr.  Lucky's optimism and self-confidence, but his examples
>of technology that "works" -- BART as a remedy for transportation
>congestion, and educational technology as a remedy for poor scholastic
>performance among students -- are insupportable.  BART has complicated
>the Bay Area transportation situation, not fixed it.  And educational
    ...
>democratic.  I am surprised that the general public is as tolerant as
>it is of we technologists' experiments with its world.

While this is straying from the topic of telecommunications, and into
the politics of technology and more, I can't sit by and let Mr.
Jacobson remain unanswered in his indictment of technologists.

First and foremost, it might be that techonology is invented by
seemingly faceless corporations and technologists within, but it is
the business end of such organizations that "foist" those products
upon the public.  In other words, the fact that every community has a
video-rental store as a "result" of the invention of the VCR, or that
Compact Disks have virtually eliminated the vinyl LP, has a lot less
to do with the invention of the technology and a lot more to do with
marketing, advertising, and business ideas for making money in
general.

If record companies did not see a great potential profit to be made,
and did not push the Compact Disk in the market place, you can bet it
would be relegated to the rare ranks of the high-end audio
affecionado.  For example, just where is Digital Audio Tape (DAT)
these days?  It's invented.  It works.  You can even buy it!  But the
record companies are all opposed to it because they are greedy and
can't see a way to make a good profit from it.  As a result, it's a
pretty rare thing.  I have two compact disk players.  I have zero DAT
decks.

This only reinforces the idea that technological innovations are only
tools, and it's the use to which they are put which makes all the
difference.

I also take issue with Mr. Jacobson's remarks about such things as
BART.  He claims it complicates the Bay Area transportation situation.
Perhaps.  But if BART disappeared tomorrow, the transportation
situation would be a whole hell of a lot more complicated.  It has a
huge daily ridership.  And from my experience, the Bay Area has one of
the better mass-transit systems in the country, precisely because of
the integration and variety of types: busses, trains, and BART.

I'm not as aware of the circumstances in Washington D.C. (having left
that area just before the Metro opened), but everything I've ever
heard about the system there was praise of the highest sort, even from
people who were regular riders of other subway systems in the U.S. and
even abroad.

It's also my opinion that Mr. Jacobson's remarks about educational
uses of technology are taking problems out of their context.  The
educational institutions of this country have a lot problems, and most
of them are sociological in nature and very interrelated.  Whether or
not technology will be able to help solve those problems in a dramatic
way, versus in a minor way (which I am sure they will) is yet to be
seen.  Lack of use of available technology in schools hardly points to
a fault in the technology itself, however.

I'd say a pretty strong case could be made that we have one of the
best telephone systems in the world, also because of the technology
that built it.

Perhaps Mr. Jacobson is not as much a luddite as my response is making
him sound.  But I want to bring the focus on technology issues to
where the decisions should be and are presently being made as to
whether the new inventions bring the society good.  Those places are
political (public policies, eg. do we want to encourage nationwide
networks?) and business (marketing and selling, eg. how can we use
this new invention to make money, versus how will selling this new
invention affect society?).  Technologists frequently have ideas in
mind for uses of their inventions that are nothing like how the
general public ends up seeing them.  Should technologists stop
creating new things unless they have that control?  Or just stop in
general, for fear they may be misused or have adverse affects
(particulary since the societal affects are impossible to predict)?

I don't think so.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #25
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa12736;
          11 Jan 91 5:52 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24868;
          11 Jan 91 4:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17838;
          11 Jan 91 3:04 CST
Date:     Fri, 11 Jan 91 2:27:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #26
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 11 Jan 91 02:27:13 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 26

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service has Mid and High Freqency Loss [Ken Dykes]
    Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service [F. Davidson]
    International Packet Network Info Wanted [Dean Riddlebarger]
    Re: New Breed of COCOT [John Cowan]
    Ronald Greenberg's Bogus AT&T Charges [Randy Borow]
    Pac*Bell Delivers Touch-Tone [Steve L. Rhoades]
    Re: Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World) [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service [D. Levenson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ken Dykes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service has Mid and High Frequency Loss
Organization: S.D.G. UofWaterloo
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 10:57:36 GMT


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

>  The other possible source of these problems is the house wiring.
>The wiring in the house is very old, untwisted aluminum three-pair.
>Yes, I said aluminum!  Don't ask me -- everyone I've told of and

   I wouldn't worry so much about Aluminum, but UNtwisted? eeeeeek!

>  There's about forty feet of the wire strung between the drop box and
>the telephone jack I'm trying to use.  It's also wired serially
>through a jack about ten feet from the drop box.  That earlier jack
>has a telephone set on line one, but nothing on line two.  The far

   Does your wiring-run pass any furnace/air-cond/water heater/etc
which may have a relay/starter going about every 45 minutes? perhaps
when it "starts" you get some sort of induction pickup on your wires.

Also, do your mid->high frequency response problems occur at harmonics
of 60hz (ie: your phone wires pass hydro wires, the 60hz induction
provides a possible dampening effect?)

[caveat: I really dont know what I'm talking about.]

>  While in PEP mode, I can hear a very small amount of cross talk when
>both the modem and voice lines are idling (very low level regular

   Cross-talk will disappear with twisted pair (or at least "very
small" levels will :-)

>    2.    I welcome any comments about the potential problems that very
>    old, untwisted aluminum wiring might generate and in particular,
>    does anyone think it could be responsible for my frequency
>    response loss?

   I think UNtwisted is unwise at best of times, heck, bite the bullet
install lots of twisted pairs and run Ethernet all over your house :-)

>    3.    I think I remember hearing, perhaps in this group, that twisted
>    pair wiring can actually *degrade* frequency response because of

   You got it backward in my belief.

>    4.    We're thinking of running twisted copper six-pair throughout the
>    house to accommodate future expansion with an Ethernet, AppleTalk
>    net, and up to three phone lines.  Does anyone see any problem

   Yes, yes, capacity planning! wire is cheap, the "running it" is a
pain, do it once, but run a lot of pairs.


Ken Dykes, Software Development Group, UofWaterloo, Canada [43.47N 80.52W]
    [e-mail]  [129.97.128.1]        watmath!kgdykes
      [e-mail]       B8 P6/6 s+ f+ m t w e r p

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 1991 13:55:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peter G. Capek) writes:

>What are the legal restrictions, if any, on an Inter-Exchange Carrier
>providing service within a LATA, normally the province of a Local
>Exchange Carrier?  When I try to force a call via AT&T, for example to
>a number which is near where I'm calling from, I get a message about
>the call not being able to be completed.  (I tried this by dialing
>10288-0-914-762-xxxx).  I ask because if there is in fact some legal
>restriction, what effect does it have on completing 800 calls which
>happen to originate in the same LATA as the 800 number terminates?
>(Same question could be asked for 900 numbers..)

Unless there are local (state) restrictions there really are none.
However...

Listen to the intercept recording you get when you try that until the
end where it should give a number, like "9075".  If you get some
number starting with your area code (or for that matter, any area
code) then you are being blocked by the toll switch.

Local exchange switches may not have any identification on the
recording or may send you to a "fast busy" signal.

I suspect you will find that the local switch is intercepting the
call.  Normally toll switches don't block anything that can be
completed, including toll calls right back to your own local exchange!
That particular feature may in fact be blocked, however.  (People with
fat fingers actually dial it that way and then complain about it.)

I know of a number of cases where local calls between different
switches can be completed by dialing long distance, and yet in the
same area there are others that are blocked by the local line
switches.  The Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System blocks toll calls
to ALL other local switches.  Most of the other line switchers in the
area do not.  The calls cost something like 11 cents for the first
minute at evening rates.

And if you do get a "9075", as I mentioned above, at the end of the
intercept ... its Fairbanks.


Floyd L. Davidson   98 Salcha, AK 99714  bpaycheck connection to Alascom, Inc.
 When I speak for them, one of us will be *out* of business in a hurry.

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

From: Dean Riddlebarger <[e-mail]>
Subject: International Packet Network Info Wanted
Organization: Truevision Inc., Indianapolis, IN
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 14:57:17 GMT


It's been a while since I've had to check into this...

Is anyone out there familiar with international [public] packet
network links between Germany and the U.S.?  I have some seriously
vague third-party information that indicates such abeast exists, and
I'd like to dig up as much additional information as possible.  I have
a coworker based in Germany, and he is checking with the authorities
on that end, but he says that since getting a simple phone line is as
complex a process as building a Trident missile, he expects a fair
delay in getting more detailed information on this particular subject.

What we're looking for is a setup in which he can hop onto such a
network in Germany [all we know right now is that it is apparently
called datex-p], pop through a gateway to a similar network in the
U.S. [tymnet], and hop off here in town to access our server.  We
don't have the cost justification for a dedicated international
private line.  We are already routing non-sensitive email to his
Compuserve account [local access to that in Germany is, oddly, quite
easy].  But we would still like to let him come directly into the home
machines from time to time.

Straight IDDD with a modem is possible, but the connections are not
great [forget 9600, if our initial tests are any indication].  I also
suspect that a packet service gateway might be cheaper for moderate
amounts of usage.

Email if you've seen anything like this, and I'll summarize in a week
or two for the rest of the group.

Thanks!


Dean Riddlebarger            Truevision, Inc.
[317] 841-0332    [e-mail]      uunet!epicb!dean

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

Date: 10 Jan 91 16:41:40 GMT
From: John Cowan <cbmvax!snark.thyrsus.com![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Breed of COCOT


In <[e-mail]> our esteemed Moderator wrote:

>There are some COCOTS here which require a careful
>examination to determine that they are not 'genuine Bell'.

Here in New York City, there exist COCOTs that are >identical< to New
York Telephone payphones, except that they don't say "New York
Telephone" on the rate card or elsewhere on the phone.  I suspect they
are reconditioned models that NYT sold as scrap.

What's worse, not every NYT payphone (especially those inside in odd
locations, some of which actually still have rotary dials!)  is marked
"New York Telephone", although most are.  So there is truly no way to
be safe except to search every payphone and refuse to use any that
aren't marked NYT.  That excludes some usable ones, but is the only
method guaranteed to reject all zero-armed bandits.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Jan 10 14:44:29 CST 1991
Subject: Ronald Greenberg's Bogus AT&T Charges


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it SOUNDS like you are the victim of 3rd
# fraud, Ron. While I do not have your bill in front of me (if you'd
give me its account #, I can pull it up here at work and check it out)
to check the call codes, it at least sounds like some one placed a
call from one locale to another and billed it randomly to your acct.

        Granted, this is illegal and agrravating; however, as an
employee of AT&T, I ask you to be calm and simply call the Account
Inquiry Center at the phone number listed on your bill. That # should
be [phone] if it's your home phone you're talking about.
Because I have worked on both 3rd # and calling card fraud in the
past, I have been witness to hundreds of very upset AT&T customers.

        The rep. to whom you talk should be able to arrange the easy
credit, and possibly recharge the call to the originating party
(providing it's a business or residence #). As long as your LEC,
however, does the billing, they are the ones technically responsible
for making sure an adjustment appears on your account. And believe me,
most LEC's fail miserably to post the proper credits: witness the
instant credits issued by AT&T's LD operators. More than half the
time, the LEC fails to recognize the adjustment codes and process
them -- even though AT&T reps recognize the adj. codes on the bills when
they are in the system.

        Judge Greene, you should be shot.

Randy Borow       Rolling Meadows, IL.


[Moderator's Admonition: Now, now, now! I think that is a very
imprudent thing to say. I don't like him, and after the (still
ongoing) telephone case I find it hard to trust his judgment in most
matters presented to him for litigation. I am not at all convinced he
entered into the telephone case without some personal bias. But I do
not recommend violence as a way to solve disputes with few exceptions.
I admit to sometimes wishing that impeachment was not such a long,
cumbersome process.  My commitment to 'free speech' -- given my own
blind spots -- is strong enough that it outweighs my general aversion
to violence, so I left your message intact. I do wish however you had
not said that.  We still live in a nation governed by laws, not by
guns. Yes, I know, the government has plenty of guns, and some people
obey the LAW because of the implied threat from the omnipresence of
the government GUNS, but that is a different issue. Let's work toward
legislative changes to undo the damage as best we can.  PAT]

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

From: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell Delivers Touch-Tone
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 21:33:36 GMT


After many months of promises, Pac*Bell is finally starting to convert
it's dial-pulse only customers to Touch-Tone.

It all started back when Pac*Bell promised the Calif. Public Utilities
Commission that it would provide free touch-tone and an expanded local
calling area (from eight to twelve miles) in exchange for being
granted their (you guessed it...) rate increase.

I have a line that used soley for incoming calls, no touch-tone, no
custom-calling; Sort of the epitome of POTS.

Today it had touch-tone and a call to the business office confirmed
that they were indeed starting to convert custmers to TT.  She further
stated that the local calling area would be expanded sometime in
February.

It really interesting how the rate increases can be put into effect so
much faster than Pac*Bell's other promises.  I have yet to find a
COCOT that complies with their mandate of free 950, 800, and have the
phone's responsible party clearly posted.


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

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 19:05:45 EST
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mexico Calling (was: Reach Out World)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed Hopper)
writes:

> I grew up in El Paso, Texas, along the Mexican border.  One of the
> more unfortunate aspects of the MFJ is the removal of the LEC from
> special international toll agreements.

> Before the MFJ, calls to Juarez, Mexico (a city that is virtually
> contiguous to El Paso on the south side of the Rio Grande) were
> dialable via a "42" prefix to the five digit Juarez telephone number.
> Costs were minimal.  They were handled via a cable that ran from El
> Paso main CO across a bridge over the Rio Grande to Juarez main.

> Then came the MFJ.  "Special deals" like this went away and the 905
> NPA applied.  Rates went higher.

> Now, Juarez calls are fully integrated in the international LD system.
> 011+Country Code+ etc.
>
> Is this progress?
>
> [Moderator's Note: Is this progress, you ask?  Well, Judge Green must
> think so. There were numerous arrangements like you describe along the
> Canadian border also in the past, allowing local calling between small
> towns on the US side and the Canadian side. Friends communicating with
> friends, without making an 'international issue' out of it.  PAT]

In several instances local telcos have been allowed to keep inter-LATA
calling capabilities.  For example, you can call between northern New
Jersey and New York City by meens of NJ Bell or NY Tel, dpending on
which side of the Hudson River your phone is.

I don't know if the reason that this international capability was
discontinued was due to the MFJ, or because the local telco decided not
to ask for it to be continued.

By the way, this cross international border local service is common
around the world.  for example, from Geneva (that's in Switzerland for
you US geography buffs, you can reach the towns just over the border
in France by using a code that looks like a Swiss city code (area
code) rather tha dialing the French country code.


Herman Silbiger    [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Long Distance Calls, and Thoughts on a New Service
Date: 11 Jan 91 00:20:37 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

[ an article about using inter-LATA carriers for intra-LATA calls ]

> [Moderator's Note: Telecom*USA uses 'area code' 700 for this purpose.
> Dial 700 + number in your own area code to make a local call billed
> via Telecom*USA instead of Illinois Bell. Don't ask me how they
> legally get away with it.  PAT]

In NJ, all of the inter-LATA carriers except AT&T provide intra-LATA
service.  We can use 10xxx plus the home area code and local number,
unless xxx happens to be 288 (AT&T).  I'm not sure why AT&T choses not
to do this, or is prevented from doing it.

The MCI rates for calls within NJ are often less than those of NJ
Bell, for calls just beyond one's local calling area.  They are almost
always less than the sent-paid rate from public coin phones.  Their
'around town' service allows credit-card calls from phones in the
local area without the card surcharge, which definitely beats the
price of the NJ Bell IQ-Card!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #26
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07288;
          12 Jan 91 5:06 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05715;
          12 Jan 91 3:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07643;
          12 Jan 91 2:26 CST
Date:     Sat, 12 Jan 91 1:30:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #27
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:29:33 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 27

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    My Apologies, If You Were Bombed [TELECOM Moderator]
    Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell [Jack Winslade]
    Re: Touch-Tone Specifications (Swedish Phones) [Julian Macassey]
    Information Needed on Moderate Range RF LAN [Joe Stong]
    Looking for DID Solutions - Nicollet Digitrap 1015 or Equiv [Allen Jensen]
    Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers [Carl Wright]
    Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World [Nigel Allen]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 0:22:09 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed


A large number of readers -- primarily those who had posted here in
recent weeks -- were subjected to a 'bombing run' on Friday. The
person simply collected up all the names and sites he could find, by
copying the address information in messages here, and sent out a mass
mailing.

I've received numerous complaints, and although I am really helpless
to stop this sort of action I do extend my apologies to those of you
who have complained. I knew nothing about it before I began getting
copies from several people. I can only suggest that if you do not wish
to receive the mailings, you write to the address where they
originated and ask to have them stopped.

 From time to time, the network is misused in this way, with anonymous
postings and mass-mailings sent through other than the normal mailing
list channels. Thankfully it does not happen all that often.

If you were one of the many who wrote me to express your disapproval
of the unsolicited mail, please accept this note in place of a
personal response.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator

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

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 22:18:13 PDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Hmmmmmmm ... something just hit me -- something that is so obvious
that we cannot see it for the trees.

If we figure that the metro Omaha area gives Ma Bell about 500,000
customers, and we figure the number of BBS systems that have been
around for more than one month and will be here one month into the
future is about 50 (comma) that means that the BBS lines make up about
50/500000 of the active lines, or about 1/100 of one percent.

I think we can then assume that the ratio of BBS systems to dialable
numbers is more or less the same, +/- one order of magnitude,
throughout the USA.

Why is it, then, that some phone companies, including the one in Texas
(S.  Bell or SW Bell, I can never keep them straight) and GTE in
Indiana (or was it Ohio, I can never keep them straight ;-) are so
concerned with such a small fraction of their customers??

Heck, if .01% of the telephone subscribers kept their phones off hook
all day long, it shouldn't generate any blip at all in any accounting
records and it certainly is so insignificant that it would be buried
in the margin of error of any traffic measuring study.

Why is it then, that they are paying >>THAT<< much attention to such a
miniscule group of their subscribers ??


Good Day!       JSW

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications (Swedish Phones)
Date: 11 Jan 91 15:16:00 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: Tired Insomniacs Assn  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Peter
Anvin) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 17, Message 4 of 9

>In article <[e-mail]> Kari Hardarson <hardarso@cs.
>unc.edu> writes:

>>I'm particularly concerned with whether the touch-tone features on a
>>phone bought in USA will work in Scandinavia - or whether
>>the phone will work at all for that matter.

>3. Swedish touch-tone phones have 13 buttons, "0".."9", "*", "#", "R".  I
>   don't know what the "R" button does, but its functions are similar to
>   the ones U.S. phone companies flash the hook for, so it might be exactly
>   what it does.

    The "R" is the "Recall" button and is usually a ground button
used to signal a PBX or CO. It is used only for feature control and is
not needed for POTS service.

>4. The Swedish phone net provides a lower current level than any other
>   phone system in the world.  Thus, a current-hungry foreign phone may not
>   work properly.  It shouldn't matter for modern electronic ones.

    The Swedish minimum line current is 12 mA, The U.S. (Bell)
spec is 20 mA. But your standard 2500 (AT&T Desk Phone) set will work
pretty well down to 14 mA. Cheap and nasty imported phones may not
work on Swedish line current, they don't do too well on U.S. line
current either.

>5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow).
>   Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may
>   not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up.

    See 3 above re the R button. But the kicker here is, phones
sold in the U.S. neither connect nor use the second pair
(Black/Yellow). So this is difficult or impossible to do. U.S. Phones
using both pairs are either two line phones or have A1 lead control.
Some old phones also used the yellow wire as a ground wire for
grounded ringing. But none of those U.S. scenarios will fit the CCITT
R button. More correctly, a U.S. phone will work fine, but not have
the recall button unless you wire it in yourself. I do not see how
that can affect the call hanging up. Hanging up the phone disconnects
Tip and Ring and stops current flow.


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 03:30:16 PST
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed on Moderate Range RF LAN


As usual, I want to do some reasonably inexpensive computer to
computer data connection between two sites that are diagonally across
a street from each other (building to building is about 500 feet). If
any of you gadget freaks out there can refer me to some sort of short
to moderate range RF LAN, send me mail.  Or any interesting solution
involving those short range TV transmit/receive systems for your VCR,
and some inexpensive serial or ethernet to TV channel
modulator/demodulators.

I've only seen one, reasonably low speed solution, an RF modem device
called a "LAWN" ($600 gets you 19,200Baud and 500feet, maybe).

I'd love to climb into the underground utility tunnels and string some
coax, and do ethernet between the buildings, but I haven't a clue as
to who to ask, and what bureaucracy I'd have to go through to do it.
It is a city street.  How do companies like the cable TV folks get the
rights to cut slots in the pavement and insert coax, or string wires
on the poles, or run wire through whoever's underground tunnels?  Who
owns the tunnels and or the poles?

The last time I dealt with a leased line, it was between a couple of
buildings that were about two blocks from each other.  The leased line
was something like 6.5 miles long, because the phone company required
that the line go across town to the phone company and back to the
other building.  This was in order that they could leave a butt set
parked across the line in the phoneco office so that it would short
out the feeble pulse carrier stuff that the short haul modems were
putting out.

It also appears that leased T1 is ordinary pairs, but you get shielded
twisted pair in to your building.  You mean that MOST pairs in the
cable on the street will carry 1.544 MBaud?  ISDN at 128Kbaud must be
trivial on those pairs, then.

Given that MOST of the expense of phone service is probably generated
by the equipment and personnel required to do itemized billing of
calls, and not for the service itself, is there any technical reason
that we couldn't have >128Kbps Internet jacks installed on our home
and office walls for $30 a month, flat rate, by the phone company?
(Instead, we may, after much struggling, get ISDN, which would be
charged packet by packet for point-to-point connections, from which
they can milk more money).  (The rationale for the above rate and cost
is that an existing voice line costs maybe $15 a month for 56Kbaud
plus A/D and D/A conversion and the equipment to log call source and
destination.  I'd expect the cost to be similar for a router that ran
at similar baud rates.)

My short term interest is to find a cheap solution for me.  However,
I'll be delighted if I generate some discussion about the general
philosophy and economics of data connections through the phone
companies.  Send me mail and post, I can't keep up with the volume of
comp.dcom.telecom.


Joe Stong   [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Allen Jensen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Looking for DID solutions - Nicollet Digitrap 1015 or equiv
Date: 11 Jan 91 16:08:22 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta


Since Nicollet went out of business, I am trying to find an
alternative to the Digitrap 1015 card.  My basic need is to take
incomming DID lines from the CO and map them in to some set of
available phone lines.  Once the DID connection through to the regular
phone is made and the phone is taken off-hook, the switch (the 1015 or
equivilent) sends down the DTMF of the DID number dialed.


 +-----------+                  +-----------+ POTS  +--------------+
 |           |    DID Trunks    | Digitrap  |-------| XYZ          |
 |   CO      |==================|   1015    |-------| Voicemail    |
 |           |                  |Replacement|-------| System       |
 +-----------+                  +-----------+       +--------------+

(Not completely sure of my terminology - my use of POTS refers to
your standard, just like your home phone, telephone line.)

In addition, I would also be interested in any loop-start/DID
converters anyone knows about.

In addition, I need to find a low cost switch that will take some set
of incomming 800 lines and map them to a smaller set of lines.  After
the connection is established, the switch sends DTMF of the last seven
digits of the 800 number down to the voicemail system.  By low cost, I
mean anything under $30,000 than can handle several hundred incomming
800 lines and 30-40 outgoing lines.

 +-----------+                  +-----------+ POTS  +--------------+
 |           |    800 Lines     |           |-------| XYZ          |
 |   CO      |==================|  Switch   |-------| Voicemail    |
 |           |                  |           |-------| System       |
 +-----------+                  +-----------+       +--------------+

Any information at all will be helpful.  I need this really fast.  If
anyone out there has a used Digitrap 1015 from Nicollet they want to
sell, please let me know.


Phone: [phone]   FAX: [phone] (fax mailbox)
When leaving a fax, please leave a voice annotation.
P. Allen Jensen                              AudioFAX, Inc. / Suite 200
[e-mail]                           2000 Powers Ferry Rd.
emory!audfax!allen                           Marietta, GA. 30067
Up to 24 FAX lines in a 80386 based system runing System V UNIX

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Roaming System for A Carriers
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 05:09:41 GMT


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

>There seems to be a new roaming system that some of the A carriers are
>using (is this perhaps "Roam Across America" or something similar?).
>When you are outside of your local area and registered in another,
>your callers will get a recording telling them what city you are in,
>the roamer port number there, and instructions on how to use it.  This
>is a vast improvement over what we had before (nothing), but still not
>as neat as the call just going through by itself.  Based on my
>experience and a call to Cellular One, here are some details:

> - Registration is automatic - all you have to do is place or receive
>a call in a foreign system in order to activate it.

For many users, the "Registration" process for the phone occurs when
the phone is turned on. By "Registration" I don't intend to say that
your home switch knows your location when you turn the phone on in
another carrier's service area. That probably only happens when your
home switch is requested to verify your credit worthiness by the
switch you are visiting via the roamer validation service company.

In Los Angeles, with Cellular One, you are using one of Ericsson's
most sophisticated installations. They have four AXE-10 switches
networked together so that whenever you turn on your phone, your home
switch (the one you were activated in by Cellular One) knows where you
are at.  They need the information to seamlessly route calls coming in
to you.

The call traffic in Los Angeles has become so intense in some
neghborhoods that PacTel has raised the rates for using your phone in
that area. If you travel through, part of the call is at normal (high)
rates and the part in this neighborhood is charged at still hgher
rates. I forget the neighborhood. Is it Rodeo Drive?

> - The foreign system doesn't need any special equipment.  All they
>need is to be part of the Positive Roamer Verification (PRV) network.
>When your home system gets a MIN/ESN verification request from another
>system (which happens upon your first call), it knows where you are.

This validation actually occurs after the first call is completed.
This is primarily a system to limit roamer fraud. This is provided by
GTETS and APPEX/EDS for almost all cellular carriers. They have even
set up a gateway between them to pass information so that they serve
each others customer base.

The information passed between carrier switches is being increased to
permit the visited switch to know your characteristics as a user and
to treat you like your home system does. It is part of the goal of
providing seamless service.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Mysteries of Reach Out World
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 17:34:47 EST
Organization: 52 Manchester


In article <15775@> [e-mail] (John R. Levine)
writes:

>But the most obscure thing in the flyer was the footnote on calls to
>Canada.  Calls to Canada cost 18 cents/minute off-peak, with off-peak
>being before 8 AM, after 5PM and all day weekends.  But the footnote
>says "There are additional charges when calling Atlin, Canada."  Where
>is that?

The additional charges are known in some circles as "other-line"
charges.  At a guess, Atlin is served by Northwestel Inc., which
serves the Yukon, the western half of the Northwest Territories, and
parts of northern British Columbia.  Northwestel was formerly part of
Canadian National Telecommunications, but was sold a few years back to
BCE Inc. (formerly Bell Canada Enterprises), the parent company of
Bell Canada.

"Other-line" charges may also apply for calls to points served by
Quebec- Telephone (51% owned by GTE Corp.) and Telebec Ltee (another
BCE subsidiary).

Northwestel, Quebec-Telephone and Telebec all serve some fairly remote
points, and don't have the same economies of scale as more urban
carriers. Presumably this at least partly justifies their higher rates
and "other-line" charges.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #27
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08283;
          12 Jan 91 6:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30115;
          12 Jan 91 4:39 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05715;
          12 Jan 91 3:33 CST
Date:     Sat, 12 Jan 91 3:03:15 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #28
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Jan 91 03:03:06 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 28

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Secure Lines [Joe Francis]
    Re: Singapore Goes Pay per Call [Hui Lin Lim]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Jim Gottlieb]
    Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland [Piet van Oostrum]
    Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Source of Dial-less Phones [Dave Johnston]
    They (Can) Know Where You Are (was: Roaming) [Laird P. Broadfield]
    RS484 Data Link Protocol [Dave Price]
    AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Johnny Zweig]
    Shortened Codes For Nearby Areas [Carl Moore]
    I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot [Randy Borow]
    7400 Series "Voice Terminals" [Ken Thompson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Joe Francis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Secure Lines
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 1991 05:01:19 GMT


Straying from comp.dcom.telecom somewhat, but it's short:

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

> Third, if he did have one [a security clearance], he would have
>used the STU-III in the first place. Fourth, he would have known who
>to call about the problem in the first place, instead of the bozos
>that gave him the run-around.

Neither of these is generally true.  Although I imagine there are
plenty of people holding clearances who do know these things, the
majority of people holding clearances (including those I have worked
with) have never heard of a STU-III and would have little idea who to
call.

Most people who hold clearances have them because of the information
they deal with in their work, not because of their knowledge of the
intelligence community and it's practices.

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

From: Hui Lin Lim <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Singapore Goes Pay per Call
Date: 10 Jan 91 23:58:17 GMT
Organization: HP Singapore


In comp.dcom.telecom, [e-mail] (woody) writes:

> A Singapore member of the NEWLIFE BBS network recently mentioned that
> Singapore has just switched from flat rate local calling to a pay per
> call basis. This will undoubtedly have a big impact on BBSes there.  I
> will try to get some more details on this, unless TELECOM Digest
> readers have some more info on this themselves.

I'd just like to clarify that Singapore has not yet gone to time based
charging yet.  This is scheduled to begin next year.  Apparently the
new rates will allow the equivalent of 17 minutes of "free" calls
(compared to the present rates).  The stated reason for changing the
charging scheme is supposed to be the large number of fax/data calls
now becoming more frequent.  I doubt that it will significantly change
BBS usage as the new rates are still quite low but it will probably
result in large increases in revenue for the Telecom authority.  One
expected benefit of this is that junk faxes should be reduced (since
these are essentially free to the caller right now).


HuiLin

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

From: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Date: 11 Jan 91 04:41:09 GMT
Reply-To: Jim Gottlieb <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


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

>charged callers, say, $.40/hour plus any toll, would permit closing
>this hole in the rate structure

>In fact, I bet it's even possible to get 976 numbers at these per-call
>rates now, and the only thing keeping sysops from doing this (apart
>from lack of knowledge that they can) is a high subscription (fixed)
>charge,

No.  Unfortunately, a 976 number with that type of rate structure is
not currently possible.  I wish it were.  It would make a whole range
of 976 data numbers possible.  But under the current rate structure,
using 900 or 976 results in charges much higher than the existing
services that provide their services over the packet networks.

The charge to the owner of a (900) number is in the range of thirty to
forty cents a minute.  So even if the owner provided the service at
cost (as UUNET does), the charge to the consumer is still about $24 an
hour and this is much too high.

The charge for telco 900 and 976 numbers is usually less, but again
the telco's cut means that the rate to the consumer can not be in the
afforable range and compete with the likes of Compu$erve.


Jim Gottlieb    Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan
E-Mail: <[e-mail]> or <attmail!denwa!jimmy>
Fax: [phone]   Voice Mail: [phone]

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Notes on the Phone System in Holland
Date: 11 Jan 91 13:59:09 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


In message <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (HM) writes:

HM> Exception: 0011 (emergencies) moved to 06-11.  Like a regular
HM> non-local call, it costs 1 unit per 45 seconds.

The 06-11 number is temporary. In the future it will be 112 - the
emergency number will be the same in all western Europe. PTT Telecom
doesn't issue any new subscriber numbers starting with 1, and existing
numbers starting with 1 will be phased out. (I don't know why all
numbers starting with 1, rather than 112). When the new number is
available, there will be a transition period where both numbers will
be valid.


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

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 10:57:13 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rates For Sent-Paid Coin Calls
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

>> but sent-paid AT&T from a Bell phone was $1.95 for the same first
>> minute!  Doesn't that seem a bit high?  I would imagine it would be
>> higher than direct dial from home, but more than double the calling
>> card rate?  I mean, I'm paying cash up front, am I not?  No credit

>If you check that again, you will probably find that the initial coin
>rate is for three minutes, not one minute. For a while, coin-paid
>calls had an initial one minute rate and it was changed back to three
>minutes "for your convenience". The explanation was that most calls
>lasted at least that long and they wanted to minimize the additional
>deposit requests. Actually, it undoubtedly enhanced revenues in that
>larger amounts could be collected for short calls.

I just tried it again, and it is definately for one minute.

>In any event, I also have always questioned the higher rates for
>coin-collected calls. The stock explanation is that you are paying for
>the instant convenience of making a call without prior arrangement.
>(Someone has to pay to maintain the phone.) So apparently, you are
>paying for convenience, and the lack of credit risk is irrelavent.
>Not that I buy any of that, but that is the reasoning.

The operator tried to give me the line that the charge helped maintain
the phone.  I challenged her with the fact that this was a semi-public
phone and that my living group paid Pacific Bell $30 a month to have
it there.  Her answers quickly dried up.  Also, if the phone was so
costly to maintain, why don't calling card calls have such a high
surcharge as well?

Another possible answer that has been offerred is that it is very
costly to send people out to collect the coins.  But, Pacific Bell is
already sending people out each month to collect all of the $.20
deposits for local calls, so AT&T has no reason to charge for this.  I
imagine that Pacific Bell charges AT&T something for the coin
collection services, but I don't think it is as outlandish as $1.50
per call or anything like that.

>Tomorrow I leave for Japan. It will be interesting to observe
>first-hand how they handle coin phones there.

Probably better than in the US! :-(

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

Date: 11 Jan 91 08:21 +0000
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Source of Dial-less Phones


In are recent issue Paul W. Schleck [[e-mail]] asked for
sources for Dial-less red "hotline" phones.

In my past life in the interconnect business I had a couple customers
ask for those.  The best source I found was a telephone refurbisher.
They had the old wall and desk rotary phones available without the
dial.

The folks I used were ATRS in Sandpoint, Idaho, but a recent review of
Telecom Gear didn't have their ad and I can't seem to locate their
address or phone number.  I would suggest you try a couple of the
following:

Eltas, Inc.                [phone]
Lippincott Industries      [phone]
R&R Refurbishing           [phone]
Telephone Outlet           [phone]
Shasta Refurbishers        [phone]

I haven't used any of them, but I would suspect that any of them could
come up with what you need.


Dave Johnston   [phone]    Santa Rosa Junior College
Supervisor, Campus Data/Telecom    1501 Mendocino Ave.
[e-mail]        Santa Rosa, CA  95401

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

From: "Laird P. Broadfield" <[e-mail]>
Subject: They (Can) Know Where You Are (was New Roaming System...)
Date: 11 Jan 91 05:50:54 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve Forrette)
writes:

> - Before someone else brings this up, here's something that came to
>mind that I don't think is a big deal, but I just know some will:
>"privacy."  Now, someone always knows what city I'm in if I bring my
>cellphone along.  Note that unlike the *18/*19 FMR of the "B"
>carriers, this new referral service happens automatically when you
>place your first call, and there's apparently no way to shut it off
>(except to leave call forwarding on before you leave (once they get it
>working properly, that is!), but then you have to pay their "No
>Vaseline" full airtime prices for forwarded calls :=( )

Actually, I had a thought a while back, when I was chatting with an
out- of-town friend who works for (a B carrier.)  We were chatting
about all of the smarts that's going on behind the scenes vis-a-vis
signal strength, cell handoff, software based "hysteriesis" to avoid
back-and-forth of calls at nearly equal strength, and so forth, when I
realized that it should be fairly trivial to derive location
information from all this.

Not only that, you don't have to even go off-hook, the switch can bang
your phone with an interrogate packet without you ever noticing.

Seemed to us that this made perfect sense, and his intuition said that
a 100-yard radius of uncertainty was a reasonable guess, assuming some
foreknowlege of signal propagation characteristics in the particular
area.

"Ha ha, forget what _city_ you're in, we know what _room_ you're in!!"

Does this theory fall apart anywhere?

(P.S. Can somebody mail me with the mfr. and model of the handheld
that has a _vibrate_ ringer?  None of the local outlets seem to have
heard about it.)


Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: [e-mail]

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

From: Dave Price <[e-mail]>
Subject: RS484 Data Link Protocol
Date: 11 Jan 91 12:58:49 GMT
Reply-To: Dave Price <[e-mail]>
Organization: UCW,Aberystwyth,WALES,UK


A research group here has come up against a possible (likely?)
requirement to implement RS484 data Link protocol.

Has anyone got experience of this protocol, what it entails and how
long (man days etc) it might take to implement. I have checked several
text books in my possession and I cant yet find any references to it.

In our circumstance it will need to be implemented over a point to
point link.

Thanks folks,


Dave Price

UUCP : { ENGLAND or WALES }!ukc!aber-cs!dap
JANET: [e-mail]        PHONE:    [phone]
From_the_world: [e-mail]
Post: University College of Wales, Penglais, Aberystwyth, UK, SY23 3BZ.

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

From: Johnny Zweig <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Illinois, Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 17:51:27 GMT


I have had my AT&T Universal card for six months now (if memory
serves; I ordered it the same day I read about it in
comp.dcom.telecom) and have continually had trouble getting the number
to work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T. This
includes MCI, Sprint and a couple of other carriers in the US and
Canada.

My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for
distributing calling card numbers (my Illinois Bell number for my home
phone works fine) -- does anyone know why the numbers for AT&T
Universal VISA cards aren't distributed?  It seems kind of like a
you-must-use-AT&T-long-distance-you-measly-mortal ploy to me (since I
have 10ATT0'ed on numerous occasions to save my 10% at phone booths).

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 13:15:28 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Shortened Codes For Nearby Areas


In a note dated December 5 (1990), John Slater <[e-mail].
com> writes regarding the UK:

>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.

If I read correctly several years ago, a similar concept was proposed
(and rejected) for calls within New York City when it became necessary
to split 212 to form 718.  That was a "borough code".  I take it one
reason to reject it is the confusion it would cause to people from out
of town?


[Moderator's Note: But Carl, we still use many abbreviated codes
without worrying about confusion for out of town people. We use 411 for
directory here. Other places use 113? or 555-1212. 611 is a quick way
to reach repair, but many places have to dial a seven or ten digit
number to reach repair. 911 causes confusion with people in one town
who hear about it being available elsewhere and think that they have
it also, when they don't and are still dialing 7-D for police.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Jan 11 12:54:29 CST 1991
Subject: I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot


        Pat, lighten up a bit. I am one not to ever advocate violence
unless it's a last resort (self-defense, etc.). My comment should not
have been construed the way it was. I merely continue to express my
indignation toward that black-robed monarch.

        By the way, I agree with you on the suggestion that the
Not-so-Honorable Judge may indeed have been prejudiced in some way.
Just how the h*** did he get to be so much of a legislator anyway? I
thought Congress and the state legislatures were those empowered to
MAKE laws, and judges INTERPRETED them. Obviously, I'm wrong. Oh well,
it's not like it hasn't been happening for years anyway.


Randy Borow    Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: 7400 Series "Voice Terminals"
Date: 11 Jan 91 20:55:23 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS


A technical question for the net:

My current phoneset(2500) will soon be replaced by a digital unit
(7401).  There is curiousity about the 7400 series receivers.  Is the
speaker low impedance just as in the 2500?  The transmiter cannot be
carbon type.  It is too small.  Is it a simple mike or an electret
(sp?)  that requires a small, current limited bias voltage to operate
properly?


Ken Thompson     N0ITL     NCR Corp.  3718 N. Rock Road
Wichita,Ks. 67226  [phone]   [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #28
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16190;
          12 Jan 91 15:45 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22731;
          12 Jan 91 13:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05612;
          12 Jan 91 12:49 CST
Date:     Sat, 12 Jan 91 12:06:40 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #29
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Jan 91 12:06:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 29

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Business Rates vs COCOTS [J. Philip Miller]
    Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [Charles McGuinness]
    Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Mike Miller]
    Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Peter Anvin]
    Re: 900 Number Addresses [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Craig Harris]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Amanda Walker]
    AT&T Universal Card; Travel Calling [Jim Celoni]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Business Rates vs COCOT
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 7:53:46 CST


The {St. Louis Post Dispatch} reported in this morning's issue that
they had decided that public FAX machines were no longer entitled to
be connected with a regular business line (which is flat rated in St.
Louis) but rather would have to pay time and distance sensitive rates
since they were reselling telephone service [I presume that the rates
which will now be required would be the same as a COCOT operator would
have to play].

This raises all sorts of other interesting ideas in our consideration
of the rules for who should be paying business rates.  Many university
computer centers offer outdial modem services.  If you are being
charged for this (e.g. connect time to the computer controlling it)
does it mean that this line should be a COCOT line rather than a
business rate?  Are COCOT lines which are not blocked for incoming
calls charged for the incoming calls?  If so that raises another issue
for our BBS operator who charges for use of the board.

Does anyone know what type of rates folks like Tymnet pay for their phone
lines?


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

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

From: Charles McGuinness <jyacc![e-mail]>
Subject: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 13:04:51 EST


In TELECOM Digest V11I24 Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]> says:

> I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff?

You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually prefer
rotary dial phones!  A while back, my grandmother (who is 88 years
old) asked if I could install a phone for her in the kitchen.  Of
course, I went out and bought one of those nice new phones with extra
large buttons to make things easy for her (certainly easier than
dialing her pre-500 series phone!).

But after I installed it she started complaining: "Honey, that new
phone, it's no good! It keeps dialing the wrong number!".  She seemed
to be getting an 8 whenever she pushed 5.  Of course, whenever I
tested the phone, it worked flawlessly.  It could only be one thing --
pilot error.  I tried to suggest, as gently as possible, that she must
have pressed the wrong keys.  But, that didn't fly.

So, what could I do?  I went to my local AT&T phone center and asked
for a wall mount rotary dial phone.  After spending a few minutes
convincing them that I really knew what I wanted, they led me to a
closet full of these things, and let me pick my choice.

Grandma has been happily rotary dialing ever since.


Charles

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

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 22:01 GMT
From: Mike Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?


I want to monitor the activity of my switchboard operators.  I plan to
notify them that I plan to randomly monitor the operator consoles to
assures quality assurance along with prompt and courteous service.
What I need to know is ... is this legal?  or is it considered
eavesdropping?  There is a jack at each operator console for
monitoring purposes, but I plan to monitor them from the switch room.
Any suggestions?  I want to add that I will NOT be doing this if it is
considered illegal.  But I would like a true answer, not an opinion.


[Moderator's Note: Apparently it is legal. All telcos monitor their
oeprators on duty. I do not believe it is illegal to monitor the
performance of employees whose duties include the use of the telephone
to serve customers by listening unannounced on the phone as they
speak. It may be essential however that you place a conspicuous notice
in the telephone room stating that "conversations between switchboard
operators and our customers may be subject to unannounced monitoring
for the purpose of training our operators and improving our service."
I think it would also be important that your wiring be installed so
that you were *only* able to monitor the operator's talk path -- that
is, the common circuit between the operator's headset and the line
terminations on each switchboard position. *Do not* monitor the
building house pairs or God forbid, telco's pairs coming into the
premises, etc.

Once the operator opened a key on her position, you could hear her and
the caller she was working with. When she closed the key and dropped
out of the circuit, the connection would be private between the
calling and called parties once again, meaning you should pick it up
from the auxiliary jack on each position. Quite obviously if the
operator makes a personal phone call from her position you will
overhear it, but I assume that is what you want to do while protecting
the privacy of your users.  But I'd not do it without advising the
operators that you had the ability to do so and were so inclined. Of
course, that might end your problems right there.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:57:45 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption
Reply-to: [e-mail]


>     In the 1980s, long-distance companies laid thousands of miles of
> high-capacity optical fiber cables, which carry phone calls or data in
> enormous volume as rapid pulses of light. But some research has raised
> concerns that concentration of calling through single wires brings a
> higher threat of disruption.

US WEST Communications (NE) is offering special, "self-healing"
(whatever THAT means) fiber service to major business.  I have
forgotten the two options, but one includes installing TWO cables to
the business, fed from opposite directions.  One is (presumably) idle
(spare?) while the other one operates.  In the event of an outage, the
system automatically (again, presumably) switches to the back-up
cable.


JR

 Copernicus V1.02
 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:58:39 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> There is no such thing as a "secure line" for a phone call. Once it's
> out on lines in areas not totally controlled by your own trusted
> people, it's public.

> Never say ANYTHING on the black {i.e. non-STU} phone you don't want to read
> about tomorrow in the {Washington Post}.

Although your was an EXCELLENT discussion of the "how to" and "why use
a" secure (a) line, but it sure makes ordinary loops sound virtually
non-private!

Virtually everything I have heard in the course of my years has not
been memorable, yet ordinary subscribers are increasing concerned
about the security of their ordinary transmissions!

I had a new-home installation recently where the subscriber insisted
that the Network Interface be placed INSIDE the home, and that the
dropwire enter the foundation BELOW grade!  The customer's primary
concern was the integrity of his home security system.

After two hours and a dozen calls, we (US WEST Communications/NE)
acquiesed and accomodated the customer.  I explained that all a
reasonably skilled burglar would have to do was to simply walk out to
the wirepost in front and cut the line.  He was not swayed.

Another customer had their security system installer build a wooden
box around the protector housing and (drop) riser tube, complete with
magnetic switch!  Explaining to the customer that two minutes (or
less) with a tile spade would circumvent THAT safeguard (dig up and
cut the shallow drop).

In my (not yet) vast experience, I have encountered only ONE "tap" and
it was merely a (convicted) case of "Theft of Services"!!

Has there been much (any) traffic here regarding unauthorized entry
into residential SNIs (Standard (telephone) Network Interfaces -
complete with working, RJllC jack) on the backs of homes?  I recall
seeing a short bit about it on CNN Headline News a couple of years
ago.

Our SNI vendor (Seicor) finally replaced the "can wrench" bolt with
the Allen/Torx-like-headed bolt.  GREAT!  Just another tool to carry
to the back of each house!


JR

 Copernicus V1.02
 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

From: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications
Date: 12 Jan 91 08:37:01 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University


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

>>5. Get a phone that supports all four RJ-11 wires (including black/yellow).
>>   Swedish Televerket warns that a "pirate" (non-compliant) telephone may
>>   not hang up properly, running up your bill long after you hung up.

>I know of at least the following uses of the "second pair" (yellow/black):

> - Off-hook indication for key sets.

  [List of other uses deleted]

>Which of these does the Swedish system expect/use?

I would presume the off-hook indication, since what Televerket
complains about is that non-"T"-certified (remember, Televerket is
like FCC and pre-1984 AT&T combined) phones may not hang up correctly.
In Sweden, a phone call is not necessarily disconnected unless *both*
parties hang up, thus you can:

1. Ask your party to wait, hang up, and grab another phone somewhere
else (there is a timeout in most areas).

2. Trace a harassing call even if the harasser hangs up.

Also, in Sweden the indoor wiring is serial, not parallel, meaning
that if you lift the handset on one phone, you disconnect all phones
with lower priority, i.e. further away from the incoming line.  This
looks to me like it almost has to be some form of on/off relay here?

(Maybe someone at ericsson.se knows...)


H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++
INTERNET:  [e-mail]   FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
BITNET:    HPA@NUACC                 RBBSNET:  8:970/101.4

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

Date: 12-JAN-1991 04:15:15.78
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 900 Number Addresses


> [Moderator's Note: A check with 702-555-1212 showed no listing in Reno
> for either the 'Eagleton Group' or the 'New 9999 Line'. But my trusty
> criss-cross for Reno shows 561 Keystone Avenue to be simply a remail
> service -- a mail drop -- where Mr. Eagleton picks up his mail,
> probably in the middle of the night with no one around to spot him.  PAT]

Indeed! :)

I too called DA and they found no listing for either firm.

Ultimately, if these people keep calling, I expect what I will do is
present NY Tel with a copy of the certified receipt, and show that I
have made more than reasonable efforts to notify them (the 900/540
people) that they are annoying me.

Then (I hope!), NY Tel will be more helpful in finding out the local
guy with the recorded solicitation machine, who is the actual source
of my problem.

However, it has been three weeks now, and I haven't received a call on
ANY of my lines, so maybe Mr. Eagleton actually picked up his
mail ... and is finding a new mailbox so he can start calling again! :)


Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

From: Craig Harris <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports
Date: 12 Jan 91 09:59:30 GMT
Reply-To: Craig Harris <motcid![e-mail]>
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve
Forrette) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 15, Message 4 of 9

>This is something that has always bothered me.  Let's say that I'm
>roaming into a far away cellular system where my calls don't
>automatically find me.  Someone has to dial into the roamer port, then
>enter my 10 digit number to reach me.  The problem is that if they are
>calling long distance, they must pay a toll charge for each attempt,
>whether or not I'm on the air, since the call supervises at the point
>the secondary dialtone is provided.

The reason for the answer supervision on roamer access numbers is that
some of the time AT&T will not pass audio from the calling party to
the terminating party until there is answer supervision.  If the
Cellular switch did not return supervision, the calling party would
not be able to DTMF overdial your mobile number to the roamer access
port.

  This was not always the case. A few years ago, some of the long
distant companies that were buying time from AT&T would not send
supervision, but would actually complete the call and they could not
bill for those calls.

So, this was their fix to always make sure that supervision was
returned before connecting the audio path from the calling party to
the terminating party until answer supervision was returned.


Craig Harris,  Motorola Inc     1501 W. Shure Drive, IL27-2237
 ...!uunet!motcid!charris       Arlington Heights, IL 60004-1497

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

From: Amanda Walker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 09:40:02 GMT


The last time I did a road trip back to DC from Ohio, I was amused to
find that I could hit one of DC/Balt Cell One's cells from I-70 as it
crossed a ridge near Hancock, MD.  Thinking quickly, I pulled over
onto the shoulder and called in to my answering machine.

I couldn't hit a DC cell again for almost another 45 minutes worth of
driving time ... you can also see DC cells from Skyline Drive in
Shenandoah National Park, as long as you are on the east side of the
ridge :)


Amanda Walker        [e-mail]
Visix Software Inc.  ...!uunet!visix!amanda

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

From: Jim Celoni <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Universal Card; Travel Calling
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 17:12:28 GMT


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

>My AT&T Universal card ... [doesn't]
>work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T....

>My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for
>distributing calling card numbers...

It's a feature :).  My AT&T Universal calling card number works fine
with the local operating companies (e.g. Pac*Bell) for intra-LATA
calls, but only with AT&T for inter-LATA.  So my number is in the
shared database, but the IXCs have more restricted access to it??

I do think it's a feature because it alerts one who doesn't notice the
lack of the sparkling "AT&T" or the "Thank you for using AT&T" voices
that another carrier is trying to handle the call.

I use Metromedia <> ITT's Preferred Calling Card (NO surcharge, 950
access, competitive per-minute rates; info 800/ 275-0100) for most
domestic calls, even intra-LATA, but if I know a call will be long
enough for the difference in per-minute rates to exceed the surcharge
(e.g. 0.72+(ATT less 10%) < Metro, or 0.40+PacBell < Metro -- several
minutes to > 1/2 hr depending on time of day and called number), then
I'll use the Universal Card.

A caveat about the Universal Card: the magnetic stripe has the credit
card number, not calling card number, so if you swipe it into a public
phone, your credit card will be billed *by whatever carrier the phone
wants to use*, and even if it's AT&T you won't get the 10% off.  I
punch my number in.

Another competitive option for travel calling (not touted as often as
the MCI Card and Sprint FONcard) is MCI's VisaPhone/MasterPhone (0.70
surcharge+0.10-0.18/min; info 800/ 866-0099/333-3252).

Standard disclaimer applies; I'm just a happy user.  +j

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #29
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22338;
          12 Jan 91 22:31 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25648;
          12 Jan 91 21:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10198;
          12 Jan 91 19:59 CST
Date:     Sat, 12 Jan 91 19:26:30 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #30
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Jan 91 19:26:20 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 30

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Mike Godwin]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Scott Coleman]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Brian Crawford]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business [Jim Redelfs]
    Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Kari Hardarson]
    Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act? [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mike Godwin <eff.org![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 15:30:20 GMT


The Moderator writes:

>[Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual
>community is what you find important, it should be okay, and
>encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling
>fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all,
>they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual
>chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also.

This is an untenable reach on your part, Pat. BBSs are not like
900/976 chatlines. If you think they are, then you must have been
calling a very different sort of BBS from the ones I've experienced
over the last decade.

Apparently, I need to explain the word "community." It does not denote
two people talking out each other's fantasies.  Nor does it denote
rape-crisis hotlines, which are also, generally, two-person
interactions.

Virtual communities give rise to colloquies, not merely dialogs, Pat.
More than two people can talk with each other at once, and the
relationship is not structured the way 976 lines and rape-crisis lines
are, with one person invariably seeking some particular kind of
service or information from the other, and often paying for it.

If 976 lines are what come to your mind when I use the word
"community," then I've learned quite a bit more about how you think
than I knew before, Pat.  :-)

Our Moderator asks why Compuserve shouldn't get residential rates
since Compuserve is a virtual community. The answer, of course , is
that Compuserve is a commercial service, Pat. Most BBSs are not.

I'm not advocating residential rates for all virtual communities.  I'd
just like to see them for the very small-scale virtual communities
that arise on hobbyist BBSs. Your passion for seeing that these BBSs
pay residential rates will wipe a great number of them out, Pat.  This
is a loss that should be avoided.

John Higdon's elegant solution has yet to be fully addressed here, by
the way. Higdon suggests that residential rates be the rates that are
charged to *residences*. What a concept.


Mike Godwin, [phone]
[e-mail]    Electronic Frontier  Foundation


[Moderator's Note: I'll have a colloquy of my own in response to all
this in the next issue of the Digest or the one following.   PAT]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 1991 15:26:31 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Moderator, in responding
to Mike Godwin writes:

> fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all,
> they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual
> chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also.

I suspect that the chat lines qualify as "virtual communities", but not
the dial-a-porn. How can you call it a community if none of the "members"
know each other?

I think this is a specious argument, but you are going a bit overboard
here.

In article <[e-mail]>, TELECOM Moderator responds to
[e-mail] (Peter da Silva):

> [Moderator's Note:  I don't think you should pay business rates...

> I assume your operation -- for friends only! -- is not advertised.
> You do not encourage strangers to call. You do not run sixteen lines
> and you do not have total strangers (to you) linked in chat with other
> strangers.

Good, we've established a base at which a BBS is not a business. Now,
let's go on from there ... a friend of mine is running an eight-line
system, but he doesn't advertise. Five of the lines have modems that
are compatible with Teletext services, so U.S. Videotel customers (and
old Sourceline customers) can call. Most of the users are people he
knows from U.S.Videotel, or from other BBSes, but he doesn't validate.
This system is not to my knowledge (or his) advertised anywhere, but
it does have chat and games and the lines are in use a considerable
portion of the time. Very few (if any) of the users are total
strangers to him, though we don't all know each other.

This person is by nature fairly solitary, so the BBS is a large part of
his social life. Is it a business?


([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Probably it should not be treated as a business
since there is at least some connection between himself and the
callers. As you pointed out, 'few if any are total strangers'. He does
not really solicit the public, or invite electronic strangers to call
and make use of his facilities. I never said some of these situations
would not be close calls, and this one is certainly such a case. My
feeling would be that in cases where things are *so gray* that no real
decision can be made, the benefit of the doubt should go to the
subscriber.  PAT]

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

From: scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 1991 15:58:49 GMT


I wrote:

>Why do you think BBS sysops are so special that they should be singled
>out among all other hobbyists for higher phone rates? Why can't we pay
>the same phone rates as everyone else who has a hobby?

>Tell me, do you feel that people who dial out using modems should be
>charged business rates? After all, they're doing the exact same thing the
>sysop is doing

Pat responds:

>[Moderator's Note: I do not think that *any* telephone user should be
>charged business rates based on the media used. Voice, fax or computer
>should all be treated alike *for casual, non-committed* use of the
>phone. If 'business' rates are to be charged, they should be charged
>to users who indicate the service is for business use, i.e. directory
>listings using a 'business-like' name or phrase ** and to users who
>specifically solicit the public to call them **.

Ah, so your entire argument comes down to this: phone rates should not
be proportional to actual use of telco resources, but rather to some
arbitrary definition of what a "business" is. Specifically, your
definition includes an explicit "solicitation for the public to call
[the BBS] telephone."

Thus, a BBS-addict who installs a second line for use specifically to
make outgoing calls to BBSi should not pay business rates, despite the
fact that a) it makes heavy use of telco resources and b) is a
*non-casual, committed* use of that phone line.

You believe this to be fair?

>To answer your question 'why should BBS sysops be singled out for
>higher rates instead of paying what other people pay for their
>hobbies', the answer is that your hobby by definition involves heavy
>use of the telephone, and the solicitation of the public to call your
>telephone.

There are other hobbies which make heavy use of the telephone (BBSing
and running a point system as described earlier). Some BBSers spend
more time on the phone than many BBSs, yet you do not think they
should pay business rates because they don't "solicit the public to
call" them. What is so magical about this "solicit the public to call"
idea that it alone should double someone's phone rates?



Scott Coleman                       [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: If there are going to be two sets of rates, one for
'residential' and the other for 'business' users, then there has to be
some starting point to decide what falls in which category. I thought
the 'do you solicit the public' question was one way of deciding who
should go where. It was not intended as the last word or final test.

To answer your question about how much use is made of the service, I
do not think a personal/business use distinction should be made based
on the amount of time a line is engaged. Certainly the one who uses
more of the service should pay more *per use*, but I don't think they
should have an overall higher monthly rate merely because they use it
more. The BBS-addict you described is placing a call on his telephone
just like a person calling voice is using the phone. He should pay for
what he uses, but his is residential use, because it is a casual call,
placed at his discretion, lasting whatever time he wishes to be
connected. Short of shutting down the board, the sysop does not make
these choices: He responds when the phone rings, provides the
information or service demmanded of him by the caller and in fact
encourages others to call and utilize his service through his
advertising. There is a difference between specifically prompting
others to call you and providing them some service -- even chat --
when they call and the person who casually uses his phone at his
convenience to place such calls.    PAT]

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Date: 12 Jan 91 16:51:36 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


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

> Throw out the small-minded city council, that's what!  (I'll resist
> flaming about the morality of forcing licenses *at all* upon people
> who are engaged in entirely voluntary association.)

When (assuming if) the U.S. government policy and telephone utilities
catch up with their own direct-dial, universally accessed and used
E-Mail network, it can be certain that highly restrictive telephone
tarriffs as well as legislation will be used to stamp out the various
BBS networks in lieu of a costly system provided by Telcos.

Enjoy them while you can.


Brian Crawford               INTERNET: [e-mail]
PO Box 804                   FidoNet:  1:114/15.12
Tempe, Arizona  85280        Amateur:  KL7JDQ
USA


[Moderator's Note: Well, I dunno ... AT&T, Sprint and MCI all have
commercial email services at this time, and the government has the
Internet, yet you don't see them hassling the BBS guys all that much
except for the current controversy over what rates to be charged. All
of the big three email providers -- or four if you count Compuserve
were more than eager to interconnect with the 'free' Internet once the
technical bugs were worked out.  They don't seem that eager to squash
the others in my opinion.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:00:56 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> If every BBS on any given switch shut down for one day there would be
> no management meeting to decide what happened and why the switch
> reports were off-normal.

> Compare that to, say, if no teenagers were allowed to use the phone
> for a single day, or if no ladies were allowed to call their mother on
> a given day!

Amen to that!  I can always tell when the kids have gotten home from
school.  Our "clattering antique" (Western Electric 2B ESS) just
percolates!  Pretty quite, otherwise.


JR

 Copernicus V1.02
 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:56:59 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE and Court Agrees: BBS' a Business
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> Perhaps, but what exactly are the differences in the "FCC mandated line
> access charges" between residences and businesses?  I may be wrong, but
> thought that I heard, way back when this good-intentioned but
> poorly-thought-out access charge business started, that businesses got
> hit harder.

> Anyone know?

A quick call to the Business (as opposed to Residence) Business Office
(I forgot this week's acronym!) reveals that the Federal Access Charge
for a 1FB (flat-rate Business line) just went down this week from
$4.82 to $4.71 - a reduction?  I'm impressed!

Currently, the RESIDENTIAL charge, per line, is $3.50.  God bless
Harold Greene.


JR

 Copernicus V1.02
 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

From: Frederick Roeber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 12 Jan 91 06:31:42 PST


I believe the confusion over the "secure phone" mentioned in the book,
The Cuckoo's Egg, arises from Dr. Stoll describing a few phone calls
he received: One day, he answered his phone only to hear a recording
"This is not a secure phone..."  The person on the other end hung up
and tried again, with the same result.  After a couple tries, he
finally got through, and was able to start questioning Dr. Stoll.  Dr.
Stoll replied, "This is not a secure phone..."

A friend of mine, who does military security work, said this is the
result of calling a non-secure phone from the government's secure
phone system and trying to initiate a secure call.  When making a
secure call on this system, one first makes an ordinary phone call --
over any network, FTS, AT&T, or whoever.  When the other end has been
reached, one presses the `secure' button.  This makes each end call
the main computer that controls the secure phone system.  Through an
encrypted conversation, the main computer sends each phone two
numbers: a key with which they can communicate with each other (for
that conversation only), and a key to be used for the next call to the
main computer.  Then the main computer drops out, and the phones can
send encrypted traffic to each other.  Of course, if you hit `secure'
when other end is a regular phone, the main computer realizes it can't
set up an encrypted link, and plays the warning message.  It also logs
the attempt.

So Dr. Stoll need not have been anywhere near a secure phone to get
such a call.


Frederick G.M. Roeber | e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | telephone: [phone]

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

From: Kari Hardarson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications
Date: 12 Jan 91 18:49:53 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


The Icelandic PTT also uses the big four-prong plugs. (Big enough for
supplying electricity to a stove !). The 2nd pair is used to forward
the connection to another outlet. If an outlet is used, an internal
switch cuts the forward link and prevents other phones down the line
from being used. The switch is mechanical, i.e. when a phone is
plugged into the outlet, the switch opens. I guess they do it to
prevent the telephone line from being overloaded by too many
telephones. Doesn't make much sense these days, I should think, since
the newer telephones don't draw as much current as the older ones did.


Kari Hardarson    217 Jackson Circle    Chapel Hill, NC 27514

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 11:53:45 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act?
Organization: NCR Corporation, Rancho Bernardo


Pat:

It might interest you to know that the fiber optic break which
affected NY particularly Wall Street was a terrorist operation, but is
being kept covert for fear of alerting the American public.

This information is from a second hand CIA source, so if you quote me
I just say it's second hand.


Randall


[Moderator's Note: Consider it said, then. What you say does not
surprise me, but I don't know if I believe it or not. The Central
Intelligence Agency has had a long reputation as agent provocateurs;
that is, they create their own terrorism sometimes so they can blame
whoever the current enemy of the people happens to be.  Maybe the CIA
cut the cable themselves hoping to stir up more trouble.  Mini-book
review: Read and enjoy "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence". It is a
fascinating book and explains lots of CIA dirty tricks.  The book was
banned here in the USA, but now and then you can find a copy.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #30
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23098;
          12 Jan 91 23:22 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21617;
          12 Jan 91 22:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25648;
          12 Jan 91 21:04 CST
Date:     Sat, 12 Jan 91 20:23:34 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Technical error in issue 30
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

To our mailing list readers who burst their digests into undigested
format: An error in issue 30 (released Satruday night) will prevent
the process from working correctly.

There are only nine messages  ... not ten. Remove the erroneous
duplicate header in the table of contents. Peter da Silva's article is
listed twice there ... but the article was only printed once. By
removing the duplicate header in your editor then saving it back out,
you should be able to undigest the issue properly.

Sorry for the error and confusion.


PAT










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28570;
          13 Jan 91 2:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32268;
          13 Jan 91 1:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20040;
          13 Jan 91 0:08 CST
Date:     Sat, 12 Jan 91 23:30:44 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #31
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 12 Jan 91 23:30:37 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 31

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: No Outgoing Calls Allowed ... Why? [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [J. Eric Townsend]
    Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter' [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Dave Levenson]
    Recording Phone Calls [David Michels]
    Baku-Vanaku Beachside Revisited [K. M. Peterson]
    Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Dave Levenson]
    Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Bryan Richardson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:55:53 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: No Outgoing Calls Allowed ... Why?
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> The other employee told me that the
> two phones were somehow linked with the payphone in the lobby (on the
> same line), and that's why the two phones can't be used to initiate
> calls.
> The two phones are each typical AT&T wall-mount model type phone. Does
> anyone have any information about this?

Traditionally, extensions off of Semi-Pub coins are dial-less sets.

Some time ago, I installed a B1M (Measured Business) loop to the pizza
kitchen of a convenience store.  I installed the wall jack and they
hung a 554-type DIAL-LESS set.  Obviously, the line is intended for
incoming-only calls, but it was a "plain" line - allowing OUTgoing
with a dial-equipped phone.

As for the "hunting" on the Semi-Pubs: I've never heard of or seen
that!


JR

 Copernicus V1.02
 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)


[Moderator's Note: Long, long ago, in a different place, a nerdy
ninth-grade student fixed up a neat deal for his uncle who owned the
drugstore on the corner: He took a two-line turn-button phone and
installed it in the pharmacy area in the back. One side of the turn
button was the pharmacy phone line; the other side of the turn button
was an extension from the semi-pub coin phone booth in the front of
the store. As we all know, those old two-line turn-button phones had a
third pair/set of contacts in them: the turn-button could be pressed
down (on release it would spring back up) and this normally was used
to sound a buzzer at another extension. But the smart-alecky kid used
it to momentarily send one side of the line to ground on the pay phone
pair ... this was long before the 'dialtone first' era ... and the
resulting dialtone on the pay phone line saved his uncle (but mostly
him) the 'nuisance' of having to walk to the front of the store and
deposit a nickle in the coin slot to get the same dialtone. He could
dial from the two-line phone in back of course ... then one day the
telephone inspector came around to see if 'something might be wrong
with this instrument'. Panic! The wires were quickly clipped at the
pharmacy end and never reconnected. The inspector, a fellow with a big
red nose and a gleam in his eye said he hoped he'd not have to visit
these premises again; that there'd be hell to pay if he returned. The
lad's uncle, not being a regular reader of telecom, had known nothing
about the 'mystery third position' on the turn-button ... only that
his smart nephew had fixed up a new phone for him in his office.
There was hell to pay, alright, and it did not require a return visit
by the inspector.  PAT]

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

From: "J. Eric Townsend" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around?
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 23:28:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> jyacc![e-mail] (Charles
McGuinness) writes:

>In TELECOM Digest V11I24 Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]> says:

>> I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff?

>You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually prefer
>rotary dial phones!  A while back, my grandmother (who is 88 years

And the rest of us have little choice.  UH has no real organizational
level telecommunications policies.  Most departments still have the
rotary *only*, department level switching units.  When I got my office
phone (touch tone) I discovered that I couldn't use the office-to-
office intercom system easily because it was pulse driven.  I now
astound the mathematicians by manually dialing with the switchhook if
I need to buzz another office. :-)


J. Eric Townsend     Internet: [e-mail]    Bitnet: jet@UHOU
Systems Mangler - UH Dept. of Mathematics - [phone]
Motorola skates on Intel's head!

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology
Date: 12 Jan 91 23:47:50 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


Chris Johnson's discrimination between "business" decisions and
"political" decisions is naive, though commonly held.  There are few
business decisions which do not have a political component, whether it
is a trivial battle between divisions within a corporation or more
serious attempts to alter the balance of benefits and/or power within
society.  For example, whether we have the "best" telephone system in
the world -- something which could easily be challenged by references
to other systems, if Chris knew more about them -- is perhaps of
secondary importance to the question of who pays for the high level of
services available (of which only a few are useful to the bulk of the
population).  The decision to lower long distance rates and raise
local rates (via an access charge) has shifted the burden of paying
for the public telecommunications network from large users to
residential/small business users, to the tune of about four billion
dollars a year or more.

But the issue of technological policy is a larger one than the mere
redistribution of monetary benefits and costs.  It's a question of who
gets to make policy.  Perhaps I don't have Chris' broad knowledge of
technology policy, but as a student of the history of technology for
about twenty years, I certainly don't share his sunny optimism
regarding the current system; history is not on the side of Chris'
argument.

Finally, I wouldn't throw around the label of "Luddite" so carelessly.
In fact, as Montgomery has pointed out in TECHNOLOGY AND CIVIC LIFE
(MIT Press, 1974), the Luddites, who protested the automation of many
craft activities, were ultimately successful not in forestalling
technology but in mitigating its worst social effects.  British
working life, for awhile, became the most progressive and advanced in
the world, with decent wages and relatively safe conditions, as a
result of the Luddites' effect on British law.  And this was while
Britain was literally taking the world by storm.


Bob Jacobson

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: I Didn't Really Mean Judge Greene Should be Shot
Date: 12 Jan 91 23:51:24 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


Judge Greene gets to interpret the law, and he interpreted the law
with regard to the antitrust violations committed by AT&T.  He was
responding to the Attorney General of the U.S., who proposed the
settlement in the first place -- and who gave HIM the right to make
the law?

Judge Greene-bashing is not only old hat, it's fruitless.  I should
add that in my discussions with Judge Greene's staff (I was a staffer
for the CA Legislature for eight years in the area of telecom policy), I
found them more knowledgeable than any legislator or congressional
staff (with the possible exception of the OTA) with whom I came into
contact.


Bob Jacobson

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 215 Area Code Loses "1" per Newspaper 'Reporter'
Date: 13 Jan 91 01:52:22 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, gtisqr![e-mail]
(Todd Inch) writes:

> (Remember: Do your kids know how to dial a rotary phone for
> emergencies?)

My friend's kids once asked why the act of pushing keys on the
telephone was called 'dialing'.


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: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Date: 13 Jan 91 01:44:36 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> >OK - shall we have a "largest cell" contest?

> [Moderator's Note: ...
> the southwestern-most point for Chicago area service. When HOME kicked
> in on my unit, a nearby highway sign said we were 70 miles from
> Morris. All that on a .6 watt handheld ... see why I don't concern
> myself with the exact specifics of the antenna I use? Admittedly, I
> had the 'standard' antenna for a handheld, not the little 1/8 wave
> loaded stub I installed a month or so ago.  PAT]

It has been my experience that the HOME or ROAM indication (i.e.
something other than NO SERVICE) means only that the mobile or
portable cellular telephone is receiving the setup channel from a
cell.  It doesn't necessarily mean that the cell would receive your
signal if you tried to SEND.  At 70 miles range, you may well be able
to receive the setup channel which is transmitting at a hundred watts
or more.  Moreover, if you are receiving it 'most of the time' with a
lot of fading, you'll still probably display an in-service indication.
But try to initiate a call with your 0.6-watt hand-held with its
1/8th-wave antenna when the cell's access channel receiver is 70 miles
away!  The cell may not hear you.  You may also have a signal too weak
or intermittent for conversation.


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: My question is why would there be such an extreme
difference in output from the cell versus my output? What point is
there in having the cell talking to a unit which can't get back to it?
Wouldn't it make better sense to tone down the cell just a little so a
more realistic range *in both directions* could be observed?  I've
done the same thing with my cordless phones in the past: Mounted the
base antenna on the roof and peaked up the base output a little so I
could hear it on the remote unit two or three city blocks away ... but
to what avail if I can't make the trip back?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (MICHELS DAVID)
Subject: Recording Phone Calls
Reply-To: [e-mail] (MICHELS DAVID)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 1991 02:07:25 GMT


It used to be, when answering machines were first becoming popular,
that the conversation recording feature always put out a tone every
few seconds. Not anymore, now many of them seem to provide silent
recording. Have the laws or just ethics changed?

Is recording of telephone conversations legal, or is it required to
notify all participants involved before-hand? I would assume recording
for 'personal use' is legal, just as it is legal to record TV shows
and copy software. But that's just a hunch, anybody know the real
answer or how to find out??


[Moderator's Note: State laws vary. Check yours with an attorney. The
tone signal was/is a convenient way not to 'forget' to notify the
other party ... but merely notice is required; not any specific kind
of notice. It is adequate to announce (on the recording itself at the
start of the call) that you are recording it, and record the other
person's assent to what you are doing.   PAT]

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

From: "K. M. Peterson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Baku-Vanaku Beachside Revisited
Date: Sat, 12 January 90  00:00:00 GMT


I see our friend from Fiji is back.  That's right, not the one from
Phoenix.

For everyone who lost this thread, several months ago, AT&T was
running television ads that stressed the superior customer service
available from AT&T by showing a proto-Yuppie dialing Phoenix
(presumably Arizona) and getting Fiji.  This struck Telecom readers as
rather unlikely.  Apparently AT&T as well, because I just came across
a new version of this ad showing the same picture, but the commentary
begins:

"I was trying to call overseas.  I think I remember the number but..."

(And up pops our friend at the beach)

"Baku-Vanaku Beachside". (I think that's what we agreed that he said...)

So, it appears that AT&T rethought this approach of how one could
misdial Fiji for Phoenix.  Anyone have the straight dope on this one?


K. M. (Kris) Peterson    Prime Computer, Inc.
[e-mail]    [phone] x3667

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness
Date: 13 Jan 91 02:24:02 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> I have had my AT&T Universal card for six months now (if memory
 ...
> phone works fine) -- does anyone know why the numbers for AT&T
> Universal VISA cards aren't distributed?  It seems kind of like a
> you-must-use-AT&T-long-distance-you-measly-mortal ploy to me (since I
> have 10ATT0'ed on numerous occasions to save my 10% at phone booths).

Why would anybody give you a free credit card unless there was
something in it for the giver?  Yes, they get the spiff from the
merchant who accepts it, but the real reason they wanted to blanket
the country with these cards, and the real reason they offer you a
toll discount when you use it, is that it keeps your toll traffic on
their network.  It wouldn't be accomplishing its real purpose if it
allowed you to use if on anybody else's network, would 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]

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

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness
Date: 13 Jan 91 03:52:28 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University


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

>...I ordered it the same day I read about it in
>comp.dcom.telecom) and have continually had trouble getting the number
>to work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T. This
>includes MCI, Sprint and a couple of other carriers in the US and
>Canada.

>My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for
>distributing calling card numbers (my Illinois Bell number for my home
>phone works fine) -- does anyone know why the numbers for AT&T
>Universal VISA cards aren't distributed?  It seems kind of like a
>you-must-use-AT&T-long-distance-you-measly-mortal ploy to me (since I
>have 10ATT0'ed on numerous occasions to save my 10% at phone booths).

Most calling cards issued are issued in connection with a particular
line or billing number; The calling card number is of the
form:NPA-NXX-XXXX-PINN.  Upon request and for internal use, calling
card numbers are generated where the first four digits are not
N(0/1)X-N.  Looking at my Universal Card, I see that the same thing
holds true of the calling card number there.

I suspect two reasons for non-acceptance by other IECs:

1.)  The most likely is that the number is not distributed to other
     IECs to prevent customers from dialling using other IECs -- where
     you're sure not to get your 10% and perhaps a whole lot worse (AOSs).

2.)  The other databases performing the validation are unable to accept
     numbers which do not conform to N(0/1)X-N as the first few digits.
     (This is probably unlikely, as they undoubtably wish to provide
     similar 'security.')


Bryan Richardson
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University.
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #31
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04771;
          13 Jan 91 4:45 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09209;
          13 Jan 91 3:19 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18567;
          13 Jan 91 2:13 CST
Date:     Sun, 13 Jan 91 1:19:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #32
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Jan 91 01:18:58 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 32

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter Anvin]
    Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Touch-Tone Specifications [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Tim Russell]
    Re: Random-Dialling Children [Jim Redelfs]
    Good News on the Telemarketing Front [Larry Jones]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 22:11:47 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


Mike Godwin <eff.org![e-mail]> responds in issue 30 to
my comments in earlier issues:

My original comments:   >>
His reply: >

>>[Moderator's Note: Well then, if the development of a virtual
>>community is what you find important, it should be okay, and
>>encouraged to have all the 900/976 ladies and gentlemen selling
>>fantasy sex over the phone switch to residential rates. After all,
>>they have the same old callers day after day, as do the non-sexual
>>chat lines. Those tend to be virtual communities also.

>This is an untenable reach on your part, Pat. BBSs are not like
>900/976 chatlines. If you think they are, then you must have been
>calling a very different sort of BBS from the ones I've experienced
>over the last decade.

Perhaps then you are not all that familiar with the range and scope of
BBSs in America today ... or the 900/976 chat line scene. There are
plenty of nice BBSs around, and more than a few 'naughty' ones as
well. In both instances, by voice communication in one and by data
communication in the other, people call to relate to one another, to
chat by modem or speak with others, alone or in a group, friends (I
use that word loosely!) or total strangers. Both the sixteen line TBBS
sites with their own version of 'CB Simulator' and the six/seven line
Diversi-Dial boards run on Apple ][ computers exclusively for chat
purposes have a wide range of devotees.

>Apparently, I need to explain the word "community." It does not denote
>two people talking out each other's fantasies.  Nor does it denote
>rape-crisis hotlines, which are also, generally, two-person
>interactions.

Rape-crisis is probably not a good example here, although my
inclination would be to give them a break on their phone costs if
possible through the creation of a third, intermediate rate for
non-residential/non-business service. You are correct this is one on
one. But if two people -- sysop and BBS'er -- can sit in chat and
discuss matters of interest at residential rates, why can't two people
sit and chat voice discussing 'other things' also get residential
rates? Or conversely, why do sysops get residential rates while
voice-style information services pay business rates?

>Virtual communities give rise to colloquies, not merely dialogs, Pat.
>More than two people can talk with each other at once, and the
>relationship is not structured the way 976 lines and rape-crisis lines
>are, with one person invariably seeking some particular kind of
>service or information from the other, and often paying for it.

There are lots of 900/976 numbers where several people chat voice at
one time in a common 'tank'.  Likewise there are plenty of BBSs where
only two people can talk at once, i.e. the sysop and the caller. And
sometime you should ask a few old veteran sysops how many times per
day they are called into chat by a new (and heretofore unknown to
them) user who invariably asks "what downloads/games do you have
here?  How old are you? What kind of computer is this?".  So some
lonely nerd of a sixth-grade child phreaks his way around the country
calling BBSs and pestering one sysop after another ... while another
chap sits at home and calls a different 900 number daily looking for
some person who will talk to him ... what is really the difference ???

>If 976 lines are what come to your mind when I use the word
>"community," then I've learned quite a bit more about how you think
>than I knew before, Pat.  :-)

900/976 devotees (of the community chat lines) are every bit as much a
community as are the devotees of some particular BBS. Admittedly the
one-on-one 900 callers tend to stay anonymous, but the community chat
lines are indeed, quite frequently the same old voices on the other
end. Yes there are newcomers daily -- just like on a BBS. Yes, there
are people who have been around for awhile and call daily ... just
like on a BBS.  What is really the difference ???  One chooses to
speak, while the other chooses to type. Both choose to call because
the person or organization on the other end **has solicited calls from
the public** -- invited the public to share in hospitality with them.

But you say one is a virtual community .. the other isn't. Maybe it is
a matter of your subjective taste and attitudes in how one person
should socialize with others.

>Our Moderator asks why Compuserve shouldn't get residential rates
>since Compuserve is a virtual community. The answer, of course , is
>that Compuserve is a commercial service, Pat. Most BBSs are not.

So do you want an auditor from telco to examine your books and see if
you made money or not last year? Back in 1979-80 Compuserve was not
making money. I know your answer to that is that well, their *intent*
was always to make money ... and the BBS sysop does not *intend* to
make money. Therefore, virtual community or not, since the sysop is
only doing it out of the goodness of his heart and Compuserve is doing
it for the money they make, the sysop gets off the hook while CIS pays.

But if it is the 'profit motive' which is to be used to decide whether
or not a virtual community ought to pay business rates on the phone,
then we are back to the dial-prayers and other itinerant information
providers who offer voice recordings of one kind or another out of, I
might add, the goodness of their heart or their desire to serve the
community. You see Mike, sysops do not have a monopoly on goodness of
heart or desire to serve the community. A lady in Chicago runs a
recorded message each day giving soap opera updates '... for the folks
who work all day and cannot watch daytime television as I do ... '.
Any number of folks have an extra phone line set up to give
inspirational talks, book reviews, their view of current events or
whatever. All are little one person operators who, like the sysop,
believe in sharing their skills and knowledge with others freely.

>I'm not advocating residential rates for all virtual communities.  I'd
>just like to see them for the very small-scale virtual communities
>that arise on hobbyist BBSs. Your passion for seeing that these BBSs
>pay residential rates will wipe a great number of them out, Pat.  This
>is a loss that should be avoided.

I think you meant to say 'your passion for seeing them pay *BUSINESS*
rates will wipe them out.' I will proceed from here on the assumption
that is what you meant.

I have no such passion. Did I not early on in this thread say I
thought there should be a third rate step, an intermediate rate for
phones not used as typical residence phones but certainly not as
business phones either?  If there are only to be two rates, one
business and one personal, the BBSs should be treated no differently
than anyone else in the 'business of' providing information,
indiscriminate chatting and other services to the public out of
goodwill. At present, that means pay business rates.  The fact that it
is regarded as a 'hobby' rather than a 'business' has no bearing on
the matter since a good many dial-prayer, soap-opera review,
conspiracy-theory VOICE services are regarded by their proprietors as
hobbies also. They pay business rates at present.

You want to 'avoid the loss of BBSs'. All well and good. Others want
to keep their public-service hobbies alive also. It isn't the virtual
community that matters; many of them have their little community of
regular participants. It isn't the profitability that counts; none of
the folks using the phone as a hobby would claim they get any sizeable
amount of contributions sent to their post office boxes. It isn't how
few there are around that counts; if anything there are more BBSs in
any large city than churches, charities and telephone public service
announcement-givers put together. At last count in metro Chicago we
had over 400 BBS programs operating, per a recent BBS directory. It
isn't that BBS sysops are so special and so different; they aren't.
They have chosen a media and a method to express themselves and serve
others.

None of this would have come to pass had it not been for the
multi-line chat systems like Diversi-Dial and TBBS sixteen line boards
whose (apparently) wealthy owners unflinchingly spent plenty of money
to set up such systems, charged a few dollars to let everyone on, and
then went stiff when it was time to pay telco their due for the month.

I have no doubt telco would have never touched the *really* little
guys who visit electronically with a few friends at night had it not
been for the real abusers in the modem world. And now, everyone gets
to pay.

Tell the Judge you think there should be a special rate step for the
hobbyists and non-profits who use the phone in any capacity --
whatever their thing.  That should be a compromise almost everyone
could live with.

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

From: Peter Anvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Date: 13 Jan 91 06:22:08 GMT
Organization: Northwestern University


I propose a very simple solution to this problem, which the telcos will
fight until doomsday to avoid:  let all IRS certified non-profit
organizations qualify for residential rates, unless they order special
business services like 800 numbers and Centrex.  That is the way it works
in Sweden, which a few years ago started having separate business and
residental rates.

If the American and Swedish telenets are anything similar, the "heavy use
of telco resources" is a bogus argument; the more a certain user uses the
phone the more profitable a line is.  The monthly line fee does not cover
the telco's expenses for maintaining the local loop, so people who use
their lines a lot are subsidizing the ones who rarely use their phones.

Well, you may say, the telco doesn't get money for incoming calls (and for
example BBS lines are almost exclusively inbound), but the caller is paying
the telco anyway; as I have understood it even when the call is long
distance (which BBS calls typically aren't).

Also regarding the flat fee calling being eliminated for a per-call charge
because of BBS's being online for hours or days at a time:  doesn't this
sound like a contradiction?  If there is a per-call charge, wouldn't you
ought to be *more* reluctant to hang up and call back later, than if you
have a flat fee?  Just a thought!

Just my $0.02 worth...


H. Peter Anvin +++ A Strange Stranger +++ N9ITP/SM4TKN +++
INTERNET:  [e-mail]   FIDONET:  1:115/989.4
BITNET:    HPA@NUACC                 RBBSNET:  8:970/101.4

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:00:10 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unlisted Numbers and CompuServe's Directory Service
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> I tried about ten different listed numbers, and they had them all.  I
> tried two unlisted numbers, mine, and they had neither, nor did they
> know me by name at my current or previous addresses.

We have two levels of non-printed telephone serivces: Unlisted and
Non-Published.  Unlisted is available from D.A.; Non-Published is NOT.
We charge more to provide the latter than the former.

Using the above "definitions", what type is your "unlisted" service?

Does CompuServe make such distinctions with their service?


JR

 Copernicus V1.02
 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Touch-Tone Specifications
Date: 13 Jan 91 02:35:27 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter
Anvin) writes:

> Also, in Sweden the indoor wiring is serial, not parallel, meaning
> that if you lift the handset on one phone, you disconnect all phones
> with lower priority, i.e. further away from the incoming line.  This
> looks to me like it almost has to be some form of on/off relay here?

It sounds to me as though that's what the second pair is for.  If the
telephone sets are wired in series, then each set would require two
pairs from the wall-socket: Tip and Ring in, and Tip and Ring out to
the next set on the line.  The switchhook in each set probably
implements a 'double-pole, double-throw' arrangement.  The inbound
pair is connected to the outbound pair when the instrument is on-hook.
When the set is off-hook, this connection is broken, and the inbound
pair is connected to the hybrid in the set.

This is a wild guess on my part; I have never been in Sweden, and have
no knowlege of the telephone system there.


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: Tim Russell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls
Date: 13 Jan 91 03:07:26 GMT
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA


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

>A friend of mine, who does military security work, said this is the
>result of calling a non-secure phone from the government's secure
>phone system and trying to initiate a secure call.  When making a
>secure call on this system, one first makes an ordinary phone call --
>over any network, FTS, AT&T, or whoever.  When the other end has been
>reached, one presses the `secure' button.

    Quite true - my brother works as an engineer for a government
contract company in Dallas that produces a new phone switch used,
among other places, at Cheyenne Mountain.

    He was telling me that their system has this feature, where
someone who calls in first hears a computer-played "Go secure"
repeated over and over, then once they do that, connects them with
their party.

    Anyway, the thing that's neat is that the message is his voice
digitized, so his voice will be heard if/when "the big one" comes.



Tim Russell   Omaha NE   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 01:59:28 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Random-Dialling Children
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> For the next half-hour, he tried to coax a phone number...

Yet another change that has occurred since Divistiture: We ALWAYS put
the telephone number on the number-plate on all the sets.

Come to think of it, I have been in NUMEROUS homes where there wasn't
a phone number to be found!

Post your number on or near your telephones - it could help end a
crisis!


JR

 Copernicus V1.02
 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 17:23:23 EST
From: Larry Jones <sdrc![e-mail]>
Subject: Good News on the Telemarketing Front


According to a (very brief!) note in the Business section of Friday's
{Cincinnati Post}, US Sprint has laid off 280 telemarketing employees.
It may not be much, but it certainly is a step in the right direction!


Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
Domain: [e-mail]  Path: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones


[Moderator's Note: The only thing that will happen now is those 280
people will get scattered all over the USA in other telemarketing
firms looking for fresh meat. So instead of getting a call every few
days from someone wanting you to switch over to Sprint now you will
get two or three calls a night from different firms, some wanting to
sell life insurance, cemetery plots from others, and occassionally
someone sellng motor club or encyclopedias.  And you call that
progress? A step in the right directon?  :)    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #32
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26132;
          14 Jan 91 2:02 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28258;
          14 Jan 91 0:29 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17243;
          13 Jan 91 23:23 CST
Date:     Sun, 13 Jan 91 22:25:54 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #33
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Jan 91 22:25:11 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 33

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Texas Sysops / SWB Reach Compromise [TELECOM Moderator]
    BBS Decision in Texas [Ed Hopper]
    Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates [Ed Hopper]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Peter da Silva]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Michael P. Deignan]
    Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Bill Nickless]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 21:53:29 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: BBS Sysops / SWB Reach Compromise


As the next message in our Digest today will explain, a compromise has
been reached between Southwestern Bell and sysops in their service
territory. Perhaps this compromise will serve as a guideline for other
telcos faced with the same decision.

To me, it seems like a reasonable solution and should satisfy most
sysops who -- as it has been pointed out here many times -- are
basically trying to combine their hobby with public service to their
community.

At the risk of having someone write to news.groups and say something
silly about how 'the Moderator never prints anything which would prove
him wrong', may I respectfully ask that anything still unsaid on this
issue be written up and submitted in the next day or two so that the
topic can be closed here later in the week. It has taken up a huge
amount of bandwidth here in recent days.  Thanks.

Also I want to thank Ed Hopper for typing in the lengthy report which
follows and getting it in to the Digest on a timely basis.


PAT

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

Subject: BBS Decision in Texas
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 14:09:30 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


On January 9, 1991, the Texas Public Utilities Commission, on a vote
of 3 to 0 approved a negotiated settlement in Texas PUC docket 8387.
This is the case of Reginald A. Hirsch, et. al. vs Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company.  This case grew from Southwestern Bell's attempt to
assess business rates to all known BBSs.

The negotiated settlement provides for the following provision to be
added to the Southwestern Bell tariffs:

   ----- Begin quotation from proposed stipulation ------

          2.  Southwestern Bell agrees to amend Section 23, Paragraph
3.1 of its General Exchange Tariff defining business service to
include the following footnote:

As a result of a Stipulation in Docket No. 8387 approved by the
Commission on ______, Southwestern Bell agrees that all Bulletin Board
Systems ("BBS") that are located at residence locations that do not
solicit, require, or receive monetary compensation and that use three
or fewer local exchange access lines shall be permitted to subscribe
to local exchange access service at the approved residential rates.
BBSs that are eligible to subscribe to local exchange access service
at residential rates may publish their name, telephone number and
technical information in a listing of BBSs by location or subject
matter.  Such listings must be purely informational to advise readers
of the BBS's name, telephone number, location, subject matter, hours,
baud rates, and other technical information.  BBSs that do not meet
these conditions will be considered businesses, and approved business
rates will apply for all local exchange access lines used by such BBS.

     ------------------- End Quotation -----------------

The stipulation also provides that Southwestern Bell will provide a
single point of contact for BBS operators and that for a period of 90
days after the PUC decision, they will waive service charges on orders
to change service from one class of service to another in order to
comply with settlement.

This has been a long fight.  The settlement is not what any of the
parties would consider perfect.  It does give BBS operators in Texas a
firm set of guidelines in which to operate.  They no longer have to
play "Russian Roulette", hoping that they reach a SWBT business office
that understands the rules.


Ed Hopper
President - COSUARD
 BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

Subject: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 14:39:27 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


There has been a lot of discussion here in Telecom regarding BBS's and
the application of business rates.  With the decision in Texas, I'd
like to pass on my views and speak to some of the issues raised
recently.

Before I begin, I believe it is important to make some distinctions.

1. Obviously, I do not believe, nor does anyone I know believe, that
residential rates should apply to a BBS located in a business location
or run by a business or corporation.  Telephone company rules on the
provision of residence lines already speak to providing service in
such cases.  I do not disagree with them.  Unless otherwise specified,
all references to BBSs in this document refer to home based BBSs.

2.  One must recognize that there are several categories of BBS
systems.  To briefly recount them for the purposes of this discussion:

    A.  Free BBSs.  These systems do not request donations of their
        users.  Some even refuse to accept unsolicited donations.

    B.  Donation BBSs.  These systems request donations from their
    users.  Such donations might be project-specific (i.e., raising
    money for a new hard drive) or may be solicited to defray ongoing
    operating costs.  No quid pro quo is offered for donations on these
    systems.

    C.  Fee BBSs.  These are systems who have published schedules of
    fees. (i.e., $25 for a years access, etc).  Some BBS's in this
    category do play word games, calling their fees "donations".  (For
    the record, Ed Hopper's BBS *does* have a schedule of fees for
    access to shareware downloads.  All message functions are free to
    all callers.)

Also, for the purposes of this discussion, only CASH BBS fees and
donations are considered.  There has been some attempt to consider
uploads, messages, cans of Spam, etc. to be "consideration".  In the
Texas case, only monetary compensation is included.

Now, with distinctions made, to deal with some of the issues:

Issue #1. - Who SHOULD pay business rates?

I feel that, in the present circumstances, Fee BBSs should pay
business rates.  I do not feel business rates should apply to Free or
Donation BBSs.  The Texas settlement only protects Free BBSs.
Donation BBSs must pay business rates.

Issue #2. - Why a three line limit?

A peculiarity of the Texas settlement is the "three line provision".
This holds that a BBS that, under all other criteria, qualifies for
residential rates must pay business rates if that BBS has four or more
lines.  This is an area where COSUARD on the one hand and SWBT and the
PUC staff on the other, agreed to disagree.  COSUARD accepted the
settlement based upon our assessment of the politics of the situation,
not because of our view that this is perfect.

Our disagreement is based upon the fact that this restriction is an
unprecedented restriction on consumers.  It is certainly conceivable
for one to envision situations where residential customers would order
four or more telephone lines for non-computer uses.  Individual lines
for three children, for example.  Needless to say, if SWBT told a
residential customer that he could not have four residential lines for
non-bbs purposes, the Texas PUC would quickly act to remedy the
situation.  I feel that this provision is discriminatory.  Again, in
order to forge a settlement, COSUARD agreed not to oppose this in the
settlement of the case.  The PUC and SWBT understand that COSUARD
and/or others may move to oppose this provision later in other forums.
In fact, one Houston sysop, Donald Saxman, testified against this
provision during hearings on the case.

Issue #3. - Three or more lines consume additional physical plant
resources (i.e., cables).  Sysops should pay for that.

I do not disagree here.  HOWEVER, sysops should only pay based upon
tariff provisions that apply equally to ALL customers.  Most telcos,
including Southwestern Bell, have provisions to bill construction costs
to customers for situations where unusual expenses are incurred.  In no
place, however, is the application of business rates vs residence rates
considered to be a remedy for such a problem.  Further, the assessment
of such construction costs should not vary depending on the intended use
of such a line (i.e., BBS or voice).

Issue #4. - BBS lines are more busy than others and should pay
accordingly.

Here I must speak to the situation in Texas only.  In Texas, flat rate
service is nearly universal.  The normal residential and business
customer in Texas has flat rate service.  Measured service is an
option, but flat rate service is the basis for policy decisions.  The
tariffs do not say "Flat rate as long as you don't use TOO much", they
say FLAT RATE period.  Public policy is that telephone customers in
Texas are entitled to service without charge for usage.  (Measured
service is available as an *OPTION*)

If Southwestern Bell wishes to apply charges based upon usage, it
should be done via rate making procedures before the PUC. The PUC
should decide if a break with previous public policy in Texas is
justified. Such rates should be equitable so that the proverbial
talkative teenager also bears such a burden.  The application of
business rates should not be used as a back door alternative to the
imposition of a mandatory measured service tariff in Texas.

Issue #5. - What about other non-profit organizations (Rape Crisis
centers, the United Way, etc.)?  They pay business rates, why
shouldn't "non-profit" BBSs?

There are several important differences here.

First, virtually all such organizations operate from business
premises, most sysops do not contest the assessment of business rates
on otherwise residential BBS systems located in a business location.
Additionally, corporations cannot normally subscribe to residential
rates.  Most non-profit organizations are non-profit corporations.

Second, a non-profit organization is typically far more sophisticated
than a BBS. They do have sources of income, paid employees, etc. A BBS
is an individual undertaking paid for out of the wallet of an
individual.  Additionally, with the exception of certain
communications oriented undertakings like suicide-prevention hotlines,
communications costs are an incidental portion of the total operating
budget of a non-profit organization. With a BBS, such charges can make
the difference between life and death.

Third, while it is generally true that non-profit organizations pay
business rates, this is not always the case.

For example:

 -- Alcoholics Anonymous encourages it's members to call another
member if they are tempted to drink.  Should AA members pay business
rates?

 -- Many ministers and other unpaid persons engage in over the
telephone counseling from home (for that matter, so do many PAID
counselors).

 -- Some hotlines subscribe to one business number which is then
call-forwarded to various volunteers homes on a nightly rotation.
Should those volunteers pay business rates?

Issue #6 - "What makes sysops so special?"

I have heard this in several venues (including negotiations with
SWBT).  Here's my answer.  A BBS is something unique.  It is one of
the few ways for an individual to inexpensively give voice to his
views.  If I want to post my views on the mideast, AT&T/NCR or the
Houston Astros, I have a venue to do so.  I also provide a method for
other individuals to do so as well.  If they don't like my little
popstand, they can set up their own.  No it's not CBS, the {New York
Times} or even the Podunk Weekly Bugle, but it's mine and no one has a
say in what I "publish" there but me (and the libel/slander laws).  I
think this IS unique.  I think public policy should be to nurture such
free expression.  That nurturing should take the form of recognition
that BBSs fall in a grey area and should, for the aforementioned
public policy reasons, be given the benefit of the doubt in the
assessment of residential rates.

Issue #7 - Why should a BBS be allowed to accept donations?

The BBS hobby is unique in my view.  A BBS serves no purpose if there
are no callers.  There is little reason for callers to join in the
hobby if there are no BBSs (yes, they can call Compuserve. That isn't
a hobby, that's a business transaction).  This is a shared hobby.  It
takes two to tango.  I do not believe that it is improper for a caller
to assist in the expenses associated with the provision of the BBS.
In fact, I believe it is almost a moral imperative for BBS callers to
support some BBS somewhere.

It has been my experience and also the experience of many other sysops
that such fund raising only brings in a few dollars every year.
Normally, the total funds raised do not equal the difference between a
business and a residential line in Texas (Approx $250 per year).

COSUARD voted to accept a settlement that we feel is imperfect.  It is
the best deal we feel we could get.  It gave the BBS operator some
legitimacy and some basic security.  The alternative presented to us
by the PUC staff and Southwestern Bell was to see ALL BBS systems
assessed business rates.  This would be a disaster in our view.  In
order to protect as many as possible, the settlement was accepted.


Ed Hopper

 BBS: 713-997-7575  [e-mail]  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Ed, my sincere thanks for rushing this report into
the Digest as soon as possible. I'm moving it to the top of the queue
for the same reason you sent it in: It is an important issue.    PAT]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 1991 14:15:46 GMT


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

> When (assuming if) the U.S. government policy and telephone utilities
> catch up with their own direct-dial, universally accessed and used
> E-Mail network, it can be certain that highly restrictive telephone
> tarriffs as well as legislation will be used to stamp out the various
> BBS networks in lieu of a costly system provided by Telcos.

The Moderator demurs, based on AT&T Mail and the Internet.

Sorry, Pat, but it's happening already. The crackdown on BBSes here in
Houston occurred just before SWBell came out with their own
"Sourceline" system. I find that, like Thoreau's trout, convincing
circumstantial evidence.

AT&T Mail, etc, are not in direct competition with BBS systems. The
Internet is not intended as a public-access system of *any* kind. I'm
still waiting for the other shoe to drop in Michigan. Just wait...
they'll be coming out with their own Teletext type system, sure as God
evolved little apples.


([e-mail])

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Date: 13 Jan 91 04:22:55 GMT
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI 02917


>[Moderator's Note: What about people who run *other kinds* of
>not-for-profit phone lines, i.e. rape crisis, domestic violence,
>suicide talk lines, dial-a-prayer, dial-a-conspiracy theory
>(312-731-1100) and similar?

They also regularly solicit business publically thru adverstisements.
I've yet to see a BBS post a TV ad.

If the IRS recognizes it as a business, then let it be a business.
Otherwise, let it be a hobby.


Michael P. Deignan       Domain: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd   Telebit: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 16:10:06 CST
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted


I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole
in the center of the bit.  I have needed one for refilling HP toner
cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular
phone.  I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores.

I really don't want to have to put a Torx bit in a drill press, but
may have to.

Any help would be appreciated.


Bill Nickless    [phone]    nickless@{flash.ras.anl.gov|andrews.edu}

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #33
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26491;
          14 Jan 91 2:11 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28258;
          14 Jan 91 0:32 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17243;
          13 Jan 91 23:23 CST
Date:     Sun, 13 Jan 91 23:17:26 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #34
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 13 Jan 91 23:17:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 34

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Norman Yarvin]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Paul Coen]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell [Gregory G. Woodbury]
    Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies? [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Source of Dial-less Phones [David Smallberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Norman Yarvin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Date: 13 Jan 91 18:05:53 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: Good question. Is there any single method of
>charging for phone service and use which everyone would be happy with?
>I'd personally like to see an intermediate category of rates applied
>to lines used in a non-residence/not-really-business environment.

It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with this.  One is
to continue the endless proliferation of rules, special cases, and
additional considerations.  The other is to charge by cost.  This
would mean removing the distinction between residence and business
listings.  For local calls, I presume that it would mean both a
per-call fee and a (low) fee depending on connection time.  For long
distance it would mean junking the flat-rate FCC access charge, and
charging both local rates (paid to the LOC) and long distance rates
(paid to the IXC).  (I make no claims to omniscence regarding the
above scheme; if it is not a decent stab at reflecting costs, correct
me.)

Then, if politicians/do-gooders wanted to subsidize the phone bills of
poor people, or charities, or electronic communities, or whatever,
they could spend tax money (they already add tax to phone bills) and
do it directly, rather than doing it in the current underhand manner.

We just had a session of griping about how complex the world is
becoming.  In the telecommunications world, this is largely a function
of the complexity of the policies and regulations governing it.  Those
who gripe about complexity would do well to attack this obvious
target.


Norman Yarvin        [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 15:34 EDT
From: Paul Coen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


        I just had to respond to the people who were claiming that
BBSs were no different than 900 numbers.  Remember -- the people who
are operating 900 numbers are usually at least breaking even on their
costs, due to the per-minute charge on the 900 number.  976 numbers
also generate revenue, I believe.  The "hobby BBS" does not.

        The comment about amount of usage is a semi-valid one.  Think
about it -- even if you pay-per-use, that isn't going to affect
incoming calls.  Since the call is being made by the other party, not
the BBS, there really isn't any easy way to apply measured service to
BBS lines.

        As far as home-run, local, non-revenue-generating dial a
prayer or other lines are concerned, why should they pay extra either?
Is the purpose of the business rate to charge for more use, or is it
so the phone company gets a cut of any profit you make via your use of
the telephone?  If you're not making money, or operating as a loss, I
really can't see the justification.

        The fact that when you get a residential line, last time I had
NJ Bell service anyway, you don't get anything telling you how much
you can use your phone should mean that you can stay on the line 24
hours a day talking to your friends in the local calling area.  Why
should it be any different when you hook a computer up to it?  The
average BBS probably doesn't use any more phone time (and maybe less)
than a family with several teen-agers.

        The average BBS isn't costing the local phone company extra
money, really.  As long as all the local circuits aren't busy, who
cares what the rest of the lines are doing?  That's like computer
center managers that say that running games on a minicomputer late at
night (when the computer would be otherwise idle) is COSTING them
money.  There's a difference between "cost" and "non-revenue-
generating," I think.  The only cost I can potentially see is that the
phone companies are actually having to maintain line quality, rather
than letting it degrade to the point where data communications are
difficult.

        Just so you know where I stand, I'm a co-sysop on a BBS owned
by Drew University.  The Drew Underground has six NJ Bell lines, which
we pay business rates on because they're located in University-owned
buildings.  (Of course, getting NJ Bell to repair problems is like
trying to squeeze oil out of a piece of rock, but that's another
story).  Fortunatly, the $$ comes from a University budget, not us.


   The preceeding may not even be my opinions, never mind Drew U.'s
Paul Coen         Academic Computer Center        Drew University

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 02:03 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


This thread is meandering off into all sorts of nice paths that would
be quite interesting if ... and that's a big IF ... there was policy
being made.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.  Rather, existing policy is being
interpreted.  Here are some thoughts to consider:

1.) Telcos are *not* enacting any "new policy" or "new tariffs" in
these cases.  Rather, they are acting under existing tariffs and
simply saying BBSs fall under those tariffs.  Thus, all our nice
discussions about "communities of interest" have no bearing.  What
does have bearing is what Telcos have been able to get into
long-standing tariffs about what constitutes a "business" for
rate-charging purposes.

2.) That definition of a "business" has nothing to do with profit or
tax status, and it has very little to do with electronic "communities
of interest."  Altough the words may vary from Telco to Telco, they
esenti- ally state that a "place" open for public entry is a
"business" in the meaning of the tariff.  Under such tariff wording,
it has become rather common for churches (that once enjoyed a
residential rate as a courtesy) to have had to pay business line rates
for a couple of decades.  Similarly, even private clubs and fraternal
organizations that have but limited access to small segments of the
public have paid business rates.  The Indiana case was squashed very
quickly on that one.

It's certain the Michigan case has to be addressed in the same light,
for that's the sort of argument the Telco will raise.

3.) The stories about "burdening the plant" are old, too, based on the
way business loaded the switched telephone network from 9 to 5, Monday
through Friday, years ago.  Such claims oare shibboleths taught to all
Telco people at their grandpa's knee.

     The real fact is that the load on the switched telephone network
has changed dramatically, and in highly local ways. Nobody knows for
sure what the peak is, and it can't be stated in aything but a local
sense for ay known case.  Telcos do take "snapshots" of a week or so,
in places where it seems to be needed. A really good example occurred
in recent years at New Port Richey, FL, where there was ahigh level of
complaint that nobody in GTE addressed ... until they did get a new
traffic manager who did have an open mind.  He was stonewalled with
the old "9-5, M-F" stories INSIDE the Telco; told the plant was fully
ade- quate for that peak, and it hed been measured and proved in New
Port Richey several times.  It simply could NOT be inadequate
switching plant. He asked if it ever got checked at other days and
hours and was told they hadn't done that for 25 years.  Why?  Because
the "AT&T book" (another one of those common Telco references that
nobody can ever lay their hands on or name) said the peaks were M-F,
9:30 AM and 4:30 PM ...  when, like "everbody knows," business loads
the plant.  Well, he had the budget and control, so he ordered nights
and weekends measured.

   Surprise!  They found the largest peak of the whole week was 10 AM
Saturday, when all the retirees got on the phone with their children
up north!

   Not "business lines," not "teenagers," not "faxes and computers,"
but senior citizens!

   My point in all this is that any discussion about relative usage is
just a red harring, anyway.  Nobody is particularly measuring bbs
usage to prove it requires extra plant.  Their whole issue is the
right of the Telco to determine if a line exists for general public
usage. Like it or not, they have a rate for usage defined in that
sense, and the right to charge for it.

   Perhaps the best anyone might claim here, then, is that they run a
"hobby," and try to claim other "hobbies" are exempted on a per-case
basis.

4.) About the only thing one might try to counter any of this is to
demand the Yellow Pages listing under the *new* heading "Computer
Bulletin Boards" and file Utility Commission complaints until such
time as the Telco complies.  Even there, if they have a heading for
"Computer Services," one's argument can get quashed.  However,
sufficiently querulous <sp?> Sysops might make some use of this,
quibbling about what heading should be started up or such.  But,
people who take money probably should have such a listing, anyway.
For-pay boards would probably want it, when you think about it.

    Anyhow, for the instant, what has to be addressed is interpreting
the Telco's right to charge for places the non-family, unrelated
public is invited to call.

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

From: "Gregory G. Woodbury" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Grade-School Math, BBS, and Ma Bell
Organization: Wolves Den UNIX
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 1991 04:43:11 GMT


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

>If we figure that the metro Omaha area gives Ma Bell about 500,000

>50/500000 of the active lines, or about 1/100 of one percent.

>Why is it then, that they are paying >>THAT<< much attention to such a
>miniscule group of their subscribers ??

Well, the answer is evident after digging around a little bit.  The
LECs hope to be freed relatively soon to provide their own information
services.  The software and all the necessary technology for an LEC to
provide a Prodigy-type service was developed at Bell Labs back in
1982.*

When ISDN becomes are real service to each subscriber, it will be easy
for almost anyone to set up a BBS and offer direct ISDN access.  The
LECs do not want the BBS operators providing for free, what they hope
to make tons of money from!

* I was there for a while and worked on it.


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

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:01:40 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies?
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> Can anyone tell me the frequencies used by pulse-mode phones when
> dialing?

> [Moderator's Note: I was unaware that 'pulse', or rotary dial phones
> generated any frequencies or tones.   PAT]

They DON'T!  They simply flash/open-close/pulse the loop - the
appropriate number of times for each digit.

I've successfully "dialed" a call using only the switchook.  (It is a
challenge!)


JR

 Copernicus V1.02
 Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pulse-Mode Frequencies?
Date: 13 Jan 91 15:41:13 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon
Sreekanth) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 23, Message 6 of 6


>On this topic, why do many voice mail and other phone operated
>services insist on users having DTMF phones ? Is it really hard to
>detect pulse mode digits? I can see that the low numbers might be a
>problem, (can't distinguish it from a noise pulse), but if one saw
>five to ten regularly spaced pulses, isn't that adequate for
>recognition?

    The reason is that the pulse is a DC disconnection at your
phone instrument. This disconnection and therefore interruption of the
DC current extends only to your local CO. The far end will just hear a
click. Hearing the click above line noise is tricky. So yes, at the
far end, these are not "pulses" of 0 - 10V with 300V transients, but
clicks, not quite the same thing. DTMF on the other hand is still DTMF
after it has been down a fiber optic cable and across two satellite
links.

    Touch Tone was invented so subscriber signalling could be
carried over radio (microwave etc) circuits. Pulse dialling will not
work unless you have copper wire carrying DC - yes, subscriber carrier
excepted.

    Voice mail boxes, etc work well with DTMF and miserably trying
to listen for clicks. Then DTMF is also faster than pulse. Plus of
course there is no pulse equivalent for * and # (-:

    In the UK, a bank was offering a dial in interactive account
service.  Because of the dearth of DTMF phones in the UK, part of the
banks deal was a ten pound (money) deposit for a hand held DTMF
generator that you held to the mouthpiece to punch in your account
number etc.

>I've seen AT&T answering machines which say on the box that they
>work with pulse phones (at the remote end, for checking one's
>messages).  I haven't played with them. Does anyone know how they
>work, or how reliable the detection is?

    Not too reliable I would guess.

DTMF = Dual Tone Multi Frquency = Touch Tone
CO = Cental Office = Telephone Exchange


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

Date: Sat, 12 Jan 91 02:02:20 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: REe Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Availabl
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> By the way, I tried to get a whole ream of these forms for my pals at
> work (we all chose AT&T, and getting an employee discount probably
> being a significant factor, we don't want to be "slammed"), but I was
> informed that each person has to call their Illinois Bell service
> representative individually.

I think the time has come that changes to your service be made ONLY on
a call-back verification basis.

Another improvement would be to require "positive input" from EACH
customer, saying that WANT a new service (such the introduction of a
new "dial-a-rape-your-phone-bill-NNX").

Currently, they are operating like the book clubs: Call *US* if you
*DON'T* want the service!  Not good.


JR

Copernicus V1.02
Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

From: David Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Source of Dial-less Phones
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 03:23:12 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> paul.schleck%inns@iugate.
unomaha.edu writes:

> ...  The most noticable prop at the "headquarters" were red and
>blue phones without dials.  These would be nice to have as extension
>phones (no dials for kiddies to mess with) ...

Until they learn how to click out a number.  (It's interesting how
many people don't know you can do this: back when all UCLA phones were
rotary dial, many secretaries were told to lock their phones with a
little cylinder stuck in the "5" hole, so that no digit past 5 could
be dialed.  This was supposed to prevent one from making outgoing
calls (you had to dial 9 first), but allowed calls to UCLA emergency
(35, hence the reason for putting the lock in "5").  Of course, some
people knew how to defeat this: it looked weird, what with seemingly
random combinations of dialing (for digits 1 through 5) and clicking
the switchhook (for 6 through 0).


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #34
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13157;
          14 Jan 91 11:30 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08977;
          14 Jan 91 9:42 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10860;
          14 Jan 91 8:35 CST
Date:     Mon, 14 Jan 91 7:55:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #35
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 14 Jan 91 07:55:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 35

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Macy Hallock]
    Re: AT&T Service Interruption [Macy Hallock]
    Alternative Communication in Germany [Richard Budd]
    British Modem Useage in US? [Mike Vevea]
    X11 Numbers and Purposes [Sean Williams]
    Re: Local Long Distance Calls [Peter G. Capek]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 11:06 EST
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


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

>> Never say ANYTHING on the black {i.e. non-STU} phone you don't want to read
>> about tomorrow in the {Washington Post}.

>Although your was an EXCELLENT discussion of the "how to" and "why use
>a" secure (a) line, but it sure makes ordinary loops sound virtually
>non-private!

Well, that's because its true.  Most of the security we have on normal
telephone loops is primarily due to the ignorance of the masses of
telecom technology.  The casual layman is unable to do much with that
mysterious telephone wire...

This is changing.  Prior to deregulation, or better yet, Carterphone
(1968) the telco's did everything they could to keep the information
to themselves.  It was to their benefit, and they were successful.
The only others who knew much about telecom were very large
organizations, such as governmental or multi-national groups who had
internal communications networks independant of the telco's.

Now, you can go to Radio Shack or your local library and obtain a text
with accurate and understandable information regarding common telecom
technology.  The local loop is now considerably less of a mystery.
Many people are able to work with the standard two wire loop telephone
line.  And they do.

My sons are familiar with this technology, and either one of them
could do a good job of tapping a line with less than $ 10.00 worth of
overpriced parts from Radio Shack ... or some of the junk in their
workshop.  I can assure you they are not unique. (I do wish more of
our youth were more technically adept...)

>Virtually everything I have heard in the course of my years has not
>been memorable, yet ordinary subscribers are increasing concerned
>about the security of their ordinary transmissions!

Having owned an alarm company for fifteen years, I can assure you that
more and more people are becoming concerned about the security of
their telecommunications.  Much of this concern is based on what they
have seen television or rumor.  What is important is that they feel
compromise of their telecommunications is not only possible, but
probable under the right set of circumstances.  They also beleive that
since they have seen it done with reliative ease, and in a manner they
understand (namely cutting a wire or clipping a couple of wires onto a
terminal) that it can be done just as easily to them.

>I had a new-home installation recently where the subscriber insisted
>that the Network Interface be placed INSIDE the home, and that the
>dropwire enter the foundation BELOW grade!  The customer's primary
>concern was the integrity of his home security system.

>After two hours and a dozen calls, we (US WEST Communications/NE)
>acquiesed and accomodated the customer.  I explained that all a
>reasonably skilled burglar would have to do was to simply walk out to
>the wirepost in front and cut the line.  He was not swayed.

This is a common requirement in our alarm installations.  The phone
companies here are grudgely cooperative, but are always trying to
discourage it, often by levying ridiculous fees.  The argument the
phone companies make is that complicates their testing.  Note that
these are the same phone companies that send out newsletters crowing
about their abilities to test lines remotely, without entering the
premises.

The idea here is to discourage the casual burglar easy compromise of
the phone line.  We also ensure the line going up the pole is in rigid
metal conduit.  We also seem to find most of the pedestals (terminals
for buried cables) unlocked or unbolted, and require the phone company
to secure these terminals in accordance with their own policies.

Of course, the professional burglar will know how to effect a
compromise of the buried phone line, but we aim to make his job as
tough as possible.  In some installations, we even leave a decoy
conventional telephone terminal on the side of the house.  On others,
we will have two separate buried phone lines entering from two
different places on the premises ... all of which is carefully
monitored and alarmed.

Since the phone companies have priced conventional leased alarm lines
and other special services so outlandishly now, most home and business
owners are now using the standard phone line for alarm transmission,
just as the phone company intended.  Yet they place obstacles in the
way of those who try and secure these facilities, since the phone
company will not.  In most cases, these additional security
arrangements actually increase the reliability of the phone line.

I might add that the phone companies have begun to offer the
"piggyback" alarm transmission services in some large cities.  These
use the regular phone line to provide both dial tone and a relatively
sercure supervised (monitored) link between the CO and premises.  The
charge to the home/business owner is even fairly reasonable.  The
charges to the alarm company are not reasonable.  The special circuits
and backbone arrangements required are expensive and not able to be
afforded except by the largest alarm companies, and then only in
densely populated areas.

In instances where we need extra phone line security at a premises, we
now use cellular telephone data links through the regular cellular
carriers.  This does no good for those outside cellular service areas,
though.

>Another customer had their security system installer build a wooden
>box around the protector housing and (drop) riser tube, complete with
>magnetic switch!  Explaining to the customer that two minutes (or
>less) with a tile spade would circumvent THAT safeguard (dig up and
>cut the shallow drop).

Yes, we have done that, too, for a customer.  I might add we have
acutally stopped several burglary attempts with these measures, and
have even had a few apprehensions, too.  The customers seem pleased
with the results.  The phone company's answer, when shown this
information was either "lease a line and pay the bill" or "sorry,
nothing we can do".

>In my (not yet) vast experience, I have encountered only ONE "tap" and
>it was merely a (convicted) case of "Theft of Services"!!

>Has there been much (any) traffic here regarding unauthorized entry
>into residential SNIs (Standard (telephone) Network Interfaces -
>complete with working, RJllC jack) on the backs of homes?  I recall
>seeing a short bit about it on CNN Headline News a couple of years
>ago.

Yes, we have had several experiences.  Besides compromises to service
for burglary, we have seen a couple of taps.  In both cases, the local
phone company and police department did little about it.  We counseled
the customer to seek legal counsel and consider a suit.  In both
cases, the client did not want the publicity a suit would bring.  (One
of these clients was a judge, the other involved in a very messy
divorce case)

We also find that customers are willing to use network interfaces for
their intended purpose (testing the outside phone line to locate a
line fault) more readily when they can access the interface jack
easily.  A closet or basement location seems ideal.  In many condo's
we have worked on, they are in the closet in the garage.  When
customers test their phone line at the network interface when their
phones do not work, everyone wins.  The phone companies here act as
thought they are trying to discourage this testing by customers ...
although that's not what they say.  I wonder if this might have
anything to do with their attempts to sell inside wire maintenance for
revenue enahancement?

>Our SNI vendor (Seicor) finally replaced the "can wrench" bolt with
>the Allen/Torx-like-headed bolt.  GREAT!  Just another tool to carry
>to the back of each house!

Still not terribly secure.  In this area, the phone installers do not
even want to tighten the bolts on their terminals.  The SNI's here
have a plastic door that snaps shut, along with a place to put a lock.
No lock is ever used, though. (Not that it would offer much security,
anyway)


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. [e-mail]
[e-mail] uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 11:26 EST
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Service Interruption
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


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

>>     In the 1980s, long-distance companies laid thousands of miles of
>> high-capacity optical fiber cables, which carry phone calls or data in
>> enormous volume as rapid pulses of light. But some research has raised
>> concerns that concentration of calling through single wires brings a
>> higher threat of disruption.

>US WEST Communications (NE) is offering special, "self-healing"
>(whatever THAT means) fiber service to major business.  I have
>forgotten the two options, but one includes installing TWO cables to
>the business, fed from opposite directions.  One is (presumably) idle
>(spare?) while the other one operates.  In the event of an outage, the
>system automatically (again, presumably) switches to the back-up
>cable.

Due to the mindset of many phone companies, this is a poor option.  In
most (but not all) area, what you get is a feed to the same CO for
both cables.  The protection you receive is partial at best.  What I
have seen is:

Two entrance cables, entering at separate points...that meet somewhere
down the street and use the same feed cable back the the same central
office.  This yields no protection against many, if not most, types of
failures.  Examples: truck hits phone poles, takes out major cable or
backhoe digs up backbone cables

In Chicago and a couple other cities, their are companies that offer
intra-city local feed cable (usually fiber) that can be used to access
your IXC independantly of the telco's cables and CO.

We advise our customers with critical communications needs to have two
separate feeds to two separate IXC's using a different link to each.
Around here, the only real alternative to using the local telco for
network access is a microwave link.  And that's what we suggest.

Many customers do not want to pay the costs associated with this kind
of redundant service.  And in every instance, they have been out of
communications at some time for a period.  The reasons are many: cut
cable, CO outage, IXC failure ... the effect is the same.

Another curiousity: In Ohio, the telco's have written into their
tariffs that each premises shall have only one entrance point.  Ask
for redundant feed cables, and the first thing they do it cite the
tariff.  I have also seen them violate this tariff provision
repeatedly for their own convenience.  When confronted with this the
answer is almost always "necessary to provide required service" or
some other variation.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. [e-mail]
[e-mail] uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy

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

Date: SAT, 12 JAN 91 21.57.10  EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Alternative Communication in Germany
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie,NY


A friend handles mortgages for customers of the Bayerische Hypotheken
Bank in Munich.  Since November he is on temporary assignment with
their new offices in Leipzig.  (Don't get me started on his adventures
trying to explain mortgages to customers who haven't been allowed to
purchase a house in over forty years.)  After being unable to
establish telephone contact between Leipzig and Munich through the
former East German phone system, the Leipzig office set up a satellite
uplink and as of our last conversation in December, calls from the
Leipzig branch to Munich headquarters are bounced back and forth off
the satellite. Propogationhas been a small trade off against waiting
over an hour to get a clear line to Munich through the existing
system.

I would be interested in hearing how the telephone system in reunited
Germany is coming along and when that system will itself be reunited.

Needless to say according to my friend, it will be a long time before
the Leipzig office will be installing automatic tellers.

I speak for myself on Marist's system and not for IBM, on whose system I
can't even receive TELECOM Digest.


[Moderator's Note: There is a distribution list for TELECOM Digest at
IBM and I'm sure they would add you if asked.  PAT]

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

From: Mike Vevea <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Modem Useage in US?
Organization: Mass General Hospital NMR Imaging Center
Date: Sun 13 Jan 90  00:00:00 GMT


A friend who recently moved here from England has an internal modem in
a PC clone.  He's dealt with the power considerations for the machine,
but is interested in whether he can use the modem here.  He's been
told that the only incompatability in the interface to the phone
system is the physical plug, so if he replaces that, he can continue
to use the modem, but isn't sure he believes his sources.  My memory
is that it is reasonable, but I'm not sure ... can anyone tell me for
sure?  Thanks a lot!


mikeV <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun Jan 13 22:33:30 EST 1991
Subject: X11 Numbers and Purposes


While playing around with my phone, I came across the following X11
numbers and what they do.  Are these constant in different regions or
specific to only one exchange/telco?  (I have United Telephone of
Pennsylvania) Obviously, I have only listed the numbers which were not
met with a "Call cannot be completed..." recording.

211:
    Upon connection, plays one long tone, then silence.  Whenever you
    press any number from a Touch-Tone phone, plays 3 short beeps.
    Whenever you dial any number from a rotary phone, replays the
    original long tone.  I guess this number is used for testing
    purposes.

311:
    Digitized voice reads off the number from which you have called.
    There must be SOME use for this.

411:
    "We're sorry, your call cannot be completed...(etc)...717-243"

    This recording is from a different exchange.  My exchange is 717-834.
    The telco's regional / area office is located in the 243 exchange,
    however.  I have heard of this number being used in other areas as
    the directory assistance number, but we use 1-555-1212.  (This number
    reaches Bell of Pennsylvania's Directory Assistance.  I'd assume that
    United must not have their own.)

511:
    I kept getting a busy signal when calling this number.  Maybe that's
    all it's supposed to do.

611:
    Friendly repair service representative answers.

911:
    The hi-tech computerized emergency number where they can find your
    house and list your name before they even answer your call. (really!)
    This service was just put into operation in my area last month, and
    the phone company has warned us repeatedly to call only in case
    of real emergencies. (They have all that computer equipment, but
    they only have two incoming lines.  Okay, so it IS a small county!)

So that's all for my experimentation.  Maybe someone else has numbers
which do something else?  Or maybe different numbers which do
basically the same thing?


Sean E. Williams    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 00:42:57 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Local Long Distance Calls


Coincidentally, following my posting of a few days ago about
intra-LATA calls being completed by IECs, there appeared in Saturday's
{NY Times} an ad ("legal notice") by "AT&T Communications of New York,
Inc", stating that they had filed a proposed tariff with the NYSPSC to
introduce 10ATT+0 calling on an intraLATA basis within the state of
New York, effective March 7, 1991.

The ad went on to say that they had filed a petition with the NYSPSC
seeking to amend their "Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity" to authorize them to provide that service on an intracity
basis within NY Tel's LATAs, and within those of other LECs throughout
the state.

Peter Capek

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #35
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06208;
          15 Jan 91 4:28 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07475;
          15 Jan 91 2:56 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05917;
          15 Jan 91 1:50 CST
Date:     Tue, 15 Jan 91 1:30:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #36
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Jan 91 01:30:02 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 36

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Nastiness Continues [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed [David Gast]
    Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Gordon C. Zaft]
    Re: Recording Phone Calls [Peter Marshall]
    Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Greg Montgomery]
    Re: Is Employee Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea [Jim Breen]
    Uniden GTS-4000 CMT Programming [Mark Earle]
    Re: Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act? [Brian McMahon]
    Re: Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terrorist Act? [Ken Donow]
    USA to UK Telco lLnk [Kevin Carney]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 0:30:59 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Nastiness Continues


The person who sent the mail-bomb several days ago to all the various
names gathered up from the Digest is continuing his vendetta by
forging postings to comp.dcom.telecom, adding the information
necessary to trick the backbone sites into accepting his traffic. This
is nothing new on the net: crackers and other malcontents have engaged
in this sort of abusive behavior for years. Maybe it gives them a high
of some sort to ruin or deface the work others are doing. But we have
been fortunate here in the past, with very little of this in the
telecom newsgroup.

If you have questions about the authenticity of messages in
comp.dcom.telecom you can check the header information. TELECOM Digest
will always show a line saying "sent by [e-mail]" or
"bu.edu". That line in the header is more difficult to defeat.


PAT

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 17:37:16 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed


The Moderator wrote:

> A large number of readers -- primarily those who had posted here in
> recent weeks -- were subjected to a 'bombing run' on Friday. The
> person simply collected up all the names and sites he could find, by
> copying the address information in messages here, and sent out a mass
> mailing.

> From time to time, the network is misused in this way, with anonymous
> postings and mass-mailings sent through other than the normal mailing
> list channels.

I find this posting rather curious because many of us have complained
in this forum and elsewhere about corporations buying and selling our
names and about information gathered for one purpose being used for
another purpose.  The Moderator has responded that by voluntarily
putting information in the public arena, we should not complain when
it is used.  He has noted that he has an unlisted telephone number and
a PO Box for an address.

Now it seems to me that we are not forced to post to the TELECOM
Digest, that we do so of our own free will and that by the logic
above, we should not complain when it is used by someone else.  Why
should junk mail or junk phone calls be considered acceptable
behavior, but junk e-mail messages be unacceptable behavior?  (Cost
considerations aside since we can debate all today over who subsidizes
whom).

In fact, I would argue that his action was less offensive than junk
mail or junk phone calls for the following reasons:

1) I have expressed some interest in telecom issues.  I have not, for
   example, expressed any interest in the {Mercury News}.  Yet I should be
   polite to the cretin that calls?

2) Neither the TELECOM Digest nor the sender of the messages recieved any
   renumeration for selling information about me and no commercial
   soliciation was done.

3) Only my name and e-mail address was used; there was no attempt to
   determine income, political affiliation, buying patterns, race, sex,
   or other demographic data.

4) The sender explicitly stated that anyone who did not wish to receive
   future mailings from him would be taken off the list.  (In fact, the
   entire list has ceased).  The {Mercury News}, for example, refuses to
   take names off its list even when explicitly requested to do so.


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


[Moderator's Note: Well, you raise some good points and I haven't much
argument with them except to note that on this net at least, I thought
there had always been an implied understanding that that sort of thing
was not acceptable. No such understanding or agreement exists with the
{Mercury News} that I know of. So it is not so much a matter of using
informaiton publicly available (which I still say is basically okay
even though I find a lot of it in bad taste myself) as it is violating
the so-called 'net etiquette' here.  PAT]

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

From: Gordon C Zaft <elroy!suned1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D?
Date: 13 Jan 91 08:05:53 GMT
Organization: NSWSES, Port Hueneme, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>Of the areas I have listed as having (now or later) N0X/N1X prefixes,
>215, as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by
>removing the 1+ from toll calls within it (i.e., change from 1+7D to
>just 7D).  I do understand (relying for now on the Digest) that 412

This isn't true.  We here in 805-land lost our 1+7D last year (this,
despite the fact that a number of calls in the local area go from GTE
to Pac*Bell and are toll calls.


Gordon Zaft                   |  [e-mail]
NSWSES, Code 4Y33             |  suned1![e-mail]
Port Hueneme, CA 93043-5007   |  Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]

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

Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 11:43:32 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service


Re: David Michels' 1/13 post; wonder if there's intentional linkage to
the recent discussion of workplace monitoring here? If so, what's the
relationship, and how to readers see any interplay between these
areas?

However, the Moderator contradicts himself in his reply to David -- he
is indeed correct that state laws vary on interception and recording,
but since some of these very state laws require prior consent of one
or all parties, it is not the case, therefore, that in blanket fashion
"merely notice is required."


Peter Marshall

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

Subject: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone
From: Greg Montgomery <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 10:06:10 EST
Organization: Montgomery Consultants, Inc.


I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I
am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and
I can hit a button to switch between lines. Radio Shack used to sell a
device that did this. It had two inputs for the phone lines, and one
for the telephone. You would hit a button to flip from line one to
line two and vice versa. However, they don't sell it anymore. Does
anyone know if anyone still sells one of these, or if they are pretty
easy to make, how to make one??

Also, I'm looking for reccomendations on two-line cordless phones.
Most of the places around just seem to sell an AT&T and Panasonic (I
can't think of the model numbers right now). The AT&T is in the
$170-180 range and the Panasonic is in the $140-160 range. If anyone
has any experience with either of these phones, or any other two-line
cordless phones, please let me know what you think of them.

Thanks,


Greg Montgomery | Montgomery Consultants, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: {rutgers,ogcise,gatech}!emory!turbo!greg

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 10:25:43 -0800
From: Peter Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?


Responding to MiKe Miller's 1/11 post and the Moderator's reply in
vol.11, #29; this issue may be an old one, but it's by no means stale,
and the overall climate surrounding it is both somewhat changed and
certainly not stale itself.  Somewhat contrary to the appearnce
suggested by the Moderator's initial reply, this is a not un-complex
question, and "answers" are not simply straight-forward.

Mr. Miller obviously has what is fundamentally a legal question here;
thus, would probably be best advised to do the legal research called
for or to consult competent legal counsel to get a "true answer, not
an opinion." Despite the qualifiers in the initial response Mr.
Miller's gotten here, he has indeed gotten himself "an opinion," of
course. E.g., it is "apparently" legal, and "I do not believe...."

Further, what "all telcos" do maybe rather irrelevant to Mr. Miller's
situation, and it is also important to point out that "performance"
monitoring (better called electronic workplace surveillance) does not
equate with *all*monitoring. One must also note the absence of any
sort of legal provisions in the original reply.

Relevant variables not noted so far might include whether the
workplace in question is unionized or not and the not-unimportant
question of whether the *callers* involved will have prior notice as
to monitoring of what by definition is also *their* communication. Mr.
Miller may also want to note, e.g., the CA PUC rules on such
monitoring, as an interesting example of legality and absence thereof,
and a recently released CWA-sponsored study that purportedly found
higher incidence of stress and stress-related illness in monitored
employees.


Peter Marshall

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

From: Jim Breen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Wanted in Papua New Guinea
Organization: Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 1991 22:16:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
writes:

> [quotes ad for PTC in PNG]

> and comments: It's interesting that the PNG Post and
> Telecommunication Corp.  is hiring people itself, rather than relying
> on the international consulting arm of a telephone company, such as
> Bell Canada International.]

I guess we are used to PTC doing its own thing. They advertise for
staff a lot in the press here, and a number of Australians have done a
stint there. Generally the network in PNG is in quite good shape;
certainly a lot better than many developing countries.

I am not surprised they don't use a consulting company. Those thing
cost MONEY, and as the biggest source of foreign money in PNG is aid
from Australia, they don't have an awful lot to splash on consultancies.


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: Sun, 13 Jan 91 11:26:14 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Uniden GTS-4000 CMT Programming


Wanted: Information/details on user programming on the Uniden GTS-4000
mobile cellular telephone. This phone is also sold in a "bag phone"
configuration. It has ONE NAM, and so to use service in another area I
need to easily field-program the unit (hopefully via the keypad with
no 'gizmos'). At the dealer, a "special" hanset (which looked an
awfully lot like a regular one!)  was plugged into the transceiver
module, indicating possibly my 'regular' handset simply needs a jumper
changed?

The phone works well, and compares favorably with phones I've used
from Motorola, Radio Shack, and others.

Also wanted: source of a jumper that appears to look like an RJ-11,
but has 10 contacts. This connects the cradle to the transceiver
module. They supplied a 20' cord, I need about a 6" in the
configuration I use; the excess right now is coild up, kinda ugly. No
one seems to have these cords in 1 @ quantity.


Thanks!

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

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

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 13:28:57 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ... Terrorist Act?


In TELECOM Digest V11 #30, our Moderator writes:

>Read and enjoy "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence". It is a
>fascinating book and explains lots of CIA dirty tricks.  The book was
>banned here in the USA, but now and then you can find a copy.  PAT]

Pat, this is rather old information.

Marchetti, Victor, and John D. Marks.  _The CIA and the Cult of
  Intelligence_.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974
  Library of Congress Number 74-4995
  ISBN: 0-394-48239

I doubt that it is still in print, since its content is now severely
dated, and many more recent treatments of the Agency are available.
But it is certainly not the sort of samizdat that the Moderator seems
to imply.  In fact, it was even included on a list of books about the
intelligence community compiled by CIA.  It certainly is a good
treatment of problems in the Agency in the days before the Church
Committee, but anyone looking for an expose of current Dirty Deeds
will be disappointed.

In some minds, though, CIA is already guilty of almost any crime
imaginable.


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

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 06:32:36 PST
From: cdp![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Recent Fiber Optic Break a Terroris


What are you trying to prove here?  The book was not/is not banned in
the US.  Unless you have concrete knowledge to the contrary, you have
an obligation to be very careful with this kind of claim, and the
point made in Randall's letter.  As you well know, fiber cuts are
common business and the account given by the teleco fits the facts of
the disruption as they were experienced by the people in the area.

Or maybe it was all a joke?


Ken Donow


[Moderator's Note: Well first of all, I did not say the CIA cut the
cable. I printed a message from someone who 'heard it second hand that
the cut was a terrorist act ...' Since his source was 'someone' in the
CIA I noted that the agency has been in the past accused of doing
things and then blaming (the covert, destructive acts) on 'black
radicals' or whoever we are supposed to hate at that time. Regards the
book, it was written and ready for publication. The CIA went to court
to block publication. The court upheld the CIA. It was appealed to a
higher court and the decision was to have the CIA approve what could
or could not be printed. The edition of the book circulating in the
USA has many empty pages and entire paragraphs left blank by the
authors deliberatly to show the extent of what they were forbidden to
write about. Interestingly enough, the *European version* of the same
book is 100 percent intact. So pick some word other than 'banned'
which you think is more appropriate.  PAT]

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

From: Kevin Carney <[e-mail]>
Subject: USA to UK Telco Link
Date: 14 Jan 91 05:39:22 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


To anybody who can help,

I am posting this question on behalf of my uncle.

My uncle lives near San Luis Obispo, California and has a Macintosh
Plus with the Hayes compatable modem sold by Apple.

His brother lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland and has an Atari ST
with a modem of an unknown type.

They would like to be able to transfer files between their two
computers (apparently there is a "Mac" board that fits in the Atari
and allows Mac software to be run).

This linkup isn't working. It doesn't matter from which direction the
connection is initiated, the symptom is the same. The machine which is
supposed to answer the phone does indeed answer the phone, but the
machine initiating the call never sees carrier detect.

I have heard that American modems and European modems operate by a
different set of rules, but i've never had any personal experience
attempting a telco link from the USA to Europe.

Is this true? Could the problem be that that neither modem will ever
see carrier detect since the other one will never respond in the
required way? If so, does there exist anything like an "international"
modem which can operate according to both sets of rules?


Kevin Carney   Amdahl Corporation    [e-mail]    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #36
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa09365;
          15 Jan 91 5:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25556;
          15 Jan 91 4:03 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07475;
          15 Jan 91 2:56 CST
Date:     Tue, 15 Jan 91 2:17:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #37
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Jan 91 02:17:21 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 37

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    CMT Ant-Rooftop vs Rubber Duckie [Mark Earle]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [George Goble]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Gregory M. Paris]
    A Child of the Information Age [Sean Williams]
    Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology [Peter Marshall]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Larry Rachman]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Bob Stratton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 18:50:11 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: CMT Ant-Rooftop vs Rubber Duckie


On several occasions, I've taken my Uniden GTS-4000 phone, and
temporarily installed it in my work vehicle. This is a Chevy 1/2 van,
with only front window and driver/passenger side windows. Otherwise,
all metal. The CMT sits on a wooden work bench about three inches off
the floor, with a "gain" rubber duckie (Radio Shack's $30 product,
about one foot long).

My 'normal' installation is a roof-mounted Antenna Specialist gain
antenna fed w/low loss coax. Supposedly the "best" set up, compared to
on glass antennas, antennas with RG-58 feedlines, etc.

Well-in PRACTICAL terms, the phone on it's rubber duckie works as well
as when on a "real" antenna. Typical: On I-37, I lose the "home"
carrier at mile marker 90 with the "real" and with the rubber duckie
it's at mile marker 88. Big deal! Similar observations at other
"boundaries". Note, this is not ONE cell -- I'm not in that contest
<grin> ... but only the point I lose "home" and have to use "roam"
facilities.

So, not much real difference. Note: this is on Southwestern Bell
Mobile Systems, the wireline carrier. I incur no "roam" daily charge,
but there is this 'penalty'. From 2000-0700 daily, plus all day
Sat/Sun/Holidays, I pay 0.00 as the airtime rate. Peak is .38/min.
BUT, when in ROAM, it's .38 24 hrs/day. So I try and be aware if I'm
in ROAM, to the point of not letting the phone switch automatically. I
want to KNOW when the higher evening rate is in force.

Well -- at least compared to Higdon et all, I seem to have a
reasonable rate.

I posted this briefly before, but for summary/completness:

Plan     Rates
$40/mo   .38 P .00 OP
$24/mo   .38 P .21 OP
$15/mo   .58 P .58 OP
$125/mo  .22 P .22 OP

Note: all but the $15/mo plan include call waiting, forwarding
(conditional and immediate) and three way conference calling.  Note:
three way conference calling, and answering the call waiting beep,
incur 2x the airtime rate (of course, on weekends, with the $40/mo
plan, 2x 0 still = 0)

Also offered are:
Mail Service 1 4.95/mo
  10 msgs/30 secs duration 72 hour retention
Mail Service 2 9.95/mo
  20 msgs/60 secs duration one week retention
Pager Alert Feature $2/mo
Incoming call restriction $5/mo
Outgoing call restriction $5/mo
Toll Restriction (no 1+)  $5/mo
Mr. Rescue                $2.50/mo (gas/jump start)
Detailed Billing Statement$2.50/mo (included in $125 and $40 plan "free")
911 and 611 (service)     Free
One time service activation fee $25

You are also billed as follows in some cases:

If you make an outgoing call, and let it ring for longer than thirty
seconds, you are nicked one minute airtime.

If you leave your phone on, and have no forwarding in effect, AND the
callee lets it ring more than thirty seconds, you are nicked one
minute even if you don't answer.

Follow Me Roaming works as expected. Folks calling a remote roam port
Always get nicked for the LD call, because there is a "enter the
mobile number you wish NOW voice prompt" so they'll get docked even if
you don't answer.

As above, you'll get nicked if in a roam city, the phone is on, and
the callee lets it ring more than thiry seconds.

Directory assistance: always billed at .40/call within SWB area. DA to
your LD carrier for calls outside SWB are between you and them (mine is
AT&T, .60/request). No "allowance". Airtime also applies if during Peak,
so a local DA call costs at least 78 cents. Makes one keep the pocket
minder up to date!

Conditional forwarding: after three rings, the caller gets a voice
announcement, "please wait, your call is being forwarded". The process
takes about one minute! You are NOT billed airtime for conditional
forwarding, nor for immediate forwarding, regardless of how long the
callee lets it ring.

Anyhow, that's most of the stuff I can think of for my particular
service.  Overall-it's great, much more flexible than the pager I used
to carry, and fairly priced. Now, if that 0.00 airtime was 24
hours !!!!!!!!! or if it was .05/min, or something like that.

My comments earlier regarding the "real" vs "rubber duckie" coverage,
are for calls made-not simply when the roam light or no service
are or are not on. I get indication of service about five miles before
it is actually useable; but once "there" it's dead solid, no static
or problems.


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


[Moderator's Note: Ameritech does not have bad rates at night, and I
am fortunatly grandfathered into a plan they no longer offer: Off peak
hours (9 PM to 7 AM plus all day Saturday and Sunday the rates are ten
cents for the *first three minutes* and ten cents per minute
thereafter. It is less expensive than any payphone I've seen. Of
course daytime rates under my (grandfathered) plan are 65 cents a
minute, but then I rarely use the phone during daytime hours; why
bother since I have oa phone on my desk in the office to use.   PAT]

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

From: George Goble <pur-ee![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 12:57:54 GMT


>[Moderator's Note: When I was visiting in Independence, KS this past
>summer I had my Radio Shack CT-301 with me. In most areas of town
            . . .
>Tulsa, OK -- sixty plus miles to the south!  Returning home on I-55,
>Ameritech only guarentees service when you get 'close to' Morris, IL,
>the southwestern-most point for Chicago area service. When HOME kicked
>in on my unit, a nearby highway sign said we were 70 miles from
>Morris. All that on a .6 watt handheld ...

Ameritech/Chicago is notorious for cranking up the xmitter power on
their "paging" (control) channels. (Mouth is bigger than their ears).
Running my Motorola in "maint" mode, to display received signal
strength, I approached Chicago from Lafayette, IN, coming up I-65 from
the south.  I received "usable" (i.e. phone goes "in service") signal
strengths 50 or 60 miles out from known cell sites.  However, one
could not initiate any calls until approx 25-30 miles away. These
cells are not "balanced".  The intense competition, where xmitter
power is "jacked up", to make your phone jump over to the B carrier
(even though not usable for service), just to keep your phone from
locking onto the A-carrier (for those whom leave "A or B" selected).

The second reason, is that Ameritech (Chicago) uses AT&T built RF
equipment which sucks (in receive) compared to Motorola RF equipment.
Motorola receivers do at least 10db better than AT&T I have noticed.
This is more of a difference than the .8W or 3W between portables or
transportables.

When returning to Lafayette, IN, one starts to receive GTE Mobilnet
about thirty miles out, and within one mile, the system is usable to
initiate calls also. Roger Reeves (Mobilnet Engineering) says Mobilnet
is very careful about balancing the cellsites and pointed out many
other carriers conduct "power wars" with their control channels to
"steal away" phones, and this results in large areas of "no service",
even though the phone is indicating "in service".


ghg


[Moderator's Note: I did not try actually making a call when I was
that far south of Morris, but in the case with Tulsa, I did speak with
the operator, provided I stayed on the second floor by the window.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 10:40:56 -0500
From: "Gregory M. Paris" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?


> [Moderator's Note: My question is why would there be such an extreme
> difference in output from the cell versus my output? What point is
> there in having the cell talking to a unit which can't get back to it?
> Wouldn't it make better sense to tone down the cell just a little so a
> more realistic range *in both directions* could be observed?  I've

The point is to keep customers' phones from roaming.  As long as a
cell phone is receiving the setup signal from its home system, it
won't roam (at least, not automatically).

A cynical person would say that cellular providers do this to make
more money, since it makes customers have to wait until they get in
range of their home system to make calls.

Being less cynical, perhaps there's good to this too.  Probably many
people don't want to pay roaming charges to another provider just
because they happen to be a bit out of range or in a dead spot.
Considering how outrageous such charges can be, one might say that the
home system is providing a valuable protection service by preventing
its customers from accidentally roaming.


Greg Paris <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Jan 14 23:18:09 EST 1991
Subject: A Child of the Information Age


Dear TELECOM Digest readers:

I'm a high school senior.  I am interested in getting a job in the
telecommunications field after I am through with school and college,
and I was wondering what course of study I should be persuing.  Of
course, being a product of the information age, I turn to my computer
for the answers.

Well, not actually the computer -- but the people linked to it.  Other
people are great sources of information, and this is why I am turning
to you.  I would like to hear your stories.  To know how you got
started.  Where did you go for your secondary education?  In your
opinion, what particular part of the telecommunications field should I
be trying to get into?  Does it matter?  I would like you to tell me
what you do, if you are working in a telecommunications job, and to
give me some advice if you are willing to do so.

I thank you all for your time, and hope that anyone who would like to
share their "lives" with me would please send a note to my mailbox.
Thanks in advance.  I look forward to hearing from some of you.


Sincerely,

Sean E. Williams    [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: Keeping the Faith in Technology
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 12:14:07 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service


To paraphrase Chris Johnson's earlier reply, it is indeed difficult to
sit by and let him remain unanswered.

For example: "straying from the topic of telecommunications, and into
the politics of technology"?  Is Mr. Johnson kidding? Or has he so
thoroughly failed to understand the comments he was responding to with
such energy? An "indictment of technologists"? Here too, I'm afraid
that weren't it either. And what a marvelous job of segregating off
the "business end of such organizations." That arbitrary exercise has
little to do with the phenomena in question here. See, for example,
David Noble's AMERICA BY DESIGN.

So-called "technological innovations" as Mr. Johnson uses the term,
seems to be more a label than anything else. Nor is his use of the
shopworn cliche that "they" are "only tools" worth much as yet another
example of the usual reductionism. Thus the old argument premised on
"use" by no means "makes all the difference."

The comments re: the telecom system go some further distance to beg
the relevant policy/political questions too. And although Mr. Jacobson
is no "luddite," granting Johnson's apparently shallow understanding
of this term, one fails to see how Mr. Johnson is contributing, n/w/s
his alleged intention, to focus the issues on "where the decisions
should be and presently are being made." I don't see as his assumption
that "societal effects are impossible to predict" helps him provide
this focus either.  Seems it goes in the opposite direction. Given his
interest in such "effects," he might find it useful to acquaint
himself with what was once called "Technology Assessment," which did
not share his assumption.


Peter Marshall

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

Date: 14 Jan 91 06:47:27 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted


In a recent issue of Telecom, Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
writes:

>I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole
>in the center of the bit.  I have needed one for refilling HP toner
>cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular
>phone.  I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores.

Call "The Bit Connection", at 719 S. Harbor, Fullerton, CA 92632,
714-680-3678. Their ad on page 56 of the December, 1990 issue of "Nuts
and Volts" magazine reads:

                          THE BIT THAT FITS
                             REMOVAL BITS
                     for TORX(r) Security Screws
                  Kit includes T10,T15,T20 and T25
                   Other Security Bits Available
                             Only $12.95
                            (CODs Welcome)

A friend of mine ordered these, and was quite happy with what he got.
(I, of course, would *never* have a need for such a thing :-).

(BTW, "Nuts & Volts" magazine is kind of interesting in its own right.
Its a pennysaver-type pub that deals in used and quasi-legitimate
electronics; kind of like a 'paper hamfest'. Contact # is 714-632-7721
(voice) 714-632-3041 (fax).


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 12:13 EST
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


>I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole
>in the center of the bit.  I have needed one for refilling HP toner
>cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular
>phone.  I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores.

Several models of cellphone seem to use these.  Fujitsu and OKI used
them, too.  All seemed to be the same size.  We would often just knock
out the center pin with a very small old chisel.

If you want the real thing, several of the suppliers to the cellular
dealers have them. ORA Electronics in CA (800-423-5337 or
800-431-8124) comes to mind ... they have a nice catalog of cellular
stuff and other electronics, too.  Since they are primarily
wholesalers, they like to deal with dealers, but are not too picky
about small orders.  I like their antennas, BTW.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. [e-mail]
[e-mail]  uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy

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

From: Bob Stratton <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 16:10:06 CST
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted


> I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole
> in the center of the bit.  I have needed one for refilling HP toner
> cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular
> phone.  I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores.

When I was looking for the same tools, I was given a great suggestion.
Go find the local "Snap-On" tool man in your area. These guys drive
around in big Ford Step-Vans, and sell tools to gas stations/garages/etc.
They tend to be pricey, but they have every tool known to man and God,
and will guarantee them for life. They carry entire Torx sets (weren't
they invented by Ford for automated assembly of autos?), and will sell
you individual tools too. You may also find a company called "Matco"
that works in the same manner.


Bob Stratton        | [e-mail]       [Internet]
Stratton Systems Design    | dsc3rjs@vmnmdsc        [BITNET,only if you must]
            | +1 703 823 MIND        [PSTNet]
Disclaimer: The above opinions are mine alone - Who else would want them?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #37
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14822;
          16 Jan 91 0:10 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa10902;
          15 Jan 91 22:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20103;
          15 Jan 91 21:15 CST
Date:     Tue, 15 Jan 91 21:11:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #38
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Jan 91 21:11:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 38

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ring Director Comments [Jack Winslade]
    Can't Receive Collect Calls on Rotary Dial Phone [Harvey Newstrom]
    Re: BBS Decision in Texas [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Chuck Bennett]
    Expanded New Castle County Calling Areas (Delaware) [Carl Moore]
    Packet Info From Germany, a Followup [Dean Riddlebarger]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 13 Jan 91 23:14:56 PDT
From: Jack Winslade <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ring Director Comments
Reply-to: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha, Ne. 402-896-3537


I know I have made these comments to some in private mail, but I'll
comment here since they seem to be coming up again and again.

I have used the Ring Director (four line version) from Lynx Automation
for several months without any problem.  It's on a 5 ESS office with
the Selective Ringing <tm> and it quickly switches upon a valid ring
code and does not false.

It does have an exclusion switch.  If this is off, any device going
off hook will 'step on' an existing connection.  If this is on, a
connection on any one line will lock out all others, except for what
appears to be a volt or so of battery.

One thing I thought of checking for but did not was to see how it
operates on a PBX.  I use it on a normal Selective Ringing line with
the normal two on, four off cadence.  On the PBX at work, (S/85) we
have a 1 on, two off cadence with normal ringing for on-campus calls,
two short for outside calls, and short- short-long for priority calls.
I guess I should take it in and see what it does there.

Hello Direct lists only the two-line box.  I phoned Lynx directly and
ordered the four-line one.

As an aside, for a while, I was actually able to use two modems, a HST
Dual and an older silver Hayes 1200 on two separate ring codes simply
by connecting them in parallel to the jack.  At the time, the HST
counted the two short as two rings, and the Hayes counted it as one.
I set the S0 register of the Hayes to three and the S0 of the HST to
four.  Normal ringing would cause the Hayes to pick up on three while
the HST waited for the fourth.  Two short would cause the HST to pick
up on the second burst of two rings while the Hayes waited for the
third.  The only major problem was that if I was on the 1200 and the
HST would grabe the line and attempt to dial out, it would generate
all kinds of line trash.  This 'feature' disappeared when the HST was
upgraded to V.42, and it now responds like the Hayes, showing each
burst of two short as one ring.


Good Day!        JSW

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

From: [e-mail] (Harvey Newstrom)
Subject: Can't Receive Collect Calls on Rotary Dial Phone
Date: 14 Jan 91 16:08:02 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Harvey Newstrom)
Organization: Harris Electronic Systems


Help!  A friend of mine had a bizarre experience trying to make a
collect call from an AT&T pay phone to an AT&T home phone, both here
in Florida.

The phone rings at home, and a recorded message says:

   "You have a collect call from an <.....>.
    Press one to accept the charges.
    Press to to deny the charges."

The phone is a rotary dial and has no buttons.  The woman at home
dials "0" and gets an operator.  She describes the situation, and the
AT&T operator could not tell her how to accept calls.  She suggested
that the woman subscribe to touch-tone dialing.

Meanwhile, my friend at the pay phone gets a recording saying that the
charges were denied.  She immediately called home with money and asked
her mother why she refused a call from her!

Any idea how to accept collect calls from a rotary phone?  And a
rhetorical question: Why couldn't the AT&T operator help?


Harvey Newstrom   ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: Well *supposedly* rotary phone accounts are listed
in the data base as such, and touch tone accounts as such. I know that
when making outgoing calls billed to calling cards, after the tone
signal we interpret to mean 'enter your card number now', if you are
on a rotary dial phone the AT&T operator will come on the line and
take the card number. If you are at a tone phone and simply do not
enter the card, she will likewise come on, but it has to time out
first. I think on incoming collect calls or bill to third number calls
where the (proposed to be) billed party is expected to press something
the same rule applies: for rotary, within a second or two the operator
will intercept it, otherwise lack of pressing something will
eventually time out to the operator anyway. It sounds like something
went wrong in the case you describe.   PAT]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: BBS Decision in Texas
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1991 22:38:00 GMT


Let's compare this with our esteemed Moderator's conecpts of what
constitutes a "business":

> Systems ("BBS") that are located at residence locations that do not
> solicit, require, or receive monetary compensation

So far, so good. Pat has made this point in the past.

> and that use three or fewer local exchange access lines

Whoops. Oh well, 1 out of 2 ain't bad.

> at residential rates may publish their name, telephone number and
> technical information in a listing of BBSs by location or subject
> matter.

Oops, make that 1 out of 3.

> This has been a long fight.  The settlement is not what any of the
> parties would consider perfect.

Definitely. COSUARD caved in under pressure, it seems, rather than
stand up for reasonable restrictions. The rules that came out of this
are purely ad-hoc and while they cover the majority of current BBSes
they provide absolutely no basis for future developments simply
because they are grounded in expediency instead of logical resoning
from first principles.

In passing, and at the risk of being overly political, this is typical
of bureaucratic regulations passed at the urgings of special interest
groups, no matter how well-intended.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 09:34 EST
From: "Chuck Bennett [phone]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted


Bill Nickless <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole
> in the center of the bit.  I have needed one for refilling HP toner
> cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular
> phone.  I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores.

Tamper-resistant Torx bits can be obtained from:

    Jensen Tools, Inc.
    7815 South 46th Street
    Phoenix, AZ  85044-5399
    602-968-6231
    602-438-1690 (FAX, 24 hours)

I have no affiliation.  But, I do have a set of their Torx bits!!


Chuck Bennett
University of North Carolina

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 9:49:37 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expanded New Castle County Calling Areas (Delaware)


Area Code 302:

I have examined the new calling areas in the Wilmington (Delaware)
call guide.  The New Castle County exchange areas are Holly Oak,
Wilmington (this includes the Newport exchanges), Hockessin, Newark,
New Castle, Delaware City, and Middletown (NOT included is Smyrna, in
Kent County but also serving the extreme southern fringe of New Castle
County).  The New Castle County exchange areas are now all local to
one another.  In other words, there is no change in the Newark calling
area; and the calling areas for New Castle and Delaware City are now
the same.  Local calls from the New Castle County exchange areas to
points outside are not affected; they are:

 From Newark to Kemblesville and Landenberg (both Pa.)
 From Hockessin to West Grove, Kemblesville, Landenberg, Avondale,
     Kennett Square, Mendenhall (all Pa.)
 From Wilmington to Landenberg, Avondale, Kennett Square, Mendenhall,
     Chester Heights (all Pa.)
 From Holly Oak to Chester Heights, Marcus Hook, Chester, Woodlyn (all Pa.)
 From Middletown to Warwick (Md.) and Smyrna (Del.)
(none from New Castle and Delaware City)

I assume similar plans are in effect in Kent and Sussex counties.
Delaware still has 1+7D for toll calls within it, and customers were
reminded to drop the 1+ for newly-added local points within Delaware
(besides re-examining any foreign-exchange service).

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

From: Dean Riddlebarger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Packet Info From Germany, a Followup
Organization: Truevision Inc., Indianapolis, IN
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 16:12:47 GMT


Last week I posted a request for information on packet level gateways
between Germany and the U.S.  Here is the information I've received
thus far.  It looks like such connections should be fairly straight-
forward as long as one is proficient enough to deal with the telecom
authorities in Germany [my coworker tells me that it's easy to deal
with said bureaucracy as long as you express a sincere willingness to
use copious amounts of C4 on the local office...:-)].

I suppose that this info has also spawned a need for one followup
item: Is it possible to get information on PC Pursuit [or other such
services] via the net, or must I grope around for an 800 number?

Anyhow, thanks to all who responded.


dean


[Moderator's Note: Information about PC Pursuit can be obtained two
ways: 1-800-TELENET will connect you with their sales and marketing
staff. Or, dial into your local Telenet node then  @c pursuit to
connect with the Net Exchange, the informational BBS operated for
subscribers of PC Pursuit. (The BBS is free.)  PC Pursuit is $30 per
month and a real bargain.  PAT]


[Attachment]

There is indeed dial-in X.25 service in Germany, and their network
does talk to Tymnet.  Here's a help file from MCI Mail, which uses
Tymnet for their international access, explaining how to get in from
Germany.  I expect you can figure out what parts are about X.25 and
what parts are MCI specific.


Regards,

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

          Updated 9/89

                                       GERMANY
                                       DATEX-P


          CONTACT FOR SUBSCRIPTION TO PACKET SWITCHING SERVICE:

          Datex-P Network
          Deutsche Bundespost FTZ T21
          Fermeldetechnisches Zentralamt
          Beratungsstelle Dateldienste
          Post Box 5000
          6100 Darmstadt, Federal Republic of Germany
          Tel: [phone]
          Telex: (841) 419511  A/B: 419511A FTZ D

          Trouble Reporting - Tel: number above from 0800-1700 local time
          M-F, Telex: number above, Fax: [phone]


          DIAL-UP ACCESS VIA PSTN: (300 and 1200 bps access available)

          DATEX-P has an extremely complicated fee structure.
          All charges in Deutsche Marks (DM) and Pfennig (Pf)
          (Note: 100 Pf = 1 DM)

          NUI Charge:                         DM 15 for 1, DM 5 ea. add'l
          Telephone call charge:              Pf 23 per Call Charge unit*

          *The length of a Call Charge unit varies:
          Mon-Fri 0800-1800              1 unit = local call 8 minutes.
          From outside, dep. on dist.    1 unit = either 60, 20 or 15 sec.

          Sat., Sun., Nights & Holidays  1 unit = local call 12 minutes.
          From outside, dep. on dist.    1 unit = either 120 or 38.5 sec.

          Access Charge:                      Pf  4  /minute at 300 BPS
                                              Pf  5  /minute at 1200 BPS
          Connect Time Charge:                Pf 15  /minute
          Volume Charge:                      Pf  1.3/segment
          Connection surcharge:               Pf  5  /call
          PAD Charge:                         Pf  6  /minute


          ACCESS NUMBERS:

          CITY          PREFIX        300 BPS     1200 BPS     1200/75 BPS

          Augsburg      0821           36791       36781          36761
          Berlin        030            240001      240081         240061
          Bielefeld     0521           59011       59021          59041
          Bremen        0421           170131      14291          15077
          Dortmund      0231           57011       52011          52081
          Duesseldorf   0211           329318      329249         320748
          Essen         0201           787051      791021         793003
          Frankfurt     069            20281       20291          20201
          Hamburg       040            441231      441261         441281
          Hannover      0511           326651      327481         327591
          Karlsruhe     0721           60241       60381          60581
          Koeln         0221           2911        2931           2951
          Mannheim      0621           409085      39941          39951
          Muenchen      089            228730      228630         228758
          Nurenberg     0911           20571       20541          20501
          Saarbruecken  0681           810011      810031         810061
          Stuttgart     0711           299171      299061         299291


          LOG-ON PROCEDURE:

          1. Dial telephone number provided by the Deutsche Bundespost
          (DBP) for your appropriate speed.

          2. Upon receipt of high pitched tone, switch modem to data mode
          or place handset into acoustic coupler (depending on your
          equipment).

          3. Enter a period (.) and a carriage return (CR). DATEX-P will
          identify itself with the port address, and will wait for your
          call request.

                  DATEX-P:XXXXXXXXX

          You can now change from German network messages to English by
          typing: language english (CR)

          4. DATEX-P will respond with three carriage returns. Enter the
          letters NUI, a space, your user name provided by DBP, and press
          RETURN. System will respond with:

                  DATEX-P: Password

          5. Enter the password issued by DBP, and press RETURN. System
          will respond with:

                  DATEX-P: (your user name) active

          6. Enter 03104004759 and press RETURN. System will respond with:
                  DATEX-P: call connected to 3104004759

                  P3
                  HOST IS ON LINE

                  Port: 3.

                  Please enter your user name:
                  Password:

          7. Now enter your MCI Mail user name and password and press
          RETURN after each entry.

          8. Once you leave MCI Mail by typing EXIT, type NUI OFF to be
          sure that your DATEX-P account is closed.

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

 From: Manwai Yip  <epicb!uunet!uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu!bt455s01>

Yes, your associate in Germany may use Germany's Datex-P network to
connect with a dialout modem in the US in order to call your company's
central server.

Your associate will have to contact the Bundepost in Germany and get
what's called a Network User Identification.  A NUI is basically a
billing account on Datex-P.  Your associate would call a Datex-P
dial-in in Germany and logon to the network with his NUI.  Any calls
he makes will be billed to him via the NUI information.

The Datex-P is connected with Tymnet and Telenet in the USA (among
other nets, Telenet and Tymnet being the main ones).  Telenet, as you
may know has an out-dial service called PC Pursuit.  After getting a
NUI, your associate in Germany can use the dialout modems that are
part of the PC Pursuit service without having to subscribe to PC
Pursuit.  He can directly access the modems, and the connect charges
will be billed to his NUI.

For instance, to reach the dialout modem in Houston, TX, your
associate in Germany would access NUA 0311071300024.  NUA stands for
Network User Address, and is sort of the "telephone number" on the
nets.  0311071300024 is the NUA for Houston's PC Pursuit dialout modem
(2400 bps).

Tell me which city you need the NUA for and I can get it for you.
That is, if that city has PC Pursuit access.


[e-mail]


Dean Riddlebarger    Truevision, Inc.   [317] 841-0332
[e-mail]      uunet!epicb!dean

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #38
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17190;
          16 Jan 91 2:04 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21531;
          16 Jan 91 0:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03111;
          15 Jan 91 23:22 CST
Date:     Tue, 15 Jan 91 22:26:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #39
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Jan 91 22:26:37 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 39

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc. [Dale Neiburg via John R. Covert]
    CA Touchtone Surcharge [Ken Jongsma]
    CA Area Code Changes [Ken Jongsma]
    Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Ron Heiby]
    Re: Calls To and From Japan [Rop Gonggrijp]
    Re: Recording Phone Calls [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Alex Darren Griffiths]
    More on AT&T / MCI Advertising [Lou Judice]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 13:08:00 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Answer Supervision on Cellular Roam Ports
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

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

>When roaming in a foreign system:

>> Since cellular is provided through DID or some other method whereby
>> the cellular switch appears as the "end office," why can't the
>> supervision be done based on when the call is actually answered?

>However, according to the postings (and this is quite hazy, so please
>DO correct me here), AT&T installed a new system in their 4ESS(?)
>toll-switches, which didn't allow for the CALLED party (ie, the roam
>port) to hear the calling party (ie, the person entering the touch
>tones) UNTIL supervision was returned.  That is so say, TWO-way
>conversations commenced AFTER supervision, not before, as had been the
>case. You could still hear the party you were calling, but they
>couldn't hear you until their end sent out a supervision "wink" (or
>whatever).  I don't recall any stated outstanding reason for this,
>although a few were presented.

Yes, this makes perfect sense.  So, the big question is, why did AT&T
decide to change this?  There must have been some fraud going on
somewhere, I suppose.  But, as I understand it, a DID customer can get
in big trouble for doing bad things with supervision.  You would think
that it would be easier to go after the few people abusing the system
than to change their toll network.  And I'm sure that this would be
one issue where AT&T would have the full cooperation of the local
telco.

Didn't AT&T think that this new setup may be a problem to someone?
Imagine what would happen if the local telcos did the same thing.
Suddenly, no long distance carrier's calling card services would work,
as they normally don't supervise until the actual call is answered.
Surely, AT&T wouldn't like to have to change THEIR system because of a
local telco change, but it's okay to force the cellular carriers to do
just that.  I'm really surprised that this is coming from AT&T - it
just smacks of something one of the "other guys" would do, doesn't it?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 14:21:59 PST
From: "John R. Covert  14-Jan-1991 1723" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Service Outages, Fiber, etc.


  From: Dale Neiburg, NPR Engineering
  Date: 14 January 1991, 14:40 EST

On 10 January, John Stanley wrote:

>   Tuesday evening, about 4:10, the local PBS station lost the feed
>for a program called "Fresh Air". After a few minutes, they came back,
>using a poor quality phone feed.

>   At the end of the show, we were told that the problem was caused by
>a break in a fiber cable between New York and Philly. I don't know if
>they get the feed in real time, but would guess that they must if they
>put up with the poor feed just to carry the show.

>   YACC (Yet Another Cable Cut)?

First of all, FRESH AIR isn't on PBS, but rather on NPR.  PBS does
television.  NPR does radio.  Radio is very much like television, only
the pictures are better.

In fact, I was working in satellite control when the failure occurred,
so was one of the mini-throng trying to get service back up.
According to the best information we have, the problem wasn't a cable
cut but a failure in the telco office serving the fiber-optic carrier
that delivers the program from the producing station in Philadelphia
to the satellite uplink in Washington.

I didn't think the phone feed was so bad.  The hum was AT LEAST 8 dB
below signal ;).

Disclaimer: I keep NPR on the air; I don't speak for them.


Dale Neiburg    Vox: 202-822-2402


[Moderator's Note: And let me tell you, Mr. Neiburg, I don't know what
we would do in this household without NPR, via WBEZ.  When Mr. Covert
first began passing along messages from folks at NPR to the Digest,
some of them were *so good* I questioned him thinking the messages had
actually been radio commentaries. (I did not want to use them and
violate copyright.) Most of NPR's stuff is excellent, and when you are
trying to raise a small child as we are here, NPR fills a big void in
a home where the television is deliberatly kept unplugged.   PAT]

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

Subject: CA Touchtone Surcharge
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 20:13:44 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


John Higdon and others from CA have been commenting about the pending
removal of touch tone charges from their bills. The following
statement appeared in my GTE bill:

  Effective Feb 1, tone calling will be available to all GTE CA
  customers.

  Effective Feb 1, all billing for tone calling will cease.

  Effective June 1, local calling will extend from the current
  8 miles, to 12 miles.

So far, so good. Now the killer:

  The CPUC has authorized GTE to increase local service 4.74% on
  Feb 1, to compensate for lost revenue.

  The CPUC has authorized GTE to increase local service an additional
  6.37% on June 1, to compensate for the extended local calling area.

  For reasons not specified in the flier, local rates will increase
  on Oct 1 an additional 2.45% for local services.

Bottom line: GTE rates are going up 11% to compensate for the loss of
revenue. You didn't really think you were getting something for
nothing, did you?

Can't wait to see how Pac Bell handles this.


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

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

Subject: CA Area Code Changes
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 20:19:26 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


As previously reported in the Digest, there are several new CA Area
Codes coming up. Here are the implementation dates:

  Sep 2, 1991    Alemeda & Contra Costa Country get 510
  Jan 27, 1992   Permissive dialing ceases

  Nov 2, 1991    Los Angeles adds 310
                 All GTE 213 number move to 310 plus some Pac Bell
  May 3, 1992    Permissive dialing ceases

  Jan 1993       714 splits into 714 & 909
                 Details being formulated


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

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

From: Ron Heiby <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness
Date: 15 Jan 91 00:04:32 GMT
Organization: Motorola Computer Group, Schaumburg, IL


When I got my Universal "welcome" packet, the brochure strongly
implied that only AT&T would recognize the calling card number
associated with the card.  I had the opposite reaction to that of
Johnny Zweig.  I thought, "goody!  Now I won't accidentally get ripped
off by some AOS!"  Just in case, I called the 800 number on the card
to make sure I was reading it right.  The person at the other end was
very friendly (as on the other two times I've called them), but
wouldn't commit to the number being good *only* for AT&T.  She
maintained that it was still my responsibility to listen for the
"AT&T" identification and/or use the 1-0-ATT prefix.  Can anyone
confirm that the Universal card's calling card number is valid *only*
for AT&T service?

[e-mail] (Jim Celoni) writes:

>A caveat about the Universal Card: the magnetic stripe has the credit
>card number, not calling card number, so if you swipe it into a public
>phone, your credit card will be billed *by whatever carrier the phone
>wants to use*, and even if it's AT&T you won't get the 10% off.

I don't think that this is accurate.  I believe that the stripe
contains both numbers on it.  I believe this because when traveling
last week I decided to test the theory that both numbers were there by
inserting it into an AT&T hotel lobby calling card phone.  (Pretty
nifty phone.  Black.  "data" port for a modem.  LCD alphanumeric
display.  card slot.)  I inserted my card and it asked me for my PIN,
just like for a normal calling card.  I don't think it would ask for a
PIN if I had used a regular MC/VISA card.  I called the Universal
folks to ask them about it.  They were very nice, misunderstood my
question, but their answer was informative.  They told me that many
public phones were not yet programmed to know about the Universal
card, and for those it would be important to key the number in
manually.  Of course, they also reminded me to listen for "AT&T".


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

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

From: Rop Gonggrijp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Calls To and From Japan
Date: 15 Jan 91 06:59:39 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic


[e-mail] (David Gast) writes:

>Whenever I call Japan, I cannot help but notice the poor quality on
>the line.  It does not seem to matter if I am calling via AT&T, MCI,
>or Sprint except that Sprint cut me off.  (Past tense on purpose).

Well, maybe it is about time that you stop taking the route that they
give you (being the lousiest they can get away with) and start routing
your own calls through the network.


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]) is also editor of  Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.)
Postbus 22953    (in DUTCH)    1100 DL  AMSTERDAM    tel: [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 14:18:13 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls
Organization: University of California, Berkeley

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

>It used to be, when answering machines were first becoming popular,
>that the conversation recording feature always put out a tone every
>few seconds. Not anymore, now many of them seem to provide silent
>recording. Have the laws or just ethics changed?

>Is recording of telephone conversations legal, or is it required to
>notify all participants involved before-hand? I would assume recording
>for 'personal use' is legal, just as it is legal to record TV shows
>and copy software. But that's just a hunch, anybody know the real
>answer or how to find out??

Here's what the Pacific Bell White Pages have to say about the
subject:

"Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to
be recorded, one of the following conditions must be met:

"1.  All parties being recorded must give their prior consent to being
recorded; or,

"2.  All parties being recorded must hear a 'beep' tone approximately every
15 seconds.

"Exemptions to these provisions apply to commercial broadcasting
purposes when the person being recorded has been informed."

The two rules seem very common-sense to me.  I have on several
occasions recorded conversations between my and merchants when there
has been a dispute or I expect there to be one.  In particular, calls
to the Business Office for local service changes to my phones get
recorded.  Since my service orders tend to be more complicated than
most that the Residence office deals with, they have the tendency to
be messed up.  This way, I can establish without question just who's
mistake it was.

By the way, I use my Panasonic KT-T1427 answering machine to record.
It generates the fifteen second tone automatically.  A couple of times
I've had people ask me "what kind of phone are you calling from?"
When I mention that the tone indicates that the call is being
recorded, the person on the other end without exception has been
surprised and didn't know what the tone meant.  I tell them that it is
being done for my protection so that I can establish without question
exactly what I have requested.  For the people that don't say
anything, I don't know if they are aware of what it means, or just
ignore it.

Once I had a rep deny permission after I explained the purpose of the
tone.  I then turned off the recorder.  This was about ten minutes
into the conversation, so I asked her why she didn't speak up at the
beginning.  She said that she had "no way of knowing what the tone was
for."  I didn't go into it further, but are there really that many
people that don't know what a tone at regular intervals during a
telephone calls means?  I explained that I had met my obligation under
the tariff to provide notice, but seemed to be beside the point.

Note that mostly, it is not worth my while to record.  Only when a
mistake in the order, such as a change in long distance carriers, will
cost me a lot in terms of money or hassle to correct do I find it
worth the effoct.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 13:38:29 PST
From: Alex Darren Griffiths <pge!speedo![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls


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

>A friend of mine, who does military security work, said this is the
>result of calling a non-secure phone from the government's secure
>phone system and trying to initiate a secure call.  When making a
>secure call on this system, one first makes an ordinary phone call --
>over any network, FTS, AT&T, or whoever.  When the other end has been
>reached, one presses the `secure' button.

I worked in the office next to Cliff at Lawrence Berkeley Labs for a
year or so, including part of the time documented in the book "The
Cookoo's Egg".  While Lawrence Livermore Labs is crawling with spooks,
special phones and phone networks I can assure you that nothing like
that existed at LBL.  Both Cliff and I simply had the standard PacBell
phones everyone at the lab was issued and the standard government
issue FTS lines.  The FTS lines were publicised as a cost saving
measure for calls between labs, we certainly didn't know of any
encryption on the lines and neither of us had anything like a secure
button, in fact the only security we had came from shutting the office
door when talking to our girlfriends (I, for one, didn't care who
listened when speaking to slimy spooks and I don't believe Cliff did
either).

I suspect that any calls back to the lab were made so the spooks could
be sure of the person they were talking to.  They already had Cliff's
number and it's unlikely someone would sneek into his office and
pretend to be him, although considering the security at LBL it would
not be to difficult.

After Cliff left the lab for a year or so I did here that there was a
"special" phone somewhere, but I've no idea where it is at the lab or
what makes it special.

Cheers,

darren griffiths
[e-mail]  (I know the address is gross but I only
design networks now, I don't run them, thank god, so don't blame me.)

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 10:29:39 PST
From: Peripheral Visionary 14-Jan-1991 1326 <[e-mail]>
Subject: More on AT&T / MCI Advertising


Any one catch the very clever new MCI advertisements this weekend?

To the music of pomp and circumstance they point out that AT&T was
"awarded" a golden turkey prize by the {San Francisco Examiner} for
one of the ten worst advertising campaigns of 1990.

Then they point out that "this message was brought to you by MCI,
which is pleased to be able to give wider publicity to this award".

ljj


[Moderator's Note: MCI ran the same ad in several newspapers last
weekend including the {Chicago Sunday Tribune}.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #39
*****************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20050;
          16 Jan 91 3:09 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12157;
          16 Jan 91 1:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21531;
          16 Jan 91 0:28 CST
Date:     Tue, 15 Jan 91 23:41:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #40
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 15 Jan 91 23:41:07 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 40

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Dial 900 Reverse Directory Assistance [Carl Wright]
    Concerted Action [Will Martin]
    Resale of Multi-Location Wats Discount [Jody Kravitz]
    Estonia Joins Nordic Mobile Phone System [Morten Reistad]
    Detecting the End of an Incoming Call [Andrew B. Morley]
    Call Recording in the UK [Andrew B. Morley]
    804 Area Still 1+7D (Toll Within NPA) [Carl Moore]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [John Higdon]
    Re: CMT Ant-Rooftop vs Rubber Duckie [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [John Higdon]
    Re: ... Terrorist Act? [Sam Cramer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dial 900 Reverse Directory Assistance
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 06:02:03 GMT


I don't know which company Compuserve is using for their Phone Number
lookup service, but the following is most of the text of a brochure I
have gotten.

" Introducing Nationwide Reverse Directory Assistance from
  TELENAME 1-900-884-1212 Reverse Directory Assistance

  YOU provide our Operators with an area code and telephone number

  WE respond with the listed name and address!

  A charge of $1.50 for the first minute, 75 cents for each subsequent minute

  Unlimited inquiries per call

  80 million listings, excluding "unlisted" phones.

  No refund if a listing is not provided."  <END OF QUOTE>

Based on other information I got, I believe the database also includes
businesses with residential information.

This is a service of Times Journal Company. If you are interested in
doing this kind of look up with larger groups of data, call them at
1-800-523-7346. They are located in Springfield, VA.

I haven't tried it yet myself, but I'll let you know what I get when I
do.


Carl Wright                  | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]     | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST    | Ann Arbor, MI 48105


[Moderator's Note: When I tried them just now  (2335 hours, Tuesday)
they did not answer. Maybe it is a daytime only service. One should be
able to rapidly get four or five numbers identified in a minute on
line with them. It might be worth the money.   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 14:07:28 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Concerted Action


What would happen if everyone (in the US, in North America, on the
planet -- pick your favorite range) picked up the phone at the same
instant and tried to make a *local* call?  (Yes, anyone who got
dialtone would also get a busy because the phone they called would
also be offhook, but aside from that ...) I say local because we have
seen good examples already of LD networks getting overloaded.  I know
earthquake areas have had occasions approaching this because the quake
jolts handsets off the phones, plus then everybody who can reach a
phone tries to call somebody.  But I think it would certainly be more
interesting if it was a concerted human effort.

Pick a time, say 12 noon Eastern on 30 Jan, and everyone in the US,
across all the time zones, picks up their phones at that same moment.
Would any actual damage result?  Would CO power supplies blow, would
the batteries drain to unrechargeable levels, or would some other
components destruct?  Or would the US phone system just immediately
drop to the performance level of some third world area where it takes
hours to get dialtone?  In the latter case, how long would it take to
recover?  If everyone hangs up at 12:05, would things immediately
return to normal, or would the software on all ESS-type COs have
crashed during that instant?

If it was harmless, maybe we could start a movement to do this,
perhaps a "Protest the phone system breakup" effort.  I'm sure DJs on
radio stations would cooperate in publicizing it -- they tend to
encourage stuff like this on their own anyway.

(I'm sure somebody reading this is all outraged and ready to send in a
strongly-worded protest about the poor souls who need to call 911 at
that instant and won't be able to. Don't bother; we've heard it all
before. We all know this is just blowing smoke anyway and it'll never
happen. [If it does, it *would* be a good time to rob a bank ...] :-)


Idly speculating,

Will


[Moderator's Note: What kind of sense does it make to encourage a
protest of 'the breakup of the phone system' by committing acts which
at the very least would degrade the system temporarily and in the
worst case scenario possibly cause some harm?  Most radio station DJs,
like a few newspaper reporters I could name should be grateful the
First Amendment allows them to speak and publish nonsense. If you wish
to protest the continuing decay of the phone system in the USA, then
talk to Congress about re-writing the laws to work around Judge Greene
to whatever extent possible. Try to get the old gentleman off the
bench before he delivers himself of another incredulous judgment. But
why even consider something to hassle the telco? I can assure you many
of them don't like the current state of affairs either.  PAT]

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

From: foxtail![e-mail]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 02:27:42 PST
Subject: Resale of Multi-Location Wats Discount


My wife owns a small business and as a consequence we are members of
the local Chamber of Commerce.  This month's newsletter carried an
article about "fantastic discounts on long distance service from
AT&T".  The article referred to "AT&T United Wats" and gave the same
800 number three times at various points in the article, almost as if it
was an audio announcement.

I called the 800 number.  It was not AT&T.  A voice-mail system
announced the name of a "marketing" company, took my name and number,
and a salesman called me back.  The salesman said "I'm from the AT&T
United Wats program."  "Are you from AT&T I asked?"  "I'm from the
AT&T United Wats program."  I later extracted the name of his company
from him, though reluctantly.

He claims to have a "National Contract with AT&T" to market
multi-location Wats discounts.  Apparently, they send your phone
number to AT&T, and you get a discount off whatever AT&T business plan
you are currently on (Interstate only).  They, in turn, get some kind
of reporting of the discount you received and bill you back a portion
of the discount.  That's their profit.

Actually, the salesman had a much slicker way of saying it all,
emphasising the discount which is claimed to be reflected on your AT&T
bill as a "multi-location Wats discount".  The discount is claimed to
be 31% on a $100 bill.  Their fee was always quoted as being $10 for
bills between $100 and $250.  In fact, $10 is their minimum charge.
It apparently flattens out somewhat as your bill gets larger.

I'm concerned about several things.

First, contract or no contract, I'll bet they don't have the right to
represent themselves as AT&T.  I'm especially concerned about this
because of their apparent endorsement by with the Chamber of Commerce.

Second, if the plan is a legitimate way to get a larger discount, I'm
concerned about my privacy.  This company definitely gets a database
of the interstate calling volume of all its customers.  Perhaps they
even get a call detail.  They are not a common carrier.  Do I want my
business volume (and possibly clients, suppliers, etc) known to a
third party who is not bound by the same regulations a common carrier
is bound by ?

Am I being hyper-sensitive ?  Is this kind of thing commonly accepted
business practice (remember the implied Chamber of Commerce
endorsement) ?

If this generates any interest, I'm willing to post the article from
our Chamber's newsletter, as well as the brochure which they wrote the
article from.

Thanks,


Jody   Internet: foxtail![e-mail]   uucp: ucsd!foxtail!kravitz



[Moderator's Note: He probably had the right to claim *limited*
affiliation with AT&T for the purpose of his program only. And yes,
AT&T is still allowing aggregators (the official name for his type of
operation) to resell their service. But please do post the brochure
you received. It should lead to some interesting commentary here.  PAT]

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

Date: 15 Jan 91 15:45 +0100
From: Morten Reistad <[e-mail]>
Subject: Estonia Joins Nordic Mobile Phone System


{Computerworld Norge} issue #1/1991 reports that the Nordic mobile
phone system will expand to Estonia.  Already this month the first
calls will be made from Tallin, through an NMT-450 switch in Finland,
the paper says.

It says nothing about rates or numbering plans. Do I use +7 0142
XXXXXX to call them, and do the uniform nordic internal NMT-rates
apply ?  In that case it will actually be the cheapest way to call the
Soviet Union from here.


Morten Reistad

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

From: [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
Subject: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call
Date: 15 Jan 91 16:31:34 GMT


Does anyone know how I go about detecting the end of an *incoming*
call on an ordinary residential line?  I thought I once read that
the voltage changes or someting.  I am in the UK.


Andrew Morley -- --- [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
Subject: Call Recording in the UK
Date: 15 Jan 91 16:31:34 GMT


Earlier there was a discussion on recording calls.  I don't know about
the legality but as far as I know all answering machines which have a
call recording facility put bleeps in every fifteen seconds.

In the case of mine (a Panasonic) call recording doesn't work until
(in the words of the instruction manual) "it is enabled by pressing
PROG then # 2 2".  Then it works with a bleep.  As most of the
setting-up commands begin with a hash (eg # 4 n to set number of rings
before answer) I tried PROG # 2 1 and it now records without a bleep.

Prersumably it is cheaper for them to print a different manual
specially for the UK rather than having to produce a different product
for the UK and elsewhere where silent recording is permitted.


Andrew Morley -- --- [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 11:16:37 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 804 Area Still 1+7D (Toll Within NPA)


804 area still does not require area code on long distance within it.
But all the neighboring areas (301 in Md., 703 in Va., and 919 in NC)
do.  Perhaps 804 should eventually be changed for area-wide
uniformity?  (By around 1995, it will be necessary to accommodate area
codes of NXX form.)

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Date: 15 Jan 91 12:13:32 GMT
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: No Hills, No Cows, Tokyo JAPAN


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

>At 70 miles range, you may well be able
>to receive the setup channel which is transmitting at a hundred watts
>or more.

>[Moderator's Note: My question is why would there be such an extreme
>difference in output from the cell versus my output? What point is
>there in having the cell talking to a unit which can't get back to it?

None, and there isn't. While cell sites generally run more power than
a mobile, the whole point of cellular is the non-interference of
alternate or distant cells and running megapower from a site would
defeat that just as much a high power from a mobile. Dave is correct
when he points out that there are many times when you may have
indication of service when indeed you can't make a call, but there are
many reasons for that. The most common is that the mobile has a much
less efficient transmitter/antenna combination than the site, or that
it is a 0.6 watt handheld with no ground plane vs a well set up
vehicle installation.

Personal experience has been that my handheld frequently shows service
available but refuses to connect to a site, where my truck phone
almost always can make a call if service appears available, even in
the most out-of-the-way desert rural areas.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CMT Ant-Rooftop vs Rubber Duckie
Date: 15 Jan 91 13:05:45 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Well-in PRACTICAL terms, the phone on it's rubber duckie works as well
> as when on a "real" antenna. Typical: On I-37, I lose the "home"
> carrier at mile marker 90 with the "real" and with the rubber duckie
> it's at mile marker 88. Big deal! Similar observations at other
> "boundaries". Note, this is not ONE cell -- I'm not in that contest
> <grin> ... but only the point I lose "home" and have to use "roam"
> facilities.

I think Mark is saying that he gets switched from HOME to ROAM at
approximately the same point regardless of which antenna he's using.
Somehow, that is not surprising.  One switches from HOME to ROAM when
one's cellular telephone set discovers that it is closer to a cell
belonging to a system other than the one it considers to be its home
system.  That should happen at the same geographic location every
time, unless cells are being created or moved.  The fact that it
varies by a mile or two is probably the result of some granularity
introduced by the timing of the periodic locate interval in the mobile
unit.  I think they typically re-scan the setup channels and
re-determine which one is strongest every minute or two when they're
idle.

The mobile antenna choice probably affects overall signal strength,
and possibly the directionality of the coverage, but not the relative
strength of two neighboring carriers.


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 Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around?
Date: 15 Jan 91 11:53:45 GMT
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: No Hills, No Cows, Tokyo JAPAN


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (J. Eric Townsend) writes:

>And the rest of us have little choice.  UH has no real organizational
>level telecommunications policies.  Most departments still have the
>rotary *only*, department level switching units.

As does most of Japan. The first thing that caught my attention when
poking around with the phones here is that DTMF is the exception
rather than the rule. This comes as quite a shock after reading
glowing report after report of how the Japanese phone system is so
superior. The bulk of the NTT switching network is crossbar that has
had no DTMF capability added. Most PBXes, including the one at the
hotel where I am staying, wouldn't recognize a DTMF tone if it bit it
on the foot.

The usual instrument for customers is a push button "cute" phone of
domestic manufacture that pulses at 20 pps. The casual observer would
be led to believe that touch tone is common in Japan, when in reality
it is not. And those phones! The instuments are atrocious. They sound
bad, have a half-life of about six months and are worse than your
typical Time-Life special. In fact, the only DTMF other than on coin
phones (which are in many ways superior to those in the US) I have
seen so far is in the office where I am working. It is an American
operation and those in charge found the local instrument offerings so
bad that they (at great expense) brought "real" telephones over from
the US. Amusingly, among the equipment was a Panasonic KX-T616. The
phones the Japanese design and build for export are vastly superior to
what they foist upon the home folk.

While DTMF may be nearly universal in the US, it will be along time
before the rest of the world can say the same.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 09:58:14 PST
From: Sam Cramer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ... Terrorist Act?


I realize we may be getting a bit off the track here.  Nonetheless...

People who put stock in what Marchetti has to say may be interested in
knowing that he is an outspoken anti-semite.


Sam

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #40
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23461;
          16 Jan 91 4:18 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13093;
          16 Jan 91 2:44 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab12157;
          16 Jan 91 1:35 CST
Date:     Wed, 16 Jan 91 0:59:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #41
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 Jan 91 00:59:30 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 41

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Deadline! What Now? [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [John Nagle]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [James H. Thompson]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Bill Nickless]
    Re: A Child of the Information Age [Robert Jacobson]
    Re: USA to UK Telco Link [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available [Dire Wolf]
    Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"? [Carl Moore]
    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics? [Dire Wolf]
    How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Steve Shankman]
    Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Edwin D. Windes]
    Re: ISDN to DDN, How? [Douglas Coffland]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 23:54:49 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Deadline! What Now?


So the Deadline we've all been waiting for has come and gone as of a
couple hours ago ... I am afraid to turn on the radio or TV for fear
the news will be the worst.

Can any of our readers with some background knowledge on telecom in
the military advise us on how telecom is handled in a battle
situation?  I'm a little familiar with the old-fashioned battery
phones they used during World War II.  What about now?


PAT

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

From: John Nagle <decwrl!well.sf.ca.us!well![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted
Date: 15 Jan 91 08:52:51 GMT


     Screwdrivers for tamper-proof Torx screws (the ones with a pin in
the center of the hole) are available from Jensen Tools, at
1-602-968-6321.  A full set of drivers (sizes TT-7, -8, -9, -10, -15,
 -20, and -25) is available for $34.95, or $5.50 each.  You can also
get a set of six keys (like hex keys, but tamper-proof Torx bitted)
for $18.95.  Bits for power screwdrivers are available.

     Torx - Tommorow's screw today!  Design them in now!  No cam-out!
No slip!  Robot-compatible!  Metric!


John Nagle

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

From: "James H. Thompson - HNL" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted
Date: 15 Jan 91 09:12:25 HST
Organization: VeriFone Inc., Honolulu HI


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

> I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole
> in the center of the bit.  I have needed one for refilling HP toner
> cartridges as well as disassembling my Nokia-Mobira handheld cellular
> phone.  I can't seem to find them in tool catalogs or tool stores.

They are called "Tamper-Proof Torx" Tool Catalogs like Jensen Tools
carry them.

Jensen Tools 602-968-6231


James H. Thompson       [e-mail]    (Internet)
VeriFone Inc.           uunet!verifone!jimmy_t  (UUCP)
100 Kahelu Avenue       808-623-2911            (Phone)
Mililani, HI 96789

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 15:47:22 CST
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted


I'd like to thank everyone who responded to this query.  I had two
responses to it before the TELECOM Digest arrived in my e-mailbox!  I
ordered a set of bits and a handle from Jensen Tools and am expecting
it by the end of the week.


Bill Nickless   [phone]   nickless@{flash.ras.anl.gov|andrews.edu}

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Child of the Information Age
Date: 15 Jan 91 17:12:36 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


My experience, Sean, has been that training in "telecommunications"
itself is a very austere and not necessarily very rewarding study.  I
found myself, as a young college student, interested in how people
communicate.  Gradually, after a B.A. in sociology/communications, an
M.A. in television, and another M.A. in communications management (the
first two at UCLA, the third at USC), I came to the conclusion that
what one needs to know isn't the nitty gritty of "telecommunications"
 -- like engineering etc. -- but rather a broader awareness of how and
why it is that we use telecommunications to do other things.  My
last degree was a Ph.D. in planning theory, at UCLA.  I learned how
people can make policy to affect the way that corporations and
government develop telecommunications networks, what services they
supply, and who pays for these services.  These are important lessons.

Then I went and worked for the California legislature for eight years,
making this policy.  That was a another lesson: people don't always
make this policy rationally or according to some sort of economic
algebra.  Lots of decisions are made in surprising, even crazy ways!
But for me it was wonderful to try to make sense of all the contending
interests -- cable TV, telephone companies, private firms using
telecommunications, residential consumers, the PUC, etc.  I even
passed some important laws dealing with privacy and access to
information that will dramatically affect the way people live in
California, in the 2000's.

Now I work helping to set up a laboratory researching virtual reality
technology.  Another switch!  I guess what this all means is that you
can't really "plan" your career, just do what feels most interesting
and right.  (If you can plan it, your career is too simple.)  Take
lots of courses on the broader subjects -- communications, history,
linguistics, cultural studies, media, electronics, business -- and you
will find yourself, like the driver of a car, driving between the
lines without having to check your position every moment.  That's a
good way to live!


Peace to you,

Bob

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA to UK Telco Link
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 17:39:04 GMT


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

>My uncle lives near San Luis Obispo, California and has a Macintosh
>Plus with the Hayes compatable modem sold by Apple.

>His brother lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland and has an Atari ST
>with a modem of an unknown type.

>This linkup isn't working. It doesn't matter from which direction the
>connection is initiated, the symptom is the same. The machine which is
>supposed to answer the phone does indeed answer the phone, but the
>machine initiating the call never sees carrier detect.

>I have heard that American modems and European modems operate by a
>different set of rules, ...   Is this true?

Yes. In general, modem technology has been pioneered in the USA, and
when new technology with better performance was developed, it was
brought to market. While the market was proving the technology, and
establishing a critical mass that defined the "industry standard" for
the American market, the CCITT would set up a committee to "do it
right" and this (similar technology but incompatible implementation)
is what the European manufacturers would build for their local telcos.

With deregulation of the telephone industry all over the world, this
is changing. Many European countries now allow customers to import
their own modems, so the American models often get somewhat
established before the CCITT versions become available. In response to
this, the CCITT is beginning to require compatibility with the
American "industry standards" as a fallback mode of operation.

SO: The latest and greatest (9600 bps, $500+ price/performance class)
modems are compatible. But in the under $200 mass market, the solution
is to buy a cheap American modem and hook it up (illegally if need
be).

This is not all that hard IF AND ONLY IF you understand telephone
wiring enough that you would be able to do the same thing with an
answering machine. If you don't know this - don't try. European telcos
are paranoid about customers messing with THEIR wiring. (Like 1960's
revisited). I gave my brother a nice Panasonic speakerphone for
Christmas one year, and he was afraid to install it for fear that if
the phone company found out they might disconnect his service. (He is
an EE!)


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

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

From: Dire Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell "Don't 'slam' my account" Form Available
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 1991 22:02:43 GMT


[e-mail] (Jim Redelfs) writes:

>Another improvement would be to require "positive input" from EACH
>customer, saying that WANT a new service (such the introduction of a
>new "dial-a-rape-your-phone-bill-NNX").

>Currently, they are operating like the book clubs: Call *US* if you
>*DON'T* want the service!  Not good.

No telephone services that I know of are added to anybody's bill
without their permission.  If you are referring to 900-type services,
I most certainly do not want to have to call the business office to
tell them I might want to make a call two days down the line.  None of
those services are automatically billed to me because of something I
neglect (like sending the card back within ten days).  I will
theoretically only be billed if the services are explicitely requested
(by dialing) from my house.


Mike Berger   Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET     217-244-6067   Internet    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 17:49:47 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What's the Deal With "1-313"?


Carl Wright <[e-mail]> writes in note dated 7 Jan 1991 that
(quoting from BellSouth Open Network Architecture Outlook newsletter)
"Bellcore requires any area code running short of numbers to convert
to Interchangeable Central Office Codes (ICOC)" (in other words, go
from NNX to NXX form for prefixes).

Georgia as far as I know only has had to use ICOC in the 404 area;
similarly, 919 only in North Carolina.  Alabama has only one NPA, 205.
Dialing requirements may have been changed in 912 and 704 for
statewide uniformity?  That's not the case in Virginia, where area
703, not particularly crowded that I know of (it split to form 804 in
1973), uses ICOC because of the crunch in the Washington DC area.

Also, notice that 617/508, 303/719, and 305/407 splits were done in
1988 without N0X/N1X, as were the earlier splits 714/619 and 713/409.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 1991 18:08:00 -0500
From: Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.


I remember seeing a conventional 500-type set at a military base in
Halifax with a warning sticker saying "This line is not secure". The
phone was in a guard's booth, and was probably on a Centrex line from
the local telephone company.

I thought it would be neat to get one of those stickers, but I didn't
want to ask any military personnel for one.  I had forgotten about it
until someone started the thread about secure lines.


Nigel Allen, Toronto, Ontario, Canada    Usenet: [e-mail]

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

From: Dire Wolf <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Phone Signal Propagation Characteristics?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 1991 22:07:24 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

>cell.  It doesn't necessarily mean that the cell would receive your
>signal if you tried to SEND.  At 70 miles range, you may well be able
>to receive the setup channel which is transmitting at a hundred watts

>[Moderator's Note: My question is why would there be such an extreme
>difference in output from the cell versus my output? What point is
>there in having the cell talking to a unit which can't get back to it?

In addition, I think the FCC regulations are fairly explicit that one
should not transmit farther than the equipment can receive.  How do
you know if you're interfering with someone elses' legitimate
communications if you can't hear them?


Mike Berger        Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
AT&TNET     217-244-6067    Internet    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 1991 15:23 MST
From: Steve Shankman <[e-mail]>
Subject: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone?


Being in the car business, I recently was able to get an Audiovox
(PacTel) cellular phone. I would like to use it as a semi-portable
unit, although it is a in-car unit. I have already gotten a whip
antenna with a 90-degree bend, and I think I know what the wires are
for. But I don't know how to program the phone. I noticed that in an
earlier posting someone instructed how to program a certain model of
phone. Can someone tell me how to go about programming the phone and
initiating service?

Thanks for the help!


Steve Shankman  [e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 91 11:22:50 EST
From: Edwin D Windes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL


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

>I have had my AT&T Universal card for six months now [...]
>and have continually had trouble getting the number
>to work with _any_ long distance company other than AT&T. This
>includes MCI, Sprint and a couple of other carriers in the US and
>Canada.

>My understanding was that there was some kind of mechanism for
>distributing calling card numbers (my Illinois Bell number for my home
>phone works fine) [...]

They are different types of numbers.  The number based on your
home phone is owned by the LEC; the number on your Universal card
is owned by AT&T.  Whoever owns the number can chose whom to share
it with.  I consider it a feature that my universal card can't be
accepted by some sleazeball COCOT pretending to by AT&T.


[Moderator's Note: And of course local BOC cards will work like AT&T
cards because they share the same database.    PAT]

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

From: Doug Coffland <coffland@roxanne>
Subject: Re: ISDN to DDN, How?
Date: 14 Jan 91 16:46:07 GMT
Reply-To: Doug Coffland <coffland@roxanne>
Organization: Computations Department, LLNL, Livermore CA


> Does any one know of any equipment which will allow an ISDN connection
> to the DDN (Defense Data Network) either X.25 or TCP/IP?

Rick,

I am not familiar with the DDN and if this is an X.25 network, an X.25
connection is probably the most straight forward since ISDN offers an
X.25 network itself.  We have an ISDN equipped 5ESS on site here at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and AT&T has provided their
7500 terminal adapters that produce pure X.25 at the output on a V.35
interface.  If you are working from a DMS100, it will require another
type of device with the same function since the standards are not
totally implemented yet.

Anyway, the X.25 packet switched data is provided on a packet switched
'B' channel over a Basic Rate Interface (BRI).  Any user on the 5ESS
with a packet switched 'D' channel available can access these packet
'B' connections.  You can restrict this access via Closed User Groups,
which we do in some cases.  We do not have a connection available from
the 'B' channel circuit switched services to the ISDN packet network.

You may encounter more difficulty than we have if you are relying on
you local phone company to provide the 'B' packet service.  It may or
may not be tarriffed in your area.  We don't have this problem since
we own the switch.

Some of our 'B' packet connections are used to access the Lab wide
Ethernet, known as LabNet.  We use a gateway from Develcon to do this.
It currently only provides X.25 to TCP/IP service but this seems to
fullfill one of your requirements.  The Develcon system takes X.25 off
of a V.35 interface so a terminal adapter is required.  We also tested
a Cisco gateway and it worked well.


Douglas R. Coffland   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
[e-mail]   415-423-7867

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #41
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26341;
          16 Jan 91 5:22 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07208;
          16 Jan 91 3:50 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac13093;
          16 Jan 91 2:45 CST
Date:     Wed, 16 Jan 91 2:06:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #42
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 16 Jan 91 02:06:15 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 42

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The Last Word! and Other Administrivia [TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates [Barry Margolin]
    New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco On Business Rates [Charlie Lear]
    Cost Accounting - (was Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates) [Henry Schaffer]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Will Martin]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Jeffrey Comstock]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 1:34:52 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Last Word! and Other Administrivia


This issue of the Digest is devoted to several more rebuttals/replies
in the 'BBS and Phone Rates' thread. Please ... don't feel that I am
looking for any more messages on this subject; but if there is
something you have not said that absolutely must be said please send
it in NOW ... with an arrival time prior to Wednesday evening. I do
have more where this bunch came from, and will run another issue
tomorrow with any remaining messages.  I'll print as many as possible
and try to be gracious about it at that ... getting in the last word,
of course, so that the boys over in news.groups won't be disappointed.

Then please, if you feel it needs to go on, write to each other, not
me!  :)

For next: Special guest in the Digest tomorrow also, so everyone on
best behavior please. Please come properly attired. Clifford Stoll,
author of the book we've been discussing (the 'secure phone' thread)
has sent along his version of what happened on that phone call ... I
will try to get that message out Wednesday overnight/Thursday morning.


PAT

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

From: Barry Margolin <think![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 08:06:34 GMT


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

>Issue #4. - BBS lines are more busy than others and should pay
>accordingly.

>If Southwestern Bell wishes to apply charges based upon usage, it
>should be done via rate making procedures before the PUC. The PUC
>should decide if a break with previous public policy in Texas is
>justified. Such rates should be equitable so that the proverbial
>talkative teenager also bears such a burden.  The application of
>business rates should not be used as a back door alternative to the
>imposition of a mandatory measured service tariff in Texas.

Even a family full of talkative teenagers would have a hard time tying
up a line as much as a popular BBS.  Phone companies can only offer
unlimited service at a reasonable rate so long as users don't abuse
it.

And if calling a BBS forced a measured service tariff, BBS users would
be discouraged from using them (it would be trivial to run up hundreds
of dollars of charges calling a BBS on measured service), and the
sysops would complain about the charge driving them out of hobby.  It
sounds to me like a reasonable compromise was reached; limiting a BBS
to three lines limits the amount of load that BBS can put on the
network, but still permits the service to be free.


Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

[e-mail]
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

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

Subject: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: 16 Jan 91 21:56:12 NZD (Wed)
From: [e-mail]


My experience of BBSs and business rates may be of interest to other
c.d.telecom readers. I have followed the debate with keen interest and
submit my scribblings for comparison.

New Zealand Telecom is now a private corporation, the NZ Government
holds a controlling share, NZ Telecom and a consortium (including Bell
Atlantic and Ameritech) holding the rest. The telco is split into
several regional operating companies (ROCs), despite a population of
only three million.

I have been running a BBS for over three years. In that time I've had
no real cause for complaint. When I upgraded my BBS, I was asked why I
needed three lines into my house. The clerk listened politely, and not
only gave me my choice of numbers but found desirable ones in a
hunting group. They were listed in the directory as The Cave BBS.

In September I put a 3B2 system online to provide a public access
Usenet feed and requested another four lines. I was asked the purpose,
and again no trouble. The clerk asked her supervisor to call me. After
verifying that I was not running a commercial system he allowed the
residential classification to proceed. He asked if I intended changing
to a commercial BBS structure in the future. I assured him that if I
went commercial, or got a company to sponsor one or more lines, those
numbers would be notified to Telecom and a reclassification to
business rates would be in order.

In October I was startled to receive a phone call from my boss.
Someone purporting to be from Telecom Investigations Division had rung
my workplace and demanded all sorts of confidential information. When
none was forthcoming, they rang off and called back a co-worker. Did I
work from home? What was my connection with the firm? Did I do
business from my home address? Did they redirect callers to my home
number?

Shortly after, I was called at home by a person describing himself as
the Manager of Directory Services. I had been "under investigation" for
"some time" for illegally running a business from my home while
maintaining residential phone rates. If I was found "guilty", this
person assured me my "fraudulent" activities would not only result in
business rates being applied and backdated to the time of line
installation, I might be prosecuted.

I explained the whole BBS scenario to this guy, who refused to believe
a word of it. Nobody allowed Joe Public to access their computer for
nothing. "I got a computer on my desk. I use databases. They cost a
lot of money." I listed the differences between a BBS and a database.
"Even so, you wouldn't have seven lines running into your house if you
weren't running a business." Again, I detailed what a BBS was,
including the analogy between CB radio and boards. They do it with
radios; we do it with modems.

"You still haven't convinced me. I'll give you fourteen days to get a
written explanation to me or else I will reclassify all your lines as
business."  If I disputed his decision, who would I appeal to?
"Nobody, I am the person in charge of deciding what is and isn't a
business. I make the decision, and if you refuse to pay we'll charge
you with fraud."

Hell, I didn't need fourteen days. I waited for half an hour before I
stopped shaking with anger, and phoned the area manager of my ROC. He
was horrified at what had happened. He'd check it out and get back to
me. I hookflashed and dialled my contact within Telecom Corporate (Hi
Nelson!). He said he'd suss it out and get back to me.

After two days, I got a call from the area manager apologising for
this person's actions (far from being in charge, he was in fact at
office supervisor level). I had come to his attention because the data
entry clerk had queried four new listings with the same address being
flagged residential. The lines would remain at residential rates, I
had no need of a letter of explanation and would I please forget about
the whole matter.

That's where it would have ended, but in typical world-wide telco
style the next bills arrived with my rating on all six lines changed
to business ... so much for fourteen days to convince the Manager
Directory Services! Four of them have since been changed back, but I'm
still waiting for the other two to be reversed and still waiting for
the credit for the overcharges.

This has two important lessons for TELECOM Digest readers in the USA:

1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not
desirable except in economics textbooks, as not only could I not have
appealed the "business rates" decision (PUCs? Hell, this is
DEregulation!) but there is no regulatory body stopping Telecom (or
even my ROC) from introducing a special tariff for hobby BBS systems.

2 - Representatives of Bell Atlantic have told me in person that New
Zealand is now very much the US "guinea pig" system as far as rating
and tariffs are concerned. (Maybe our system was unneccessarily split
into ROCs to better simulate the American telco model?) Any decisions
with regard to business rate charging for BBSs in New Zealand are
likely to have a flow-on effect to the RBOCs in the USA. If they can
get away with it here, you can bet they'll try getting it past the
PUCs on precedent.

I'm just damn lucky I have a reasonable, responsible area manager.

Mr. Townson, I respect your arguments for/against BBS business rate
classification (do I get the impression you're enjoying playing
devil's advocate?  8-). Nothing you have said convinces me that
SWBell/GTE is anything but a clear case of discrimination based on the
number of inbound calls.

Business rates are designed to recover fair costs of a large number of
bidirectional calls. Most business lines have some form of keyphone or
PABX installed, reducing the number of trunks required compared to the
number of handsets in use. Business rates recover that loss. No tariff
I have seen allows a telco to arbitrarily change the classification of
a line used for residential purposes merely on the basis of the number
of calls received.

If that was the case, every home with a teenaged daughter would be in
for a nasty surprise when the next phone account arrives.


Charlie "The Bear" Lear | [e-mail] | Kawasaki Z750GT
DoD#0221 The Cave MegaBBS [phone] V32
PO Box 2009, Wellington,  New Zealand

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

From: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cost Accounting - (was Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates)
Reply-To: "Henry E. Schaffer" <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 03:32:15 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Norman
Yarvin) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 34, Message 1 of 8

>It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with this.  One is
>to continue the endless proliferation of rules, special cases, and
>additional considerations.  The other is to charge by cost.   ...

  Cost accounting is much easier (but less interesting :-) when most
of the cost is *Variable*.  But, it seems to me, that most of the cost
for local service are Fixed costs, and so the cost to the phone
company of having you for a customer for a month do not change much
regardless of how many phone calls you make per month.  Here are the
cost categories I see:

Being a customer - having an account, getting mailed a bill,
processing payment, providing telephone book listing.  Fixed.

Local loop - from your place to CO and CO line-card.  Fixed.  (Ecept
for rare cases of local loop multiplexing)

CO switch - Fixed for non-blocking switches.  Mostly Fixed and partly
Variable for blocking switches (the basic switch cost is Fixed, and
the Variable cost is for increaseing the hardware enough to be able to
handle one extra simultaneous user.)

  I don't have figures for the above, but it seems the costs are
mostly Fixed.  Unlike Variable costs which can be attributed in a
logical fashion, Fixed costs have to be assigned by policy decisions,
and the recent policy decisions over "business" vs. "residence" boil
down to judgements of who "deserves" to be treated better (i.e., who
we like) and not of who it costs more to serve.  I think that mixing
up these decision criteria leads to confusion.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 10:59:21 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates


I've just caught up with the Digests covering this topic, and hope to
get my comments in before the cutoff; I broke my wrist a while back so
am typing everything one-fingered, which slows down my
response/contribution capability... :-)

I can understand the telco's point of view about charging BBS lines
more in flat-rate localities (I may not agree, but I can understand
it...).  But, in *measured service* localities, let me take an extreme
opposing view: BBS dial-in lines (and Dial-A-Joke, Time&Temp, etc.
lines, too) should be FREE.

After all, in measured service, the telco makes its money off the
calls other people make TO these lines.  It is in the telco's interest
that there be as many of these dial-in-only lines as possible, because
their existence will generate revenue from the people calling them.
The operators of these services (BBSs, Dial-A-Whatever, etc.) have
expenses in operating and maintaining the equipment; the telco should
do its part by giving them free incoming-only lines.  (It would be
fine if the lines were set up so that outgoing calls were impossible;
perhaps a certain level or number of incoming calls should be required
to be maintained so that the telco continues to get adequate income
off the lines to justify providing them, too.)

Note that the whole business <-> residential distinction becomes moot
in this case. Any incoming-only line that generates sufficient income
to the telco from the measured service of the calls coming into it
should be free to the operator of the service at that number. It
doesn't matter if this is the perpetually-busy consumer-assistance-
and-info line at the Better Business Bureau, incoming lines to Kinky's
Adult BBS, the help desk at Sleazoid Software, Inc., or whatever; all
of them create telco income in a measured-service world.

Myself, I like flat rate unmeasured service, having a wife at home who
is perpetually on the phone, so I don't particularly desire this
scenario to come into being here and now. For those of you who are
already in measured-service areas (and who don't have the "untimed"
measured service described by one contributor), this sounds like
something to be lobbied for. Right now, your telcos not only get the
income from the measured service, but they also charge the people who
operate the facilities that create the calls which generate that
income! They're grabbing from both sides. It would seem more
reasonable for them to get income from one side only.

Y'know, one of the problems in these legal proceedings, like PUC
hearings about a telco increasing the line charges for BBSs, is that
one side wants a change (the telco) while the other side just wants to
keep the status quo (the BBSers). That means one side is attacking
while the other is just defending. Since the best defense is a good
attack, that puts the latter group at a disadvantage. Any compromise
means they *have* to lose something.  Why not respond to the attack
with a counterstrike, taking the above viewpoint? In response to their
wanting to *raise* your rates, don't just ask that they remain
unchanged, but instead demand they be eliminated entirely! That way,
the status quo could be a settlement out of court...

Just some orthogonal thinking ...


Will

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

From: Jeffrey Comstock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: Sewer of Source Code
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 03:26:45 GMT


>>[Moderator's Note: Two issues are involved here: (1) should 'business'
>>phones pay higher rates than 'residence' phones; (2) who should define
>>what is a 'business' and what is not.

The answer to (2) is the IRS.  Tell the phone company to produce tax
records indicating you made a profit from the BBS.  If they can't do
it, it's settled.

This hits a sore spot with me, because I don't charge anyone money for
access to my system, yet the phone company wants to charge me business
rates.  When I make a profit on this, then I will consider paying them
their (outrageous) rates for a business line.


jeff


[Moderator's Note: 'Making a profit' is NOT the deciding factor. Which
major airline was it that filed bankruptcy last year? They obviously
did not 'make a profit', and their corporate tax return will plainly
indicate this to be the case. Maybe you are saying 'well, they
intended to make a profit', and that is true. But tell me, if you
thought you could survive financially from your BBS by charging user
fees, wouldn't you like to give it a try also?  :)      PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #42
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19047;
          17 Jan 91 4:30 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac29974;
          17 Jan 91 3:12 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ad28407;
          17 Jan 91 1:57 CST
Date:     Thu, 17 Jan 91 1:53:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Error in Issue 43; Repaired, Retransmitted
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>

Issue 43 had an error in the first transmission at 1:40 AM which will
make it impossible to burst or be used by many news readers.

Please disgard (and DELETE) the first transmission of issue 43 and
work only from the second transmission at 1:48 AM Thursday.   Thanks.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Moderator










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19056;
          17 Jan 91 4:30 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29974;
          17 Jan 91 3:03 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28407;
          17 Jan 91 1:57 CST
Date:     Thu, 17 Jan 91 1:40:13 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #43
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:40:07 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 43

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Secure Phones [Cliff Stoll via John R. Bruni]
    Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Wayne G. Namerow]
    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Brian D. McMahon]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted (Pete Shipley)
    Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Recording Phone Calls [Rob Knauerhase]
    Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call [John Ruckstuhl]
    Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Jon Sreekanth]
    External Antenna for Handheld [Cory A. Eaves]
    Re: USA to UK Telco Link [John R. Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 91 01:15:02 EST
From: "John R. Bruni" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Secure Phones/Cliff Stoll


Hi,

I messaged Cliff Stoll regarding the secure phones controversy and he
asked me to send the following message:

To the Telecom Digest Gang...

 I've been away from the Usenet for the past couple weeks -- on the road.
 I'm asking John Bruni to post this note for me, since it'll be a couple
 weeks before I get on the Usenet (you don't want to know what's going on!)

 Several people have told me that there's a discussion about a scene on
 page 42 of The Cuckoo's Egg:  about my being called on a secure phone.
 The guy that I called didn't want to talk to me when I called him, but
 it was OK once he called me back.

 Here's my theory:  Either, he wanted to make sure that I was a real person
 and not some bozo.  By calling me back, he knew my phone number and knew
 that he could find out exactly who I was.  Possibly, he has some kind of
 secure telephone system -- say, something that would be secure as long as
 it was on one network, and insecure afterwards.  From what I now know,
 this seems unlikely;  the secure telephone units (STU) systems provide
 end-to-end encryption but would require both of us to have STU's.

 Hope this clarifies things -- I'd appreciate it if someone would mail a
 copy of the thread to me at   [e-mail].


 Cheers,   Cliff Stoll (visiting IBM Yorktown Research Labs)


[Moderator's Note: Cliff Stoll tried to reach me by phone and left a
message on my voicemail saying pretty much what he said here. I'm
sorry I missed his call.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 09:32:00 EST
From: "Wayne G. Namerow" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls


I spoke with Cliff Stoll yesterday and informed him of the Telecom
discussion regarding his 'secure' phone call. Cliff stated (quote) 'I
have no idea what the guy was talking about' refering to the statement
about calling back on a 'secure line'. Cliff suspected that it was
fluff and that the guy just called him back normally.

Cliff also said that he rarely reads any forums any longer, but he can
be contacted directly at: [e-mail].  Or through Compuserve...


Wayne

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 11:11:34 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?


(Here's hoping the list hasn't gotten tired of this thread yet... :-)

Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]> writes:

>I remember seeing a conventional 500-type set at a military base in
>Halifax with a warning sticker saying "This line is not secure".

Which reminds me -- again -- of another Munich experience.  My folks
are over there with the University of Maryland's Munich Campus, set up
for the college-age dependents of U.S. overseas personnel.  UMMC is
located right on the base, McGraw Kaserne (due to close eventually).
I recall several years ago, working my usual summer job on the
Maryland switchboard, when the fourth and fifth floors of the building
were taken over for an exercise.  I think it was called "Carriage
Trader," or something like that, and involved setting up a Corps-level
HQ and operations center.  This was serious stuff -- armed MPs barring
access past the third floor, a cluster of radio trucks parked outside
surrounded by rolls of razor-wire, the works.

The telecom angle on all of this is that the MPs weren't there for the
first phases of set-up, and I could wander around a bit on my lunch
hour.  The commo technicians were stringing wire and setting up phones
all over the place.  The phones looked like the old, rotary dial,
standard black military phones (as far as I could tell), but had
little blue labels on them saying "SECURE".  I presume they either
tapped into T.S. common gear in the trucks, or ran next door to the
Military Intelligence headquarters.  I guess they could spare a line
or two.  :-) (I did also wonder just how "secure" a phone could be if
I could get at it unsupervised, but that's another matter...)

It's doubtful the building itself contained much in the way of secure
wiring.  For one thing, you had us damn civilians running around all
over the place.  Also, some of the switch boxes still had "REICHSPOST"
stamped on them.  :-) The Maryland switchboard was only marginally
better, all electromechanical stuff from DTN (Deutsche Telefon und
Normalzeit).  By counting clicks, I could tell what numbers people
were dialing on outgoing calls -- sounded like a gigantic popcorn
popper.  Ah, those were the days.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Pete Shipley)
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:18:52 GMT


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

>I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole
>in the center of the bit.

Try Snap-On ... I *know* they have it.


Pete

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 21:14 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?


It seems that GTE California Inc., in their infinite wisdom, have
decided to give notice of sorts about monitoring of conversations
between the public and their customer reps. On page 1A (that is the
first page folks) of their phone books can be found a peculiar small
print type notice at the bottom of the page that reads as follows:

NOTICE CONCERNING MONITORING

For training and quality control purposes, a small number of telephone
calls between company employees and customers are monitored without
notice to the customer or the employee, by supervisory personnel.  No
recording of the call is made. CALLS BETWEEN CUSTOMERS ARE NOT
MONITORED FOR THIS PURPOSE, or for any purpose without the use of an
automatic tone warning, except when required by law enforcement and
national defense agencies, pursuant to law and under legal safeguards.
If you have any questions concerning monitoring, please contact your
business office.
                          ----------

I don't know if this constitutes legal notice about monitoring of some
sort, but I assume that if GTE can do so in California, than anyone
else can too.

The weird thing is that the grammar used implies that their could be
some "training or quality control (purpose)" to monitoring customers
private conversations. What, I might carry on lousy phone
conversations?  Is that what they're implying? Huh?!

Aside from the legal issues, I feel that this notice may have some
chilling effect on telephone use, as it indicates that not only can
the police monitor (I assume for criminal investigations), but also
national defense agencies. I had no idea that national defense could
be used as a justification to bug someone's phone outside of the scope
of simple law enforcement. As we all well know, "National Defense" is
a common justification for all sorts of investigations into
constitutionally protected legal activities, political and otherwise.
I get the impression that GTE California Inc. considers that by this
notice they have given fair warning that your conversation may not be
your own if some national security type agency has an interest in you.
And if you are reading this who might you be? A computer or
telecommunications user, expert or manager?  Perhaps.


Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls
Organization: U. of Illinois, Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 06:08:51 GMT


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

>"Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to
>be recorded, one of the following conditions must be met:

>"2.  All parties being recorded must hear a 'beep' tone approximately every
>15 seconds.

Just FYI, apparently the Ohio State Highway Patrol records all
incoming calls, and uses only the 15-second beep.  My mother, who has
called them several times to check interstate highway conditions, was
annoyed enough by the beep (present even when they put her on hold) to
ask about it.

    I don't know many people who read the front of the White Pages
(_Telecom_ readers excepted :), but I can't offhand think of any
better way to inform the general public of the significance of the
fifteen-second beep.

[Side question: does anyone know how such a recording system might
work?  Loop tape of a certain length, I'd assume...]


Rob Knauerhase, [e-mail]
University of Illinois, Department of Computer Science

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

From: John Ruckstuhl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call
Date: 16 Jan 91 08:42:12 GMT
Organization: UF CIS Dept.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
writes:

>Does anyone know how I go about detecting the end of an *incoming*
>call on an ordinary residential line?  I thought I once read that
>the voltage changes or someting.  I am in the UK.

My answering machine (a Sony ITA-500) cannot reliably detect the end
of an incoming call on an ordinary residential line.  My previous
answering machine (a PhoneMate) had the same problem, and I always
blamed the machine until I saw the problem on the new answering
machine.  The problem causes great confusion, sometimes leaving the
machine in an error state which might cause lost messages :(

A Southern Bell serviceman visited, and said my line was as clean as
they get!  I explained my problem, but he couldn't help me.

BTW, I did my simple inside wiring -- 30' of two pair from the inside
block dead-ending at the jack for the answering machine, and another
20' of 2pr from the inside block to a dead-end with a jack.

What should be my next step?

(Also, has anyone converted a Sony ITA-500 to an ITA-600?  The 600 is
a "speaker-phone"; the 500 just has "on-hook dialing")

Thank you for your help.

Best Regards,

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

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

From: Frederick Roeber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 16 Jan 91 05:24:24 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron
Heiby) writes:

> ... I inserted my card and it asked me for my PIN,
> just like for a normal calling card.  I don't think it would ask for a
> PIN if I had used a regular MC/VISA card.

Oh, yes it might.  Many credit cards have PINs for use in ATMs or POS
boxes.  (Often these purchases will show up as `cash advances' on your
bill.)  All of my credit cards have PINs I can rarely remember.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone
Date: 16 Jan 91 10:18:53


In article <[e-mail]> greg%turbo.atl.ga.us@mathcs.
emory.edu (Greg Montgomery) writes:


> I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I
> am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and
> I can hit a button to switch between lines. ...
> Is it easy to make one?

Certainly it's easy to make one, but if it was me, I wouldn't. (Time
cost of a hack solution exceeds retail price of an available unit ...)

J & R Music World 1-800-221-8180 sells a "Arista 241445 Two Line
Console" which sounds like what you described. The unit shown in the
line drawing is a clunky little box with two (or three) switches, and
an LED.  The description goes : "Allows a single line phone to work as
a two line phone. Switch back and forth between lines. Hold with red
and green LED's.  Requires no external power."  Cost is $19.95, Item #
ARS 241445, from their winter catalog.


Regards,

Jon Sreekanth

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

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

From: Cory A Eaves <[e-mail]>
Subject: External Antennea for Handheld
Date: 16 Jan 91 17:45:34 GMT


I have a Motorola Ultra Classic Handheld.  Since I often travel on the
fringes of my home cell, I am considering adding an external antenna
to my car.

Has anyone done this before?  Pardon me if this has already been
discussed.  Do you think it would help?  Should I go with the 5db
model?  Glass mount or Magnetic mount?

Is it even worth the bother?

Does anyone else have an Ultra Classic they have integrated into their
car?

Thanks,


<Cory A. Eaves> [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: USA to UK Telco Link
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 16 Jan 91 13:00:11 EST (Wed)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>>I have heard that American modems and European modems operate by a
>>different set of rules, ...   Is this true?

>Yes.

Well, sort of.  As noted, 2400bps and higher are the same everywhere
except for the various proprietary 9600bps versions that proliferated
before V.32 became cheap enough to be popular.  For 1200bps modems,
the U.S. "Bell 212" and international CCITT schemes are pretty close
except for differences in the initial handshake.  Hayes modems and
most clones have a B command that make the modem switch from the
default 212 mode to the CCITT mode.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 17:10:34 PST
From: David Singer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unbreakable Dialtone
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center


Once in a while (maybe one call out of ten), pressing the keypad on my
phone (or sending DTMF from my modem) won't break the dialtone.  If I
hang up and retry, it will almost always work.  This happens on both
my lines, using various instruments.

I called telco (well, GTE); they "tested my lines" (dumping a modem
session in the process) and said they found nothing, but the problem
continues.  Can anyone suggest some magic words to whisper in GTE's
ear to point them in the right direction?

(And yes, I am paying for Touch-Tone service on both lines; one of the
techs I spoke with yesterday said that "everyone now gets Touch-Tone",
I guess in preparation for the February 1 billing change.)


[Moderator's Note: In former times, telco had no easy way to prevent
the use of touch tone phones on lines which were being paid for at
rotary dial rates. Consequently many people used touch tone service
without paying for it. If you got the polarity wrong, the touch tones
would not sound. If you got it right they would sound and the buttons
would work correctly. One of the improvements in telephony in recent
years is the ability of telco to deny tone service to people not
paying for it. Yes, you can make the tones sound, but no, they will
not cut the dial tone if you are not paying for it. Since your problem
is not one of being unable at any time to tone dial (i.e. no general
denial of tone service because you are not listed as having it) but
only an occassional failure, it is probably because the CO is now and
then sending you the 'wrong' dial tone. Try to explain to the Repair
Bureau that on occassion you 'cannot cut the dial tone' and ask if
they are from time to time sending you a dial tone intended for rotary
users. Make sure they do show both your lines being billed for
touch-tone service also.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #43
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19126;
          17 Jan 91 4:33 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab29974;
          17 Jan 91 3:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac28407;
          17 Jan 91 1:57 CST
Date:     Thu, 17 Jan 91 1:48:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #43
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:48:07 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 43

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Secure Phones [Cliff Stoll via John R. Bruni]
    Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls [Wayne G. Namerow]
    Re: What are Secure Lines? [Brian D. McMahon]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted (Pete Shipley)
    Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Andy Jacobson]
    Re: Recording Phone Calls [Rob Knauerhase]
    Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call [John Ruckstuhl]
    Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness [Frederick Roeber]
    Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Jon Sreekanth]
    External Antenna for Handheld [Cory A. Eaves]
    Re: USA to UK Telco Link [John R. Levine]
    Unbreakable Dialtone [David Singer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 91 01:15:02 EST
From: "John R. Bruni" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Secure Phones/Cliff Stoll


Hi,

I messaged Cliff Stoll regarding the secure phones controversy and he
asked me to send the following message:

To the Telecom Digest Gang...

 I've been away from the Usenet for the past couple weeks -- on the road.
 I'm asking John Bruni to post this note for me, since it'll be a couple
 weeks before I get on the Usenet (you don't want to know what's going on!)

 Several people have told me that there's a discussion about a scene on
 page 42 of The Cuckoo's Egg:  about my being called on a secure phone.
 The guy that I called didn't want to talk to me when I called him, but
 it was OK once he called me back.

 Here's my theory:  Either, he wanted to make sure that I was a real person
 and not some bozo.  By calling me back, he knew my phone number and knew
 that he could find out exactly who I was.  Possibly, he has some kind of
 secure telephone system -- say, something that would be secure as long as
 it was on one network, and insecure afterwards.  From what I now know,
 this seems unlikely;  the secure telephone units (STU) systems provide
 end-to-end encryption but would require both of us to have STU's.

 Hope this clarifies things -- I'd appreciate it if someone would mail a
 copy of the thread to me at   [e-mail].


 Cheers,   Cliff Stoll (visiting IBM Yorktown Research Labs)


[Moderator's Note: Cliff Stoll tried to reach me by phone and left a
message on my voicemail saying pretty much what he said here. I'm
sorry I missed his call.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 09:32:00 EST
From: "Wayne G. Namerow" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dr. Stoll's Secure Phone Calls


I spoke with Cliff Stoll yesterday and informed him of the Telecom
discussion regarding his 'secure' phone call. Cliff stated (quote) 'I
have no idea what the guy was talking about' refering to the statement
about calling back on a 'secure line'. Cliff suspected that it was
fluff and that the guy just called him back normally.

Cliff also said that he rarely reads any forums any longer, but he can
be contacted directly at: [e-mail].  Or through Compuserve...


Wayne

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 11:11:34 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What are Secure Lines?


(Here's hoping the list hasn't gotten tired of this thread yet... :-)

Nigel Allen <contact![e-mail]> writes:

>I remember seeing a conventional 500-type set at a military base in
>Halifax with a warning sticker saying "This line is not secure".

Which reminds me -- again -- of another Munich experience.  My folks
are over there with the University of Maryland's Munich Campus, set up
for the college-age dependents of U.S. overseas personnel.  UMMC is
located right on the base, McGraw Kaserne (due to close eventually).
I recall several years ago, working my usual summer job on the
Maryland switchboard, when the fourth and fifth floors of the building
were taken over for an exercise.  I think it was called "Carriage
Trader," or something like that, and involved setting up a Corps-level
HQ and operations center.  This was serious stuff -- armed MPs barring
access past the third floor, a cluster of radio trucks parked outside
surrounded by rolls of razor-wire, the works.

The telecom angle on all of this is that the MPs weren't there for the
first phases of set-up, and I could wander around a bit on my lunch
hour.  The commo technicians were stringing wire and setting up phones
all over the place.  The phones looked like the old, rotary dial,
standard black military phones (as far as I could tell), but had
little blue labels on them saying "SECURE".  I presume they either
tapped into T.S. common gear in the trucks, or ran next door to the
Military Intelligence headquarters.  I guess they could spare a line
or two.  :-) (I did also wonder just how "secure" a phone could be if
I could get at it unsupervised, but that's another matter...)

It's doubtful the building itself contained much in the way of secure
wiring.  For one thing, you had us damn civilians running around all
over the place.  Also, some of the switch boxes still had "REICHSPOST"
stamped on them.  :-) The Maryland switchboard was only marginally
better, all electromechanical stuff from DTN (Deutsche Telefon und
Normalzeit).  By counting clicks, I could tell what numbers people
were dialing on outgoing calls -- sounded like a gigantic popcorn
popper.  Ah, those were the days.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Pete Shipley)
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:18:52 GMT


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

>I would like to find a source for a Torx-type screwdriver with a hole
>in the center of the bit.

Try Snap-On ... I *know* they have it.


Pete

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

Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 21:14 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?


It seems that GTE California Inc., in their infinite wisdom, have
decided to give notice of sorts about monitoring of conversations
between the public and their customer reps. On page 1A (that is the
first page folks) of their phone books can be found a peculiar small
print type notice at the bottom of the page that reads as follows:

NOTICE CONCERNING MONITORING

For training and quality control purposes, a small number of telephone
calls between company employees and customers are monitored without
notice to the customer or the employee, by supervisory personnel.  No
recording of the call is made. CALLS BETWEEN CUSTOMERS ARE NOT
MONITORED FOR THIS PURPOSE, or for any purpose without the use of an
automatic tone warning, except when required by law enforcement and
national defense agencies, pursuant to law and under legal safeguards.
If you have any questions concerning monitoring, please contact your
business office.
                          ----------

I don't know if this constitutes legal notice about monitoring of some
sort, but I assume that if GTE can do so in California, than anyone
else can too.

The weird thing is that the grammar used implies that their could be
some "training or quality control (purpose)" to monitoring customers
private conversations. What, I might carry on lousy phone
conversations?  Is that what they're implying? Huh?!

Aside from the legal issues, I feel that this notice may have some
chilling effect on telephone use, as it indicates that not only can
the police monitor (I assume for criminal investigations), but also
national defense agencies. I had no idea that national defense could
be used as a justification to bug someone's phone outside of the scope
of simple law enforcement. As we all well know, "National Defense" is
a common justification for all sorts of investigations into
constitutionally protected legal activities, political and otherwise.
I get the impression that GTE California Inc. considers that by this
notice they have given fair warning that your conversation may not be
your own if some national security type agency has an interest in you.
And if you are reading this who might you be? A computer or
telecommunications user, expert or manager?  Perhaps.


Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>

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

From: Rob Knauerhase <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls
Organization: U. of Illinois, Dept. of Computer Science, Systems Research Group
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 06:08:51 GMT


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

>"Federal and State tariffs state that for a telephone conversation to
>be recorded, one of the following conditions must be met:

>"2.  All parties being recorded must hear a 'beep' tone approximately every
>15 seconds.

Just FYI, apparently the Ohio State Highway Patrol records all
incoming calls, and uses only the 15-second beep.  My mother, who has
called them several times to check interstate highway conditions, was
annoyed enough by the beep (present even when they put her on hold) to
ask about it.

    I don't know many people who read the front of the White Pages
(_Telecom_ readers excepted :), but I can't offhand think of any
better way to inform the general public of the significance of the
fifteen-second beep.

[Side question: does anyone know how such a recording system might
work?  Loop tape of a certain length, I'd assume...]


Rob Knauerhase, [e-mail]
University of Illinois, Department of Computer Science

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

From: John Ruckstuhl <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call
Date: 16 Jan 91 08:42:12 GMT
Organization: UF CIS Dept.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
writes:

>Does anyone know how I go about detecting the end of an *incoming*
>call on an ordinary residential line?  I thought I once read that
>the voltage changes or someting.  I am in the UK.

My answering machine (a Sony ITA-500) cannot reliably detect the end
of an incoming call on an ordinary residential line.  My previous
answering machine (a PhoneMate) had the same problem, and I always
blamed the machine until I saw the problem on the new answering
machine.  The problem causes great confusion, sometimes leaving the
machine in an error state which might cause lost messages :(

A Southern Bell serviceman visited, and said my line was as clean as
they get!  I explained my problem, but he couldn't help me.

BTW, I did my simple inside wiring -- 30' of two pair from the inside
block dead-ending at the jack for the answering machine, and another
20' of 2pr from the inside block to a dead-end with a jack.

What should be my next step?

(Also, has anyone converted a Sony ITA-500 to an ITA-600?  The 600 is
a "speaker-phone"; the 500 just has "on-hook dialing")

Thank you for your help.

Best Regards,

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

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

From: Frederick Roeber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Universal Calling Card Number Unhipness
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 16 Jan 91 05:24:24 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ron
Heiby) writes:

> ... I inserted my card and it asked me for my PIN,
> just like for a normal calling card.  I don't think it would ask for a
> PIN if I had used a regular MC/VISA card.

Oh, yes it might.  Many credit cards have PINs for use in ATMs or POS
boxes.  (Often these purchases will show up as `cash advances' on your
bill.)  All of my credit cards have PINs I can rarely remember.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone
Date: 16 Jan 91 10:18:53


In article <[e-mail]> greg%turbo.atl.ga.us@mathcs.
emory.edu (Greg Montgomery) writes:


> I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I
> am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and
> I can hit a button to switch between lines. ...
> Is it easy to make one?

Certainly it's easy to make one, but if it was me, I wouldn't. (Time
cost of a hack solution exceeds retail price of an available unit ...)

J & R Music World 1-800-221-8180 sells a "Arista 241445 Two Line
Console" which sounds like what you described. The unit shown in the
line drawing is a clunky little box with two (or three) switches, and
an LED.  The description goes : "Allows a single line phone to work as
a two line phone. Switch back and forth between lines. Hold with red
and green LED's.  Requires no external power."  Cost is $19.95, Item #
ARS 241445, from their winter catalog.


Regards,

Jon Sreekanth

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

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

From: Cory A Eaves <[e-mail]>
Subject: External Antennea for Handheld
Date: 16 Jan 91 17:45:34 GMT


I have a Motorola Ultra Classic Handheld.  Since I often travel on the
fringes of my home cell, I am considering adding an external antenna
to my car.

Has anyone done this before?  Pardon me if this has already been
discussed.  Do you think it would help?  Should I go with the 5db
model?  Glass mount or Magnetic mount?

Is it even worth the bother?

Does anyone else have an Ultra Classic they have integrated into their
car?

Thanks,


<Cory A. Eaves> [e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: USA to UK Telco Link
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 16 Jan 91 13:00:11 EST (Wed)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>>I have heard that American modems and European modems operate by a
>>different set of rules, ...   Is this true?

>Yes.

Well, sort of.  As noted, 2400bps and higher are the same everywhere
except for the various proprietary 9600bps versions that proliferated
before V.32 became cheap enough to be popular.  For 1200bps modems,
the U.S. "Bell 212" and international CCITT schemes are pretty close
except for differences in the initial handshake.  Hayes modems and
most clones have a B command that make the modem switch from the
default 212 mode to the CCITT mode.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 17:10:34 PST
From: David Singer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unbreakable Dialtone
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center


Once in a while (maybe one call out of ten), pressing the keypad on my
phone (or sending DTMF from my modem) won't break the dialtone.  If I
hang up and retry, it will almost always work.  This happens on both
my lines, using various instruments.

I called telco (well, GTE); they "tested my lines" (dumping a modem
session in the process) and said they found nothing, but the problem
continues.  Can anyone suggest some magic words to whisper in GTE's
ear to point them in the right direction?

(And yes, I am paying for Touch-Tone service on both lines; one of the
techs I spoke with yesterday said that "everyone now gets Touch-Tone",
I guess in preparation for the February 1 billing change.)


[Moderator's Note: In former times, telco had no easy way to prevent
the use of touch tone phones on lines which were being paid for at
rotary dial rates. Consequently many people used touch tone service
without paying for it. If you got the polarity wrong, the touch tones
would not sound. If you got it right they would sound and the buttons
would work correctly. One of the improvements in telephony in recent
years is the ability of telco to deny tone service to people not
paying for it. Yes, you can make the tones sound, but no, they will
not cut the dial tone if you are not paying for it. Since your problem
is not one of being unable at any time to tone dial (i.e. no general
denial of tone service because you are not listed as having it) but
only an occassional failure, it is probably because the CO is now and
then sending you the 'wrong' dial tone. Try to explain to the Repair
Bureau that on occassion you 'cannot cut the dial tone' and ask if
they are from time to time sending you a dial tone intended for rotary
users. Make sure they do show both your lines being billed for
touch-tone service also.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #43
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22261;
          17 Jan 91 7:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09453;
          17 Jan 91 5:17 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28125;
          17 Jan 91 4:13 CST
Date:     Thu, 17 Jan 91 3:28:17 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #44
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 17 Jan 91 03:27:57 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 44

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: BBS Sysops / SWB Reach Compromise [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates [Peter da Silva]
    Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates [Carl Wright]
    BBSs vs. Ma Bell [Ken Stox]
    Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates [Mike Gardner]
    Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: RS 484 Data Link Protocol [Harry Broomhall]
    Telecom in the Italian Army [Paolo Bellutta]
    BC Tel Wants to Drop Touch Tone Charge [David Leibold]
    Programming Cellular Phones in General [Pat Barron]
    Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid & High Frequency Loss [A. Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: BBS Sysops / SWB Reach Compromise
Date: 14 Jan 91 16:30:20 CST (Mon)
From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>


> To me, it seems like a reasonable solution and should satisfy most
> sysops who -- as it has been pointed out here many times -- are
> basically trying to combine their hobby with public service to their
> community.

I hope not. That BBS you said in response to my last message sounded
like it should not be put under business rates does *not* qualify for
residential rates under the compromise simply because it is running
more than three lines. A criterion, by the way, that has nothing to do
with cost recovery (in fact the more lines the more income for the
phone company) or anything else you have been saying should qualify a
BBS as a business.

While this isn't something that has been "left unsaid" (I've said it
before), I think it needs to be brought up at this time. The only
reason for the multi-line restriction is to keep multi-line BBSes down
so that there is less competition for Southwestern Bell's favored
Videotel services.


[e-mail]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 1991 22:47:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed Hopper)
writes:

> Issue #6 - "What makes sysops so special?"

If you have to answer this question you have already lost. The
position you are arguing is that sysops are not special, and should
not have to pay a higher rate than other residential customers. Any
other response to this is weak and (as the moderator has so ably
demonstrated) can be easily dismissed simply by bringing in other
worthy causes.

On the point of BBSs that solicit donations, I believe SWBell's point
is valid. I report to the IRS and pay taxes on my shareware income,
even though it is voluntary donations and comes nowhere near covering
my costs.  You don't ask for payments to support a hobby. Unsolicited
donations, however, are another matter. Business don't run on
spontaneous gifts.


[e-mail]

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on BBSs and Phone Rates
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 05:25:52 GMT


In the article, (Norman Yarvin) writes:

>It seems to me that there are two ways of dealing with this.  One is
>to continue the endless proliferation of rules, special cases, and
>additional considerations.  The other is to charge by cost ...

[good stuff removed]

>We just had a session of griping about how complex the world is
>becoming.  In the telecommunications world, this is largely a function
>of the complexity of the policies and regulations governing it.  Those
>who gripe about complexity would do well to attack this obvious
>target.

IMHO this problem will not be solved quickly, but that an unexpected
path may lead us to a solution. In computer systems, there is a "law"
that computer systems grow in comlexity until they are abandoned or
rewritten.  [Gilb's Fourth Law]

The easiest way to simplify the system may be to make it so complex
that its users reject it and abandon or rewrite. I'd bet on this route
before I'd try to convince the carriers and regulatory commisions to
rewrite the way they do their "business".

They are already susceptible to the "incrementalism" practiced in the
creation of law where a law is proposed and accepted to apply only to
an extreme portion of the population, then is extended gradually to
more and more of the population,i.e. the Federal Income tax or the
current inch-by-inch battling you witness over abortions.

We can propose that nonprofit organizations, since they serve the
public good, should be provided lower telephone rates. Then during a
period of public sympathy for the nonprofits we urge the further
reduction of their rates, maybe to zero. Since they have so much lower
rates there should also be consideration given to less public agents
that serve the public through BBS, recorded message services, and
others. Mind you not as much as the real nonprofits, but they should
not have to pay as much as big corporations which are only interested
in their own profits. Really the corporations should be paying a
greater portion of the costs of communications since they benefit so
greatly from the telephone system. I think you probably have gotten
the idea by now.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Stox)
Subject: BBSs Vs Ma Bell
Organization: BALR Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 16:10:23 GMT


One point I have not yet seen made in the "are BBS's a business"
debate, that I think has been overlooked, is that BBS's must be a
great source of income to the phone companies right now even if they
are being charged residential rates. Let's make the following
assumptions:

    1) Most BBS usage is during the evening and late night hours
    when the telephone system is at it's lowest usage.

    2) A great deal of BBS calls, if not the majority, are at the
    very least not a 'local' call, but measured service. ( From
    what I have read in comp.dcom.telecom, Texas appears to be
    flat service. That seems to be an exception to most of the
    country; am I wrong in this assumption?? )

So, what is the end result ?? The phone company is getting a great
deal of revenue from times that would normally be idle, or close to
it. What a great deal.

I beleive these points make a significant difference when compared to
hotlines, etc. who are paying business rates since their usage will
probably fall closer to or in peak hours. I always thought the
justification for business rates was that the premium was to offset
the costs necessary to cover the peak load on the network.


Ken Stox [ former sysop of 'yabbs-yet another bulletin board system' ]

[e-mail]
BALR Corporation        uucp: {uunet|att|attmail}!balr!stox
600 Enterprise Drive    voice: [phone]


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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 10:14:04 -0600
From: Mike Gardner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on BBSs and Business Rates


>And if calling a BBS forced a measured service tariff, BBS users would
>be discouraged from using them (it would be trivial to run up hundreds
>of dollars of charges calling a BBS on measured service), and the
>sysops would complain about the charge driving them out of hobby.  It
>sounds to me like a reasonable compromise was reached; limiting a BBS
>to three lines limits the amount of load that BBS can put on the
>network, but still permits the service to be free.

I've slogged through a lot of this topic and I don't seem to recall
anyone providing real information about how BBS's impact the switch
traffic in a reasonably sized city(say 150,000) people.  How many
BBS's(and lines) exit per 100,000 people.  What percentage of the
total traffic in the local switch can be attributed to local BBS
lines?  1%, 10% .005%?  Local switching systems are designed with some
"typical" or "average" use in mind.  Surely this average varies with
the size of city, "type" of city (industrial vs college town) etc.

The local operating company must then design the local switch to
accommodate the local usage patterns.  Why should bbs use be
considered as anything other than part of the "local usage pattern"?
I'm not sure of the exact details of the process but I'm fairly
confident that if a local switch needed expansion because of local
usage patterns that that cost would be easily reflected in the rate
base.  Of course it can be said that if you charge the "excessive"
users either through measured service or business rates(back door)
that you don't have to raise everyone's rates.  Well that's ok, EXCEPT
there you go again, making comparisons against this "average and
acceptable use".

This "standard" is not defined in the tariffs nor anywhere else in the
public domain.  Why is putting four lines on a BBS any worse than
building a twenty unit apartment building?  Are we talking about an
inability to design the system to meet local needs, or the
unwillingness to admit that when you get a phone line you are only
entitled to use (or be called) up to some arbitrary amount before the
phone company must invent extra charging methods that are not defined
in the tarrifs?


University of Illinois, Computing Services Office
1304 W Springfield, Urbana, Il 61801
Michael G. Gardner, Assistant Director, 1122 DCL
[phone]    [e-mail]
FAX [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 13:08:18 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates


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

> This has two important lessons for TELECOM Digest readers in the USA:

> 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not
> desirable except in economics textbooks, as not only could I not have
> appealed the "business rates" decision (PUCs? Hell, this is
> DEregulation!) but there is no regulatory body stopping Telecom (or
> even my ROC) from introducing a special tariff for hobby BBS systems.

Au contraire; in a *totally* deregulated telecommunications
environment, you wouldn't be forced into the arms of a single telco.
Complete deregulation would allow competition in both the long
distance and local markets, and you'd be able to switch to a competing
telco if not satisfied with your current one.

The problem you're experiencing is a result of *unbalanced*
deregulation.  There is still a regulation giving the telco a legal
monopoly, but some of the regulations protecting consumers from that
monopoly have been removed.  Regulation does have its place, and
telcos that gain the privilege of monopoly must be prepared to
surrender some of the normal privileges of the market as well.


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: Harry Broomhall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: RS484 Data Link Protocol
Organization: Demon Systems Limited
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 1991 00:46:34 GMT


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

>A research group here has come up against a possible (likely?)
>requirement to implement RS484 data Link protocol.

>Has anyone got experience of this protocol, what it entails and how
>long (man days etc) it might take to implement. I have checked several
>text books in my possession and I cant yet find any references to it.

>In our circumstance it will need to be implemented over a point to
>point link.

    I have found reference to this in my indexes.

1)  All RS numbers are now refered to as EIA numbers.

2)  EIA484 can be got from American Technical Publishers,
    Hitchen, Herts  (tel [phone]) in the UK.

3) It is described as: 'Electrical and Mechanical Interface
characteristics and Link Control protocol using communication control
characters for serial data link between a direct numerical control
system and numerical control equipment employing asynchronous full
duplex transmission'

     The price in my 1988 catalogue is 17 pounds, which means that it
is not very big, so should not be too difficult for a comms guru to
implement!


Regards,

Harry

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

From: Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]>
Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY
Subject: Re: Telecom in the Italian Army
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 14:37:11 MET DST


Nine years ago I had to be in the army for twelve months (in Italy it
is compulsory).  While in the army my duty was to answer the phone at
the PBX of a medium size command center some 40 km from the northern
border of Italy.  The PBX (sorry don't know the model but I think it
was GTE or similar) was electromechanical with relays on some boards
for the switching.  No tone dialling, 100 derivations (two digit
numbers) of which two had priviledged call for the pbx operators
(there were two operators working simultaneously).  At the pbx were
connected some twenty "military" lines plus two "civil" lines.  The
"military" lines were in fact 20 VHF (FM 170 Mhz) bidirectional links.

The radio link was a box 50x50 cm and 20 cm deep with a wire as
aerial.  No scrambling.  The "civil" lines were SIP (the Italian
telco) public lines (with number published on the phone directory).
Some of the "military" lines were in fact point to point lines
supplied (and maintained) by SIP.  Telex (110 baud!!)  were on SIP
point to point lines, again, unscrambled.  The quality of the radio
link was from good to barely understandable.  Noise immunity was 0.
In fact during storms they were useless.  On site telecom is still
provided by old phones like in world war II but in some cases radio is
bridged on telephone lines (and vice-versa).

Nobody told be at that time not to disclose any information (besides
from the SIP unlisted numbers of the munition deposits), anyway I
didn't say very much.

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: BC Tel Wants to Drop Touch Tone Charge
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 91 0:05:51 EST


In the first Canadian case (to my knowledge) of a telco dropping the
extra charge for touch tone (referred to in BC Tel lingo as Touch
Calling), the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission received an application (Telecom Notice 1991-7 for those
interested, BC Tel Tariff Notice 2240) to increase all local service
line rates by $0.90 residential, $1.90 business (Cdn funds), but allow
for either pulse or tone service. Exchanges or areas without tone
equipment can receive a price break for the local line charge
equivalent to the price increase involved.

If this passes, the BC Tel wants to drop rentals and repairs on rotary
equipment, and to equalise the phone set rental rates to that rotary
will cost as much as tone (standard phone sets).

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 1991 22:32:46 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Programming Cellular Phones in General


I've seen several messages (including one from myself, still
unanswered - I'm still looking for programming data on the Uniden
CP2000) asking about how to program one cellular phone or another, but
have seen few answers.  Perhaps they've been sent directly to the
requesters, I don't know, but I think this is a question of more
general interest than one or two isolated posts.

I there is, in fact, sufficient interest, I'd be willing to collect
and collate programming information for various phones, and submit the
collection for the TELECOM archives.  Would this be something people
would be interested in?  Other comments?


Pat

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 23:34 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid and High Frequency Loss


Casey Leedom <[e-mail]> writes:

>Apparently there used to be a PREFIX-00XX number that the service
>technicians could call that would provide a 0DB frequency sweep, but all

Well some places they still do ... in 415, you could try NXX-0046.
This motif is by no means universal though. I do know that in S.F.,
(where the protesters are burning CHP cars right now) 431-0046 will
provide sweep tone, but I don't know the range or response.


Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #44
*****************************

ISSUES 45 AND 46 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. NEXT THREE ISSUES ARE 46,45,47.











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11384;
          19 Jan 91 1:15 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab28108;
          18 Jan 91 23:44 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27748;
          18 Jan 91 22:40 CST
Date:     Fri, 18 Jan 91 22:27:25 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #46
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Jan 91 22:27:07 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 46

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Recording Phone Calls [[e-mail]]
    Re: Recording Phone Calls [Michel Denber]
    Re: Recording Phone Calls [Nigel Allen]
    Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Linc Madison]
    Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal? [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Secure Phones [Peter G. Capek]
    Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Daniel L. Herrick]
    Re: Can't Receive Collect Calls on Rotary Dial Phone [Kim Long]
    Re: Concerted Action [Heath Roberts]
    Re: Concerted Action [Richard Budd]
    Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed [John M. O'Shaughnessy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 07:57:16 PST
From: "B.J.  17-Jan-1991 1000" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls


In Volume 11 Issue 43, Rob Knauerhase asked:

> [Side question: does anyone know how such a recording system might
> work?  Loop tape of a certain length, I'd assume...]

Your question was in respect to the Ohio State Highway Patrol.  I
don't know what they do, but I do know how one large financial firm
operated.

A couple of years ago I had a problem (since resolved) with my account
at a large financial institution.  The problem was compounded when a
service representative lied to me about the state of my account.
Fortunately, the institution recorded all calls so the lie was
recorded.  In the process of clearing things up, I asked a few
questions about the recording process.

The person who lied to me was part of an office that handled up to
sixty simultaneous conversations with customers.  I was told they had
a machine that recorded all conversations on a sixty track tape.  The
tape was changed every twelve hours.  They kept the tapes for six
months so they could be reviewed if a problem arose.  They also kept
records of which representatives were talking on which track at which
times.

If you could give the approximate time of a call and the name of the
representative, they could search for the call fairly easily.  They
now give out confirmation numbers, and I assume those numbers contain
a direct or indirect key for accessing the conversation in their tape
library.


B.J.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 1991 12:59:54 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls


    "[Side question: does anyone know how such a recording system
might work?  Loop tape of a certain length, I'd assume...]"

I had occasion to stop by our local (Brighton, N.Y.) police HQ last
year.  In the office in plain view on a table was a large 1/4"
reel-to-reel tape deck with 10" reels turning at what looked like 1
7/8 ips (the standard "slow" speed for reel-to-reel).  It was
recording both phone conversations and police radio.  It also had a
digital clock on it that looked like it was counting in SMPTE time
codes, so I would guess it records time data as well as voice.  I
didn't ask how long they kept the tapes.


Michel

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

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 16:58 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Recording Phone Calls
Organization: Contact Public Unix BBS. Toronto, Canada.



Steve Forrette, [e-mail], talks about a beep at
fifteen-second intervals.

I remember hearing this on phoned-in radio news reports years ago
(despite the California exemption for broadcasters), but the only time
I've heard a tone line that recently was a year or so ago when I was
interviewing a public relations person for Alberta Government
Telephones. Presumably he was taping the conversation (and all other
telephone interviews he did) so that he would be in a better position
to complain if he felt that he was misquoted.


Nigel Allen    [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 03:12:04 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?


Mike Miller asks about the legality of monitoring conversations
between operators and customers at his companies.  First, I definitely
second the suggestion that you consult a lawyer familiar with such
issues in your state before starting such a system.

In addition to the questions of giving notice/getting permission from
the employees involved, there is also the question of whether you need
to provide some notice to your customers.  The telco listings have a
little symbol in the phone book that translates to "calls to this
number may be monitored (but not recorded) by supervisory personnel."
When I worked at Xerox ("Good morning, Xerox service, may I have your
machine serial number please?") the supervisor could monitor, but only
by plug-in at my station.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Question -- when the supervisor *did* plug in at
your station, did s/he have to ask your permission before doing so?
Did s/he have to then notify the person you were speaking with that
s/he was on the line listening?  I thought not ... so why do some
people seem to think if the supervisor chooses to listen from a
distant location -- monitoring just the employees whose duty it is to
answer the phones and serve the calling public -- that some invasion
of privacy has occurred?  The supervisor need not ever ask your
permission -- or for that matter bother to notify you -- prior to
reviewing your work, which may at times include listening to you speak
with customers.  Therefore, to listen *only* on the operator's talking
path is not illegal, since it is not illegal to supervise the actions
of your employees. Merely because their duties are concentrated on the
phone does not make them something special. And the caller has no
right to a *private* conversation with an employee whose duty is
merely to switch phone calls. The caller is talking to the switch at
that point -- not engaging in an actual, possibly confidential
communication. But common courtesy -- and maybe the law -- dictate
that you at least notify your employees you might be listening in.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 22:28:03 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> and a recently released CWA-sponsored study that purportedly found
> higher incidence of stress and stress-related illness in monitored
> employees.

As a 17+ year member of CWA (and monitored in my job as Toll Operator
and Service Representative), I NEVER experience added stress knowing I
was occasionally monitored.

I simply treated the customers politely and with respect and made sure
I gave them accurate information!


JR

 Copernicus V1.02
 Origin: Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)


[Moderator's Note: I've always felt the same way. I've never had any
reason I did not want my supervisors to see or hear me at work. And
yes, I do make personal phone calls from work. If they hear me, they
hear me. If I want to be certain they don't hear me I use the
payphones in the lunchroom.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 11:43:21 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Secure Phones


The discussion about Cliff Stoll's "secure line" phone call got me to
thinking again about something which has always bothered me.  Since
secure phones work by performing some sort of "encryption" (encrypting
digitized voice, switching and inverting frequency bands, etc.), and
since such a phone isn't much use unless it can talk to many others
like it, how is the key management performed?  It can't be that all
the phones use the same key, as compromising that key would render all
the phones useless (and perhaps not even be noticed).

I don't think it can be that the key is negotiated when the call is
setup, as that would be subject to eavesdropping (although that could
be done under a universal key, but that would be subject to compromise
as above).  Various compromises are possible, but they all seem to
have either security or functional problems.  Does anyone KNOW how
this is done?  The only actually feasible solution I know of involves
a mutually trusted third party to communicate a key to both parties,
but that's not consistent with use in phone networks.


Peter Capek

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

From: daniel lance herrick <abvax!iccgcc.DNET![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates
Date: 17 Jan 91 22:08:49 GMT


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

[detailed account of relations with phone company in New Zealand]

> 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not
> desirable except in economics textbooks, as not only could I not have
> appealed the "business rates" decision (PUCs? Hell, this is
> DEregulation!) but there is no regulatory body stopping Telecom (or
> even my ROC) from introducing a special tariff for hobby BBS systems.

A totally deregulated telecommunications environment would allow you
to call one of the other phone companies and tell them you don't like
the service from your current company, "please switch my phones to
your company".  Then we would find out what communications costs.

Seven lines is approaching the fringe at which you should explore the
cost of T1 service.  If you can buy the wire service from someone
other than the phone company, get surplus T1 hardware, and only buy
phone numbers from the local company (maybe even taking the T1 to the
long distance company's Point of Presence) you could end up with lower
communications cost and spread it around among more suppliers.

(T1 is enough digital bandwidth for 24 voice lines on two twisted
pairs.  The breakeven point for installing it depends on how long
those twisted pairs have to be.)


Dan Herrick  Aricol Communications   POBox 1419   Mentor Ohio  44061
[phone]      [e-mail]

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

From: Kim Long <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Can't Receive Collect Calls on Rotary Dial Phone
Organization: Suranet, College Park, MD
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 23:31:36 GMT


I had a similar experience while trying to receive a collect phone
call.  My touch tone phone either does not emit the correct frequency
or the tone is not long enough to register with the telco's equipment.
It would appear that this new service still needs a little work.


[e-mail]

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Concerted Action
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 20:32:58 GMT


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

>What would happen if everyone (in the US, in North America, on the
>planet -- pick your favorite range) picked up the phone at the same
>instant and tried to make a *local* call?  (Yes, anyone who got

Depends on the type of switch. Some would handle this gracefully,
others can't. DMS (NT) switches limit dial tone, so the switch can
complete the calls it provides dial tone for. First come, first serve
kind of thing.  I'm not sure what would happen if the wait stack
filled up. Presumably it would issue a SWERR (software error) and the
call would die. Use up a lot of printer paper....

If the switch _did_ crash, it would take about four minutes to reload
its software, and things would be hunky-dory unless everyone was still
waiting for dial tone. In a worst case situation, current draw might
be great enough to draw down batteries, and if all those phones stayed
off hook, either the line modules would shut them down (auto recover
when the line goes back on hook) or telco employees might start
powering down line frames.

I don't think ATT switches handle bounds conditions this well. It'd
probably die, and they take longer to come back up. (I haven't worked
directly with them, but I understand it is on the order of half an
hour.)


Heath Roberts
NCSU Computer and Technologies Theme Program
[e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 21:21 CDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Concerted Action
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY


Will Martin writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #40:

>What would happen if everyone (in the US, in North America, on the
>planet -- pick your favorite range) picked up the phone at the same
>instant and tried to make a *local* call?

>Pick a time, say 12 noon Eastern on 30 Jan, and everyone in the US,
>across all the time zones, picks up their phones at that same moment.

What do you think happens every second Sunday in May?! :+}


Richard Budd            | E-Mail: IBMers     - [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer   |         All Others - [e-mail]
IBM - Sterling Forest   | Phone :              [phone]
                        | All Disclaimers Apply


P.S. to PAT: Thanks or mentioning my situation.  IBMers from all over
the country showed me the way to receive TELECOM Digest on the IBM
system.  I now receive it through IBM (as well as through Marist for
postings) and once again have put my foot into it (and it certainly
won't be the last time!):+}


[Moderator's Note: You are quite welcome! There are numerous
telecom-related newsgroups and mailing lists around the world which
redistribute the Digest.  IBM is just one example.   PAT]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone
Date: 17 Jan 91 14:38:44 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> greg%turbo.atl.ga.us@mathcs.
emory.edu (Greg Montgomery) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 36, Message 5 of 11

>I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I
>am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and
>I can hit a button to switch between lines. Radio Shack used to sell a
>device that did this. It had two inputs for the phone lines, and one
>for the telephone. You would hit a button to flip from line one to
>line two and vice versa. However, they don't sell it anymore. Does
>anyone know if anyone still sells one of these, or if they are pretty
>easy to make, how to make one??

    What you need is a Double Pole Double Throw switch (DPDT). You
will also need Jacks and wire. You can also build the switch into the
phone, this saves money on jacks. To build it into the phone, wire the
wall jack for both lines, use a 4 conductor phone cord and place the
switch between the jack in the phone and the hookswitch.

    Note that with this arrangement only the phone line currently
switched to the phone will ring on that instrument. You may consider
adding a second ringer for the second line.

    You can make this box as fancy as you want with hold buttons,
LEDs, etc.


Julian Macassey, n6are  [e-mail]  ucla-an!denwa!bongo!julian
N6ARE@N6YN (Packet Radio) n6are.ampr.org [44.16.0.81] voice [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 22:27:04 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Two-Line Adaptor Wanted For One-Line Phone
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> I am getting another phone line installed in my house this week, and I
> am looking for a device I could attach to the phone and both lines and
> I can hit a button to switch between lines.

I have seen them at the Omaha AT&T Phone Center store.


JR

Copernicus V1.02
Origin: Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 14:41 CST
From: "John M. O'Shaughnessy" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed
Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN


And I thought you were responding to the Middle East Crisis (*grin*)


John M. O'Shaughnessy            [e-mail]
Open Systems Architects, Inc.    Minneapolis, MN


[Moderator's Note: *Smile* ... Thanks for your note, and to the
several other Digest readers who have offered their thoughts on the
events here of earlier this week I extend my thanks for writing.
Sometime over the weekend I intend to publish a special issue
clarifying some things regarding the autoreply, and posting guidlines
here so that everyone will understand what to expect.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #46
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11852;
          19 Jan 91 1:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27748;
          18 Jan 91 22:39 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05633;
          18 Jan 91 21:33 CST
Date:     Fri, 18 Jan 91 20:59:23 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #45
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Jan 91 20:59:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 45

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telecom and the Mideast Crisis [AT&T Press Releases, via Edward Hopper]
    Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Linc Madison]
    Re: The Deadline! What Now? [Daniel L. Herrick]
    CNN From Baghdad [Edward Hopper]
    Iraq Conflict Report [Ken Jongsma]
    AT&T Settles Suit With International Telecharge [AT&T, via J. P. Miller]
    The Status of X.25 in U.S.A. [Kari Hardarson]
    DTMF in Japan [Robert Trebor Woodhead]
    NTT Crossbar [John Higdon]
    New York Telephone Rate Changes [John Cowan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Jan 17 12:13:34 CST 1991
Subject: Telecom and the Mideast Crisis


These are the AT&T releases on the war:

AT&T ADVISORIES *** There was an extraordinary surge of calling to the
Middle East during the first five hours after war erupted (7 p.m. to
midnight EST).  There was significant blocking of international calls
last night, and some international calls are still being blocked to
some countries.  International calling volumes remain very heavy into
andoutof the Middle East.  From 7 p.m. to midnight EST last night, the
domestic AT&T network experienced almost 25% increase in calling
volume.  Despite this, the network continued to function within normal
ranges.  There was no significant blocking.

*** AT&T and other companies have received numerous bomb threats
during the past few days.  AT&T received several such threats
yesterday.  On investigation all such threats appear to be unfounded
to date.

*** 8 A.M. EST FLASH -- As of 8 a.m. this morning, the AT&T network is
operating normally.  We are experiencing no significant problems with
domestic calling.  Calling to and from Iraq ceased shortly after air
attacks began there, and we have not been able to re-establish
communications.  International calling remains heavy.  Calls are
getting through.  However, some customers may hear a recording that
circuits are busy.  Operators can assist if necessary, but we
recommend at the present time that customers delay international calls
to the Middle East region.  There have been no reports of injury to
AT&T employees or damage to any company property or equipment
domestically or overseas.

AT&T IN THE NEWS *** WAR WORDS -- Phone lines were jammed as people
tried to make contact with loved ones.  Domestic lines were busier,
but nothing like international lines.  Within 90 minutes, phone
traffic had returned to normal, except one, said AT&T's Lynn Newman.
"At 7:03 p.m., we lost all direct circuits to Iraq."  [USA Today] ***
At AT&T facilities in Kansas City and elsewhere, security manpower has
been increased, spokesman Fran Anderson said.  Employees have been
briefed on new security procedures, she said, declining to discuss
details.  US Sprint also has reviewed security matters with employees
and stepped up its security efforts, even though it has received no
immediate threats. [KC Star] *** Long-distance lines in the U.S. are
"particularly unprotected" and could be targets of terrorist attacks,
a high ranking U.S. senator who serves on a Select Committee for
Intelligence warned colleagues earlier this month.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is proposing a three-step plan to assess
"key vulnerabilities" that could be targets for such international
terrorists as Abu Nidal who, Hatch said, is in Baghdad and "ready to
resume business."  The Utah senator said that although the FBI has
taken some "preliminary stop-gap measures" to warn private companies
of the potential of terrorist attack, he favors a national plan that
would first assess "vulnerable technologies," then establish
protection standards and a plan to build "redundancy" into systems so
that downtime would be eliminated should a terrorist attack be
successful.  James Messenger, an AT&T spokesman, said the company's
Bell Labs have been working on network reliability features for its
underground cables since 1984, but that the Jan. 4 break was "rather
extraordinary." [Long-Distance Letter, 1/91]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 04:05:10 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage


I, like most of the country, spent much of the last twelve hours glued
to my television set.  My local NBC affiliate, KRON-TV, is also
affiliated with CNN, so they were switching back and forth between the
two.  I noticed several differences in the coverage from Baghdad.  Of
course, no video was going out live from Baghdad, but these two
networks were giving audio coverage.

NBC's audio was clearly just a plain telephone connection, with all
the bandwidth limitations that implies.  CNN's audio, though, sounded
much clearer.  Further, at one point NBC lost the phone connection and
didn't regain it for some time, but CNN maintained its hookup and even
piped it to NBC (at a cost that Tom Brokaw had to effusively speak of
how wonderful CNN is).  Brokaw, in fact, asked CNN how they did it,
and the reporter was quite secretive.

So how did they do it?  My initial guess was some sort of multiplexed
multiple phone lines, but it seems that all regular phone lines from
Baghdad were disrupted.  Any ideas?

Of course, I hope that this experiment in telecommunications in crisis
situations is as short-lived as possible.


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

P.S. Plea to other contributors: *please* include your e-mail address in
your signature line.  My system doesn't reply well to moderated groups.

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

From: [e-mail] (daniel lance herrick)
Subject: Re: The Deadline! What Now?
Date: 17 Jan 91 17:29:35 EST


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

> Can any of our readers with some background knowledge on telecom in
> the military advise us on how telecom is handled in a battle
> situation?  I'm a little familiar with the old-fashioned battery
> phones they used during World War II.  What about now?

And how is CNN maintaining two way voice from Baghdad?!

Dan Herrick   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is (was, until the line was cut?) a 'four-wire'
line to a transmitter elsewhere which in turned beamed it off to the
United States. It was installed with the blessings of the Iraq
government -- where other networks had failed to get permission --
because the Iraq goverment said they trusted CNN and had a lot of
respect for the organization. They've since grown angry at some things
CNN was reporting and cut the line, allowing transmission only under
heavily censored conditions. (Sort of like the way this Digest is run,
according to some folks ... yuk! yuk!  :)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Jan 17 10:40:56 CST 1991
Subject: CNN From Baghdad


One of the little nagging questions last night was how CNN was getting
audio out of Baghdad while everyone else was shutdown.

In fact, when NBC was interviewing the CNN crew, CNN declined to say
how.  One Associated Press story this morning said that CNN was using
a four-wire phone line (I assume a dedicated circuit).  There were
also references on CNN to "turning off the microphone so that we can
hear Atlanta".

Any speculation as to how this was done? Perhaps a leased loop to
Amman, Jordan where CNN's "Fly-Away" satellite dish is located?

Unfortunately, CNN apparently did not have the still frame video
equipment with them that they had at Tianamen Square.  Then they sent
out still frame color video within a few hours over dial up lines.


Ed Hopper

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

Date: 18 Jan 91 12:34:52 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <[e-mail]>
Subject: Iraq Conflict Report


Those that have not seen the video shown this morning of this first
bomb targets in Iraq should make an attempt to do so. Pay particular
attention to the clip that shows a guided bomb landing on the roof of
a large building in downtown Baghdad. Shortly after the bomb impacts,
all four walls rather impressively explode outwards.

The Digest connection? Wire service reports indicate that it was the
former AT&T building.


Ken Jongsma                                        [e-mail]

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Settles Suit With International Telecharge
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 91 9:14:12 CST


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Miller forwarded this AT&T press release
to the Digest.   PAT]

BASKING RIDGE, NEW JERSEY, U.S.A., 1991 JAN 15

AT&T settled a lawsuit it filed against International Telecharge of
Dallas last March. AT&T had alleged that long-distance service at
public telephones had been switched from AT&T to ITI and to another
company, National Telephone Services of Rockville, Maryland, without
the knowledge or consent of the owners of premises where the phones
are located. The agreement includes corrective measures intended to
address unauthorized switching, plus payment by ITI of an undisclosed
amount to AT&T. It is considered a victory by AT&T against alternative
operator companies like ITI, which specialize in controlling long
distance services from pay phones and marking them up. The case
against NTS is continuing in the U.S. District Court for the district
of New Jersey in Trenton.

AT&T's claims against NTS are not affected by the agreement with
ITI. NTS was bought by Telesphere last year, but the president of
NTS, Ronald J. Haan, was recently named president and chief
executive of Telesphere as part of a debt-restructuring
agreement. Telesphere, with the acquisition of NTS, became the
4th largest long distance company in the U.S.

For more information, contact: AT&T, Mark Siegel,  201/221-8413


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

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

From: Kari Hardarson <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Status of X.25 in U.S.A.
Date: 16 Jan 91 20:15:52 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


A previous posting made me think of this question: Is there a way to
get from the Internet to the X.25 networks of Europe? When I lived in
Iceland I used to access a mailbox service in the UK called 1-2-1.  I
accessed it by calling the local X.25 telephone number in Reykjavik
and then entering the so called NUI number of 1-2-1, which was a ten
or twelve digit number. I really miss that service since I had several
contacts there which I can no longer communicate with.

It seems that Telenet and Tymnet are both connected to the European
X.25 networks (I know this because I could Access BIX from Iceland
over the local X.25 via Tymnet) but this does not work the other way
around since a private user cannot get an account on Tymnet or
Telenet, or so I was led to believe.  In Iceland you could get an X.25
account from the telephone company which then billed you for your data
transmissions along with your telephone bill.  Am I to believe that
Americans are behind in the X.25 business or do they have a different
solution to the data transmission problems of individuals?


Kari Hardarson        217 Jackson Circle    Chapel Hill, NC 27514

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

From: Robert Trebor Woodhead <kddlab!lkbreth.foretune.co.jp!trebor>
Subject: DTMF in Japan
Date: 17 Jan 91 07:08:53 GMT
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.   Tokyo Japan


In a recent message, John Higdon mentions the relative lack of DTMF in
Japan.  Having been telephonically bouncing around Tokyo on and off
for some years (and now here for an indefinite sentence, until
released for bad behavior, no doubt), I might be able to add some
comments.

Yes, there are a lot of Crossbar exchanges, especially in the areas
outside the "Yamanote" loop (a railroad that circles central Tokyo).
At least, they SEEM to be crossbar; in my experience they are
invariably crisp and clean, with nary a "CLUNK" to be heard.

Inside the loop, and in the new exchanges outside the loop, DTMF is
the rule.  The rule of thumb is, if your exchange now starts with a 3
(the old exchanges before the great year-of-the-sheep-number-
expansion) you might have crossbar; otherwise, DTMF.  In fact, my
exchange didn't seem to appreciate pulse-dialing the one time I tried
it.

When dialing internationally from my girlfriend's house (3393
exchange) we dial 0062 in pulse to select our overseas carrier
(actually it is 0061, but 0062 selects the same carrier, and asks them
to call us back and tell us the time and cost of the call, a nice
touch), then we can use pulse or DTMF to tell the carrier the overseas
number.

In general, Japanese CO equipment is seems to be superbly maintained.
I've also yet to encounter a noisy line.  With respect to Hotel
equipment, venerable hotels seem to have venerable phone systems; it
seems that the Japanese adhere to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it
philosophy.  I will preempt our estimable Moderator and note that a
certain Judge should do the same...

As for cheap phones, in Japan as anywhere else, you can get a junky
phone real cheap.  On the other hand, I just got a phone from
Yodobashi Camera in Shinjuku with the following features:

Main station;

"100 meter" portable wireless extension;

Answering machine with:
  Remote access; commanded by DTMF
  Toll Saver
  Priority Messages
  Remote memo record/playback
  Remote answering message record
  Auto-turn on (if you forget to turn it on, call it and let
  it ring 20 times to activate the answering machine)
  Pager forwarding (it will call your pager # when you get a
  message)
  The usual memory dialing, plus an emergency button.

Price was about $220.  I think I got it cheap because by Japanese
standards, the feature set (some of which I am still deciphering) is
considered puny and obsolete [even though it's operating system seems
to be in some ways more complicated that UNIX ;^) ]


Robert J. Woodhead, Biar Games / AnimEigo, Incs.   [e-mail]

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: NTT Crossbar
Date: 18 Jan 91 04:57:27 GMT
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: No Hills, No Cows, Tokyo JAPAN


In a previous article I had incorrectly indicated that crossbar
switches used by NTT were incapable of DTMF operation. The confusion
arose from the fact that in the same manner as their electronic
switches, DTMF service is a class of service option.

Unlike DTMF service in the US, however, Japanese tone service is
exclusionary. If you have DTMF enabled, rotary dialing no longer
works.  In the US, rotary is universal and DTMF is sometimes optional.
In Japan, it is "either -- or".

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

From: [e-mail] (John Cowan)
Subject: New York Telephone Rate Changes
Date: 17 Jan 91 16:06:39 GMT


New York Telephone has just gotten a large rate increase with
consequent reorganization, although not as massive as the one they had
originally requested from the PUC.  (The NYPUC, I may say, has a good
rep for refusing to roll over and play dead when telco approaches,
unlike many others of its kind around the country.)

Many rate restructurings are in effect.  The two most interesting to
c.d.t readers are probably the cut in the Touch-Tone service charge
and the elimination of most of the classes of measured service.

Residential customers in non-flat-rate areas (which includes all of
New York City and many other New York localities) formerly had five
possibilities for measured service (all money amounts rounded to
nearest dollar and are monthly):

Service Name    Cost    Credit    Timed?    Available to

Untimed        $8    $4    No    All
Timed        $7    $4    Yes    All
Basic Budget    $5    None    No    All
LifeLine    $1    None    No    Public-assistance clients
Expanded L.L.    $10    $10    No    Public-assistance clients

"Timed?" refers to whether immediate-area calls are timed and counted
or merely counted (fixed charge per call regardless of length).  For
New York City, "immediate area" is the whole city.

Under the new plan there are only two services: Residential Message
Rate and Life Line.  RMR costs $7, provides no credit, is untimed, and
available to all.  Life Line costs $1, provides a discount on the
first $5 worth of calls, provides no credit, is untimed, and is for
public-assistance clients only.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #45
*****************************

ISSUES 45 & 46 REVERSED IN TRANSMISSION. ISSUE 46 APPEARS AHEAD OF 45.











Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13592;
          19 Jan 91 3:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24525;
          19 Jan 91 1:50 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29182;
          19 Jan 91 0:45 CST
Date:     Fri, 18 Jan 91 23:54:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #47
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 18 Jan 91 23:54:16 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 47

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How to Get a 900#'s Address [Linc Madison]
    Re: USA to UK Telco Link [Linc Madison]
    Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Carl Moore]
    Re: CA Touchtone Surcharge [John Higdon]
    Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call [Ben Burch]
    Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising [Linc Madison]
    How to Supoena Telephone Records [Rick Adams]
    Four-Wire Line [Tom Streeter]
    Call For Participation/Topics: INTEROP 91 [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount [Jody Kravitz]
    Line Information Data Base [Carl Wright]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 02:30:05 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How to Get a 900#'s Address
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


Doug Reuben wrote about getting addresses for 900 companies.  I ain't no
lawyer, so I can't say for sure if this applies, but...

In California, it is illegal to advertise anything that asks you to
send money to a P.O. Box without also giving a street address.  This
law as it stands probably doesn't apply to 900 companies, but a good
argument could be made to your local legislator that it should be
extended.

(Of course, the better idea is to just outlaw ALL 900 and 976 service.)


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The only money you send in this case goes to the
telco, acting as collection agent for the information provider.
Although telco typically uses a Lock Box / Remittance Box to receive
money -- your monthly payment -- they have a street address also.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 03:40:59 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA to UK Telco Link


Seems to me the easiest method to assure compatibility is to get an
inexpensive 2400-bps modem.  My Supra Modem 2400 (available mail order
for about $120) can also accept commands in the "AT" format to use the
European standards for lower baud rates.

 From the reference card,

ATB (or ATB0) selects CCITT V.22bis mode at 1200 baud
ATB1          selects Bell 212A mode at 1200 baud

That means that you may not even need to change modems!  Try just
changing your dialing string from ATDT011... to ATBDT011....

Just for completeness,
AT&P (or AT&P0) selects US/Canada "make/break" ratio for pulse
AT&P1           selects UK/etc. "make/break" ratio

Be sure to reinitialize any settings you change on your international
calls when you make a domestic call, of course!


Linc Madison  =  [e-mail]

Disclaimer: I have no connection to Supra, except being a VERY happy
customer.  These commands are presented as part of the "standard" AT
command set, but are not guaranteed to work on other "AT" modems.

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 9:14:41 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone


My parents have a pushbutton phone which is set up for pulse dialing;
if you try to "dial" a number with the switch set to touch-tone
instead of pulse, the pushbutton tones sound but the dial tone is not
broken (apparently what happens in your occasional cases).  But if
touch-tone input is needed after dialing the original number (such as
punching in phone calling card number or credit card number), you can
do that after you have changed the switch from pulse to touch-tone
(don't forget to set it back to pulse when you are done).  Obviously,
my parents do not have a touch-tone line.

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

From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CA Touchtone Surcharge
Date: 18 Jan 91 12:19:45 GMT
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: No Hills, No Cows, Tokyo JAPAN


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

>John Higdon and others from CA have been commenting about the pending
>removal of touch tone charges from their bills.

>Bottom line: GTE rates are going up 11% to compensate for the loss of
>revenue. You didn't really think you were getting something for
>nothing, did you?

Nothing? Did you say nothing? Maybe it has been too long for you to
remember: Pac*Bell and GTE won MAJOR concessions from the PUC in
exchange (read that IN EXCHANGE) for the elimination of TT charges and
the widening of the Zone 1 area to twelve miles. They also agreed to
FREEZE residential rates for all of this giveaway deregulation.

So now it has been nearly two years and the robber baron telcos are
finally getting around to coughing up. But now the deal is changed,
no?  So now that Pac*Bell and GTE are being more than compensated
monetarily for the TT and local calling baubles, what exactly did they
give to get the Santa Claus regulations that they now do business
under? Answer: Apparently nothing.

And to answer your question specifically, Ken, I never think I get
much of anything from Pac*Bell. Even when I pay through the nose for
it.

>Can't wait to see how Pac Bell handles this.

In its usual "screw the public" fashion, that's how. The brain-dead
PUCommissioners have a bureaucratic memory of about an hour, and that
was what Pac*Bell was counting on. There were some of us who predicted
all of this when it first came before the PUC.


John Higdon         | Kioityo 3-12 8F-B3 Tokyo 102 Japan
[e-mail] |              Mo-Mo

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

From: Ben Burch <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Detecting the End of an Incoming Call
Organization: Analysts International Corp, Chicago Branch
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 1991 15:01:08 GMT


In the US (and I imagine that the UK is similar since we can exchange
hardware) many (not all) COs return a "disconnect pulse" when a call
terminates.  The width of this pulse varies from 100 ms to 500 ms
depending on the type of switch you are connected to.  The pulse is
simply a loss of loop current.  You can often tell if this happens
with a lighted dial phone.  If the light blinks after a caller hangs
up, then you get the pulses.  In the hardware I've worked on, we use
an opto and a couple of diodes to detect both ringing and loop
current.


Ben Burch
[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 22:25:56 PDT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator?
Reply-to: [e-mail]


> One of the recurring questions asked in this forum is "What number do
> I dial to determine what number I am calling from?"  The answer, of
> course, is that it varies from location to location.  The Moderator
> has noted that the number changes all the time and that it should
> change frequently.

In the Omaha area, they changed the "958 code" to include an additional
four digits, and that has changed a couple of time in the year or so
since they initiated the seven digit line I.D. code.

I'm not sure of the purpose behind this "improvement", but I am
certainly grateful now for "butt sets" with memory dialers!


Jim Redelfs   Network Technician   U S WEST Communications

Copernicus V1.02
Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 01:38:49 PST
From: Linc Madison <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Misleading AT&T Advertising


There has been some recent discussion about AT&T ads talking about how
other LD companies call you and try to get you to switch.  Being a
Sprint customer, I get unsolicited calls from *AT&T* asking me to
switch back to them.

A couple of months ago, the AT&T droid called and raved about their
wonderful quality and how their rates are "comparable."  I said,
"Fine.  Put it in writing."  Specifically, I asked for a rate sheet --
you know, the standard interstate rates, 0-11 miles day/eve/night,
etc.  He told me that he couldn't send me one, because, well, it's
"AGAINST POLICY."  I told him that I wasn't terribly impressed by his
refusal to "put it in writing," and placed the handset upon the
switchhook in response to his continued protestations.

The sequel: just over a month ago, another AT&T droid called me.  I
just immediately started in by saying, "Well, your people called me a
few weeks ago and refused to 'put it in writing.'  I need a rate sheet
as a reference before I'll consider switching."  She promised that she
would send one right away.

Well, AT&T, I'm *still* waiting for you to "put it in writing"!


Linc Madison   =   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The winners of the {Ad Age} advertising contest
have been announced, and in the next issue of the Digest, I'll be
printing the winning submissions as submitted by a reader.  You'll
love it, I'm sure!   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 07:00:58 -0800
From: fico2![e-mail]
Subject: How to Supoena Telephone Records


Some time ago, I submitted a message to the TELECOM Digest briefly
describing an upcoming small claims court suit I was filing against my
ex-landlord.  He didn't bother to show up to the trial, then later
filed to have the trial thrown out because he was "sick in bed --
proof will be given -- no phone."

I was pretty certain his phone was operational during that period, so
I wanted to know exactly what records to supoena, and who exactly to
get them from AT&T or whomever, so that I could prove that his phone
was operational the date of the trial.

The Moderator was on vacation at that time though, and I never saw my
message posted ... which is a pity, but hey, I like to take vacations
too.  :-)

Anyway, the hearing was held, and my landlord got the previous trial
thrown out, even though he had no proof at all of any medical problem,
and I told the judge that I had called his house ten days after the
trial and it was working fine.

(So we had a trial later that afternoon, and I'm now waiting for the
judgment, but that's not related to telecom, sooooo...  ;-) )

I'd still like to know the answer to my question anyway, though, just
in case I run across a situation in which it'd be nice to know.
Anyone?


Rick Adams       |  work: ...!apple!fico2!rca
Delphi: RICKADAMS  |  home: ...!apple!fico2!ccentral!rickadams


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Adams' original message, entitled "Sick in Bed
 ... No Phone" appeared in TELECOM Digest volume 10, issue 903 on
Sunday, December 23, 1990. It was handed off to comp.dcom.telecom via
[e-mail] _ or _ [e-mail] that day.  All Digest messages
go automatically to comp.dcom.telecom, theoretically a moderated and
controlled newsgroup, however as incidents of the past week have
shown, my control over what happens to messages after I give them to
Usenet is limited. I'm sorry it somehow got 'lost' or otherwise did
not get a thorough circulation.  To answer the question at hand,
supoenas for telephone records are generally served on the security
department at the responsible telco, or sometimes on the corporate
attorney, but the attorney will invariably bounce the request back
down the line through channels. In the original message, Mr. Adams
mentioned that although he had sued his landlord, the landlord escaped
by claiming to have been sick and had no phone available to notify the
court of his inability to appear.  PAT]

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

From: Tom Streeter <[e-mail]>
Subject: Four-Wire Line
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 16:48:51 GMT


There has been lots of talk around the College of Journalism about how
in the world CNN kept a phone line open during the bombing last night.
News reports mention a "four wire line."  Could anyone enlighten me?
We've tried to pump some of our sources at CNN but have not gotten
anything.


Tom Streeter    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: CNN is to be commended for *excellent* coverage in
the Gulf -- far better than any of the other networks. They have a
very elaborate setup involving a hardwired link to a transmitter which
in turn beams a signal to the United States. It costs a small fortune:
I've heard estimates of $15,000 - $20,000 per month for the link
itself, and more depending on the amount of usage. Perhaps someone
will post a more technical description of 'four wire' service.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 17 Jan 1991 10:41:27 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call For Participation/Topics: INTEROP 91


We invite interested parties to suggest topics to be addressed at the
next INTEROP (Oct 7-11, 1991). Your suggestions can take the form of
session outlines, (two or three presentations), single presentations,
BOFs, Tutorials, and "nifty demonstrations" on the exhibit floor. If
you would like to volunteer as a speaker or simply suggest a topic,
please send email with a brief description by February 1 to:

    [e-mail]

Ole J Jacobsen   INTEROP Program Manager   Interop, Inc.
480 San Antonio Road   Suite 100   Mountain View, CA 94040
415-941-3399     1-800-INTEROP   Fax: [phone]

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

From: foxtail![e-mail]
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 91 10:00:33 PST
Subject: Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount


   Below is the article from the Ramona California Chamber of Commerce
newsletter which prompted my previous article.  This article was how I
came to know of the service.  When I called the Chamber office about
this article, they told me that a presentation had been given at the
last Chamber meeting by the United Wats people, and that a brochure
was available.  I went to the Chamber offices today to get the
brochure.  I think the salesman I talked to at the marketing company
assumed that I had the brochure in hand when I called him, which was
not the case.  I might have considered him less evasive if I had had
the brochure in hand when I talked with him.  I will provide a digest
of the brochure in a future article.

   I've blanked out the last four digits of the 800 number (all three
instances were the same), as I don't wish to advertise their service
on the net.  I've not blanked out the "exchange" field of the 800
number, as I hope someone will look it up and see who the carrier is.

    AT&T DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE TO CHAMBER MEMBERS

  Ramona Chamber members can save up to 31 percent on AT&T long
distance calling without changing anything on their current AT&T
service and initiate the discounts by calling 1-800-233-****.

     The discounts apply to AT&T's regular direct dial long distance,
PRO WATS, WATS and MEGACOM services.

   The discounts appear directly on your regular monthly bill and
appear in the next month's billing round.  There is no fee to initiate
the discounts with the AT&T-United Wats Program, only a monthly
membership fee which can be as low as $10, depending upon the
particular AT&T service and the volume of calling.

   As a special service to Ramona Chamber members, each member who
takes advantage of the AT&T United Wats plan can receive free
telecommunications consultation via the 1-800-233-**** hotline.
Members can call any time to receive answers to questions on
telecommunications goods and services.

   For more information and to take advantage of the program, call the
United Wats member number at 1-800-233-****.  Please be sure to
identify yourself as a member when signing up for the program.

Below is the article from the Ramona CA Chamber of Commerce newsletter
which prompted my previous article.


[Moderator's Note: But the newsletter article did not show up. All I
got was the brochure, as per above. However I think we get the point
of it anyway. Thanks to Jody for typing it in.  PAT]

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Line Information Data Base
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 19:45:56 GMT


Could someone tell me what is the contents of the LIDB (Line
Information Data Base) in use with the SS7 (Switching System 7)?

I'd even like to know the size of the fields and what are valid
values.

If there are several answers, I will integrate them into one answer
for use by the Moderator.

Thank You.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #47
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14822;
          19 Jan 91 4:28 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20205;
          19 Jan 91 2:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab24525;
          19 Jan 91 1:50 CST
Date:     Sat, 19 Jan 91 1:30:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #48
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Jan 91 01:30:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 48

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telemarketing Shuts Down For War [John Winslade]
    Telemarketing Experience [Paul Gauthier]
    Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [J. Eric Townsend]
    What's on AT&T Universal Calling Card; The Answer [Laird P. Broadfield]
    How the AT&T Accident Snowballed [New York Times via Peter G. Capek]
    Cable Cuts in The Netherlands [Dolf Grunbauer]
    E-911 Data Needed for Implementation Group [Wes Williams]
    Ad Age AT&T Ad Contest Winners [George R. Cross]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 91 23:22:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing Shuts Down For War


Two of the nation's leading outbound telemarketing firms have
suspended sales calls because of the war in the Middle East, according
to the {Omaha World-Herald} and other sources.

According to a spokesperson for one of the firms, 'With this intense
situation, we thought it would be best not to make any calls ... there
are a lot of emotions about the war.  People are thanking us for
closing down.'

In one of the firms, it was stated that the decision to shut down was
a joint decision by the firm and its clients.

The suspension will continue at least until Monday when the managers
and clients will decide to terminate or extend the ban.

Omaha, famous for its seemingly endless supply of complacent workers
with 'Columbia School of Broadcasting' voices, is regarded by many as
being the junk-phone-call capital of America.

So, I guess we can safely answer our phones during the war, huh ??  I
guess every cloud does have a silver lining.


Good Day!       JSW


[Moderator's Note: Given my 'druthers, I would rather hear from the
telemarketers. As I write this just after midnight CST, Saturday
morning, there has been another attack on Israel. Where will all this
stop?  Or will it -- as I am beginning to fear -- eventually spread
through much of the Middle East?  How I wish this was all a nightmare
and I would wake up soon!  :( :(  PAT]

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

From: Paul Gauthier <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing Experience
Organization: Math, Stats & CS, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 00:26:10 -0400


Living in Nova Scotia, Canada I find I'm not bothered nearly as often
as many of the posters in more populous areas of the states claim.
This evening I got a rare call from a telemarketer trying to sell me
magazine subscriptions. It opened with "You have been selected
_randomly_ to win a wonderful $30 prize ... (blah blah blah)" And then
continued through the most boring mindless drivel I have ever heard. I
let her talk for a minute since I wasn't all that busy.  Eventually I
told her I wasn't interested and she hung up.

Just for something to do I dialed my phone-number plus 1. ie, say I'm
555-1212; I called 555-1213. Sure enough, it was busy. A minute later
I called again and asked the woman who answered if she had been
bothered by a telemarker just then. She confirmed so I eplained who I
was and why I had called. She too was annoyed by the call.

I should have tried to follow this person up the exchange for some fun
 :-) This is one of the first experiences I've had with a telemarketer
who was so blatently pushing wares in so uncreative a fashion.


Paul Gauthier                                     | [e-mail]
President, Cerebral Computer Technologies         | [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]    Fax: (send email first)   | [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] ("J. Eric Townsend")
Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage
Organization: University of Houston -- Department of Mathematics
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 05:51:47 GMT


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

>Brokaw, in fact, asked CNN how they did it,
>and the reporter was quite secretive.
>So how did they do it?  My initial guess was some sort of multiplexed
>multiple phone lines, but it seems that all regular phone lines from
>Baghdad were disrupted.  Any ideas?

Something called a "four-line" or "four-wire", according to CNN.  It
seems that only CNN was (pre-war) allowed to "lease" one of these from
the Iraqi government.  Best I can tell, they used it to transmit to
Jordan, at which point they were patched into a phone network.

I'm not a telephony guru, so I dunno...


J. Eric Townsend     Internet: [e-mail]    Bitnet: jet@UHOU
Systems Mangler - UH Dept. of Mathematics - [phone]


[Moderator's Note: I believe the link outbound from Jordan was via
satellite to the United States, then into a wire-line once it got
here.  Hopefully we can have a couple of detailed responses on this
over the weekend.    PAT]

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

From: Laird P. Broadfield <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's on AT&T Universal Calling Card; The Answer
Date: 17 Jan 91 19:34:46 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Heiby)
writes:

>[e-mail] (Jim Celoni) writes:

>>A caveat about the Universal Card: the magnetic stripe has the credit
>>card number, not calling card number, so if you swipe it into a public
>>phone, your credit card will be billed *by whatever carrier the phone
>>wants to use*, and even if it's AT&T you won't get the 10% off.

>I don't think that this is accurate.  I believe that the stripe
>contains both numbers on it.  I believe this because when traveling

I was reading this thread, and realized I had the equipment available
from a recent R&D to answer this.  Here's the deal:

Remember that the card is a credit card; it just happens to come with
a calling card number.  The stripe data looks perfectly normal for a
credit card, with all the usual ISO7813 field info filled in on both
track 1 (6 bit +1 parity alphanumeric) and track 2 (4 bit +1 parity
numeric).  The ISO standards allow for some "discretionary data" up to
the capacity of the stripe, following the required stuff on each
track.  My U-card has no discretionary data on track 2, but has the
letters "ZZA" followed by my calling card number (without the PIN) in
the track 1 discretionary area.

This may tie in with Jim's U-rep saying that "not all phones are
programmed to read this yet"; maybe ZZA is a magic flag meaning "a
phone card number follows" and the machines need to be told to look
for it and use it if it's there.


Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 02:46:52 EST
From: "Peter G. Capek" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How the AT&T Accident Snowballed


An article in the {New York Times}, Jan 14, 1991 gives some
information about the cutting of the fiber cable in Newark on January
4.  I'll outline the highlights:

- Cable through Newark was one of AT&T's ten busiest.

- Employee was in manhole removing an outdated (copper?) cable, but
failed to read the label on the one he cut, so didn't realize it was
the wrong one.  His supervisor also failed to notice the error.
Further, a second crew which was supposed to have marked the cable to
be cut never arrived at the site.  Had they been present, they
presumably would have averted the error, and if not, at least realized
promptly what happened.  As it happened, the cut was not located for
over an hour.  (The article implies that it was not apparent that the
cut cable was fiber rather than copper, because the cutter used tended
to crimp the end, and because the "weak" laser light which was being
transmitted was not visible to the naked eye.)

- AT&T Operations Center in Bedminster, NJ was not notified that work
was being done in the proximity of the cable, so when they discovered
the failure, had no idea where to send repair trucks.  So they had to
resort to a time-domain reflectometer ("a sonar-like device") to find
the point of the break, a procedure which took between 60 and 90
minutes.  Apparently, the procedure of notifying the Operations Center
about work in progress near its cables was routinely done, but is no
longer done, in an effort to reduce costs.

- The computers which reroute traffic in such situations had not been
"programmed" to give priority to the air traffic control (leased
circuits, I presume).  So, even though routine voice traffic was being
rerouted within fifteen minutes, New York's three airports lost
contact with their long-range radar for 102 minutes, delaying and
cancelling many flights.  But the F.A.A. had not paid for any special
rerouting service.

- New York City accounts for 1/5 of AT&T's domestic calls and 1/3 of
its international calls.

- The problem occurred despite a warning of vulnerability it received
on Nov 18, 1988, when a construction accident caused the same cable to
be cut twenty miles to the south.

- Following that, the traffic on the fiber was reduced, and
constructed alternates.  But there's still not enough alternate
capacity to assume the load in the case of an outage such as this one.

- 3/5 of all calls attempted to and from New York City during business
hours on Jan 4 were not completed.  (No statement is made about how
much greater the number of attempts was than is usual for a Friday.)
ATM lines and leased lines servicing the financial industry were also
affected.

- The cut occurred in a personhole at a point where a lot of traffic
is funneled together to cross the Hudson River into New York.
Unfortunately, the hole flooded and pumps had to be brought in.
Further, there was so little slack in the cable that a new section had
to be spliced in, thus doubling the number of connections to be made.

- The incident made at least one customer look to Sprint for service.
It isn't clear whether that unnamed "medium-sized business" will move
to Sprint entirely, or use both carriers.

- Donald E. Lively, a retired AT&T "expert on restoring service"
couldn't understand why the problem wasn't fixed within half an hour
or so.  As it was, it took over seven hours.


Peter Capek

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

Organization: Philips Information Systems, P.O. Box 245,
From: Dolf Grunbauer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cable Cuts in the Netherlands
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 15:17:16 MET


Patrick,

In 'De Computable' of 11 January 1991, I read that the Dutch PTT has
suffered last year a damage of at least fl. 25 million (about US$ 14
million) due to cable cuts. The PTT has the impression that this
damage is increasing each year when fluctuations (e.g. construction of
new roads) are removed from the calculations. There is a special
office where the exact locations of the cables can be obtained (KLIC:
Kabel en Leidingen Informatie Centrum), but the impression is that the
contracters due to time pressure are not carefull enough when digging
in the vicinity of cables. According to the PTT about 60% of all
disturbances is cleared within sixteen hours or less.

Also I read on 'Teletekst' (information pages which are broadcasted
via the TV), that in Poland the women complained that getting a
divorce has very serious impacts, as they would lose their telephone.
Getting a new telephone line takes very long and may even take up to
25 years. This prevents divorces.


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

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

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 91 14:47:45 CDT
From: Wes Williams <[e-mail]>
Subject: E-911 Data Needed For Implementation Group


 * Original to All @ 1:382/39 in FIRENET
 * Forwarded Wed Jan 16 1991  14:46:20 by William Degnan @ 1:382/39

This is Enhanced 911, not 911.

I was informed today that I will be representing our Department in a
group of our County's representatives from Massachusetts for the
implementation of the new Mass E-911 system.

For those of you unaware, MA has recently passed a State law to bring
this into active state wide use over the next few years, where only
some cities have been previously served by nonenhanced 911.

With my primary job as administrator of the CPU operation for the
Department, I suppose it was a logical choice. On the other hand, out
of all the material that I've been able to lay my hands on, seminars
included, I still do not have a feel for the pitfalls of such a
project.

(Hat in hand mode on)

I would be more than thankful for suggested reading material, or any
other sources of information that this fine group could supply.

Those of you with past experience(s) in this area are invited to
submit ascii, paper, 3.5", 5.25", 80 meg hard drives full of data, or
file attach to this node number anything that may, in your opinion, be
of importance to this project.

A general discussion seems also appropriate in this echo if the
Moderator will sanction same.

A few primary thoughts:

Is it more beneficial to utilize what hardware / software that the
phone people are required to supply for a stand alone system, and hand
off data to a dedicated dispatch system? (The dispatch system has not
yet been obtained, although what is required before this came to pass
has been well researched.)

When looking at a regional approach, combining multiple cities in one
central dispatch location for a few hundred thousand people, and other
than the transitional learning curves, what are the problems/benefits
with this method?

How many (basic) different types of *E*911 are there in the country
now, and who is better than who and why?

In reference to the above, I have been informed (most likely
incorrectly) that there were only two types. 1. A regional telephone
company staffed system that passes off the information, and 2. a
direct connect to the locality that will provide the service. Also,
that there (in this case) can be only one split (hand off to police or
fire) in the final configuration.

I dislike the telco staff approach (old school) but there again, it's
still phone equipment, so I'd like some comments there.

Feel free to reach me in any of the following manners, and advanced
thanks to all that reply or send material.

Capt. E. W. Wiliams             Wes Williams
Fire Dept. HQ                   33 Sweetser Ter
725 Western Ave.                Lynn MA 01904
Lynn, MA 01905                  617-593-6458
617-593-1234 (afternoons)       (home)

or net-mail NPI @ 101/192, 101,193


Wes Williams -- via The Q Continuum (FidoNet Node 1:382/31)
UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!Wes.Williams
ARPA: [e-mail]

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

Date: 18 Jan 91 14:30:05
From: George Cross <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ad Age AT&T Ad Contest Winners


 From Advertising Age, January 7, 1991, p24

The contest was to predict the next, even nastier pitch for AT&T LD.
The winners are quoted below.

Frequent repeat entry prototype:

"So I go to pick up Bobby from the daycare center and he's not there.
I get home, the phone's ringing and it's them.  The guy says, 'Lady,
we've got your kid.  Say something to mommy, Bob. (SCREAM).  Please
note, Mrs. Sanderson, the fiber-optic clarity of your son's ...'"

First Prize:

So the guy says, "Hi, I'm Willie Horton and MCI has given me this job
as part of their new work-release program.  Let's get together and
talk about switching over."

      -- Randy Dumouchel, copywriter, Primm & Co., Norfolk, VA.

Second Prize:

I just wanted directory assistance for Montana and the next thing I
know I'm talking to Mozambique.  So call MCI for credit and I get a
recording -- of Roseanne Barr singing.  When the operator comes on I
say, "AT&T never put me on hold."  She says, "Sweetie, AT&T never had
a nasty infection like the one I got."

      -- Eric Gutierrez, actor/copywriter, New York

Third Prize:

I hear this crash and I find a rock, wrapped in paper, next to my
living room window.  I open up the note and it says, "You want it in
writing?  You got it.  Next time, take the call.  MCI.  We know where
you live."

     -- Mary Hoppin, consumer services manager, Asian Sources
         Publications, Hong Kong

Honorable Intention:

So the guy says "Paul, if you don#213#t switch we're gonna have to fire-bomb
your house."  And I say, "Fire-bomb my house? AT&T never threatened
me like that."  And he says, "You're not dealing with AT&T."

     -- Paul Gosselin, free-lance copywriter, Nashville


George R. Cross    [e-mail]
Contel Technology Center    Intelligent Systems Laboratory
[phone]   15000 Conference Center Drive   Chantilly, VA 22021-3808

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #48
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29086;
          19 Jan 91 16:36 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20588;
          19 Jan 91 15:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04979;
          19 Jan 91 13:59 CST
Date:     Sat, 19 Jan 91 13:59:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #49
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 19 Jan 91 13:58:56 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 49

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Bob Sherman]
    Re: CNN From Baghdad [Bob Sherman]
    Re: Iraq Conflict Report [Brian Crawford]
    Re: Concerted Action [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount [Mark Van Buskirk]
    Re: DTMF in Japan [Jon Sreekanth]
    Help Wanted With Four-Wire Phone [Dick Jackson]
    Correction: Error in Fax Phone Number [Sean Williams]
    Telesat Canada Winter Report, 1990-91 [TELECOM Moderator]
    CLID Compatibility Question [John Winslade]
    Sending/Receiving Telex Messages [[e-mail]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bob Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 09:48:57 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
writes:

[ stuff deleted]

>NBC's audio was clearly just a plain telephone connection, with all
>the bandwidth limitations that implies.  CNN's audio, though, sounded
>much clearer.  Further, at one point NBC lost the phone connection and
>didn't regain it for some time, but CNN maintained its hookup and even
>piped it to NBC (at a cost that Tom Brokaw had to effusively speak of
>how wonderful CNN is).  Brokaw, in fact, asked CNN how they did it,
>and the reporter was quite secretive.

Bernie Shaw is no dummy. The CNN boys outdid the competition, and he
was not going to tell them at this time, although he did promise to
tell Brokaw over dinner sometime after he returns to the States.

>So how did they do it?  My initial guess was some sort of multiplexed
>multiple phone lines, but it seems that all regular phone lines from
>Baghdad were disrupted.  Any ideas?

Yes, without giving away their trade secrets before they wish to make
them public, let me just say it was a device that is mainly used on
large ocean vessels, oil rig towers in the middle of nowhere, etc and
was rigged to operate off of either commercial voltage with a drop
down device or battery power in the event that commercial power failed
(which it did.) I am glad that I do not have to pay their bill, which
costs several dollars per minute ... for all of the hours they were
using it. They also had with them, a portable electric generator
which they purchased in the Washington DC area before they went over
there, along with tons of Tuna fish, etc.


[e-mail]    MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN

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

From: Bob Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 10:04:01 GMT


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

>One of the little nagging questions last night was how CNN was getting
>audio out of Baghdad while everyone else was shutdown.

>In fact, when NBC was interviewing the CNN crew, CNN declined to say
>how.  One Associated Press story this morning said that CNN was using
>a four-wire phone line (I assume a dedicated circuit).  There were
>also references on CNN to "turning off the microphone so that we can
>hear Atlanta".

The four-wire stuff was two lines, one in so they could hear the AFB
line from Atlanta with incoming audio, and the other was for the
outgoing audio which is what you heard. Once the phone lines and the
electric were gone, they had outgoing audio only, and could not hear
AFB at the same time. In fact for much of the time they had no idea if
what they were saying was even being heard by anyone, let alone
getting on the air, and much of the time they were broadcasting while
lying under a table on the floor. Only one of them kept their head up
to look out the window at a time.

Shaw and Holliman are out of Iraq now and safely in Jordan. Arnett
elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta.
But then he has covered many wars before (has won a Pulitzer Prize
among other awards in the past) and is no doubt enjoying every minute
of it. It was the first war for Holliman (and his wife who remained
behind in Washington), and Shaw was not really there to cover the war,
but it broke out while he was there. I was with Shaw some years ago
in Jonestown, Guyana when hundreds of people went on a grape kool-aid
drinking binge, and I can tell you that he has a very good head on his
shoulders. He was not working for CNN at that time, but was with ABC.


[e-mail]    MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Iraq Conflict Report
Date: 19 Jan 91 15:13:48 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


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

> The Digest connection? Wire service reports indicate that it was the
> former AT&T building.

Are you speaking of the fighter jet footage?  If so, I thought that
was the Iraqi Air Force Command.


Brian Crawford INTERNET: [e-mail] PO Box 804
FidoNet: 1:114/15.12 Tempe, Arizona 85280 Amateur: KL7JDQ USA

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Concerted Action
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 12:30:05 GMT


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

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

>>What would happen if everyone (in the US, in North America, on the
>>planet -- pick your favorite range) picked up the phone at the same
>>instant and tried to make a *local* call?  (Yes, anyone who got

>Depends on the type of switch. Some would handle this gracefully,
>others can't. DMS (NT) switches limit dial tone, so the switch can
>complete the calls it provides dial tone for. First come, first serve
>kind of thing.  I'm not sure what would happen if the wait stack
>filled up. Presumably it would issue a SWERR (software error) and the
>call would die. Use up a lot of printer paper....

Each resource needed to complete a call (dialtone, tone receivers,
call data blocks, etc.) has a que.  I don't remember exactly what
happens on an overflow (I think it just drops the call to an
intercept), but ... the que is not a first come first serve!  It is a
last come first serve.  The theory being that the call most likely to
be able to complete is the last one taken in.

SWER logs are not generated by dropped calls or que overflows.
Operational Measurement counts are pegged though.  SWER logs are
created when the software finds itself in a state where it does not
know what is supposed to happen next.  (If you are actually printing
every SWERR generated you are wasting paper!  Half the time it takes
going all the way back to BNR to figure out what causes them.)

The real secret with DMS log reports is knowing which ones to NOT
print out.  For everyone who wonders what we are talking about, the
DMS switches can empty a box of paper printing logs on more things
than you can imagine and do it in almost the blink of an eye.  The
first jokes I ever heard about digital switches all had to do with how
much stock we should buy in Weyerhouser and Moore Business Supply.

>If the switch _did_ crash, it would take about four minutes to reload
>its software, and things would be hunky-dory unless everyone was still

DMS switches have various levels of "crash": Warm, cold, or reload
restarts.  The only time software is actuaally reloaded is a reload
restart, and that is going to take a lot longer than four minutes (at
least on an NT-40 front end, I don't know about Super-Node's).  Warm
or cold restarts may take a very short time and may not even drop
calls (but none can be set up during that time either).

>waiting for dial tone. In a worst case situation, current draw might
>be great enough to draw down batteries, and if all those phones stayed
>off hook, either the line modules would shut them down (auto recover
>when the line goes back on hook) or telco employees might start
>powering down line frames.

I don't work on a line switcher, but that does not sound realistic.

What I have seen is about 50% of all the trunks in a toll switch go
offhook all at once.  Last week a company whose name I won't mention
did a minor adjustment of Alascom's satellite, and shot it right out
of the box for 42 minutes.  I bet that cost $200 just for the paper to
print the logs on.  But nothing crashed.

>I don't think ATT switches handle bounds conditions this well. It'd
>probably die, and they take longer to come back up. (I haven't worked
>directly with them, but I understand it is on the order of half an
>hour.)

Well, could be, I don't know.  But I did hear one good story about NTI
doing a major software upgrade on what was at the time one of the
largest DMS switches in operation: the line was "The Peripheral
Modules will take less than one hour to reload this time, because we
fixed that problem."  If I remember right it took better than FIVE
hours.


Floyd L. Davidson  |  [e-mail]   |  Alascom, Inc. pays me
Salcha, AK 99714   |    Univ. of Alaska      |  but not for opinions.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Jan 18 08:38:47 CST 1991
Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount
Organization: AT&T


In response to the questions raised about aggregators the following
information should be helpful. First, employees of an aggregator are
NOT authorized to represent themselves as AT&T employees. Second, if
you purchase service from an aggregator AT&T will still provide direct
billing to you.  AT&T does not share specific account information with
aggregators. The only information they should have is that which is
obtained from you.


Mark Van Buskirk   AT&T   (800-544-1697)  Rolling Meadows, Il


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Van Buskirk, I was wondering what advantage
there is to AT&T to work through aggregators in this way? Why do they
do it? It seems like your company is losing money by allowing these
artificial groupings to be billed at whatever lower rates apply.
Shouldn't there at least be some sort of affinity between the
individuals involved, i.e. all in the same organization; the same
employer; or at least the same physical location such as a hotel or
apartment complex reselling phone service, etc?  Can you explain why
AT&T is willing to allow such poorly defined collections of users to
get reduced rates?   PAT]

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: DTMF in Japan
Date: 19 Jan 91 10:21:39


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

> In a recent message, John Higdon mentions the relative lack of DTMF in
> Japan.  Having been telephonically bouncing around Tokyo on and off

I guess I started this thread some time ago, by asking why answering
machines and voice mail services could not work by detecting pulse
inputs. One of the responses was that the receiving phone does not see
line current interruptions, just clicks. I knew this, but as I
mentioned, one AT & T answering machine claimed to work with non-DTMF
phones.

Well, I finally investigated. The AT&T Answering System Telephone
1523 says on the box that remote operation is possible from pulse
phones. This is technically correct, but somewhat misleading, because
the user manual (which I read in the store) describes the operation:
if after some time out period, you haven't entered your DTMF password,
the answering machine starts prompting you by voice, and you respond
_by speaking_. The manual says it does not do any speech recognition,
just responds to audio energy. To enter your two digit password, you let
it step through announcing digits, and when you hear the first digit,
you say any random word, and then it steps through for the second
digit. It's as easy as pulling teeth.

Regards,

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

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

From: Dick Jackson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Wanted With Four-Wire Phone
Date: 18 Jan 91 19:22:17 GMT
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica


We have an echo cancellation system along with our compressed video
gear that provides audio via a power amp and speaker.  We want to add,
as an option, a handset capability.  The easiest way to do this, I
think, is to attach a four-wire telephone via a matching transformer
(10:1?). Note: we have to work from the existing system because it
provides a delay which provides lip sync with the video.

I would appreciate information about whether regular telephones are
available with a four-wire interface (not operator headsets) and
pointers to vendors.


Thanks in advance,

Dick Jackson

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Jan 18 10:59:40 EST 1991
Subject: Correction: Error in Fax Phone Number


This post is to point out an error in a letter I submitted to TELECOM
Digest a few weeks ago.

We were discussing devices which could detect the distinctive ringing
patterns and direct the calls to a specific extension.  I posted the
address of Bell Atlantic Business Supplies, however, I incorrectly
gave the fax number as (215)/534-5738.  The correct number is
(215)/524-5738.  Two readers have pointed out this error to me, so I
decided it was time to post a correction.  <grin>

Sincerely,

Sean E. Williams     [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 1:38:15 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telesat Canada Winter Report, 1990-91


A new file in the Telecom Archives is the Telesat Canada Winter
Report, donated by David Leibold (woody).  It will be available in a
day or two, following some organization work I am doing in the
archives this weekend.  Thanks to woody for this latest addition to
the archives, which are ftp'able from lcs.mit.edu (cd telecom-archives),
with the usual anonymous login method.


PAT

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

Date: 18 Jan 91 23:23:00 CDT
From: JOHN WINSLADE <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLID Compatibility Question


At a local sysops' gathering tonight, the subject of Caller*ID <tm>
came up and it was mentioned by one participant that he had heard that
the Class- Mate <tm> would not work in US West territory, supposedly
due to differences in the way US West sends the CLID data.

Class-Mate is a widget that connects between a CLID-equipped phone
line and a computer's line that converts the incoming CLID data to
serial data that may be captured by the computer.  It's is available
from Bell Atlantic and possibly other sources.

Is it >>REALLY<< the case that US West uses a different scheme for
CLID??  I am now using a CLID box that I got from Hello Direct -- the
same box that is sold to non-US West subscribers, as far as I know.
The box works fine here, and I know the same model CLID box works in
New Jersey as well.

Also, I had the impression that the Class-Mate was more or less a
passive device that demodulated the CLID data and converted it to
RS-232 compatible levels, and did not really do any heavy-duty data
conversion.  Am I correct in assuming this.  Thanks.


Good Day!       JSW


[Moderator's Note: Since an ultimate goal is to make Caller-ID
available to everyone on all calls throughout the USA I would think
the individual systems throughout the country are compatible.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Saturday, 19 Jan 1991 01:14:36 EST
Subject: Sending/Receiving Telex Messages


I do not have telex, but my friend has it. What is the best way
that I can receive his telex messages?  Thanks!


[Moderator's Note: There are numerous services which include telex
sending and receiving capabilities. Three which come to mind here in
the USA are MCI Mail, AT&T Mail, and Sprintmail (we used to call it
Telemail). All three are electronic mail services which will assign a
telex number to a mailbox on request, and accept outgoing telexes. I
think Compuserve may have a similar arrangement. Have you looked into
accounts on any of these systems?    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #49
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02030;
          19 Jan 91 19:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05142;
          19 Jan 91 18:10 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14183;
          19 Jan 91 17:05 CST
Date:     Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:51:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  A Special Notice About the Digest
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


 Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:52:00 CST
 From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
 Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom


         WELCOME TO COMP.DCOM.TELECOM AND THE <TELECOM DIGEST>
         =====================================================

This is a special posting to readers of comp.dcom.telecom and the
TELECOM Digest, to tell you a little about the group, the procedures
for posting here and my philosophy as Moderator.

TELECOM Digest was started in August, 1981 by Jon Solomon as a mailing
list on the old ARPA network. It was an offshoot of the Human Nets
forum intended for discussion of telephones and related communications
topics. I've been the Moderator/Editor/facilitator of the Digest since
the fall of 1988; and I work from guest accounts provided to me at
several sites, primarily Northwestern University in Evanston, IL, but
also at Boston University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
in Boston, MA and the University of California.

TELECOM Digest is not strictly speaking part of Usenet. It is an
official Internet mailing list publication. A decision was made at
some point in the past to 'port' the Digest to the Usenet news group
'comp.dcom.telecom', in order that Usenet readers would be able to
participate in the Digest. I became Moderator of comp.dcom.telecom in
1989 in addition to being Moderator of TELECOM Digest. For all
practical purposes, the messages in comp.dcom.telecom are identical to
tne messages which appear simultaneously in TELECOM Digest. Now the
Digest goes to several Bitnet and Fidonet sites as well, in addition
to being distributed on several other networks such as MCI Mail, AT&T
Mail, and Telenet, via the PC Pursuit Net Exchange BBS.

Both comp.dcom.telecom and TELECOM Digest are *moderated*. This means
that unlike many Usenet groups, messages must be channeled through the
Moderator's mailbox to be considered for publication. Like other
moderated groups on Usenet, the reason for this is to reduce the flow
of traffic on the net; to reduce the number of postings which
essentially say nothing new; and to group or collect the messages in a
logical and convenient to read way. Moderators have the duty of
weeding through duplicate messages; standardizing the output; making
minor changes to correct spelling, grammar and punctuation;
'repairing' header information and subject title information as needed
to cause messages to 'thread' correctly, and otherwise helping to
maintain the flow of traffic on the net and the attractive appearance
of their group.

Moderators are entitled to have opinions of their own on the topics
of discussion, but should make an effort to keep the discussion
balanced with all sides permitted to express their opinion. In the
event of such a heavy flow of traffic that not all -- or only a small
portion -- of the messages received can be used, the Moderator is
expected to balance the flow as evenly as possible. Quite obviously
this is more of a judgment-call than anything else at times.

In TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom my specific guidelines are
these:

We receive an average of 60-120 messages *each day* from readers. I
try to print as many as possible, which basically means putting out
two or three issues of the Digest each day. Some days I put out two
issues; other days I put out five. The salary they pay me for doing
this doesn't require me to work more than three hours per day on
telecom discussions.  :)  :)

I very rarely use anonymous messages. First, neither the sites which
permit me to use their facilities or the Internet itself support
anonymous postings. I'm a guest here -- not a policy maker. I do not
pay the first nickle to move telecom traffic around the net. So I
think it in my best interest to follow the rules others have made.

Second, there are so many postings from *real, live people* received
every day that I don't have to accept anonymous, maybe the person is,
maybe the person isn't real messages. I believe Moderators must be
held responsible for the messages in their groups; and I don't intend
to be in the trick-bag for anyone here. I will withhold names on
request when (in my discretion) I think the writer has a good reason
for it. But I insist on at least having the backup information in my
own files here.   It comes down to the integrity of the net, in my
opinion. As the person who has been given one small section of the net
to operate in trust, that is the way I prefer to do it. There are
exceptions to my personal standard of 'no anonymous messages', but
they are few.

When several messages appear from various people saying almost the
same thing, that is intended to demonstrate the large volume of mail
on the topic. In other words, if eighty percent of my mail on a given
day is in response to some topic, it is likely two or three issues of
the Digest will be exclusively or almost entirely devoted to the same
topic -- even if that means many virtually identical messages. Each
issue of the Digest is intended as a *random sampling* of the mail I
received that day or the day before.

A Moderator is not required to print all submissions recieved and is
in fact encouraged not to do so. It comes down many times to simply a
judgment call by the Moderator to accept one and not accept another.
Based on the 30-40 messages per day I publish (depending on the time I
can devote that day) versus the 60-120 I actually receive, I wind up
publishing between a third and half of the submissions.

The autoreply is, I think, unique to TELECOM Digest and comp.dcom.telecom.
There is no way I could begin to personally respond to the mail I
receive, and there will be times that messages won't get out for a day
or two because of the backlog. I try to move new messages with timely
and newsworthy content to the front of the queue. Sometimes this
causes someone else to get shoved back still another issue. So the
autoreply is my way of letting you know your article has been
received. I owe you that much courtesy.

Who gets autoreply / who does not receive it?

We use MMDF here for the mail. A feature of this software is that all
incoming mail is filtered through .maildelivery, a file which says how
to handle each incoming item. The autoreply program looks at each
piece of mail and takes the following actions:

Is there a 'reply to' line in addition to a 'from' line? If so, then
use 'reply to' to detirmine whether or not to send the reply. If no
'reply to' then use the 'from' line for this purpose, although 'from'
is notoriously inaccurate by the time some mailers get finished with
it!

Look for these strings in the 'from'/'reply-to' line. If seen, then do
NOT send an autoreply:  daemon, postmaster, news@, uucp@, telecom,
ptownson@, and others. Such letters either were written by daemons to
bounce mail, are items forwarded by backbone sites found loose in
comp.dcom.telecom (unapproved postings), or are inter-account
transfers of mail by myself from one location to another. If we
autoreply to these, a loop may get started with daemons replying back
to autoreply, etc.

Despite how carefully I try to define the limited instances where
autoreply should not go out, there are a few users whose addresses
contain characteristics so similar that their mail gets treated the
same way. That is, I see it, but .maildelivery sorted it into a file
silently as it would do with bounced mail, telecom-request stuff, etc.
Over all, about 95 percent of the *actual, real people* who write me
get an autoreply generated. To avoid the risk of starting a loop in
the mail -- a war of the daemons as it were -- I prefer to err on the
conservative side and skip a few of you.

Individuals can be added to the 'do not reply' list: I routinely do
not send autoreply to regular administrative email. For example the
postmaster here at eecs, another user here who assists me with
technical problems, etc do not like the autoreply. When a reader
attempts to put an article direct into comp.dcom.telecom I will
receive sometimes <hundreds> of copies of the article as sites all
over the world forward it to me for handling. The user involved will
wind up getting hundreds of autoreplies back from me if there was a
'reply to' in his header. I manually edit these in and out of the
.maildelivery file as needed to turn off autoreply to that person if
needed. Other individuals who send me threatening, harrassing or
nonsensical mail on a frequent basis can and are also added. I see no
reason to encourage them to continue writing.

So ... about 95 percent of the 'real people' generate autoreply when
they write me, give or take manual exceptions added to the list as
needed.  Do they all get the autoreply?  No!

Maybe five or ten percent of those folks had their 'from' line in the
header so badly mangled (and there was no 'reply-to' to fall back on)
that the autoreply itself bounces and returns to me as bounced mail.
As an aside, that is one reason 'telecom' is in the exceptions list.
Imagine the dilemma: a deamon bounces my autoreply and I autoreply
right back ... and again, and again, and again. :)

So over all, I estimate 85-90 percent of the people who write me will
actually get the autoreply. If you are one of the ten or fifteen
percent who do not then either I have been unable to write my code to
include you, or you did not give me an unmolested 'reply-to' to reach
you, or in rare cases, I specifically have added you to the
exceptions if you were engaging in what I consider harrassing actions
toward the Digest or myself.

I do not guarentee I will answer personal mail on telecom issues.
Sometimes I will take your letter and publish it in the Digest so
others can answer better than I unless you **specifically** in the
body of your letter say NOT FOR PUBLICATION. I rarely answer letters
marked not for publication.

If I do not wish to use your submission I attempt to do one of two
things: If it is a lengthy piece and obviously required work to
prepare it, I will attempt to return it. If it bounces once, then I
will disgard it. If your article was a short piece -- just a few lines
of response or similar -- I will often times simply disgard it and
answer you with a note of my own. Again, if it bounces, I have no
resources or time to track down your address ... not and publish
three, four or five Digests per day as well.

If you usually receive the autoreply, and for some specific submission
do *not* receive it, before resubmitting the article, drop me a note
asking if I received it. I'll tell you if I did or not. If your
article is not time-sensitive (and most are not) then if possible
watch the Digest for a couple days and see if it appears before you
write me. After two or three days do please write to follow up if your
item has not appeared, you did not get the autoreply AND you did not
get a note from me declining publication for whatever reason.

If you usually do not receive the autoreply due to the technical
reasons specified above, and if your article has not been published
or returned within two or three days contact me again. If you send a
duplicate copy of your article, please note DUPLICATE near the top
somewhere to catch my eye as I am editing it.

Yes, I can lose things, but my record is pretty good for not losing
submissions. Any large moderated group will have technical problems
from time to time, but I am trying my best on this end to make the
Digest and comp.dcom.telecom one of the best groups on the net.

Some readers complain that I publish ** too much ** here -- that I
should limit the output to one Digest per day; but that would mean
tossing out a great deal of what I receive. I'd rather make the extra
effort to publish as wide a variety of stuff as possible, from as many
readers as possible. Perhaps I am too tolerant of many of your
submissions, but I take this task very seriously and try to do it
well.

However I cannot -- will not -- publish messages which in my
estimation are intended only as flames, deliberate attacks on myself
or other users, or which are calculated to throw the Digest up for
grabs and cause a big backlog of meta-discussions about the operation
of the Digest itself. I trust none of the long-time readers here will
ever claim that I refuse to publish all sides of an issue, or that I
refuse to publish opinions contrary to my own. If anything, I permit
too many rebuttal messages; but I want all sides to be aired here,
save my few 'blind spots' if you wish to call them that: I won't
publish phreak/cracker messages which jeopardize the security of this
net or the telephone network; anonymous messages will be a rarity
here; persons abusing network hospitality and/or lacking basic 'net
etiquette' by sending messages with fake names and addresses or by
forging the required headers to break into comp.dcom.telecom will find
no kinship with me. I do not acknowledge or respond to the individuals
who send such messages.

The Digest is 'wide-open' for conversation on all aspects of
telephony: there is no honest way these days to separate the technical
aspects from the politics involved, or vice-versa. Both telecom
'heavyweights' and inexperienced users are welcome here subject to the
few rules of courtesy which should apply in any forum.

Comp.dcom.telecom is not 'just another Usenet group' ... it is
intended to be one of the best, and I sincerely thank all of you who
have helped to make it that way.

TELECOM Digest supports two alternate mailing lists for discussions
which have sprung from controversial topics here:

       Computer Underground Digest    [e-mail]

       Discussion of the social and legal ramifications of
       computer 'hacking'; related activities.

       Telecom Privacy         [e-mail]
           (moderator address: [e-mail])

       Discussion of privacy topics relating to telecommunications,
       including Caller*ID, telemarketing data files, etc.

Messages are frequently interchanged, or cross posted between the
Digest and these two mailing lists, both of which also appear in their
own 'alt' groups.

ALL messages to comp.dcom.telecom and TELECOM Digest MUST be sent
through the Moderator's address: [e-mail]. You cannot use
the 'follow-up' feature of readnews with moderated groups. You can of
course reply direct to the poster if desired.

I apologize for the length of this special mailing, but many of you
have epxressed concern in recent days asking for clarification on how
the Digest is maintained. I hope this posting gives you some
background information. Responses will not appear in the Digest, but I
will try to answer questions and possibly summarize replies in the
near future.


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator   / comp.dcom.telecom










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13560;
          20 Jan 91 5:54 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05265;
          20 Jan 91 4:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03699;
          20 Jan 91 3:15 CST
Date:     Sun, 20 Jan 91 2:40:29 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #50
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Jan 91 02:40:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 50

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T International Call Blocking, Again [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Living in America [David Leibold]
    Telephone Preference Service [Nigel Allen]
    900 Number Blocking / Separation on Phone Bill [Sean Williams]
    MCI Won't Put it in Writing [Steve Forrette]
    What's a Reorder? [Steve Forrette]
    Extended Range Cordless [John S. DeVere]
    CNN Gulf Communications [Kevin Boyd]
    Re: CNN From Baghdad [Brian Crawford]
    Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed [Jeff M. Byrd]
    Re: Secure Phones [Frederick Roeber]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19-JAN-1991 04:01:55.73
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again


I was speaking to a friend of mine today (before going over to visit
her), and during our phone conversation, she mentioned that her "best
friend" was in Isreal teaching English, and due to the hostilities in
the area, was unable to get through. My friend was pretty anxious to
call her teacher friend, so I tried it out from my own phone before
leaving.

I've only called that country once myself, so I looked up the country
code, city code, etc., (to make sure that she had not made a mistake),
and then dialed the number, and it worked fine, on the first try. So I
figured that she was calling at a busy time, or SHE misdialed.

When I went to her school to pick her up, I asked her to do EXACTLY
what she did on her previous attempts. So she went to the dorm
payphone, dialed 01-972-4-333-xxx-#, and got the AT&T "boing". I
entered MY calling card to make sure that her card wasn't invalid or
over the limit (she has one of those AT&T cards with no physical phone
number).

An AT&T operator came on, and said that one can NOT make Calling Card
calls to that country. I asked why, and she said (incredible as this
may sound) "The state on New Jersey doesn't have a credit card billing
agreement with Israel". I told her that I really don't buy it, and she
just asked if I wanted to talk to her supervisor. I told her "No, not
really, I know they'll give me some story about fraud ... I'll just use
MCI instead."

I remember a few months ago we were discussing this very same thing,
and if I recall correctly, a letter was sent to the chairman of AT&T
via AT&T mail (or AT&T's in-house system, if not the same). What ever
came of this?

I'd be interested in knowing because I am considering writing to them
letting them know how inconvenient it was not to be able to get
through. Chances are that I'll never have to call there again, but
that misses the point. If I WANT to call there, I, as a customer in
good standing, should be allowed to. I am thoroughly upset by the
attitude which a company I (generally) have a great deal of respect
for seems to be willing to take, especially at a time like this when
it is very important for some people to get through.

I'm also interested in how legal this is ... I'm not up on common
carrier law or administrative law, but if someone who knows could
point me in the right direction maybe I could investigate this a bit.

And YES, I am up at 4AM typing this, probably becuase I am quite upset
with AT&T. (I feel like that guy in the AT&T ad at the payphone where
he always gets connected to Fiji ... but in this case I *AM* dealing
with AT&T!! :) )

Thanks for any info/help,


Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Don't you love the bogus and totally stupid stories
the AT&T operators make up about these things?  Don't waste time with
them or their supervisors. I mean, 'a billing agreement between New
Jersey and Israel' ... now really.  When you get into a hassle trying
to place an international call with your AT&T card tell the operator
to connect you to the Pittsburgh IOC and that you don't want any
backtalk from her about it. A lady in our office had the same problem
from our *office* phone Thursday. About noon Thursday, recall that the
air raid sirens went off accidentally, and the television said Israel
had apparently been hit a second time. This lady is Jewish; some of
her family live in Israel. Her trouble is she is super honest about
the use of the office phones. We use several thousand dollars of AT&T
international calling each month; she could have easily just dialed
her family direct and the call would have passed unnoticed on the
office phone bill. But oh no! She doesn't believe in that, and instead
tried to dial it using her personal AT&T card so she would get the
bill. Despite the fact that AT&T had a positively identified
'bill-back' number (our office number showed on the operator's tube)
and despite the fact that our office does a large volume of business
with AT&T, the operator and her supervisor refused to honor this
lady's request!  It made me sick to think this lady is upset about her
family and AT&T wants to play games. I manage the phones in our office
and I am tempted to pull all sixteen of our dial one plus lines, our
T-1 and our tie lines away from AT&T and give them to Telecom*USA.
Then when our AT&T rep comes around to ask what I did that for, I'll
smile sweetly and say, "because your operator said there is no billing
agreement between New Jersey and Israel ..." as I forcibly walk him
out the door.  I'm growing increasingly disenchanted with AT&T and
their high-handed, and probably illegal discriminatory practices.  PAT]

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Living in America
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 2:44:09 EST


It's all but official ... I'll be spending much of 1991 in the U.S.,
getting out of the Great White North in March. This will be a half-to
3/4-year stint at the company branch office in Boca Raton, FL. Now the
opportunity arrives to experience the U.S. dereg experience
first-hand, equal access, COCOTS, LATAs and everything that has been
shielded from sensitive Canadian eyes that haven't seen TELECOM
Digest.

There are a few things that could be set up before the big move,
though ...  (e-mail to [e-mail], please don't flood the
Moderator with mail).

1) I might be able to set up a UUCP link at the company; any UUCP feeds
local to Boca Raton? If so, under what circumstances?

2) Are BBSs charged business rates down there? Boca Raton, I believe,
is Bell South (the BOC there??) territory, but GTE and Centel are all
over Florida as well.

3) Presumably, I wouldn't select ITI for a default carrier here... :-)

4) I have heard that AT&T and MCI have comparably good plans,
particularly for dialing Canada. Any further advice, ideas on carriers
other than the big three (AT&T, MCI, Sprint)? I've picked up much on
how to access things like 10xxx, heard tales of FONcards and
residential 800 service etc.  but anything specific to FL would be
appreciated (intra-LATA stuff, telco trivia, etc)

5) If all else fails, any tips on things like ATT Mail, MCI Mail, PC
Pursuit?

My thanks in advance for any and all information; looks like
communications are really going to get interesting over the next
several months in my case ... hopefully, I'll catch the Digest one way
or another when I leave contact here.


[e-mail]... soon djcl@attmail, djcl@mcimail,
                      ...  [e-mail] ????!?!??!


[Moderator's Note: Good luck. If nothing else, I'll send you the
Digest via any email service you join. Just let me know where.   PAT]

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

From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Preference Service
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 12:59:09 EST


The Direct Marketing Association operates a Telephone Preference
Service.  If you would like your name and phone number added to a list
of people who do not want to receive telemarketing calls, write to:

 Telephone Preference Service
 Direct Marketing Association
 11 West 42 Street
 P.O. Box 3861
 New York, N.Y. 10163-3861

This will only work to reduce calls from national companies that
participate in the program.  Local telemarketers and others who do not
participate in the program don't see the list.

When you write to the association, send them your name, full address,
area code and telephone number.

I assume that the list contains only U.S. names and addresses. People
who live in other countries may want to ask their national direct
marketing association whether it operates a similar program.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sat Jan 19 15:14:02 EST 1991
Subject: 900 Number Blocking / Separation on Phone Bill


The current discussions about 900 numbers has prompted me to post this
note which was received as an insert with my latest bill from United
Telephone of Pennsylvania:


  |  On September 5, 1990, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commision
  |  ordered all telephone companies to bill and collect charges
  |  for 900 premium calls as a part of non-basic service.  United has
  |  requested additional time to separate all 900 calls on a separate
  |  non-basic part of your bill.  United will not suspend local or
  |  toll service for nonpayment of 900 charges.  Failure to pay 900
  |  charges will result only in the blocking of non-basic service.  In
  |  many areas a 900 blocking service is available free of charge on
  |  a first time basis to United customers.  This block would stop
  |  anyone from making a 900 call from your phone.  If you are
  |  interested in this service, call your business office.

And, as a reference, nonbasic service was defined on a separate page:


  |  ... Customer service items such as leased telephones, maintenance
  |  plans, and custom-calling features are in non-basic...


Sean E. Williams    [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:04:23 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Won't Put it in Writing


I to saw the recent television ads by MCI about the Golden Turkey
award that AT&T "won" over its "put it in writing" ads.  A couple of
months ago, I called MCI to request information about their
residential 800 service.  I got verbal information from the rep, but
also asked to have written information sent to me.  The rep said that
they had a brochure, and one would be on the way.

About three weeks later, an envelope arrived from MCI, full of
brochures, describing how happy I'd be if I switched my equal access
default to them, along with rates, as well as international
information.  Nowhere was there a mention of their 800 service.  The
label on the envelope had "personal 800" at the bottom, so the rep had
obviously entered the request properly.  Maybe if MCI spent less money
on promoting the Golden Turkey award, and more on making sure people
get the information they requested, AT&T wouldn't be able to make fun
of them.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 16:19:32 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's a Reorder?


Well, I know what one is, but where did the term come from?  It's not
very self-explanatory.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 17:21 EST
From: "John S. DeVere" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Extended Range Cordless


In a previous issue, someone asked about cordless phones with a range
of about four miles.  Since I have not yet seen a reply, I thought I
would add my comments/questions.

When I last visited New York, I was walking past one of the 9999
electronics stores and noticed the cordless phones marked "for export
only".  The range on the box was listed as 25 miles or more -- I don't
remember.  Obviously, these are not FCC approved, or everyone would be
trying to use them as car phones.

Does anyone know what frequency these phones use and if such phones
will be approved by the FCC anytime soon?  Do you have any other
information regarding these phones?


John DeVere    DuPont Electronics    Research Triangle Park, NC

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 1991 17:11 CST
From: Kevin Boyd <[e-mail]>
Subject: CNN Gulf Communications


>The four-wire stuff was two lines, one in so they could hear the AFB

For the record, it's "IFB" as in "Interruptable FeedBack"...

Essentially this allows the field reporter/anchor to hear the other
"aircheck" audio(Studio anchor and taped segments)...

Usually is fed "MixMinus" which is a state that has everything except
the voice of the field reporter/anchor.  This is because the
satellite lag time for ones own voice is so distracting that it makes
it almost impossible to continue talking.

It also allows the field reporter/anchor to hear directions from the
producer back in the control room. (Hence, "Interruptable")


Regards,

Kevin Boyd                            | BITNET    [e-mail]
Marquette University                  | INTERNET  [e-mail]
Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A.                 | Phone     [phone]
Broadcasting and Electronic Media &   | FAX       [phone]
Computer Services Division            | "All views expressed are my own..."

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad
Date: 20 Jan 91 00:25:19 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob
Sherman) writes:

> Arnett elected to stay behind in Iraq against the advice of CNN in Atlanta.

Was this before or after Iraq officially expelled western journalists?
I would be curious to know if he remains there despite the expulsion.


Brian Crawford               INTERNET: [e-mail]
PO Box 804                   FidoNet:  1:114/15.12
Tempe, Arizona  85280        Amateur:  KL7JDQ
USA

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

From: "Jeff M. Byrd" <mailrus!uflorida!rm1![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help, Please: Line Multiplexer Unit Needed
Date: 18 Jan 91 17:23:56 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jeff M. Byrd)
Organization: Racal-Milgo, Atlanta, GA


There is another company that sells a line sharing device that uses
the Bell Companies' "Distinctive Ringing" Service. The device is called
"Fone Filter" and can route the call based on the ring pattern to one
of 3 devices. It is telephone line powered and requires no power
transformer. I have used one for over a year in two different parts of
the country with no problem. The "Fone Filter" sells for $99.95 and
can be ordered directly from the factory listed below.

To Order the "Fone Filter":

South Tech Instruments
1-800-999-FAXS  (1-800-999-3297)

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

From: Frederick Roeber <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Secure Phones
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: 19 Jan 91 08:19:23 PST


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

> secure phones work by performing some sort of "encryption" (encrypting
> digitized voice, switching and inverting frequency bands, etc.), and

[digital encryption, actually]

> since such a phone isn't much use unless it can talk to many others
> like it, how is the key management performed? ...
> ... The only actually feasible solution I know of involves
> a mutually trusted third party to communicate a key to both parties,
> but that's not consistent with use in phone networks.

Yes, it is.  When a call is made secure, both ends call the control
computer, which issues them the digital key to use for their
conversation.  These calls to the computer are encrypted, of course.
During each such call, the computer tells the phone what key to use
the next time it calls the computer.  So all you have to do is
initialize each phone with the first key it'll need.  This is done by
putting the number in a chip, which is mounted in a key-shaped hunk of
plastic.  Carry the "key" to the phone in some secure manner, plug it
in and turn.  Periodically -- I think per annum -- this is repeated to
re-initialize the phone.  The encryption algorithm used is considered
so safe that without the key, the phone equipment is unclassified.


Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail] | phone: [phone]
r-mail: CERN/PPE, CH-1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #50
*****************************