Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss051-100

Text File | 1991-02-07 | 900KB | 21,947 lines

Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28626;
          20 Jan 91 22:01 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26468;
          20 Jan 91 20:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa24392;
          20 Jan 91 19:24 CST
Date:     Sun, 20 Jan 91 18:40:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #51
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Jan 91 18:40:41 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 51

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    An Offering to Explain CNN - Baghdad [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    CNN Communications [John Keator, NPR, via John R. Covert]
    Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Charlie Lear]
    Re: CNN From Baghdad [Laird P. Broadfield]
    Administrivia: Issues 43-44 Lost in Transit? [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: An Offering to Explain CNN - Baghdad
Date: Sunday 20 January 1991


     In recent Digest issues, readers have queried how CNN might have
maintained its own broadcast quality audio lines back to the U.S.,
even when the "major powers" of network broadcasting could not.

     Others have raised issues about AT&T's presence in Baghdad, the
use of "four-wire lines," and finding "four-wire" telephone subscriber
sets.

     Here's my attempt to mingle practical background with recent
news, in the hope it provides an accurate description of how such
things are done.  Along the way, I'll interject some oblique responses
to the posts of several readers, in the hope it avoids a number of
discontinuous postings.  I hope those readers will catch the answers
to their questions along the way:

     First, one must, if one does not already understand it, know that
AT&T is *not* the powerhouse in foreign nations, particularly the
Second and Third worlds that it is in North America.  Each sovereign
nation has its own national "telephone and telegraph" operation.
These comprise the "Administrations" (notice the capital "A") of the
CCITT; they are the only members of the CCITT with voting privilege.
Even AT&T is not an "Administration" and does not get a vote.  Any
stockholder-owned communications company is merely a "Recognized
Private Operating Agency," which can participate in discussion, but
cannot vote on the standards.  (In the case of the U.S., a delegate
from the State Department casts *one* vote for the "Adminstration" of
the U.S.; a vote that must represent the summed attitudes of all the
*many* U.S. firms participating in discussion there.

     The point of all this is to make clear that the Iraqi PTT is
*the* "phone company" in Iraq, and it has a stature equal to that of
any other nation in the world, so far as the politics of
telecommunications goes.  Any circuits from other nations connected to
Iraq's public telecommunications are simply "partners" from the
distant end; the structure is virtually identical to railroads, in
which each company owns half the track distance and splits the take
with the other. How these splits are made is a significant part of the
work of the CCITT.

     Thus, such communications channels as reach(ed) the U.S. from
Iraq via AT&T, or MCI or Sprint or others, were simply "partner" deals
along with the "partner" deals between the Iraqui PTT and perhaps
dozens of other nations.  In fact, it's doubtful that any U.S. carrier
ever had enough traffic with Iraq to warrant owning its own "tracks"
to Baghdad. In such cases, light dial traffic is simply switched via a
third nation that does have its own facilities, in return for payment
of a "transit fee" to that nation. Then, if traffic volume is
sufficient, a deal will be struck with the third-party "transit"
nation's common carrier to permanently wire through via tranmission
channels of that nation, creating "direct" switched circuits (a great
deal like the "direct" but non "non-stop" flights airlines like to
tout).

    Thus, it is doubtful AT&T ever had a presence in Iraq to warrant
having its own multi-story building in Baghdad to be bombed, as was
posited in one post attributed by Ken Jongsma to wire service reports.
Reporters have no better understanding of the structure of interna-
tional communications than the general public, so calling the PTT
building, "AT&T's building" is an understandable press error.

     Second, there's some need to understand somewhat how loose and
cozy matters of importing and establishing telecommunications can be
in some nations...when one is doing something desired by the politi-
cal "powers that be."  In this case, CNN had been doing something
Saddam Hussein desired, for some time.  They had been operating from
Baghdad using fairly recent technology in what has been called "fly-
away" transportable satellite earth stations.  These have emerged in
almost single (rather large) suitcase-sized earth stations, capable of
both transmitting and receiving using rather small dishes.  One reader
mentioned that possibility, alluding to "maritime satellite" devices.
In fact, Marisat, with its own globe-spanning fleet of transponder
capacity up there in the sky, has been a leading promoter of sales for
low-density (compared to public network needs) satellite communications
to remote parts of the globe. (Yes, even Intelsat's "monopoly" is
under competitive fire these days.)  CNN had even previously used
that technology in the Tienamen Square riots.

     What CNN had been doing in Baghdad was not only sending but re-
ceiving its distribution program via satellite, much to Saddam Hus-
sein's pleasure.  I noticed a wire story just a day or so prior to the
first attack on Baghdad describing how Hussein was enjoying seeing the
U.S. news coverage and White House attitudes by way of CNN's "satellite
station" in Baghdad.  So, make up an equation of modern technology
combined with some good old-fashioned politicking, and one can see how
CNN was permitted to do so.  No need to obtain rented facilities from
"the phone company" in such a setting at all.  So much for the
surmises of rented transmission channels out to Amman or elsewhere.

     In a similar vein, there have also been ABC reports from Tel Aviv
that seem to emanate from a similar privately-run earth station on the
roof of ABC's location in that city.  ABC seems to be somewhere down
the road of making use of technology similar to CNN's.

     As to how CNN could have broadcast-quality audio and IFB from the
stateside studio back (as you'll notice in those ABC feeds from Tel
Aviv), a video link has typically two (and sometimes more) audio chan-
nels multiplexed in with the video signal, so as long as CNN could
keep its baseband on the satellite, even if there were no video being
transmitted, they could maintain audio transmission of high quality,
while, as several readers observed, the others were reduced to noisy,
telephone-speech-quality circuits.

     It was possible to hear the early effects of bombing of the Iraqi
PTT, as at first, the channels of the others, while limited to
telephone channel bandwidth, were quite noise-free, then as facilities
were destroyed, one could hear the connections made were coming via
noisier and noisier facilities.  This is consistent with the Iraqui
PTT falling back to get transit connections via its nearby partner
countries, perhaps Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, the Emirates,
and using its older, shorter-distance plant normally used for direct
calls to those nations, and asking for transits to the U.S. In the
Third World, such transits are not unusual and done (under permanent
prearrangement) as a courtesy.

     "Courtesy?  They're under attack from the world!" you say.  But,
one must bear in mind that getting a chance to hear anything juicy
about what one of the belligerents is up to is something *every* gov-
ernment (read "government PTT") wants to hear.  Turn down a phone call
from Iraq that just *might* tip off who Hussein is talking to; where
he personally might be, is something nobody would miss the opportunity
to intercept and report to their own government, in the hope of being
remembered at salary review time!

     I personally found my calls to the U.S. from Zambia were tran-
siting South Africa in a period when the South Africans were captur-
ing guerillas from Zambia daily.  It was obvious the wily South Af-
ricans would extend that telecommunications courtesy in hopes some-
thing of intelligence use might be intercepted.

     The history of intelligence intercepts must go back at least to
the Romans learning to read smoke signals of the Picts in Britain.  In
the electrical era, an immediate action was to cut your enemy's
submarine telegraph cable and pull it ashore to a friendly nation.
The U.S. did this to Germany in both WWI and WWII, and the U.S. Army
even had its own cableship into the Korean War era.  Somehow, all the
hype of today loses sight that the basic principles of telecommuni-
cations signal intelligence (SIGINT) didn't wait for today's
technology to be thought of.

     As to CNN reporters being "secretive" about their methods, it's
more likely in my mind, they really didn't understand the techno-
political methods that worked to their advantage any better than the
average person, this they were much less secretive than unable to
describe what CNN's "hit" had been.  What was the "problem" of the
other networks?  More likely technology lag than anything else. You
can bet there have been some hot meetings at NBC and CBS since the
"CNN Baghdad event," and some flyaway earth station vendors probably
already have orders with New York shipping addresses.

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 15:56:06 PST
From: "John R. Covert  20-Jan-1991 1858" <[e-mail]>
Subject: CNN Communications


 From: John Keator, Telcom, National Public Radio, Washington
 Date: 20 Jan 91
 Subject: CNN Communications


    A four-wire circuit is just that, two separate circuits for
send and receive. It is very commonly used in broadcasting to connect
a remote site to the main studio.  Often several circuits will be set
up: one for production use between the producer/director and another
for engineering.

    Normally, the lines are connected to a so-called four-wire
box, actually a small device made by Prospect Electronics in the UK,
that allows the incoming line to be heard in a speaker/headphones and
has a push to talk switch that allows the remote to talk to the
studio. In addition, the box has a conferencing arrangement so that a
second four-wire can be connected and the box can be optioned to allow
the user to talk to either four-wire or both ... in the both position
the two four-wires are linked together so everyone can hear and talk
to everyone else. They are much in evidence on the recent shots from
the middle east of technical setups in the various bureaus.  They are
about the size of half-a-loaf of bread, have a speaker and yellow and
orange switches on the front and a gooseneck microphone on the top.

    In normal usage the program audio travels on a separate
wide-band circuit to the studio either on a land line or satellite.
The programing four-wire is normally used for IFB, interuptible feed
back.  This is fed to the small earpiece the reporter uses that allow
him to hear the program on the air, less his own voice (due to
satellite delay).  In addition, the director at the studio can talk to
the reporter telling him to cover a certain issue, throw it to another
location or end his report.  When not on the air the circuit is used
for coordination and planning upcoming segments.

    In the CNN case, they had ordered the four-wire to Amman
months ago for coordination on earlier satellite feeds.  These feeds
were not available, but the coordination connection was not
disconnected and was put on the air for the famous broadcast.

    They did not use an Inmarsat portable uplink at the hotel; no
one did that night, as they did not want to be sending radio waves in
to the sky with all the missiles flying around ... who knows what they
might home in on.  The next day the BBC used one from the garden of
the hotel, but I believe it was later confiscated.  Legally, you need
prior permission from the country to use an Inmarsat terminal for land
mobile use, but many news companies had sneaked them in.


John Keator   NPR      Work: 202 822 2800

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

Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: 20 Jan 91 16:58:17 NZD (Sun)
From: [e-mail]


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

>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?

VSAT, or Very Small Aperture Terminal. Typically a 1.8m satellite
dish, with associated electronics will sit happily on a single-axle
trailer and be towed behind a car.

They are used worldwide, with the highest concentration in Alaska,
Yukon and North-West Territories. They are used by mining, timber, oil
and exploration teams for semi-portable comms links between the camps
and the outside world.

Basically, the VSAT system provides one or more digital voice channels
compressed and sent via FM to the satellite and back to any other
earth station within the satellite's shadow. A typical scenario has a
camp PABX, modem and fax all running into the VSAT terminal. Because
the system does not interface with the PSTN until it leaves the earth
station, miners in the Arctic can get local dialtone for Vancouver,
Calgary, Seattle and anywhere else there is a compatible receiving
system. Hence crystal clear voice communications when landlines are
either nonexistent or very unreliable.

I'd bet bucks that CNN used a VSAT to bypass the entire Iraqi PSTN and
was getting Saudi or Israeli dialtone - maybe even further afield.

One manufacturer / service provider is Infosat Telecommunications of
Burnaby, Vancouver, BC. They are a subsidiary of Nexus and have
supplied VSATs to a number of companies operating in the wilderness.

Disclaimer: only association with Infosat was meeting with their
people and looking over the factory as part of the Intercomm '90
conference. The technology impressed the hell out of me!


Charlie "The Bear" Lear | [e-mail] | Kawasaki Z750GT  DoD#0221
The Cave MegaBBS  [phone]  V32 | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad
Date: 20 Jan 91 06:21:24 GMT


In re. all this CNN stuff, I had an interesting series of thoughts the
other night; given the tiny size of home-quality video equipment these
days, combined with the small size of cellular equipment (and
presumably Iridium equipment, when it comes out) once Iridium exists,
there will no longer be communication-type barriers to ENG
(electronic-news-gathering.)

Think about it: Take the motors, gears, and so forth out of one of
those tiny Sony 8mm vtr-cameras, and what's left isn't much.  Add back
the size of a handheld cellular, and you're back to the original.
Factor in the R&D that professional ENG customers can afford to pay
for, and you've got *at least* still-frame buffering, and possibly
compression and multi-banding sufficient for full motion.

If somebody wants to prevent information-flow, there going to have to
take away anything larger than a paperback book from *every* reporter
present.


Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {akgua, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!lairdb
INET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 3:00:02 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Issues 43-44 Lost in Transit?


I received three messages today from people who said issues 43-44 did
not seem to make it through to their site in the news. A fourth person
yesterday said he had seen nothing at his site for a couple days ...
It looks like someone from Usenet 'graciously' dumped issues 43-44 of
comp.dcom.telecom into the bit bucket for me. :)

If either or both of those issues did not reach you, please let me
know so they can be transmitted again. If comp.dcom.telecom is not
reliable at your site for some reason you can always write and ask to
be added to the mailing list version instead.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #51
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29555;
          20 Jan 91 23:04 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29164;
          20 Jan 91 21:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab26468;
          20 Jan 91 20:30 CST
Date:     Sun, 20 Jan 91 20:14:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #52
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 20 Jan 91 20:14:03 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 52

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Four-Wire Line [Bill Cerny]
    Re: Four-Wire Line [Richard Budd]
    Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount [John R. Levine]
    Re: CLID Compatibility Question [Dave Levenson]
    Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again [Ravinder Bhumbla]
    Data Interruption by Operator [Christopher Ambler]
    Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Bill Cerny)
Subject: Re: Four-Wire Line
Date: 20 Jan 91 00:51:38 GMT


[e-mail] (Tom Streeter) writes:

>News reports mention a "four wire line."  Could anyone enlighten me?

Terrestial 4W line?  Nah; rather a Marisat terminal (country code
873).  Unfold an antenna on the roof, drop a lead over the ledge to
your hotel room, plug in and talk to anyone in the U.S. for $4.00/min.

This was quite obvious to me; but the Iraqis figured it out after eight
hours.  ;-)


Bill Cerny
[e-mail]   |   attmail: !denwa!bill  |   Wham, bam, T-LAM!

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 15:38 CDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Four-Wire Line
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY


Tom Streeter <[e-mail]>writes in TELECOM Digest V11
 # 47:

>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?

and the Moderator commented:

>[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]

I cannot provide a technical description of their service, but I
believe I caught a quick glimpse of it Thursday (1/17) night while
watching CNN.  While CNN was playing back B. Shaw, J. Holliman, and P.
Arnett's bomb by bomb account of the beginning of the raid on Baghdad,
CNN flashed a picture of their reporters standing in front of a box
with a minature satellite dish sticking out from the upper front of
it.  CNN showed the picture for only five seconds so I could not
examine it more in detail, but it appears to be the four-wire system
mentioned by the Moderator.

In fairness to the other networks, when Baghdad was hit on Wednesday
night (Thursday morning Iraqi time), Iraqi security immediately herded
journalists into the basement of the hotel where the latter were
staying The security officers missed the CNN crew, who had hidden in
their hotel room when the bombing started.

The cost of telecommunications equipment and of continuous coverage of
the Iraqi conflict was cited by {TV Guide} two weeks ago as the reason
TV coverage of future hostilities would likely be dramatically
reduced. It sounds like, from what I read in TELECOM Digest that the
process is already beginning with the major networks obligated to
receive information about the war from CNN.  I may go as far to say
that commercial television may go the way of radio, with a TV network
(proba- bly CBS) becoming all news and other networks becoming more
geared to certain profitable audiences. (This may not be directly a
telecom issue but it demonstrates telecom's effect on what we will see
on TV.)

Incidentially, my news from the Persian Gulf has come exclusively from
CNN and BBC World Services on short-wave.  I almost never watch TV
otherwise.  MY {TV Guide} subscription comes from an incident four
years ago when in a single month I had to ask somebody who Willard
Scott and PeeWee Herman were.  An embarrasing moment.


Richard Budd                 | E-Mail: IBMers     - [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer        |         All Others - [e-mail]
IBM - Sterling Forest        | Phone:               [phone]
                             | All disclaimers apply

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

Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 19 Jan 91 21:07:20 EST (Sat)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


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

>[Moderator's Note: Mr. Van Buskirk, I was wondering what advantage
>there is to AT&T to work through aggregators in this way?

According to an article in {Data Communications} (not a bad magazine,
available free to qualified readers) the AT&T aggregator business
exists because of tariff peculiarities.  AT&T can't cut their prices
other than via Tariff 12, a cumbersome scheme that they use to make
special deals with very large customers.  There are few enough Tariff
12 customers that they were listed in a table in the article, and are
all Fortune 100 companies.  Other than that, all you get is list price
volume discounts.

The aggregator business allows AT&T to compete with other LD carriers
for smallish but still price-sensitive accounts, since the price
charged through the aggregator reflects the total volume of calls the
aggregator sells.  The scheme they use is actually one that was
intended for companies that have many locations and want each location
to be billed for its own calls.  The aggregators resell this service,
so the effect is that each of the aggregator's customers get a bill
straight from AT&T, but at a lower price than they'd pay if they went
direct.  I forget how the aggregator makes money, either it's a fee
they charge their customers, or AT&T rebates part of the ultimate
customers' bills.

AT&T is apparently finding all of this a headache, both because it's
hard to administer (aggregator customers come and go much faster than
the companies for whom the deal was intended open and close offices,)
there are credit problems (whom do they go after if the customer
doesn't pay) and there is of course complaining from the competitors
that AT&T is undercutting their published prices.  They are extremely
reluctant to sign up any new aggregators at this point.


Regards,

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

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLID Compatibility Question
Date: 20 Jan 91 03:37:44 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (JOHN
WINSLADE) writes:

> 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.

The ClassMate appears to be a little more intelligent than that.  When
it is powered up, it outputs a four-line message in ASCII identifying
itself, giving its firmware copyright notice and version information.
It validates the checksum passed by the telco, but does not pass it
along to the RS-232 port.  It does pass a single character indicating
the validity of each message.

It appears to contain a modem (really, just a -dem) to demodulate the
incoming caller id information, a buffer memory for one message, and a
UART to talk to the RS-232 port.  There is probably also a
microprocessor that runs this stuff.  It most-likely consists of a
microcomputer -- one chip that contains ROM, RAM, and two serial
ports.  With such a device, one only needs the modem and the passive
components to drive the serial port at RS-232 levels.


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    ax: 908 647 6857

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

From: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again
Date: 20 Jan 91 23:49:22 GMT
Reply-To: Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of California, San Diego


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

>[the usual call-blocking experience, followed by misinformation from
>the operator about international call blocking

>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?

>[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.

Some time back I had had the same trouble trying to call India and had
been told the same answer - "the call-blocking is at the request of
the country being called".  At the advice of the Moderator and on
receiving the e-mail address from another reader (I think it was
[e-mail] - correct me if I am wrong), I had sent e-mail to
this address.  I had protested the blocking and the fact that the
operators were lying to me.

I received a call from the local AT&T office a couple of days later.
The lady apologized, said it was due to high rate of fraud, and said
that if I had trouble in the future, I could mention her name and ask
the operator/supervisor to override the call blocking.  I was also
told that I would be receiving written communication separately from
Mr. Allen (which, by the way, I never did).  I had posted all this in
this newsgroup.

Coincidentally, last week I had to dial India from a friend's home
phone.  I tried to use my AT&T Universal Card but after I entered the
card number, the call was intercepted by an operator.  She told me
that her computer showed that this call was not permitted.  I
protested that this was not even a payphone, but she was unyielding.

Then I remembered my previous experience and repeated the whole thing
to her including the the name of the representative who had called me.
I mentioned that the representative had advised me to ask the operator
to override the blocking.  To my surprise, the operator immediately
agreed.  However, it is impossible to get through to India on the
first attempt and I had to call again.  Again it was intercepted by an
operator (I don't know if it was the same one), and she put the call
through without any further questions.

So, I would suggest that you send e-mail to the above address or
contact the local AT&T office.  That way you might be able to talk to
the operator/supervisor and make an international call when you need
to.  I am sure that they'll not lift the call-blocking in general.


Ravinder Bhumbla   [e-mail]   Office Phone: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Let me repeat that email address which flashed
across your screen a second ago in case you missed it, or didn't have
your pencil handy: [e-mail].  I certainly do not condone
long distance billing fraud, however this business of refusing service
to all credit card users because of the acts of a few phreaks is
wrong. Even if they refuse service to pay phones, why are they also
refusing service to private phones where the responsible party can
easily be identified?  Bank cards and other credit cards rely on
either the physical presence of the card when the transaction is going
on *or* the PIN, as in the case of bank ATM cards, or both. Why can't
AT&T rely on the PIN as a reasonable assurance the card is being used
by its rightful owner unless they are otherwise notified it is stolen?
When used with a card reader type phone, why can't the presence of the
card and the PIN serve as adequate proof for AT&T?  Instead of solving
the fraud problem, AT&T is taking an easy way out: just blackball
anyone calling several foreign countries.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones)
Subject: Data Interruption by Operator
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 20:14:36 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Fubar's Carbonated Hormones)


This is realy starting to bug me. I have a data line that I use for
calling into the University computer from home to do my work. I've
given the number to some people, telling them that if my voice line is
busy, try this number, if I'm not on the computer, I'll answer it.

Apparently, some people who have needed to get in touch with me have
used an "operator emergency break" to break onto the data line.

Result: carrier lost, phone rings.

I have talked to an operator supervisor, and she said that she's
sorry, but a lot of the newer operators can't tell that it's a data
call, so when they try to break in and ask if I'll release the line,
they break the connection, and then, realizing that the line is now
clear, ring through.

HIGHLY ANNOYING!

Is there any way to have my number permenantly barred from
breakthroughs?

(And yes, I know that this service is only supposed to be used in a
real emergency, but I don't want to prosecute anyone for doing this, I
just want to stop it).


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

FSUUCP Mailing list: [e-mail]
Requests to:         [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: If you are served by one of the newer ESS offices,
then your line can be fixed to disallow operator intercepts, out of
order / busy verifications, etc.  But you don't really want that.
Instead, have the number on your second line changed to something
non-pub, and have it hunted when the first line is busy.  That way the
busy first line will automatically forward a second call to the other
line if it is not busy with a data call. And chances are, someone will
ask you 'what is the new number for your second line ... I tried the
one you gave me and it was disconnected.' ... you'll find out who was
doing the emergency interupts on you in the process.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 19:47:48 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night?


I was wondering what effect the announcement of the start of the war
had on local phone systems last week?

I was down at the Chicago Public Library doing some production work
for the Chicagoland Radio Information Service. (This is a closed
circuit SCA radio station serving the visually handicapped residents
in northern Illinois; I've done work for them for several years.)

Someone came in my recording studio and told me we were at war ... I
watched the television for a couple minutes then tried to call my
home. The library centrex (312-269) was giving very slow dial tone,
and the first few attempts I made were met with re-order or an 'all
circuits are busy now' recording.  I used my cell phone and had the
call bounce a couple times also; but it went through on the third try.

Other than for about fifteen minutes at the start of the war,
connections here appear to be moving smoothly.  What experiences did
you have in other places?

On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being
maintained at this time?  Are any sites able to get through at all
with news?


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #52
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01713;
          21 Jan 91 1:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12973;
          20 Jan 91 23:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25053;
          20 Jan 91 22:36 CST
Date:     Sun, 20 Jan 91 21:31:45 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Index to Telecom Archives, 1-20-91
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


Dear Readers of TELECOM Digest,


I spent several hours over the weekend organizing and updating the
Telecom Archives. With the help of several readers, many missing
issues of the Digest from 1981 through 1988 were located and the
back issues file is now virtually intact once again.  Some of the
early volumes are still a little mixed up in the way the issues were
filed, but at least we now have them available. Generally speaking the
only troublesome area is volume 5. You'll need to search that one sort
of carefully to find specific issues.

Below is the main directory and the various sub-directories in the
Archives. These are printed here mainly as a convenience to readers
who lack ftp-capability at their site and need to use an archives
server. Internet readers can of course obtain these same directories
while on line.

To use the Telecom Archives:

      Internet:   ftp lcs.mit.edu
                  login anonymous   password: yourname@yoursite
                  cd telecom-archives
                  then usual ftp commands


      UUCP / Fido / Bitnet / ATT-MCI Mail / others:

      (all except Bitnet)  Send letter to '[e-mail]
      (Bitnet readers)     Send letter to '[e-mail]'

      The subject does not matter. In the text of the letter, put
      FTP commands one after another down the left margin, followed by
      the appropriate argument; i.e.

      FTP lcs.mit.edu
      USER anonymous
      PASS yourname@yoursite
      ASCII
      CD telecom-archives
      GET  (file names, using indexes below)
      GET  (more file names, etc)
      BYE

A help file is available giving detailed instructions for using the
archives mail server at Princeton. Instead of the above commands, send
a letter to the archives server address ([e-mail])
and in the text of the letter, put the single word:

      HELP

on the first line at the left hand margin.  You will receive the
detailed help file back by return mail.

Warning to UUCP readers in particular: Some of the archives files are
*huge*, especially the back issues files. Before you have something
like this sent to you (they will come in several parts in the form of
'letters') be certain to talk to your sysadmin and get an okay since
these large files may cause your UUCP neighbor to get angry with you.

I've got a copy of the archives server help file, and will send it on
request if you have a problem obtaining it from the source.

Here is the updated directory as of Sunday night, 1-20-91:


total 36192
drwxrwxr-x  6 telecom  telecom      5120 Jan 20 18:38 ./
drwxrwxr-x 24 root     wheel        1024 Jan 20 01:01 ../
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       500 Sep  8 23:46 1981.intro.to.archives
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    423659 Dec 16 23:26 1981.vol1.most.issues
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    620814 Dec 16 23:29 1982.vol2.iss001-088
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    382277 Jan 14  1990 1982.vol2.iss089-141
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    619185 Jan 20 16:52 1983.vol3.iss001-083
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    364946 Jan 20 16:55 1983.vol3.iss084-128
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    618694 Jan 20 17:27 1984.vol4.iss001-075
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    411337 Dec 10 01:31 1984.vol4.iss064-118
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    169101 Dec 10 01:03 1984.vol4.iss119-140
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    127814 Dec 10 01:45 1985.vol4.iss142-154
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    357252 Dec 10 02:36 1985.vol4.iss155-208
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       658 Jan 27  1990 1985.vol5.READ-ME-FIRST
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    623292 Jan 27  1990 1985.vol5.iss001-076
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     74260 Jan 20 16:37 1985.vol5.misc.msgs
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    861286 Jan 27  1990 1986.vol5.iss077-161
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    639112 Jan 26  1990 1987.vol6.most.issues
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    274580 Jan 20  1990 1987.vol7.complete.set
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       371 Jan 20 17:55 1987.vol8.READ-ME-FIRST
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    577639 Jan 20 17:47 1987.vol8.iss001-071
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     73630 Jan 20 18:13 1988.misc.telecom.msgs
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    726882 Jan 20 15:56 1988.vol8.iss070-139
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    724832 Aug  1  1989 1988.vol8.iss140-189
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    227589 Aug  1  1989 1988.vol8.iss190-213
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    577173 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss001-049
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    564262 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss050-100
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    653097 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss101-150
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    637611 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss151-200
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    744800 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss201-250
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    787166 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss251-300
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    805328 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss301-350
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    780366 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss351-400
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    784366 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss401-450
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    758330 Jan 15  1990 1989.vol9.iss451-500
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    794183 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss501-550
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    856691 Jan 14  1990 1989.vol9.iss551-603
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    861272 Jan 28  1990 1990.vol10.iss001-050
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    820574 Feb 14  1990 1990.vol10.iss051-100
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    842877 Mar  8  1990 1990.vol10.iss101-150
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    855090 Mar 24  1990 1990.vol10.iss151-200
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    853551 Apr 13  1990 1990.vol10.iss201-250
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    908585 May  1  1990 1990.vol10.iss251-300
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    873608 May 16  1990 1990.vol10.iss301-350
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    858605 May 31  1990 1990.vol10.iss351-400
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    919538 Jun 23  1990 1990.vol10.iss401-450
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    885056 Jul 20  1990 1990.vol10.iss451-500
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    863414 Aug  8 23:06 1990.vol10.iss501-550
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    886042 Aug 29 00:59 1990.vol10.iss551-600
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    974899 Sep 17 01:25 1990.vol10.iss601-650
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    870218 Oct  1 01:51 1990.vol10.iss651-700
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    868902 Oct 22 02:49 1990.vol10.iss701-750
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    902018 Nov 10 16:03 1990.vol10.iss751-800
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    880896 Nov 28 19:05 1990.vol10.iss801-850
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    867675 Dec 23 13:07 1990.vol10.iss851-900
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    133082 Jan  1 05:10 1990.vol10.iss901-908
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    893021 Jan 20 16:24 1991.vol11.iss001-050
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       953 Jan 31  1990 READ.ME.FIRST
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     25799 Sep 12 19:47 abernathy.internet.story
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68224 Nov 20 10:26 aos-rules.procedures
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     18238 Nov  9 03:37 area.214-903.split
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21264 Apr 14  1990 area.code.script.new
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32645 May 31  1990 areacode.guide
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      8147 Aug  1  1989 areacode.program.in.c
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       474 Feb 11  1990 att.service.outage.1-90
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     18937 Aug  1  1989 auto.coin.collection
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      4788 Jun 10  1990 books.about.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21702 Nov 20 10:24 braux.bill.call.blocking
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     61504 Jul 30 01:56 caller-id-legal-decision
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39449 Dec 14 21:20 cellular.carrier.codes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17016 Aug  5 08:07 cellular.phones-iridium
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     15141 Aug  1  1989 cellular.sieve
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       298 May 31  1990 cellular.west.germany
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16292 Mar 18  1990 class.ss7.features
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15023 Sep 30 18:35 cocot-in-violation-label
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38981 Oct 12 00:09 cocot.complaint.sticker
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70477 Sep  5 22:02 computer.bbs.and.the.law
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     23944 Aug  1  1989 computer.state
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9150 Jan 31  1990 country.code.list
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11370 Feb  9  1990 country.codes.revised
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11267 Feb 25  1990 cpid-ani.developments
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       436 Feb 23  1990 deaf.communicate.on.tdd
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15877 Sep  1 21:14 dial.tone.monopoly
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28296 Sep 29 18:34 dialup.access.in.uk
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39319 Aug  1  1989 docket.87-215
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16367 Sep  1 21:20 e-series.recommendations
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      3422 Jan 20  1990 early.digital.ESS
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug  1  1989 ecpa.1986
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug  4 18:58 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     39956 Jul 14  1990 electronic.frontier
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20660 Sep  5 22:02 email.privacy
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 enterprise-funny-numbers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     19836 Nov 20 10:32 fax.products.for.pc
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     33239 Aug  1  1989 fcc.policy
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     19378 Aug  1  1989 fcc.threat
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       484 Jan 14  1990 fcc.vrs.aos-ruling
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      9052 Aug  1  1989 find.pair
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     47203 Aug  1  1989 fire.in.chgo.5-88
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1998 Jan 27  1990 fire.in.st-louis.1-90
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       377 Jan 27  1990 fires.elsewhere.in.past
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1247 Feb 10  1990 first.issue.cover
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14105 Nov 24 12:05 genie.star-service
-rw-r--r--  1 map      telecom     52981 Jan 18 17:23 glossary.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     42188 Jan 14  1990 glossary.phrack.acronyms
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67113 Jan 14  1990 glossary.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     68804 Feb  2  1990 hi.perf.computing.net
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2337 Jan 27  1990 history.of.digest
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32625 Mar 29  1990 how.numbers.are.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15302 Jan 20 16:21 how.to.post.msgs.here
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1616 Nov 20 11:39 index-canada.npa.files
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       411 Nov 20 11:43 index-minitel.files
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 Jan 20 18:39 index-telecom.archives
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1326 Jan 20 18:33 index-telecom.security
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12896 Nov 20 10:30 isdn.pc.adapter-hayes
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4816 Aug  1  1989 lauren.song
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       801 Aug  1  1989 ldisc.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2271 Aug  1  1989 ldnotes.txt
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     13675 Aug  1  1989 ldrates.txt
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12260 Jan 20  1990 london.ac.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12069 Mar  5  1990 london.codes.script
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15604 Aug  1  1989 mass.lines
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom       463 Aug  1  1989 measured-service
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Nov 20 11:41 minitel.info/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     36641 Aug  1  1989 mnp.protocol
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      2450 Jan 20  1990 modems.and.call-waiting
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      7597 Feb 10  1990 named.exchanges
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16590 Oct 21 09:47 net.mail.guide
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3014 Jan 27  1990 newuser.letter
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     32815 Mar 25  1990 nine.hundred.service
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     45467 Nov 20 10:29 npa.800-carriers.assigned
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13779 Sep 19 20:13 npa.800.prefixes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     33440 May 12  1990 npa.809.prefixes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15488 Nov 20 10:28 npa.900-carriers.assigned
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Dec 14 18:50 npa.exchange.list-canada/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16534 Feb 11  1990 nsa.original.charter-1952
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9886 Jan 23  1990 occ.10xxx.access.codes
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8593 May  5  1990 occ.10xxx.notes.updates
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14354 Aug 12 14:10 octothorpe.gets.its.name
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      8504 Jan 27  1990 old.fashioned.coinphones
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      2756 Jan 27  1990 old.hello.msg
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     70153 Aug  1  1989 pc.pursuit
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      5492 Aug  1  1989 pearl.harbor.phones
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     38772 Aug  1  1989 pizza.auto.nmbr.id
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17950 Jan 14  1990 rotenberg.privacy.speech
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9764 Jan 20  1990 starline.features
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     46738 Jan 18  1990 starlink.vrs.pcp
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom    103069 Apr 26  1990 sysops.libel.liability
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      3857 Aug  1  1989 tat-8.fiber.optic
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27533 Feb  9  1990 telco.name.list.formatted
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31487 Jan 28  1990 telco.name.listing
-rw-rw-r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 Jan 20 16:26 telecom-recent
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Dec  2 21:19 telecom.security.issues/
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21831 Jan 20 14:32 telsat-canada-report
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom     11752 Aug  1  1989 telstar.txt
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Dec 10 02:49 tymnet.information/
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     26614 May 29  1990 unitel-canada.ld.service
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom       116 Oct 22 02:44 white.pages
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     37947 Aug  1  1989 wire-it-yourself
-rw-rw-r--  1 telecom  telecom      4101 Aug  1  1989 wiring.diagram
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24541 Aug  1  1989 zum.debate


Note:  The 'telecom-recent' file contains the most recent issues of
the Digest as they are delivered daily through the mail. If you have
missed a recent issue, you will find it here. This file is flushed
after every fifty issues with the contents renamed  "YEAR.volX.issXXX-YYY'.

The 51st, 101st, 151st, 201st, 251st, etc issues of each volume are
the starting point in 'telecom-recent'. For example, it was cut off
after the 50th issue of Volume 11 this weekend.

Please report errors in filing or file-naming which come to your
attention so they can be corrected.

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

Here are the sub directories referenced above:


total 608
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Dec  2 21:19 ./
drwxrwxr-x  6 telecom  telecom      5120 Jan 20 18:30 ../
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13343 Feb 25  1990 computer.fraud.abuse.act
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     27395 Jun 23  1990 craig.neidorf.indictment
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      9354 Jul 30 02:18 craig.not.guilty
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67190 Jun 23  1990 crime.and.puzzlement
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     62602 Aug 12 14:29 ecpa.1986
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     97987 Aug 12 14:32 ecpa.1986.federal.laws
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     21918 Dec  2 21:20 illinois.computer.laws
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     28935 May 19  1990 jolnet-2600.magazine.art
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     30751 Mar  7  1990 jolnet-attctc.crackers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     43365 Jan 28  1990 kevin.polsen
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     35612 Apr  1  1990 legion.of.doom
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     20703 Aug 12 16:16 len.rose.indictment
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     67099 Nov  4 01:11 telecom.usa.call.block-1
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     31995 Nov 20 10:34 telecom.usa.call.block-2
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10833 Nov 20 10:23 telecom.usa.call.block-3
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14821 Sep 12 19:19 war.on.computer.crime

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

total 228
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom      1024 Nov 20 11:39 ./
drwxrwxr-x  6 telecom  telecom      4608 Nov 20 11:28 ../
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom         0 Nov 20 11:39 index.to.canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1351 Feb  4  1990 introduction-canada.lists
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15019 Apr 22  1990 npa.204.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     14708 Apr 22  1990 npa.306.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     17978 Apr 14  1990 npa.403.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15907 Jul 20 22:31 npa.416.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15592 Feb  3  1990 npa.418.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10441 May 26 08:17 npa.506.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11647 Feb  2  1990 npa.514.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     13538 Sep 12 18:55 npa.519.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     16701 Jul 20 22:32 npa.604.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12444 Mar 29  1990 npa.613.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12016 Feb  2  1990 npa.705.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12899 May  3  1990 npa.709.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      5566 Feb  7  1990 npa.800.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     10479 May  5  1990 npa.807.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     15645 Feb  3  1990 npa.819.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     12839 Mar 29  1990 npa.902.exchanges-canada
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      1762 Apr 11  1990 updates.to.above.files

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

total 60
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Dec 10 02:49 ./
drwxrwxr-x  6 telecom  telecom      5120 Jan 20 18:38 ../
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     25098 Dec  2 21:23 inbound-outbound.rates
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom      3979 Dec  2 21:23 tymdial-9.6-links
-rw-r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     24577 Dec 10 02:49 tymnet.outdials


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

total 241
drwxr-xr-x  2 ptownson telecom       512 Nov 20 11:41 ./
drwxrwxr-x  6 telecom  telecom      4608 Nov 20 11:42 ../
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     11736 Apr 22  1990 dial-up.numbers
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     95917 Apr 22  1990 minitel.tar.Z.uu1
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     94305 Apr 22  1990 minitel.tar.Z.uu2
-r--r--r--  1 ptownson telecom     22688 Apr 22  1990 minitel.tar.Z.uu3


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

My special thanks go to Mike Patton <[e-mail]> and MIT for
providing the space needed for the archives, and to the several of you
who have contributed files there.

Enjoy!


Patrick Townson
TELECOM Digest Moderator










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08368;
          21 Jan 91 6:25 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01787;
          21 Jan 91 4:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29678;
          21 Jan 91 3:47 CST
Date:     Mon, 21 Jan 91 3:04:28 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #53
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 21 Jan 91 03:04:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 53

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Centel Sells Local Telcos to Rochester Telephone [TELECOM Moderator]
    CNN Straight story [Edward Hopper]
    Japanese Payphones [John Higdon]
    Hundreds of Subscribers Silenced by Rodent [Ralph Sims]
    AT&T ACUS Service [David R. Zinkin]
    What's This About AT&T and Int'l Calling? [David R. Zinkin]
    Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 22:27:44 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Centel Sells Local Telcos to Rochester Telephone


Centel has turned over its local telephone company operations in Iowa
and Minnesota to Rochester Telephone Corporation of Rochester, NY for
$100 million in cash, ten percent of Rochester Tel's stock and
minority ownership of Rochester Tel's cellular telephone franchises.

The transaction, which affects 85,000 telephone lines in Minnesota and
50,000 in Iowa is in keeping with Centel's move away from local
telephone service and into cellular service according to John P.
Frazee, Jr., Centel's chairman and chief executive officer.

Centel is acquiring a minority share in various cellular systems
serving 630,000 subsribers in exchange for its local telcos.

Rochester Telephone is the parent company of 33 telephone companies.
The $100 million it is paying to Centel in the deal will help Centel
pay its taxes and reduce its outstanding debts.

The specific areas affected by the change of ownership are suburban
Minneapolis, central and western Minnesota, and northern and western
Iowa. Centel employees in those locations are being transferred to
Rochester Telephone as part of their continued employment.

The majority, but not all of the cellular systems Centel will acquire
in the deal serve rural areas around the USA. Centel will continue to
maintain its corporate headquarters in the northwest Chicago suburban
area.

Regulatory approval is being sought now, and the transition is
expected to be complete by June, 1991.


PAT

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun Jan 20 22:31:33 CST 1991
Subject: CNN Straight Story


I spoke to a friend who works for CNN in Atlanta (he's been on 13 hour
days since the outbreak of war).  A couple of points:

1. The four-wire circuit was from Baghdad to Amman.  This was
definitely the method Shaw/Holliman/Arnett used to talk to the rest of
the world.  CNN had a fly-away in Amman, they did not have a fly-away
in Baghdad.  (A fly-away is a video-capable satellite earth station
small enough to be shipped as luggage.  Lots of luggage, but luggage
on an airliner.

2. They may have had a MARISAT phone with them, but he does not
believe they used it. A MARISAT phone is a radiotelephone with a VSAT
type antenna for satellite communications.

Also, there was some statements in Digest #51 that implied that the
technology CNN had in Baghdad was how the Iraqi government was
receiving CNN and by that method information on what is going on in
Washington.  In fact, CNN is a world wide network.  Anyone with a TVRO
anywhere in the world can pick up CNN.  I don't know, but I doubt that
CNN is scrambled in that part of the world.  CNN is available in most
first class hotels around the world.  It is also monitored by most
foreign (or to use Ted Turner's euphemism - international) ministries.
Saddam Hussein, King Hussein, King Fahd and many others have been
loyal CNN viewers for years.

While this is straying farther and farther from the purpose of this
forum, there was an "aiding the enemy" tone to one item that required
correction.


Ed Hopper

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Japanese Payphones
Date: 20 Jan 91 20:52:30 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Here is a look at coin phones in the REALLY big city -- Tokyo. No one
has as I recall mentioned these on the Digest lately.

The standard issue phone is green. Not pale green, but a bright
flourescent knock-out shade that seems to be popular in Japan. Pink
phones are "dumb" COCOTs that are found in small stores and eating
establishment. Yellow and blue phones are older, less capable units
that are increasingly difficult to find.

All green phones have one thing in common: a card reader that accepts
a stored value card that can be obtained in various denominations, up
to 500 "call units". A call unit is the equivalent of 10 yen, the
minimum required to "start" a call. A "local" call will exhaust a unit
within a few minutes, whereas an international call will require a
number of units per minute.  Calls throughout Japan fall anywhere in
between. The cards are readily available, including at some vending
machines attached to green phones themselves.

In attition to cards, most (but not all) green phones will accept 10
and 100 yen coins. While it is much more convenient to place an
expensive call with a phone card, it is still possible to use coins.
Green phones with a gold faceplate will allow you to dial anywhere in
the world, depositing coins as you go or with the ultra convenience of
the stored value card.

Physically, the instruments come in many shapes and sizes, with the
largest comparable to a Las Vegas slot machine (other comparisons not
intended), down to the smallest which is not much larger than a
standard telephone.  The smaller ones are usually incapable of
accepting coins. The handsets sport a noise-cancelling transmitter,
and as a result are wonderful to use in noisy locations such as street
corners. All green phones appear to use DTMF back to the CO.

One other small difference between the NTT coin phones and US utility
phones is that coin return is a local operation. If the coin was not
collected by the CO, it is returned instantly when the receiver is
replaced on an incomplete call. This is almost disconcerting when one
is used to the small delay on domestic phones which must wait for the
DC signal from the CO to return the coins.

With the exceptional convenience of Japanese coin phones, there is a
downside. As others have reported, calls do not go through in Japan
with the reliability of the US telephone network. The percentage of
failure (silence, reorder, wrong number) is significant enough to be
irritating to the US user. And this is true even on NTT's newest
digital exchanges. No one could offer any explanation of this and some
residents were even surprised that anyone would notice.

Ironically, one of the major deficiencies of NTT (lack of itemized
billing -- available now at extra cost) contributes to the convenience
of the coin telephones. From gold-faceplate phones, it matters not
where you call.  The only thing that differentiates one call from
another is how fast the meter pulses tick away (one per "unit" of 10
yen). Hence, it is irrelavent how the call is paid for. A display on
the front of the phone shows how many units remain. If it gets low,
you deposit more yen. If it runs out, you get cut off. There is no
operator who comes on the line to ask for more money.

A small criticism of the card system would be concerning the lack of a
recall button. When making a series of calls, one must hang up after
each one and remove the card (serenaded by the most strident
"b'beep-b'beep" that goes on for several seconds), then re-insert it.
Socially, this may be more of a feature than a bug, since there is
usually some sort of line of folks waiting to use the phone and this
cacophony of beeping would alert those patiently waiting to someone
making an unacceptable number of calls or call attempts. My preferance
would be for a recall button.

I really liked the stored value card system. It is puzzling as to why
it was never introduced here. But then, more than card readers would
have to be installed; the rate structure would have to change
drastically. In Japan, calls cost virtually the same whether placed
from NTT coin phones or from standard business or residential phones.
This is certainly not true in the US.


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

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

Subject: Hundreds of Subscribers Silenced by Rodent
From: Ralph Sims <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 21:29:02 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News


An unknown number of US West subscribers were silenced in rural Mason
County Washington today when all of a sudden their phones were dead.
No dial, no nothing.  Nothing coming in.  Nothing going out.  It is
estimated a hundred subscribers were affected.

Affected were not only residential subscribers, but a portion of a
fire department's emergency dispatch center.  Mason County does not
have E-911, relying on the basic package.  Our fire department
maintains seven-digit emergency lines in addition to a ring-down
cicruit to and from the 911 'center' (called a 4PLNT circuit).  In
all, seven circuits were lost, including one entire community's
emergency line access, as we are the 911 Public Service Answering
Point (PSAP) for them.

All of the affected lines came into the fire department dispatch
center via 'SLICK 96' (perhaps SLCC-96) equipment.  This equipment is
serviced by 600' of overhead secondary power lines and then about 300'
of underground.  Total length of downtime was about three hours.

The cause?  A squirrel had climbed the a power pole and shorted the
power company's transformer, killing the electric feed to US West's
equipment.  Not much of the animal was left.  The power outage had
remained un-detected as US West was the only customer fed by that
transformer.  Batteries in the 'slick' had kept the unit operational
until they died.  It is not known when the squirrel was toasted.


halcyon![e-mail] (Ralph Sims)
[e-mail] or [e-mail]
The 23:00 News - Seattle, WA USA +1 206 292.9048 (a Waffle Iron)

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

From: "David R. Zinkin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T ACUS Service
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 04:56:08 GMT


My school (Case Western Reserve University) is scheduled to use the
AT&T ACUS Service for all long-distance calling beginning at the
beginning of February.  The alleged benefits of the service are:

    -- A private access code for each student (usable from any
       telephone on campus)
    -- Lower rates
    -- A credit limit of $150 (yes, that's listed as a "great
       benefit" of the service)

Obviously AT&T wouldn't say anything about this, so I'm going to ask
fellow net'ters: Does anyone know of any possible "gotchas" with this
service?  Has anyone used it extensively?  I'd like to be prepared for
when it's activated.

Thanks...


David Zinkin ([e-mail]) -- RGH Radiology and CWRU Psych./Chem.

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

From: "David R. Zinkin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's This About AT&T and Int'l Calling?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 04:51:18 GMT


I've been reading messages for the past couple of days about AT&T
blocking calls to certain countries, supposedly to prevent the phone
"phreakers" from completing their tasks.

What purpose does this serve?  I was under the impression that the
vast majority of phone phreaking relates to calls *within* the
country, not to foreign countries.  Is AT&T going to tell me I can't
call certain states?  (Hope NY isn't one of them!)


David Zinkin ([e-mail]) -- RGH Radiology and CWRU Psych./Chem.


[Moderator's Note: It is doubtful they would block calls *to* any
certain US destinations. Domestic calls are cheaper, the domestic
telcos cooperate with one another investigating toll-fraud, and the
recipient of the call most likely speaks English, making it easier for
the Security Department to interogate the recipient. They do block
calls *from* some domestic locations however -- the payphones at the
Port Authority Bus Terminal in New York City being one example.  PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T International Call Blocking, Again
Date: 20 Jan 91 21:44:31 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Ravinder Bhumbla <[e-mail]> writes:

> So, I would suggest that you send e-mail to the above address or
> contact the local AT&T office.  That way you might be able to talk to
> the operator/supervisor and make an international call when you need
> to.  I am sure that they'll not lift the call-blocking in general.

You will recall a short time back that GTE Mobilnet had blocked (and
still does) IDDD from its mobile customers. A number of us who make
such calls bitterly complained and each one of us had IDDD reinstated
on our mobile units. Mobilnet did this quite readily without much of a
stink. Obviously, this is a tactic used by some common carriers to
deal with certain types of fraud: turn a service off to the general
subscribership and then reinstate it on a need-to-have basis
individually.

Somehow this seems to be a cheap and dirty way to solve a problem.
Rather than use creative means to improve security, the solution is to
just inconvenience the customers. It is a trend that goes on in this
country because we, the public, permit it. In telecommunications, as
with everything else, service to the customer has become a meaningless
concept. The customer is now expected to be grateful to receive any
value at all for his dollar, the terms being dictated by the
convenience and whim of the seller. The customer is always right?
Wrong! The customer is some scum that whose sole purpose is to provide
revenue to the company.

You and I are guilty of allowing this to fester by our passive
acceptance of this treatment. This is still the land of capitalism,
and until everything is "run by the government" (another trend,
suitable for discussion elsewhere), we the people are still able to
vote and speak with our pocketbooks. Instead of worrying about the
tastefulness or sensitivity of commercials, the politics of the
company's philanthopic gestures, or other, irrelavent issues, let us
be sure that we, the customers, are receiving product suitable to our
needs, provided in a professional manner with noticable concern our
satisfaction.

I could not care one twit whether AT&T's spots are relavent,
competent, or material. But being a user of international long
distance, I care whether that service is available in a timely and
convenient manner. If AT&T cannot provide it, then I (an otherwise
heavy AT&T customer) will take that business elsewhere and will let
AT&T know why.


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


[Moderator's Note: I am coming <<thisclose>> to yanking my business
from AT&T and giving it to some other carrier for this very reason and
others. I go into the phone center store on Devon Avenue to buy a
simple $50 phone over the weekend. Charge my AT&T equipment account, I
ask them. The clerk spends ** fifteen minutes ** on the phone with
'credit' somewhere ... and they can't find my account, even when I
read them the number from the bill for $20-plus they send me every
three months for a two-line turn-button set I still lease. Finally I
left and went down the street to Radio Shack and bought the phone.

But you know the really sad thing, John? You could quit them, I could
quit them, *everyone on this list could quit them* !! and they
wouldn't know the difference.

I get *five* monthly bills from AT&T: Two for my cellular phones' long
distance because AT&T says they can't be combined; one from AT&T Mail;
one for phone leasing; one long distance bill. That is only my
personal accounts -- my office gets a few more. Had they figured out a
way to sell me the phone in the store Saturday I'd start getting a
sixth monthly bill for that. AT&T won't accept their own card for
their store and forward service; for international calls to several
countries or for *anywhere* if god forbid I should be standing at a
payphone in the wrong place. I should give them the whole works back
with 'thanks, but no thanks, let me know when you are in a position to
serve customers without lying to them and wasting their time.'  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #53
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03187;
          22 Jan 91 4:54 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05622;
          22 Jan 91 3:13 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11618;
          22 Jan 91 2:08 CST
Date:     Tue, 22 Jan 91 2:00:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #54
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:00:07 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 54

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Retransmit of Issues 43-44 [TELECOM Moderator]
    CNN Live from Baghdad [Gary Segal]
    Re: CNN From Baghdad [Bob Sherman]
    War and the Net [Mark Steiger]
    Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage [Piet van Oostrum]
    Zimmermann Telegram (was: An Offering to Explain CNN) [Mark Brader]
    Foxhole Payphones? What Next? [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    'AT&T Building' in Baghdad [Donald E. Kimberlin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 0:51:02 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Retransmit of Issues 43-44


This is just a note to our Usenet readers to let you know that issues
43 and 44 were re-transmitted Monday night .... the 23 messages just
prior to this one (assuming all got delivered in order) were the ones
you missed last week. They carried dates of January 14-16, and all
were redated to say January 21 so they would be retained for at least
a day or two at your sites.  To the folks who now got two copies of
those messages: sorry!.  But from the three dozen messages I got today
saying those issues were not delivered, I'm of the impression most of
the net didn't see them at all.  A second mailing was NOT done to the
mailing list -- just to the Usenet side.


PAT

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

From: Gary Segal <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: CNN Live from Baghdad
Date: 21 Jan 91 04:21:58 GMT
Organization: Motorola INC., Cellular Infrastructure Division


The following article contains some information about the means used
by CNN to maintain contact to Baghdad.  While some of the information
is not totally correct, there is still some usefull clues as to how
CNN talked to Baghdad live; while the world listened.

If you are new to telecom, please be aware that a two-wire phone line
does not work by having "one going out and one going in," but "mixes"
both the outgoing and incomming signals on the one pair, while a
four-wire line uses one pair for each direction of communication.
Also, two-wire lines are made of the exactly the same type copper as
four-wire lines.

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

 From "The Chicago Tribune," Friday, January 18, 1991

"Early Planning Helped CNN Register a Television Coup"
Section 1, page 9

By James Warren
Chicago Tribune

Atlanta - The Cable News Network's dominating coverage of the Gulf
War's opening was not luck.  Although scens of reporters in gas masks
in Israel on Thursday night give visual immediacy to coverage that was
missing the night before, CNN's early coup Wednsesday was still
memorable - and unexplained.

It came from the four-wire, a private dedicated phone line that
doesn't go through standard phone systems.

The Iragi invasion of Kuwait began Aug 2.  By September, CNN was
gearing for possible war coverage from a besieged Baghdad.  Richard
Tauber, CNN's director of satellites and circuits, first went to
Jordan and began dealings with its TV and radio ministry since CNN
ultimately would have to transmit from Jordan to the U.S.  He also
talked to the Jordanian Telecommunications Corp., because the
four-wire would have to run essentialy between Baghdad and Jordan.

CNN's mission to Iraq was more difficult, and Iraqi approval did not
come quickly.  According to CNN executives, the Iraqi ministries of
information and telecommunications were split on whether to permit it.
But CNN's growing reputation won the day, and subsequent similar
requests by other networks were spurned.

"CNN is seen around the world," Tauber said.  "Saddam [Hussein] knows
that.  When the Jordanians fianally put in the order [for the phone
line], the Iraqis said O.K."

"Did we lose the four-wire?"  Richard Tauber called out Thursday
morning amid the din at Cable News Netowrk here, alluding to a cutoff
in contact with reporters in Baghdad.

At 10 a.m. Chicago time Thursday, Tauber had learned that the Iraqi
government had, at least for the moment, ended transmissions of CNN
reporters Peter Arnett, John Holliman and Bernard Shaw from their 9th
floor room in a Baghdad hotel.

Eight hours later, Tauber's worry momentarily took a back seat to
those of CNN colleagues in Israel.  As fears of a nerve gas attack
played out, viewers watched and listened while Larry Register, CNN's
Jerusalem bureau cheif, was sternly ordered to close windows that had
been opened in order to get a better view of the city.

The reporters in the bureau room soon would don gas masks and talk to
editors in Atlanta, giving firsthand reports on the frightening
prospect of a nerve-gas attack just down the street.

The four-wire constiuted expensive foresight critical to the Baghdad
coverage of the initial allied assault.  It explains why CNN could
draw unpreccedented ratings and so humble its competition that CBS
made a rather notable request Thursday to a ten-year old rival once
ridiculed as "Chicken Noodle News."

CBS' Mike Wallace and Don Hewitt, executive producer of "60 Minutes,"
called a top CNN executive to see if Arnett, Holliman and Shaw could
be made available for Sundays' "60 Minutes."

For sure, there was ample intrinsic merit in the generally unruffled,
highly detailed performance by the trio, who were involuntarily
dispatched with other journalists to the hotel basement for much of
Thursday by Iraqi authorities.

But they could have never recounted the bombings without both a bigh
help of Tauber, a certifiable "techie," and the consent of Hussein's
underlings.

Normal American phones work on two lines, with one going out and one
going in.  If two people talk at the same time, they won't hear one
another very well.  The four-wire, made of copper, has two lines going
each way.  It was run from a speaker phone placed in the CNN hotel
room to the local phone company office.

A speaker's voice goes through the line to a nearby microwave
transmitter.  From there, it's bounced to a local phone company in
Amman, Jordan.  A microwave transmitter in Amman sends the signal via
stellite to a ground staion in Etam, W. Va., and then via AT&T to two
phone circuits in New York.  The folks in Atlanta, headquarters of
CNN, can "patch into" those circuits and talk to the hotel room from
the newsroom (all in about one-quarter of a second).

If you have trouble programming your VCR at home, that will all seem
truly baffling.  It's also a lot more expensive.  The basic cost to
CNN for just having the service has been $15,000 a month since
October.  But it was a prime reason CNN could transmit with faily good
sound quality Thursday when others could not.

Of course, there was another reason: The Iraqis didn't pull the plug.
Indeed, the line sitll hasn't been pulled.  If one ambled by CNN's
foreign desk Thursday, one realized that the line was still working
and open.

The problem is that the government is barring CNN's trio from using
it.

By Thusday night, CNN officals could not be sure of their group's
safety.  CNN President Tom Hohnson indicated that he had discussed the
matter of CNN's continuing presence in Baghdad with both Gen.  Colin
Powell, chaiman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Marlin Fitzwater,
White House press secretary.

One specific topic was apparently a rumor, passed to CNN by an NBC
executive, that the hotel was on a list Thursday night of allied
bombing targets.  That was untrue, Johnson was told.

Meanwhile, CNN's Wednsday coverage resulted in a huge ratings leap.

One can't fairly compare ratings of the broadcast networks with the
different universe of cable.  But CNN's Wednesday numbers smashed its
pervious prime-time record (Tuesday night) by 150 percent and was
1,000 percent greater than its December average.

One estimate gave CNN 11.2 million viewers, or a 19.1 rating in the
cable system.  But it didn't account for the many CNN radio and TV
affiliates, like Chicago superstaion WGN-Ch. 9, which made ample use
of the coverage.


Gary Segal    ...!uunet!motcid!segal        [phone]
Motorola INC., 1501 W. Shure Drive, Arlington Heights IL, 60004
The opinions expressed above are those of the author, and do not consititue
the opinions of Motorola INC.

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

From: Bob Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad
Organization: Not much!
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 08:12:30 GMT


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

>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.

My initial remark was posted the night before ALL journalists were
expelled from Iraq. As best I know Peter left when ordered to by the
government the next day.


[e-mail]    MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 15:42:18 CST
From: Mark Steiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: War and the Net


Will the war in the middle east be affecting the "allowed" net traffic
or perhaps shutting it down completely??


[ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS 218-262-3142  300-19.2K Baud (HST/Dual)]
Internet: [e-mail]              MCI Mail: MSteiger
UUCP: ...crash!pro-igloo!penguin                 ATT Mail: MSteiger
ProLine: Penguin@pro-igloo                       America Online: Goalie5
TELEX: 51623155  MSTEIGER


[Moderator's Note: Let's certainly hope not.   PAT]

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

From: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wondering About Gulf Crisis Coverage
Date: 21 Jan 91 12:11:18 GMT
Reply-To: Piet van Oostrum <[e-mail]>
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Utrecht University, The Netherlands


This weekend I saw an interesting note in a newspaper about
telecommunications used by some journalists. I don't know if it
applies to CNN but it surely was interesting.

They have two briefcases, one containing a portable satellite antenna
(lloks like an upside down umbrella), and one with a computer. They
rent a hotelroom with a window on the south side (or north on the
southern hemisphere), and when they want to make a phone call, they
direct the antenna to the satellite, type in their user number and
password, and make the phone call. No dependency on local telephone
companies, state censors, etc. The satellite used is Inmarsat (if I
remember the name correctly), that is mainly used for maritime
telephone traffic. They must have arranged a subscription on the
satellite, of course.


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: Mon, 21 Jan 1991 15:05:00 -0500
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Zimmermann Telegram (was: An Offering to Explain CNN)
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> The history of intelligence intercepts must go back at least to
> the Romans learning to read smoke signals of the Picts in Britain.
> In the electrical era, an immediate action was to cut your enemy's
> submarine telegraph cable and pull it ashore to a friendly nation.
> The U.S. did this to Germany in both WWI and WWII, and the U.S. Army
> even had its own cableship into the Korean War era. ...

My recollection of reading Barbara Tuchman's "The Zimmermann Telegram"
says that the German cables were indeed cut very early in WWI -- by
the British.  The U.S. was, after all, neutral for the first 3/4 of
the war!

In fact, this action turned out in the end to lead to the U.S.
entering the war.  It seems that the Germans sent a telegram to
Mexico, saying that in the event of the U.S. entering the war against
them, they invited the Mexicans to enter the war on the German side
and promised that if they did so then they would get back the
territory now in the U.S. that they used to have.  Now, because of the
cut cables, the Germans were limited in how they could transmit an
overseas message like this with security.  They chose to route it
(illegally) through a neutral country -- the U.S. itself!

They thought it was safe because nobody could possible break their
code, even if, say, the British had someone in a position to take a
copy of it, which they did.  But they also *did* know how to break the
code, and cheerfully revealed the contents of the telegram, and the
rest is history.

(I'm working from memory, but I did read the book pretty recently.)


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:10 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Foxhole Payphones?  What Next?


Much is being said about "high technology" changing the way war is
conducted.  We're all hearing things about how generals and admirals
have new tools for their conduct.  But how about the individual
soldier or sailor? The following press release from AT&T indicates the
latest at the front ... almost a payphone in the foxhole:

                      ************

PRESS ADVISORY:  AT&T calling volumes


     MORRISTOWN, N.J., Jan. 18, 1991 -- Despite current hostilities in
the Middle East, United States military personnel continue to use
AT&T's USADirect(R) Service to call home at a rate of approximately
13,000 calls a day.

     Service people are making the same number of calls today as they
were prior to the start of the conflict on Wednesday evening.

      Nearly 1,000 special USADirect phones are installed close to
front-line troops in Saudi Arabia.  Troops can use this service to
call the United States or Germany to talk with their family and
friends.

     AT&T installed these phones in November specifically for the use
of Operation Desert Storm troops.  AT&T will continue to offer
USADirect Service throughout the conflict.

                           #   #   #

USADirect Service is a registered trademark of AT&T.

                            ************

 ...Wonder how Bill Mauldin's famous "Willie and Joe" of WWII would
react to a direct USA payphone out there in Belgium or New Guinea?


[Moderator's Note: Well, this war is high-tech in all respects, isn't
it? I wonder how Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower would react?
I bet they'd love every minute of it!  Not the war per se, but the
tremendous leaps in technology which have made war so much different
than it was nearly a half-century ago.  This is first war in history
covered live on television from start to finish. In Eisenhower's era,
one only saw what was presented in the theatre news reels.

And yet some things never change: at a forum Sunday in the Chicago
Temple auditorium Mayor Daley spoke of the sacrifices 'we may be
called upon to make in the weeks and months to come' and the
importance of supporting the troops. In addition to the Star Spangled
Banner (*four* stanzas, mind you! -- I don't think anyone would
remember the second and third stanzas if the words had not been
printed in the program), the program closed with everyone singing
"Eternal Father Strong To Save". It could have been 1941 as easily as
1991 except for the references to CNN and a short video which was
included.  :)  PAT

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:13 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: "AT&T" Building in Baghdad


      We had a post on here Sunday about how wire services had
reported that the "AT&T Building in Baghdad" had been bombed.
According to the following from AT&T's "Newsbriefs" for 21 January, it
seems the source this error was a military officer on the spot:

                              *******

     ERROR -- The U.S. government and AT&T have been known to have
some pretty heated wars, but nothing like this.  Air Force Col. Alton
Whitley, commander of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, told the media
Friday that the first air strike against Iraq was a 2,000-pound bomb
dropped squarely onto the "AT&T building" in downtown Baghdad.

     Not so, says the telecommunications giant.  "We don't even have a
building in Baghdad," spokesman James Van Orden said.  {Dallas Times-
Herald}, D1, 1/20.

                               *******

     So, it seems even ranking military officers are confused with
just how far AT&T's influence goes.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #54
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa05754;
          22 Jan 91 7:04 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17085;
          22 Jan 91 5:24 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05286;
          22 Jan 91 4:14 CST
Date:     Tue, 22 Jan 91 3:13:58 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #55
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Jan 91 03:13:46 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 55

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Milton D. Miller]
    Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Bill Nickless]
    Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Charlie Lear]
    Re: Concerted Action [[e-mail]]
    Re: Data Interruption by Operator [Mark Brader]
    Re: Japanese Payphones [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: Multi-Location WATS [Mark Van Buskirk]
    Re: Line Information Data Base [Ronald T. Crocker]
    Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator? [Chris Johnson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Milton D Miller <pur-ee![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 18:00:47 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David R. Zinkin)
writes:

>My school (Case Western Reserve University) is scheduled to use the
>AT&T ACUS Service for all long-distance calling beginning at the
>beginning of February.  The alleged benefits of the service are:

>    -- A private access code for each student (usable from any
>       telephone on campus)
>    -- Lower rates
>    -- A credit limit of $150 (yes, that's listed as a "great
>       benefit" of the service)

>Obviously AT&T wouldn't say anything about this, so I'm going to ask
>fellow netters: Does anyone know of any possible "gotchas" with this
>service?  Has anyone used it extensively?  I'd like to be prepared for
>when it's activated.

Well, we have it here at Purdue, and I am generally pleased with the
service (it is better than what we had with GTE, who had assigned all
the pins in sequence ... care to guess how much fraud was around?)  I
personally don't make that many calls ... so my typical phone bill is
somewhere around $.50 to 1.50 (I call home on a 800 number).  Probably
the biggest pain is sending in those little checks!

They have a 800 number where you can call and get your balance
anytime, and you can send in money before the bill is due to extend
your $150.00.  To check, all you need is your ten digit account number
and nine digit Personal Security Code (PSC, aka pin).  Also, you can
get the rates from the computer, too (I haven't tried this, though).
I think the discount is supposed to be 10%, but I haven't looked in a
while.

As far as dialing, we can call from any Residence hall phone, but the
general campus phones are on a different switch and prefix, and can
not be dialed from.  800 numbers do not require a card number, other
long distance is 1 + A/C (if not ours) + seven digits, wait, then nine
digit pin.  This year, for other types of toll calls we dial 2+;
before we had to ask the campus operator for a outside operator.


Milton


[Moderator's Note: At least in the division of AT&T which bills for
calls from my cellular phones (Orlando, FL) we don't have to pay small
balances less than $5.00 for ninety days or until the balance goes
above that amount, whichever comes first. You might inquire if the
same is true of the ACUS service.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 08:41:08 CST
From: Bill Nickless <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service


Andrews University of Berrien Springs, Michigan, has provided long
distance service through various campus-sponsored programs such as
AT&T ACUS (I think that's the one they're using now.)  David R. Zinkin
<[e-mail]> asked if there were any "gotchas" with the service
his school was moving towards.  The biggest complaint I have with the
implementation of AT&T ACUS at Andrews is that for most residence
(dorm, apartment) phones it is impossible to use most long distance
calling cards directly -- not even AT&T's "Universal Card" works.

I have ended up with Sprint and MCI cards that are accessed by 1-800
numbers.  They work and avoid the ACUS system.  Unfortunately I know
of no way to reach an AT&T operator or have an AT&T operator reach me
by calling a 1-800 number.

A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way
of a 1-800 number?  No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to
AT&T" responses, please.


Bill Nickless     [e-mail] or [e-mail]
                  [phone] or [phone]

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

Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates
Organization: The Cave MegaBBS, Public Access Usenet, Wellington, NZ
Date: 21 Jan 91 13:13:37 NZD (Mon)
From: [e-mail]


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

>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.

Har! Sorry, my fault for not pointing it out. New Zealand has ONE
telco.  Telecom New Zealand Ltd. You like it or you go without.
Otherwise I'd have given them the bird as soon as this "business" and
"fraud" thing blew up.

>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.

Telecom NZ has been fighting a battle with the Commerce Commission for
the last two years concerning their exorbitant T1 pricing. VAN service
providers cannot lease T1 lines cheaply enough to provide lines that
are competitive with either tolls or Telecom-leased voice lines. Every
day that the situation drags on helps Telecom as it keeps any
competition in check while Telecom firms its grip on the market. Note
that the Commerce Commission is investigating restrictive business
practices, not the actual tariff.

We have had a firm set up called the Alternative Telecommunications
Company but they are at this stage interested only in big-business
leased- line operation between major cities. For this decade at least,
the cost of providing dialtone to anyone out in the 'burbs will ensure
Telecom retains a monopoly on the domestic market. That doesn't stop
Telecom from hiking rentals and so forth to "allow us to retain a
standard of service that enables us to compete effectively". Compete
with who? Themselves.

>(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.)

In my case, around nine miles to the nearest Telecom T1 junction. I
have access to a four-line PAD, so will probably get one 9600bps X25 line
into cavebbs to give me four 2400bps dialups for out-of-town users.
Telecom's X25 charging stinks too, but that's a different story...


Charlie "The Bear" Lear | [e-mail] | Kawasaki Z750GT  DoD#0221
The Cave MegaBBS  [phone]  V32 | PO Box 2009, Wellington, New Zealand

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

Date: Sat, 19 Jan 91 20:36:14 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Concerted Action
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


We already know what happens when everyone takes their phone off-hook
at about the same time: you have to wait, and wait for a long time, to
have any chance of getting dial tone.

A truck hit a major power distribution cable a few years ago.
Everyone lost power.  Everyone wanted to call the power company.  No
one could, of course.


 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 1991 15:22:00 -0500
From: Mark Brader <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Data Interruption by Operator
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada


> Apparently, some people who have needed to get in touch with me have
> used an "operator emergency break" to break onto the data line. ...
> I have talked to an operator supervisor, and she said that she's
> sorry, but a lot of the newer operators can't tell that it's a data
> call, so when they try to break in and ask if I'll release the line,
> they break the connection, and then, realizing that the line is now
> clear, ring through.

This is exactly what I would *hope* would happen if someone did an
emergency break when I was on a data line.  Some time ago I asked in
this forum what actually would happen, and nobody answered.

> (And yes, I know that this service is only supposed to be used in a
> real emergency, but I don't want to prosecute anyone for doing this, I
> just want to stop it).

What's the problem with identifying who's doing it?  When the phone
rings, answer it and find out who it is!  (If there's no phone on the
modem line, it should be easy enough to jack one in before it stops
ringing.)

My phone company is Bell Canada, which operates in Ontario and Quebec
and part of the Northwest Territories.  I received something from them
recently, probably a phone bill insert.  It quoted new fees for having
the operator verify a busy line, and for having the operator break
into the call.  I think the fees were $1 for the verification and 1.50
to break in with or without verification.

I was surprised to see that the notice did *not* say that breaking in
was only permitted in an emergency; and indeed, introducing a fee
tends to show that they feel otherwise.  Perhaps the people at Bell
decided that since everybody knows there is no way for the operator to
really verify that it *is* an emergency call, there was no point in
persisting with that requirement.

In Bell Canada territory, then, a person could ask the operator to
verify the line and in the way find it whether it was a data or voice
call -- if the operator would reveal that much -- before deciding
whether their business was urgent enough to break in.  Not that I
would approve of that.


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

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 22:14 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones


A souvenir shop in the Sydney, NSW airport sells time-cards for
Japanese payphones.  At first I was puzzled, but my guess is that
returning Japanese tourists buy them when they realize they have no
Japanese money with which to make phone calls when they land in their
own country.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Jan 21 13:21:25 CST 1991
Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS
Organization: AT&T


Dear Mr. Townson:

Regarding multi-location WATS discounts Mr. Levine is correct;
peculiarities in the tariff allow aggregators to operate. AT&T doesn't
benefit directly from aggregator operations. Under current tariff AT&T
cannot stop aggregators from operating. If the customer fails to pay
their bill the aggregator becomes responsible for payment. Also,
aggregators are selling services from other carriers such as MCI,
Sprint, ect.  I hope this answers your questions on multi-location
WATS.

P.S.:  I'm very sorry to hear of the poor service you encountered while
trying to call Israel. As a customer representative I try to treat
every customer as I would like to be treated if I was calling.
However, with 300,000 employees inevitably you will reach one that
doesn't care about the people we are here to serve. I don't agree with
many of the policies set by the company but as an employee I must
follow them. (Being on the frontline we take the heat.) Finally,as an
AT&T employee I feel terrible when I here about such treatment. I
certainly hope someone in this large corporation can solve these
problems to your satisfaction.


Sincerely,

Mark Van Buskirk       AT&T  Rolling Meadows Il    800-544-1697


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for your kind letter. You are an excellent
example of a company -- any large company, really -- being as good as
its best employees and as bad as its worst ones. Your attitude is to
be commended. I wish more felt the same as yourself.   But as another
reader / AT&T employee pointed out to me in a private letter,
employee morale has become very poor in many divisions of your
company. Long time faithful employees are beginning to discover that
nothing counts for anything these days, in the year -- what is it now?
 -- 6 PD.  The old lady in the rocking chair smiling as she relates
how AT&T has kept her housed, fed and clothed for many years as a
result of her stock holdings (AT&T commercial, circa 1935) is no more.
She went to telephone-heaven along with Ma several years ago. The idea
that when you went to work for Ma you stayed for the rest of your
working career is now very quaint. In 1939, a major fire in the
Chicago Union Stockyards caused the evacuation of several city blocks
in the vicinity of 43rd and Exchange Avenues ... except at the old YARds
telephone exchange (now-a-days 312-927) where the operators sat at
thier boards taking calls from frightened subscribers and relaying
instructions from the fire department.  Times change.  PAT]

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

From: "Ronald T. Crocker" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Line Information Data Base
Date: 21 Jan 91 13:34:53 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc. - Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


This information, though not on the tip of my tongue, is available
from Bell Communications Research, Inc. (Bellcore) in Bellcore
Technical Report TR-402 and Technical Advisory TA-460.  I can't
remember which describes the SCP (Service Control Point) and SSP
(Service Switching Point [== switch]), but you should be able to get
both from Bellcore.


Ron Crocker

Motorola Radio-Telephone Systems Group, Cellular Infrastructure Group
[phone] [FAX: [phone]]
 ...!uunet!motcid!crocker

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

From: Chris Johnson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Possible Contradiction by Moderator?
Organization: Com Squared Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 19:51:54 GMT


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

>> 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!

Why should the number change all the time and frequently?  It's a
great help when it's really needed to track down how an office is
wired, for example.  At any rate, the number here in the Twin Cities
is 511, and has been for the past 10 years for all U.S. West phones
I've ever tried.  That seems like a sensible service to me, and it's
saved me many an hour trying to figure out where some extension is or
was, or what number is in the cubicle I just moved into.


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


[Moderator's Note: The thinking seems to be that people who wish to
commit fraud using your telephone line will find it easier to do so if
they can go to some area where the wires are available, for example in
the basement of an apartment building, and use the code to detirmine
the number of the pair they have illegally grabbed.  In one way it
makes sense, but I really don't approve of punishing everyone because
of the actions of a few.  Anyway, you can always find out the number
of the phone you are using by placing a person to person call to John
Smith at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York ... and when of course
he is not there, ask your operator to 'leave word' for him to call you
back at 'this number'.  Without thinking about it, she will tell the
hotel operator to have Mr. Smith call Operator 7 in Anytown, and ask
for Mr.  Jones at XXX-YYYY. You'll hear her say the number, so have
your pencil handy, and be sure and thank her for assisting you, even
if you don't tell her quite how she assisted.  :) PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #55
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25203;
          23 Jan 91 0:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25804;
          22 Jan 91 22:50 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16018;
          22 Jan 91 21:45 CST
Date:     Tue, 22 Jan 91 20:57:57 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #56
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Jan 91 20:57:46 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 56

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Bill Huttig]
    Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Randy Borow]
    Re: AT&T ACUS Service [John Higdon]
    Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Milton D. Miller]
    Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Jack Dominey
    What I Like Ahout Telecom*USA [TELECOM Moderator answers Ed Greenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again
Date: 21 Jan 91 15:44:03 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


PAT commented on the fact that he was thinking of changing from AT&T
because of the international call blocking ... others metioned what
would happen if AT&T blocked calling card calls to certain US areas.
In a way TELECOM*USA did this to some BBS (They Blocked 1+ calls) ...
Does anyone know if Telecom*USA is still doing this?


[Moderator's Note: Maybe if Bruce Wilson is reading this, he can give
us the latest update in a short summary message.   PAT]

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

Date: 21-JAN-1991 15:07:08.29
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again


Thanks to everyone who responded to my post!

I decided to write to Mr. Allen and let him know how I feel about
AT&T's blocking of certain international calls from papyhones
(non-coin calls, that is). Here is a copy of the letter which I sent:

  TO: [e-mail],[e-mail]
  DATE: 21-JAN-1991 14:25:45.19
  FROM: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
  SUBJECT: AT&T blocking of Int. Calls
  TO: [e-mail],[e-mail],usereafj@rpitsmts

Dear Mr. Allen,

Recently, I had a most unpleasant experience while using AT&T Long
Distance Service.

A friend of mine was rather anxious to call Israel, and was unable to
get through from a payphone. She attends college in New Jersey, and
continued to have difficulty after repeated attempts to get through.

I tried to place the call myself, and was told by the operator that
"[T]here is no agreement between the state of New Jersey and Israel
for non-coin calls from payphones." She also asked if I would like to
speak to her supervisor.

I had read about this before in various forums, but never thought that
it would affect me. Well, it has. As an AT&T customer who has NEVER
used an alternate carrier, who encourages friends and associates to
use AT&T, who has AT&T 800 service, AT&T residential service on seven
lines (total for my houses in Connecticut and New York), business
service on eight lines at my office in NY, and who subscribes to
various AT&T call discount packages, I am infuriated by both the utter
incompetence of your personnel as well as the inability to get through
at a time when hearing a distant voice would well have put my friend
at ease. How dare you insult me with such an idiotic response from
your operator in New Jersey? Even if your operators had only a slight
hint of the events which are presently occurring the world, that
should suffice to compel them to realize the importance of hearing the
voice of a friend or loved one at such a time.

Therefore, I request that you explain to me why AT&T has instituted
this policy of blocking, and why long-time AT&T customers must be so
greatly inconvenienced in this manner. Moreover, I may very well need
to call other "blocked" countries in the future, and would like to
know how to do so and avoid dealing with untruthful and seemingly
ignorant operators.

I have been made aware that other long distance services DO provide
access to these "blocked" countries. I am reluctant to switch to them,
but should AT&T fail to provide me with a satisfactory resolution to
this incident, I will be forced to change my business and residence
services over to them as I feel that I can not countinue to support
AT&T as long as you have such a callous disregard for some of your
most loyal customers.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Douglas Scott Reuben

P.S. You may respond to: "[e-mail]","dreuben@
wesleyan.bitnet" or FAX a response to [phone]. I am usually
not around to take voice calls, and a written response would thus
be appreciated.

                                 -------

Hopefully, I will get a response which will explain why AT&T continues
to do this, yet after reading some of the other posts, I won't hold my
breath! :(

Thanks again for all the replies,

Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Jan 21 11:58:05 CST 1991
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again


        Both John Higdon and our esteemed Moderator understandably
have become more than perturbed, shall I say, at AT&T. Apparently,
several items of late have bothered these two gentlemen.

        Pat, I could easily -- as an AT&T employee -- say you're nuts,
etc.; or, I can tout the greatness of American Telephone & Telegraph
Co. However, allow me to say that I actually agree with you -- albeit to
a certain extent.

        Many times I find myself asking how such a company as large,
reputable, and old as AT&T can be so confused and confusing,
technical, disorganized, etc. It seems like just when we have found
the answer to something, we go ahead and change it, under the guise of
"customer satisfaction," but ostensibly to do nothing to cut costs
(read jobs).

        This company unfortunately does not believe in the old adage:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Ever since the break-up of the old
Bell System (oh, how I yearn for the good ole days), AT&T has cut over
250,000 jobs, and it continues to do so at an unbelievable rate. As a
result, morale throughout most of the company has sunk to a terrible
low. What motivation is there for employees to truly serve or help a
customer when management doesn't give a damn about its employees.
After all, if someone's job will be eliminated shortly, there is no
reason to go the extra mile for those who have cut your throat.

        I must, however, explain a few things. I don't want this to
appear like a vendetta or angry diatribe against my employer AT&T. I
am not ashamed to work for Ma Bell, and I have no regrets about
accepting the job to begin with. Unlike some AT&T'ers Pat and John
(and even I) have encountered, I try my best to out of the way to help
someone. No, it's not the simple "the customer is always right"
indoctrination. Instead, I am someone who -- believe it or not -- will
make sure the person with whom I am dealing goes away convinced that
AT&T at least CARES. Because I am only human, I occasionally fail, but
it's not for lack of trying. Usually, it's because of some stupid
company policy or the lack of proper personnel to assist me.

        I do not wish to sound like a disgruntled, bleeding liberal,
but I must ask the upper echelon who runs this communications giant:
Why continue to decimate your own ranks, and in so doing, leave the
customers out in the cold?  AT&T must first remember that in reality,
the employees are its first customers.

        We who are on the lower end of the totem pole (and pay scale)
are the foot soldiers who possess the common sense to see what is
happening. If only the big executives would stop looking at everything
through an accountant's kaleidoscope and realize what is truly going
on. Only then will we truly be the best there is.

        We must never forget: a house divided will not stand.


Randy Borow
Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service
Date: 22 Jan 91 08:54:50 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Bill Nickless <[e-mail]> writes:

> A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way
> of a 1-800 number?  No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to
> AT&T" responses, please.

Sorry, you are out of luck. There is no known 800 number, 950 number,
or even 900 or POTS number that can reach an AT&T operator. AT&T is
the easiest carrier on the planet to block because it arrogantly
refuses to admit that such an august institution needs to stoop to
"alternate access" the way the "other guys" do.


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 16:32:27 -0500
From: Milton D Miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


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

[Regarding ACUS billing]

>[Moderator's Note: At least in the division of AT&T which bills for
>calls from my cellular phones (Orlando, FL) we don't have to pay small
>balances less than $5.00 for ninety days or until the balance goes
>above that amount, whichever comes first. You might inquire if the
>same is true of the ACUS service.  PAT]

I know this is *NOT* the case, from personal expierence ... there is a
10% late payment charge, and after 15 days the bill date they they
send a second notice, including a threat to turn it over to a
colletion agency, and turn off the number ... all for a bill that was
73 cents with late charge (.66 orig, .07 late charge -> 10%)!  (I was
at home this time to look at the bill).


milton


[Moderator's Note: Isn't it interesting that two different divisions
of the same general area of the company (both handling billing for
long distance calls) don't even have a standard practice regarding
small balances ... also note: On my 'regular' phone lines I have one
each of Reach Out America / Reach Out World. Use either of my lines
and the call is handled through the appropriate plan ... all my long
distance traffic on both lines is combined on one plan to maximize
benefits. But when I asked the cellular billing office in Orlando to
combine my two cellular numbers on one long distance bill, or permit
them to be included in the Reach Out plan applying to my other two
lines, their answer was 'no can do'.  So one division can consolidate
your charges on one bill (admittedly it is IBT handling it for them)
and the other division says they cannot.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Jan 22 14:21:47 EST 1991
Subject: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS)


In Vol 11, #55, Bill Nickless <[e-mail]> asks:

>A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way
>of a 1-800 number?  No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to
>AT&T" responses, please.

While I'm not familiar with ACUS (I deal with small businesses), I do
know that Mr. Nickless is touching on a sore spot for AT&T.  The issue
of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought
by the lodging industry.  Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming
their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access.  They (generally) allow
free 800 and local calls, so they want AT&T to use those methods, too.

AT&T's position, as I understand it, is that 10-XXX is the agreed-upon
universal access method (through Bellcore?), and hotels will have to
live with it.  To answer the inevitable, "All the other carriers use
800 and 950 access, why can't AT&T?": Other carriers built their
networks to operate in a non-equal-access environment, so 800 and 950
access are integral to their design.  AT&T's network was always the
default, so the other access methods were never included.  I haven't
seen any official estimates of the cost of building such access now,
but I doubt it would be either cheap or easy.


Jack Dominey
AT&T Commercial Telemarketing, Tucker, GA. | 800 241-4285 | ATTMail !dominey

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 10:11 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telecom*USA


Patrick,

Can you discuss what you like about this service?


edg


[Moderator's Note: The thing about Teleconnect (their subsidiary)
blocking calls to BBS lines they don't like has always disturbed me,
but generally I find them very responsive and efficient. Of course,
MCI just recently took over ... :)  let's give MCI a chance!  :)

I have Telecom*USA as my back up carrier on my two residential lines,
so I can use 10835 as needed. 10835 will *not* work unless you have
registered with them first. Normally I push everything over AT&T using
one-plus, but I feel comfortable having another carrier available.
They were perfectly happy to give me 10835 access without slamming my
lines or getting aggressive in their pitch. In fact, they gave me no
pitch at all to go one-plus with them.

The Telecom*USA Card is much more advanced than AT&T's and includes:

A personal 800 number for accessing their switch. It is *my* number,
and goes in DID-style to their switch where it identifies me. Then the
seven-digit number on the card serves as a PIN. Once I call into their
switch there are numerous helpful prompting messages which you can
bypass by punching buttons at any time.  A synthesized voice provides
this menu:   (the # key terminates what is going on and returns to menu)

Dial the desired domestic or international long distance number, or --

*1 for the Voice News Network (news, weather, sports, business, etc)
updated continually around the clock from CNN.  Dozens of sub-categories
are available.

*2 for conference calling with unlimited parties. A Telecom*USA
operator answers and takes all the information then connects the
parties.

*3 for voicemail maintainence. I have a personal 800 voicemail number
which takes my callers direct to voicemail. Callers would dial that 800
number to reach my box, but I would use *3 from within the switch to
reach the box to get messages, do maintainence, etc.

*4 for Message Store and Forward service. Record a message of any
length, and specify 'person' or 'station' delivery. Attempts will
begin in fifteen minutes and be made up to eight times in the first
hour, then once hourly for the next eight hours. A Telecom*USA
operator will announce 'person' calls and get the person on the line.

*9 + for my <free> ten-number speed dial directory. *91 through *99
automatically dials the number stored, domestic or international. *90
is used to program the speed dialing and review the directory. This
is provided at no additional charge to Telecom*USA card customers.

*0 for the Telecom*USA operator who will provide free directory
assistance and help in placing calls.

In addition to serving as my backup carrier and using the card to
access voice mail, voice news, store and forward, etc I have two 800
'hotline' numbers from Telecom*USA.  These two numbers terminate on my
home phone, but make use of IBT's 'distinctive ringing' service to tip
me off that the incoming call is via the 800 number(s).  The personal
800 numbers cost $2.75 each per month plus calls, billed in six-second
increments. The (third) 800 number used for voicemail costs $2.75 per
month. There is no charge for voicemail, except for 29 cents per
call/minute and the same rate for maintainence/minute. The (fourth)
800 number -- used to access the switch itself in Cedar Rapids, IA --
is free. Telecom*USA does not charge a surcharge for calls made on the
card ... just the cost of the call itself. The rates are 'competitive'.

They installed my 800 numbers the same day I ordered them and changed
the outdialing on each to my distinctive ringing number within hours
of my request. It is rare you wait in a queue to reach their customer
service. I get *one bill* monthly for *everything* from them, all
nicely detailed, with ANI on the 800 numbers, time of day and ANI on
callers in voicemail, etc.  They seem to have full international
service and are willing to bill it in on their card, should I be at a
payphone, etc. I think I will call them tomorrow and ask them to give
me an 800 number for each of my cell phones also. At $2.75 per number,
the price is certainly right!

I'd say my average bill from Telecom*USA for the 800 numbers,
voicemail, voicenews, etc is about $60 per month and they are not
handling any of my outgoing long distance yet since I still give all
that to AT&T.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #56
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26257;
          23 Jan 91 1:28 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18769;
          22 Jan 91 23:55 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab25804;
          22 Jan 91 22:50 CST
Date:     Tue, 22 Jan 91 21:58:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #57
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 22 Jan 91 21:58:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 57

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Northern Telecom Sells ISDN Switch in Japan [Henry Troup]
    Hello From Las Vegas [Ed Greenberg]
    What the 911 Operator Knows [David A. Smallberg]
    Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request [Howard Pierpont
    Fax Sharing a Line With Voice; Distinctive Ringing [Nigel Allen]
    MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues [Bill Huttig]
    The Pac*Bell Plan [John Higdon]
    Curtis NAMFAX Book Wanted [Lewis De Payne]
    GSM Channel Codec [Jorge Costa]
    Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Joseph Chan]
    Fujitsu PBX Help Needed [[e-mail]]
    When PC is the Reason For a Second Line [J. Philip Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 91 10:45:00 EST
From: Henry Troup <[e-mail]>
Subject: Northern Telecom Sells ISDN Switch in Japan


You may be interested in the following NT News Release:

Tokyo, January 14, 1991 -- Northern Telecom announced today that it
will supply the first Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN)
network for a Type II telecommunications service company in Japan,
based on eight new DMS-300 SuperNode switches and additional Northern
Telecom equipment.  The contract is worth more than US $20 million.

INTEC, a corporation which offers packet switched network services,
has ordered the Northern Telecom DMS-SuperNode switches to support a
new nationwide network providing integrated, multi-media services for
data, voice and image transmission.

The network will offer high value-added services to major corporations
around the country.  Northern Telecom will provide full support to
assist INTEC in deployment of the network to meet INTEC's in-service
milestones.  INTEC is a pioneer in new Value Added Network (VAN)
services for Japanese Type II carriers.

Since 1989, the company has been Northern Telecom's distributor of the
Meridian PBX range of products in Japan.  This experience with
Northern Telecom products, together with the development of the
DMS-SuperNode backbone network, will allow INTEC to offer complete
turn-key network integration services for its corporate ISDN
customers.

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 10:10 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Hello From Las Vegas


Well, not really, I'm back now :-)

I spent a long weekend in Las Vegas for CES a week or so back, and
thought I'd comment on the phone service, both coin and cellular that
I encountered.

Hotel Service: Ballys is charging $.50 for local, 800 and credit card
calls.  9+10288+0+ works fine, although 9+0+ goes by a more "creative
and profitable" method.

Centel coin service: Centel is the local operating company, and they
have very odd coin phones.  I think they're Northern Telecom.  They
have a single slot and a tough plastic coating over the metal jacket
of the phone.  They take an abysmally long time to put up a calling
card or local call, and to recover for the next one.  They charge a
quarter.  I'm embarrassed to say that I don't remember whether I had
to dial 10288 to get AT&T.  It all runs together :-)

COCOT service: Bally's, Caesar's and The Mirage all are completely
COCOTted.  The COCOT's look like Bell coin phones, rather than Centel
ones, so they're easy to spot.  All I tried do not permit 10xxx
dialing, and route long distance calls via the "creative and
profitable" method.  You can't even get the Centel operator.  None of
them muted the TT pad after a local call was connected, allowing me to
use the roamer port of the local Cellular carrier, which brings me
to ....

Cellular Service: I had a Mitsubishi transportable phone with me when
I went to Vegas.  My brother brought this, along with his Motorola
portable, in order for us to keep in touch at the show.  On arrival,
his phone worked, including roaming, but my phone told me that "This
phone is not authorized for use in Las Vegas."  Centel (the B cellular
carrier) told me that the phone did not appear on the authorized list.
My assumption is that they couldn't authorize it through the database.
A call to Pac*Tel Cellular in Sacramento on Thursday at 5:30 PM
resulted in working service (and follow-me roaming) by Friday at 8:00
AM.

Cellular coverage and capacity seemed excellent.  The set I had has a
signal strength meter, and strength rarely dropped below half scale
(three out of six segments.)  Full scale readings were obtained out of
doors, even in "building canyons" and on upper floors, as would be
expected.  I drove out to the Hoover Dam, and lost cellular service
about the time I passed Boulder City.

One interesting point.  It was not possible to dial from one roaming
cellular phone to another.  The result was a reorder (fast busy.)
Calls were easily placed through the roamer port, so this was not a
problem.  Note that the roamer port returns supervision on answer,
whether you complete (or even dial) a call or not.  Centel does not
provide *611 service after hours, so we never got a satisfactory
answer to our question of why we couldn't call each other direct.

CES was interesting, and there were some VERY SMALL handheld phones
available.  OKI and Panasonic come to mind.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 10:32:51 PST
From: David A Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: What the 911 Operator Knows


Apparently, not everyone knows that the 911 operator knows where
you're calling from: a man in Calabasas (southwest San Fernando
Valley, Los Angeles) phoned 911 to warn of a bomb on a flight 750 to
the Middle East (there's no such flight on any airline from the L.A.
area, as it turns out).  He called from a private home, and was still
there when the police arrived!  I wonder what percentage of the
population does not know how much the 911 operator knows.

For that matter, in areas where Caller ID has been available for a
while, have there been any surveys of how many people ignored all the
advertising and are still unaware that the number they're calling from
is available to the callee?  How long will it take for this knowledge
to spread to, say, 95% of the people?

I suppose this is similar to the time when automatic exchanges started
appearing.  How long did it take for 95% of the population in those
areas to realize that you could call someone without their being able
to readily check where you're calling from, since there was no
operator to ask?


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


[Moderator's Note: When 911 service first started here in Chicago many
years ago, replacing POLice 5 1313 and FIRe 7 1313 as the emergency
numbers, considerable publicity was given to the fact that the
dispatchers would know who you were and where you were calling from. A
suit by the ACLU to stop 911 service here (as an invasion of the
privacy of the caller to the police) failed, and in the process, the
publicity went on for so long you'd have thought *everyone* would know
 ... yet on opening day a mousy little man turned in a phalse alarm
and when the police knocked on his door he was surprised, to say the
least. In court, he wrung his hands and said he didn't know those
calls could be 'traced' ... "well you do now," bellowed the judge as
he handed him a $500 fine. 911 here has cut phalse fire and police
calls down to almost nothing. Prior to 911 firemen were getting a
couple dozen 'mistaken citizen trying to help' (their euphemism) calls
daily. Despite the extensive PR, most folks do not know about Caller
ID yet or 'call screening', the service I find very useful.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 12:33:22 PST
From: HOWARD PIERPONT <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request


  As part of a project at work I have been asked to configure a
van with the following hardware:

         2 way radio [typical 2 way radio system]
    Scanner
    Cell Phone Computer System #1
    Cell Phone Computer System #2
    Cell Phone Voice System #1
    Cell Phone Voice System #2
    Cell Phone FAX System #1
    Cell Phone Spare [FAX, Voice,Computer] System

OK that means eight antennas on the roof of a van [could be full size
or mini]. What should the placement be for the cell antennas?  I
presume that I need six. I can mount anything anywhere on this
vehicle, so optimize.

Also, I'm looking for either a laptop with cellular modem or a good
source cellular modem.

Thanks,


Howard Pierpont          Digital Equipment Corp.
77 Reed Road  Hudson, MA 01749   508.568.6165

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

Date: Sun, 20 Jan 91 14:36 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fax Sharing a Line With Voice; Distinctive Ringing
Organization: 52 Manchester Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada


A while ago, someone asked whether there was a device that could
switch incoming calls (perhaps to a fax machine or voice) based on the
distinctive ringing service offered by many telephone companies.

I have received some sales literature from a Canadian company that
offers Ring ReaderTM, which does exactly that.  I have not seen the
device in use, and I know nothing about the company beyond the sales
literature.

For more information about Ring Reader, contact:

TEO Technologies Inc.
30 West Beaver Creek Road, Unit 2
Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3K1  Canada
Telephone [phone]   FAX [phone]

The literature says it is FCC registered and DOC (Canada's Department
of Communications) certified. Dimensions are given as 89 mm x 152 mm x
32 mm, and power as 12 volt DC at 300 mA.

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues
Date: 21 Jan 91 15:47:50 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


Well, I am still having billing problem with my 800 account. They
finally admited that I was right and that the 1+ was billing at
Telecom*USA rates.  That was about one week ago. It is now three weeks
and one day since I first called after receiving the invoice ... no
credit yet. I still have not recive the invoice date 1/1/91. They will
have to rerate it and the bill for Jan 91 (2/1/91).


Bill


[Moderator's Note: Most of the Telecom*USA customers I know are hoping
that MCI leaves them alone and lets them do their own thing as they
have been in the past. I hope that is not too much to ask.    PAT]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Pac*Bell Plan
Date: 22 Jan 91 01:35:02 PST (Tue)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Last week mention was made of GTE raising its rates to offset the loss
of revenue from touch tone charges that would no longer be leavied. I
responded with a condemnation of the whole rotten deal with the PUC,
but did not answer a question posed in the original article: how will
Pac*Bell handle it. My general answer was that it would be a "screw
the public" arrangement. Now that I am in my warm, fuzzy environment
again I have dug up the details:

First, Pac*Bell has cleverly "included" touch tone with a number of
its classes of service, e.g. COCOT, Commstar, and Centrex. None of
these services will experience any rate reduction as a result of the
change.  This means that the rate reduction exposure to Pac*Bell is
considerably minimized. To compensate for the remaining customers that
will have the charge removed, Pac*Bell will increase everyone's bill
in a sneaky slight-of-hand maneuver.

For many years there has been an item on Pac*Bell bills called the
"Rate Surcharge". The amount in this column ranges anywhere from a few
cents to many dollars, positive or negative. It was a scheme used by
Pac*Bell to change rates without changing rates. The monthly charge on
customers' bills is almost a constant figure. When Pac*Bell is granted
small rate increases, the "rate surcharge" is adjusted upward. If
Pac*Bell is ordered to reduce rates it is adjusted downward. At the
moment, the rate surcharge is a negative number meaning it is a credit
every month. Bill insert: "The California Public Utilities Commission
has allowed Pacific Bell to reduce this monthly credit by 4.96
percentage points to offset the revenues lost by eliminating the
monthly 'Touch-Tone' charge."

So there you have it. After convincing the PUC to give Pac*Bell rubber
stamp "streamlined" regulations by, among other things, giving up
touch tone charges and expanding the Zone 1 calling, it turns out that
Pac*Bell gave us nothing at all except a shell game. Instead of
charging Touch Tone customers more than rotary customers, it will just
charge everyone more. And the people who really get the shaft are the
Centrex and Commstar customers (COCOT slime doesn't count) who were
conned with the line that "the service includes Touch Tone".  Well, not
anymore, sucker! It's extra and NOT optional.

Does anyone still wonder why I foam at the mouth over the antics of
Pac*Bell?


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

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

From: Lewis De Payne <coriolis![e-mail]>
Subject: Curtis NAMFAX Book Wanted
Date: 22 Jan 91 06:46:39 GMT
Organization: Albedo Communications


  I would like to know if anyone has an older edition of the Curtis
NAMFAX book, either loose-leaf or mini-binder, for sale.  The new book
goes for $159, the mini-binder for $125.  Your used book is still
useful to us.

  Since this newsgroup is not being received on my node, please send
all replies directly to me.

Thank you.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 1991 01:51 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: GSM Channel Codec


I'm implementing a GSM channel codec for the Pan-European Mobile Radio
system.  Any information concerning this subject would be very
welcome.  I'm specially looking for data to test my IC implementation.


Jorge Costa  :  [e-mail]

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

From: Joseph Chan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries
Date: 22 Jan 91 19:38:03 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle


I understand that the ring voltage is not internationally
standardized.  My specific question is that what is the phone line
voltage provided by each Asia countries? (I am interested to find out
the phone line voltage for Hong Kong and Indonesia).  If I bring a
phone/fax (based on CNG tone, I assume that there is no
distinctive-ring service provided by any Asia country) to Indonesia or
Hong Kong, will it work?  (Of cause I would need a 220v power supply
for this device)

Thank you for any information.

Please reply by e-mail to [e-mail].

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 15:50:37 -0500
From: *Hobbit* <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fujitsu PBX Help Needed


Does anyone else have a Fujitsu Starlog series PBX at their site?
Have you tried programming it, or getting any support for same from
your local Fujitsu reps?  I'm getting really sick of diddling this
lame-o piece of junk we have over here.  Comments and past experience
welcome.  Recommendations of an AT&T system 75 won't surprise me.

Please reply directly; I don't catch up on telecom that often.


_H*

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: When PC is the Reason For a Second Line
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 19:59:10 CST

Like many other readers of this Digest, I always like to read the
front matter in the phone book - both locally and when traveling.  The
new St. Louis White pages just arrived today and one of the things
that I found interesting was where SWBT lists the "Optional Services"
they suggest that you might want additional lines - "A separate
telephone line with a different number for your teenager or personal
computer."

Clearly they understand that there is additional revenue to be
achieved from folks like many of the readers here.  Note also, that
they don't say anything about charging you business rates if you get
too many additional 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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #57
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28646;
          23 Jan 91 3:38 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01724;
          23 Jan 91 2:00 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19375;
          23 Jan 91 0:56 CST
Date:     Wed, 23 Jan 91 0:13:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #58
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Jan 91 00:13:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 58

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Ken Abrams]
    Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Jon Sreekanth]
    Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Japanese Payphones [Ted Marshall]
    Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted [Bob Vaughan]
    Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Scott R. Myers]
    Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Thanks for the Help, re: Dial-less Phones [Paul Schleck]
    Bugging (was: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?) [Barry Margolin]
    Re: More AT&T / MCI Advertising [Charles Bryant]
    Assignment of 800-233 [Randy Borow]
    Service Without Paying For It? [J. Philip Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22-JAN-1991 23:44:42.63
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone


I've had that problem on my 5XBar as well. All customers get tone,
whether they pay or not. I've never known the telco to go after people
or turn off tone on this exchange even if they don't pay for it.

Anyhow, I normally don't have trouble dialing with Touch Tone, but
once in a while, especially after I just hung up on another call, when
I try to dial with tone, I can't seem to GENERATE the tones.

For example, it seems like at times (maybe 5% all calls), the exchange
reverses polarity, and all my old "Bell System" phones won't generate
a tone.  If, however, I pick up a Panasonic phone (at the same time),
the Panasonic has no trouble generating the tone, and the exchange
responds by breaking the dial tone.

I'm not sure if this was the nature of the problem that was posted. It
may have been that the phone COULD generate tones, but that the
exchange just didn't respond, which would not be the same thing as the
problem that I have described.


Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

From: Ken Abrams <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone
Date: 22 Jan 91 19:55:10 GMT
Reply-To: Ken Abrams <pallas![e-mail]>
Organization: Athenanet, Inc.,  Springfield, Illinois


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

>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?

You provide a fairly complete picture of the symptoms.  It is HIGHLY
likely that GTE has a defective DTMF receiver in your CO.  They are
probably getting a few other similar complaints but haven't seen a
pattern yet.  I would suggest that they have a reversed link in the
switch but most modems don't depend on the line polarity to make the
tones.  This kind of a problem is difficult to find but not
impossible.  It takes a little time for them to test all the receivers
but usually takes longer to convince them that they need to do it!

All of the above only applies if your CO is of the analog variety.  If
it is a digital switch, all bets are off.


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

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone
Date: 22 Jan 91 09:16:43


In article <[e-mail]> TELECOM Moderater noted:

> would work correctly. One of the improvements in telephony in recent
> years is the ability of telco to deny tone service to people not
  ....
> 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

I'm not looking for 'dangerous hacker information', but are you saying
that the dial tone contains some encoded information ? That is, other
than the 350 - 440Hz pair, are there some other signals, or
frequencies out there in the dial tone? (I ask because my designs use
standard assumptions to detect on/off hook, dial tone, ringing, CPC,
etc.)

Thanks,

Jon Sreekanth

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


[Moderator's Note: My phraseology was not the best in that message.
I'll let Dave Levenson clarify it in the next message.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone
Date: 23 Jan 91 03:00:27 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> 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.

Perhaps your central office has one or two bad touch-tone receivers.
When I lived in Summit, NJ, we had an old 5-crossbar central office
until about 1980 or so (201-273, but now it's 908-273).  We had
touchtone service, bought and paid for, on both lines, but on about
one call in 30 or so we'd get a dial tone which did not react to tone
dialing.  When I reported this to 611 repair service, they told me it
was my instrument.  When I mentioned it to a NJ Bell craftsperson
familiar with the Summit CO, he remarked that there were 29
originating registers in the office ... and that usually one or more
were out for maintenance.  He thought that perhaps the
class-of-service register within one of those registers had a dirty
relay contact or something, which caused it to fail to latch up the
fact that we had touchtone service.


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

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 17:38:31 PST
From: Ted Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones


I visited Japan about a year ago and, like John, was generally
impressed with the Japanese payphones.

One more interesting thing about about the green phones is that when
using coins, they are collected from the holding chamber as required
and excess coins are returned at the end of the call. It does not give
change as such: if you put in a 100 yen coin and spend 30 yen, you get
nothing back but if you had put in ten 10 yen coins, you would the
seven unused coins back.

If you put in a mixture of 10 and 100 yen coins in, the smaller coins
are used first. Thus, on making a long-distance call with coins, the
optimum method is to start with a bunch of 10 yen coins, just in case
someone answers but the person you want to talk to isn't available.
Once you do get that person, you feed in 100 yen coins to keep it
going without having to feed gobs and gobs of coins. As you near the
end of the call, you switch back to 10 yen coins so you get a much
back at the end as possible.

The pre-paid cards are clearly easier, but the coins do work well!

BTW, US$1.00 = ~ 130 yen, last time I checked.


Ted Marshall                                       [e-mail]
ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030     [phone]
The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer.

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

From: Bob Vaughan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Special Torx Screwdriver With Hole Wanted
Date: 22 Jan 91 10:05:51 GMT
Organization: BTR Public Access UNIX, MtnView CA


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.

Security type Torx bits are available from:

Time Motion Tools
410 South Douglas St
El Segundo, CA  90245
1-800-779-0609 - customer service
1-619-689-7272 - orders
1-213-772-8170 - export department
1-619-578-2608 - fax - 24 hours
TELEX 910-250-6581  answer back: TIMEMOT ELSG

They have sets of removable bits for multi-bit drivers, power
screwdrivers, etc. I did not see individual security type Torx
drivers, but they may be added at any time.


Bob Vaughan - [e-mail] {apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!techie
1-415-856-8025  - [e-mail]       {fernwood,decwrl,mips,sgi}!btr!techie

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

From: "Scott R. Myers" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone?
Date: 22 Jan 91 19:30:26 GMT
Organization: Rutgers University


On the same note I would appreciate it if anyone could provide me with
programming information for the Panasonic TP500.  Also, why does it
seem that this type of information is not intended for the end user?
Case in point: I purchased a Novatel hand-held a year ago and the
Sears representative knew nothing about programming it.  I convinced
him to give me the programming instructions and the info that Bell
Atlantic provides.  I took it home and got it running in fifteen
minutes.  Why was it necessary for me to convince the representative
to give up the programming info?

Thanks in advance.


Scott R. Myers

Snail:    26 Stiles Street    Phone:[phone]
        Apartment 18
    Elizabeth, NJ 07208

Arpa:    [e-mail]    Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm


[Moderator's Note: It was 'necessary to convince him' because over the
years the cellular companies and their sales agents have developed an
attitude which says the less you know about cellular service the more
money there is in it for them. As W. C. Fields once said (admittedly
he was talking about the young women he liked to date), "the dumber
they are, the better I like them."  :)  If you had to take the phone to
an agent everytime you wanted to make some change in the configuration
 ... well, you get my point, I'm sure.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 02:15 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again


    Perhaps the following from AT&T's Newsbriefs for 21 January
indicates some reason why carriers act as they do.  Looks as though
they do have a fraud problem on their hands..albeit one they handle
roughly, as postings here indicate:

                  ******************

   SCAM -- A visitor from Israel rented apartments in Ohio last
summer and set up a telephone exchange that placed more than 5,000
calls between Israel and Arab countries without paying the bill.

  AT&T has been involved in an investigation of Middle East calling
setups in various parts of the country since early 1990.

 ... AP, 1/20.


[Moderator's Note: The Tribune talked about this guy the other day.
Because of restrictions on phone calls between countries 'over there',
this chap was operating a call forwarding service in his apartment
here. Calls would come from various places in the Middle East; he
would flash and set up a three-way call back to Israel (or wherever)
for the calling party since the good ole USA allows calls everywhere.
The only thing is he forgot to pay the bill. He skipped out of one
apartment owing AT&T some $50,000 in *one month* and got a new
apartment elsewhere where he did the same scam a second month to the
tune of $45,000.

When police broke into his apartment to arrest him, he was sitting
there handling two conference calls at once on two lines, each with
three-way calling. I know AT&T has some horrendous fraud problems, but
this is an outragous case which did not even involve Calling Cards.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 22:14:19 PDT
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Thanks for the Help, re: Dial-less phones
Reply-to: [e-mail]


Thanks to all who sent information.  One of the companies, Telephone
Outlet, had a supply of "courtesy" phones in four colors.  The asking
price ($20 apiece) was pretty good for sturdy refurbished Western
Electrics.  Try getting anything decent for $20 at the local Ripemoff
Appliances.

Incidentally, Telephone Outlet got my business because of their 1-800
number (782-9701) and the fact I talked to a person and not an
answering machine.


Paul Schleck

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

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

From: Barry Margolin <think![e-mail]>
Subject: Bugging (was: Is Employer Monitoring of Operators Legal?)
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 18:25:54 GMT


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

> 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.

I thought it was well known that the CIA routinely monitors calls to
certain foreign nations, for purposes of national defense.


Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
[e-mail]   {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

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

From: Charles Bryant <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: More on AT&T / MCI Advertising
Organization: Datacode Communications Ltd, Dublin, Ireland
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 91 13:46:22 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peripheral Visionary 14-Jan-1991 1326) writes:

>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".

But who buys advertising from AT&T? I thought they were a phone company :-)


Charles Bryant
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Jan 21 09:40:37 CST 1991
Subject: Assignment of 800-233


        In response to Mr. Kravitz's query on which carrier has the
800 prefix 233: this belongs to AT&T.


Randy Borow    Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

From: "J. Philip Miller" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Service Without Paying For It?
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 7:21:58 CST


Our esteemed Moderator recently suggested:

>  Anyway, you can always find out the number
>  of the phone you are using by placing a person to person call to John
>  Smith at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York ... and when of course
>  he is not there, ask your operator to 'leave word' for him to call you
>  back at 'this number'.  Without thinking about it, she will tell the
>  hotel operator to have Mr. Smith call Operator 7 in Anytown, and ask
>  for Mr.  Jones at XXX-YYYY. You'll hear her say the number, so have
>  your pencil handy, and be sure and thank her for assisting you, even
>  if you don't tell her quite how she assisted.  :) PAT]

Is it now time to start another round of debate about whether this
type of action is legal/ethical or not?  You are obtaining a service
without paying for it by misrepresenting your actions.  Or is it
justified in this case because the phone company (local) should
provide number identification but since they will not you will trick a
long distance company into providing it for you?


     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


[Moderator's Note: No, it is not legal, for the reason you mentioned
and another one: What business have you being on the phone line not
assigned to you in the first place? If you are not paying for the line
and have not been given permission to use it then you should not be on
it. So there you are in possession of stolen property, in the act of
committing a petty fraud against telco for the purpose of finding out
information which is none of your business anyway.  Sounds like a
winner to me! :)  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #58
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22295;
          23 Jan 91 23:06 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28374;
          23 Jan 91 21:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26355;
          23 Jan 91 20:13 CST
Date:     Wed, 23 Jan 91 19:52:06 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #59
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Jan 91 19:51:35 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 59

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits [Steve L. Rhoades]
    Israel Connectivity Status [Hank Nussbacher]
    Re: CNN From Baghdad [Daniel Lance Herrick]
    Re: CNN's Phone Link in Baghdad [Steve Thornton]
    Satellite Telephones in Iraq - Clarification? [[e-mail]]
    Re: Telecom and the Mideast Crisis [Andrew Morley]
    CNN Reception [Paolo Bellutta]
    Qatar War Panic: Phone System Goes Down [Nagi Nagendra]
    USA - Israel Phone Calling [Hank Nussbacher]
    NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad) [D. Eastick]
    Re: Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount [Daniel Lance Herrick]
    Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator [Syd Weinstein]
    Request For List of UK STD Codes [Gerald Pearse]
    Payphone Access / Installation Information Needed [Doug Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Steve L. Rhoades" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 06:30:59 GMT


Has anyone else noticed the high-pitched series of tones on some of
the phoned in news reports from the Middle East?

These tones are in the 10 - 20 Khz range and are barely audible.
There doesn't seem to be a set pattern, but they seem to occur about
once every sixty seconds.  It's a series of about four different
tones, all high-pitched, lasting about a second each.

Thoughts, anyone?


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

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

Date:  Wed, 23 Jan 91 12:45:17 IST
From:  Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Israel Connectivity Status


TELECOM Moderator asked,

>On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being
>maintained at this time?  Are any sites able to get through at all
>with news?

We have two 9.6kb lines.  One goes to Nysernet in the USA and is an IP
link (which was supposed to be upgraded to 64kb on Jan 15th but our
PTT is busy with other things these days).  The other link is an RSCS
(Bitnet) link to France.  The Israeli termination spot for these two
links is in separate spots in the country, specifically for such
emergencies.

One missile missed one of our Cisco routers by about 500 meters.

Our PTT has also started using its new fiber optic cable - AMOS -
ahead of schedule.  This links into TAT8.  The fiber optic cable is a
joint venture among all Med. countries, including Greece, Cyprus,
Italy as well as others.


Hank Nussbacher
Israel


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for writing, and do take care of yourself.
Please stay in touch with us.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (daniel lance herrick)
Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad
Date: 22 Jan 91 13:14:18 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Laird P.
Broadfield) writes:

> In re. all this CNN stuff, I had an interesting series of thoughts the
> other night; given the tiny size of home-quality video equipment these

[discussion of miniaturization possibilities]

> If somebody wants to prevent information-flow, there going to have to
> take away anything larger than a paperback book from *every* reporter
> present.

Yes, it is possible to smuggle information out.  Let the record
acknowledge that that is not the way CNN did it in Baghdad.  They were
persistent in asking for permission (I think he said "three calls per
day"), they were scrupulous in their treatment of the story - not
bashing their host.  Then, when the big story broke, they avoided
attracting attention (this is funny, in the light of the whole
context, but it took climbing five flights of stairs and searching the
wing to find them and they avoided it a few times).  Eventually they
sounded too much like forward bomb spotters and the government sent
someone to silence them.

The messenger said "Stop, now", apologetically, and the senior CNN
official on the scene said "Yes, SIR".

Some of what CNN did that night was accomplished because they were
overlooked during the excitement, but it was possible because of hard
negotiations in advance and scrupulous care to report the story, not
broadcast editorials.

I'm reminded of Jesus' parable of the five wise virgins and the five
foolish virgins.


Dan Herrick    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 15:56:29 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CNN's Phone link in Baghdad


I'm confused by the {Chicago Tribune} article -- in one place it is
stated that the four-wire link runs all the way from Baghdad to Amman,
but, further on, the article says the link is to the local phone
office in Baghdad, with the link to Amman being microwave, apparently
Iraqi-owned equipment. Which is (was) it?


steve thornton / harvard university library / 617.495.3724
[e-mail] / [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 1991 15:17:13 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Satellite Telephones in Iraq - Clarification?


I'm just a little bit confused about how the news media is getting
their reports out of Iraq (I'm not talking about the CNN four-wire,
but the media in general).  I've heard a couple news reports that
mentioned satellite telephones in the lobby of the hotel (one BBC
report mentioned that every time a bombing raid started the satellite
telephone went out - perhaps the electronic countermeasures may be
affecting them).  Are these the same devices that have been mentioned
previously here in TELECOM, such as MARISAT phones?  How much do these
devices cost?  Reply via e-mail or the TELECOM Digest, as you see fit.

BTW, I also heard a network commentator in Saudi Arabia mention that
their satellite uplink went out whenever an AWACS plane took off or
landed.  Sounds like someone is generating some nasty interference
(perhaps intentionally).


Don   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Morley A.B.)
Subject: Re: Telecom and the Mideast Crisis
Date: 21 Jan 91 13:55:40 GMT


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

>*** AT&T and other companies have received numerous bomb threats
>during the past few days.  AT&T received several such threats

Can anyone tell me whay anyone would wish to bomb telecommunications
sites?  Is it AT&T in particular or all telecom companies?


Andrew Morley, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The same people who propose these 'solutions' are
the same ones who propose terrorizing the post office. For the past
week, the post office I use has had *no* wastebaskets; *no* mail
receptacles inside the building; *no* convenience lockers where you
insert a few coins to rent a little locked compartment for a few
hours. All but one entrance is locked, at a location of the building
which is inconvenient to me. Many of the banks have their night
deposit slots blocked off. All the federal building toilet facilities
are closed to the public. Something tells me I am going to be tired of
this war in more ways than one before it is over ... and just now on
the television President Bush said 'everything is right on schedule'.
Ha! and double ha!   PAT]

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

From: Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]>
Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY
Subject: CNN Reception
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 9:13:16 MET DST


Ed Hopper pointed out that CNN is available almost everywhere, and
that it is possible that the CNN transponder is not scrambled in that
part of the earth.

I live in northern Italy, and a 90cm dish is enough to receive CNN
which is on Intelsat VAF11, (27.5 W) 11.155 Ghz Vertical Polarization.
There are rumors that CNN is going to have a transponder on the new
Astra 1B DBS satellite (19 E).  I do have a tvro but a buiding is
blocking the view of the Intelsat satellite.  In Iraq, being so
eastbound, Saddam my need a larger dish (4-10m) but anyway at least
50-70% of the news programs rely on CNN (which, sometimes, it is just
dubbed) for first hand news.

On one of the reports from Amman, CNN reporters were on the roof of
the hotel and in the background it was clearly visible the fly-away
station.

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 09:23:05 -0600
From: "Nagendra(\"Nagi\"" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Qatar War Panic: Phone System Shuts Down


Hi,

    For all those who have been writing about all Americans
picking up their phones at 12:00 noon, and messing up the phone
system, here's an interesting piece of information.  My sister lives
in Doha, Qatar which is 100 kms south of Bahrain and 400 kms east of
Riyadh (see your local newspaper for the map, they should have one
these days).  Qatar is not directly involved in the hostilities, but
has a large airforce base being used by the French.  On Saturday
morning, 6AM Qatar time, Friday evening here in the US, it seems a
French fighter plane flew a li'l too low and the ensuing sonic boom
cause everyone to try calling anyone and everyone for information.

The Qatar phone system is now partially down.  According to her,
about 20 percent of the phone system is inoperable as of Monday
morning.  The normally secretive state owned TV immediately
interrupted their regularly scheduled world cup soccer replay, and
asked people not to get on the phone in case of an emergency.  Side
effect: the local TV has more reports on the war now and they can
watch CNN live too.  Well, picking up the phone did achieve something
didn't it?  I'll post the technical details when they become
available.  My sister works for the phone company.


Cheers,

Nagi

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 11:12:23 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: USA - Israel Phone Calling


During the first hour after the initial missile attack on Israel last
week, a record 750,000 phone calls were recorded from the USA to
Israel.


Hank Nussbacher
Israel


[Moderator's Note: By the way, I tested calling Israel today with my
AT&T card and the call went through ... wonder of wonders ...  I got
blocked due to the heavy calling, but not a word about using my card.
They must turn that feature of their security system off and on as
desired (or badgered by the public).

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

From: Doug Eastick <[e-mail]>
Subject: NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad)
Organization: University of Toronto, Department of Mechanical Engineering
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 12:17:41 EST


>Whitley, commander of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, told the media
>Friday that the first air strike against Iraq was a 2,000-pound bomb
>dropped squarely onto the "AT&T building" in downtown Baghdad.

>     Not so, says the telecommunications giant.  "We don't even have a
>building in Baghdad," spokesman James Van Orden said.  {Dallas Times-
>Herald}, D1, 1/20.

I heard (on the CBC, I think) that it was a "PTT" building.  I can't
remember what the letters stood for, though.

I also heard (thru the Northern Telecom grapevine) that one of the NT
US switching divisions received an order from the US Military for a
portable switch to fit into a transport trailer, ready to deliver by
this Friday (Jan 25th).  The switch should handle as many lines a
possible.  Plan is to ship it to middle east to "replace damaged
telecom lines".

Dunno if it is a DMS or SuperNode but my guess is it will be brown in
color.


[Moderator's Note: PTT frequently means "Post, Telephone, Telegraph"
since in many countries the government agency which operates the post
office also manages the telephone system.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (daniel lance herrick)
Subject: Re: Brochure: Resale of Multi-Location WATS Discount
Date: 22 Jan 91 14:28:25 EST


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

>    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
[story and quotation of brochure truncated]

It is a reasonably ordinary aggregation.  The WATS (outgoing) tariffs
allow volume discounts going up to 21% the first year and 22% after
that.  The discounts start at 17.5%.  There is an additional discount
of 4.5% or 5.something % on top of the base discount.  These all have
clever AT&T marketing names.  I have understood the details three
different times while I was looking at Dr. Self's newsletter about the
AT&T tariffs.  (Never five minutes later.)

If you are spending between $2000 or $5000 on the low end and $10,000
or $15,000 per month on long distance, The Watts Association, another
aggregator, can reduce that bill by giving you access to their
discounts for a membership fee.  The Watts Association is at 22% and
5.3% (I think the second one is).  The membership fee is intended to
be a third to a half of your savings, and is a fixed amount agreed at
signup.

The limits come because 1) the minimum membership fee is $25 per month
and the savings have to be big enough to justify it, 2) at the high
end you can get the same discounts direct from AT&T without the
membership fee.

Why do I know anything about this?  I sell it.


dan herrick    Aricol Communications   POBox 1419   Mentor  Ohio  44061
[phone]       [e-mail]

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 23:48:29 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[to telecom readers, this message is also being forwarded by
myself to [e-mail]]

Well, tonight I got blitzed.  A series of persistent calls from one of
those computer outdial machines blitzed our exchange trying all of our
inbound numbers in order, including the modem lines.  The pitch, save
money on AT&T long distance from AT&T by a marketing group which
barely stayed over the line of misrepresentation of saying they were
AT&T.  If I wasn't a comp.dcom.telecom reader, I would have thought
they were AT&T.

The message did not identify the group, just gave a rather long speil
(I listened to it once to see if it ever gave a company name) then
asked for name, address, average monthly phone bill and telephone
number.

It was also persistent, if you didn't listen long enough to get to the
prompts for the info (ie the entire speil) it called you back.

I was not pleased that our entire bank of lines got hit, needless to
say in number order.

I am sure that AT&T operators got the bad end of this by people
telling them to stop calling.  Perhaps AT&T can force the aggregrators
to identify themselves as that more clearly.

It doesn't help AT&T's image any when this happens, it makes the
telemarketers look good.  At least those you can tell your bank of
lines and they skip them, they don't want to waste their time either.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP     Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.            Voice: [phone]
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd          FAX:   [phone]

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

From: "G.A.Pearse" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for List of UK STD Codes
Date: 23 Jan 91 14:25:19 GMT
Reply-To: "G.A.Pearse" <[e-mail]>
Organization: STC Technology Limited, London Road, Harlow, Essex, UK


Has any one got a list of the UK telephone dialing codes together with
the town they are for? In the case of the london 071/081 numbers I
would like the exchange districts.


Regards,

Gerald Pearse (gap@stl  ...!mcvax!ukc!stl!gap  [phone] x 2507)

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 15:45:57 CST
From: Doug Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Payphone Access / Installation Information Needed


I would like information about access methods for pay phones as well
as any regulations that may affect the installation of pay phones in
several countries.  Countries of most interest are Mexico, South
America, Greece, Czechoslovakia.  Other countries are of interest and
any information would be helpful.  Other information of interest would
be switch gear manufactures and Goverment regulations.

Please E-mail any responses to: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #59
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24460;
          24 Jan 91 1:15 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17761;
          23 Jan 91 23:28 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00392;
          23 Jan 91 22:22 CST
Date:     Wed, 23 Jan 91 21:44:33 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #60
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Jan 91 21:43:52 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 60

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Dennis Pratt]
    New Law: AOS COCOTS in NY Must Identify Themselves [Wm. Randolph Franklin]
    Voicemail Evaluation Wanted [John A. Pham]
    Voice Mail Suggestions? [Dean Sirakides]
    ATC Creates New Billing System [Bill Huttig]
    RingDirector vs. RingLeader [Charles "Chip" Roberson]
    Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Thomas Lowe]
    Videos by Phone [David Leibold]
    ISDN Links in UK [Olly Morgan]
    Cellular Phone Roaming Questions [Nancy J. Airey]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Dennis Pratt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 1991 15:10:58 EST
Organization: GTE Labs, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> Wes.Williams@f39.n382.z1.
fidonet.org (Wes Williams) writes:

> 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.

I have found it interesting that there has been little discussion of
NYNEX's political success pushing the payment of Enhanced 911 onto
Directories Assistance users.

Enhanced 911 is an important system; it allows police to identify
where the call is coming from and it allows correct routing of the
call to the emergency unit most able geographically to respond.

Where I have a bone to pick is the proposed method of charging for
E-911.  Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the
system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has
convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411
users, pay for this system.

I haven't heard what happens if the revenues generated by
over-charging 411 users is greater than the costs of E-911.  My guess
is that NYNEX has adequate accounting proceedures to ensure there will
be no excess.  I further fear this is simply a wedge with which NYNEX
can add on additional charges to Directory Assistance (basically
rewarding them for keeping their White Pages out-of-date.)

If an E-911 call cost $5 - $10, I do not believe that would stop
people from using the system. I'm not clear why the politicians want
to hide the costs of this service.  Other alternative payment schemes
are possible.  Take directly out of taxes.  Take up a state-wide
collection for this worthwhile charity.  Provide "income assistance"
for those who use E-911 but who cannot pay the higher price of the
enhanced service.  But why tax Directory users to transfer the money
to E-911 users?

What I do not like is the separation of the user and the payment.  I
guess I do not trust either NYNEX or MA politicians.  But given recent
history, should I?


Dennis Pratt

Disclaimer: My company doesn't know anything about this.

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

From: Wm Randolph Franklin <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Law: AOS COCOTS in NY Must Identify Themselves
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: 23 Jan 91 19:58:05 GMT


According to the {Albany Times Union} 1-23-90, since Friday it is now
the law in New York that COCOTS with AOSs must:

- identify the carrier,

- provide a free number for reaching him,

- allow, and give instructions for, reaching  alternative long  distance
carriers.

However they  are not required  to post rates,  possibly because  of the
length of the rate tables.

The penalty for not  identifying themselves is $500,  and a customer who
mistakenly places a call because of a lack of id can sue to $2000.  (I'm
not sure what this means.   Can you sue for $2000,  or the cost of  your
overpriced call, possibly times 3,  up to $2000, or  what?  Where do you
sue?)

Also, awhile ago NYS got a  big judgement against  a  900 and 540 ripoff
artist advertising a  "gold  card" if you  called his $50  number.  I'll
post details later.

Q: what percentage of  the public is  even aware  of 900  numbers?   I'd
guess randomly about 25%, even among "educated" professionals.


Wm. Randolph Franklin
Internet: [e-mail] (or @cs.rpi.edu)    Bitnet: Wrfrankl@Rpitsmts
Telephone: [phone];  Telex: 6716050 RPI TROU; Fax: [phone]
Paper: ECSE Dept., 6026 JEC, Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst, Troy NY, 12180

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Voicemail Evaluation Wanted
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 07:36:10 PST


Our company is looking into buying a voicemail system. Does anyone
have any recommendation on any particular voicemail system?  I
have been looking at Centigram Voicememo, and would like to hear
comments about Centigram and any other systems.


John

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

From: Dean Sirakides <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail Suggestions?
Date: 23 Jan 91 17:47:09 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Perhaps some of you have heard of the latest rage among our educators:
voice-mail!  The idea is to set up a system where each teacher can
record a daily message reviewing homework, class topics, upcoming
events, etc.  The parent and or child can then call the central
number, key in the proper extension and voila!

The programs have been getting a lot of positive press from all
concerned.

Anyway, I would like to help a teacher friend set up such a system for
her school or possibly district.

I would greatly appreciate some suggestions for systems.  The system
doesn't need all the neat features of the big voice mail systems --
there will be no messages left for the teachers.  It is purely an
announcement system for fifty or so accounts.

I would like to keep price to a minimum.  A PC might be available if
PC systems are the way to go.

The district in question is not supported by a large tax base (read:
low budget, no money for such "extravagance").  For this reason I was
toying with the idea of appealing to the local phone company
(Illinois Bell) for monetary help.  Does anyone think this would get
very far? I figure the phone company gets wonderful press in the local
papers and school bulletins, and maybe even a mention in the opening
announcement ( "You have reached the xxx district voice bulletin board
made possible by a grant by the wonderful, concerned people at Illinois
Bell." )

I doubt the increase in local calls to the system would be much of a
consequence, but it might count for something (every unit counts!).

Any comments on hardware or telco philanthropy would be appreciated.
(I also wouldn't mind any good contacts at Illinois Bell!)


Thanks,

Dean Sirakides              |    Motorola Cellular Group
 ...uunet!motcid!sirakide    |    Arlington Heights, IL
      Of course I speak for myself, not my employer...


[Moderator's Note: A good place to start would be by renting a few
voicemail boxes on a temporary basis to see how well it works out and
how well it is received by parents. I would *not* recommend purchasing
a voicemail system until you have at least experimented with the
concept of teachers making recorded announcements to students.  And
you are in luck!  Right in your area is an operating system you can
discuss with its users: The Iroquois Junior High School, 1836 East
Touhy Avenue, Des Plaines, IL operates the '7th and 8th Grade Homework
Hotline' using public voicemail facilities provided by Centel, the
local phone company in that suburb. (I think Centel may even serve a
few spots in Arlington Heights -- I'm not sure.) The school has a
'front end' box on a DID phone number (708-518-XXXX) which serves like
a directory: press 1 for Teacher Smith; press 2 for Teacher Jones,
etc.  Parents are encouraged to call and listen to what the students
are supposed to be doing that night.

As far as I know, Illinois Bell is not yet offering voicemail to
anyone except their cellular subscribers, but Centel is renting theirs
to anyone, Centel and IBT customer alike. Phone Iroquois JHS
(708-824-1308) and ask how their system is working out.  Renting from
a public voicemail service might be the best deal for you. To get
details on Centel Voicemail, 708-518-6000 anytime.  PAT]

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: ATC Creates New Billing System
Date: 23 Jan 91 18:23:12 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In the January 21 issue of {Communications Week} (page 26) there is an
article which states that ATC has contracted with Electronic Data
Systems Corp. in Dallas to create a new billing system for their eight
state region. They currently have five different systems (due to a
bunch of mergers). They also will introduce a new calling card service
with voice mail, etc, like the Telecom*USA card. (ATC stands for
Advanced Telecommunications Corp.)

(This should be interesting since I have had accounts with three of
the companies they bought).

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

From: Charles "Chip" Roberson <aurs01![e-mail]>
Subject: RingDirector vs. RingLeader
Date: 22 Jan 91 16:06:15 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC


I just called Bell Atlantic Business Supplies to find out about their
RingLeader product ($54.95).  The person on the other end wanted to
ask me a few questions beforehand to make sure the product would work
for my situation.  He said that there had been problems with some
applications of the product.  After talking to him, I decided it was
worth gamble to save $40 and go with their product.  I later found
out that they are "9 in the hole" and that the RingLeader was
backordered until early February.  At that point I decided I would
wait.

Hello Direct has the Lynx Automation RingDirector/2 in the catalog for
$99.95, but a previous posting said you can get it for $89.95 directly
from Lynx.

Both appear to have privacy switches but I'm trying to figure out why
is there a $35-45 difference in the two products?  Is there some
reason why I should pay the extra money for the RingDirector/2 or
should I just save my money and wait for the RingLeader?

Jack Winslade gave some good info on the RingDirector in a recent
posting.  Can anybody provide the same for the RingLeader?  Are there
any other models out there?

Hello Direct says they only package in paper -- ``no styrofoam mess
or ozone hazard''.  Does Lynx do this?

Thanks,

Chip


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


[Moderator's Note: I always enjoy reading each issue of the Hello
Direct catalog; but it seems to me some of their products are a bit
overpriced. For example their headsets are good quality, but two or
three times more expensive than those at Radio Shack, or even the
local AT&T Phone Center for that matter.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 10:58 EST
Subject: Device Given to me With "Data Lines"


Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a
device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack.  It is a
box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into
the phone jack, and one modular outlet that the modem plugs into.  It
also has a switch labeled FLL and PROG.

There is a label on the box that reads exactly as follows:

Armiger & Associates, Inc.
Fort Worth Texas USA
Data Conn. Blk. Model No. AS-97A (1-9)
For use as USOC RJ-
41S-M, 42S-M, 43S-M,
RTC=41S & 36X (AA-97A & 635A)
Complies with Part 68, FCC Rules

My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and
PROG stand for?  Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have
no idea.  They are just told to give them to the customer.

I am told that NJ Bell charges an arm and a leg for these boxes.  Is
that just a ploy to make money or are they useful?

Thanks for any responses.

Tom Lowe   AT&T Bell Labs   Holmdel NJ  [e-mail]   908-949-0428

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

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: Videos by Phone
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 0:31:04 EST


A recent article from the Reuters news service mentioned a company
called Explore Technology Inc. which apparently is about to deliver
the first video-on-demand service, Instant Video. This product was
demonstrated at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone
lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be
something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get
excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->).
Or perhaps they mean that the movie itself is transmitted real-time,
but the ordering of the movie only takes 15 seconds. A receiver would
store the movie for playback when the customer wishes.

The system could be on the market as early as 1995.

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

From: O Morgan <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN Links in UK
Date: 23 Jan 91 17:13:52 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh School of Agriculture


I have a question about ISDN, sparked of by the recent anouncements of
BT providing ISDN links in the UK (albeit a low performance system)
and Gandalf having some ISDN equipment approved.

Will you need any special lines for ISDN transmission, or will this
system work on any phone line?  If the later applies this is pretty
amazing when considering current modem speeds. (64k/sec is promised?)
What is it about ISDN that allows such greater performances?


 Olly Morgan @ Scottish Agricultural College,  Edinburgh EH9 2HH, Scotland
               Tel: [phone]          E.Mail: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 12:43:03 EST
From: Nancy J Airey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Roaming Questions
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Well, I thought I had talked my husband out of wanting a car phone --
but he came home last night with one that he got through our son.  I
am just waiting for him to see the first bill :-)

[Moderator: The first bill will be a little higher because he will
play with his new toy. After that, it really won't be bad.]

Since I have ignored the previous discussions on "roaming" I'd like to
ask the readers (and Moderator) of this group a question(s):

I believe that the term "roaming" means the ability to continue to use
ones car phone as one travels through different areas of cellular
companies.  Right/wrong?

[Moderator: This is correct.]

He has been told that he pays 24 cents a minute for a call.  Is this
good/bad/average?

[Moderator: It depends on his overall calling patterns. I've seen
lower rates at night and much higher rates during the day. When does
he plan to make most calls?  Under what conditions?]

He has been told that he can go "anywhere" and he will be able to make
his calls on the phone.  This is not backed up in the documentation.
I am assuming they are talking domestic US, as is he.  I think.  Is
this likely?  I got the impression that one had to pay for certain
roaming privileges, and that one paid based on where one expected to
roam.  Right/Wrong?

[Moderator: He can go anywhere cellular service exists *and* there is
an inter-company agreement between cellular carriers -- which means
almost anywhere in the USA. He will have to pay the going rate in the
place where he happens to be roaming, plus a daily surcharge in many
cases.]

I've told him that if he does go into neighboring states (we're in IL,
he expects to drive in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio) and *if*
the thing does work (I assume there are "blind" spots in states?) he
will be paying his 24 cents/minute plus some long distance charge if
he calls "home."  Right/Wrong?

[Moderator: Yes, there are blind spots, but they are growing fewer in
number. He will pay the rate charged for 'guest users' in the area
where he is roaming and the cost of a long distance call back to his
home area. But in my estimation, unless one roams a great deal, the
'airtime plus long distance plus guest surcharge' rates he will pay
when out of town are more than offset by the very large local service
area in northern Illinois where he will pay *nothing* except airtime,
at (the rate you quote of) 24 cents per minute.]

Information -- and advice appreciated.


att!hrcca!jean
Jean Airey

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #60
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27079;
          24 Jan 91 3:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07053;
          24 Jan 91 1:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03006;
          24 Jan 91 0:29 CST
Date:     Wed, 23 Jan 91 23:37:53 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #61
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 23 Jan 91 23:37:38 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 61

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What the 911 Operator Knows [Dell H. Ellison]
    Re: What the 911 Operator Knows [Peter M. Weiss]
    Re: Secure Phones [Nelson Bolyard]
    Re: CLID Compatibility Question [David O'Heare]
    Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [David Singer]
    Re: Japanese Payphones [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone? [Timothy Newsham]
    Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Peter M. Weiss]
    MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically [Paul Wilczynski]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Dell H. Ellison" <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What the 911 Operator Knows
Date: 23 Jan 91 16:39:41 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

> Apparently, not everyone knows that the 911 operator knows where
> you're calling from: a man in Calabasas (southwest San Fernando
> Valley, Los Angeles) phoned 911 to warn of a bomb on a flight 750 to
  ...
> there when the police arrived!  I wonder what percentage of the
> population does not know how much the 911 operator knows.

> [Moderator's Note: When 911 service first started here in Chicago many
  ...
> suit by the ACLU to stop 911 service here (as an invasion of the
> privacy of the caller to the police) failed, and in the process, the
  ...
> daily. Despite the extensive PR, most folks do not know about Caller
> ID yet or 'call screening', the service I find very useful.  PAT]

Actually, I find it very interesting that most people don't know that
there are two flavors of "911" service:

1. 911 (basic) service provides a central location where all emergency
   calls (dialing `911') are sent where they are answered and the
   necessary organization is notified (e.g. police dept., fire dept.,
   etc...).  The callers phone number and address are NOT known.

2. E911 (Extended 911) service is essentially the same thing, except
   the operator IS provided information about where the call is
   coming from.

As a side note, in the Chicago suburb where I live, I don't have any
911 service, yet I am charged $0.75 on every phone bill for that
service.  I guess they have to get enough money before they can
install it.  (Which should be just about the time that I move away.)

To the Moderator: By the way, how wide spread is Caller ID available
in the Chicago suburbs?  I would be very interested in getting it.  I
think it would be great!


[Moderator's Note: Our 911 service here was the 'E' version almost
from the beginning, back in the mid-1970's.  A state law here requires
all communities to have 911 service but many of the suburbs do not
have it because they share phone exchanges in common with other small
suburbs and few of them can agree on *which* suburb (on the same
exchange) should handle the incoming call. None of them want some
other suburb exercising any control over their police, etc.  We had a
very crude version of '911' for thirty years before calling it such.
Under the old system, 'POLice 5-1313' was translated by each CO into
some other number and then forwarded to the police, who received the
call on (various)-1313; i.e. Wabash 2-1313, Haymarket 1-1313, and a
dozen others. A big wall map had minature lights which would flash off
and on showing the CO placing the call to give the police a good idea
where to start looking for the victim/criminal, etc.

As for Caller*ID in northern Illinois: there is no such animal, yet.
'They' say it would be violate the privacy rights of callers. Area
312/708 is about 75% fully CLASS equipped at this point; more COs are
coming on line almost daily. Caller*ID is there, but not being offered
at present. IBT/GTE/Centel have filed tariffs but expect it to be
several months before approval is granted.   PAT]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 23 Jan 1991 08:09:48 EST
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What the 911 Operator Knows


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David A.
Smallberg) says:

>Apparently, not everyone knows that the 911 operator knows where
>you're calling from: a man in Calabasas (southwest San Fernando
>Valley, Los Angeles) phoned 911 to warn of a bomb on a flight 750 to
>the Middle East (there's no such flight on any airline from the L.A.
>area, as it turns out).  (deleted for brevity.)

Isn't the system you're describing denoted as 'E911'?  It is _my_
understanding the we have plain old 911 i.e., no location database in
the 814-86x and 814-23x (central PA) exchanges.


Peter M. Weiss                   | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN  |  vm.psu.edu | psuvm
31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.| not affiliated with VM.PSU.EDU | PSUVM
University Park, PA USA 16802

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

From: Nelson Bolyard <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Secure Phones
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 03:30:34 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peter G. Capek) writes:

>[...] 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).

>Does anyone KNOW how this is done?

Yes, Whitfield Diffie wrote a wonderful paper entitled "The First Ten
Years of Public-Key Cryptography", published in the Proceedings of the
IEEE, Volume 76, Number 5, May 1988, pages 560-577, in which he
answers questions such as yours about the STU-III and the Racal-Milgo
Datacryptor II, in some detail.

Dr.  Diffie, together with Martin E. Hellman, developed and patented
the Diffie-Hellman Public Key distribution system, which was a
forerunner of the public key encryption systems that followed.  Their
algorithm was first published in the IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, Volume IT-22, Number 6, November 1976, pages 644-654.  The
patent for this algorithm is now held by Public Key Partners, who also
hold the RSA patent, among others.

The Diffie-Hellman algorithm permits two communicants to exchange one
pair of messages, after which both have knowledge of a secret which
may be used for a symmetric key or an initialization vector (e.g. for
DES).  Prior to communicating, both communicants share a common piece
of information, but that is not secret, and may be published.

Your nearby university library should have these issues available in
bound volumes or on microfilm.


Nelson Bolyard      [e-mail]      {decwrl,sun}!sgi!whizzer!nelson
Disclaimer: Views expressed herein do not represent the views of my employer.

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

From: David O'Heare <gandalf![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLID Compatibility Question
Date: 23 Jan 91 21:17:44 GMT


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

> [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]

Well, the scheme used in Canada is explicitly NOT the same as that
used in the U.S., in spite of the close coupling of our phone systems.
The gadgets supplied by Bell Canada will understand the sceme used by
most, though not all, of the U.S. RBOCs. The gadgets supplied by most
U.S. RBOCs and third party vendors understand only a subset of the
data stream that Bell Canada puts out; usually just enough to get
confused.

On a similar note: does anybody out there know WHY Bell Canada chooses
to send the particular phone number that it does? I would have thought
that they'd send the pilot number of a hunt group, for example, rather
than the explicit number within the group. Any ideas?


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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 10:46:12 -0800
From: David Singer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center


In article <[e-mail]> pallas![e-mail] (Ken
Abrams) writes:

>You provide a fairly complete picture of the symptoms.  It is HIGHLY
>likely that GTE has a defective DTMF receiver in your CO.  They are
>probably getting a few other similar complaints but haven't seen a
>pattern yet.  I would suggest that they have a reversed link in the
>switch but most modems don't depend on the line polarity to make the
>tones.  This kind of a problem is difficult to find but not
>impossible.  It takes a little time for them to test all the receivers
>but usually takes longer to convince them that they need to do it!

>All of the above only applies if your CO is of the analog variety.  If
>it is a digital switch, all bets are off.

I just called GTE and they confirmed that I'm on a digital CO (GTD-5).
(I'm actually impressed -- the Business Office got me that information
without asking why I needed to know!)

I should have mentioned in my first posting that my equipment always
generates tones when I push the buttons (or ask the modem to dial),
and that they sound good to my ears.


David Singer -- Internet: [e-mail]   BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN
                Voice: [phone]      Fax: [phone]
(amusing disclaimer du jour goes here)

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

From: [e-mail] (Craig R. Watkins)
Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones
Date: 23 Jan 91 17:02:43 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sandy
Kyrish) writes:

> A souvenir shop in the Sydney, NSW airport sells time-cards for
> Japanese payphones.  At first I was puzzled, but my guess is that
> returning Japanese tourists buy them when they realize they have no
> Japanese money with which to make phone calls when they land in their
> own country.

I saw them being sold in a gift store on Oahu (in the Polynesian
Cultural Center).  I seem to remember a big display with interesting
pictures on them, sort of like postcard pictures (although I don't
recall the exact content of the pictures).  I was certainly interested
in them, but they cost in the $15-$20 range and that was a bit much
for simple curiosity.


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

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

Date: 22-JAN-1991 23:44:42.63
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone?


I think the idea of a list of "Cellular Codes" for programming your
own cell phone (rather than pay the dealer $25 to do this SIMPLE
procedure) makes a LOT of sense. Easy reference to this info will
encourage people to reprogram their phones in the correct manner,
which hopefully will show some of the (cheaper) Cell Co's that their
customers object to being continuously "nickled and dimed" for every
little "change of service" or by paying excessive roam and "daily
roam" charges.

I typed up a list of Audiovox CMT-450 (and 400/500 series in general)
programming codes a while back. I think I may have even posted it
here. If there is any interest in an "archive" of codes, I'll repost
it or submit it to the "archives".


Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Yes please, it is about time to print your article
once again here for those who missed it the first time. Send it in.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 22 Jan 91 22:24:28 hst
From: Timothy Newsham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do You Program This Cellular Phone?


It is my interpretation that the cellular industry restricts the
dissemination of cellular phone programming information on the basis
that such info could be used to commit widespread fraud.

A person armed with a scanner (modified to monitor cellular
frequencies) or other similar device could easily read the ESN
(Electronic Serial Number [of the cellular phone]) and PIN (PIN for
that phone, not the real technical acronym for it, I can't recall the
actual name) off the air and program this information into their
cellular phone.  Thus, all further use of the cellular phone will be
billed to a random victim who's billing information was read with ease
right off the air.

The mobil nature of the cellular phone adds to the appeal of this
crime to new wave phreakers.  It's an almost perfect way for phreakers
to do their thing.

Sure, anyone who really wanted to commit this fraud would find out
sooner or later how to program their phone ... but why make it that
much easier for them?

There's an article in Phrack magazine Issue 11, File 9  that tells of
the potential problem that making programming information public would
be.  It was written by a few  engineers in the  cellular industry.  It
isn't  an   article written  by  a  hacker.   Good  reading   for  the
comp.dcom.telecom type, check it out.


[Moderator's Note: There were also people who said that when the telco
switched from 'permanent' jacks in residences to modular plug-in
phones and permitted people to do their own wiring the amount of fraud
against telco would increase when people figured out how to steal
pairs from their neighbors. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't, but
everyone now moves their phone and wiring around as they see fit
without asking telco for permission to do so. There are people around
now who hack cellular service by listening on their Radio Shack PRO-34
scanner to the cellular frequencies (take the diode from D-4 and
solder it at D-3 to bring in full coverage at 800 megs), then set
dip switches on their home-brew cellular transmitter to do what you
mention.  What is the solution?  Should we punish everyone, or conduct
seminars on 'ethics and modern technology'?   PAT]

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 23 Jan 1991 07:58:01 EST
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service


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

>Bill Nickless <[e-mail]> writes:

>> A quiz for TELECOM readers: How do you reach an AT&T operator by way
>> of a 1-800 number?  No 1028800# or 102880# or 0#-"Please connect me to
>> AT&T" responses, please.

>Sorry, you are out of luck. There is no known 800 number, 950 number,
>or even 900 or POTS number that can reach an AT&T operator.

Now I'm going to show my ignorance - what is the position and company
affiliation of the person who answers 1-800-555-1212?


Peter M. Weiss                   | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN  |  vm.psu.edu | psuvm
31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.| not affiliated with VM.PSU.EDU | PSUVM
University Park, PA USA 16802


[Moderator's Note: The last I heard, 800-555-1212 was maintained and
operated by Southwestern Bell. The physical location of 'Toll Free
Directory Assistance' was (is?) in southern Illinois in the LATA
covering the St. Louis, MO area. The various other 555-1212 services
are maintained by the BOC serving the area. Independent telcos then
either contract with the BOC to handle their directory calls or else
when you call the answering operator passes you to the independent
telco if they choose to handle their own directory enquiries.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 10:13 GMT
From: Krislyn Companies <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically


Our esteemed Moderator comments ....

>[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.

Just a small technical correction ... MCI Mail subscribers don't have
to request a telex number - they get one automatically.  It's 650 +
the seven-digit MCI ID.


Paul Wilczynski
Krislyn Computer Services
MCI Mail Agency

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #61
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28031;
          24 Jan 91 4:40 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31900;
          24 Jan 91 2:40 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07053;
          24 Jan 91 1:36 CST
Date:     Thu, 24 Jan 91 1:08:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #62
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 24 Jan 91 01:07:52 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 62

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Thomas Farmer]
    Re: Bugging (was: Employer Monitoring) [Peter Marshall]
    Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA [Bill Huttig]
    Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Heath Roberts]
    Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: Israel Connectivity Status [David Lemson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Sleeping Beagle <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 14:55:42 NZD
Organization: Orb Systems Unlimited, NZ


[e-mail] (Bob Goudreau) writes:

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

> > 1 - A totally deregulated telecommunications environment is not
> > desirable except in economics textbooks,
 ...

> Au contraire; in a *totally* deregulated telecommunications
> environment, you wouldn't be forced into the arms of a single telco.
 ...

> 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.

Wrong.

There is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in New
Zealand. The only problem is that this theoretical start-up
(up-start?) would be fighting against one of the more powerful
companies in New Zealand with a fully established network. One or two
companies have tried but have got nowhere.

People in New Zealand cannot shop elsewhere, there may be no legal
problems with setting up another shop, it's just that no one can
afford to!


[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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

From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bugging (was: Employer Monitoring)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 08:24:21 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News


 Re: What we assume is "well known" in this area -- as Mr. Margolin
says -- and what can be done "outside of the scope of simple law
enforcement" -- as Mr. Jacobson had said: perhaps not so much is so
well known, and the scope of simple law enforcement re: this topic
seems neither narrow nor exactly "simple."

In this regard, it can be instructive to examine some of the statutes
that govern this area. For example, in Washington State, there is
currently a legislative effort to perform not-so-minor further surgery
on the state's "wiretap" statute for law enforcement use of pen
registers and trap-and-trace devices. This would expand the use of the
latter in general, and broaden use of the former to cover any and all
"crimes."  The "further surgery" involved refers to what was a fairly
restrictive law that generally required consent of all parties for
interception or recording.


Peter Marshall

halcyon![e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
[e-mail] or [e-mail]
The 23:00 News - Seattle, WA USA +1 206 292.9048 (a Waffle Iron)

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 08:49 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA


Patrick,

Thanks for your comments on Teleconnect (Telecom*USA).  I have a few
followup questions:

1.  You mention a rate of .29/minute for voicemail.  Is that also the
rate for Voicenews?

[Moderator: Yes, I think it is. You can also get Voice News on a 700
number if you are registered with Telecom*USA for 1+ or 10835.]

2.  What's the timed rate for incoming 800 service?  Is it distance
sensitive or flat?   Does it work instate?

[Moderator: It is flat rate; I think 29 cents per minute during the
day and 21 cents at night. The 800 caller reaches the switch in Iowa;
it in turn outdials to the appropriate number.]

3.  How are the rates for LD calls placed on your personal DID 800
number (let's call this a payphone call.)  Do they reflect the .29/
minute inbound to the switch, or are they competitive to other direct
dialed point-to-point service?

[Moderator: All they charge for calls to my 800 number is the 29 cent
or 21 cent rate. For outgoing calls I make through them the rates are
much less; whatever they charge; competitive with others.]

4.  On a payphone call, can you reorder the switch after your called
party disconnects, thus saving a second hotel charge for an 800 number
call? (Press # and "dial another call"?)

[Moderator: On any call I make to their switch (for voicenews,
outbound on a long distance call, etc, the # will reorder the switch.
In voicemail / voicenews it has another meaning at some levels, but
once back at the main menu then it reorders the switch there also.]

5.  If you don't have tone available, will the payphone service time out
to the Teleconnect operator?

[Moderator: Yes.  I think if you are noted in their records as having
rotary dial then once you dial your 800 access number to the switch it
immediatly shunts you to the operator. Otherwise it will eventually
time out to the operator anyway, whence she will first ask for your
card number, then take your request. However to use the enhanced
features such as voicenews or voicemail, you obviously have to have
tone to work through the menus. The operator won't stay on the line to
help with that stuff.]

6.  You state that MCI took over.  Have you experienced any changes in
service as a result of this?  I'm skittish -- my SBS service was once
taken over by MCI (or was it Sprint) then disappeared and turned into
the surviving company's generic service.

[Moderator: So far I have noticed nothing except that customer service
now answers the phone 'Telecom/MCI, may I help you'.  Skyline merged
with SBS, then SBS went into MCI. One reason I am not yet dropping my
AT&T account (or converting Telecom*USA to one-plus is I want to wait
and see what happens when MCI digs in in earnest. If they screw it up
too badly I can bail out in a hurry.]

Thanks for your comments.  It sounds neat.  An 800 number to call home
on (and check messages) sounds worthwhile.  Of course, Pathetic*Bell
doesn't have distinctive ringing yet...


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You are welcome. IBT has distinctive ringing and
all the CLASS features now in about seventy percent of the offices.
They expect to be fully converted within a few months. We've always
been first here. We had the first ESS in the late 1960's in Morris,
IL. Downtown Chicago had ESS in 1974. The entire area was all ESS as
of about 1986. IBT has always been a leader in new telephone
technology. The only exception to full CLASS service is Caller*ID and
that should be in place throughout 312/708 within a year or so. You'll
recall we were also first with cellular service in the early 1980's.
We had E-911 in the middle-1970's, and TSPS in all offices about the
same time. We had Centrex here in 1967. Yes, they had Centrex in the
old #5 crossbar offices as well as TSPS. Truly amazing, the folks from
IBT.   PAT]

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

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What I Like About Telecom*USA
Date: 23 Jan 91 18:03:32 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


>[Moderator's Note: The thing about Teleconnect (their subsidiary)
 ...

>MCI just recently took over ... :)  let's give MCI a chance!  :)

Let's not (after my billing problem).

[stuff deleted]

>The Telecom*USA Card is much more advanced than AT&T's and includes:

True

>A personal 800 number for accessing their switch. It is *my* number,
>and goes in DID-style to their switch where it identifies me. Then the
>seven-digit number on the card serves as a PIN. Once I call into their

 From what I've been told is that there are several users per 800 number.

[stuff about calling cards deleted]

The Telecom*USA card is surcharged $.40 (at least in their southern
region ).  I still have a card that was a SouthLand calling card. (They
were bought by SouthernNet which merged into Telecom*USA.) There is no
surcharge on this card when dialing via 950.

[stuff about 800 numbers deleted]

>me off that the incoming call is via the 800 number(s).  The personal
>800 numbers cost $2.75 each per month plus calls, billed in six-second
>increments. The (third) 800 number used for voicemail costs $2.75 per

Telecom*USA is not offering the Hotline 800 service since the merger
with MCI. The Personal 800 service is the new one ... there are two
rates for it. The non PrimeTime rate of $5/mo and something around
$.25/min billed in full minutes.  PrimeTime rates (in addition to the
normal primetime rates) is $2/mo and $.225/min day and $.1083/min
evnings/night/weekend (PrimeTime Hours).

[stuff deleted]

>800 number -- used to access the switch itself in Cedar Rapids, IA --
>is free. Telecom*USA does not charge a surcharge for calls made on the
>card ... just the cost of the call itself. The rates are 'competitive'.

See above.

>service. I get *one bill* monthly for *everything* from them, all
>nicely detailed, with ANI on the 800 numbers, time of day and ANI on
>callers in voicemail, etc.  They seem to have full international
>service and are willing to bill it in on their card, should I be at a
>payphone, etc. I think I will call them tomorrow and ask them to give
>me an 800 number for each of my cell phones also. At $2.75 per number,
>the price is certainly right!

I dont think they will add the hotline 800 numbers anymore. The ANI is
also done with the Personal 800 service ... But with the Telecom*USA
card and MCI Card (which looks like the Telecom*USA card but as a 14
digit PIN) and the SoutherNet/SouthLand card they only give origninating
city.

You can probbly add Personal 800 numbers to a Telecom*USA/Teleconect
account.

Telecom*USA/MCI summary of rates:

Telecom*USA card  surcharge $.40 + regular rates.
MCI*CARD surcharge $.80 + regular rates.

SouthLand/SouthernNet no surcharge on 950; same as Telecom*USA dial
one.

PrimeTime $7.50/mo $.1083/min during plan hours.
PrimteTime 800 $2/mo additional $.225/min day and $.1083 other times.

>I'd say my average bill from Telecom*USA for the 800 numbers,
>voicemail, voicenews, etc is about $60 per month and they are not
>handling any of my outgoing long distance yet since I still give all
>that to AT&T.    PAT]

Wow,  and I thought my bills were high ...


Bill


[Moderator's Note: My total LD bill from AT&T and TelecomUSA for
*personal* calls is about $100-120 per month, not including the
voicenews and voicemail stuff from Telecom*USA. The bill is higher
than that, but I get my office to pay for their share of it.  PAT]

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 18:25:35 GMT


Pat writes:

>The only thing is he forgot to pay the bill. He skipped out of one
>apartment owing AT&T some $50,000 in *one month* and got a new
>apartment elsewhere where he did the same scam a second month to the
>tune of $45,000.  PAT

I have a hard time believing this: a year or so ago, Southern Bell
sent me a notice saying that I was over my $250 long distance credit
limit about halfway through the billing month. Once I called the
business office to check on the situation, they said it wasn't a
problem to increase the limit, but that all accounts have some limit
to prevent large losses due to fraud. My carrier was also AT&T. It
seems that someone would question a phone bill to an _apartment_ of
more than a few thousand dollars. Did the {Tribune} cite a source for
these figures?


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


[Moderator's Note: I suspect the {Tribune} just worked from the same
AT&T press release as everyone else who received it including me.  PAT]

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS)
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 18:41:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> Jack Dominey writes to address the
complaint that ATT does not provide access to its long distance
service via 950-0288 or an 800-number:

> The issue
> of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought
> by the lodging industry.  Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming
> their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access.  They (generally) allow
> free 800 and local calls, so they want AT&T to use those methods, too.

> AT&T's position, as I understand it, is that 10-XXX is the agreed-upon
> universal access method (through Bellcore?), and hotels will have to
> live with it.  To answer the inevitable, "All the other carriers use
> 800 and 950 access, why can't AT&T?": Other carriers built their
> networks to operate in a non-equal-access environment, so 800 and 950
> access are integral to their design.  AT&T's network was always the
> default, so the other access methods were never included.  I haven't
> seen any official estimates of the cost of building such access now,
> but I doubt it would be either cheap or easy.

While this is a nice try from the PR department, it just does not cut
it. The argument is technically flawed, two ways:

(1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be
no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the
originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is
not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized
calls. I am sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class
of service for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls
without third-party billing. (I think there is enough processing power
in the POP to manage this).

(2) It would be trivial for the end office to deliver the 950-0/1XXX
calls to the same routing as 10XXX calls with an appropriate
type-of-service indication. This may in fact already be implemented in
the software. I think the 950-YXXX numbers are predefined so that the
last three digits map directly to the same carrier codes as 10XXX
selector codes. But there may well be tariff barriers to this
solution.

It would be more elegant for ATT to push for the second solution, thus
putting the burden of software changes nominally on the LECs.


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

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Israel Connectivity Status
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 1991 05:34:22 GMT


TELECOM Moderator asked,

>>On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being
>>maintained at this time?  Are any sites able to get through at all
>>with news?

I have been trying to get in touch with some friends in Rehovot,
Israel, who have an account on BITNET. (A machine called VOLCANI)
Ironically, I received a "PATH LOST TO VOLCANI" for the past week
until about two days ago, when I received an "all is well" response
from my friends.

The Israeli government is urging people to return to work and not give
Hussein a victory.  The net appears to be up.


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


[Moderator's Note: I understand however that large gatherings of
people are still discouraged (perhaps forbidden under the emergency
laws) for the time being until further notice.  Zubin Meta was to
conduct the symphony on Wednesday night; it had to be cancelled.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #62
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24771;
          25 Jan 91 4:49 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04519;
          25 Jan 91 2:59 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab05877;
          25 Jan 91 1:52 CST
Date:     Fri, 25 Jan 91 1:25:03 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #63
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Jan 91 01:24:45 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 63

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Lotus Cancels Development of 'Marketplace' [Toby Nixon]
    Lotus Database Killed [John Higdon]
    Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Syd Weinstein]
    Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Roy Smith]
    Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [John R. Levine]
    Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order ("AT&T" Building in Baghdad) [H. Roberts]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Lotus Cancels Development of 'Marketplace'
Date: 24 Jan 91 12:57:26 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


(From CompuServe Online Today Electronic Edition, January 23, 1990)

LOTUS PULLS MARKETPLACE

  Lotus Development Corp. has decided to cancel work on Lotus
MarketPlace: Households, a CD-ROM database product of names,
addresses, and marketing information on 120 million US households.

  The company also said it will discontinue Lotus MarketPlace:
Business, a database of information on seven million US businesses
that began shipping in October 1990. Lotus MarketPlace: Households was
scheduled for shipment in March.

  Lotus and Equifax, which provided the data in MarketPlace, said the
decision to cancel the two products came after an assessment of the
public concerns and misunderstanding of the product, and the
substantial, unexpected additional costs required to fully address
consumer privacy issues.

  "Unfortunately, Lotus MarketPlace: Households is at the apex of an
emotional firestorm of public concern about consumer privacy. While we
believe that the actual data content and controls built into the
product preserved consumer privacy, we couldn't ignore the high level
of consumer concern," said Jim Manzi, Lotus' president and chief
executive officer. "After examining all of the issues we have decided
that the cost and complexity of educating consumers about the issue is
beyond the scope of Lotus as a software provider."


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: Lotus Database Killed
Date: 24 Jan 91 13:28:58 PST (Thu)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Never underestimate the power of the "vox populi". After receiving
thirty thousand complaints against the database to be delivered on
CD-ROM starting in March, Dan Shimmel of Lotus announced that the
product would be scrapped.

"Much of the criticism [of the product] came from sophisticated
computer users on the nationwide Usenet computer network, who began a
grass-roots campaign against the product that spread quickly",
according to the story in the {San Jose Mercury}.

What more need be said?


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


[Moderator's Note: Most of you know I did not have the objection to
the product expressed by many of you in this forum and elsewhere on
the net. I could have lived with it or not ... but I am *very pleased*
to see the way organizations and institutions are beginning to respect
and recognize the power of this net. I've said it before: email, in
all its variations, both as individual correspondence and as a
newsgroup is an extremely potent tool. The situation with Lotus proves
it. Do *not* hesitate to write letters to people who can make changes
in things which need changing. Do not hesitate for a minute to use
this net just like the newspapers have been used for years: as a
forum -- and a powerful one at that -- to get your message across. And
to those who say we mustn't 'annoy' certain companies, organizations
or individuals with too much mail because they might grow angry and
pull the plug on mail/news, I say let them go ahead and pull it. If
*they* can't deal with it in a responsible and forthright manner then
they have no ethical or moral right to be part of the international
email network anyway. I do not promote or advocate obscene or
harassing mail. But if you have something to say, feel perfectly free
to say it in email. Your messages can make a difference.  PAT]

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

From: Syd Weinstein <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines"
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 1991 05:15:51 GMT


[e-mail] writes:

>Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a
>device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack.  It is a
>box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into
>the phone jack, and one modular outlet that the modem plugs into.  It
>also has a switch labeled FLL and PROG.

>My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and
>PROG stand for?  Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have
>no idea.  They are just told to give them to the customer.

The box is a two wire to eight wire adapter.  Now don't panic, it
doesn't touch the two wires themselves, but adds some other signals.

It leaves tip, ring, A and A-1 alone (the center four).  It does add a
programming resistor -- more in a second -- and a pad optionally to
the loop.

In a true data circuit, you want the outgoing carrier to arrive at the
CO at -10dbm.  However, the loss in your loop varies by condition,
length, and other factors.  What the traditional modems did was output
their signal at a higher level, and have the phone company measure the
loss in the line and add a pad.

The RJ-42,3,4,5 series eight wire jacks offer this ability by coming
in flavors (values of the pad) to match possible line losses.  These
flavors have a resistor that an appropriate modem can use to adjust
its output to the correct value to get the best signal at the CO.

This is the PROG position.  No pad is placed on the line itself, and
the modem does the work via a resistor on two of the unused positions.

In the FLL, or Fixed Loss Loop, position, a pad is placed to drop the
output volume by a fixed amount, and the line is not measured.

I have Bell of PA put these on all our modem lines, and they call them
RJ45's.  Note there are other ways of wiring the boxes, and then they
have different numbers, but all the same purpose.  Other numbers
indicate if they support exclusion key wiring, automatic jumpering,
etc.

Are they worth it?  Most interactive modems don't use them, if your
modem has a four wire (six positions, four used) mod plug, it doesn't
use them.  If the modem has an eight wire modular plug, it probably
does.

However, some modems are loud on purpose, to compensate for long loops
and the loss.  These sometimes need a pad, and the FLL position
provides that.

However, what I like better, is if you have Bell of PA put this jack
in, the line is assigned a 3NDDA number (3NDDA XXX-XXXX where x's are
the phone number) Then you get Data Repair service to call instead of
the usual repair service, (Yea, no more is the line ok questions, just
a knowledgable person on a test board actually answering the phone)
and here in Phila, a two hour response time guarantee. (And I mean
that 24 hours a day. I have gotten things fixed at 3 AM).  And all of
that for no more per month that without the jack, only a one time
charge up front.  And that charge, here, used to be reasonable.  I
haven't done it in a while, but it was about twice the charge without
the special jack.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc.
Voice: [phone] [e-mail] or dsinc!syd FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 13:38:53 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines"
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


> Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a
> device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack [...] It also
> has a switch labeled FLL and PROG.  There is a label on the box that
> reads exactly as follows:

> For use as USOC RJ-
> 41S-M, 42S-M, 43S-M,
> RTC=41S & 36X (AA-97A & 635A)

    Personally, I think it's a crock, but anyway, here's what it
all means.  FLL is Fixed Loss Loop and PROG is for Programmed Loss
Loop.  What all that means is that you have a loop of copper wire
running from the central office (CO) to your jack.  Depending on the
length of the loop (i.e. the distance from your building to the CO)
the resistance, and hence the loop loss, will vary.  In the programmed
mode, inside the little box is a resistor which is used to compensate
for the loop loss; the box should have come with a little package of
fixed resistors; the tech who installed the box was supposed to have
measured the loop loss and installed the proper resistor based on the
results of his measurement.

    USOC is just an acronym which stands for Universal Service
Ordering Code.  It's telephone-speak for "part number", more or less.
All of the RJ-4X-Y jacks are variations on an 8-pin data jack.
According to the documentation I have, "Data configurations use jacks
which incorporate components to limit signal power levels of data
equipment.  Data equipment with a maximum signal power output of -9dBm
are not limited to data configurations."; I interpret that last part
as "any modem you buy today can just be plugged into a plain old
ordinary RJ-11 voice jack".

    I have the wiring diagrams for both the RJ-41S and RJ-41M
jacks in front of me right now and can't find any differences; both
have tip and ring on pins 4/5 (prog mode) and also on pins 1/2 under
control of a switch and through what's called a "Pad" (FLL mode), and
the programming resistor on pins 7/8; the resistor has no internal
connections; I guess it's up to whatever is plugged into the jack to
put it in series with some part of the modem circuitry if it wants.
The note on the 41M says it's for use in multiple installations, but I
don't see how it's any different from the 41S.  A RJ-36X is a fancy
jack with shorting bars, apparantly used for putting multiple
series-connected modems on a single line; if you unplug the plug, the
shorting bars just pass the signal through the jack, but somehow I'd
be surprised if that's what you really have.

    The bottom line is that if you are using any sort of standard
off-the-shelf dialup modem (212A, V.22bis, PEP, HST, etc, etc, etc)
you don't need the fancy RJ-4X jack; just have them put in a plain old
RJ-11 voice jack and that's it.  Even better, don't even tell the
installer that it's a data line, that usually just gets them confused.
Come to think of it, even our four-wire LAD circuits that we run 128 kbps
over using special leased-line modems are terminated in plain old
RJ-11's (although, they probably have some other RJ code in that
case).


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

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

Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines"
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 24 Jan 91 12:54:50 EST (Thu)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

>My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and
>PROG stand for?  Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have
>no idea.  They are just told to give them to the customer.

>I am told that NJ Bell charges an arm and a leg for these boxes.  Is
>that just a ploy to make money or are they useful?

They are useful in some circumstances.  The signal loss from the CO to
the customer premises varies a lot depending on the distance,
condition of the wire and such.  Some data communication equipment,
particularly older stuff, depends on knowing the amount of the signal
loss.

There are two ways to handle this: Fixed Loss Loop (FLL) puts a PAD
circuit in the connector block to make the total loss between 8 and 9
DB.  The installer measures the loss from the CO (by calling a test
number that produces a known signal) which is usually less than 8 dB
and puts in a block with an appropriate PAD to bring the total loss up
to spec.  Programmable (P or PROG) puts a resistor into the connector
block whose value depends on the measured loss.  The resistor is not
directly connected to the phone line but is connected to pins PR and
PC (7 and 8) of the jack for the use of a PAD in the equipment plugged
into it.  The FLL/PROG switch unhooks the connector block PAD in PROG
mode, since equipment that uses the programming resistor doesn't want
its signal pre-attenuated.

When the jack has both FLL and PROG with a switch, it's called an
RJ41S.  With the programming resistor only, it's a RJ45S.  With
various obsolescent arrangements that involve a telephone with a DATA
button, its an RJ42S, RJ43S, RJ46S, or RJ47S.  These are all the same
physical data jack, but wired in different ways.

If you are using something like a V.32 or Telebit modem, the data line
is overkill since these modems have their own compensating circuits.
Also, be sure that the installers are measuring the loss and setting
the PAD and programming resistor appropriately.  If they aren't, the
jack is no better than a regular voice RJ-11 and, in all likelihood,
the signal quality on the line isn't any better than a POTS line,
either.


Regards,

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

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad)
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 07:39:40 GMT


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

>I also heard (thru the Northern Telecom grapevine) that one of the NT
>US switching divisions received an order from the US Military for a
>portable switch to fit into a transport trailer, ready to deliver by
>this Friday (Jan 25th).  The switch should handle as many lines a
>possible.  Plan is to ship it to middle east to "replace damaged
>telecom lines".

>Dunno if it is a DMS or SuperNode but my guess is it will be brown in
>color.

Probably a containerized DMS-10, which is actually brown and green. NT
keeps several at its RTP facility ready to ship in case of a service
affecting emergency somewhere. One of these will handle about 10,000
lines in the standard package (not a full-sized trailer) which can be
air-dropped.

There is also a containerized version of the DMS-100, that is four
full-size trailers, and can handle about 50,000 lines. This one's a
little more expensive and not designed to be airlifted. But if we can
ship an Abrams tank, why not?

If your Supernode front end dies but peripherials are still OK, NT can
ship you one in four man-portable boxes on any airline. They snap
together and have fiber cables between the modules.

The Supernode actually is a DMS-100, just with a different front end.
The older version DMS-100 uses a proprietary processor called the
NT-40, the Supernode uses either a Motorola 68020 (most common), a
68030 (in the field) or an 88000 (still in the works) as its main CPU.
The peripherial modules are the same, and all the software runs on
either verison. The Supernode can handle more messages per time than
the NT-40, and the NT-40 is gradually being phased out. Within a year
or two, new versions of software (called BCS for batch change
supplement) won't run on the NT-40. Northern doesn't require you to
buy new versions when they are released, so there will be some NT-40's
around for quite a while -- Northern Telecom will provide pack repairs
for twenty years from the date it's officially discontinued.

There's a newer switch, the S/DMS-100, which is designed to have the
horsepower for higher speed direct digital communications. Its market
niche is for telcos that want to implement FiberWorld, which is a
really cool concept in telecommunciations. NT has some marketing
videos that are pretty interesting. I'll find out if they're available
to the public and let everyone know ... I think you can borrow them
for a couple of weeks without charge, but there is a deposit.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #63
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26849;
          25 Jan 91 6:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab08112;
          25 Jan 91 4:05 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04519;
          25 Jan 91 2:59 CST
Date:     Fri, 25 Jan 91 1:54:19 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #64
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Jan 91 01:54:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 64

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Ted Marshall]
    Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Peter Marshall]
    Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order (AT&T Building in Baghdad) [S. Mitchell]
    Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Julian Macassey]
    Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts [Louis J. Judice]
    Re: Device Given to me With 'Data Lines' [Roger Fajman]
    Re: Fujitsu PBX Help Needed [Macy Hallock]
    Re: Japanese Payphones [Steve Wolfson]
    Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 16:16:18 PST
From: Ted Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dennis Pratt)
writes:

> Where I have a bone to pick is the proposed method of charging for
> E-911.  Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the
> system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has
> convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411
> users, pay for this system.

I believe that most area do some sort of ganeral charge for 911
procurement and support. Most areas, including No. California, put a
general surcharge on the phone bills. I hadn't heard of a 411
surcharge.

> If an E-911 call cost $5 - $10, I do not believe that would stop
> people from using the system. [...]

I disagree. If I look out my window and see a fire across the street
and I know that I'll get charged $5.00 for calling 911, I'll call the
fire department directly or figure that someone else will call it in.
911 should be designed so that if you are reporting what truly looks
like an emergency, you have no reason not to call it in.


Ted Marshall                                       [e-mail]
ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030     [phone]
The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer.


[Moderator's Note: That was precisely the argument made here when
there was discussion of who should pay for 911 service. The City of
Chicago took the position that nothing should stand in the way of
someone making a legitimate call for emergency help; and certainly not
the fear that they would not be able to pay for it later.   PAT]

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

From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 19:01:17 PST


Dennis Pratt's 1/22 post on financing statewide E911 in MA presents
some interesting questions that are likely not limited to the MA
example. At the same time, this look at experience in one state does
not address other issues in E911 statewide system development that
have been noticed in other states.

To what extent are states moving in a similar direction? What issues
or problems have been observed? What is the magnitude of "going
statewide" at present? What might account for common patterns on a
national level?


Peter Marshall

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:33:28 PST
From: Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order (and "AT&T" Building in Baghdad)


[e-mail] (Doug Eastick) wrote:

>>Whitley, commander of the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, told the media
>>Friday that the first air strike against Iraq was a 2,000-pound bomb
>>dropped squarely onto the "AT&T building" in downtown Baghdad.

> I heard (on the CBC, I think) that it was a "PTT" building.  I can't
> remember what the letters stood for, though.

According to a report on National Public Radio's morning news program
"Morning Edition" (1/23), the building being shown bombed by a F-117A
Stealth Fighter/Bomber was the Baghdad "Public Telephone & Telegraph"
building.  This building, according to telecom professionals in Saudi
Arabia, should have been staffed by 10 to 20 civilian technicians and
operators at the time of the attack (pre-dawn/early morning).

Because of the F-117's stealth capabilities, it is not believed that
the occupants of the building would have heard or seen any signs of
warning until the 2,000 bound bomb struck the building.  They did not
mention whether military personnel would have been staffing the
building in part.  However, they did report that the Iraqi's most
valuable lines of military communication and switching would have been
located under the building and immune to the effects of the attack
which, apparently, was meant to decapitate it's top two of twelve
stories in order to render the microwave equipment on the roof useless.

Professional Comment:

Unquestionably, civilian telecom equipment can be a valuable military
asset to any country.  The fact that redundant military communications
systems were, undoubtably, in place and are possibly still operational
does not make civilian telecom facilities any less of a valuable
channel of command and control to the enemy's military infrastructure.

Personal Comment:

I find it ironic that, in our humanitarian gesture towards the people
of the Arabian Peninsula, the first casualties in the conflict may have
been civilian professionals like you and I.  The contradictions in the
philosophies of modern warfare, in terms of their goals and their
means, abound.


[e-mail]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries
Date: 25 Jan 91 05:17:40 GMT
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Joseph Chan) writes:

> I understand that the ring voltage is not internationally
> standardized.

    The ringing voltage on telephone lines varies between 150 and 40
Volts. The voltage depends upon, the local standard ringing voltage at
the CO, the length of the loop (phone line) between the CO and the
subscriber, the current pulled by the ringer (called REN in the US)
and lastly the number of ringers attached to the line. So, you can
consider that the standard voltage is about 90-100 Volts. What does
vary is the frequency of the voltage.

In the the U.S. the frequency is usually 20 Hz, it can be other
frequencies. In other parts it is often 50 Hz.  So, briefly, a gong
(bell) type ringer from the U.S. may not work in other countries
because they are picky about the ringing frequency. Cheap and sleezy
gong ringers will ring with any type of AC applied. Also "warble"
ringers, the ones that sound like sick birds or crickets in heat are
usually "FCC Type B" ringers and will respond to frequencies between
15 and 68 Hz - the truth is they will respond up to a 150Hz most of
the time.  So, a warble ringer should work anywhere.

> My specific question is that what is the phone line
> voltage provided by each Asia countries? (I am interested to find out
> the phone line voltage for Hong Kong and Indonesia).

I thought the specific question was ringing voltage, now it is line
voltage. OK, I'll play along. Hong Kong is mostly UK gear so the line
voltage will be around 50 - 52 Volts. I am not familiar with
Indonesia, but you will find that the line voltage for most of the
world is 48V, give or take a few. The exception being Western Germany
which is 60V. Some parts of Italy used to be 60V too. The Phillipines
have a ton of Seimens gear, so they may be 60V.

    But in short, assuming the dialing system of the phone/fax is
compatible be it pulse or DTMF, and assuming the ringer is a class B,
it will work anywhere in the world.


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, 24 Jan 91 17:14:39 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Sleeping Beagle) writes:

> > 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.

> Wrong.

> There is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another telco in New
> Zealand. The only problem is that this theoretical start-up
> (up-start?) would be fighting against one of the more powerful
> companies in New Zealand with a fully established network. One or two
> companies have tried but have got nowhere.

When you say "there is no legal barrier to anyone setting up another
telco in NZ", are you talking about *local* service as well as long
distance?

The original poster mentioned that NZ's new ROCs (regional operating
companies) were analogous to the RBOCs that exist in the US.  I
therefore inferred that the ROCs (like the RBOCs) held legal
monopolies for providing local service within their respective
regions.  (Note the distinction between local service, which even in
the US is still a regulated monopoly, and competitive long-distance
service).  When I said "there is still a regulation giving the telco a
legal monopoly", I was referring to local service.

Is it indeed the case that NZ has opened even *local* telephone
service to competition?  If so, what measures exist to ensure fair
dealings in setting up inter-connectivity between competing carriers,
use of rights-of-way for land lines, telephone number assignment, etc?

Or are you merely asserting that only long-distance service has been
deregulated, but that no new competitor has yet been able to gain
significant market share?  In the US this was less of a problem, since
new LD companies were already waiting in the wings when AT&T lost its
monopoly on LD service.  But in NZ it sounds like the problem is that
the government deregulated the LD industry without bothering to break
up the old monopoly.


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:46:49 PST
From: "Louis J. Judice  24-Jan-1991 1042" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts


I haven't noticed the tones you mention on telephone conversations,
but on CNN and NBC I'm driven absolutely crazy by the "bleeps" from
the DEC VT-xxx terminals scattered through the newsroom. Having used
these devices for the past twelve years or so, whenever I hear it, I
instinctively look back towards my home PC to see if a mail message
was just received.

Drives me nuts!

ljj

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91  18:35:57 EST
Subject: Re: Device Given to me With 'Data Lines'


> Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a
> device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack.  It is a
> box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into
> the phone jack, and one modular outlet that the modem plugs into.  It
> also has a switch labeled FLL and PROG.

Sounds like an RJ-41S jack, or some sort of adapter to make a regular
RJ-11 type jack look to the modem like an RJ-41S jack.

FLL means something like Fixed Loss Level.  When the RJ-41S jack is
installed, the loss is supposed to be measured to the central office.
The jack contains a resistor to attenuate the rather high level signal
put out by the modem just enough so that it arrives at the central
office at the maximum permitted strength.  This requires a modem with
an 8-wire connector intended for use with FLL.  AT&T sells modems,
such as the 2224B, 2224CEO, and DL424, that can use this arrangement.

With the PROG setting, the modem actually senses from the jack what
the transmit level should be and sets itself accordingly.  This again
requires the 8-wire cable with a modem designed for that.  If you plug
a modem designed for FLL into the RJ-41S jack with an 8-wire cable and
set the switch to PROG, it will not work at all.

A regular RJ-11 type cable can also be used with an RJ-41S jack by
plugging it into the center.  The switch should be set to PROG, so
that the transmit level is not unnecessarily reduced by the jack.
With an RJ-11 (permissive) connection the modem transmits at a
standard level with no compensation for the loss to the central
office.  This standard level is less than is used with the FLL
arrangement.  I'm trying to remember what that level is: -11 dBm
sticks in my mind, but I'm not certain.

Many AT&T modems can be used with either four-wire cable or eight-wire
cable.  The modular plug on the eight-wire cable has a key on it that
forces the modem into the right mode.


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

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

Date: Wed, 23 Jan 91 22:09 EST
From: Macy Hallock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fujitsu PBX Help Needed
Organization: F M Systems, Inc.  Medina, Ohio USA  [phone]


In article <[e-mail]>:

>Does anyone else have a Fujitsu Starlog series PBX at their site?
>Have you tried programming it, or getting any support for same from
>your local Fujitsu reps?  I'm getting really sick of diddling this
>lame-o piece of junk we have over here.  Comments and past experience
>welcome.

I am a former owner of an interconnect telphone company.  I have
twenty years of telecom engineering experience.  I am also a certified
Starlog technician (among other things).  (Other references on request
<grin>)

The Starlog is a fine system.  Like any programmable system, it's only
as good as the people who set it up.  Most disgruntled Starlog users
only need proper assistance in getting the system configured and the
system performs well.  I also know the factory engineering team quite
well and can assist with getting your local Starlog dealer to be
properly attentive.

I would be happy to offer some suggestions ... you have a sound
product there and maybe we can get it to work to your satisfaction.


Macy M. Hallock, Jr. [e-mail]  [e-mail]
uunet!aablue!fmsystm!macy

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:41:36 CST
From: Steve Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones


Craig R. Watkins writes:

> Sandy Kyrish writes:

>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Sandy
>Kyrish) writes:

>> returning Japanese tourists buy them when they realize they have no
>> Japanese money with which to make phone calls when they land in their
>> own country.

>I saw them being sold in a gift store on Oahu (in the Polynesian
>Cultural Center).  I seem to remember a big display with interesting
>pictures on them, sort of like postcard pictures (although I don't
>recall the exact content of the pictures).

Actually they may be selling them as souveniers.  There was a recent
article in {Business Week} (I can't find the exact issue) about the
Japanese use of calling cards.  A collectors market has sprung up for
these cards and NTT has managed to end with with a fairly hefty hunk
of change from cards that are purchased but not used.  The article
also mentioned that these type of cards may become used for items
other than payphones.  Like everywhere else there is talk of
standardization of these cards and concerns that this would create a
new alternative "electronic" currency that doesn't fit within standard
banking laws.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:41:31 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code


The area codes 310 and 510 (both in California) and 410 (Maryland)
will be the first of the N10 form.  When they come on line, they also
will be the first that can be formed by transposing two digits in a
previously-existing area code, so beware of people trying to "correct"
them by changing 10 to 01.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #64
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27361;
          25 Jan 91 7:13 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04937;
          25 Jan 91 5:23 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa08112;
          25 Jan 91 4:01 CST
Date:     Fri, 25 Jan 91 2:55:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #65
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 25 Jan 91 02:55:13 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 65

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues [John R. Levine]
    Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: How do you Program This Phone? [Jerry Durand]
    Re: What the 911 Operator Knows [Larry Svec]
    Re: Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Japanese Payphones [Bob Schultz]
    Re: Videos by Phone [barj]
    Re: ISDN Links in UK [Richard Jennings]
    Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Barton F. Bruce]
    Panasonic Cordless 3910-R Comments [Ben Singer]
    Fiber Optics Standards Request [Adeola Osinuga]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 23 Jan 91 14:36:49 EST (Wed)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

>[Moderator's Note: Most of the Telecom*USA customers I know are hoping
>that MCI leaves them alone and lets them do their own thing as they
>have been in the past. I hope that is not too much to ask.    PAT]

As a former SBS customer inherited by MCI, my experience is that it's
far too much to ask from MCI.  For a few weeks, the local telco
crossed my wires with some business and several hundred dollars of
their phone calls appeared on my bill.  Clearing it up with New
England Tel took about five minutes, but MCI was completely inept.
Despite repeated letters and phone calls, they were unable to
understand what the problem was, even though I even provided them with
the correct number to bill and a reference at NET to verify it.

Over a year later, long after I had switched to another LD company in
disgust (don't worry, Pat, I paid for all the calls I actually made)
they started pestering me with collection agencies.  I had to have the
state DPU yell at them before they went away.

Good luck.

Regards,

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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks for the tipoff. I'll keep my eyes open and
see what happens over the next month or two. Collection agencies never
concern me; but having to explain something over and over to customer
service is annoying.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 08:54 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS)


Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is not to make
> trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized calls. I am
> sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class of service
> for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls without third-
> party billing. (I think there is enough processing power in the POP
> to manage this).

Actually, 10xxx processing takes place at the RBOC (or other operating
company) facility.  There already _is_ a class of service that would
allow this ... a coinless public phone, for example.  There are other
classes of service, including a predefined hotel/motel class of
service that allowed the hotel industry to serve the travelling
community for years.

The hotel switches could also be programmed to allow 10xxx+0+ dialing,
but not 10xxx+1+ dialing.  Bally's in Las Vegas has this programming.
They charge .50/call for access of this nature.  It may be expensive,
considering what you're paying for the room, but at least you know how
much it will be, and can reorder the line with '#' afterwards for
another call.

It should also be remembered that the hotel isn't sunk if a call gets
ticketed on AT&T.  After all, they have a record of the call on their
call detail recorder, and can add it to your hotel bill.

The reason (IMHO) that hotels won't allow this sort of dialing is that
they'd rather route the calls through their contracted Alternative
Operator Service (AOS) which will (a) rape the customer and (b) kick
back a significant portion of the proceeds to the hotel.

Occasionally I find a hotel that has dial tone in their pairs, rather
than sleeze tone. In fact, the number of such hotels is increasing.
The majority I've experienced however, treat the phone as a profit
center, and have jumped firmly on the newest telecom bandwagon --
"caveat emptor as long as we can get away with it."

In my post about Las Vegas, I neglected to mention (so will mention
here) that the sets in the hotel had RJ-11's in them marked Data port.
A nice touch.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How do you Program This Phone?
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 09:28:20 PST


Since there have been several questions lately about programming
cell-phones, I'll repeat an offer I made last year.

I have a copy of the Motorola `Programming Your Personal or Portable
Cellular Telephone' `Programming Manual' part #68P81155E16-D, 6/15/89.
If you didn't get a copy when you purchased your phone, please send me
your name & address and I'll mail you a copy.


Jerry Durand       Durand Interstellar, Inc.
[e-mail]   FAX:  [phone] (requires CNG)

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

From: Larry Svec <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What the 911 Operator Knows
Date: 24 Jan 91 19:05:09 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


My town (Wauconda, IL) has 911.  It shares the same dispatch with a
number of surrounding towns.  When you call 911, they use the national
police point to point frequency of 155.37 Mhz to relay to the proper
local town or if it is unincorporated area (such as where I live),
they call the Lake County PD.  Typical scenario ... I once called 911
for a car fire, then heard the same person that answered the phone
call Wauconda Township Fire on their point to point 155.37.  Wauconda FD
dispatched on their frequencies of 153.89.  The 911 dispatcher called
Lake County PD also on 155.37 about it.  Lake County PD dispatched on
their 155.655 repeater. My conclusion is based on extensive 'scanner'
monitoring ... some of the towns in the US with 911 serving a few
towns seem to then further dispatch to the proper town via the 155.37
point to point frequencies.


Larry Svec - KD9OF
home: 708-526-1256   e-mail: uunet!motcid!svecl     VHF: 145.150-
work: 708-632-5259      fax: [phone], -3741    UHF: 443.575+


[Moderator's Note: I frequently scan the twenty or so frequencies of
the Chicago PD. (460.050 --> 460.600 megs). The suburbs which touch
the city seem to monitor the city frequency for the area bordering
them, while maintaining their own frequencies, usually at 470 megs.
The suburbs which touch us all have their own 911, except I think
Lincolnwood shares with Skokie. It is not uncommon to hear the
Evanston dispatcher come on 460.375 (Chicago Districts 20 / 24) with a
message saying the Evanston PD is on a chase and asking Chicago to
help, or vice-versa. For fires, when Chicago Emergency answers, the
default is the PD, but the dispatcher merely tap a button on the
console and the call is patched right over to Fire in a matter of two
seconds or less.   PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Getting Blitzed by an AT&T Aggregrator
Date: 25 Jan 91 00:05:41 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
writes:

[ an article describing a telemarketing machine selling
AT&T-agregator toll service]

> It doesn't help AT&T's image any when this happens, it makes the
> telemarketers look good.  At least those you can tell your bank of
> lines and they skip them, they don't want to waste their time either.

Here in central NJ, we have been blitzed by a local dealer selling
AT&T's home-security systems.  Their systems have called our lines, in
number sequence, three or four times over the past three weeks.  The
recording mentions AT&T several times before identifying the local
dealer in an almost parenthetical tone.

I called the local dealer and told them that if their machine
continued calling the same numbers, I would consider it harassment,
and would report it as such to local law-enforcement authorities.

I have just subscribed to Call*Block service from NJ Bell.  My
intention is to use this service to prevent inbound calls from a
certain telemarketing company in Bound Brook.  They call almost every
day, with a different advertising message, from a different local
business, each time.  The Caller*ID indicates that it's from the same
number every time.  That number is now the first one on the list of
callers I don't want to hear from.


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: Over here it is known as 'call screening'. Isn't it
a wonderful thing!  *60 #01# adds the 'last call received' to the list
of numbers blocked whether you know the number or not. *69 calls back
the last call you received so you can give them a taste of their own
medicine if you feel like it.  PAT]

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

From: Bob Schultz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones
Date: 25 Jan 91 05:04:16 GMT
Organization: Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd., Osaka, Japan


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig R. Watkins)
writes:

> I saw them [phone cards] being sold in a gift store on Oahu (in the
> Polynesian Cultural Center).  I remember a big display with interesting
> pictures on them, sort of like postcard pictures (although I don't
> recall the exact content of the pictures).  I was certainly interested
> in them, but they cost in the $15-$20 range and that was a bit much
> for simple curiosity.

1000 yen cards are popular here (~$7.50, Y132~$1), with hundreds of
different pictures available.  NTT's most popular card last year had a
picture of a cat on the front.  Usually a small bonus is given when
purchasing the cards; 1000 yen will get you 105 units (1050 yen).

10 yen (7.5 cents) will get you a three minute local call, one of the
last remaining bargains in Japan!


Robert J. Schultz
Artificial Intelligence Research Lab       telephone:    [phone]
Matsushita Electric Works, Ltd.            facsimile:    (81) 06-906-6052
1048, Kadoma, Kadoma-shi                   e-mail:  [e-mail]
Osaka 571, Japan

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

From: barj <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Videos by Phone
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 17:50:05 GMT


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

> Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone
> lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be
> something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get
> excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->).

If this is the case, you're going to need well over 300,000 telephones.
And a mailman who will be prepared to deliver the 3500+ bills a day. :-)

The Sonet/SDH intercontinental level is only going to use a bit-rate
of 2.4Gbps and I doubt that _that_ will be anywhere near the market
place by 1995.

>Or perhaps they mean that the movie itself is transmitted real-time,

Well I recently saw a audio/video link of an ISDN 64kbps link. Using
some neat compression techniques, the quality was good - but not good
enough to watch a movie. Anyway, if it takes two hours, isn't your phone
bill going to be huge?  You may as well rent the video ...

All I can think is that it is some sort of order-by-phone cable
service.  Although I would be interested to be proven wrong.


[e-mail]
Andrew     University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Bargery    154 Brunswick St, Leamington, CV31 2ER, UK.
           vox : [phone]

DISCLAIMER: I am doubting Reuters, not the poster...

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

From: Richard Jennings <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN Links in UK
Date: 24 Jan 91 13:52:19 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard CCG-PWD, UK.


Olly Morgan writes:

> Will you need any special lines for ISDN transmission, or will this
> system work on any phone line?  If the later applies this is pretty
> amazing when considering current modem speeds. (64k/sec is promised?)
> What is it about ISDN that allows such greater performances?

ISDN is completely digital - it will run over the existing copper pair
from the switch to the subscriber - subject to the PTT (BT in this
case) approving the results of a BERT (Bit Error Rate Test).  Of
course, you must be on a digital exchange.

Hope this helps,

Richard Jennings, Software Development Engineer
Pinewood Information Systems Division,    the home of HP's Advanced
 Image Management System (HP AIMS),
 AdvanceLink, OpenMail and Multi-media communications
 Hewlett-Packard
 Nine Mile Ride      Voice: (+44)/(0) 344 763738      ADMD=GOLD 400    C=GB
 Wokingham           Fax:   (+44)/(0) 344 763526       OU1=Pinewood  ORG=hp
 Berkshire RG11 3LL  E-mail: [e-mail]     GN=Richard  PRMD=hp
 England             or:     [e-mail]   SN=Jennings

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again
Date: 25 Jan 91 02:47:11 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.



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

> Hopefully, I will get a response which will explain why AT&T continues
> to do this, yet after reading some of the other posts, I won't hold my
> breath! :(

Buy a share of AT&T stock, and ask him at a stockholder's meeting.

If you prefer, write to shareholder relations and explain your
frustration and intended action, and ask for whatever info you are
entitled to to be sure you will be heard at the meeting. I bet your
message will not be ignored, but the lesson you get from their PR
types may make you sick.


[Moderator's Note: That is the reason why I can't recommend that
people send letters to customer service or public relations
departments. Those folks are NOT in a position to make the changes you
request. Their job is merely to buffer your calls and letters so the
people at the top don't have to read them or think about anything
much. If you are going to write email, send it to the places it will
do the most good -- to the chairmen and managers of companies.  PAT]

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

From: Ben Singer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments
Date: 24 Jan 91 09:46:25 EST


A member of this group suggested I post my comments on the new
Panasonic 3910R cordless phone. I had tried several GE models, and
then two Sanyos. All ranged from terrible to mediocre on reception;
noise, poor voice quality, etc. While AT&T seemed to be getting good
ratings in {Consumer Reports}, AT&T's distribution and promotion
operation in Canada is incompetent and it was impossible to find one
many months after they arrived, so I purchased the Panasonic. It is
clearly superior to all others I tried; the voice quality (recept) is
very good, still not as good as corded phones (volume) but
discernibility is much better than Sanyo; the base station is
excellent. The unit is light; there is little static upon angling the
portable unit. For the price, it seems like the best buy around. NB:
the model, 3910R (R) seems to be the Sound Charger model; this may be
the same as AT&T's "Crystal Clarity" etc.


Ben Singer  Department of Sociology   University of Western Ontario
[e-mail]    [e-mail]  N6A 5C2  [phone]  (home)
                   [phone]   Ext 5137

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

Date: Thursday, 24 Jan 1991 16:37:15 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Fiber Optics Standards Request
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


I would like anyone that knows about references to standards in Fiber
Optic cables to mail some ideas into my mailbox. Specifically, if you
were at an installation and were going to connect some fibers
together, what standards would you adhere to? RS-232 for example, is
an interface standard.

Thanks,

Adeola Osinuga

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #65
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa20445;
          27 Jan 91 1:27 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa05281;
          26 Jan 91 23:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01642;
          26 Jan 91 22:38 CST
Date:     Sat, 26 Jan 91 22:15:35 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #66
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 26 Jan 91 22:15:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 66

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    All Operators Were Not Created Equal [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Telecom*USA [W.L. Lance]
    Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [Hank Nussbacher]
    New, Very Simple Phone Scam [Jerry Leichter]
    OSPS [Mark Van Buskirk]
    UK Caller Identification [Andrew Bargery]
    Re: Accessing AT&T [Jack Dominey]
    Re: CNN/Baghdad [Louis J. Judice]
    Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid & High Frequency Loss [S. Forrette]
    10835 by Request Only? [John C. Fowler]
    Flashing Got an AT&T Operator [John C. Fowler]
    Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Steven A. Minneman]
    Person Numbers [Ben Stoltz]
    What is 'Hello Direct'? [Marc A. Smith]
    Tariff Information Needed [Donald Yett]
    301/410 at Chesapeake Bay in Maryland [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 21:35:44 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: All Operators Were Not Created Equal


MCI and Sprint may claim to have operators that are "just as good,"
but time after time, they prove themsevles wrong.  I had misdialed a
number today, and here's Sprint's version of "immediate credit":

>> "Sprint operator"
>  "I need credit for a wrong number."
>> "What did you dial to get me?"
>  (She doesn't know this already?) "Zero-Zero"
>> "And what number are you calling me from?"
>  (Boy, she doesn't know much) "xxx-xxx-xxxx"

Just what sort of equipment do they have anyway?  They don't know who
I am or how I got there.

A few months ago, I read an article about the AOS sleaze.  They had a
picture of several people sitting in a room, with headsets on, with
each operator sitting in front of a PC clone.  The wrong choice,
definitely!

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

From: "W.L. Lance" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 03:48:47 GMT


Pat,


Does Telecom*USA's 800 service cost only $2.75 per month even for one
line?


Lance Ware                    Mac and IBM Reseller
Try here first:[e-mail] | Then here:[e-mail]
Last Resort:[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: They are just $2.75 each. Of course, I am
grandfathered under the old arrangements. Others here have written
that Telecom*USA is now operating under MCI rates.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 11:31:27 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again


>   SCAM -- A visitor from Israel rented apartments in Ohio last
>summer and set up a telephone exchange that placed more than 5,000
>calls between Israel and Arab countries without paying the bill.

>  AT&T has been involved in an investigation of Middle East calling
>setups in various parts of the country since early 1990.

I would appreciate that in the future full details be described.  I
have been aware of this phenomena for over two years now.  It is not
Jews who are setting up this scam, but rather Arabs mainly from the
West Bank.


Hank Nussbacher
Israel


[Moderator's Note: I was going to post this myself but did not do so
when the other submission arrived. The {Chicago Tribune} version of
this made reference to the person involved being from the Gaza Strip.
Neither of the versions were very complete. I do not know if he was
identified as a Jew or Arab.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 08:17:23 EDT
From: Jerry Leichter <[e-mail]>
Subject: New, Very Simple Phone Scam


The {New York Times} a couple of days ago reported on a return to good
old American values: No complicated high tech for these phone
scammers, just simple fast talking.  What they do is pick a number at
random, dial it, and tell whoever answers that they are with telephone
security and in the midst of some kind of test.  As part of the test,
the victim will shortly receive a call from an operator asking whether
they approve of a third-party charge.  The victim is to cooperate with
the investigators and say "yes".  If the victim agrees ... well, it
doesn't take much guessing to fill in what happens next.

If the victim disagrees, the scammers will often threaten to cut off
phone service.

Apparently they have little trouble convincing enough people to go
along to make this a going business.


Jerry

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Jan 24 09:58:31 CST 1991
Subject: OSPS
Organization: AT&T


Can anyone provide information on OSPS service? Several questions come
to mind. What features will OSPS provide that TSPS doesn't? I'm aware
of only one called " MECH. " I've heard that customers don't like this
feature.  Also, are LEC's using OSPS or is it just AT&T? It has been
several years since I've worked with TSPS equipment. I believe all of
the TSPS equipment has been replaced since then. Any comments?


Mark Van Buskirk                                Rolling Meadows, Il

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

From: barj <[e-mail]>
Subject: UK Caller Identification
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 17:58:29 GMT


Recently, I have seen some equipment for sale in the UK that displays
the caller's telephone number before you answer the phone. How is this
done? I think I read in this group a little while ago that in the US,
the caller's phone number comes down the line (in DTMF) between rings.
Is this true? Is a similar system used here?  Is it automatic or (more
likely) do you have to pay BT (or Mercury) lots of money to get it?
Any information - please email or post.

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but I haven't seen it here.

Thanks in advance.


[e-mail]
Andrew     University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Bargery    154 Brunswick St, Leamington, CV31 2ER, UK.
           vox : [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Where Caller*ID is available here, it is
transmitted between the first and second ring. If you were monitoring
or tapping the line when a call arrived, you would hear the data as it
arrived on your end. I do not know precisely what system you have
there, but I know enough about British Telecom to know they don't send
it to you for free. :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Jan 24 10:07:01 EST 1991
Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T


Responding to Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]> in Digest V11, #62.


>(1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be
>no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the
>originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is
>not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized
>calls.

You can certainly make third-party billed calls using 10288-0.  I've
done it from COCOT's on several occassions.  Why can't hotels block
10XXX-1 and allow 10XXX-0? Hotel lines can be identified to the
operator, who would not allow calls to be billed directly. Better
still, hotels could allow 10XXX-1 calls and charge them directly to
the room.  Maybe I'm too honest by nature, but I really don't
understand where the unauthorized billing problem comes from.

>(2) It would be trivial for the end office to deliver the 950-0/1XXX
>calls to the same routing as 10XXX calls with an appropriate
>type-of-service indication. This may in fact already be implemented in
>the software. I think the 950-YXXX numbers are predefined so that the
>last three digits map directly to the same carrier codes as 10XXX
>selector codes. But there may well be tariff barriers to this
>solution.

I'm probably wading in over my head here, but ... isn't there a
difference in the class of access between 950-YXXX and 10XXX?  I refer
to the access the LD carrier purchases from the local exchange
company.  The LEC's would probably be more than happy to provide 950
access for AT&T - as long as AT&T pays for it. If I'm right - please
correct me otherwise - then AT&T winds up paying for extra access
capacity specifically for this purpose.

My own opinion is that AT&T should provide as many methods to reach
the network as possible, including 950 and 800 access.  As a lowly
salesdrone, I have only a hazy comprehension of all the issues
involved, I admit.  But aren't we talking about software changes
throughout the routing system and large-scale changes to billing
systems (both AT&T's and the LEC's - AT&T would pay for both)?  I
still maintain that it wouldn't be cheap or easy, however desirable.

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 11:47:32 PST
From: "Louis J. Judice  23-Jan-1991 1634" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CNN/Baghdad


I was just listening to an interview with Ed Turner, VP News for CNN.
(No relation to Ted Turner, BTW). He indicated the four-wire circuit
has indeed been out for days, and that Inmarsat is currently being
used (in his words, "Arnet sets it up in the hotel lobby and puts
$4000 in quarters in it" :) )

Iraqi Ministry of Information people are there to kill the connection
if he deviates from the pre-approved report he's sending.

He also indicated that while CNN would definitely never offer to have
shared the four-wire line, that the story about Iraq demanding it be
shared or cut is not true.


ljj

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:04:36 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Help Wanted: Telco Service Has Mid and High Frequency Loss
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


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

>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.

People outside the bay area can feel free to try this, as the call
never supervises.  (The downside of this is that you can't use it to
haze people with three-way calling!  :-) :-) )


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:31:22 PST
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: 10835 by Request Only?


Pat, you mentioned in a couple of past articles that Telecom*USA's
carrier access code, 10835, as available on a line by request only.
Just out of curiosity, I tried dialing 10835-1-700-555-4141 from my
home phone in the San Diego area (619-546).  I got the carrier ID
message, even though I have never spoken with Telecom*USA.  Perhaps
they changed their minds about spontaneous public access?

At any rate, if I were to try dialing a "real" number using 10835, and
it went through, would the call show up on my phone company bill, or
would Telecom*USA attempt to bill me themselves?


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I don't think 700-555-4141 counts for the purpose
of making calls via 10835. After I had one of my numbers changed
recently I tried using 10835 on that line and the call bounced because
the ANI sent by Illinois Bell did not match anything in Telecom*USA's
data base. Try it on some simple, inexpensive call and see what you
get. I don't think you will get through. *If* you did get through then
you would probably be billed at some point in the future by
Telecom*USA. When they could not identify you, they would ask your
local telco where to send the bill. Part of the rules regarding 10xxx
style calling is that your local telco **MUST** supply billing
information about you on request to the OCC. The fact that your number
is non-pub does not matter. The OCC can have the information under the
new rules. 'Casual callers' are a nuisance to many OCC's which is why
some such as Telecom*USA disallow those calls until they at least have
your name and address in their computer.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:40:15 PST
From: "John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flashing Got an AT&T Operator


An interesting experience happened to me today.  I was dialing a long
distance call from a pay phone (true Pacific Bell) via AT&T.  After
dialing my card number, the call went through as usual, but there was
no answer.  I decided to try calling another number, so I pressed the
switchhook for about half a second and released it, expecting a dial
tone.  (Using "#" hadn't occured to me at the time.)  Instead, an AT&T
operator came on the line.  I asked how she got there, and she said
she didn't know; my call had just come through as usual.  After I
explained what had happened, she just advised me to hold down the
switchhook longer in the future.

Now I wonder, on phones with no three-way calling, is flashing the
switchhook designed so that rotary users can place additional calls
in the same way tone users can press "#"?


John C. Fowler, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 14:07:06-1795
From: "Steven A. Minneman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven A. Minneman )
Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> ...as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by
> removing the 1+ from toll calls within it

And in the 415 area, we have never had to use 1+7D.


[Moderator's Note: Nor did we in Chicago until a few years ago. For
however long we dialed seven digits for anything in the old 312 area,
and ten digits for anything else. In order to allow the use of
prefixes which 'look like area codes' they started using 1+ here.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 18:48:51 PST
From: Ben Stoltz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Person Numbers


I would like to see some discussion on "Person Numbers".

In the brave new world, people may have the option of calling me
instead of my phone. Or, they may want to call my fax, even if that
means the fax in the hotel where I am staying instead of the fax
machine where I work.

To make this scheme work, the calling party dials a person number. I
would like the person number to use a different dialing plan than the
North American dialing plan (1-AAA-XXX-XXXX). Maybe 012-PPPPPPPPPP?

New dial plan, everybody gets a whole bunch of phone numbers.  To
differentiate different addressable things, such as fax or answering
machine or me, a sub-address is also required: 012-PPPPPPPPPP,SS. How
does a person specify the subaddress?

If you were going to implement this today, without TPC help, how would
you do it?

Maybe    dial an 800 number
    computer answers
    dial more digits
    computer resolves number to a NA dial plan number and then
    computer transfers the call.

Does ISDN make any of this any easier? How does the computer know
where to route calls?


Ben Stoltz        [e-mail]
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 22:43:32 EST
From: Marc <[e-mail]>
Subject: What is 'Hello Direct'?


     Hello Direct has been mentioned a number of times in Telecom.  As
a new subscriber I am interested but lack any information about this
catalog.  Could you enlighten me?


Marc A. Smith
UCLA - Sociology


[Moderator's Note: 'Hello Direct' is a mail order firm specializing in
a variety of telecom-related items such as telephone sets, headsets,
autodialers and the like. They are located on the west coast. To be
placed on their mailing list and receive a free subscription to their
catalog phone 1-800-HI-HELLO. I think their prices are a bit high on
some of their things.   PAT]

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

From: Donald Yett <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tariff Information Needed
Date: 24 Jan 91 07:51:00 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


Where would I contact to get tariff information for inclusion in a
billing system ?


[Moderator's Note: The issuer of the tariff, i.e. local telco or LD
carrier, is the best place to start. They are required to show them to
you (or send a copy for a reasonable copying fee).  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 12:24:57 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 301/410 at Chesapeake Bay in Maryland


In Maryland, currently served only by area code 301:

The entire eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay will go into 410.
Along the western shore, 410 will reach as far south as Solomons (326
exchange).  Lexington Park-Great Mills (I checked the 863 exchange)
will stay in 301.

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #66
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25894;
          27 Jan 91 4:22 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04513;
          27 Jan 91 2:51 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac21364;
          27 Jan 91 1:46 CST
Date:     Sun, 27 Jan 91 1:25:56 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #67
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Jan 91 01:25:39 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 67

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telecom*USA (was: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues) [Phydeaux]
    New Jersey Bell is Also a 'Pioneer' [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits [Rolf Meier]
    Re: Videos by Phone [Robert Virzi]
    Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Jack Dominey]
    Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order [Louis J. Judice]
    Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme [Dave Levenson]
    Re: CNN From Baghdad [Jeff Carroll]
    Re: Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night? [Jeff Carroll]
    Voice-Image Phone Information Wanted [Edgardo Richards]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 10:53:51 PST
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA (was: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues)
Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]
From: Phydeaux <mtxinu!ingres.com![e-mail]>


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

>Well, I am still having billing problem with my 800 account. They
>finally admited that I was right and that the 1+ was billing at
>Telecom*USA rates.  That was about one week ago. It is now three weeks

>[Moderator's Note: Most of the Telecom*USA customers I know are hoping
>that MCI leaves them alone and lets them do their own thing as they
>have been in the past. I hope that is not too much to ask.    PAT]

I just called Telecom*USA and was told to call MCI if I wanted to
inquire about service, so it would seem that MCI is *not* going to
just leave them alone.  The person I spoke with called it a "merger"
but it sounds like they were just swallowed whole and are in the
process of being digested ... Last time I called MCI to ask about
their "personal 800" service I had the feeling I was going to be
slammed, and they didn't have any info they could send me on it
anyway.  Are MCI's services the same as Telecom*USA's were and what
exactly did Telecom offer?


reb

*-=#= Phydeaux =#=-*      [e-mail]     [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W      h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60057 312-549-8365


[Moderator's Note: Their services were similar (as are all OCC's), but
I always thought Telecom*USA did things more efficiently, and that
their charges were less than MCI's.  When I call customer service, I
still talk to *them* -- not MCI -- but that is probably because I am
already their customer.  PAT]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Jersey Bell is Also a 'Pioneer'
Date: 25 Jan 91 00:30:42 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, our Moderator adds, in part:

> [Moderator's Note: You are welcome. IBT has distinctive ringing and
> all the CLASS features now in about seventy percent of the offices.
> They expect to be fully converted within a few months. We've always
> been first here. We had the first ESS in the late 1960's in Morris,
> IL. Downtown Chicago had ESS in 1974. The entire area was all ESS as

A New Jerseyan wants to toot his horn, too:

Morris, IL, did have an experimental ESS, using a technology never
put into production, and it was before the late 1960's.  The first
1ESS switch, the one that became the standard analog local central
office technology, was trialed in the early 1960's in Succasunna, NJ.
This was after the Morris trial, and before anybody else got
production ESS.

CLASS, including Caller*ID, was first offered in NJ.


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: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS)
Date: 25 Jan 91 06:19:16 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Lars
Poulsen) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> Jack Dominey writes to address the
> complaint that ATT does not provide access to its long distance
> service via 950-0288 or an 800-number:

>> The issue
>> of access to the network via 800 and 950-XXXX numbers is being fought
>> by the lodging industry.  Hotel owners hate the idea of reprogramming
>> their PBX's to provide free 10-XXX access.  They (generally) allow

> (1) 10288 is indeed the standard access method, but there seems to be
> no way for ATT to provide access without billing the calls back to the
> originating line. The reason the PBX operators are blocking 10XXX is
> not to make trouble, but to prevent getting billed for unauthorized
> calls. I am sure this could be alleviated by ATT by defining a class
> of service for designated subscriber numbers, that disallow calls
> without third-party billing. (I think there is enough processing power
> in the POP to manage this).

There ARE standard types of screening available that only allow calls
to be billed to credit cards, third party or collect, but NEVER to the
calling line. This kind of screening typically allows 1+ dialing
anywhere, but kicks in on 0+ because local call accounting equipment
can't tell what service the operator will be asked to provide. This
sort of screening comes in several variations and has been available
for a LONG time.

This whole mess the hotels were fighting could have been simplified IF
the LECs would have provided a modification to that standard screening
that would do the following. As before, 1+ could do anything. 0+ would
go to the presubscribed IXC and be screened. 10xxx1+ would be blocked
because the hotel customer has NO business rerouting 1+ calls. 10xxx0+
calls would be screened and would be allowed only to IXCs that honored
the screening class mark. I assume the FCC should tolerate blocking
calls to IXCs not honoring the screening. The hotel's modifications
would be minimal.

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

From: Rolf Meier <mitel!Software![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Weird Noises on Middle East Phone Circuits
Date: 24 Jan 91 20:12:37 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Steve L.
Rhoades) writes:

>These tones are in the 10 - 20 Khz range and are barely audible.
>There doesn't seem to be a set pattern, but they seem to occur about
>once every sixty seconds.  It's a series of about four different
>tones, all high-pitched, lasting about a second each.

How did you determine that they were in the 10-20 khz range?

I suspect anything higher than 3.4 khz originates on this side.


Rolf Meier    Mitel Corporation

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 09:24:38 -0500
From: Robert Virzi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Videos By Phone


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

> Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone
> lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be
> something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get
> excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->).

I called Explore Technology and they sent me out a fairly uniformative
fax.  They *do* claim to be able to send a two hour movie in fifteen
seconds, but they are unclear as to the technology involved.  They
seem to be claiming this rate is possible over fiber, coax, and
satellite links, not twisted pair.  The technology does not use
"cassette catridges", so some other form of local storage is required.
They mention something called an "Instant Video Reciever", so the
download is not to tape format.

Some speculations.  They are using compression technology and possibly
(as some folks around here believe) a board set that allows storage
and decompression.  They are not very willing to give information
without a non-disclosure agreement.  Apparently they have legal staff.

If anyone else wants to try, the phone number and address of the
company is:

Explore Technology Inc
7950 E. Acoma Dr.
Suite 211
Scottsdale, AZ  85260

[phone]

Apparently the techies there are Richard Lang and Peter Spiess, among
others.  If anyone else finds out more about what it is they do,
please keep me posted eitehr through the net or email.


Bob Virzi    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Fri Jan 25 08:42:16 EST 1991
Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines"


I have a two-year old message sent out to AT&T sales regarding the
proper termination for analog data lines.  According to this message,
"The JM8 is intended to be the standard termination for analog data
services."  I've also heard the JM8 described as an 'eight-pin
mini-modular jack'.

An accompanying list shows all the RBOCs accepting specification of
"JM8" or "8MMJ". Some of the other independents - Centel, GTE, and
Southern New England Tel - were still using the 42A Connect Block.
This is apparently an older standard, and since the message is so old,
they may well have changed since then.

As a telemarketing type, I don't get to go out and see my customers.
(They're mostly 500-600 miles away!)  But I'm told that Bell South
installers usually terminate analog dedicated circuits in a device
called a 'Teleport', which provides the JM8 as well as some other
options.


Jack Dominey
AT&T Commercial Marketing, Tucker, GA | 800-241-4285 | AT&T Mail !dominey

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 08:41:00 PST
From: "Louis J. Judice  25-Jan-1991 1110" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order


I don't think there's anything ironic about telecom professionals
being blown up in our first attacks on Bagdad. Telecommunications,
railroads, police and fire departments are all civilian staffed
organizations that are an integral part of a country's infrastructure.
This infrastructure is the first target of an attack.

Rather than being ironic, I'd consider it to be almost a "compliment"
to be part of a profession that is so important to a nation's
security. People working in high profile locations are doubtlessly
aware that they are at greater risk of attack than other locations.

Believe me, living less than a mile from the AT&T network operations
center, I know full well that there are several Soviet warheads aimed
at me all the time!

I don't really think this is an appropriate place to start or continue
any kind of discussion of the MERITS of attacking any particular
country, but I certainly accept the idea that if you're going to
attack and win, you do things like target telephone switching centers
and microwave towers.


ljj

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Massachusetts Enhanced 911 Payment Scheme
Date: 25 Jan 91 17:35:41 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, halcyon![e-mail]
(Peter Marshall) writes:

> To what extent are states moving in a similar direction? What issues
> or problems have been observed? What is the magnitude of "going
> statewide" at present? What might account for common patterns on a
> national level?

In New Jersey, for reasons never explained to me, the 7% state sales
tax did not apply to telephones.  As of three years ago, it suddenly
did.  The state justified taxing telephones by stating that the
revenue derived from this tax would finance the state-wide
implementation of E911 service.

Like the Massachusetts directory assistance charge, this causes all
telephone users (really, all telephone owners) to subsidize the
emergency service.  Is this fair?  A visitor from out of state who
never bought a telephone in New Jersey may still call 911 from a
public telephone in the state.  But somehow, I prefer not to have to
worry about payment (finding coins, etc) in a time of emergency.

Directory assistance is (and was already) charged for, so that's
going somewhere else.


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: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad
Date: 24 Jan 91 21:02:51 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

>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.

My understanding is that Arnett was specifically exempted from the
expulsion. The Iraqis are not as dumb as we would like to think, and
this is ample evidence of that.

Whereas there was no possibility of amply censoring *all* the news
stories going out on *all* the news services while everyone was there,
it's very easy for them to censor *one* reporter - who just happens to
work for the news service that everyone in the world - including the
BBC has been relying on through the crisis. (It was strange to hear
the Beeb playing tapes of Shaw, Arnett, and Holliman through the first
couple days of the war. On the other hand, I was able to hear the BBC
even without my shortwave set through our local NPR affiliate, who
broadcast BBC World Service instead of the usual classical music.)


Jeff Carroll   [e-mail]

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

From: Jeff Carroll <![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unusually Heavy Traffic the First Night?
Date: 25 Jan 91 01:38:14 GMT
Reply-To: Jeff Carroll <ssc-vax![e-mail]>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace & Electronics


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

>Other than for about fifteen minutes at the start of the war,
>connections here appear to be moving smoothly.  What experiences did
>you have in other places?

I imagine that here at Boeing our leased lines were probably tied up
all over the metro area, but that happens every time it snows :^).

>On a related note, how are net connections to the middle east being
>maintained at this time?  Are any sites able to get through at all
>with news?

I just fingered vms.huji.ac.il, a VAX at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem; it responded promptly with the following:

[128.139.4.3]
Friday, January 25, 1991 3:30AM-GMT   Up 10 03:52:57
4+4 Jobs   Load ave  3.04 3.02 3.06

 User    Personal Name          Job   Subsys   Idle  TTY   Console Location
DEKEL    Avishai Dekel       204001DB *DCL*     1:49.nty26 TCP: galaxy.huji.ac.
SERAN    Eran Megido         20402D7C BMAIL          nty1  TCP: ls2.huji.ac.il
SIMON    Simon Shickman      20400144 *DCL*     6:41.nty13 TCP: horizon.huji.ac
TZVI1    Tsvi Kidron         204006B7 *DCL*     9:40.nty8  TCP: carmel.cc.huji.

Life seems to be going on in Jerusalem...


Jeff Carroll
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Well, Adolph -- er, I mean Saddam seems to not be
bothering Jerusalem at all; it is Tel Aviv which is getting the rough
time this past week. Are sites there still connected?  PAT]

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

From: Edgardo Richards <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice-Image Phone Information Wanted
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 17:46:41 CAM


I've not been able to get information on voice-image phones. I've
heard that Mitsubishi manufactures something like that. I would like
to know about technical features, behaviour, limitations, dealers,
prices.

Please write to :

uunet!huracan!richards

Edgardo Richards
Encargado de Informacion
Confederacion Universitaria Centroamericana
San Jose
Costa Rica

Thanks in advance !

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #67
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27564;
          27 Jan 91 5:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07538;
          27 Jan 91 3:57 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab04513;
          27 Jan 91 2:52 CST
Date:     Sun, 27 Jan 91 2:33:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #68
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Jan 91 02:33:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 68

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Call Answer Detection Unit [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order [Ed Greenberg]
    Re: Japanese Payphones [Lars Poulsen]
    Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues [Roger Fajman]
    MA 911 Payment Scheme - Sounds Like Business Opportunity [Dan Herrick]
    Re: Charging for 911 [Steve Thornton]
    AT&T 5000 Series Answering Machines Are Superb! [Randy Borow]
    Re: Videos by Phone [Dennis Pratt]
    Re: Videos by Phone [Heath Roberts]
    USOC Code Letters [John R. Levine]
    Israel Connectivity Status [Richard Budd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Answer Detection Unit
Date: 27 Jan 91 06:51:37 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


The lack of answer supervision being passed back to the subscriber has
long been a problem especially in the lodging industry.

People checking out often find they are charged for unanswered calls
and were not charged for brief calls.

At least three companies now are marketing hardware that listens to
the line and tries to determine when the call was answered. Some have
gotten quite clever, and score quite well even on international calls
and on calls to DID PBXes with non standard ring-back tone, etc.

They can capture the SMDR record, strip its 'time', match the number
dialed with what they capture watching just the actual trunks, and
produce their own version of the SMDR record with correct time for the
existing call accounting system to price and post to a hotel guests
account.

Not cheap, but they are selling well to LARGE hotels. Payback thru
catching short calls frequent travelers are skilled at making can pay
for the system in a few months.

At smaller properties, and where there is less cheating, they may
NEVER pay for themselves. Hopefully the phone companies will get
around to offering answer supervision as a service one of these years.
Many switches like the Mitel SX200Ds that are popular in the lodging
industry can detect reverse battery on the trunks and use it as answer
supervision for SMDR call timing purposes.

I can BUY an SX200D for about the price of one the smaller of these
add on units, so I think they are quite overpriced.

If you need info, the literature I am looking at is from:

Gemini Telemanagement Systems
1000 Elwell Court
Palo Alto CA 94303
415.967.4610

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 00:56 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: NorTel Gets US Military Order


Steve Mitchell <[e-mail]> writes:

> I find it ironic that, in our humanitarian gesture towards the
> people of the Arabian Peninsula, the first casualties in the
> conflict may have been civilian professionals like you and I.  The
> contradictions in the philosophies of modern warfare, in terms of
> their goals and their means, abound.

You know, there isn't much humanitarian about a war.  It is sobering,
however, to realize that the telephone operators are as much at risk
as the soldiers.

As a technical person, you may too live near "ground zero."  I live
and work within ten miles of Moffett Naval Air Station -- in the heard
of Silicon Valley.  I grew up going to school across the street from
Grumman Aerospace in Bethpage, New York.  If "the big one comes" and
thank the deity that's less likely these days, I have no illusions
about whether I live in a target area.

On the other hand, if it is suggested that we not take out the
telephone exchange because there are civilian technicians working
there, then we have bowed to the Human Shield concept and our entire
operation is now held hostage.


[Moderator's Note: Telephone employees have been in the middle of
these things before and simply tried to carry on the best they could.
There have been local and national emergencies which greatly taxed the
ability of telecom people to get the job done ... yet they stuck with
it. Historical trivia: In the middle 1960's, protestors of the war in
southeast Asia barricaded the Administration Building at the
University of Chicago and forced the building to be closed for two
days. The one exception was the telephone operators: they not only
were permitted to enter and leave the building, but as a matter of
their personal safety were escorted in and out by the protestors.  PAT]

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

From: Lars Poulsen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones
Organization: Rockwell CMC
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 20:28:57 GMT


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

>[An article in Business Week] mentioned that [prepaid telephone cards]
>may become used for items other than payphones.  Like everywhere else
>there is talk of standardization of these cards and concerns that this
>would create a new alternative "electronic" currency that doesn't fit
>within standard banking laws.

I just read that the Danish telephone companies have started a project
together with the Visa/EuroCard clearinghouse to define a "smart"
debit card to replace coins. This card would be prepaid with $50 to
$100 and be used for things like telephones, bus fares, street hotdog
vendors etc. Unlike existing debit cards, which may only be issued to
persons age 18 and up, these would have no age restrictions. I suspect
in a couple of years, every child will wear one around their neck.


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

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

From: Roger Fajman <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91  17:25:17 EST
Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Bill Problem Continues


I too was a customer of SBS when MCI took it over.  I was somewhat
concerned because we had previously switched to SBS from MCI due to
poor line quality.  This turned out not to be a problem because MCI
had sufficiently improved their line quality in the meantime that we
did not notice any difference on our voice calls.  The problem that I
did have is that this this was in the days before equal access became
available in our neighborhood and MCI wanted us to dial a regular
local number instead of 950-1088 (the SBS number).

Due to our class of local service, this turned a free local call into
one that cost nine cents.  By complaining enough I got them to keep us
on 950-1088 until equal access became available, a matter of a few
months.

The Around Town feature on the MCI calling card was available then,
but it made dialing more complicated.  As I recall, SBS took the
account number first, so it could all be put on one button on our
memory phone.  The phone was able to wait for the second dial tone.


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

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

Date: 27 Jan 91 00:40:00 EDT
From: "CONTR  HERRICK, DAN" <abvax!iccgcc.DNET![e-mail]>
Subject: MA 911 Payment Scheme - Sounds Like Business Opportunity


[e-mail] (Dennis Pratt) writes:

>Instead of charging the 911 caller, (allowing users of the
>system to directly pay for the increased functionality), NYNEX has
>convinced the politicians to have non-users of 911, specifically 411
>users, pay for this system.

If they are going to price directory service out of reach, someone
should offer a $0.40 per minute (or maybe .50) 900 directory
information service.

It should be possible to base the operation in a state other than
Massachusetts, thus staying out of the reach of the Massachusetts
regulators, and offer nationwide directory service, again staying out
of the reach of Massachusetts regulators, but advertise more heavily
in Massachusetts to get it started.

It would require cutting a deal with the operators of that data base
accessible through COMPUSERV that provides all the directories of the
US online.

Directory service prices from the various telephone companies are
going up.  It should be possible to start this service in a kitchen
with one operator serving one phone line.  As the demand increases,
add servers.  Thus, most of the up-front expenses are initial
advertising.  Start with a daily ad in the Boston Globe, one column
inch.  Pyramid it from there.

Anyone want to see if we can make this work?


dan herrick    Aricol Communications   POBox 1419   Mentor, Ohio 44061
[phone]        [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You'd have to price it much higher. If you were
using CIS, they get regular connect rates plus 25 cents per minute
surcharge for that service. You'd pay 30 cents or more to the provider
of the 900 line. The similar service doing reverse lookups is getting
about $1.50 per minute I think.  No one would pay that much for your
service.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 09:50:36 EST
From: Steve Thornton <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Charging for 911


I don't know about your area, but here in Boston, *all* calls
requesting police assistance, even non-emergencies, must go to 911. If
you try to call the cops on your neighbors' loud party, the station
will tell you to call 911. A $5 or $10 charge would effectively cut
off police access except in the most dire emergencies. Also, how would
you call 911 from a pay phone? Forget it, that dog won't hunt (to
quote our new governor).


steve thornton / harvard university library / 617.495.3724
[e-mail] / [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Sun Jan 27 00:37:07 CST 1991
Subject: AT&T 5000 Series Cordless Phones are Superb!


        Ben Singer commented on his purchase of a Panasonic Cordless
phone and had alluded to AT&T's phones. Allow me to say that -- even
if I despised AT&T (which I definitely don't) -- I can honestly state
that AT&T's cordless phones in the 5000 series are superb!

        I have the old model 5200 (now replaced by an updated
version), and I love it. The reception is spectacular. Their 5500 is
also a great buy. It has a speakerphone (one of the best on the
market), as well as a dial pad on the base (good idead if you
misplaced the handset). It has ten channel security, intercom, extra
base for the handset, etc. While the $249 retail price is kinda high,
I'd suggest getting ahold of an AT&T employee who can get one for you
as a "gift" at a substantial discount.

        By the way, Ben, you could always call AT&T at 1-800-555-8111
and ask about home delivery and other personal phone equipment stuff.


Randy Borow
Rolling Meadows, IL.

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

From: Dennis Pratt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Videos by Phone
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 1991 15:16:55 EST


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

> Explore Technology Inc. which apparently is about to deliver
> the first video-on-demand service, Instant Video. This product was
> demonstrated at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas
 ...
> technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone
> lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations

I went to the Consumer Electronics Show.  I passed by the Explore
booth, but did not notice their system.  The Winter CES Official
Directory does not list their "Instant Video Receiver" or their
"Instant Video Transceiver" products as part of their product line.  A
review of all the seven daily trade magazines that wrote about many of
the highlights of the show and that were distributed free at the show
does not mention Explore or its outstanding achievements at all.

Explore's press release has relatively little information.  Instead it
is filled with adjectives such as "unprecendented", "revolutionary",
"graduated from science fiction to world of today", "like something
born of the 25th-century technology protrayed by the television series
'Star Trek'", "significant benefits", blah, blah, blah.

They contend their 'technology' will enable video on demand.  They
also talk about their "*patented* Instant Video system" yet will not
talk without non-disclosure.

Their speed contention is that "an IVR connected to a *high-capacity*
transmission line using Instant Video technology would receive a
two-hour motion picture in approximately 15 seconds."

My guess is that all we have here is a typical video compression
algorithm hidden by a bunch of sales hype and exaggerated by fiber.

Their number, if you want to confirm this, is 602-991-3224.  Richard
Lang is "CEO".  If they aren't just hyping, I'll buy their stock for
sure.


Dennis Pratt
Disclaimer:  My company doesn't know about any of this ever.

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Videos by Phone
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 00:30:44 GMT


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

>> Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone
>> lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations.

>If this is the case, you're going to need well over 300,000 telephones.
>And a mailman who will be prepared to deliver the 3500+ bills a day. :-)

>The Sonet/SDH intercontinental level is only going to use a bit-rate
>of 2.4Gbps and I doubt that _that_ will be anywhere near the market
>place by 1995.

Full motion video takes about ten to fifteen megabits per second of
bandwidth. Northern Telecom has 2.4Gb and 4.8Gb units on the market,
and higher-rate units working that have to be field-packaged (I can't
say any more specifics).

This kind of system (selectable video program) has been demonstrated
by Northern Telecom at a retirement community in Florida, and is part
of Fiberworld. It does require fiber optic cable to the customer
premises, and right now such service probably wouldn't be allowed by
regulatory agencies, but it is coming. At least technically.

The service the writer above mentioned is probably a movie-ordering
system. You call a number to see a given movie, the cable TV company
gets your number, maps it to the appropriate video box number, and
tells your decoder to let you watch the movie. The difference is that
your LEC is NOT providing the video, only subscriber information to
the cable franchise. This has been tariffed in a few states already.


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

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

Subject: USOC Code Letters
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 27 Jan 91 00:35:16 EST (Sun)
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

> I have the wiring diagrams for both the RJ-41S and RJ-41M
> jacks in front of me right now and can't find any differences;

As far as I can tell, the letter describes the physical mounting of
the jack and is unrelated to the wiring.  According to my old Armiger
catalog, the letters are:

    C    Connecting block on baseboard or in mounting box
    W    Wall mounted set (e.g. wall phones which snap on to two
        pins on the mounting plate)
    M    Multiple arrangements with up to 8 blocks
    X    Anything else, typically physically the same as C
    S    Single connector block, I suppose for arrangements where
        it is typical to have multiples.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 21:46 CDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Israel Connectivity Status
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY


Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #59

>Our PTT has also started using its new fiber optic cable - AMOS -
>ahead of schedule.  This links into TAT8.  The fiber optic cable is a
>joint venture among all Med. countries, including Greece, Cyprus,
>Italy as well as others.

I'm curious whether Egypt, Turkey, or Syria are among the
Mediterranean countries included in the AMOS fiber optic venture
considering the strained relations between Greece and Turkey over
Cyprus and the belligerent state of affairs between Syria and Israel.
Of course, it could be possible.  I just finished explaining to
someone about an Iranian student who receives his news from Israeli
radio.


Richard Budd               | E-Mail: IBMers     - [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer      |         All Others - [e-mail]
IBM - Sterling Forest, NY  | Phone :              [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #68
*****************************












Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29454;
          27 Jan 91 6:48 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15711;
          27 Jan 91 5:03 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac07538;
          27 Jan 91 3:58 CST
Date:     Sun, 27 Jan 91 3:47:20 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #69
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Jan 91 03:47:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 69

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Audiovox CMT Series Program Codes [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Press Release of Lotus Decision on Household Database [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Jeff Sicherman]
    CNN Coverage in Baghdad [Richard Budd]
    Hunting and Busy Call Forwarding [Ole J. Jacobsen]
    Special Mailing: Telecom Calendar of Events [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Audiovox CMT Series Program Codes
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 12:16 EST


Here's what I know about programming Audiovox CMT400, 405, 450, 550,
605 and BC-40/BC-45 phones. The instructions may also work on other
models, as all Audiovox (and perhaps other brands?) phones seem to
follow the same procedure.  If anyone saw my last posting on this a
while back, this list is more or less complete (which my last one was
not), so this should supercede any previous postings on the subject by
me.

Without further delay, here's how to program the phone:

1. Turn on the phone.

2. CLEAR out the display (hit CLR)

3. If it has never been programmed, you LOCK code is "000".

4. Enter your LOCK code (usually last 3 digits of your mobile number).

5. Enter FUNC, then "#", and then "1".

You should now be in program mode. You will see the first three digits
of your phone number as display item #1. (Thus, if your number is
555-1212, you will see something like: "C1 555". C1 is the item
number.)

Here's a table of the different locations:

1. FIRST 3 digits of phone number        3 digits
2. LAST  4 digits of phone number        4 digits
3. LOCK Code                    3 digits
4. Area Code                    3 digits
5. Home Area System ID                5 dig.,usually "00xxx"
6. Horn Alert (0=disable, 1=enable)        1 digit (0/1)
7. Hands-Free Speakerphone (0=disable, 1=en.)   1 digit (0/1)
8. End-to-end signalling (0=off, 1=on)        1 digit (0/1)
9. Repertory Mark (0=ff, 1=on)            1 digit (0/1)
10.Group ID Mark                2 digits
11.Access Overload Class            2 digits
12.Station Class Mark *                5 digits
13.Local Use Mark (allow local calls only?)    1 digit (0/1)
14.MIN Mark                    1 digit (0/1)
15. (not alterable by user, depends on SYS ID)  .......
16. (not alterable by user, depends on SYS ID)  .......
17. Function Mark:                           3 digits
    a. No functions:         0 0 0
    b. Preferred System Lock     0 0 1
        c. Automatic Lock *        0 0 2
    d. Call Timer Beep *        0 0 4
    e. Home / Roam inhibit        0 0 8
    f. Automatic Cell-Site Redial    0 1 6
18. Reserved for future use            .......
19. Reserved for future use            .......
20. Inhibit SYS-ID (IE, block calls in SYS ID#) 5 digits (ie, SYS ID, 00xxx)
21. Horn Alert Turn-Off Timer *    (01-31 hours)    2 digits
22. EMR Turn-Off timer * (01-31 hours)        2 digits
23. Reserved for future use            ........
24. Call-Timer Reset code (just use LOCK code)    3 digits
25. Reserved for future use            ........
26. Depends on all other settings, not alterable by user.

* = For CMT-550 and CMT-605 only, these features are not available
    (as far as I know) on earlier models.

You can "move" back and forth between items by pressing the "*" or the
"#" keys.

After you ALTER any item, make sure you press the STORE (STO) key.
This will store your new entry into permanent memory. You must do this
even though your new entry shows in the item line; if not, the
previous entry will remain once you re-start your phone.

When you have STOred all the new items, and wish to end the
programming session, pres: FUNC and SND to write the data into the
phone (NAM). After this, press FUNC and CLR to re-start the phone. You
may also just power it down and then turn it on again. Your phone will
now have the new values which you have programmed in. If you decide
you don't wish to change the info after all, just press FUNC and CLR
(or turn it off/on) without pressing FUNC SND first.

I've found this pretty easy to do, and I manage to change from one
system to another in about 20 seconds. You really don't have to look
at EVERYTHING. All you need to do is enter a new phone number, and
that's it. The System ID code is NOT SENT OUT, no matter what some
paranoid cell co. may say.

Thus, enter the program mode, change locations #1, #2 and #4 (press
"#" or STO to skip over #3, your lock code, unless you want to change
that), press FUNC and SND, and then FUNC CLR, and you are set!

(Note: if you change from the "A" system to the "B" system, or the
other way around, you will have to change the SYS ID code, OR use your
A/B switch to get from one system to the other. This is because the
phone "knows" to look for either the "A" or "B" system first by
whether your SYS ID code is ODD or EVEN.  (A systems = ODD, B systems
= EVEN, so Metro Mobile, the "A" in CT is 00119, while SNET, the "B"
in CT, is 00088.)

I've found that it is even useful to change the SYS ID code while
roaming, to the roaming city's code, so that I will KNOW when I am
using some other nearby system and thus will not incur extra daily
charges. (... in addition to the one I am already paying for roaming.
So let's say I went to Allentown, PA; I would set my SYS ID to be
00103. Thus, while I am in the Allentown system, the ROAM light would
be off. As I moved to the Metrophone/Philadelphia system, the ROAM
light would come on, telling me that if I make any additional calls, I
will pay another roamer surcharge since I am in a new system. Very
useful if you don't know the exact coverage of a system in an area.)

Guess that's it. If you have any questions, let me know, and I'll see
if I can help.


Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 00:05 GMT
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Press Release of Lotus Decision on Household Database


CAMBRIDGE, MA (JAN. 23) - Lotus Development Corp. and Equifax Inc.
Wednesday announced the cancellation of Lotus MarketPlace: Households,
a CD-ROM database product of names, addresses, and marketing
information on 120 million U.S. consumers originally scheduled for
shipment in March.

  The companies said the decision to cancel the product came after an
assessment of the public concerns and misunderstanding of the product,
and the substantial, unexpected additional costs required to fully
address consumer privacy issues.

   Lotus also announced that it will discontinue shipment of Lotus
MarketPlace:Business, a database of information on seven million U.S.
businesses that began shipping in October, 1990.

   "Unfortunately, Lotus MarketPlace: Households is at the apex of an
emotional firestorm of public concern about consumer privacy. While we
believe that the actual data content and controls built into the
product preserved consumer privacy, we couldn't ignore the high level
of consumer concern," said Jim Manzi, Lotus' president and chief
executive officer.  "After examining all of the issues we have decided
that the cost and complexity of educating consumers about the issue is
beyond the scope of Lotus as a software provider."

   "Technology is radically changing the way we work and, more
importantly, how we use information," said Manzi.  "Balancing the
advantages of easier access to information with the individual's right
to privacy is only the first of many new issues our industry will
grapple with in the coming years."

   C.B.  (Jack) Rogers, Jr., president and chief executive officer of
Equifax, which provides the data in MarketPlace, said: "Equifax has
made several key investments in consumer-oriented initiatives,
including our sponsorship of a national survey of consumer attitudes
on privacy.  The major survey finding was that consumers are willing
to make trade-offs for the use of their personal information when they
clearly understand the benefits.  Despite our significant consumer
education efforts, consumer misperceptions about this new product
offered through this distribution channel persist."

  In developing Lotus MarketPlace: Households, Lotus and Equifax implemented
a number of privacy-related controls that exceeded traditional direct-
marketing industry practices.  These practices were the result of extensive
research of the consumer privacy issue prior to product development,
including testing the product concept with several consumer focus groups
and counsel from a nationally recognized consumer-privacy expert.  The
practices included:

   o Limiting the data.  Specifically excluded from the product were
telephone numbers and individual personal data such as actual income,
credit data, and purchase history;

   o Offering the data only to legitimate businesses, through a controlled
purchase process;

   o Educating and advising users about the proper legal and ethical
responsibilities for list usage; and

   o Providing several Lotus- and Equifax-funded options for consumers to
have their names removed from the database.

   "We developed MarketPlace in response to a perceived need and real
market opportunity.  MarketPlace is an innovative tool for small
businesses, who are often shut out of sophisticated direct marketing
because of its cost or complexity," said Manzi.  "The market for tools
like MarketPlace is a viable one.  At the same time, the product is
not part of our core business, and Lotus would be ill-served by a
prolonged battle over consumer privacy."

   Rogers added: "Equifax is a technology leader and, equally
important, a pioneer in the area of consumer privacy protection in the
information industry. While we remain committed to using the most
sophisticated technology available, we are equally committed to
maintaining the delicate balance between legitimate information needs
of business and consumers' privacy concerns."

   The Lotus MarketPlace product family was a suite of CD-ROM
(compact-disc, read-only memory) database tools that used the Apple
Macintosh personal computer to make it easy for businesses to find new
customers.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:59 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tones on Mideast Broadcasts


    A post and some comments on here remark about tones of the region
of 10 Khz and up are heard or radio broadcasts of Mideast dial-up
connections.  It is utterly impossible for these to be coming from the
source, as any dial connection passes through at least one and
probably several sets of channel bank filters and digital carrier
channels that cannot pass anything beyond 4 Khz, most often no more
than 3 Khz.

     However, high-pitched noises and crosstalk on local telephone
cable pairs are often and readily passed by broadcast equipment and
transmitters.  AM stations in the US can often pass 12 Khz, and most
can pass 10 Khz, while FMs are regulatorily required to pass 15 Khz.
Experienced broadcasters avoid this by placing their own low-pass
filter in the dial line output to air so as to avoid these problems.

     If the source of what is being broadcast was taken from an inter-
national shortwave broadcast, high-pitched noises and whistles caused
by adjacent channel transmissions on the High Frequency bands are
rather common.  These could likewise be filtered out at the station,
but frequently the news people grab such material and air it in a rush
without any prepping for air.

     I really suspect the latter is more often what people hear now-
adays.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:49:42 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm


  An article in the local newspaper (Orange County Register,
California) mentioned that many families with relatives deployed to
the middle east for operation Desert Storm/Shield have been
experiencing humongous phone bills due to the needs and desires to
stay in contact with loved ones.  The phone companies, both local and
long Distance (AT&T, any others ?)  are arranging payment plans and
have no intention of cutting off service but have said that tariffs
forbid them from making the services available at special prices or
from giving them away. (How is the Desert Fax service available from
AT&T phone centers excluded from this?).

  I guess the government can't allow use of military lines for this
purpose, due to operational considerations but what about government
lines that are largely idle on weekends and at night? Do these have
sufficient international capacity and would it be legal for them to be
used in this manner with some screening? Also seems like there ought
to be a way for some large volume user/aggregator with excess capacity
to resell through some non-profit operation arranged for this
purpose.



Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: The {Chicago Sun-Times} this past week mentioned a
woman living here in Chicago whose son is in the Marines in the middle
east. She got a bill from AT&T for $213 recently due to collect calls
from her son. The problem is, she lives in a Chicago Housing Authority
building and her sole income is $169 monthly from Public Aid. Several
Chicagoans, upon reading the story in the newspaper immediatly sent
checks to IBT to pay the lady's bill for her ... The excess funds are
now being held by IBT and will be applied to others in similar straits
as a result of a family member or loved one being 'over there'. I
think it would be a very generous act if members of this net would
take charge of establishing such a trust fund in their own community
to be administered by a local, recognized charity in cooperation with
the telco and an OCC. We've seen the power of this net in other ways
in the recent past; how about a concerted effort to make international
long distance affordable to our troops and their families for the
duration of the conflict?

The technical difference between the phone center FAX messages and
these other calls is that in the case of the FAXs, AT&T is the
'customer' and is paying for the transmission. They are inviting you
to come to their office and use their phone. If you use your phone
then you are the customer.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 00.10.17  EDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: CNN Coverage in Baghdad
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY


As of 8:00 AM EST, January 25, 1991, Peter Arnett of CNN was still in
Baghdad and is the only Western reporter still in Iraq.


Richard Budd               | E-Mail: IBMers    - [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer      |         All Others- [e-mail]
IBM - Sterling Forest, NY  | Phone :             [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 1991 11:02:59 PST
From: "Ole J. Jacobsen" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hunting and Busy Call Forwarding


I am happy to report a definite "yes you can do it" to a question that
I have been wondering about for some time.  Special thanks to Pete
Ahrens of Pac*Bell for clarifying this.

I have two lines, A and B, in "circular hunt" or "series completion".
This means that if you call A and it is busy, B will ring. If you call
B and it is busy, A will ring. So far, pretty basic stuff.

I decided to add a third line C, which would be my "spillover" and
allow me to receive a third call placed to either A or B when *both*
were busy. This is accomplished quite readily by adding "busy call
forwarding" to both A and B pointing to C.  It turns out that the
hunting is attempted *before* busy call forwarding is activated, and
so the two services work nicely in conjunction.

Another solution would have been to put A, B and C all in circular
hunt, but the result would not have been quite the same, as a call to
B would hunt to C before hunting to A.

Thought you'd like to know.  (And Higdon said it could not be done.  :-)


Ole J Jacobsen, Editor & Publisher ConneXions--The Interoperability Report
Interop, Inc., 480 San Antonio Road, Suite 100, Mountain View, CA 94040, USA
Phone: [phone]  FAX: [phone]  Email: [e-mail]

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Special Mailing: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 2:44:17 CST


A special mailing will follow this issue of the Digest. William Degnan
now is editing a telecom calendar of events, and as new issues of the
calendar are released they will be distributed here in the Digest and
in comp.dcom.telecom.

The first calendar, covering several important events in 1991 is
available now. I'm sorry I did not have it available earlier this
month. You should send comments, corrections and other information
direct to Mr. Degnan at the address in the article.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #69
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00711;
          27 Jan 91 7:42 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26834;
          27 Jan 91 6:08 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15711;
          27 Jan 91 5:03 CST
Date:     Sun, 27 Jan 91 4:14:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


Dear Readers,

This is the first in what I hope will be frequent updates to a Telecom
Calendar of Events. I've wanted something like this in the Digest for
some time now, but simply was too busy to work on it. Please send
comments direct to Mr. Degnan if you find this sort of thing useful
and would like to see it here more often.


PAT


  Date: Thu, 24 Jan 91 13:24:12 CDT
  From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Telecom Calendar


1991 in Telecom
v 0.03

This is our compilation of events calendars for various aspects of the
telecommunications industry. To have your activity listed, send your request
to: Private Line, Calendar Editor, P.O. Drawer 9530, Austin, TX 78766-9530,
or EMAIL to [e-mail], [e-mail].

=======================================================================
                              ** 1991 **
=======================================================================

January
=======
Jan 10-13
Winter Consumer Electronics Show
Las Vegas
202 457-4919

Jan 13-16
Pacific Telecommunications Conference
Sheraton Waikiki
Honolulu, HI
808 941-3789

Jan 14-17
Building Industry Consulting Service International (BICSI)
Holiday Inn Tampa International Airport
Tampa, FL
813 974-2695

Jan 14-17
OPASTCO Winter Convention
Arizona Biltmore
Phoenix, AZ
Tampa, Fla.

Jan 16-18
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
Convention Center
San Diego, CA
202 785-0081

Jan 21-24
MECOM 91
Bahrain
201 652-7070

Jan 22-23
Infotext '91
Interactive Telephone Marketing
Tropicana Hotel
Las Vegas, NV
714 493-2434

Jan 22-25
Eurocomm '91
International Telecom/Datacomm show
RAI Exhibition Centre
Europaplein
Amsterdam
The Netherlands
616 933-9055

Jan 28-31
Network Computing Forum '91
Grand Hyatt
Washington, DC
508 879-6700

Jan 28-31
Communications Networks '91
Convention Center
Washington, DC
508 879-6700

Jan 29-31
MexCom '91
Mexico City
Mexico
305 442-4741

February
========
Feb 4-5
Making Incoming Call Centers Pay Off
Business Communications Review
Embassy Suites
Orlando, FL
708 986-1432

Feb 4-6
Western Communications Forum
Hyatt Regency
Phoenix, AZ
National Engineering Consortium
312 938-3500

Feb 5-8
ONLINE '91
Congress-Centrum-Hamburg
Hamburg, W. Germany
[phone]

Feb 6-8
Understanding Voice Response:
Applications, Technology, and Implementation
Business Communications Review
Embassy Suites
Orlando, FL
708 986-1432

Feb 10-14
National Telephone Cooperative Association
San Diego Marriott and Marina
San Diego, CA
202 298-2300

Feb 11-14
Networld '91
No location set
Boston, MA
800 444-4698

Feb 12-13
Talking Newspapers: Voice Information Services Opportunities
Hyatt/Airport
Atlanta, GA
The Audiotext Group
215 297-1000

Feb 12-14
Mobile Data World
Hyatt Regency Capitol
Washington, DC
212 373-1930

Feb 12-15
COMEXPO Mexico
New Exhibition Center
Mexico City, Mexico
703 527-8000

Feb 17-19
Canadian Independent Telephone Association Seminar and Showcase
Toronto
Canada
416 259-2053

Feb 17-20
California Assn. Annual convention
Hyatt Hotel
Monterey, CA
916 922-3307

Feb 18-22
Optical Fiber Comm '91
Convention Center
San Diego, CA
202 223-8130

Feb 25-27
ComConn '91
"Telecommuting -- Beating traffic and the Competition"
Town & Country Hotel
San Diego, CA
415 637-2300

Feb 26-28
Computer & InfoAsia '91
Shangri-La Hotel
Bangkok, Thailand
662-260-7109

Feb 27-Mar 2
Com Technology Indonesia '91
Jakarta Fair Grounds
Jakarta, Indonesia
301 656-2942

Feb 28-29
OPASTCO Leglislative & Regulatory Conf.
Quality Inn on Capitol Hill
Washington, DC
202 659-5990

March
=====
Mar 3-6
Entelec
George R. Brown Convention Center and Hyatt Regency
Houston, TX
214 235-1761

Mar 3-6
Minnesota Telephone Convention
Radisson South Hotel
Bloomington, MN
612 291-7311

Mar 5-7
PETE '91
Orange County Expo. Ctr.
Costa Mesa, CA
800 525-7383

Mar 5-8
Communications '91
No location set
Sidney, Australia
[phone]

Mar 10-13
Western Rural Tel. Assn. Annual Meeting
Fess Parker Red Lion
Santa Barbara, CA
707 578-5580

Mar 12-15
Carolina-Virginias Tel. Member. Assn.
Marriot
Raleigh, NC
919 592-5751

Mar 13-20
CeBIT
Hannover
Germany
404 239-9494

Mar 18-19
OPASTCO Spring Workshop
Houstonian
Houston, TX
202 659-5990

Mar 18-21
Supercomm '91
George R. Brown Convention Center
Houston, TX
312 782-8597

Mar 19-21
Fiber Perspectives '91
George R. Brown Convention Center
Houston, TX
312 782-8597

Mar 21-22
Emerging Opportunities for Voice Enhanced Print Products in Europe
Inter-Continental Hotel
London
IBT Technical Services/The Audiotext Group
609 466-0900

Mar 24-26
American Telemarketing Spring Conf.
Hyatt Regency Washington
Washington, DC
800 441-3334

Mar 24-27
Nat'l Cable TV Assn. (NCTA)
Convention Center
New Orleans, LA
202 775-3550

Mar 24-27
AM/FM Conference
Marriott Hotel & Marina
San Diego, CA
303 337-0513

Mar 25-28
Interface '91
World Congress Center
Atlanta, GA
617 449-6600

Mar 25-29
ISFOC (Int'l Soviet Fiber Optics Conf.)
Bontch-Bruevich Institute
Leningrad, USSR
800 323-1088

Mar 26-28
Int'l Mobile communications Expo
Convention Center
Anaheim, CA
303 220-0600

Mar 27-30
International Phoenix Conference on Computers and Communications
Windham Paradise Valley Resort
Scottsdale, AZ
602 862-5200

April
=====
Apr 1-3
DMA PRofitable and Effective Use of the Telephone:
Outbound and Inbound
Palmer House
Chicago, IL
212 768-7277 x486

Apr 1-3
SC Telephone Assn. Spring Convention
Radisson Resort Hotel
North Myrtle Beach, SC
803 252-4505

Apr 2-5
Communications Tokyo '91
Tokyo
Japan
301 986-7800

Apr 2-5
National Fiber Optic Engineer's Conference
Opryland Hotel
Nashville, TN
205 977-7657

Apr 5-9
ACUTA Spring Seminar
Hyatt Regency Waikiki
Honolulu, HI
606 252-2882

Apr 8-10
Test '91
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
409 845-6575

Apr 9-12
East Eurocomm '91
Budapest
Hungary
3388988 (Singapore)

Apr 10-11
North Dakota Tel. Assn. Annual Mtg.
International Inc.
Minot, ND
701 223-6022

Apr 10-12
Voice '91
Convention Center
Anaheim, CA
713 974-6637

Apr 21-May 1
Eastern Communications Forum
Crystal Gateway Mariott
Washington, DC
National Engineering Consortium
312 938-3500

Apr 22-24
Network Management Solution
World Trade Center
Boston, MA
800 225-4698

Apr 22-26
NTCA Legislative Conference
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill
Washington, DC
202 298-2300

Apr 22-27
IT '91
Paris-Nord Villepinte
Paris, France
312 565-4340

Apr 23-24
Suppliers Showcase (CA Assoc.)
Radisson
Sacremento, CA
916 922-4407

Apr 23-24
Tele-Marketplace, Telecom Canada
Metro Toronto Convention Centre
Toronto, Ont. Canada
416 691-6526

Apr 23-26
ISSLS
No location set
Amsternam, Netherlands
[phone]

Apr 23-26
Computer '91
Palais de Beaulieu
Lausanna, Switzerland
[phone]

Apr 25-26
InterCom '91
Omni Hotel
Miami, FL
305 446-5150

Apr 25-26
IFABO/Programma
Messegalande
Vienna, Austria
[phone]

Apr 25-27
Mobile Comm North America
Convention Center
Toronto, Canada
202 267-4770

Apr 26-29
East Eurocomm '91
International Fair Centre
Budapest, Hungary
[phone]

Apr 29-May 1
ECF '91
Marriott Crystal Gateway
Washington, DC
312 938-3500

Apr 29-May 2
CICC '91
Westin Copley Place
Boston, MA
808 879-9128


May
===
May 3-5
Spring STC Conference
No location set
Chicago, IL
800 782-7670

May 7-9
Canadian Utility Equipment Show
Fargo Holiday Inn
Fargo, ND
701 223-6022

May 7-9
TEXPO '91
Moscone Center
San Francisco, CA
800 448-3976

May 7-10
OITA Annual Meeting
Rippling River Resort
Welches, OR
503 581-7430

May 13-15
Tel. Assn. of Michigan Convention
Radisson Resort
Ypsilanti, MI
517 482-4166

May 14-16
Canadian Utility Equipment Show
Metro East Trade Centre
Pickering, Ont. Canada
503 581-7430

May 15-19
Telecommex Asia 1991
Trade Training Center
Metro Manila, Phillippines
[phone]

May 19-22
WITA Annual
The Inn at Semiahmoo
Blaine, WA
206 352-5453

May 20-22
Telecom Developers '91
Hyat Regency - DFW Airport
Texas
Teleconnect Magazine
212 691-8515

May 20-23
COMDEX/Spring
World Congress Center
Atlanta, GA
617 449-6600

May 28-31
National Telecommunications Forecasting Conference (A Vision of Tomorrow's
Reality)
Westin Hotel at Copley Place
Boston, MA
New England Telephone
617 743-2234


June
====
Jun 2
ICA
Anaheim Convention Center
Anaheim, CA
214 233-3889

Jun 5-10
Expo Comm Moscow '91
Moscow
USSR
301 986-7800

Jun 9-12
New York Telephone Association
Sagamore Hotel
Lake George, NY
518 462-6696

Jun 9-14
Caribbean Association of National Telecomm Organizations
St. Thomas
U.S. Virgin Islands
Latcom Inc.
305 446-5150

Jun 16-Jul 1
Shanghai
China
5463810

July
====

Jul 15-18
Comm Networks West '91
Moscone enter
San Francisco, CA
800 225-4690

August
======
(none at this writing)


September
=========

Sep 9-12
Network 90's Conference and Exhibition
San Francisco, CA
Pac Bell/USTA/TIA
916 972-3737

Sep 24-26
TCA
San Diego Convention Center
San Diego, CA
818 967-9411

October
=======
Oct 8-15
Geneva
Switzerland
312 782-8597  for information

November
========

(none at this writing)

December
========

(none at this writing)


Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock.
William Degnan                   | [e-mail]
Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
 -Independent Consultants        | [e-mail]
   in Telecommunications         | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan
P.O. Drawer 9530                 | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530            | Voice [phone]










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14255;
          27 Jan 91 17:42 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27108;
          27 Jan 91 16:16 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09201;
          27 Jan 91 15:11 CST
Date:     Sun, 27 Jan 91 14:40:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #70
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Jan 91 14:40:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 70

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones [Craig R. Watkins]
    Rental Cellular Phones [Larry Jones]
    Re: Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request [Mark Earle]
    ISDN and Cellular [Jeff Sicherman]
    NEC P300 Programming [Bob Sherman]
    Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    TX PUC Final Orders Update [William Degnan]
    Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments [Joe Konstan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones
Date: 26 Jan 91 00:07:44 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


I'm trying to describe generic programming characteristics of cellular
phones.  I'll list the various terms used by previous authors and try
to describe the attributes.  I'll use information from previous
postings and literature that I've read.  Mostly I'll be asking
questions about holes in my understanding of how the attributes are
used.

The following contains information from telecom articles on programming
various phones including:

A)  RS CT-301 from Rob Warnock <[e-mail]> on 20 Apr 90
    (from the manual, I think)
B)  RS CT-201 from Dave Levenson <[e-mail]> on 29 Jul 90
    (from the phone display, I think)
C)  Technophone MC-915-A from PAT <[e-mail]> on 15 Oct 90
    (from the phone display)
D)  NEC P9100 from me (from the phone display)
E)  From Motorola `Programming Your Personal or Portable
    Cellular Telephone' `Programming Manual' part #68P81155E16-D, 6/15/89 as
    supplied by Jerry Durand <[e-mail]>.


A)    home system identification    5 digits
B)    ho id                5-digit
C)    AREA ID                five digit number
D)    Home Area
E)    System Identification (SID) Code

This is the five digit system id, or SID, of the home cellular system.
See the file cellular.carrier.codes on telecom-archives.


A)    mobile number            10 digits
B)    phon                ten-digit
C)    some ten digit number          ten digit
D)    Phone No.
E)    Cell Telephone Number

This is the actual ten digit telephone number, or MIN, the mobile
identification number.  MIN is made up of MIN1, the 24 bits which
correspond to the seven digit telephone number and MIN2, the 10 bits which
correspond to the three digit areacode (the encoding method is
non-obvious).

Sometimes people call this the "NAM."  This is really the MIN. I think of all
these parameters together as a "NAM."

A)    home paging channel        3 dig
B)    paging ch            4-digit
C)    IPCH                initial paging channel
D)    First P-CH
E)    Initial Paging Channel

This is the paging channel on which a phone starts scanning when it is
"home."  On the A side, this is typically 333 and scanning starts
down.  On the B side, this is typically 334 and starts up.  The
333/334 is obviously the split between A and B on the old 666 channel
system.

First set of questions:
Has anyone used anything other than 333 or 334?
Under what conditions would a carrier use a different first paging channel?


A)    group identification    2 dig
B)    group id        2 digits
C)    GRP ID            two digit group ID Mark
D)    G.I.Mark
E)    Group ID Mark

This is a marker (a bit position, I believe) to designate which (MSB)
bits in the system ID are used to identify a group of cellular systems
(such as PacTel Cellular).

(Pat, I believe in your article you mentioned that this had to do with
letting the carrier know that you have 832 channels available.  I
believe that is the SCM parameter in the phone and not this.  Do you
concur?)

[Moderator: I believe you are correct.  Also, my Technophone MC-915-A
always parks on 327, although it is programmed for and starts out at
333.  PAT]

I've read that home mobiles or mobiles roaming in the same group may
use "Local Control" (see Local Control below).  Is the group ID used
for anything else?  Can anyone comment on either current use or the
proposed use of the group ID?

A)    local control option    1 or 0
B)    locl opr        1 digit
C)    <nothing similar found>
D)    Local Use        Yes/No
E)    Local Use        bit

I assume that this controls whether the mobile uses the "local
control" information from the carrier.  From what I have read, this
info is specific to the local system.  If this is the case, what does
my phone do with it?  How does it know?  Anyone with more info on what
local control may be used for?  Mine is enabled in my phone.

A)    overload class    2 dig
B)    o-load class    2 digits
C)    O/LOAD CLASS    two digit number
D)    ACCOLC
E)    Access Overload Class

This is a four bit number to describe the access overload class of the
telephone.  I believe it is used to control overloading conditions on
the reverse control channel.  The carrier can prohibit classes from
originating on the reverse control channel at various times.

Do I have this concept right?  Does anyone know the logistics behind
assigning these classes to telephones?  Do any carriers assign
specific classes to specific groups of users (such as emergency
personnel)?

After starting these questions, I found a reference to ACCOLC:

EIA TSB16-85 Assignment of Access Overload Classes in the Cellular
Telecommunications Services.  6pp.

However, I wasn't able to find this locally.  I may have to order it.
Has anyone seen it?

A)    <nothing similar found>
B)    <nothing similar found>
C)    EXp ?            0 or 1
D)    MIN Mark
E)    MIN Mark        bit

Is this whether the mobile sends both MIN1 and MIN2?  If so, I thought
that was at the request of the carrier, not the phone?

A)    access method        1 or 0
B)    access            1 digit
C)    <nothing similar found>
D)    <nothing similar found>
E)    <nothing similar found>

I'm not sure what this is?  Any Radio Shack phone owners that can tell
us?  This might have something to do with accessing the reverse
control channel (just a wild guess).

A)    <nothing similar found>
B)    st class    2 digits
C)    <nothing similar found>
D)    <nothing similar found>
E)    Station Class Code

I believe this is Station Class Mark (SCM), a four bit code in the form ABCD.

    A = 0    666 channels
    A = 1    832 channels
    B = 0    continuous transmission mode
    B = 1    discontinuous transmission mode (battery saver mode)
    CD = 00    high power
    CD = 01 medium power
    CD = 11 low power

A)    <nothing similar found>
B)    pref sys    A or B
C)    <nothing similar found>
D)    Sys Select
E)    <nothing similar found>

This seems fairly obvious.

Most phones also had an [un]lock code and/or a security code which I
omitted in this listing because I didn't find it very interesting.


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

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

From: Larry Jones <sdrc!thor![e-mail]>
Subject: Rental Cellular Phones
Date: 27 Jan 91 00:55:07 GMT
Organization: SDRC, Cincinnati


 From the January 26 {Cincinnati Post}:

Hotels and car-rental agencies that provide cellular telephones to
customers soon will be able to get a quick peek at the dollar volume
of calls made when the phones are returned at check-out time.
Cincinnati Bell Information Systems (CBIS) by March will introduce a
new product geared toward business travelers, conventioneers and other
short-term cellular users.  CIPHERS -- or Cellular Integrated Phone
Rental System -- will allow telephone charges to be tallied
immediately after the phone is returned so that the rental agencies
don't have to bill the client later when its own bill arrives from the
phone company.  Hotels and car renters will, in essence, be able to
hand the customer an "instantaneous invoice," said Tony Tagliareni,
CBIS market support manager.

CIPHERS works by using a tiny computer chip inside the phone to record
call data, rather than relying on information collected at the switch
site.  The chip can store data for up to 200 calls, more than enough
capacity for the typical short-term user, who may spend 20 minutes per
day on the phone.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 09:23:57 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Antenna and Modem Help Request


Howard Pierpont ([e-mail] asks in general about
putting six phones in a van. While I cannot suggest much in the
"correct" antenna placement or RF issues, I do have some advice.

We use CMT's with external modems. The "magic" is a box from Telular
(they have an 800 number). This box is called a "celljack". It
connects in place of (or in paralell with, depending on cabling
desired) the regular hanset/cradel. You then have a regular RJ-11 jack
to plug in "whatever". The Celljack provides dial tone when the
attached device goes off hook. It will interpret tone or pulse
dialing, and send the correct data stream to the CMT transceiver. It
will drive 5 REN-1 loads.

So far, I've tried it on several Marata, Mitsubish, and Panasonic
fax's. NO problem at all.

We principally use it at remote sites, so we can modem in to a remote
data collection computer. Again, no problems of significance.

One thing you will notice, is that on calling TO a modem connected to
the Celljack, it takes a bit longer. You may need to increase your
terminal emulator's "time out" paramater. On OUTGOING calls through
the Celljack, the same problem may occur, since it may take up to 5-10
seconds for the cell side of the call to set up. Most modems or
software have a register or paramater to handle this, so it is
generally NOT a practical problem.

Audio quailty is good (a plain old black desk phone sounds better than
the regular cmt handset). I have successfully used an HST 9600 bps
modem, to another HST, and gotten 1600 cps; have also used a telebit;
and have called to Compuserve's ports, both "regular" and MNP. Also to
various Unix boxes and dos-based bbs's, all with no problems.  This is
both fixed, and while someone else was driving with the vehicle in
motion.

There is another distributor, Cellular Solutions, who sell the
Celljack. It does not work with *all* CMT's but the included list is
representative of the more popular units.

The cost is about $450.

Oh -- it has extensive on board diags you enable with a switch. For
instance, ring attached instrument, decode touch tones, verify pulse
make/break ratios, etc. For the $ it makes a good general purpose
piece of test gear. It can also be set up for ground or loop start,
etc.

Another unusual use of this product (which is the size, about, of the
CMT transceiver unit -- we just double-sticky tape the Celljack to the
CMT!) is to connect to a port on a PBX. Dial '7' to get the "special"
circuit. Turns out the CMT, with a directional antenna, could reach
across an very expensive toll zone. The per minute airtime is about
1/3 of the rate to call direct -- and it gets cheaper at night. The
celljack seems to provide all the DC signalling the PBX (small
Panasonic) wanted-the pbx belived it has a standard line on that port.

Hope this helps!


[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: Sat, 26 Jan 91 22:46:25 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: ISDN and Cellular


  I realize this is kind of a vague question but ...

  What are the implications and complications for ISDN upon cellular
service. It would seem to me that the bandwidth required would be a
major problem.


Jeff Sicherman

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

From: Bob Sherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: NEC P300 Programming
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 09:54:56 GMT


If anyone knows the programming access codes etc. for the NEC P300
handheld cell phone, I would really appreciate it if you would pass
them along to me via e-mail or here on the net.


Many Thanks!!!

[e-mail]    MCI MAIL:BSHERMAN

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:57 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically


In addition to MCI Mail automatically providing each E-Mail user an
international Telex number based on their account number, in fairness
to the competition, we should post that AT&T Mail does the same, as, I
believe, does SprintMail.

The difference will occur in what US international Telex carrier the
numbers come from.  That will make a difference in how the overseas
Telex caller must dial to reach them.  If on MCIMail, their number is
on WUI. On ATTMail, it is FTCC Communications, while the former
Easylink is via WUTCo.  I do not know what carrier SprintMail's deal
is with.

Those who want to use this option (needed for receiving only; you can
transmit to international Telex on all, even without a number) will
want to check to find out how to instruct correspondents to call them.

MCI Mail certainly is smartest about this.  They publish the details
in their instruction book.  With the others, expect the incompetence
we so often suffer.  International Telex is unknown to most Americans
including the "sales" and "customer service" people of too many
locations.

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 09:45:51 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: TX PUC Final Orders Update


The following is quoted from the Final Orders Update, published by the
PUC's Public Information Office:

Public Utility Commission of Texas
7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard - Suite 400N
Austin, TX 78757 512/458-0100

                        FINAL ORDERS UPDATE

January 9, 1991

Members of the Public Utility Commission of Texas met on January 9,
1991, to consider 14 dockets and one rulemaking. Final Orders were
issued in 10 proceedings. All decisions were unanimous (3-0), except
where shown. The name of the ALJ/examiner assigned to the case is
shown in parentheses following the docket number.

                          CONTESTED CASES

"Docket No. 8387 (Robert Howell), Final Order, Petition of R.A. Hirsch
against Swouthwestern Bell Telephone Company.

"Commissioners adopted the Examiner's Report and amended Final Order,
which recommends approval of a joint stipulation stetting the
following terms by which bulletin board systems may qualify for a
residential rate: (1) if the BBS is located in a residence, (2) the
BBS does not operate for profit or otherwise solicit or accept
compensation, and (3) the BBS uses no more than three local access
telephone lines. A BBS is a host computer with software package that
is linked with the telephone network via a modem. Other persons who
also have computers equipped with modems may communicate and exchange
information with the BBS. The disputed issue in this docket was
whether BBSs located in residences should be billed as businesses."

                                ###

Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock.
William Degnan                   | [e-mail]
Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
 -Independent Consultants        | [e-mail]
   in Telecommunications         | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan
P.O. Drawer 9530                 | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530            | Voice [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 11:11:40 PST
From: Joe Konstan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments


I almost just bought the Panasonic 3910R (I think it had the "R" not
sure) but found that all of the discount places around here (BEST,
Circuit City, Good Guys etc. were out of them and didn't expect more
in for a while).  After long hassels with Circuit City I ended up with
the AT&T 5500 instead (for only $120 plus tax!!) and I think it's
great!

Basic feature comparison:

AT&T 5500        Panasonic 3910

10 Channel cordless    10 Channel cordless
9-number memory dialing    16 number memory dialing
speakerphone in base    speakerphone in base
....

Basically, these are almost identical.  The 5500 has very good sound
quality even from the speakerphone (My friend who used to work in a
lawyer's office said it was much better than theirs).  There are hold
buttons on both the base and extension, etc.

The only drawback is that the extra cradle for the cordless unit
doesn't have a charger built in -- so you do have to return it to the
base at least weekly.

Joe Konstan

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #70
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16136;
          27 Jan 91 18:49 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06622;
          27 Jan 91 17:21 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27108;
          27 Jan 91 16:16 CST
Date:     Sun, 27 Jan 91 15:25:16 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #71
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Jan 91 15:25:09 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 71

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [William Degnan]
    Re: Flashing Got an AT&T Operator [John Higdon]
    Re: Videos By Phone [Peter da Silva]
    Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Re: Telecom*USA [Steve M. Kile]
    MCI Masterphone [Lyle A. McGeoch]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines"
Date: 25 Jan 91 05:48:43 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


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

> Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are given a
> device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack.  It is a
> box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug into
> ...
> My question is: What is this box, what does it do, and what do FLL and
> PROG stand for?  Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have

> Tom Lowe   AT&T Bell Labs   Holmdel NJ  [e-mail]   908-949-0428
                  ^^^^^^^^^

A user will now tell how the Bell System and FCC set this mess up.

Arminger and others like Suttle are all licensed by YOUR company to
produce such devices. You will find corresponding WE-xxx numbers for
your products that they make with AA-xxx numbers and Suttle has SE-xxx
ones, too. Arminger is heavier into data related special jacks then
Suttle.

Anyway, this has lots of history that I will partly skip, but the
simple part of it is that modems are not supposed to hit the CO with a
signal hotter than -12dbm. Originally modems all were from the phone
company, and THEY set the xmit level internally with dip switches.
When users were finally allowed to plug in modems, a way was devised
to let the jack set the signal level.

Any modem worth its salt today can receive signals that my bad ears
can barely hear. But when this was planned, there was a scheme devised
whereby the installing phone company could install a data jack that
would program the transmit signal level for a modem with an external
resistor the installer would select supposedly after determining the
loop loss to the CO. That is your PROG switch position.

Some modems were assumed to be too dumb to be programmed, and you
could run with a fixed pad that killed some signal level for BOTH
transmit and receive. They were assumed to xmit at -4dbm, and the pad
would cut the level to what was needed. The transmit side of this was
cut to 'protect' the network, but padding the receive side was/is
totally STUPID.

There is a third option the modems have and that is 'permissive' mode.
It is assumed that there will be at least 3db loss on a CO line, and
so any modem is 'permitted' to transmit at a fixed -9dbm (to hit the
CO at no higher than -12dbm). Permissive mode is what all normal
modems pluging into RJ11 jacks are using.

I never saw a modem ordered or equipped for FLL (fixed loss loop)
operation, but there were specs on how to do it. Some of the old
modems came with instructions for the telco to set the levels
internally, or you set them for 0 dbm internally and used a special
cord for the external PROG or FLL or PERM jack setup. If you had loss
set inside and externally you would have too much. Typically the
adapter cord to make a programmable modem a FLL one included the 866
ohm resistor for -4dbm needed in FLL mode, and the adapter cord for
permissive mode included the 5490 ohm resistor needed to transmit at
-9dbm. The cord for programmable mode simply connected the resistor in
the jack to the modem.

Your jack with cord, etc is probably Arminger's AA-330A Universal Data
Station Adapter. The center two wires from the RJ11 cord go to the
center two of the eight-wire data jack, so any RJ11 modem plugged into
this could as well be just plugged in without this. Pins 1 + 2 go to
the internal PAD and then to incoming T + R via that switch when
thrown to FLL position. The resistor for PROG mode is across 7 + 8.
This adapter's resistor is set for -9dbm, and the unit effectively
converts OLD FASHION FLL or PROG mode modems into PERmissive ones and
is an FCC registered device (APZ9P9-67263-AD-N the Ren is 0.0B in
PROG, and the PAD makes Ren = 2.5B in FLL mode).

On telco installed data jacks, I have NEVER seen different resistors
installed whether the jack is near the CO or miles from it. The
installers always put in just one value.

In the real world now, NO ONE needs this nonsense. If you have OLD
modems that need this, maybe buy an eight-wire jack and stick your OWN
resistor in and run in programmed mode set for -9dbm (i.e. run it in
permissive mode). Certainly don't BUY this sort of over priced factory
nonsense adapter.

New modems will run in permissive mode and that is fine. Use RJ11
jacks. In some areas you seem to need to order a data jack just to get
a data quality line. Then get an RJ45S (the programmable jack with out
the FLL switch - but they may 'provide' it by giving you the universal
model that HAS the switch). The RJ41S function DOES include the FLL
Pad, and typically is provided by an AA-97A (1-9) (that 1-9 is for
loop loss of 1 to 9 dbs - each number you order comes with a different
resistor and pad) and nine different order numbers!, and costs about
$18. The AA-97B only does RJ45S (PROG) function (no FLL switch) and
comes with eight resistors (one order #) and costs about the same.
Those two are the same size box, but a newer jack that looks like a
fat RJ11, but also takes the eight wire plugs is the AA-97B1. It also
comes with the kit of eight resistors (NO resistor is used for the
highest loss setting) and costs about $8. The same jack bought as a
generic JACK is under $4, and you can get the resistor for -9dbm xmit
(the 3db loop loss resistor) for pennies elsewhere. Use 5,490 (or near
that) ohms.

If you are stuck with telco installed FLL switches, TAPE them into the
PROG position. NEVER use FLL, it is a dumb and obsolete idea. Remember
any normal (permissive) modem plugs into an RJ11, but also works fine
in the eight-wire jacks but hardly needs them.

History lesson:

xmit level    resistor    loop loss range

 0        (short)        12 or more db
-1        150 ohm        11-12
-2        336        10-11
-3        562        9-10
-4        866        8-9
-5        1,240        7-8
-6        1,780        6-7
-7        2,520        5-6
-8        3,610        4-5
-9        5,490        3-4
-10        9,200        2-3
-11        19,800        1-2
-12        (open)        0-1


Personally, I get data lines in on RJ21X jacks mixed in with general
phone lines. The 25 pairs there come out on the AMP connector and go
to MY-OWN CO quality 3 electrode gas tube + diodes lightning
protection (I like Porta System's Delta series, but NTI/Cook, AT&T,
and Reliable all make this sort of thing), and then it goes to modular
patch or 66 punch and then to internal voice or data or whatever we
need on OUR wires. Modems plug into RJ11 jacks. Period.

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

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 09:02:58 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Device Given to me With "Data Lines"


On <Jan 23 15:58> Tom Lowe writes:

> Any time we order a "Data Line" for our computers here, we are
> given a device to put inline between the modem and the phone jack.  It is
> a box about 4 X 2 X 1 inches, has one two-pair modular cord to plug
> into the phone jack...

> Armiger & Associates, Inc.  Fort Worth Texas USA
> Data Conn. Blk. Model No. AS-97A (1-9)  Use as USOC RJ-41S-M, 42S-M, 43S-M,
> RTC=41S & 36X (AA-97A & 635A)  Complies with Part 68, FCC Rules

> My question is: What is this box, what does it do,

You have answered your own questions. It is an AS-97A (1-9) [actually
what you describe is an AA-97A (1-9)-RTC1]. It is for use as an
RJ41S-M, etc.

> and what do FLL and PROG stand for?

Why Fixed Loop Loss or PROGrammable.

> Anytime I ask the techs what they are for, they have no idea.

Would they know if you _didn't_ ask them?

Next time you can tell them that it is essentially the AA-97A-RTC
connector, with the FLL/PROG switch located on the outside and a one
foot, four-conductor line cord which is connected to the network side.

The AA-97A-RTC is a data connecting block arrangement that includes an
eight-position modular jack for the registered data connection and an
eight-position series modular jack for a modular jack for a modular
connection to other data interface equipment.

See your modem manual for the manufacturer's recommendation for FLL vs. PROG.

> I am told that NJ Bell charges an arm and a leg for these boxes.

Is there something for which NJB _doesn't_ charge an arm and a leg?


Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock.
William Degnan                   | [e-mail]
Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
 -Independent Consultants        | [e-mail]
   in Telecommunications         | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan
P.O. Drawer 9530                 | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530            | Voice [phone]

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Flashing Got an AT&T Operator
Date: 27 Jan 91 00:09:49 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"John C. Fowler" <[e-mail]> writes:

> Now I wonder, on phones with no three-way calling, is flashing the
> switchhook designed so that rotary users can place additional calls
> in the same way tone users can press "#"?

Flashing the switchhook during the course of an operator-assisted call
has signaled and recalled the operator since the beginning of time.
Little has changed in the manner that the LEC connects to AT&T for
operator assisted calls, even since divestiture. A tone-entered
calling card call is functionally identical to an operator-assisted
call.

When such a call is made, control of the calling connection is passed
from the caller to the IEC. Hence, when you hang up the connection
remains until the IEC releases it. Pressing the switchhook for just a
moment does not release the connection but signals the operator
instead. This is why you were told to "hang up longer". This has
nothing to do with providing convenience for rotary callers.

Ever call operator-assisted as the second connection for a three-way?
When you are through talking, you can't just drop the connection with
a flash of the switchhook. Usually an operator comes back on the line
and sometimes you get a really stupid one who cannot seem to just push
"release" without giving you a ration of excrement.

The fact that you as the caller cannot break the connection with the
operator was sometimes used in pre-E911 days to send help to an
emergency caller when the phone was hung up or the connection was
otherwise broken before the operator could get an address. The
operator would keep the connection up until the call could be traced.
TSPS made this unnecessary, since the calling number was displayed on
the TSPS console.


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


[Moderator's Note: Here in IBT-land we can flash and dial 110 to
recall the operator under these circumstances.   PAT]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Videos By Phone
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 1991 18:34:38 GMT


> Reportedly, the technology can transmit a two hour movie over phone
> lines in fifteen seconds to thousands of destinations. That must be
> something like 20-40 gigabits/s transmission (and to think people get
> excited over such primitive toys as ISDN or mere 56 kb/s stuff :->).

Begin back-of-the-envelope mode...

Let's see, assuming they're using something like JPEG and a moderate
resolution video signal (640x400x12 bits). That's 380K per frame, 30
frames per second, and the high side of 20:1 compression ratio. Give
them 30:1 to make the calculations easy. About 2.5 gigabytes in 15
seconds, or a little over 1 gigabit/second. You couldn't do it over
ethernet. You'd have to run fiber into each house...

Hey, if they pay for the fiber it sounds like a good deal. :->


([e-mail])

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

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 15:02 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New Zealand Sysop Fights Telco on Business Rates


   A recent thread here discusses the practicality of competition arising
in New Zealand, to let market forces work on monopolistic practices
and prices of Telecom NZ.

   One statement too broadly made and accepted without question is to
feel that, "competition is impractical."  This is largely based on a
belief that any competitor would have to build parallel transmission
plant using the same technology or a similarly expensive technology as
the existing company.

   I'd like to posit a few thoughts that counter such a view.

   Here in the US, the FCC undertook to let technology erode the
rather shaky "natural monopoly" enjoyed by local Telcos.  Thus, we
have seen the ownership of cellular radio by non-Telcos.  One maker,
IMM of Philadelphia, has even fielded a cellular system suitable for
use in rural areas to fixed positions.  An even earlier technology
from Farinon in the US and a Canadian firm used lower frequencies in
the 450 Mhz region to serve rural users.  We had a non-directional
microwave technology called Digital Termination Service that was
premature for the marketplace, with so few people applying for it that
the FCC withdrew the frequency allocations.

    In England, the government legislated local competition into
existence, with Cable and Wireless' Mercury Communications developing
means to provide local telephone channels via existing cable
television.

    Most recently, we have seen a US proposition, backed by the FCC,
to let cable TV companies operate nodes of PCN telephones (akin to the
UK "Phonepoints") along their cable routes.

    If the regulators or legislators in NZ will simply let
entrepreneurs loose to try their ideas, New Zealanders might have a
choice within a shorter time than Telecom New Zealand realizes!
That's not to say they would realize what is happening to them very
rapidly.  Here is the US, most local Telcos are at present trying to
ignore the threat, and hoping the public won't find out there really
is no "dial tone monopoly;" that thay've all been living in Oz (and I
don't mean NZ's cousins a thousand miles or so to the west!)

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Telecom*USA
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 11:47:07 PST


Pat:

I called Telecom*USA on Friday night, Jan. 25th and after a long
conversation with the nice lady (and her supervisor) they agreed to
sign me up for the Telecom*USA card and an 800 number at the
$2.75/month rate.  They asked many questions about my phone use and
credit and then said I should be hooked up in two or three weeks.  We
will see.


Steve

[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Please follow up on this and let us know the
results. I think the Telecom*USA card and 800 number setup is one of
the better, less complicated, least expensive deals around. I think it
took me two weeks to first get installed on their system but since
that point their customer service has done maintainence on my account
within hours, or a day at most.  PAT]

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

From: "Lyle A. McGeoch" <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI MasterPhone
Date: 26 Jan 91 04:24:24 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


Until now I've used AT&T (via my Bell Atlantic card) for my infrequent
calling card calls.  The MCI MasterPhone program, which has slightly
better rates and automatic billing to a MasterCard, seemed like a
reasonable way to save a bit.  No fee to sign-on, no extra bill to pay
each month... sounded great.  Well I just received the information
packet from them.  The catch turns out to be the laborious dialing
instructions:

    --- call their 800 number and wait for them to answer
    --- dial 0 plus the number you're calling, and wait for the tone
    --- dial your MasterCard number and PIN (20 digits)
    --- dial #

I can live without this nonsense.


Lyle A. McGeoch, Rutgers University, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #71
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17719;
          27 Jan 91 19:50 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa09631;
          27 Jan 91 18:25 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae06622;
          27 Jan 91 17:21 CST
Date:     Sun, 27 Jan 91 16:35:08 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #72
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Jan 91 16:34:57 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 72

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines" [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Digital Communication Over Radio [Rick Moll]
    Neax 2400 Codes Needed [Will Martin]
    Bonehead 611 Message-Takers [Nick Sayer]
    INMARSAT (MARISAT?) Telephones [Rop Gonggrijp]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:55 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Device Given to me With "Data Lines"


        Beginning with a query from Tom Lowe at AT&T Bell Labs in
Holmdel In Digest Volume 11, Issue 60 (or so), several readers have
posted the presentation as seen in their areas.  Here is a post to
hopefully give the topic a broad overview:

        The problem in understanding this topic is that most people
who entered use of data communications since Dennis Hayes made a
popular dial-up product of the "modem" never knew a major component of
his product success was adoption of one of the _three_ ways the FCC
authorized users in Part 68 of its Rules.

        Forced into taking control by the slow action of the telephone
industry and considerable public complaint about "protective" devices
called "Data Access Arrangements" ("DAA's") offered by the telephone
companies, the FCC acted by asking public suggestions to get AT&T to
protect its interests by describing ways to acceptably connect user-
provided data transmission devices to the Public Switched Telephone
Network (PSTN).

        The basic principle of all three is the same...to have a user-
sourced composite data signal enter a switching point (the first local
exchange machine) in the PSTN at a power level of minus 13 dBm.
Allowing for a wiring loss of 1 dB in the office, that level of the
signal delivered to the local exchange building was set at minus 12
dBm.  From there. levels can be controlled so as not to get so high as
to couple themselves into adjacent circuits and cause noise or
crosstalk in the network.

        The three methods are titled, "Permissive," Fixed Loss Loop,"
and "Programmed."

        The "Permissive" method requires that the modem tranmsit at a
fixed, internally set power level of minus 9 dBm. It assumes there is
a loss of 3 db in the subscriber loop, thus realizing the desired
minus 12 dBm at the central office entrance.  Any excess loop loss is
to the detriment of the modem.  Under these conditions, the FCC
authorized plugging any modem into any regular telephone jack on the
network, thus the name, "Permissive," a name most have forgotten by
now.  And, any regular telephone jack is the smaller "six-conductor"
jack we have come to generically call an RJ-11.  Other station wiring
variations have different FCC numbers, like RJ-15 for a weatherproof
outdoor plug and socket (recognizable as a fairly common AC twist-lock
power conector with a center pin added to avoid accidental insertion
into a power outlet).

        The 1200 bps modems Dennis Hayes first marketed would operate
adequately at the then-current state of the dial network, so his use
of the "permissive" arrangement was highly successful.  As time pro-
gressed, both modems and the PSTN improved such that it has become the
norm, even for data rates of 9600 bps on the PSTN.

        That success and development has largely made the other two
FCC-authorized methods technologically obsolete.

        The second method is called "Fixed Loss Loop," and specifies a
wider eight-conductor plug that cannot fit into a "permissive" jack.  It
has a corner cut off for reasons explained later. In the FLL method,
the modem is factory-set to transmit at minus 4 dBm, and the local
telephone company is supposed to make and actual measurement of the,
loop, providing an attenuator that gets the level to minus 12 dBm at
the exchange entrance.  While it can be had in most Bell operating
company areas, most small "independent" telcos never tariffed it, so
they will tell you you can't have it, anyway.  Larger independents
cheat and just look up what the loop loss of your cable is supposed to
be and stick in a pad.

       Unfortunately, your loop can and often does have higher loss
than the records show (due to bridged taps hung all over so many cable
pairs), so you lose.  It's probably no better than permissive.  The
"modular" jacks used are shaped such that a "permissive" plug will fit
into them and work ... of course with extra loss in the attenuator
plugged into the loop.  Since your "permissive" modem is set at minus
9 dBm, and the FLL plan assumes you run minus 4 dBm, you have at least
a 5 dB penalty starting out, and may well find the FLL jack, if fully
installed with attenuator, works more poorly than a plain dial line.
(For this reason, some modems have a "secret" adjustment to raise
their transmission level for FLL operation.)  We have come to use the
term RJ-41 to name FLL jacks in general.

     What was intended to be the most precise method, "Programmed,"
requires the modem to contain an externally-controlled transmit level
adjustment, set by the Telco installer putting a resistor across two
more wires between the modem and jack, to set the modem's level
anywhere from 0 dBm to minus 12 dBm.  It works protectively in that no
resistor causes minus 12 dBM, lower than permissive.  Conversely, a
"programmed" modem will transmit its full maximum 0 dBm if one puts a
short circuit (a "zero Ohm resistor" ... and such are sold!) in the
jack's programming slots.

     The potential for misinstallation and abuse is obvious ... it is
not hard to unscrew the cover of the jack and change the resistor at
all.  Practically no non-Bell telco has ever tariffed "programmed"
jacks, so their availablility is rather limited.  We have come to call
these by the generic term RJ-45.  These use an eight-conductor plug
with no corner cut off, so they cannot plug into an FLL jack, while
both an FLL and a Permissive plug can fit into the Programmed jack.
It of course, is a regular dial line, so permissive modems should
operate as well in an RJ45 as in a regular line.  What's questionable
is if you get anything for whatever extra price you pay for an RJ45 in
that case.  It appears from some posts that Bell of PA has created an
interesting product that may be of value for them.

    One hybrid FLL/Programmed jack, called RJ41S, has a switch for
either mode, and its Western Electric style number was 635, so that
number may be used for the jack hardware (where 625 was the WECo type
for the "RJ-11" jack).

        Hopefully this exposition will help rationalize the various
experiences reported from diferent locations on here.  Most
interesting about how our business has evolved is that the first
inquiry came from the place where all this was first developed -- Bell
Labs at Holmdel.  There are probably still papers in the archives
there describing all this with much more complete rationale.

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

From: Rick Moll <wicat![e-mail]>
Subject: Digital Communication Over Radio
Date: 26 Jan 91 18:39:20 GMT
Organization: WICAT Systems, Orem, Utah


A friend of mine is doing his undergraduate EE thesis in the area of
digital communications over radio.  Can anyone provide some helpful
references in this area?

Also, he is particularly interrested in finding out anything he can
about a specific product called "Digipack".


Rick Moll

Please post or reply to:  [e-mail] -or- uplherc!wicat!nullset!rick

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

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 13:17:50 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Neax 2400 Codes Needed


The NEC Neax 2400 phone system we have here is, like all "new and
improved" phone systems, driving me bats. The user manuals are
woefully incomplete, assuming anyone trying to perform various
functions has a phone instrument with all sorts of preprogrammed,
labelled buttons for each function. Of course, none of the phones I've
ever seen have a fifth of those preset functions. We received a
handout at the time we moved in that lists some of the more common
keypad-press equivalents of the programmed functions, but I need to
know more.  What I really need is the owner's or administrator's
manual, but it looks like I'm never going to get access to that via
normal channels.

Here's the code equivalents I know:

*99 = hold
*5  = forward all
*6  = cancel forward all
*8  = forward busy/no answer
*9  = cancel forward busy/no answer  (how can "*99" work if this does?)
*77 = pickup ringing incoming call in your pickup group

178 = call park (after flash)
179 = parked call retrieve local
180 = parked call retrieve remote (follow by extension of parked call)
123 = faulty trunk report (after flash)
173 = busy call back (after flash)
189 = directed call pickup (follow by extension of ringing phone)

That's it.

I'm sure there are a batch of others; if anyone knows any, please send
them to me. (I'll accumulate and post the results, if I get any
responses.)

Specific question: One thing I am trying to figure out, at the moment,
is how to remotely change call forwarding. That is, I know my
extension and its authorization code (the same as the voicemail
"password"). How do I, from some other place, call the PBX CPU (I
realize I'll have to get that number here) and tell it to change the
call forwarding on extension "n" [verify with password] to "call
forward all to extension 'y7'" or whatever else I want done? If I can
do this, can I also do it from a tone phone outside, or only from
within the system?

Am I having unreal expectations that this capability is available? I
thought it was a standard feature of new phone systems.

Regards,


Will
[e-mail]

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

From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bonehead 611 Message-Takers
Date: 27 Jan 91 10:35:56 GMT
Organization: The Duck Pond, Stockton, CA


Some explanation: quack is my trusty Sun 2 with its own phone line,
which (of course) is different from my voice line.

Tonight (Sun 1/27, 01:30 or so) the phone service was disrupted on
quack's line (only), but with the most bizarre set of symptoms I've
ever heard of.

I was logged in to a local machine at 2400 baud and suddenly got NO
CARRIER. Well, that's not unusual. The machine in question is behind a
PBX with a bad attitude. :-) Redial. No dial tone.  Ok. Wait one
minute, redial. Fine. Back in business. Three minutes later, NO
CARRIER.  Redial.  No dial tone. It's been like that ever since.
There's still battery (48v from telco) since I can breath into the
mouthpiece and hear it, and make DTMF with an old once-was-leased bell
phone. If I dial the number from the voice line, I get rings, but the
line in question does not get the ring (90 vac, or whatever). If I
pick up line two (still no dialtone), THEN dial line two from the
other line, I get busy.

Ok. So my subscrber loop isn't broken, so I call 611. I cringe.  I'll
get an answering-machine-with-a-pulse. Sure enough. She takes my
"report," says "uh huh" in all the right places, and promises they'll
get to it by Monday at 5 PM.

I can understand the delay if a backhoe rips out my loop.  But that's
not the case. Clearly they could at LEAST run a computer check of the
local switch. If I could talk to someone with some technical savvy, I
could give them the symptoms as I describe above and they'd at least
know where NOT to look, right? Is there nothing for us comp.dcom.telecom
readers to do but deal with 611 like "the rest of the world?" Sheesh.

 ...And they wonder why I decided on microwave instead of leased lines
for our WAN link... :-)


Nick Sayer    [e-mail]
N6QQQ  [44.2.1.17]  209-952-5347 (Telebit)


[Moderator's Note: It sounds to me like something is hung in the
office; the tester will clear it soon if it hasn't been done already.
I've had the same kinds of problems in the past. The clerk taking your
call is not trained to know all these things, and if they were to get
into the habit of passing customer calls direct to the technicians
then they (the technicians) would never be able to get their own work
done. When the tech calls you back -- if the problem cannot be
isolated or located in the CO -- then you will have a chance to tell
your story to someone who can resolve it. The best report you could
have filed with the clerk would be to give the number, and say that
the line is alive; there is battery present, but no dial tone. Tell
them you have checked at the demark (I assume you have! Once I almost
tore the backside off of a repair clerk only to be embarassed when I
found a phone on this end was malfunctioning!) and the problem seems
to be in the central office. The clerk will report it that way.  They
have to quote you a turn-around time, even if the time involved seems
ridiculous based on your appraisal of the problem. I've had things get
hung in the office, been told they would fix it 'by Tuesday' and in
fact had the problem gone a few minutes later.  PAT]

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

From: Rop Gonggrijp <[e-mail]>
Subject: INMARSAT (MARISAT?) Telephones etc...
Date: 27 Jan 91 18:50:14 GMT
Organization: Hack-Tic


I went to the Eurocom Trade-Show here in Amsterdam and met with some
of the people that are selling equipment for USE with the INMARSAT
system. (If I am correctly informed, MARISAT is the old name).
There's two types of services on these sattelites:

Inmarsat-A:   Speech transmission, takes a dish of about one meter
diameter, costs a lot of money ($50 K or more) and is even more
expensive to subscribe to. The only code in the machine however is the
'telephone-number' of the device itself. This seven-digit number can
be called by dialling +871-XXXXXXX (Atlantic Ocean), +872-XXXXXXX
(Pacific Ocean), +873-XXXXXXX (Indian Ocean) or +874-XXXXXXX (Atlantic
Ocean - West).

Inmarsat-C:   Data transmission. This service is packet-oriented and the
devices transmit burst of 75 Watts (!) at 1.6 GHz, yet the
sales-people talk about only 0.5 Watts which would suggest a 1/150
duty cycle.  This is transmitted through an omnidirectional antenna
(clear view of sattelite still required). Two types of services
available: telex and X.25, but very few CES (Coast Earth Stations)
support X.25. Telex Country codes are 581, 582, 583 and 584 in the
above order. These devices are newer and they got a little smarter and
gave the things three codes that have to match up. But since all these
things transmit all three of them at 75 Watts omni, this does not
sound much more secure. Devices "only" cost about $3 K.

A couple of remarks: 75 Watts at 1.6 GHz sounds like a nice discussion
for the people at comp.risks (about two years worth ;-) and yes, there
are people making free calls with Inmarsat-A sets, and yes, the
Inmarsat organisation recognizes to the in crowd that these people CAN
NOT be traced in any way they can see.


Rop Gonggrijp ([e-mail]) is also editor of  Hack-Tic (hack/phreak mag.)
Postbus 22953    (in DUTCH)  1100 DL  AMSTERDAM   tel: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Although tracing them might be very difficult or
impossible, you'd think their pirate instruments could be rendered
almost useless by employing certain security techniques which cellular
carriers use. For example, the inclusion of a difficult-to-alter
electronic serial number in the instrument and the refusal of Inmarsat
land stations to pass or accept traffic to units on a subsequent
'negative listing' would kill much fraud from the less agressive or
technically-oriented users. A regular analysis of the traffic patterns
of other 'questionable' users would lead the authorities to land-sites
participating in the scams. For example, would anyone with a pirated
cellular phone in the USA be foolish enough to routinely call the same
phone number, enabling investigators to agressively question the
receiver of the calls as to their origin?  Fraud will never be totally
eliminated but it is difficult for me to understand why Inmarsat feels
nothing can be done.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #72
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19585;
          27 Jan 91 21:00 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19100;
          27 Jan 91 19:31 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ae09631;
          27 Jan 91 18:26 CST
Date:     Sun, 27 Jan 91 17:40:42 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #73
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Jan 91 17:40:23 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 73

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    The "Four-Wire Line" -  An Explanation [Donald E. Kimberlin]
    Telco / Customer Relations [Andy Jacobson]
    New Glossary of ISDN / Data Com Terms in Archives [Goetz Kluge]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Jan 91 14:50 GMT
From: "Donald E. Kimberlin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation


     In a number of posts here (largely under the heading "CNN from
Baghdad") there was a lot of meandering around the topic of what CNN
called their "four-wire line."

     It seems many participants thought such a transmission circuit is
a rather special form of transmission medium; one infrequently used
and perhaps of exceedingly high cost.  What follows is an attempt to
describe what is actually a rather common and age-old technique in a
way that might help readers know how to use it for their own benefit.

     Most people involved with telephony have only been exposed to
local use, adn even local subscriber line physical plant, where a
single pair of wires is used for a dial subscriber line for one over-
riding reason: The cost of providing service to the majority of users,
people who simply want dial voice-grade telephone service.

     Were the local telephone exchanges to use a "four-wire line" to
each and every subscriber, we could have a far more idealized Public
Switched Telephone Network (PSTN - the proper CCITT name). We in the
US often mistitle the PSTN as "DDD," which actually is the Bell
acronym for Direct Distance Dialing (long-distance subscriber dialing,
called STD in the UK, or a close equivalent in other nations).

Transmission losses could have historically been much less, as there
would be no echoes to combat.  We would transmit in one direction on
one pair and transmit in the other direction on the other, without
interaction between the two directions.  However, to provide such a
plant would require double the literally millions of tones of copper
wire that have been installed worldwide.  The economic cost factors
are obvious. Paying for the local cable plant has been a major cost
factor for public telephone networks worldwide. (Other alternatives
such as fiber and coaxial cable used by cable TV companies are making
some change, but the millions of tons of copper are already there ...
and ISDN is planned in a way to try to continue to use that imbedded
investment.

     So, a local telephone plant uses only one pair per subscriber.
In engineering terms, it is far from a perfect transmission line.  The
main reason is that no transmission line operates at its normal
electrical "impedance" until it is a significant portion of an
electrical wavelength of the signal it carries.  Studying a beginning
physics book will show that one wavelength at 3000 Hertz in a perfect
line is 61 miles, and at 300 Hertz, it would be 610 miles! (Another
factor called the "propagation velocity" even stretches this _much_
more in practical wire.)  Obviously, to have even reasonably
well-matched wire would not be reasonable, and it wasn't at all
economical in the developmental era of the PSTN.  So, this network
evolved assuming some very large tradeoffs were needed.

     An electrical transmission line has one interesting
characteristic just opposite from water pipes or acoustical guides
(hollow tubes).  Instead of an open distant end letting all the energy
spill out, an open-ended electrical line _reflects_ all its received
power back toward the source.  A shorted line absorbs all the energy
(as you find out when you short a power line and blow the fuse!).
What this characteristic means to telephone transmission is that with
lines as short as they must be in local plant, echoes are reflected
back toward the speaker, subject only to the losses they incur
rattling back and forth.  They really are pretty high, but we don't
notice them.  The reason: Echoes that return to our ear in less than
about 10-15 thousandths of a second are heard by us a part of the
outbound signal ... we just don't hear them. Local connections are
short enough that for general telephony, echoes can be largely
discounted, even thought they are there.

     Very early in the development of longer transmission paths, it
was learned that transmission losses mount rapidly when one really
does have miles and miles of wire to talk on. In intercity
transmission lines, use of electronics to amplify the signal as
intervals was seen to be mandatory to achieve commercially successful
"long lines."  Thus, as soon as the three-electrode vacuum tube was
available, the telephone industry had a very real interest in it, and
pressed to realize its use as soon as possible.  (In fact, a Bell Labs
worker contributed "negative feedback" to the early vacuum-tube
circuitry, making the "tube" a controllable, useful technology instead
of a physics lab curio.)

     But, the vacuum tube (as its descendant, the transistor) has one
limitation.  It can pass a signal in only one direction, a
characteristic that happens to match that idealized "four-wire"
transmission line.  So, "long lines" very early on (in the 1910-15
time frame) all became "four-wire lines."

    They did, however, have to interface to the echo-prone and less
controllable local "two-wire" (single pair) telephone networks.  The
method devised was the "hybrid," in telephony mostly an arrangement of
trans- formers that had three windings, one for the local two-wire
side and one each for the sending and receiving "long lines."  Now,
echoes were a real problem.  Not only would echoes from the local
two-wire line take long enough to return to the distant city to be
heard, but impedance mismatching of the two-wire local line to the
transformer could cause received distant signals to reflect right in
the transformer back down the transmitting channel as well. "Echo
control" became a major topic in handling "long lines." (The trick is
to add a fourth winding set to the transformer with an "artificial
line" that is adjusted to create the match. In telephony, its name is
a "balancing network."

     All this sort of work was at first (and for decades) the work of
the "long lines" people.  Very little of it was in the hands of the
local people.  The "long lines" people were AC and electronics people,
while the local people were DC and electrical people.  The oeprational
reasons for having a "Long Lines Department" are obvious in this
context.

     As multichannel "carrier systems" evolved (and early, too,
beginning around 1915 between Toledo, Ohio and South Bend, Indiana in
the US), their intrinsic electronic transmission using vacuum tubes
made a "four-wire" (of virtual wires, certainly) a commonplace in
intercity transmission.  And every "carrier system" since the
beginning has been made of "four-wire" paths ... set up in pairs of
channels, one for each direction of transmission, needing that
"hybrid" function at each end to connect to the local plant.

     In intercity (and more so international) carrier systems, a
"line" transiting a junction point can be (and is) connected on a
"four-wire" basis, either _through_ a "four wire switching machine"
for PSTN temporary connections, or hard-wired _around_ the switching
machine if the use is a semi-permanent "special services" circuit,
like a dedicated data line or indeed, a permanent speech circuit, as
is CNN's "four-wire line," our subject here.  At the end points, one
local pair is used for each direction of transmission ... at a price
reflective of using twice the local plant. Local wire pairs ...
"loops" ... for "special services" are expensive to rent. After all,
they are no longer available for the local telco to derive PSTN
revenue on.  If reaching the "long lines" point of presence (now
called a "POP" in American jargon) requires use of local wire
(nowadays local carrier channels) across a city, these are no longer
available for "trunk" use between local PSTN exchanges, considerable
revnue potential is lost, and is going to be paid for.    Thus, many
speech-only "private circuits" do have a hybrid in the "POP" and use
only one local pair anyway ... but are STILL "four wire channels"
between cities.

    The British have some excellent descriptive terminology we
Americans never developed.  They speak of transmission circuits as
"two wire presented" or "four wire presented" to the end user.  These
terms, of course recognize that long circuits are all "four wire,"
regardless of how they are 'presented" to the end user.

   What are the advantages of "four wire presentation?" Avoidance of
the electrical echo bugaboo. And, part of the "control" of echoes in
"two-wire presentations" is to deliberately insert transmission loss
to make the echoes a bit lower, so "four wire presented" channels can
have less loss and sound louder ... and deliver the received signal
higher above the noise ... making the signal sound "cleaner."  This of
course is why high-quality dedicated data circuits are four-wire
presented ... to give the modem signals the most advantage possible.

     Hopefully, if you have persisted through this longish
explanation, you now know that the "four wire line" is indeed not rare
at all. Rather, it is the norm between cities, and especially between
nations.  You know it isn't new.  It's just that most people have
never seen one.  Improvements in the local plant (including widespread
deployment of digital carrier, the "T" carrier so often spoken of
today) have made extension of the "four-wire line" right into your
local exchange a reality in most places, so even your PSTN phone
sounds much louder and cleaner than it did twenty years ago.  That's
what solid-state electronics coupled to digital transmission did for
us all.

     Those who really _needed_ the advantages of "four-wire" have used
it for a long time.  Major examples were the FAA's network of
dedicated lines that had to be interconnected at random (reflected in
Bell parlance as the "FAA 300-type switching system), and the US
military's AUTOVON network.  While AUTOVON was based on four-wire
switching machines throughout right to four-wire telephone sets,
economics even there forced the allowance of two-wire user lines and
telephones for voice-only stations, and many AUTOVON lines wound up
being four-wire.  But, AUTOVON also has many "four-wire" user stations
where dedicated-line type "full-duplex' data modems can be used.

     There! This started out being a typical short post, but I think
all the detail is needed to provide the reasons in words that show how
things got the way they are.  I hope some readers found it useful
enough to now know _why_ they might themselves already have some
"four-wire lines" around and _how_ they might themselves take
advantage of a very useful technique that is far from unusual.

     Thanks to our Moderator for publishing it, in the hope it is a
useful tutorial for many readers.  For those who really want to learn
more, I recommend the following books:


        1.) "Basic Carrier Telephony" by David Talley, a real chestnut
        of telephone transmission for the non-technical reader who is
        weak on physics.  Originally published by Hayden Book Company
        as their stock number 5749 (Library of Congress catalog number
        60-10470 in its second edition, I understand that Wiley in
        New York has republished it and finds several Telcos use it for
        textbook for technicians.

        2.) "Understanding Communications Systems," by Don L. Cannon and
        Gerald Luecke, originally published and sold by Radio Shack
        stores as part number 62-2018 (ISBN 0-89512-035-6) for $2.95,
        this book has been republished by Howard Sams at Indianapolis
        for about six times the price in hardback.  It uses far less
        classic "telephonese" but has excellent ways of showing how
        analog and digital transmission are far more related than most
        non-technical people can understand.

     I recommend both of these books to the harried educators on here
who are frustrated in finding short texts for introductory curricula.

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

Date: Fri, 25 Jan 91 23:45 PST
From: Andy Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telco / Customer Relations


I have read here (too) numerous posts about rude, stupid,
uncooperative, and just plain WRONG operators, customer service
representatives, etc. Well, I'm tired of it. Not because I think it's
bad to post these things, but because they are there in the first
place. I think we need to do something about it. In an organized
fashion that is.

Indeed several telco employees have used this forum to publicly
explain or apologize for actions committed by employees of their
companies. I would like to ask some of these telco employees here to
do a bit of research and post for us addresses for real corporate
complaint/action offices within their telco. Maybe we could have an
archive list of them.

I suggest we all start now making a habit of when talking to a telco
rep, FIRST, get thier name or operator position number, before
conducting business. Even if you get their identification afterwords,
get it. Then, either through addresses posted here or through other
means, pursue problems. This is especially important with the
monopolies (and near monopolies) that we have in the communications
industry. For many things you simply can't take your business
somewhere else, and where you can, the service is often worse.

Creating and using a customer action contact list might deliver some
satisfaction, but it might also make some improvements in the service
we receive. If the operator blatantly lies to you about why you can't
call internationally with your calling card, make hell break loose for
that operator.  Pat: Don't wait for the last straw to pull the plug on
AT&T; tell their corporate ombudsman what you've told us about their
service.  Tell them seven bills is unacceptable. Tell Mr. Allen if
necessary. If they ignore you, then it's really time for customer
revolt.

For my part, here is GTE's "Customer Action Line" (from LA at least)
800-982-6347. I have gotten some good responses from them. Their
address is:

EXECUTIVE OFFICES
One GTE Place
Thuosand Oaks, CA. 91362-3811
I do NOT (and would never) work for GTE

The customer is always right, because the customer is the company's
employer.


Andy Jacobson<[e-mail]> or <[e-mail]>

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

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 06:18:25 PST
From: cdp![e-mail]
Subject: New Glossary for ISDN / Data Com in Archives


[Moderator's Note: The 43 K file has been moved into the Telecom
Archives in the section with the other glossary/reference files.  PAT]


                Abbrevations for ISDN and Data Communications
                       1991/01/28, Goetz Kluge Seoul
                      cdp![e-mail]

This list has been compiled during my work for a German semiconductor
maker at its Seoul branch. So you also will find some abbrevations
related to that products of that company. But the larger part of this
collection is not related to my employer.

During my work I got quite fed up with those many abbreviations which
quite often are not explained in the literature. So always when one of
these crossed my way, I filed it in this file. There might be some
mistakes: (a) Sometimes I could not verify which of different
explanaitions given for an abbrevation was the right one. (b) I am
German, so is my English.

I hope you don't mind or even have some fun with it. Any hints,
corrections or new abbrevations are welcome.


Goetz

mail:   Goetz Kluge & Dr. An-Ly Yao-Kluge  Goetz Kluge
        204-11 Itaewon-Dong           Im Streemelmoor 2
        Yongsan-Ku               D - W-2852 Kuehrstedt
    Seoul                   Niedersachsen
    140-200 KOREA (ROK)           GERMANY

phone:  [phone] ext. 448 (Goetz Kluge, Siemens Seoul)
FAX:    [phone]        (Goetz Kluge, Siemens Seoul)

e-mail: CompuServe:   71520,3515 (Goetz Kluge)              or
                      71530,1107 (An-Ly Yao-Kluge)          or
        Internet:     cdp![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The Telecom Archives is available by anonymous ftp
from lcs.mit.edu. When connected there, cd telecom-archives.  My
thanks again to Goetz for this donation.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #73
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25548;
          28 Jan 91 1:07 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14174;
          27 Jan 91 23:37 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab31581;
          27 Jan 91 22:32 CST
Date:     Sun, 27 Jan 91 22:10:35 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #74
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 27 Jan 91 22:10:26 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 74

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    New Telecom Forum on Compuserve [TELECOM Moderator]
    Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities [TELECOM Moderator]
    Pac*Bell, The Industry Stinker [John Higdon]
    AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Michael Ho]
    Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [Colin Plumb]
    Re: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments [John Higdon]
    Dragnet Busts a Boiler Room [Peter da Silva]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 20:26:51 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: New Telecom Forum on Compuserve


A new telecom forum or Special Interest Group (SIG) is getting started
on Compuserve. You can reach it with GO PCS-87 when on line with CIS.
Another alias will probably be GO TELECOM in the near future.

The folks there have contacted me asking to distribute TELECOM Digest
via that forum, but my understanding of the rules here is that the
Digest (actually any Internet mailing list / Usenet news group) can
NOT be made available for commercial purposes, which would certainly
seem to preclude it being read on line at CIS in a SIG or forum.

TELECOM Digest is distributed to many commercial email sites at the
request of *individual subscribers* at those sites who have requested
receiving the Digest there for their convenience. Several subscribers
at Compuserve in fact receive the Digest in their email there ... but
public, for-profit distribution is not an option. I've never moderated
this Digest with the intent of making a profit doing so, nor can I
give permission to recipients to redistribute the Digest with that
intent.

But you will see me from time to time on the new CIS telecom forum, as
I have promised them I would stop in to visit with the readers there.
My best wishes for the success of this new group!


Patrick Townson

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

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 21:07:18 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities


Call Screening sends an interesting message to the person trying to
call a number from which they have been prohibited:

"The number you have dialed has activated call screening, meaning they
do not wish to receive calls at this time.  Please try your call again
later."

There are no tones at the start of the message, at least in the IBT
version.

To add a number to the list of callers you do not wish to hear from,
you do as follows:

Dial *60. A recorded message advises that (your) "Call Screening is
now turned on. You have X entries in your directory. You may dial now,
or wait for instructions."  (five second pause)

"To reject the last call received, dial # followed by the seven or ten
digit number of the caller, then dial the # again to complete the
entry. If you do not know the number of the last call, dial # 01 #  to
have it added as a 'private entry' ... dial 1 to hear the entries in
your directory."

Once added to the directory, calls from *any line* under the same ANI
will be rejected. Example: you have three lines at your home, but all
are billed under the first number. Your first number is presented as
ANI to the network. Calls from your second or third line will also be
rejected.  This is a very nice feature, especially the part about
being able to exclude callers no matter what line (within their group)
they use. Obviously if they go out to the corner payphone you can't
stop them.

If the call you wish to reject did not present ANI or is outside the
LATA (area codes don't matter, but outside the LATA does) then dialing
*60 # the number # will return a recording, "I'm sorry, the number you
wish to add cannot be screened at this time."

Likewise, *66 (repeat dial last number you called) and *69 (return
last call you received) rely on the ANI received. If the number is
outside the LATA then you get "I'm sorry, the number you are calling
cannot be used with this feature."

If dialing *66 or *69 reaches a busy line then you do not hear the
busy signal. Instead you get a recording saying "the number you are
trying to reach is busy. If it becomes available within the next
thirty minutes you will be notified and automatically connected."

Phunny experience: I tried repeat dialing my own line. First I dialed
myself and got a busy signal, so my number would be in the buffer used
by *66 and *69. Then I dialed *66, and got the recording telling me
the number was busy, and that if it became free in the next thirty
minutes I would be notified, etc ... apparently the number is checked
every thirty seconds or so, because in less than a minute my phone
gave the special ring which means 'your call is available'. When I
answered, there was silence for a couple seconds and a recording which
said "the number which you were calling was free, but has become busy
again. We will keep trying ... "

I hung up and sure enough, thirty seconds later, the ring again, and
the same recording again !!  I suppose it would have gone on forever
except that I punched *86 and was told my 'repeat dial and return call
requests have now been cancelled'.   *89 also does the same thing.
*80 temporarily turns off Call Screening.

Other Call Screening tidbits:  the number to be screened has to be
supervisable. You can't screen non-working numbers; telco
administrative numbers; police, etc. I cannot screen my distinctive
ringing pseudo-number. As noted, PBX, DID or Centrex systems which
present a single billing number on outgoing calls can have every line
in their system screened by merely entering the billing number. Some
DID numbers leading to a PBX cause some confusion for call screening,
and repeat/return call functions however.

The new CLASS features are a lot of fun and very useful. The big one
missing here at least for a few more months is Caller*ID. I'm told
when we get it here it will also send the ANI of the billing number
when applicable ... not necessarily the actual number being used for
the call.  But the rule will be if you can ID it, you can block it.


PAT

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pac*Bell, The Industry Stinker
Date: 27 Jan 91 09:27:42 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


All right, I cannot stand it any more. With all the crowing about RBOC
inovations, it is only fair that Pac*Bell be represented. So let me
see...

[hours later after much thinking]

By the early seventies, Pac*Bell (actually Pacific Telephone, but I am
going to refer to both the pre and post divestiture company as
Pac*Bell) had converted most, but by no means all of its offices to
DIAL. Notable exceptions were the toll stations in the desert and the
foothill communities of the Sierra Nevada, but then, hey, what kind of
revenues could the company get out of these few people anyway?

By the mid seventies, touch tone was starting to become available in
many offices (and this, friends, only ten-plus years after becoming
commonplace in the rest of the US). It was a lot of fun to try to
order Touch Tone service. The reps had no idea what you were talking
about, unless, of course, you would find someone who had just moved
here from the east coast.

Another inovation of the seventies (in an area that Pac*Bell is most
expert in -- billing) was the introduction of ZUM or Zone Usage
Measurement. The net effect of this plan was to carve up cities larger
than a wide spot in the road so that more toll calls could be
generated. Before ZUM, you could call from anywhere in San Jose to
Sunnyvale, a neighboring community. After ZUM, since San Jose had been
carved up into three zones it became a rather expensive toll call
between south San Jose and Sunnyvale. This has got to be telephone
pioneering at its finest.

When ESS finally appeared, it took sometimes many months for the
technicians to figure out how to implement the most basic of custom
calling services. The first hearings of what we now consider
"standard" tone signals by me came not from ESS. It was some brand of
Japanese crossbar located in a trailer in the south part of town. This
stuff was great: when you dialed a toll number, an operator would come
on the line to ask for your number. But he/she had exactly thirty
seconds to do this, otherwise the call went to reorder. Calling up the
SF peninsula during peak times was impossible. This was in the
mid-seventies.

But I digress. By 1988, Pac*Bell had actually implemented FGD in 78
percent of its exchanges. WOW! Not by actually replacing old wornout
1940's crossbar, but by gluing in a horror known as CONTAC. This
system is so troublesome, I am told that the trouble recorders in the
COs had to be shut off for fear of deforesting the planet from the
cards that were dropped continually. (I can only assume that the other
22 percent of exchanges were either manual or just could not be made
to accept the CONTAC abortion.)

In my crossbar office, call setup time is so slow that one's hand
melds to the receiver while waiting. It will not accept 20 PPS dialing
(thanks, CONTAC), and some of the connections are so noisy that you
have to hold the receiver away from your ear. Scheduled replacement
date: none. Oh, you say, rural areas sometimes take awhile to catch
up.  I live within the corporate limits of the largest city in
northern California.

So take that, all you IBT and NJB hotshots.  We march to a different
drummer out here.  Wake me when it is over.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas
Organization: Daily Nebraskan, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 21:50:15 GMT


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

>        Ben Singer commented on his purchase of a Panasonic Cordless
>phone and had alluded to AT&T's phones. Allow me to say that -- even
>if I despised AT&T (which I definitely don't) -- I can honestly state
>that AT&T's cordless phones in the 5000 series are superb!

>        I have the old model 5200 (now replaced by an updated
>version), and I love it. The reception is spectacular. Their 5500 is
>also a great buy.

All agreed, and I thought I'd jump in here because I *am* one of those
people who hates AT&T.  :-)

This grumbling notwithstanding, I own a 5500 (yep, it set me back just
under $200) and just bought a different model for my parents for
Christmas.

The only complaint I have about the 5500 is that it doesn't withstand
tipping very well; I get quite a bit of static if I put it at the
wrong angle to the base's antenna.

I have one easy question about cordless phones and one trickier one.

1.  Are flexible antennas any good?  They sell them for ten bucks or
    so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty
    short compared to the "whip" that comes with it.  Do they work as
    well as the whip?  (Too bad they can't retract.)

2.  Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code?
    Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the
    dialing codes?  I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring
    a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I
    wonder if my phone is safe.  That's a big consideration for me, and
    it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones.

    (As an aside, I was shopping for the phone for Christmas and ran
    across a phone by Northwestern Bell Phones.  I searched the box for
    info about security, and it gave little information -- just enough
    to get past the regs, and something about "security plus" -- not
    the real name, but you get the idea.  Turns out their idea of security
    was this:  If the phone's in the base, nobody can dial out.  Sounds
    secure to me. :-) )


Michael Ho, University of Nebraska    Internet: [e-mail]
Disclaimer: Peons don't speak for bigwigs.

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 22:57:00 GMT


In TELECOM Digest V11I24 Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
says:

>> I'm amazed that pulse is still around - is support enforced by tariff?

jyacc![e-mail] (Charles McGuinness) wrote:

> You may find this hard to believe, but some people actually prefer
> rotary dial phones!

I'm simply of the opinion that it's not worth $2/month or whatever it
is to make less use of the local switch's dialing register.  So I have
the most vanilla POTS imaginable (a long-distance volume discount
option, but that's not a class of service) and am content.  So it
takes my modem 7.2 seconds instead of .98 to call in.  Big deal.

Besides, it lets me use a classic - a black 500 set with a dial!  (The
real reason I got it is that it migrates around my bedroom and I've
tripped over it or the cord endless times.  Hurrah for indestruct-
ibility.)

(The most recent annoyance was navigating Telebit's voice-mail system,
but I can use my modem for those occasional needs.)


Colin

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Panasonic Cordless 3910R Comments
Date: 27 Jan 91 17:08:28 PST (Sun)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Joe Konstan <[e-mail]> writes:

> Basically, these are almost identical.  The 5500 has very good sound
> quality even from the speakerphone (My friend who used to work in a
> lawyer's office said it was much better than theirs).  There are hold
> buttons on both the base and extension, etc.

The 5500 does hold the sound quality edge over the Panasonic. But the
Panasonic has an important feature lacking on the AT&T: long DTMF. The
AT&T falls victim to the most frustrating drawback found on phones by
voicemail users and that is those short DTMF bursts regardless of how
long you hold the button. The Panasonic will sound the digit as long
as you want.

Side by side you would probably find the standby battery life of the
AT&T to be superior to the Panasonic. Panasonic's auto-channel-select
is more convenient than the 5500's strictly manual system, but that
defect is overcome in the otherwise lesser-endowed model 5400.


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

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dragnet Busts a Boiler Room
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1991 02:58:38 GMT


I was just walking through the living room and noticed Dragnet on, on
Nickelodeon. They were busting a con-man working out of a "boiler
room" (actually, quite a nice office).  Wouldn't it be nice...

    Friday:    "Call the station..."
    Conman: "Not on my phone you don't. Those phones cost money."
    Friday: "Here's two bits..."

([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: As someone old enough to remember watching Dragnet
when it was a new show on television, you brought back some fine
memories!  Sgt. Joe Friday of the Los Angeles Police was assigned to
the 'bunko squad' in several of those old episodes. Those stories were
based on real cases in California from the late 1940's ... do you
remember how at the end of every show the gong would sound and a
somber voice would announce that the subject had been found guilty
under California law such-and-such and sentenced to so many years at
San Quentin?  Joe Friday worked in Violent Crimes, Narcotics,
Sex-Homicide, Vice and other areas, but his stories about con-artists
he arrested were among my favorites. He had two partners in the
series. When the first one died (in real life), they wrote him out of
the Dragnet series by having him killed in a gun battle in a hostage
episode. If you like police drama, it was an excellent series although
a period piece -- a bit outdated -- when seen forty years later.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #74
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00308;
          29 Jan 91 3:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa29080;
          29 Jan 91 1:49 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30406;
          29 Jan 91 0:42 CST
Date:     Mon, 28 Jan 91 23:45:28 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #75
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 28 Jan 91 23:45:20 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 75

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    E-Mail to Telcos' Customer Services? (also: Thanks!) [David R. Zinkin]
    Re: Bonehead 611 Message-Takers [Terry Kennedy]
    Re: Telco / Customer Relations [Steve Kass]
    Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Michael Nolan]
    Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Brian D. McMahon]
    Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Floyd Davidson]
    TDD Emulation by a Mac [Doug Faunt]
    Caller-ID Information Decoding [Eric R. Skinner]
    Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones [Craig Watkins]
    You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [David Barts]
    Maybe Under Rocks [David W. Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "David R. Zinkin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: E-Mail to Telcos' Customer Services? (also: Thanks!)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 03:40:24 GMT


Thanks to all who responded to my post about the AT&T ACUS Service.
As I type this, the service is scheduled to start here at CWRU in less
than 1 1/2 hours.  If there's interest, I'll report on what I find
here vs. what I've heard about from other locations.

For now, though, I have another question.  I'd like to contact the
Customer Service Departments (or the equivalent, since "Customer
Service" doesn't seem to be common anymore) of several telephone
companies.  If it's possible to send E-mail to the higher-ups at AT&T,
it ought to be possible to send mail to AT&T's Customer Service
division.  Can anyone help me with this?

I'd also appreciate the E-mail address for British Telecom's Customer
Service if possible.  I know the domain (bt.co.uk) but can't find the
full address I need.

Thanks,


David Zinkin ([e-mail]) -- RGH Radiology and CWRU Psych./Chem.

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bonehead 611 Message-Takers
Date: 28 Jan 91 00:54:48 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Nick
Sayer) writes:

> I can understand the delay if a backhoe rips out my loop.  But that's
> not the case. Clearly they could at LEAST run a computer check of the
> local switch. If I could talk to someone with some technical savvy, I
> could give them the symptoms as I describe above and they'd at least
> know where NOT to look, right? Is there nothing for us comp.dcom.telecom
> readers to do but deal with 611 like "the rest of the world?" Sheesh.

  Well, it depends on how friendly you are with your local phone
company, or how big a customer you are. I have a 24-hour number for
the maintenance group for our switch (since the same facility houses
some 50-60K lines they have 24-hour coverage) as well as 9-to-5 number
for the person who handles the program issues on the switch. These
were cheerfully provided to me when I asked, your mileage may vary.  8-).

  And your problem isn't that unusual. I could tell you horror stories
about call forwarding foulups in the switch that would make you cringe...


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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 00:04 EDT
From: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telco / Customer Relations


Andy Jacobson writes:

> I suggest we all start now making a habit of when talking to a telco
> rep, FIRST, get thier name or operator position number, before

[...]

> If the operator blatantly lies to you about why you can't
> call internationally with your calling card, make hell break loose for
> that operator.

[etc.]

It's easy to want to make hell for someone and hope to have them
fired, but don't forget that these operators may be victims of poor
training and working conditions that don't foster learning from more
experienced employees.  My guess is that most of the employees are
really trying hard in a difficult job.

It might be best (if not as effective) to complain about poor service
without mentioning names, and suggest that training be improved.  As
for something like international call blocking, do you really think
that the subject is part of routine training, or is in a reference
manual anywhere?  I don't.  That doesn't excuse the operator who makes
up an answer, but if he bothers a supervisor to find the answer to
your question, he might garner a mark against him.

Let's complain against lousy service, yes, but let's aim our complaints
at the source of the problem, not just a symptom.


Steve Kass - Math/CS - Drew U - Madison NJ 07940 - 2014083614 - [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: 28 Jan 91 04:59:57 GMT


[e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...) writes:

>1.  Are flexible antennas any good?  They sell them for ten bucks or
>    so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty
>    short compared to the "whip" that comes with it.  Do they work as
>    well as the whip?  (Too bad they can't retract.)

I personally prefer the flexible antennas, as opposed to the three
foot extendible/breakable monsters.  Part of this is using them in
places like lying down in bed, when the antenna kinda gets in the way,
and the fact that I've replaced two or three of the others because my
younger son busted them by bending them too fast.  Can't say I've
noticed much difference in signal strength between the two thpes,
either.

>2.  Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code?
>    Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the
>    dialing codes?  I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring
>    a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I
>    wonder if my phone is safe.  That's a big consideration for me, and
>    it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones.

My understanding is that the 'security code' only affects the
recognition of a 'ring' signal, so that someone calling your phone
doesn't ring your neighbor, even if they are on the same channel.  It
does NOT scramble your phone call in any way.  This is based on a
fairly thorough perusing of the manuals and the fact that
scrambling/descrambling chips are still a little pricey for phones in
the under $200 range.  The cheapest cordless phone I've seen that
offered scrambling was something like $500.  (Don't remember where I
saw it, somewhere like Sharper Image.)

BTW, I've had several cordless phones, and have had VERY good luck
with the higher priced Panasonic phones, especially the ten channel
model.  (I missed the original posting, but get the impression it
slammed Panasonic.)  I've not had much good luck with Sony cordless
phones, though.


Michael Nolan

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 18:59:24 cst
From: "McMahon,Brian D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm


Which reminds me ... again.  :-) Does anyone know if MARS is still in
business?  MARS is/was the Military Auxiliary Radio Service (or
System, I'm a bit hazy on the acronym), and provided a radio link
between soldiers and the Stateside phone network.  Has this service
been declared outmoded, or are they still doing their good work?


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

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1991 08:25:44 GMT


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

>The technical difference between the phone center FAX messages and
>these other calls is that in the case of the FAXs, AT&T is the
>'customer' and is paying for the transmission. They are inviting you
>to come to their office and use their phone. If you use your phone
>then you are the customer.  PAT]

It went even further than that, though I don't know much of the
details.  AT&T leased, for use in Saudi Arabia, a portable earth
station immediately after the crisis started.  The FAXs were routed
through the leased satellite link during off hours.


Floyd L. Davidson  |  [e-mail]   |  Alascom, Inc. pays me
Salcha, AK 99714   |    Univ. of Alaska      |  but not for opinions.

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

Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 20:57:44 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: TDD Emulation by a Mac


I don't believe I brought this up here before.

I'm looking into TDD emulation by a Mac.  I've got a couple of leads
on making a Mac do Baudot, maybe even at 45.45 baud, but I do need to
provide a modem.  I have a few options here.  I have a couple of old
Pennywhistle 103 modems that as I recall should be suitable for
conversion.  Does anyone have the documentation for these?  I haven't
located whatever I might have.  A reference to the original Popular
Electronics article would be useful, but there was a more complete
package available, that I had at one time, that would be more useful.

Also, references to old construction articles for 300 baud modems,
preferably using the XR2206 and XR2211, preferably known good are
desirable.  I have the EXAR app notes.  Comments on their accuracy are
welcome.

And of course, any other information you have about such things above
the basics would be much appreciated.

I've references the previous articles on TDD's that came across here,
and they were most useful.

Thanks, and 73,

doug        [e-mail]


PS: In digging into my archives, I came across a set of the "Inside Ma
Bell" articles from 73 Magazine.  df

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 00:56:16 EST
From: xgml![e-mail]
Subject: Caller-ID Information Decoding


There has been mention in a few past issues of devices such as
ClassMate which read the Caller-ID info and pass it on to a computer.
I have a Northern Telecom "Maestro" phone which displays incoming
numbers.  If I buy ClassMate, will *both* devices be able to read the
incoming data?

It's worth noting that I am in Canada, in Bell Canada territory.  As
David O'Heare (gandlaf![e-mail]) mentioned in volume 11,
issue 57, Canada's data is different from the US CLASS data.  So
perhaps the real question is "Will ClassMate work at all?"

Thanks,


Eric R. Skinner                         UUCP: ...!dataco!xgml!ers
Software Exoterica Corporation          Internet: xgml![e-mail]

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 13:34:25 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I just spoke with Southern Bell's marketing department today to get
the latest info on Caller*ID.  You may remember that according to my
"inside source" at Southern Bell, CLID was supposed to have been
available FOR ORDERING today (Jan. 28).  That is not currently the
case.  A "no-later-than" implemementation date for the metropolitan
Atlanta area was set for February 14, according to Southern Bell PR
folks (as of my conversation with them in late Dec. '90).

As of sometime in the past week or so, Southern Bell is referring all
CLID questions to their Marketing department - the folks who will
actually market (naturally) and take orders for this new service.  My
call today to marketing - [phone] - revealed that Southern Bell
will be holding training for their people beginning Feb. 14 and that
is quite likely the earliest date at which orders will now be taken.
Technically speaking, as of my last conversation with my "inside
source", the switching equipment and SS7 is all ready for CLID and the
appropriate software has been loaded to the various metro Atlanta
switches.  What currently stands between this stage and the next in
which the service is actually offered to the public is a (1)
testing/debugging phase (currently in progress) and (2) training of
the order-takers (see above), currently scheduled for Feb. 14.

Bottom line and my personal assessment: CLID will not be on-line until
Feb. 14 at the earliest.  With all due credit to Southern Bell, they
never went public with any date prior to Feb. 14.  It now appears that
their "no-later-than" date has since become a "no-sooner-than" date.
The feelings that I get from my various conversations with Southern
Bell employees (including my "Deep Throat"), is that they have
received quite a few inquiries about CLID - and that the greater
number of their calls have been to ask about when-can-I-order-it?  One
order clerk (with whom I spoke at relatively great length) did admit
that she had received a call from a somewhat upset "older gentleman"
along the lines of 'if Southern Bell follows through on offering CLID,
I'm going to have my phone disconnected!'

I'll keep the list posted, as I find out more.


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


[Moderator's Note: The service rep talking to the 'older gentleman'
should have called his bluff on the spot:  If I'd been responding to
him I'd have probably said "Oh, my! Well, Mr. Jones, we'll certainly
be sorry to lose you as a good subscriber after X years. It has been
approved and will be available around February 14. Do you want me to
process the disconnect order on your service for the same day or would
you want me to have the service turned off sooner?"  (pause, let him
take it from there ...)   PAT]

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Generic Programming Characteristics of Cellular Phones
Date: 28 Jan 91 11:47:40 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


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

> A)    <nothing similar found>
> B)    <nothing similar found>
> C)    EXp ?            0 or 1
> D)    MIN Mark
> E)    MIN Mark        bit

> Is this whether the mobile sends both MIN1 and MIN2?  If so, I thought
> that was at the request of the carrier, not the phone?

I believe the phone or the system can request this.

> A)    access method        1 or 0
> B)    access            1 digit
> C)    <nothing similar found>
> D)    <nothing similar found>
> E)    <nothing similar found>

> I'm not sure what this is?  Any Radio Shack phone owners that can tell
> us?  This might have something to do with accessing the reverse
> control channel (just a wild guess).

I now believe that these two categories are one in the same, ie:

A)    access method        1 or 0
B)    access            1 digit
C)    EXp ?            0 or 1
D)    MIN Mark
E)    MIN Mark        bit

EXp is the bit that controls "access method" which determines whether
the mobile will send both MIN1 and MIN2 on every access attempt.  I'm
assuming that MIN Mark is another name for this (half because of its
name and half from the process of elimination).  Can anyone confirm
this?

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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 12:21:59 pst
From: David Barts <[e-mail]>
Subject: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA


The Moderator writes:

> . . . the good ole USA allows calls everywhere.

If I remember a previous thread correctly, you can't call Cuba from
the US (with the exception of Guantanamo Bay).


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


[Moderator's Note: I believe you can call Cuba; but the call cannot be
dialed direct and has to be routed manually by the operator.   PAT]

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

Subject: Maybe Under Rocks
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 91 21:42:22 CST
From: "David W. Tamkin" <[e-mail]>


Plagiarized unabashedly from Tamayo Otsuki's act on "Comic Strip Live
Late Night," broadcast on the Fox network Saturday, January 26, 1991:

"I was horny, so I called a 900 number.  I talked fifteen minutes and
they charged me $82.  When I call Japan I talk fifteen minutes and
they charge me $17.  Where do these people live?"


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #75
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29381;
          30 Jan 91 1:52 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18880;
          30 Jan 91 0:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa03386;
          29 Jan 91 22:59 CST
Date:     Tue, 29 Jan 91 22:23:55 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #76
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 29 Jan 91 22:23:47 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 76

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991 [David E A Wilson]
    Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [Carl Moore]
    Re: Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code [Carl Moore]
    Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Heath Roberts]
    Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Randy Borow]
    Re: New, Very Simple Phone Scam [David Smallberg]
    Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service [Eddy J. Gurney]
    Re: Pac*Bell, the Industry Stinker [moocow![e-mail]]
    Do I Have a Right to a "Demark Point"? [Gary D. Archer]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David E A Wilson <munnari!cs.uow.edu.au![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom Calendar of Events, 1991
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 23:40:22 GMT


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

>on it. Please send comments direct to Mr. Degnan if you find this sort
>of thing useful and would like to see it here more often.    PAT]

Sorry about sending this to the list but I am unable to get Mr.
Degnan's email address to work.

>Mar 5-8
>Communications '91
>No location set
>Sidney, Australia
>[phone]

This should read:

Mar 5-8
Communications & Office Technology '91
Sydney Exhibition Centre
Darling Harbour
Sydney NSW Australia
[phone] (voice)
[phone] (fax)

The phone numbers are for

Australian Exhibition Services Pty Ltd
Illoura Plaza
424 St Kilda Road
Melbourne VIC 3004  Australia

which explains the Melbourne area code for a Sydney exhibition.


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

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:01:39 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D?


To correct the Moderator's Note: Yes, in Chicago, you had to start
using 1+, but that is for calls to another area code.  You still use
just 7D for calls within your own area code.

What I was saying was that 215 is the first area I know of to change
1 + 7D for long distance WITHIN it -to- 7D for long distance WITHIN it
in preparation for N0X/N1X prefixes.  Long distance (and local) to
another area code from 215 is 1 + NPA + aaaaaa7D, and that is not being
changed.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:17:20 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Warning -- Transposed Digits in Area Code


Oops, maybe I should have added "adjacent" to my message warning about
301/310 etc., given the message I have received about 415/514.  (I
also had a case where I answered a Newark, Delaware pay phone on
302-366 exchange, was asked by a British-sounding operator if I would
accept a collect call, and I said I didn't think I could since I was
on a pay phone; I started reciting the number, including the area
code, where I was, and the operator said "203, 302 -- oh, wrong
number.")

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCSU Computing Center
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 19:34:54 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
writes:

>1.  Are flexible antennas any good?  They sell them for ten bucks or
>    so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty
>    short compared to the "whip" that comes with it.  Do they work as
>    well as the whip?  (Too bad they can't retract.)

They have less range than the telescoping antennas, but still work very
well. I have one and only notice a difference at the edges of reception.
Sound quality is still excellent.

>2.  Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code?
>    Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the
>    dialing codes?  I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring
>    a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I
>    wonder if my phone is safe.  That's a big consideration for me, and
>    it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones.

If you want encrypted audio, start looking for digital transmission.
You could maybe get a couple of Motorola walkie-talkies with their DES
scrambling module (this'd work great for cordless telephone -- good
sound, three or four mile range w/o a repeater....) but that'll run
you about $1K per radio, plus the security modules.

I don't think you'll find any consumer telephone on the market that
actually has secure communications. AT&T's security simply sets a key
number in the base and handset each time they're mated, which prevents
someone sitting outside your house from using your telephone line with
another handset. Cordless conversations are definitely legal to
receive (cellular too, but law enforcement can't use information from
cell telephones without a warrant).


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Jan 28 12:27:55 CST 1991
Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas


        Michael Ho had queried about flexible antennas for cordless
phones. I, too, have seen them. My father has one on his Panasonic
two-line cordless, and let me tell you that phone has way too many
static problems! I don't know if it's the antenna or the phone itself
(methinks it's the combination of both); nevertheless, the clarity
leaves much to be desired.

        Basically, the question of flexible antennas is a matter of
personal preference. I am not a technician, nor do I admit to having
much knowledge of this realm of telecommunications; however, most of
the people whom I know prefer the regular, metal, retractable
antennas.

        Re: AT&T's security code for its cordless phones: the higher
model numbers (5300, 5400, 5500 series, etc.) have many more security
channels available. From what I know, these models scramble a security
code every time you put the phone in its base or hang up. I have never
been the victim of mysterious calls (even when I had AT&T's atrocious
4000 series cordless phones), nor have I ever known anyone who
experienced this problem. Anyone out there ever been the victim, or
know someone who has been a victim, of such?  I'm curious to know.

        BTW, one unrelated item of interest: several issues ago, our
esteemed Moderator explained about Illinois Bell's accomplishments
(first in....., etc.). I would just like to give credit where credit
is due. We all, including myself, too often complain about telcos:
their reps, policies, etc. While I sometimes wish Illinois Bell would
do this or that differently, I commend their people with whom I have
dealt. I continue to be amazed at their technological advancements,
accomplishments, nifty little telecommunications toys (Caller ID, auto
ringback, call screening, etc.). One problem, though: I wish in my
home area all this stuff was available. It seems like in Pat's it
already is up and running. So far, all we have of the new stuff is
distinctive ringing. I can't wait for the Caller ID, ringback, and
screening. My harassing calls are getting more than annoying.


Randy Borow
Rolling Meadows, IL.


[Moderator's Note: Several years ago I knew someone whose idea of a
good time on Saturday night was to take a cordless handset and go out
'cruising for dial tone'. He'd drive around in his car and whenever
dial tone was heard he'd stop and make a call or two. Real upstanding
character.  Regards CLASS in 708/312: It was just about two months ago
that we were able to order *some* features. I have Call Screening and
for all I know may still be the only subscriber or one of the few in
the Chicago-Rogers Park office to have it. The business office is
still not actively marketing it. About 70-80 percent of 312 is now
equipped, and a somewhat smaller percentage of 708. Just keep asking
for it.  :)  PAT]

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

From: David Smallberg <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: New, Very Simple Phone Scam
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 19:48:44 GMT


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

[Phone scammers call random numbers and claim to be telco security
conducting a test.  Victim is told to say "yes" to the following call
asking approval of a 3rd-party charge.]

>If the victim disagrees, the scammers will often threaten to cut off
>phone service.

How foolish of them -- I'll bet fewer people would think something was
amiss if instead the scammers said, "Well, in that case we'll have to
schedule a visit to your premises.  During what four-hour period will
an adult be present, etc.".  The hassle involved would probably get
more victims to give in.

Are any telcos planning to automate the third-party charge approval
call with a voice-recognition system, the way that many collect call
approvals are now done?  I imagine there's plenty of scam potential
there, if so.


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


[Moderator's Note: Illinois Bell has collect and third-number charge
approval completely automated. After dialing the number and the 0 for
operator assistance a recording says "to place a collect call dial 11;
to place a third-number call, dial 12; otherwise dial 0 once again to
reach an operator." You then record your name, are placed on hold
while the request is verified, then connected (or disconnected!) as
appropriate.  The other nice thing we have here is we can have our
lines set to automatically deny collect/third number billings if
desired. The IBT/AT&T data base will tell operators everywhere that
you do not accept such calls without the operator even bothering to
call you and ask.   PAT]

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

From: "Eddy J. Gurney" <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 1991 16:03:54 EST
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service


Hi Patrick!

Just a quick note to let you know that I also called Telecom*USA and
requested an 800 number with them.  They said there is a one-time
$25.00 service charge, and that the rate was $2.75/month.  Calls will
be billed at $0.29/minute during the day and $.2175/minute during the
evening.  This sounds very similar to the numbers you have now, and
cheaper than MCI's personal 800 service, which is $5.00/month and
requires users to enter a "security code" so "you control who calls."
This sounds to me like an excuse to let multiple users share one 800
number. :-)

Like Steve Kile mentioned in an earlier message, it will be a couple of
weeks before service is connected.  I will let you know how things go if
you're interested.

I do have a few other questions though (some of which I forgot to ask
the sales rep.):

One, do you have a lot of problems with people calling your 800 number
who you DON'T want to call?  (e.g., business-oriented telemarketers,
etc, ad infinitum, et al...)  "Distinctive Ringing" is not offered in
my exchange, so I won't know if I get to pay for the call or not. :)

Two, are you listed in 800 information if you have your own 800
number?  If so, can you tell them NOT to list you?  Three, if my line
is busy and someone calls on the 800 number, am I still billed for
their call?

Also, here at Michigan State U, on campus we have AT&T's ACUS as our ONLY
choice for a LD carrier.  So like you, I will be using two different LDCs for
different purposes.


Best regards,

Eddy J. Gurney, N8FPW  --  [e-mail]  --  The Eccentricity Group


[Moderator's Note: Wrong numbers on my two 800 lines are rare. The way
I 'control who calls' is by giving the number to a very select group
of people: my brother and his wife, our parents, friends, etc. I had
the 800 numbers before I had distinctive ringing, with them being
diverted by the Telecom*USA switch into my first line. Once
distinctive ringing started two months ago, I had the 800 numbers set
to dial the distinctive number. *No one* uses the distinctive number
except my brother, his wife or myself when calling home from
elsewhere, *and* 800 calls diverted into it. Therefore the distinctive
ring indicates a call we want to receive and/or control. Telecom*USA
does not bill for incomplete 800 calls. If your line is DA or BY then
there is no charge. You have to actually answer. Distinctive ringing
also has a distinctive call-waiting tone; you can flash, accept the
call, put it on hold or do whatever you can usually do with
call-waiting, but of course you don't want to keep the 800 number on
hold very long if you can help it. 'Return Call' (*69) is not yet able
to return 800 calls, which are simply calls direct dialed to me out of
the Telecom*USA switch. Unlike most phone service where a free
directory listing is the default and a non-pub number is an extra
charge, Telecom*USA 800 numbers are non-pub by default. You can have
it listed in the 800 data-base if desired; I think they charge a few
dollars per month, or whatever SW Bell (SWBT operates 800-555-1212)
charges them.  PAT]

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

From: Doctor Math <moocow![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 15:43:44 EST
Organization: Brown Cow Software
Subject: Re: Pac*Bell, the Industry Stinker

[e-mail] (John Higdon) writes:

> All right, I cannot stand it any more. With all the crowing about RBOC
> inovations, it is only fair that Pac*Bell be represented. So let me
> see...

[ good stuff deleted]

> But I digress. By 1988, Pac*Bell had actually implemented FGD in 78
> percent of its exchanges. WOW! Not by actually replacing old wornout
> 1940's crossbar, but by gluing in a horror known as CONTAC. This
> system is so troublesome, I am told that the trouble recorders in the
> COs had to be shut off for fear of deforesting the planet from the
> cards that were dropped continually. (I can only assume that the other
> 22 percent of exchanges were either manual or just could not be made
> to accept the CONTAC abortion.)

I lived in the "Santa Clara 11" (244, 246 etc) back then and remember
getting a little card with my bill stating something about CONTAC.  I
didn't pay any attention at the time, but shortly thereafter, I
noticed that I could discern three different dialtones! They were all
dialtones, but each one sounded a little different.

I wonder how long it will be before Pac*Bell gets CLASS? (peals of
laughter) !!

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 14:04:51 PST
From: "Gary D. Archer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Do I Have a Right to a "Demark Point"?


The other day I was having some problems with my modem line ... so
down I went to the garage of my condo looking for the demark plug to
test the lines.  Lo and behold ... I don't have one, I only have the
old style lightning protector block.  Yes ... I checked to see if
there were any other "demark" boxes for the condo units ... all the
wires come in individually to each unit.

What are my rights to have a "demark"?  (BTW the modem problem was my
cat pulling some wires out of a phone jack in another room, if I'd had
a "demark" it would have been easier to verify it was my problem.

If I call and ask that a "demark" be installed with the phone company
(PAC*BELL) charge me for the install?

Gary


[Moderator's Note: I may be wrong, but I do not believe a 'demark' is
anything more or less than the place on the wire where your possession
of the wire ends and telco's begins. In your case, this would probably
be at the lightning protector, if that is the place where the wires
then come through the wall and into your home. It is the place on the
wire where you no longer have any control over what happens to it. Why
don't you put your own demark in at the point where the wires enter
your home?  Get a modular block (RJ-11?) from Radio Shack and mount it
where the wires come in. Cut the wires, attach them to one side of the
block and re-connect your side of the wires at the same place. Then in
the future, tests can be done by going to that place, lifting off your
side of the wires and plugging a known good phone into the connection,
enabling you to test outward from there, from the convenience and
warmth of your home. If the line is bad at that point, the trouble is
obviously outside your home and your control.  The single part needed
from Radio Shack will cost only a couple dollars.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #76
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01905;
          30 Jan 91 3:59 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16729;
          30 Jan 91 2:20 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa22848;
          30 Jan 91 1:10 CST
Date:     Wed, 30 Jan 91 0:11:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #77
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Jan 91 00:11:02 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 77

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    800 Number for 900 Abuse [Ken Jongsma]
    Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled [Carl Moore]
    Attendant Required For Message to New York State [Carl Moore]
    Merc Marketing Executive Contacts [John Higdon]
    Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [Kent Hauser]
    Tel Aviv Pingable Systems [Hank Nussbacher]
    Calls to Cuba [Carl Moore]
    Telco Sets Record For Processing New Order [Ed Greenberg]
    Need System For LD Accountability [Ed Greenberg]
    Need Rs-485 Interface For RS-6000 AIX [Robert Green]
    Fiber Optics Standards Request [Adeola Osinuga]
    Hello Direct Announces AT&T Partner System [Curtis E. Reid]
    How Do I Tell When ... [Ralph Zazula]
    Information Needed About Electronic Blackboard [Renato Cortinovis]
    1 + 976 Telephone Programs [Carol Springs]
    Re: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update [Robert Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: 800 Number for 900 Abuse
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 21:14:11 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


According to a small blurb in this weeks issue of _Insight_, a 900
number industry association will set up an 800 number to field
consumer complaints!

According to _Insight_, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, Telesphere and 100 of the
estimated 500 providers will have the number running by March.
Complaints will be taken and given to the carrier responsible for
routing the call. Presumably, the carrier will cut off those providers
that do not meet the carriers' standards.

When the number is released, the local RBOCs will be used to promote
it.

Actually, considering the industry, I'm surprised it isn't going to be
a 900 number, at $9.95 for the first minute.


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


[Moderator's Note: I think you are a cynic. Actually, AT&T is very
conservative about what they allow on their lines by comparison to
many of the others, and they are more responsive to consumer
complaints about 900 service.  Post the number when you get it.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:04:10 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled


Yesterday, during Super Bowl coverage, I heard that Pepsi had planned
a telephone call-in contest, but that it decided to cancel it out of
concern over the phone network.  This (as I have read since in a news-
paper) was done after consultation with the FCC.  I don't know much
else about this.

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

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 9:07:31 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Attendant Required For Message to New York State


I have sent an AT&T Voicemark message (via call to 800-562-6275) to a
telephone number in New York state.  During the call, I got a message,
apparently prompted by the recognition of a New York area code, that
New York state law requires an attendant to deliver the message
(understood to mean that automated delivery is not allowed); however,
the automated option was still available (I then talked to an
attendant who told me that the message would have been rejected by
AT&T if I had selected the automated option); I had selected the
attendant-delivery option anyway.

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Merc Marketing Executive Contacts
Date: 28 Jan 91 12:09:39 PST (Mon)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


I was doing some house cleaning on the ole system here and discovered
some info that might be of interest to anyone who is still being
pestered by the Mercury News. These are the key phone numbers to make
it stop:

San Jose Mercury Marketing Manager:

Mr. Averitch        408 920-5651

President of the Telemarketing Contracting firm:

Steve Bush        408 983-1800


If you are having problems, these are THE people who can help.


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

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

From: Kent Hauser <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System
Date: 29 Jan 91 00:43:59 GMT
Organization: Twenty-First Designs, Wash, DC


What's the latest and greatest in small business telephone systems?

General requirements:
====================
6-8 incoming lines

16-20 telephone lines

"Normal" features such as intercom, paging, DND, etc.

Ability to connect normal two-wire devices such as FAX, answering
machine, cordless phone, etc.

Good value (ie cheap).

Please send your recomendation and I'll be glad to summarize.

Thanks.

Kent Hauser            UUCP: {uunet,sundc,uupsi}!tfd!kent
Twenty-First Designs        INET: [e-mail]
[phone]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 11:30:42 IST
From: Hank Nussbacher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tel Aviv Pingable Systems


>[Moderator's Note: Well, Adolph -- er, I mean Saddam seems to not be
>bothering Jerusalem at all; it is Tel Aviv which is getting the rough
>time this past week. Are sites there still connected?  PAT]

The following are a list of the publically advertised IP systems in
the Tel Aviv area:

               Bar-Ilan University - Ramat Gan

BIMACS.BIU.AC.IL     Computer Science system
VM.BIU.AC.IL         Computer Center VM system
ALEPH.BIU.AC.IL      Library (Aleph)

               Tel Aviv University - Ramat Aviv

VM.TAU.AC.IL          IBM/3090-150E - VM/CMS     CC
VE.TAU.AC.IL          CDC Cyber 990E - NOS/VE    CC
NOS.TAU.AC.IL         CDC Cyber 990E - NOS       CC
CCSG.TAU.AC.IL        Silicon Graphics IRIX      CC
ARISTO.TAU.AC.IL      Sun3/80 - SunOS            CC
TAUVAX.TAU.AC.IL      Vax 6320 - Aleph           Library
VIRGO.MATH.TAU.AC.IL  Sun4-390 - SunOS           Math
LIBRA.MATH.TAU.AC.IL  Sun4-390 - SunOS           Math
TAURUS.MATH.TAU.AC.IL Sun4-390 - SunOS           Math
TAUENG.TAU.AC.IL      Vax11/750 - VMS            Engineering
GENIUS.TAU.AC.IL      Sun4 - SunOS               Engineering
VESTA.TAU.AC.IL       Sun4 - SunOS               Physics

You are free to ping them as you wish.


Hank Nussbacher
Israel

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 9:36:36 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Calls to Cuba


Because of the message about not being able to call Cuba (except
Guantanamo Bay) from the U.S., I am including what codes I have for
Cuba:

53  Cuba
    7  Havana
    99 Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base (dialable only from U.S.)

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 09:01 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Telco Sets Record For Processing New Order


I don't know if this is a record, but it certainly comes close.

On Saturday, 26 January, at 9:00 AM, I called the Pacific*Bell
business office and asked to have phone service turned on in my
brother-in-law's apartment.  The order taker went through the usual
questions with me, and promised service by Monday at 5:00 PM.

We then proceeded to the store and purchased a phone.  We returned to
the apartment and, just for the heck of it, plugged in the phone.
Voila! Dial Tone.  I called the operator and asked if I was calling
from the number that I had been given.  I was told yes.  This was at
about 11:00 AM.

Two hours from order to service!  Amazing.

Bouquets:

    The order taker was professional, knowlegable and courteous.  Nice,
    even.  She and I swapped telecom jokes.

    She offered three numbers to choose from.

    She offered, but did not press for, custom calling features.

    She queried for a LD carrier.

Brickbats:

    She tried to sell me touch tone. (!tm)  Many of you know that
    Pacific*Bell will remove the charge for touch tone on Feb 1.  I
    think she was just programmed to ask the question.  Had I said yes,
    it would have cost $5 installation plus a prorated portion of the $2/
    month tone charge.  I said no, bought a tone/pulse phone (aren't
    they all these days?) and lo and behold it works on tone anyway.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 09:08 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Need System For LD Accountability


My brother-in-law (Torre) has a small business which employs about ten
people.  He currently uses a LD system wherein there is a dialer on
each line that absorbs the phone number and a unique ID code, then
redials the call on a 950 number.  When the bill comes, it is sorted
by ID number and thus Torre can see who made what calls and how much
each employee spent on the phone.

Calls are being processed on "Call America," a undistinguished (IMHO)
LD carrier giving what seem to be average rates.  They seem to excel
at saving money on INTRA-LATA calls, while are competitive on
INTER-LATA calls.

Questions:

    Does anyone know anything of interest about Call America?

    Can anyone suggest any similar solutions that are CO or LD-switch
    based, i.e.do not require the dialer on the line?


[e-mail]

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

From: Robert Green <mrmarx![e-mail]>
Subject: Need Rs-485 Interface For RS-6000 AIX
Date: 29 Jan 91 20:20:05 GMT
Organization: Decision Software Co, Cambridge, MA


I need a RS-6000 AIX, micro-channel or RS-232 interface for RS-485.
Does anyone know where such a product or some information can be
obtained?

Thanks,


Bob Green                           uunet!mrmarx!bg
Mainstream Software Corporation     [phone]
411 Waverly Oaks Road                    FAX [phone]
Waltham, Mass      02154

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

Date: Tuesday, 29 Jan 1991 16:53:15 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Fiber Optics Standards Request
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


I would like anyone that knows about references to standards in Fiber
Optic cables to mail some ideas into my mailbox. Specifically, if you
were at an installation and were going to connect some fibers
together, what standards would you adhere to? RS-232 for example, is
an interface standard.


Thanks,

Adeola Osinuga
Internet:[e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 22:25 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hello Direct Announces AT&T Partner system


I got the latest catalog of Hello Direct (Spring, 1991).  On pages 28
and 29, Hello Direct announces AT&T Partner phone system.  If you have
two to four outside lines and four to six extensions, this is the
ideal system at an affordable price.

My question is: there is no specification included.  I don't want to
call them and have them recite the specs over the phone.  Does any one
know the specs of the Partner system?  For example, can it use
existing RJ-11/RJ-14 jacks?  Can a different phone set (i.e. a
Panasonic Easa-Phone series set) be connected to the jack as analog
set?  What is "extension wiring kit"?  Is it a PBX, KSU, or Hybrid?
And so on and on.

It's interesting that I haven't heard of this system.  Does anyone
know when it was first produced or is it truely a new product?


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

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

From: "[e-mail]"@arizona.edu
Subject: How Do I Tell When...
Date: 28 JAN 91 22:23:29
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: U of Arizona Experimental Elementary Particle Physics - Tucson,


 ..a phone in another part of the house has been picked up?  I want to
do this via the phone line in my room.  I guess this is the same idea
that is used on the phones with the little lights on the bottom that
light up when someone else picks up a phone on the same line.

Thanks alot! (in advance)


Ralph Zazula    University of Arizona    Department of Physics
UAZHEP::ZAZULA  (DecNet/HEPNet)  [e-mail]  (Internet)


[Moderator's Note: We have this question from time to time, and always
I recieve numerous schematics, etc. Perhaps some of you will answer
direct to Mr. Zazula and assist him.   PAT]

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

From: Renato Cortinovis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Needed About Electronic Blackboard
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 12:18:58 CAM


I am looking for information about audio-graphic conferencing software
that would allow the use of a standard PC as electronic blackboard in
distance education environments.

As far as I heard, some people are working to such a system, that
would be composed of a cheap PC board for audio digitalization and
data mixing, plus some software package available under windows.

Please send any available information to this conference or to Renato
Cortinovis on Internet or the following X400 address: Count, ADMD =
ARCOM, PRDM = ITU, Name = Cortinovis.

Many thanks in advance.

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

From: Carol Springs <[e-mail]>
Subject: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 23:01:29 EST


New England Telephone in Massachusetts has an insert in its latest
round of bills entitled "Introducing 1 + 976 Telephone Programs":

   By dialing telephone numbers beginning with 1 + 976, you can
   get in touch with a wide variety of information and
   entertainment programs ... These programs are provided by
   vendors known as Information Providers, who are *not*
   affiliated with New England Telephone ... [NET] only
   provides the 1 + 976 telephone numbers, and bills the charges
   established by each Information Provider in your monthly
   telephone bill ... Calls to 1 + 976 can't be made from
   outside of Massachusetts or via long distance carriers.  They
   also can't be made from coin operated phones, WATS lines, or
   certain cellular or other types of mobile telephones.  Also,
   your calls to 1 + 976 programs can't be Collect, Bill to Third
   Number, Credit Card, or Operator-handled calls.

Nowhere in the flier is it mentioned that 1 + 976 numbers act the same
as the old 976 numbers.  The main, unstated purpose of the insert
seems to be to alert customers to the fact that they must now dial 1
before 976.  And the "1" itself probably results from complaints of a
predictable type: "Hey, what's this funny charge on my bill?  It
looked like a regular number to me..."

I don't know whether there is an interim period in which unadorned 976
will still work, since I had 976 calls blocked on my lines long ago.
(I suspect dialing old-style will get you a "You must first dial 1..."
recording.)  Any other areas have 1 + 976, or is New England Telephone
leading the way?


Carol Springs                      [e-mail]

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

From: Robert Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Atlanta / Georgia Caller*ID Update
Date: 29 Jan 91 08:26:16 GMT
Organization: Human Interface Technology Lab, Univ. of Wash., Seattle


I was really sorry to see the Moderator assume a pro-Caller ID stance
in an addendum to a posting on this topic.  It's a controversial and
by no means trivial topic, and one that could have severe
repercussions for the telephone industry.  If this sort of bias
pervades discussions of Caller ID, I will have cause to wonder about
the objectivity of moderation extended to other topics here.


Bob Jacobson


[Moderator's Note: I am very much pro-Caller*ID and make no bones
about it. Is it biased to favor Caller*ID but unbiased to take a
stance against it?  Actually, discussion of Caller*ID -- at least the
politics of it -- is kept to a minimum here because of the amount of
controversy it generates both ways. For continued discussion of the
topic I suggest our companion mailing list which specifically deals
with the several facets of telecommuications privacy. Messages should
be addressed to: [e-mail]. To contact Dennis Rears,
the maintainer of the list so that you can be added if you wish to
read what others have written:  [e-mail].  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #77
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02945;
          30 Jan 91 5:05 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa04950;
          30 Jan 91 3:27 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab16729;
          30 Jan 91 2:20 CST
Date:     Wed, 30 Jan 91 1:57:52 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #78
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Jan 91 01:57:47 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 78

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities [Al L. Varney]
    Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around? [Barton F. Bruce]
    Re: Unbreakable Dialtone [Joe Talbot]
    Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D? [David Tamkin]
    Re: MCI MasterPhone [David Tamkin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 09:50:53 CST
From: Al L Varney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

>Call Screening sends an interesting message to the person trying to
>call a number from which they have been prohibited:

  [some details removed]

>Once added to the directory, calls from *any line* under the same ANI
>will be rejected. Example: you have three lines at your home, but all
>are billed under the first number. Your first number is presented as
>ANI to the network. Calls from your second or third line will also be
>rejected.  This is a very nice feature, especially the part about
>being able to exclude callers no matter what line (within their group)
>they use. Obviously if they go out to the corner payphone you can't
>stop them.

Pat, I'd like more details on your testing of this "feature", since it
shouldn't depend on the "ANI", except under very special rules.  One
reason for this is that, on forwarded calls, ANI is the forwarding
party, but you really want the ID of the original calling telephone.
All CLASS features rely on the "Calling Party number", which is the
telephone number of the originating caller AS KNOWN BY the CO switch.

PBX telephones aren't known by the switch, so it uses the "Main"
number associated with the PBX lines/trunks -- usually the number
listed in the telephone book for the PBX user.  Multi-line Hunt groups
MAY have lines that have NO telephone number, so the switch uses the
the "Main" number associated with the group -- this will lead to the
behavior you report.  These types of Calling Party numbers are also
labeled as "non-unique".  Multi-party lines (more than two on a line)
may not have a known calling telephone -- the switch labels the
Calling Party as "unknown".

Bellcore and the industry/ANSI T1 Committee haven't decided on or
documented the behavior of Centrex (Bellcore's "business") lines, so
they work (or don't work) in whatever manner the switch vendor
decided.  That's why your "StarLine(?)" service [really "personal"
Centrex lines] isn't offered with CLASS -- Illinois Bell can get it on
some vendor's switches but not all switches, so they can't or won't
tariff it.

>If the call you wish to reject did not present ANI or is outside the
>LATA (area codes don't matter, but outside the LATA does) then dialing
>*60 # the number # will return a recording, "I'm sorry, the number you
>wish to add cannot be screened at this time."

>Likewise, *66 (repeat dial last number you called) and *69 (return
>last call you received) rely on the ANI received. ...
                                     ^^^ see "Calling Party" above

>If dialing *66 or *69 reaches a busy line then you do not hear the
>busy signal. Instead you get a recording ...

"Repeat Dial" and "Return Last Call" are probably Ameritech Service
Marks for the Bellcore terms "Auto-Callback(AC)" and
"Auto-Recall(AR)".  Auto-Recall/Auto-Callback attempts initially query
the distant number to verify it is a number valid for an incoming
CLASS call.  The busy/idle status is returned if the number is valid.
No call takes place unless/until the line is idle, thus no busy
signal.

>Other Call Screening tidbits:  the number to be screened has to be
>supervisable. You can't screen non-working numbers; telco
>administrative numbers; police, etc. I cannot screen my distinctive
>ringing pseudo-number. As noted, PBX, DID or Centrex systems which
>present a single billing number on outgoing calls can have every line
                  ^^^^^^^
See "Calling Party" above

>in their system screened by merely entering the billing number. Some
>DID numbers leading to a PBX cause some confusion for call screening,
>and repeat/return call functions however.

The features shouldn't be "confused"; they don't work here because the
Calling Party number is not considered "unique", and thus you are
unlikely to reach/screen the original calling telephone.  Illinois
Bell could set the option to allow Auto-Recall to such numbers, but it
does complicate the feature documentation to the customer.  [You have
to explain how you may reach an attendant, not the original caller,
and of course the attendant may be unaware of the original call.]

>The new CLASS features are a lot of fun and very useful. The big one
>missing here at least for a few more months is Caller*ID. I'm told
>when we get it here it will also send the ANI of the billing number
>when applicable ... not necessarily the actual number being used for

>the call.  But the rule will be if you can ID it, you can block it.

For consistency, of course, Caller*ID (Bellcore's "Calling Number
Delivery") uses the Calling Party number, along with the "presentation
allowed/restricted" indication.

Glad to hear you like the capabilities; a friend in New Jersey that is
not a "telecom person" thanked me profusely for the features when I
mentioned I had worked on them over the last several years!!  She
particularly liked the "repeat dial" function, with whatever name Bell
Atlantic chose for the feature.  One thing Bellcore didn't standardize
when documenting CLASS was the NAMES for the features.  This will
eventually cause real confusion when the people discuss the features
or when they relocate to other areas of the country.


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems
     The above is personal opinion, not AT&T's or its agents.


[Moderator's Note: The tests I performed were these:  My office has a
PBX with sixteen trunk lines. All the trunks have actual numbers
assigned to them. The FAX machine has its own outside line/number not
connected with the PBX. A few of us have private lines which do not
go through the switchboard. From home, I call-screened only the main
listed number for our office. Then I used a WATS-extender in my office
to call into the PBX from home. I dialed '9' and called my number. The
call was rejected. I repeated this from the office the next day, to
assure myself I was going out on various trunks -- almost certainly
not on the main number (the first trunk) itself. I was even blocked
when I used the FAX phone line or some of the private phone lines in
our office. Why? I believe it is because every phone in our office is
associated with and billed under our main number -- the one that I
screened.

In the second test, I 'call-screened myself'. That is, I used my first
line to tell the switch to screen calls from my first line. When I
used my first line to dial my first line, I did not get a busy signal.
Instead, I was sent to treatment with the screening message. When I
tried dialing my first line from my second line I was *also* screened.
Why? Again, I think it was because both of my numbers are billed under
the first number. When I did it in reverse, using my second line to
screen my second line the results were not the same. My second line
was screened from calling my second line, but my first line got
through with no argument. I am not sure why.

I was unable to get either of my lines to screen calls from my bogus,
pseudo-number used for distinctive ringing on the first line. Not that
there would be any calls, of course -- there cannot be outgoing calls
from that 'line' -- but I wanted to see what would happen. What did
haopen was the switch said 'I'm sorry, that number cannot be screened'
in the same way it refused to screen numbers not in service or numbers
which otherwise do not supervise. Oddest of all were a bunch of
numbers in a DID group I tried: Both the main listed number and
various internal numbers on the (Rolm-behind-a-few-hundred-DID-trunks)
system could not be screened. But IBT would not say 'yes' or 'no' ...
the response was 'I'm sorry, that number is temporarily unavailable.
Try again in a few minutes.' But no matter when tried over several
days, the response was always the same.

Finally, if you have been screened, the operator cannot put you
through either! It works like our 900/976 blocking here: If I block my
phones from 976-whatever, dialing the operator won't help. She cannot
connect me. And likewise, if I screen you, then calling the operator
*from the line(s) being screened* to ask for an emergency interupt or
'assistance in dialing' will be to no avail. Her calls will be
screened also, because the equipment apparently is smart enough to
know the number placing the call.  Very clever service!  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: Why Are Pulse Dial Phones Still Around?
Date: 29 Jan 91 00:29:51 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Colin
Plumb) writes:

> I'm simply of the opinion that it's not worth $2/month or whatever it

> So it takes my modem 7.2 seconds instead of .98 to call in.  Big deal.

If the modem folks would define a way to specify 20pps, sticking to
rotary would be even less painful. Our Cannon FAX has three positions:
10pps, 20pps, DTMF. Ask Hayes how to do 20pps...

TT is great, but it is over $4 on residence lines in some places, and
the telcos deserve as many customers as possible saying that is
outrageous and sticking to rotary where possible. Many PBXs can be
simply programmed to do the conversion at 20 pps, and the $ savings
over a few years can be dramatic. If it isn't your own staff, but your
'customers' (e.g. hotel guests), the additional wasted 'people' time
isn't an issue.

The big fight may come when you say you will pay for rotary service
but want to be class-marked as a TT customer so 0+ calls will first
try bong-tone to let you TT in fone-card info. Normally rotary
customers get the operator directly. The bong-tone includes the '#'
tone to knock TT->pulse converters off the line. You are paying TT
charges to the local telco, but the IXC would rather have you TT the
card info rather than waste operator time.

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

From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtone
Date: 29 Jan 91 06:11:57 GMT
Reply-To: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>
Organization: Info Connections, Tokyo, Japan


This is a really annoying one to get repaired! First, GTE ALWAYS
"clears" trouble reports quickly. The company's performance is based
on trouble reports being "cleared", NOT necessarily solving the
problem reported. Often people will just give up. When you report a
problem, you'll find that it is almost always "cleared" within and
hour, and WITHOUT anybody calling you back to tell you about it.

Intermittant problems such as bad trunks, bad DTMF receivers and
switch bugs are almost impossible to get fixed unless you are
persistant and somtimes nasty. Always keep a log of who you spoke
with, at what number and when. Always let the GTE person you are
speaking with (usually a clerk with no telcom knowledge or interest
and NO power to get anything done) know that you are keeping a log and
that if this problem isn't solved, it WILL come back to haunt THEM.

I hate to sound so down on them, but GTE runs its telephone operations
like a water or gas utility, or a governament bureau. To them, you're
just a number.


Joe Talbot    Voice Mail 011-813-222-8429


[Moderator's Note: About twenty years ago I had a case where many
calls I made in the middle of the night were getting hung up in some
bad equipment in the Chicago-Hyde Park CO. No one in repair wanted to
listen to me. One night I got the troubled equipment so I kept it on
hold on my first line and called Night Plant on my second line and
asked him to go in the frames and find me; in doing so he'd find the
pathology and either fix it or busy it out. He went in and found it.
The next day the foreman called me and thanked me, saying "I've been
looking for that booger for a couple days now!"  :)  PAT]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: N0X/N1X Prefixes -- First to Change 1+7D to 7D?
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 20:41:27 CST


Steven Minneman wrote in volume 11, issue 66:

SM> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

CM> ...as far as I can tell, is the first to prepare for such by
CM> removing the 1+ from toll calls within it

SM> And in the 415 area, we have never had to use 1+7D.

Patrick Townson commented:

PT> [Moderator's Note: Nor did we in Chicago until a few years ago. For
PT> however long we dialed seven digits for anything in the old 312 area,
PT> and ten digits for anything else. In order to allow the use of
PT> prefixes which 'look like area codes' they started using 1+ here.  PAT]

We still don't use 1+7D in Chicago.  It's 1+10D that we had to start
using in 1982, only for inter-NPA calls, when we were preparing for
N [01] X prefixes.

We've never dialed 1+7D here.  Before October 1, 1982, Illinois Bell
tolerated 1+10D; then they started requiring it.  Centel recommended
it even before then and has required it since, except for calls to
area code 815, on which Centel accepts 10D for some reason, even
though they insist on 1+10D for calls between 312 and 708.


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: In Chicago itself we never dialed 1+7D, but some of
the outlying suburbs did. Antioch comes to mind, but then they could
dial 396-xxxx without the 414 on the front. The rest of us couldn't.
And interestingly enough, Americtech Mobile still allows 10-D calls
between 708 <==> 312 <==> 815, or you can go 1+ 10-D if that is your
pleasure.    PAT]

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

From: David Tamkin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI MasterPhone
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 91 21:00:41 CST


Lyle McGeoch wrote in volume 11, issue 71:

: Until now I've used AT&T (via my Bell Atlantic card) for my infrequent
: calling card calls.  The MCI MasterPhone program, which has slightly
: better rates and automatic billing to a MasterCard, seemed like a
: reasonable way to save a bit.  No fee to sign-on, no extra bill to pay
: each month... sounded great.  Well I just received the information
: packet from them.  The catch turns out to be the laborious dialing
: instructions:

:         --- call their 800 number and wait for them to answer
:         --- dial 0 plus the number you're calling, and wait for the tone
:         --- dial your MasterCard number and PIN (20 digits)
:         --- dial #

But MCI and US Sprint will gladly bill any account -- at least any
residential account -- to a MasterCard or VISA.  You can use a regular
MCI Card and just dial 950-1022 and a fourteen-digit card number
(already saving ten digits and the final octothorpe) and still have it
billed to a credit card.  No fee to sign on, no extra bill to pay each
month; sounds just as good as it did at first.

MCI and US Sprint will also bill your 10XXX dialing to a MasterCard or
a VISA (or your 1+ dialing if they're your primary carrier, which MCI
has a habit of becoming suddenly and unexpectedly, but that's another
story).  My accounts with both of them are billed to a MasterCard, and
through other arrangements one of my VISA cards has an MCI PIN and my
AmEx card has a US Sprint PIN; calls made through them would likewise
be billed directly to the card.

: I can live without this nonsense.

You're the customer; make them live with yours.  Get a no-fee
Universal Card from AT&T (they've extended the no-fee introductory
offer to March 26, 1991), place your calls through MCI or US Sprint,
and have them billed to the Universal Card.  AT&T won't like your
using another carrier instead of them, the carrier you use won't like
having to pay the credit card discounts to AT&T, and neither will like
your being so blatant about it.  You get to tick off everyone!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #78
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13324;
          30 Jan 91 13:56 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab10334; 30 Jan 91 12:54 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15255;
          30 Jan 91 4:42 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ac04950;
          30 Jan 91 3:27 CST
Date:     Wed, 30 Jan 91 2:51:31 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #79
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Jan 91 02:51:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 79

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: NEC P300 Programming [Craig R. Watkins]
    Re: Person Numbers [Bill Woodcock]
    Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Jon T. Adams]
    Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [S. H. Schwartz]
    Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [J. Langri]
    Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Doug Faunt]
    Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Jim Rees]
    Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding [Alan B. Owens]
    UK Caller Identification [Steve Hamley]
    Information Wanted on Programming Novatell Cellular [David E. Sheafer]
    NAMFAX Book For Sale [Kendall Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Craig R. Watkins)
Subject: Re: NEC P300 Programming
Date: 29 Jan 91 19:00:06 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob
Sherman) writes:

> If anyone knows the programming access codes etc. for the NEC P300
> handheld cell phone, I would really appreciate it if you would pass
> them along to me via e-mail or here on the net.

I have a catalog from Cellular Products Distributors (my only
relationship is that I have their catalog -- I've never even ordered
from them).  They advertise a "NAM PROGRAMMER FOR THE NEC-P300" for
$88.88.  They have a sketch of the device which looks like a box,
somewhat smaller than a standard RJ11 block connected to a short
pigtail with a connector on it which I assume would connect to your
P300.  (They seem to have other "NAM programmers" also.)

My guess is that it is probably similar to the "Programming Battery"
for the P-9100 and it simply shorts some contacts which then allows
you to program it from the keypad if you know the codes.

CDP lists phone numbers: [phone] / [phone].  They sell
cellular accessories (batteries, chargers, stands, phone holders,
antennas, etc.).  Their prices seem fairly good.  If anyone orders
from them, let us know how they are to deal with.


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


[Moderator's Note: I bought a couple things from these people. I got a
'low-profile' 1/8 wave antenna for my Radio Shack CT-301. It is about
the size of my thumb, and works almost as well as the standard, but
much larger antenna. I also bought a 'battery eliminator' for the same
cell phone. It is a dummy battery which fits on the unit in place of
the regular one, and has a cigarette lighter plug on the other end. I
can use it in the car without the more cumbersome 'mobile charging
stand' supplied by Radio Shack. I put my order in one day; it came UPS
Red a couple days later, charged to my VISA card.   PAT]

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

From: Bill Woodcock <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Person Numbers
Date: 29 Jan 91 18:50:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


[e-mail] (Ben Stoltz) Writes:

> I would like to see some discussion on "Person Numbers".

> In the brave new world, people may have the option of
> calling me instead of my phone. Or, they may want to call my
> fax, even if that means the fax in the hotel where I am
> staying instead of the fax machine where I work.

> If you were going to implement this today, without TPC help,
> how would you do it?

It's my understanding that BellCore has been working on this for a
couple of years now, with the eventual goal of being able to issue
everyone a single phone number when they sign up for service the first
time, much like getting a Social Security number.  I've seen articles
about the project in a couple of rags recently.  Central computers
would then (in an effort to be both "smart" and "user friendly") keep
track of things like where your cellular was roaming and where the
last outgoing call you'd made was placed from.  In addition, you can
keep a schedule on file with the telco: "homephone 6pm-7am; cellular
7am-8am; workphone 8am-5pm; cellular 5pm-6pm" or something like that.
They also mentioned a feature that I've been looking for for a LONG
time: having All your phones in at all locations ring until ANY ONE of
them is picked up.


bill.woodcock.iv    [e-mail]
2355.virginia.st    berkeley.california   94709.1315

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

From: "Jon T. Adams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 14:13:12 PDT


Somebody named "Tiny Bubbles" queries:

> 1.  Are flexible antennas any good?  They sell them for ten bucks or
>     so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty
>     short compared to the "whip" that comes with it.  Do they work as
>     well as the whip?  (Too bad they can't retract.)

For the most part, the current rash of portable phones that use the
46MHz/ 49MHz spectrum will not work quite as well using a rubber duck.
Capture area is what generally makes an antenna and using a physically
smaller antenna does reduce the capture area.  However, since you are
dealing with a hand-held radio which is a decidedly non-optimal
environment for RF propagation especially at around 50MHz, you will be
happier choosing personal convenience rather than efficiency.  In
other words, if I was regularly breaking the metal whip antennas (or
had an urchin that did) I would opt for the flexible antenna.  Also
consider moving the base unit to a better location, higher up (get it
off the floor), etc.

> 2.  Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code?
>     Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the
>     dialing codes?  I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring
>     a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I
>     wonder if my phone is safe.  That's a big consideration for me, and
>     it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones.

The security codes vary in their sophistication; but all concern
themselves only with protection from some other person using your
phone line and/or your handset ringing when someone else locally
receives a call.  None do any kind of voice encryption.

Nothing you say on a portable telephone (different only by politics
from a "cellular" telephone) is legally protected from eavesdropping.
In fact, anyone with a 46 to 49MHz radio receiver / scanner (available
at Radio Shack and anywhere else) can pick up your conversations.  The
police can enter anything heard there as evidence in court.  But it's
fairly boring eavesdropping, at least in MY neighborhood...

Eventually, if enough people complain that their "rights" are being
violated by this loophole, well maybe Congress'll just pass another
law, forbidding anyone from listening, just like up in the cellular
telephone spectrum.  Or, with the same likelihood of a snowball
lasting fifteen minutes in Hell, maybe some smart manufacturer will
come out with a great new phone and some reasonable encryption system
using spread-spectrum stuff and will make this fact pointedly known
through worldwide advertising.  There's still room for
entreprenuers.

But they are darned handy things to have.  Plantronics makes one (or
more likely, MADE one, since DAK now sells it for 59.95) that clips on
your belt, has a tone pad for dialout, and a featherlight earphone/mic
that just fits in your ear.  Great for when you're working around the
house.

Have fun!


jon

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

From: "S. H. Schwartz" <vermont![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas
Date: 29 Jan 91 17:08:24 GMT
Reply-To: "S. H. Schwartz" <baba![e-mail]>
Organization: Expert Systems Lab., NYNEX Sci. and Tech., White Plains NY


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

>My understanding is that the 'security code' only affects the
>recognition of a 'ring' signal, so that someone calling your phone
>doesn't ring your neighbor, even if they are on the same channel.

I thought the security code affected call-OUT, i.e. prevent someone
with a portable handset from calling out through your base unit and
your paying for his calls.


S. H. Schwartz                [e-mail]
Expert Systems Laboratory        914-683-2960
NYNEX Science and Technology Center    White Plains NY 10604

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 07:56:59 est
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas


Keep in mind that flexible antennas are a "compromise".  You have to
give a little to get a lot.

Replacing whip rod antennas can get expensive ... but I keep one for
fringe areas.


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

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 11:13:31 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS 415-688-8269 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm


MARS is definitely in business.  The local Naval Hospital is looking
for people to man the station there, to pass H&W traffic and 'phone
patches to the local hospital ship, the Mercy?, deployed over there.

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 21:15:33 GMT


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

> I am not familiar with Indonesia, but you will find that the line
> voltage for most of the world is 48V, give or take a few.

Depends on where you are in Indonesia.  I spent a week in Dabo Singkep
once, and the ring voltage and frequency on the phone line depends on
how fast you turn the crank.  The loop talk current depends on how
fresh the batteries are.

I've been trying to call Dabo since I got back, and I can't convince
the AT&T operator to stay on the line for the ten minutes or so that
it takes the operator in Indonesia to get through.  Seems to me that
in the old days, the operator would take the number you wanted to
call, then ring you back when she was able to get through.  Is there
some way to get them to do that today?

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding
Date: 29 Jan 91 12:42:17 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> There has been mention in a few past issues of devices such as
> ClassMate which read the Caller-ID info and pass it on to a computer.
> I have a Northern Telecom "Maestro" phone which displays incoming
> numbers.  If I buy ClassMate, will *both* devices be able to read the
> incoming data?

You can connect ClassMate, and your Maestro and other Caller*ID
receiving devices in parallel up to the REN limit for your line.  Each
device is a passive listener, and does not interfere with other
similar devices on the same line.

I don't know whether or not ClassMate will work in Canada.  Perhaps
there is a similar product aimed at the Canadian market?


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

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

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 13:14:45 EST
From: "Alan B. Owens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller-ID Information Decoding


In re TELECOM Digest V11 #75 (item 8):

I have a ClassMate and an LCD display unit on the same line. Both
devices read the incoming data.

I live in Northern Virginia, in Bell Atlantic territory. I don't know
if ClassMate will work in Canada.


Alan B. Owens                 Building 182, Room 3M106
Staff Programmer              800 N. Frederick Avenue
IBM Corporation               Gaithersburg, Md 20879-3395
[e-mail]  301-240-7191

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

From: Steve Hamley <tharr![e-mail]>
Subject: UK Caller Identification
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 15:21:13 GMT


Andrew Bargery ([e-mail]) writes...

> Recently, I have seen some equipment for sale in the UK that displays
> the caller's telephone number before you answer the phone. How is this
> done? I think I read in this group a little while ago that in the US,
> the caller's phone number comes down the line (in DTMF) between rings.
> Is this true? Is a similar system used here?  Is it automatic or (more
> likely) do you have to pay BT (or Mercury) lots of money to get it?

The piece of equipment that you describe is a rip-off.

Neither BT or Mercury send Caller*ID information over normal analog
circuits and seem unlikely to do so in the future. The company who
market the device are very cagey about admitting this. If you want to
know who's calling and you're on a System X exchange then it is
possible to convert to ISDN. Alternatively, 'Distinct Ringing' will
soon(ish) be on the way as an extra 'Star Service'.

The Caller ID device being advertised works as follows. When a person
calls your number, it answers the call and asks the person at the
other end (in a badly digitised voice) to key in the number they are
calling from. It then displays this on a small LCD display. You then
have the option of answering the call if the number is one you
recognise.

The flaws of such a system are rather obvious. Not least the fact that
only around 10% of UK residential phones use DTMF signalling, which
the device needs to take down the caller's number.

                               ****

As a brief comment on another message in the Digest, CNN's Peter
Arnett isn't the only Western reporter left in Iraq. Alfonso Rojo from
Spanish newspaper El Mundo is also permitted to remain by the Iraqi
authorities.

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

From: David E. Sheafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Wanted on Programming Novatell Cellular
Date: 29 Jan 91 09:53:03 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


I have a Novatel 8305 cellular telephone, and if anyone knows how to
program it, the information would be most appreciated.

My B carrier (for reasons both good and bad from the consumer's point
of view) purposely locks out the A carrier, even though they are
willing to reprogram if I want to access the A carrier. (That's great
if there was a close by place I could bring it to.)


Thanks,


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]    or   uucp:   samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER    Bitnet:    Sheafer_davi@bentley

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

From: kendall miller <[e-mail]>
Subject: NAMFAX Book For Sale
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 16:58:21 MST
Organization: Datalog Consulting, Tucson, AZ


My mail to coriolis![e-mail] bounced and I was unable
to get a number for Lewis De Payne or Albedo Communications through
directory assistance so I guess the only option left is to post this.

I purchased the loose-leaf version of the NAMFAX book from Curtis
about six months ago (07/25/90). I have had only one notice of an
update since I bought the notebook. I did not purchase the update. (Of
course they might drop one from the mailing list if you don't buy the
updates.) As you probably already know, the loose leaf notebook is
updatable, while the mini-binder is not.  I would be willing to part
with the notebook for $100.00 plus shipping and COD charges. If you
are interested, you can contact me at the email address:

     [e-mail]     or    [e-mail]

You can also call me direct at 602-797-8660.


Kendall Miller

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #79
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27771;
          31 Jan 91 1:35 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14597;
          30 Jan 91 23:54 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa25288;
          30 Jan 91 22:47 CST
Date:     Wed, 30 Jan 91 21:54:24 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #80
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Jan 91 21:54:17 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 80

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CNN from Baghdad [Daniel Jacobson]
    Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [Julian Macassey]
    Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically [Wolfgang R. Schulz]
    Re: Info Needed on Electronic Blackboard [Sandy Kyrish]
    Re: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs [Randal L. Schwartz]
    Re: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs [Colin Plumb]
    Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service [Bill Huttig]
    Re: The "Four-Wire Line": An Explanation [Jim Rees]
    Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Dan Jacobson]
    AT&T 605 and 615 Terminals Available [Alan Fleming]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 16:28:04 CST
From: Daniel Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CNN from Baghdad


= [This is a recording.]  The following netnews may interest you.  No
= feedback to me is necessary unless you are getting overloaded with
= these forwarded articles.  The views below are not necessarily
= endorsed or even thoroughly read by me [except if I wrote them
= myself].  [e-mail]

 From: [e-mail] (Kim Greer -- rjj)
 Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
 Subject: Re: CNN from Baghdad
 Date: 29 Jan 91 16:35:17 GMT
 Organization: Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC

Can we please put an end to this?  If you don't read any thing else in
this message, please at least read this next list of *reasons* why I
continue to keep saying the four-wire used during the initial days of
audio-only from Baghdad was *wires* and not ham radios, or Inmarsat or
smoke signals or flashlights or whatever -

Short version:
    1. a CNN engineer told me on the phone the 4-wire was *wires*
    2. Shaw and Holliman themselves described it as *wires*
    3. a report on p. 60 of the January 21 issue of "Communications Week"
        describes it as *wires*
    4. a Time magazine description of the setup

(I know that calling something "four-wire" doesn't make it actual
wires, but read or listen to the descriptions.)

Long version:

    1.  I just got off the phone talking to an engineer at CNN.
The company policy is to not give out names.  You can call them
yourself at 1-404-827-1500 and ask for engineering.  The man I spoke
to said that yes, the initial days of contact was by *wires* running
from Baghdad to Amman.  On questioning, he said that *that* phase of
reporting was by *wires* and *not* satellite or cellular phones or any
other goddamn thing.  Whatever Peter Arnett is using now is not under
discussion; nobody cares if he is now being shown in front of a
satellite dish.  He said there is a very good report of it in last
week's Time magazine.  That's *wires* as in "copper strands".  So that
there was no possible confusion of terms, he said after specifically
asking about satellites, cellular phones, etc : (paraphrase): "No, it
was a set of wires".

    2.  Interviews with Shaw and Holliman on Larry King Live (once
they were back in the US) : S & H said that they were using a
dedicated line that everyone else wanted to use, that they could not
use the satellites.  If you don't believe me, then write to the Larry
King Live show and pay for a transcript of the show.  I wish I had
taped it.

    3.  From a posting made by Larry Johnson: On p. 60 of the
January 21 issue of "Communications Week" ("The Newspaper For Network
Decision Makers") there is a short article titled "Dedicated Line Pays
Off For CNN."  It says:

     ...Charles Hoff, managing director of CNN News Beam, explained
     it this way.  In addition to regular telephone connections,
     CNN installed a dedicated, four-wire circuit from its Baghdad
     hotel room to an Iraqi-provided telephone switch.  CNN also
     arranged a priority overseas connection with AT&T....

     The line was "hard wired" so the connection did not travel
     through relay points, Hoff said.  During a power failure,
     dedicated circuits are more likely than regular switched phone
     connections to keep working.  In fact, when the fighting
     started, he said, normal telephone communications had ceased.

    (end quote from posted article)


    4.  Time magazine article - look it up for yourself.  The CNN
engineer I spoke to described it as "a very good article" - his exact
words.

Now skip the rest if you are as tired of this as I am.

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

>Uh... before you get too carried away...

  Don't really think I am.  I'm just tired of idle speculators trying
to contradict (with no evidence whatsoever) everything that so far has
been published and broadcasted.

>A four wire is a telecommunications and broadcasting term for a
>full duplex link, where there is a separate circuit for each direction.
>The term comes from the old technology days where there were literally
>four wires running between the end points: in broadcasting, between the
>studio and transmitter. Today, however, "four wire"
>means that the telecommunications terminal provides 2 600 ohm, wide
>band equalized circuits - one in each direction. It does NOT mean
>that four wires (or any wires at all) are used.

  I never said that it had to be wires.  I'm saying that all the
published articles and broadcasts that I've seen and heard said that
it was wire.

>For example, the Arizona National Guard has a VHF repeater system
>that is statewide (and for which I designed and now manufacture
>the control system). Guess what they call the terminals that
>come out of the microwave backbone? Yep... "four-wire." And yet,
>in that case it is clearly microwave.

  ... and Arizona National Guard is not CNN.  Mostly irrelevant.

>This is not to say that they didn't use telephone lines. It is to say
>that your evidence for same is worthless, since all it depends on is
>the definition of "four wire."

I say that I have a lot more evidence on my side.  And please don't
try to confuse the issue by now calling it "telephone" lines.

>your evidence for same is worthless

  I guess we will all have to stop listening to CNN broadcasts, CNN
correspondents, CNN engineers, Time magazine and Communications Week.
Where is your evidence to contradict all of these people and
organizations??

> your evidence

Where is yours ???   You have none.  I've spelled mine out.

>VSAT (Very Small Aperture Terminal) systems can provide "four wire"
>service - typically on Ku band.

  Because they can does not mean VSAT *was* used.  No "evidence"
anywhere that I've seen said satellites were used.  All evidence
specifically and pointedly says just the opposite.  See above.

> It is possible that they were using this.

Pure speculation.  Please back it up with something that says they were.

>As far as that making it a target - the ECM aircraft have
>sophisticated systems for discriminating between radars, command links,
>and other systems. They really don't want to waste an expensive
>missile on someone's VSAT uplink. I don't think that CNN was in
>much danger from radiating 10 Watts in a tight beam up to a satellite
>(if in fact that is what they were doing).

Military satellites in the above-Iraq area, AWACS and probably F117A's
can "see" ten watts of microwave.  And they most likely are not going
to eavesdrop long enough to see if the originator is Iraqi or foreign.
With pinpoint strikes of microwave dishes possible, who would be
stupid enough to use them?

>John Moore HAM:NJ7E/CAP:T-Bird 381 {ames!ncar!noao!asuvax,mcdphx}!anasaz!john

>Opinion: New protest song:All we are say...ing.... is... Give BOMBS a chance!
Finally, John, we can agree on something.          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Kim L. Greer
Duke University Medical Center         [e-mail]
Div. Nuclear Medicine  POB 3949         voice: 919-681-5894
Durham, NC 27710                   fax: [phone]

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA
Date: 30 Jan 91 15:11:04 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


The Moderator Notes, in response to an article:

>If I remember a previous thread correctly, you can't call Cuba from
>the US (with the exception of Guantanamo Bay).

>[Moderator's Note: I believe you can call Cuba; but the call cannot be
>dialed direct and has to be routed manually by the operator.   PAT]

My 1982 Edition of "Telephony's Dictionary" shows a cable between Key
West, Florida and Havana Cuba. The number of circuits is not listed,
but I would guess it is less than fifty. I have no idea when the cable
was laid or whether it is still in use.


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

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

From: "Wolfgang R. Schulz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Mail Issues Telex Numbers Automatically
Date: 29 Jan 91 17:26:08 GMT


[e-mail] (Krislyn Companies) writes:

>Just a small technical correction ... MCI Mail subscribers don't have
>to request a telex number - they get one automatically.  It's 650 +
>the seven-digit MCI ID.

And even better: if you are at some odd place where you have no phone
line nor a computer handy, you can access your MCI mailbox through
telex, just dial 6700 or 650-0000000. And there you are.


Wolfgang R. Schulz Hamburg-Germany
[e-mail] * [e-mail] * [e-mail]
...unido!mcshh!wrs * No BTX (German Videotex) address anymore

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 14:25 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Info Needed on Electronic Blackboard


Regarding a PC "electronic blackboard" for distance education: the
best bet is to call Optel Communications in NYC, 212-741-9000.  They
have what you need, and they are well-entrenched in the audiographic
distance education market.

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

From: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs
Reply-To: "Randal L. Schwartz" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stonehenge; netaccess via Intel, Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 16:00:18 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, carols@world (Carol Springs)
writes:

| I don't know whether there is an interim period in which unadorned 976
| will still work, since I had 976 calls blocked on my lines long ago.
| (I suspect dialing old-style will get you a "You must first dial 1..."
| recording.)  Any other areas have 1 + 976, or is New England Telephone
| leading the way?

We've *always* had 1+976, because around here, 1 means toll, and
always has.  (Well, maybe, not forever... sigh.)

Just another person for whom the bell tolls,


Randall L. Schwartz, Stonehenge Consulting Services [phone]
on contract to Intel's iWarp project, Beaverton, Oregon, USA, Sol III
[e-mail] ...!any-MX-mailer-like-uunet!iwarp.intel.com!merlyn

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: 1 + 976 Telephone Programs
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:32:16 GMT


In Toronto, which used to use 1+ as a long distance indicator (1+7D
for within-416 LD, and I believe 10D worked for cross-area local
calls, although I never lived that close to an area code boundary), it
was always 1-976-SCAM (or whatever :-}).

However, in anticippation of N0X/N1X prefixes, it's now 1+416+7D for
long distance, and 976 went with it.  1-416-976-SCAM.

The latest I saw:

1-416-976-WAKE.  Wakeup calls.  I don't know how well done their system
is, and they say they'll call you anywhere, but for $3.00 a call,
I'll buy a cheapp alarm clock, thanks!


Colin

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

From:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service
Date: 30 Jan 91 18:22:34 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eddy J. Gurney)
writes:

>$25.00 service charge, and that the rate was $2.75/month.  Calls will
>be billed at $0.29/minute during the day and $.2175/minute during the
>evening.  This sounds very similar to the numbers you have now, and
>cheaper than MCI's personal 800 service, which is $5.00/month and

MCI's personal 800 number is MUCH cheaper ... no $25 service charge
...  only $2/mo (with Primetime) and .225 a min day and .1083 evenings/
weekends (with Primetime).  Even at the $5/mo rate it would take over
eleven months to make up the difference; and the calls are .25 day and
somewhere around .20/min other times.


[Moderator's Note: One thing I neglected to note originally (or
comment upon yesterday) was that I did not pay any $25 service charge
or set up fee. That must be something new MCI has added since they
took over.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 17:29:51 GMT


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

  [ an excellent introduction to 4-wire lines ]

>       So, a local telephone plant uses only one pair per subscriber.
>  In engineering terms, it is far from a perfect transmission line.  The
>  main reason is that no transmission line operates at its normal
>  electrical "impedance" until it is a significant portion of an
>  electrical wavelength of the signal it carries.

That's not exactly right.  A transmission line has a characteristic
impedance, which in the case of your local subscriber loop is probably
around 100 ohms or so.  I don't know the exact number but it can be
calculated from the dimensions of the wire.  If the line is exactly
matched to the terminating impedance, then you don't get any
reflections, regardless of how long the line is.  The problem with
local loops is that they aren't a good match to the endpoints, which
have an impedance of around 600 ohms.  But even if the characteristic
impedance of the line were carefully set to 600 ohms, it wouldn't
matter until the line becomes a substantial fraction of a quarter wave
long, which would be at least several miles.

Any resistance in the local loop will also make the loop deviate from
an ideal transmission line.

I think the biggest cause of reflections is probably the subscriber
phone set, which doesn't present an exact 600 ohm resistive
termination at all frequencies.  I would guess that the resistance of
the subscriber loop is secondary, and that actual transmission line
effects are last.  Can anyone confirm this?

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

Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When ...
From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 12:46:00 GMT


On 30 Jan 91 06:25:10 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:

Z>  ... a phone in another part of the house has been picked up?  I
Z>  want to do this via the phone line in my room.

Easy: get the cheapest $2 phone you can find, and turn its ringer
switch "on".  Voila, you can hear all kinds of activity, from just the
other phone being picked up, to the whole conversation -- all without
taking your phone "off hook".  Just don't have your ear to the phone
when it rings.  [Disclaimer: not all cheap phones do all this].


[e-mail]  Naperville IL USA  [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 21:00:14 EST
From: dscatl!daysinns![e-mail]
Subject: AT&T 605 and 615 Terminals Available


A business acquaintance here in Atlanta has approximately 50 AT&T 605
terminals and approximately 75 AT&T 615 terminals he is trying to
sell.  As an added bonus, autodialers for the 615 terminals are
included for free.  These autodialers are designed to be used with the
AT&T System 85/75 digital or analog sets.  Since this may be of
interest to the readers of telecom, Pat has graciously allowed me to
post this.  I can't give out the prices over the net and I will work
as contact and forward the interested parties to the company selling
these.

Please contact me at:
  Alan Fleming
  {uunet}!gatech.edu!daysinns!alanf
  (404)/728-4498

Disclaimer: I have no connection with the company selling these other than
that of a business acquaintance and fellow telecom devotee.


[Moderator's Note: Although generally messages offering things for
sale are best placed in the appropriate 'for sale' newsgroup, there
are instances where the items are of relatively specialized interest
to telecom people; thus I will put them here after first discussing
the message with the writer.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #80
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28799;
          31 Jan 91 2:33 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28821;
          31 Jan 91 1:00 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14597;
          30 Jan 91 23:54 CST
Date:     Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:06:28 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #81
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:06:25 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 81

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Cordless Phones False Dialing? [Ben Singer]
    Rolm Phone Compatibility [Bernie Cosell]
    Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia [Arnold Robbins]
    Help Wanted re German Telephone Interface [Dick Jackson]
    A Small Defeat for COCOT's? [Richard Bowles]
    AT&T Toolchest Number Wanted [Ed Benyukhis]
    Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? [Seth Cohn]
    Flashing an AT&T Operator; Calling Card Calls [Douglas Scott Reuben]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ben Singer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cordless Phones False Dialing?
Date: 30 Jan 91 07:38:18 EST


Every now and then I receive a message on my answering machine (same
line as my Panasonic 3910R) telling me I attempted to dial a long
distance number incorrectly or something that effect (of course, a
recorded message). Does anybody have any idea of why this should be,
or has anybody had the same experience? I wonder if it is in any way
associated with cordless phone use; yet, how does it get on the
answering machine tape? Is it possible that the cordless phone is
initiating calls that somehow seep into the answering machine? Or, is
this the kind of thing that might occur independently of the cordless
phone? An enigma ...


Ben Singer                Department of Sociology
                          University of Western Ontario
[e-mail]             London, Ontario   N6A 5C2
[e-mail]      [phone] (home)   [phone]  Ext 5137

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

From: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rolm Phone Compatibility
Date: 30 Jan 91 13:58:20 GMT
Reply-To: Bernie Cosell <[e-mail]>
Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies, Inc, Cambridge MA


Here at BBN we have a ROLM VLCBX system.  As it turns out, I'm getting
some grief from the phonedroids about replacing my instrument with a
speakerphone, and so I'm thinking of finessing the whole matter by
simply going out and BUYING a speakerphone --- phones are cheap enough
and easy enough to come by that it is hard to fathom why providing a
'BBN approved' speakerphone should be an expensive hassle, but it is.

Anyhow: does anyone know what the compatibility of 'ordinary' phones
are with the Rolm system?  It looks like the 'official' Rolm
instruments all just have vanilla modular connectors on them, but I
observe that the phone has at least two not-very-standard features:

  1) it supports a "message waiting" light
  2) it has some magic in the switchhook so that it holds the line down long
     enough to ensure that it is really a 'hangup' [and there is a separate
     'flash' button].

Are there random commercial [speaker] phones that are actually fully
compatible with the Rolm system [including the two items above]?  Even
if the answer is 'yes', I'm curious about what'll happen [besides that
I'll obviously lose the above two items] if I just use a real-vanilla
phone --- it won't hurt the system or otherwise not work, will it?


Thanks,

Bernie Cosell    BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02138    [e-mail]

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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia
Date: 30 Jan 91 14:41:54 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta


There were two inserts in my bill from Southern Bell yesterday. This
note describes one of them.

Transcribed verbatim:

            GEORGIA RELAY SERVICE

        On December 4, 1990, the Georgia Public Service
    Commision gave approval for a Dual Party Relay System.  This
    system provides telephone communications between deaf and
    hearing/speech-impaired customers who use Telecommunications
    Devices for the Deaf (TDD) and all customers who use standard
    voice telephones.  It will begin operation on April 1, 1991.

        To fund the system, the Commision ordered all telephone
    companies in Georgia to collect a monthly surcharge from their
    customers beginning in January, 1991.  This month's bill includes
    a surcharge labeled "Dual Party Relay System for the Hearing/Speech
    Impaired Surcharge."  The amount of the relay surcharge is seven
    cents per line per month.

            The Georgia Relay Center will be located in Norcross
    and will operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Customers
    can access the relay center using toll-free numbers.

        Toll calls completed thorugh the relay center will be
    billed from originating point to terminating point of the call,
    as though the relay center did not exist, at the intrastate rate
    minus a 25 percent discount.

        For more information on the Georgia Relay Center, please
    call Southern Bell at the following numbers:

            Residence Customers:    780-2355
            Business Customers:    780-2800

The numbers above are in the 404 area code.  I'm posting this just to
provide the information to the Telecom readership.


Arnold Robbins                AudioFAX, Inc.
2000 Powers Ferry Road, #200 / Marietta, GA. 30067
INTERNET: [e-mail] Phone:   [phone]
UUCP:      emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The other insert in Mr. Robbins' bill discussed the
introduction of Caller*ID in Georgia next month. This insert will be
printed in the next issue of the Digest.   PAT]

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

From: Dick Jackson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Help Wanted re German Telephone Interface
Date: 30 Jan 91 19:06:23 GMT
Organization: Citicorp/TTI, Santa Monica


We are working towards providing a voice response system for use in
Germany. I would greatly appreciate information about the physical
interface of telephone equipment to the line over there, ie. holding
current, etc. Is it compatible with the US sytem?

I understand about the need to use equipment which is registered with
the PTT, etc.


Thanks in advance,

Dick Jackson

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

From: Richard Bowles <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Small Defeat For COCOT's?
Date: 30 Jan 91 21:18:29 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218


I just noticed a banner over a local 7-11 that said:

   "C & P Payphones are back!"

And sure enough, no COCOTS ... is this a hopeful sign?


Richard Bowles     [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Here in the Chicago area we are seeing a shift away
from those obnoxious devices also, but not as quickly as other places.
The 7-11 stores here have the discretion to use the phone service of
their choice, but the two 7-11's I frequent both use genuine IBT
phones with LD defaulted to AT&T. The 7-11 where I go for my luncheon
sandwiches every day (and a dollar's worth of pinball) is owned by a
nice man and his wife whose hometown is Baghdad. A COCOT salesman was
there one day trying to pressure him into yanking the Bells in favor
of his units. The 7-11 owner turned him down saying he had to use
phones 'the public would be happy with'. Many merchants are beginning
to discover the extra commission they receive isn't worth the
hostility they get from the public.  PAT]

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

From: Ed Benyukhis <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Toolchest Number Wanted
Date: 30 Jan 91 20:03:55 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


Does anyone know the AT&T Toolchest modem line number?  Please post or
e-mail.


Thanks,

Edward Benyukhis

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

From: seth cohn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference?
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 91 12:43:19 EST
Organization: Alchemy International, Ithaca, N.Y.


I recently had a second phone installed for a BBS system.  The
operator gave me a choice of:

1) a testable network interface
2) a NONtestable network interface

What's the difference? (Besides about $5 :) )


Seth Cohn

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

Date: 29-JAN-1991 00:29:57.47
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Flashing an AT&T Operator; Calling Card Calls


 Re: John Higdon's post about flashing an AT&T operator at the end of
a Calling Card call.

I know I keep talking about the "new" and "old" AT&T calling card
systems, but John Higdon's post reminded me of yet another difference:

First, some terms:

"Old" system: generally, the mixed local-BOC/long-distance-AT&T
Calling Card system, where callers would only hear "Thank you" after
entering their card number, and where they could sequence call between
local and LD calls, by hitting the "#" key. Some minor variations
after divestiture: 0 + LD yielded "Thank you for using AT&T", 0 +
local yielded just "Thank you", etc.  Some prohibitions on LD to local
or local to LD sequence calls, but generally there was no such
restriction.

"New System": voice is slightly different, and pauses between "Thank
you using" and "AT&T". It is SLOWER than the older system, ie, on a
sequence call, dialing #, then the new number, (a/c +7D) will not
immediately yield a "Thank you"; you will wait a while, almost as if
it is checking out the number. If you enter an invalid exchange, ie,
415-001 or something, it will tell you right then and there, and NOT
go to the standard error message with the alert tones, ie "<recorded
tones> Your call can not be completed as dialed, please check the
number and dial again. XXX XT"

(If you don't live in CA, call 415-767-1212, you will see what I
mean...)  It will say "Please dial the number your are calling, again,
NOW.  The number you are calling is NOT correct." By entering the #
key after your sequence call, ie, #-415-555-1212-#, you will get a
response immediately (either "Thank you" or "Please dial again...").

"Local System": used by Pac*Bell, NY Tel, NJ Bell, NE Tel, and others.
These companies seemed to put their own Calling Card machines in after
divestiture (because "the Judge" ordered it so??), and only handle
local Calling Card calls. The generic versions seem to have an English
sounding voice which sounds more like a computer than a person (very
"cold" voice, especially when it says "You may dial another call,
now." You get the feeling that an eathquake wouldn't alter that voice! :) )

After the local Bells figured out that the voice sounded bit odd, they
put in their own scratchy recordings. Thus with NY Tel, you may hear
"<cars honking in the background> You may dial <hiss>other
ca<scratch>ll nowwww". (Not THAT bad, but close...)

Aside: Is this Northern Telecom CC equipment? The voice sounds
EXACTLY like the generic DMS-100/200 voice that one hears before the
local telco records their own messages on the DMS ... ie, the
"generic" "We're sorry. The number you have reached is not in
service." Call 203-724-9963 to see what I mean ... it's free (not in
service).

Anyhow ... with the "old" system, I DON'T recall being able to flash
an operator on a Calling Card call WHEN I entered my calling card
number myself.

So, if I dialed 0-415-555-1212, and at the "boing"/tone entered my CC
number, I could flash as much as I wanted after SF DA hung up and
nothing would happen, except maybe I'd get a dial tone.

However, let's say I was at a rotary phone, or some silly Touch Tone
phone in Western MA where they disable the tone pad after you dial 0+
(Western Electric trying to act like a COCOT??? :) Probably since it
was run off of some really old SxS or Xbar switch ...), then in such a
situation, after the "boing"/tone, I would NOT be able to tone
in/enter my calling card number. So after maybe five seconds, the AT&T
operator would come on, and ask for my CC number. It was ONLY this way
that I could flash her back after my first party had hung up to make
another call. You could NOT (and I don't think you can now) get an
operator to come on line DURING the call while the other party was
still there. I *think* one could not recall her on a 'busy' or 'no
answer' (ie, ringing), or any condition where supervision was not
initially returned. I'm not sure about this.

However, with the "new" system, you can recall the operator on a call
where you initially entered your CC number, or where you spoke to her
and verbally told her the number. It makes no difference. Does anyone
know why AT&T did this?

Moreover, some local Telcos are using the AT&T system (is it AT&T's?)
as their own, substituting their local telco name instead of AT&T.
Thus, instead of hearing "Thank you for using" <pause> "AT&T" you will
hear "Thank you for using" <pause> "Bell Atlantic", or whatever local
Telco serves you. Some really cheap telcos or areas that just put in
the new system say "Thank you for using" <pause> "your local Telephone
Company", and "You may dial another" <pause> "local telphone company
handled" <pause> "call, now."

Some telcos, like NY Tel, use this only in certain areas, like on
Staten Island, where as in other parts of NY, one must use NY Tel's
PRIMITIVE calling card system which they put in shortly after
divestiture and is really awful and slow.  (Pac*Bell uses a similar
system, although friends have told me they are hearing the "new" AT&T
system more often now, with of course "Pac*Bell" substituted for
"AT&T" where applicable.) One company that has totally gone over to
the AT&T system is SNET in Connecticut. C&P Tel seems to have gone
over, some sections of New Jersey Bell (but not most), Bell of PA (in
Reading, at least), etc.

On these "new"/local systems, you have to push the "#" sign after a
local seqeunce call to get the "Thank you" right away. IE, #-"you may
dial another SNET handled call now" - 555-1212-#-"thank you". Can you
flash to get an operator on these?? I've never tried it...

It was also mentioned that if you are on a call, and decide to make an
operator assisted three-way call (ie, "flash" - 0+xxx-xxx-xxxx - enter
CC number -"flash"), you could NOT drop the call unless you get the
operator back and have her RELEASE the call. I've found that rather
than annoying the operator, there are simple ways to get control of
the call back:

On an AT&T call: sequence call (dial "#"), then dial 900-555-1212. You
will NOT be billed for this call, even though it is a 900 number.
After a few seconds, the AT&T computer will come online and tell you
"Please hang up and dial direct - This number can not be dialed as a
sequence call". You will then get promtply hung up on by the calling
card system.

Alternately, you can repeatedly dial an invalid number (415-767-1212
from outside CA), or a local number, IF your AT&T system in your area
does NOT allow sequence calls to local numbers.

On a local BOC call: dial ANY LD number,ie, a call that your BOC can
not handle, and after two attempts it will hang up on you.  I know
this will work with the "new" AT&T equipment (if your local BOC uses
it for local calls), and in many cases works with the older "local"
equipment that some BOCs like Pac*Bell and NYNEX companies use.

(Of course, the above is only valid for Calling Card calls, and if you
just do nothing, the Calling Card system will probably just hang up on
you anyhow.)

Finally, we also have "110" for "flash-the-operator-if-you-have-three-
way-calling", but how do you do this if the operator assisted call is
on the "second leg" of the call, ie, you can't get the second
"Three-way" tone with which to dial 110?  In the example above, 110
wouldn't do much good. Consider this problem I once had: I was talking
to someone, we wanted to reach directory assistance in London, so I
called, via three-way, the operator, who connected me. DA in London
took a LONG time to answer, so the operator left the line and told me
"Flash me when done". I wasn't thinking, and said "OK", and after I
got the number from London DA, I COULDN'T flash, since the operator
call was my second call, and flashing did no good. So for over an hour
my line was busy until the operator came on and hung up!

DMSs don't seem to have this 110 code for 'flashing' for customers who
have three-way calling and need to flash an operator on the "first
leg" of their call (ie, no three-way call involved). Is there some
similar code? I called the tech people at Pac*Bell and SNET, and none
of them even knew what 110 did!  Please....!

Guess that's it for my favorite esoteric telcom subject! Anyone still
awake?  :)


Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I tried 415-767-1212 just now from home. I was
intercepted right here in Chicago by three-one-two, five-tee, and told
my call could not be completed as dialed.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #81
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02025;
          31 Jan 91 4:54 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02270;
          31 Jan 91 3:07 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06491;
          31 Jan 91 2:01 CST
Date:     Thu, 31 Jan 91 1:28:48 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #82
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 31 Jan 91 01:28:26 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 82

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Telemarketing Sleaze's New Gimmick: The Gulf War [TELECOM Moderator]
    Press a Button to Make a Donation [Stan M. Krieger]
    Class Action Suit Against IBT 'Charge for Poor People' [TELECOM Moderator]
    Southern Bell Notifies Customers: Caller*ID is on the Way [Arnold Robbins]
    909 Split Official [Jeff Sicherman]
    Personal Communications [Steven A. Minneman]
    Economics of Caller-ID [Douglas Ferguson]
    Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas [Robert Savery]
    Re: Japanese Payphones [Carl Wright]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 0:28:56 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telemarketing Sleaze's New Gimmick: The Gulf War


Everyone has heard the stories of telemarketing sleaze ... the
preposterous offers and the inconvenient calls from shysters. Although
I myself feel it should be adequate to say no and replace the
telephone reciever on the cradle, there are times when even I cringe
at the abusive and ugly nature of some telemarketing schemes.

Consider the latest one, as described by Kathleen Kott, a resident of
Palatine, IL, in a story reported by the {Chicago Sun-Times} 1/30/91:

Kathleen and her husband Bernard sent their son to the Persian Gulf
not long ago with the fears and sadness all parents and spouses of
military men and women are sharing right now. Although they did not
expect to hear from him on a daily basis while he was overseas in the
war, they knew he would call occassionally as he was able. James Kott,
a 25-year old Air Force navigator went to do his military duty, and
his parents went home to weep.

Kathy Kott said, "I had been crying for two days ... we had expected
to hear from our son, and his call was long overdue. My husband had
gone to sleep, and I finally dropped off to sleep also."

Then the phone rang, the shrill bell awakening Kathy.

"This is Commander Walker," an authoritative voice announced late on
the evening of January 18. "We are the connection to bring the voice
of your loved one in Saudi Arabia to you ...."

Hastily, Kathy awoke her husband Bernard; it must be a call from Jim.

"To show your support, stay on the line and press one," the voice
commanded them. Later, they found it was just a tape-recorded message
used to introduce what came next:

Kott pressed the one on her phone. But instead of hearing her son
Jim's voice -- or worse yet, a dreadful message from an Air Force
official -- who else would be 'Commander Walker' if not a military
leader? -- Kathy and Bernard learned that a $9.95 donation plus $1.50
for shipping would buy her a bracelet "connecting you to your loved
one in Operation Desert Storm ... Just press one again to place your
order now ..."

Stunned, Kathy did nothing, and eventually the call disconnected from
her line. But she is still angry about this unsolicited, tape-recorded
call placed to her home late at night.

She said to get a call like that late at night under the circumstances
was just devastating. She said it took advantage of the family's
situation and was an invasion of their privacy.

Kott and her husband are not the only ones to receive these calls.
There have been numerous complaints lodged against the firm making
these pitches. Illinois Attorney General Roland W. Burris, whose
office oversees telemarketing firms operating in this state said both
his office and the Attorney General of the State of New York have been
contacted by numerous citizens complaining about the calls.

Burris said  "It is despicable that no matter what the crisis, no
matter how much grief Americans are sharing at this time, we have
unscrupulous people who are ready, willing and able to take advantage
of American consumers ... "

Todd Wyatt, owner of Voices for Freedom, the company he operates in
McLean, VA denied being unscrupulous. He claims his business is
legitimate. He claims the profits from the sale of the bracelets would
subsidize a voice-mail center so troops in the Gulf could leave
messages for their families and receive messages the same way.

Mr. Wyatt was asked some pointed questions about his operation.

One, why were calls made late at night?  His response was there were
problems with the contractor's equipment being used to make the calls.
He would not specify exactly what the problem was. Did the equipment
have a mind of its own and begin making calls each night?  Was there
perhaps some programming error which assumed east coast area codes
were actually in the western time zone and that people would still be
awake?  He had no answers.

Two, what about allegations made to state officials -- and supported
by statements from two credit card charge processing centers -- that
credit cards were having $100 holds placed on them to pay for the
bracelets .... fact or fiction?  Mr. Wyatt admitted this was true
also, and again placed the blame on the contractor handling the sales.

Wyatt added that he "would never do anything to bring discredit upon
the men and women serving their country in the Gulf ... "

But Todd Wyatt isn't alone in 'not bringing discredit to the troops',
as Ronald Fenech revealed when he was questioned about his promotions.
Mr. Fenech, of Elkhart, IN sells T-shirts by phone using the same sort
of sleazy tactics which Wyatt is so good at. Fenech claims $2 of every
$10 sale and $4.50 of every $18 sale is used to 'purchase sundries for
our troops overseas".

Neither Todd Wyatt nor Ronald Fenech have registered their fund
raising organizations with any state agency that the {Chicago Sun
Times} was able to find out about ... and both men claim they did not
know they were required to register.

The non-profit National Consumers League in Washington, DC cautions
that 'dishonest telemarketers will find the gulf crisis a rich source
of fraud where generous Americans wishing to show their support of the
troops are concerned.'  They urge caution when dealing with people
over the phone claiming to have or implying they are associated with
the military.  I strongly second that suggestion.


PAT

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 15:14:08 EST
From: S M Krieger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Press a Button to Make a Donation
Organization: Summit NJ


I just heard the following on WCBS radio (880AM in New York City).
There was no information about how it is done, or what kind of new
phone service was involved, but here is how it works.

In Connecticut (Southern New England Telephone), people are getting
phone calls asking them to push "1" if they support the troops in the
Persian Gulf.  After pushing "1", they're told, or later find out,
that $2.00 will be billed to their phone.  SNET says it's legal.

Has anybody ever heard of this before?


Stan Krieger:                    All opinions, advice or suggestions, even
AT&T UNIX System Laboratories    if related to my employment, are my own
Summit, NJ                       and do not represent any public or
att!attunix!smk                  private policies of my employer.


[Moderator's Note: I think to make it legal there has to be at least
the briefest mention of the charge being made and the consideration
being given, ie. the trinket you will receive or whatever. But they
can slur the words and talk rapidly.  :)  no, actually  :(    PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:26:45 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Class Action Suit Against IBT 'Charge for Poor People'


A class action suit was filed Wednesday afternoon against Illinois
Bell Telephone Company asking that the company be required to abandon
its plan to add fifteen cents to the bills of each subscriber in order
to finance reduced-cost service for poor people in the state.

Earlier this month IBT had announced a plan to provide service at a
greatly reduced rate to people who qualified by virtue of their
participation in some form of public aid program here. In excess of
five dollars per month would have been credited back to the phone
bills of people in this category, with the offset being a charge of
fifteen cents per subscriber/month to everyone else. It is estimated
about sixty thousand subscribers would have benefitted from the
reduced rates. 'Proof of poverty' would have been achieved by
participation in General Assistance, Aid to Dependent Children,
subsidized housing or other forms of public assistance.

The rest of the subscribers said NO!, and the class action suit filed
Wednesday also asks for a temporary restraining order prohibiting IBT
from collecting the fifteen cents until such time as the court has
ruled on the class action suit.

Spokespersons for the class action said "we are already taxed to the
hilt to pay for programs assisting poor people. There are already
numerous surcharges on our phone bills as a result of changes made at
the time of divestiture. We don't plan to pay any more."  Illinois
Bell had no comment, saying they had not yet seen a copy of the suit
papers.

I'll provide more details as they are available.  Only headlines were
given on the evening news.


PAT


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

Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: Arnold Robbins <[e-mail]>
Subject: Southern Bell Notifies Customers: Caller*ID is on the Way
Date: 30 Jan 91 14:52:27 GMT
Organization: AudioFAX Inc., Atlanta


There were two inserts in my Southern Bell bill yesterday.  This note
describes one of them.

Transcribed verbatim:

            SOUTHERN BELL OFFERS CALLER ID

        Beginning February 14, Caller ID will be available to
    single-line customers in the metro Atlanta area.  The service
    will be available to most of our service areas throughout the
    state by mid-1991.

        With Caller ID service and a special display unit
    (purchased separately), customers will be able to identify the
    telephone numbers of most incoming calls from the immediate
    local calling area.  After the first ring, the call's number
    appears on the display unit.  You can answer or return the
    call later -- you decide.

        Published and non-published telephone numbers will be
    shown on the special display unit.  As before, non-published
    numbers will not be listed in the telephone directory or with
    directory assistance.

        Centers for crisis intervention and law enforcement
    agencies may be eligible for special treatment.  For more
    information, agency directors should write to Southern Bell,
    Room 136CID, P.O. Box 100051, Atlanta, Georgia 30348.

            <Bell System Logo>

               Southen Bell
            A BELLSOUTH Company


This note is posted just to provide the information to the Telecom
readership.  I haven't yet formulated a personal opinion on Caller*ID.

The most interesting thing I note is that no mention is made that
Caller*ID is only being done on a one-year trial basis.  I won't
speculate though as to why that piece of information is ommitted.


Arnold Robbins                AudioFAX, Inc.
2000 Powers Ferry Road, #200 / Marietta, GA. 30067
INTERNET: [e-mail] Phone:   [phone]
UUCP:      emory!audfax!arnold Fax-box: [phone]

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 22:02:55 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: 909 Split Official
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  The telephone gods have spoken: the 909 area code will be given to
Riverside and San Bernadino counties in southern California and 714
will remain with Orange County. Effective date of the switchover is
November 1992.


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 11:13:45-1795
From: "Steven A. Minneman" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Personal Communications (was: Person Numbers)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven A. Minneman )
Organization: Fujitsu Network Switching of America, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ben Stoltz)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 66, Message 13 of 16

>I would like to see some discussion on "Person Numbers".

>In the brave new world, people may have the option of calling me
>instead of my phone.
[significant speculation on this subject deleted]

This is what is being called "Personal Communications (PC)" or
"Universal Personal Telecommunication (UPT)".  It is a new field with
VERY high interest from most companies in the telecommunications
field.  However, it is in its infancy.  Standards bodies worldwide are
just beginning to define how PC or UPT will work.  It will (hopefully)
allow someone to reach someone else anywhere in the world by dialing a
"personal number."  However, there are still many questions to be
answered and many agreements to be reached.

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

From: Douglas Ferguson <bgsuvax![e-mail]>
Subject: Economics of Caller-ID
Date: 31 Jan 91 01:27:12 GMT
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.


     I am writing an academic paper on the economics of Caller-ID with
several levels of analysis: (1) the need for the regional BOCs to find
new sources of revenue in a post-AT&T era, (2) the costs to the BOCs
for offering Caller-ID with or without mandatory blocking, (3) the
costs to the BOCs for offering other CLASS services in the absence of
Caller-ID, (4) the costs to the consumer for Caller-ID and other CLASS
services among the various BOCs, (5) the relative value of Caller-ID
with blocking to Caller-ID without blocking, and (6) the costs to the
BOCs for litigating the Caller-ID controversy.

     Can anyone suggest articles or books that could help?  I know
that a lot of the information is proprietary but it would also help if
I could get the name of someone familiar with the economics of
Caller-ID.


     Dr. Douglas Ferguson, BGSU, Bowling Green, Ohio  [phone]
    ARPA: [e-mail]  *        *** Disclaimer ***
Internet: [e-mail]          *  Opinions expressed are not
  Bitnet: ferguson@bgsuopie               *  those of BGSU.   Trust me !

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

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 23:50:41 PDT
From: Robert Savery <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a message on 27 Jan 91, Tiny Bubbles (Michael Ho) writes:

TB> I have one easy question about cordless phones and one trickier one.

TB> 1.  Are flexible antennas any good?  .........
TB>    ......  Do they work as well as the whip?

I bought one of these when I broke the whip off my phone. It worked
fine for me, but the phone never went out of the apartment.

The only complaint I had about the flexable antenna was the way it
mounted. The set screw was forever coming loose, resulting in the
antenna flying across the room.

TB>2.  Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code?
TB>    Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the
TB>    dialing codes?  I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring
TB>    a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I
TB>    wonder if my phone is safe.  That's a big consideration for me, and
TB>    it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones.

All the security code does is keep nefarious types from using another
handset to outdial on your line. It in no way stops someone from
listening in on your conversations.

An AT&T phone is no "safer" than one of the el-cheepos.

See Ya!!


Bob

msged 1.99S ZTC
[200:5010/666.5@Metronet] Trebor's Castle, Lavista Ne.

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Japanese Payphones
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 04:23:45 GMT


I remember reading in our "Ann Arbor News" that the University of
Michigan and Michigan Bell are or were testing pay phones with prepaid
charge cards just like you describe in Japan. Are there any U.M.
students listening who can comment?


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 #82
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02856;
          31 Jan 91 5:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13046;
          31 Jan 91 4:14 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab02270;
          31 Jan 91 3:07 CST
Date:     Thu, 31 Jan 91 2:02:56 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     telecom@eecs
Subject:  Report on MFJ Symposium
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


[Moderator's Note: Jane Fraser, a regular correspondent to TELECOM
Digest from Ohio State has passed along this special report of a
symposium held last week. I thought you would enjoy reading it,
although it is too long for a regular issue of the Digest.   PAT]

  Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 13:59:37 est
  From: "Jane M. Fraser" <[e-mail]>
  Subject: Report on MFJ Symposium Sponsored by Ohio PUC


                   Report on MFJ Syposium

                        Jane M. Fraser

On January 25, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio sponsored a
one-day symposium on the Modified Final Judgment (MFJ).  The MFJ is
the 1982 consent decree (with subsequent modifications) between the
U.S. Justice Department and the AT&T Bell system that divested AT&T
from the former Bell operating companies (BOCs).  In the MFJ, AT&T
retained the portions of the system related to the provision of long
distance telephone service and the manufacture of telephone equipment,
while the BOCs retained the local exchange parts of the network.
Because the MFJ was based on findings that there had been illegal use
of monopoly power in the local exchange to dominate the provision of
long-distance service and equipment manufacture, the newly independent
BOCs were prohibited from entering into those lines of business.

Since an earlier, 1952, agreement had prohibited the Bell system from
being involved in information services, there were no such portions of
the company to be allocated, but fears that the local exchange
monopoly could be used to unfairly limit competition in that area led
to also prohibiting the BOCs from providing information services.  The
MFJ specifies procedures by which BOCs can obtain waivers from the
three restrictions for specific projects.

The PUCO symposium had panels devoted to each of the three
line-of-business restrictions as well as a fourth panel devoted to the
concept of separate subsidiaries, a device proposed to be imposed on
the BOCs if any of the restrictions are lifted.

The day began, after a welcome from the PUCO chair Jolynn Barry
Butler, with an address by Donald W. McClellan, Jr., Legislative
Assistant to Senator Conrad Burns. McClellan also showed a tape,
provided by Pacific Telesis, illustrating the telecommunications
network of the future, including high fidelity video, voice
recognition of commands, on-line shopping, and so forth.

The panel on the manufacturing restriction, chaired by Barbara J.
Stonebreaker (Senior Vice-President, Cincinnati Bell, which is not a
BOC), included Richard Janney (General Counsel and Vice-President,
Ameritech, which owns five BOCs in the Midwest), Michael D. Baudhuin
(Corp. Vice-President, AT&T), Calvin Manshio (Commissioner, Illinois
Commerce Commission) Lee Selwyn (President, Economics and Technology,
Inc.) and Paul H. Vishny (Counsel, Telecommunications Industry
Association).

Janney set the stage by saying that the Ameritch BOCs, at least, have
no desire to "bend metal," but are very constrained by the
interpretation of the manufacturing restriction to include the
creation of any software that is integral to the operation of
switches. He argued that this interpretation has created
inefficiencies in the BOCs.

Baudhin (from AT&T) and Vishny (from the manufacturers' association)
both argued that there has been an enormous growth in competition in
the manufacture of telephone equipment since 1982 and that lifting the
restriction might stifle this growing competition; the BOCs, they
argued, would have incentives to purchase only from their own
manufacturing arms just as the old Bell system had.  Vishny provided
the data that the BOCs purchased 92% of their equipment from AT&T
before the MFJ but purchase only 60% from them today.  Vishny also
pointed out that manufacturing and operation are separated in many
other countries for the same public policy reasons that they should be
in the U.S.  Baudhin also raised fears that the BOCs would illegally
use revenues from regulated provision of local exchange service to
subsidize the development of unregulated manufacturing divisions.

Manshio presented one regulator's view that each state should be free
to extract a fee from the BOCs to get into manufacturing, arguing that
the nation would benefit from the increased competition the BOCs would
offer in manufacturing.

Selwyn focussed on the need to develop a national system that is
modular so that all companies can get access to the intelligence that
is increasingly being built into the telephone system.  Janney replied
that Ameritech had been the first RBOC (Regional Bell Operating
Company) to issue its plans for an Open Network Architecture.  Selwyn
argued further, however, that we need a rich competitive software
market without the BOCs before we should lift the restriction.  He
said the risk of allowing the BOCs to get into the programming of the
switches is that the resulting system would lose its interoperability;
different switches would be programmed differently.

Selwyn raised the debate level considerably by stating that videos
such as that we had just seen from Pacific Telesis seek to scare
people into believing that only the BOCs can lead us forward; he
disagrees with this belief.  Selwyn also took issue with frequently
cited studies (by Bill Davidson and others) that compare the U.S.
phone system with those of other countries to scare people into
believing that the U.S. telephone system is second rate because its
annual investment is much lower; he argued that most foreign telephone
systems are government owned and such studies ignore the considerable
investment occurring in private networks and in CPE (customer premise
equipment).  In open discussion, Selwyn asked the proponents of
lifting the restriction to give one example of something in the video
that the BOCs could not provide today because of the restriction.  (In
my opinion, his question was answered later in the day by comments on
the restrictions imposed by the information services prohibition.)
Selwyn's remarks caused this panel to be easily the most lively and
heated of the day.

The information services panel was chaired by Tom Muth (professor of
telecommunications at Michigan State).  The panelists included Steve
Shapiro (outside counsel for the RBOCs on the MFJ), Brad Tillson
(publisher, Dayton Daily News), Nancy Garrison (Antitrust Division,
U.S. Department of Justice), Ron Binz (Colorado Consumer Counsel),
Lenworth Smith, Jr. (Commissioner, Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio), Gerhard O. Mueller (President, GemTech, Inc., a company that
consults to information service providers), Anita Wallgren
(Vice-President, Great American Communications, Inc., of Cincinnati),
and Harry M. Shooshan, III (National Economic Research Associates,
Inc.)

The information services restriction seems to be the most likely to be
lifted soon.  In a pending decision, the court has been asked to
remove this restriction. AT&T has not objected and the U.S. Justice
Department has also filed to support this. Supporting views have come
from the FCC and the United States Telephone Association, among
others, while opposing views have come from the Association of
American Publishers, Inc., the Consumer Federation of America,
CompuServe, and MCI, among others.

Tillson, publisher of the {Dayton Daily News}, gave a fascinating
description of the movements newspapers are making into information
services as they increasingly see their role as providing information
in any form.  He feared allowing the provider of the electronic
highway (the LEC or local exchange carrier) to be a competitor with
him in providing the products being carried over that highway.

Mueller later expanded on Tillson's arguments that the the LEC has a
monopoly that would enable it to treat other information service
providers unfairly, by, for example, limiting their access to
information on up-to-date phone numbers, information necessary to the
operation of a credit bureau.  Wallgren, formerly with the National
Telecommunications and Information Adminstration, argued on similar
grounds that content and conduit should be kept separate.

Garrison, one of the authors of the Justice Department brief
supporting the lifting of this restriction, stressed that the court's
job is not to find the best possible settlement.  The only question is
whether removal of the information services restriction would further
competition.  She argued that vertical integration is not usually
suspect, but rather is usually procompetitive; even where it may limit
competition the usual legal remedy is to insist that the carrier
cannot deny access.

Binz, currently vice-president of the National Association of State
Utility Consumer Advocates, argued that there are other alternatives
to lifting the MFJ including granting limited waivers for necessary
services such as medical imaging.  He insisted that competition in the
provision of local exchange access must be a prerequisite for lifting
of the restrictions; he views such competition as being less remote
than in the past.

Ohio Commissioner Smith expressed misgiving over the ability of
regulators to monitor the utilities, but argued that we need to remove
the restrictions and gather data.

Shooshan argued that we should unleash a potentiallly very efficient
information provider.  The BOCs are uniquely positioned to provide
electronic advertising, for example.  The provision of information
services by a BOC through its information gateway could function as an
"anchor tenant," making the information services of all other
providers much more profitable.  Currently the information services
restriction even prohibits the BOCs from customizing the menu provided
to each customer of a gateway.  He argued that these effects of the
restriction force the innovation out of the public switched network
into CPE, leaving out small businesses and residential users.

Congressman Michael Oxley, representative from the 4th District of
Ohio, addressed the group over lunch, expressing his view that the
best role for Congress in telecommunications is to get out of the way.
The threat of possible action of Congress often functions as a sword
of Damocles, which, hanging over the participants, may force more
reasonable behavior without the need for action by Congress.

The panel on interexchange services was chaired by John Borrows
(Director of the Utilities Department of the PUCO staff) and included
Rick Johnson (Director, Federal Regulatory Matters, US WEST), Bill
Levis (Director, Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Central Division,
MCI), William E. Long (Chairman, Michigan PSC), Mark Sievers
(Director, Regulatory Policy, U.S. SPRINT), and Thomas B. Walsh
(Director, MIS/Network Services, Champion International Corp.).

Johnson argued that the RBOCs mainly need release from confining
interpretations of this restriction since it forces them to design in
inefficiency.  Long gave many examples of such inefficiencies and
argued, as Manshio had in the morning, that the state commissions
should be given more latitude in making public decisions on relaxing
the restrictions.

The court has interpreted the prohibition on manufacturing to include
product-related research and development and software development; it
has also interpreted the prohibition on interLATA service to include
carrying traffic across a LATA boundary to enable customers to access
an information service gateway.  Therefore, a BOC may need to place a
gateway in each LATA or require the customer to make a long distance
call to reach a gateway.

Repeating many earlier arguments (as was inevitable) Levis argued that
the BOCs would be able to take unfair advantage of their monopoly on
local access.  Sievers, stressing that the MFJ was consented to by the
Bell system, argued that the agreement was reasonable.  The standards
for removal of the restrictions are clear and have not been met.

Walsh described his company as a satisfied customer, particularly of
Cincinnati Bell (not a BOC) and stated that companies served by BOCs
seemed to have many more problems.

The final session was chaired by Thomas V. Chema (attorney with Arter
& Hadden, formerly chair of the PUCO), and included Allan Arlow
(Vice-President, Government Affairs, Ameritech), Phylicia Fauntleroy
(Director of Office of Economics, D.C. PSC), Jim Schlichting (Chief of
Policy and Program Planning, FCC), William S. Newcomb, Jr. (counsel
for the Ohio Cable Television Association), and John C. Panzar
(Department of Economics, Northwestern University).

As had been argued several times during the day, the lifting of any of
the three restrictions would allow the BOCs to enter lines of business
that are not regulated by state public utility commissions, raising
the threat that the BOCs would use revenues from regulated (monopoly)
customers to subsidize the unregulated lines of business.  Therefore,
some have proposed that the BOCs be required to place new lines of
business into separate subsidiaries, thus reducing the risk of such
cross subsidies.

Arlow argued that corporate structure should not be controlled by
government mandate and that numerous other regulatory controls, such
as Open Network Architecture and price cap regulation, were
sufficient.

Fauntleroy based her talk on a report from the D.C. staff entitled
"For Whom the Bells Toll: The Case for Separate Subsidiaries." That
report concluded that structural safeguards are needed, that current
accounting cannot detect cross subsidies, that separate subsidiaries
have advantages but are not panaceas, and that requiring separate
subsidiaries does not greatly increase the cost of providing new
services.  Newcomb later echoed these findings.

Schlichting argued that proponents of separate subsidiaries were
inconsistent, since they want the BOCs to take advantage of economies
of scope by entering new lines of business but then insist on
destroying those economies of scope by forcing the BOCs to have
separate subsidiaries.  Panzar argued similarly and asked us not to
base policy on the assumption that employees of regulated companies
are criminals.

Those of you who have continued to read to this point did so, I can
hope, to find out my conclusions.  I found the continual presentation
of facts, arguments, recommendations, and even some propaganda to be
sometimes overwhelming.  I found I was left with several reactions.

There are 44 LECs in Ohio, only one of which, Ohio Bell, is a former
member of the Bell System, that is, a Bell Operating Company.  I would
like to have heard the proponents of lifting the restriction on this
one LEC use the other 43 LECs as good examples of what might happen if
the restrictions were lifted.  Since some of the arguments for keeping
the restrictions were based on the monopoly status of a LEC, I would,
conversely, have liked to have heard the opponents of lifting the
restrictions on this one LEC argue that the restrictions should also
be imposed on the other 43 LECs.  Clearly, both arguments would have
recognized that most of the 43 other LECs are not nearly as large as
Ohio Bell and, therefore, might not hold the promise of innovation or
the threat of monopoly power, but some certainly can serve as
examples.

Before the symposium, one panelist speculated to me that it would be
possible to predict what each panelist would say based on knowing the
panelist's place of employment. In the words of my colleague Thom
McCain, "where you stand depends on where you sit." I found this to be
true with very few exceptions.  The day made me feel pleased to be an
academic, since I thought some of the best analysis and freshest ideas
during the day came from academics.

The discussion also made me feel pleased to be an engineer.  I was
discouraged to see so much intelligence and energy go into thinking
about who should or should not be allowed to do X or Y, instead of
devoting that intelligence and energy to actually doing X or Y.  I
think it is important to set fair rules for competition, but I agree
with Nancy Garrison who pointed out that the goal is to set fair
rules, not perfect rules.

As I listened to the debate, I also debated in my mind issues of
business ethics. I am perhaps in a minority in not believing that
phrase to be an oxymoron.  One speaker stated that we should not base
public policy on an assumption that the employees of regulated
companies are criminals.  I wonder whether fair competition could
proceed without all the participants needing to have the rules spelled
out for them.  More pragmatically, authors like Michael Porter ( see
his book _Competitive Advantage_) argue that, rather than seeking to
harm or prevent competitors, companies should help good competitors
thrive, since good competition helps all.


 













Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa08355;
          1 Feb 91 11:16 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa20020;
          1 Feb 91 9:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa06080;
          1 Feb 91 8:28 CST
Date:     Fri, 1 Feb 91 8:02:39 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #83
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 1 Feb 91 08:02:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 83

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today [Eduardo Krell]
    Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI [Phydeaux]
    Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI [Brian Jay Gould]
    Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available [Eddy J. Gurney]
    Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI [Eddy J. Gurney]
    800 Number Confusion [Jeff Sicherman]
    Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [[e-mail]]
    Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [Peter Clitherow]
    Re: AT&T ACUS Service [Carl Wright]
    Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount [Carl Wright]
    Re: Need System For LD Accountability [John Higdon]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 16:46:51 EST
Subject: Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today


*** Reminder: Starting February 1st, instead of dialing 905 or 706 to
call certain parts of Mexico, you will be able to call anywhere in the
country from the United States by dialing 011 + 52 + NATIONAL NUMBER.
In areas where operator assistance is required, there will be no
additional charge.


Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ
UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell  Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 11:32:29 PST
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI
Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]
Organization: From the grass eaters at the Bovine Munching Works
From: Phydeaux <mtxinu!ingres.com![e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eddy J. Gurney)
writes:

>Just a quick note to let you know that I also called Telecom*USA and
>requested an 800 number with them.  They said there is a one-time
>$25.00 service charge, and that the rate was $2.75/month.  Calls will
>be billed at $0.29/minute during the day and $.2175/minute during the
>evening.  This sounds very similar to the numbers you have now, and
>cheaper than MCI's personal 800 service, which is $5.00/month and
>requires users to enter a "security code" so "you control who calls."
>This sounds to me like an excuse to let multiple users share one 800
>number. :-)

When I spoke to MCI they told me that it was $5.00/month and ??/min -
*UNLESS* you had MCI as your LD carrier.  In that case, you would not
have a monthly charge and you could use their hourly calling packages
(I forget what theirs is called) for incoming *and* outgoing calls.
Hourly calling in the evening and on weekends, xx% discount on
incoming calls during the day.  Unless the drone I spoke to didn't
know what he was talking about (highly likely) it would seem that
that's the way to go.


reb

*-=#= Phydeaux =#=-*      [e-mail]     [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W      h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365

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

From: Brian Jay Gould <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service
Date: 31 Jan 91 22:43:38 GMT
Organization: NJ InterCampus Network, New Brunswick, N.J.


Someone had asked about getting wrong numbers to their 800 line.  I
get quite a few.

For a premium, Telecom*USA will sell numbers that spell something.  I
bought one for $100.  Now I get calls all the time of people wanting
to know who answers the phone, or looking for a company of that name.

It all amounts to five to fifteen calls per month at one minute each.
Note that you get the phone number of the caller on your bill, so
abuse would be noticed quickly.


Any disclaimers made for me, by me, or about me - may or may not accurately
reflect my failure to be reflecting the opinions of myself or anyone else.

Brian Jay Gould - Professional Brain-stormer


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

From: "Eddy J. Gurney" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 15:43:19 EST
Subject: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available


Ahh ... the wonderful problems all these merger create ...

On Monday I called Telecom*USA and ordered Residential 800 service.
Or so I thought.  Apparently the representative with whom I talked was
not aware that they were no longer taking orders for that service, and
today I received a call from them telling me to contact MCI.  Gee, how
nice!

So I called MCI, and as I suspected, the so-called 800 number you are
issued is basically just a shared number among a large number of
customers.  (Anyone know how many?)  They say it is much like a
"calling card", where you dial an 800 number, and after the "bongggg",
enter a four digit code.  (This would allow at least 8000 people to use
the same number, even if they didn't offer codes like "0000", "1111",
etc.)  This is what I was trying to avoid by going with Telecom*USA.

I called Telecom*USA back, and they said there was nothing that could
be done.  The _very_ polite woman explained that that service has not
been available for some time, and said she was sorry that she was
unable to help resolve my problem.  I asked if her supervisor could
approve it, and she said no, that because Telecom*USA merged with MCI,
all requests for any type of service connection had to be routed to
MCI.

So it appears I'm out of luck, unless any readers know of other LDC's
that offer residential 800 service at reasonable rates?  (Preferably
without a shared 800 number.)

I figured it was too good to be true! 8-)


Eddy J. Gurney, N8FPW  --  [e-mail]  --  The Eccentricity Group


[Moderator's Note: That is really a shame. I guess I should consider
myself very lucky I got my numbers from Telecom*USA before they made
the changeover. I agree with you the idea of adding a code to the
number being dialed sounds pretty bogus. My two 800 numbers just ring
straight through to me. Even someone at a rotary dial payphone can use
them with ease. You might ask about 800 numbers from Cable and
Wireless. They offer user-programmable 800 numbers I believe.   PAT]

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

From: "Eddy J. Gurney" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service vs. MCI
Organization: The Eccentricity Group - East Lansing Division
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 15:09:37 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eddy J. Gurney)
> writes:

>>$25.00 service charge, and that the rate was $2.75/month.  Calls will
>>be billed at $0.29/minute during the day and $.2175/minute during the
>>evening.  This sounds very similar to the numbers you have now, and
>>cheaper than MCI's personal 800 service, which is $5.00/month and

> MCI's personal 800 number is MUCH cheaper ... no $25 service charge
> ...  only $2/mo (with Primetime) and .225 a min day and .1083 evenings/
> weekends (with Primetime).  Even at the $5/mo rate it would take over
> eleven months to make up the difference; and the calls are .25 day and
> somewhere around .20/min other times.

According to the information I received from MCI, the "PrimeTime plus
Personal 800" costs $9.50/month.  This entitles you to one hour of
calls to and from your home during plan hours.  Calls to your 800
number outside plan hours are billed at $0.225/minute.  After the
first hour, calls to your 800 number during plan hours are
$0.1083/minute.

Without the "PrimeTime" option, the charge is $5.00/month, and calls
are always $0.25/minute, regardless of time of day.

It does appear that MCI is cheaper with the PrimeTime option.
However, the main disadvantage I see to MCI's personal 800 service is
their use of "security codes."  Although I'm not certain, I would
assume that once a caller dials "your" 800 number, they must dial
(presumably from a TouchTone(tm)-equipped phone) an access code to
active the ringing of your home phone.  The Telecom*USA numbers do not
require this.

I was not aware of the $25.00 hookup fee until I had answered half of
their questions.  I agree that the $25.00 charge makes the offer less
appealing.


Eddy J. Gurney, N8FPW  --  [e-mail]  --  The Eccentricity Group

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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 01:51:27 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Number Confusion
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  One of my clients just got their first 800 number. Almost
immediately they started getting phone calls for another company in an
unrelated business. 800 directory assistance seems to have the right
information but some of the misdirected calls seem to have been caused
by information given by a local Chicago directory assistance (as best
we can find out).  Why would Chicago DA be giving out 800 number
information ?

 Belatedly, we tried to find out how old the 800 number we were given
was (how long it had been out of circulation). Apparently it's almost
impossible to get a virgin one. But they (AT&T) claimed they couldn't
tell us that information either before or after selecting a number.
Are we getting stonewalled ?


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: Many companies have their numbers listed in
directories outside their local telephone service area as a
convenience to customers trying to find them. If the previous owner of
the 800 number in question had a listing in the Chicago phone book
then it might be the listing is still there. The company turned off
the 800 number but might well have forgotten to notify IBT to cancel
the directory listing they were paying for. If the 800 number is
cross-posted to the Chicago listings, then 312-555-1212 would have the
number. You might begin by finding out (from Chicago DA) if in fact
they are still giving out that number for some company, and if so,
then call that company yourself; speak to the telecom supervisor and
ask them to cancel their now obsolete listing. They might be paying
IBT for continuing to list the number and not even realize it if they
are not reconciling their phone bills on a regular basis.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 23:46:45 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


Calling Cuba may or may not be legal; there was and may still be a
service in Miami which forwards calls.

Paying for the calls is quite illegal, however, under the 'trading
with the enemy' act.  You can not legally pay any money to Cuba.


 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner


[Moderator's Note: Very interesting theory, but you are NOT paying
anything to Cuba. You are paying AT&T. *They* are the ones 'trading
with the enemy'.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Bellcore - Wierd Ideas Factory
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 16:54:13 GMT


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

> My 1982 Edition of "Telephony's Dictionary" shows a cable between Key
> West, Florida and Havana Cuba. The number of circuits is not listed,
> but I would guess it is less than fifty. I have no idea when the cable
> was laid or whether it is still in use.

On a visit to Key West last year, near the red concrete block that
marks "The Southernmost Point in the Continental US", I noticed a
small concrete hut.  I was told that it housed the terminus of a
telephone cable to Havana and was currently unused.  I recall
something about the cable being laid 75 or so years ago.


Peter Clitherow, Bellcore, [e-mail]
444 Hoes Lane, Room 1H-213, Piscataway, NJ 08854-4182 [phone]

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T ACUS Service
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 04:19:53 GMT


I may regret this, but I would be pleased to try to get answers about
ACUS from the horse's mouth. They are down the hall from our company
and I can go ask them in person.

Please send your questions direct to me. I will go ask them and send
out the answers in one article.

I can tell you without asking that they are growing quickly. They
lease half the building we are in, are taking most of the new wing
being built for them and in four years they have an option to kick us
out. They also are every aggregator's favorite choice for billing
services, but they refuse to handle all but three aggregators, I
think. The call aggregators want them to do their bill processing
because they can have the AT&T logo on the bills.  The logo makes it
easier to get the bills paid in Accounts Payable departments.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Multi-Location WATS Discount
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 04:57:36 GMT


In article 16225 (John R. Levine) writes:

>According to an article in {Data Communications} (not a bad magazine,
>available free to qualified readers) the AT&T aggregator business
>exists because of tariff peculiarities. [other stuff deleted]

AT&T developed IMHO multi-location WATS and Affinity Group WATS to
permit it to sell to large corporations with many allied locations and
give a discount for the amount of business brought to them in one
sale. They are forced to permit the aggregator to build its own group
because of laws/regulations prohibiting them from restricting access
to tariffed services to just a segment of the possible buyers. The
service must be available to all comers, even other competitors.

I spoke at a conference for aggregators done by Dr. Bob Self, guru of
tariffs.  Many of the speakers imagined that AT&T liked this so long
it brought in the other guy's customer and hated when it just lowers
their income on existing customers.

Aggregation is being done also with MCI and Sprint, but most attendees
were interested in using AT&T. This is partly because MCI is resisting
aggregation strenuously. I don't know why Sprint wasn't being used
more.

>direct.  I forget how the aggregator makes money, either it's a fee
>they charge their customers, or AT&T rebates part of the ultimate
>customers' bills.

I imagine that this has changed, but many of the aggregators at the
conference were getting credits against their bills. This left them
with growing credits, but no CASH. It sounded like AT&T might be
changing this, but I haven't heard.

This is a very fast changing situation and the conference was many
months ago.


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Need System For LD Accountability
Date: 30 Jan 91 22:33:15 PST (Wed)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


[e-mail] writes:

> Can anyone suggest any similar solutions that are CO or LD-switch
> based, i.e.do not require the dialer on the line?

If you are looking for savings within the LATA, you will need to use a
service that employs FGB. This is because Pac*Bell will NOT route a
LATA call through an IEC. Hence, any "equal access" solution can be
ruled out. There are still some LD providers that use FGB, and some of
these will allow you to use a smart switch to route the calls rather
than bozo dialers. This is always preferable; you as the customer can
control your switch programming but you have not a clue about the
dialers. There have been many cases where dialers have skimmed off
even local calls (charging considerably more than local rates).

There is one other creative solution to intraLATA savings, and that is
by using the services of a reseller that has CENTREX access. A company
called Centex does just that. You install a number of lines from their
CENTREX group and place your calls normally. Your LATA calls are
carried via highly-packed WATS, FX and other routes. Their rates are
considerably less than standard Pac*Bell.


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #83
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28867;
          2 Feb 91 2:13 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14839;
          2 Feb 91 0:46 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07146;
          1 Feb 91 23:41 CST
Date:     Fri, 1 Feb 91 22:58:12 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #84
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 1 Feb 91 22:58:04 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 84

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [John Temples]
    Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again [John R. Covert]
    Re: The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: A Small Defeat For COCOT's? [Steve Wolfson]
    Re: Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled [Bryan Richardson]
    Re: Flashing an AT&T Operator; Calling Card Calls [Bryan Richardson]
    Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities [Dave Levenson]
    Re: Rolm Phones [Fred R. Goldstein]
    Re: Class Action Suit Against IBT 'Charge for Poor People' [Randy Borow]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Temples <jwt![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again
Organization: Private System -- Orlando, FL
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 15:17:29 GMT

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

>It is not Jews who are setting up this scam, but rather Arabs mainly
>from the West Bank.

This comment really speaks volumes, but this isn't the appropriate
forum to discuss them.  What difference could it possibly make to
TELECOM readers whether the scam artist was a Jew, an Arab, or a
Mongolian?  The original article said "a visitor from Israel" -- how
does adding "he wasn't a member of a *our* religion, but was a member
*their* ethnic background" contribute to the discussion without
raising undertones of racism and hatred?


John W. Temples -- [e-mail] (uunet!jwt!john)


[Moderator's Note: My feeling is a lot the same as yours, yet the
original article on the newswires was somewhat more specific than the
version I ran here (it identified the 'visitor from Israel' as someone
from the Gaza Strip). Mr. Nussbacher thought it was important enough
to write and add the clarification so I went ahead and used it also.
Probably I should have mentioned the Gaza strip in the original
article here as well. No harm was meant by the original or the
rebuttal, I'm sure.   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 12:20:08 PST
From: "John R. Covert  31-Jan-1991 1456" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Blocking International Calls, Again


>Moderator's Note: By the way, I tested calling Israel today with my
>AT&T card and the call went through ...

This despicable practice is done "to high-fraud countries" and "from
high-fraud areas."

AT&T determines whether to block by NPA-NXX.

I was at JFK airport, waiting for a flight to Hong Kong, and tried to
call ahead from a payphone.  The call was blocked.

I found a phone on a completely different NXX, and the call went through.

As has been pointed out before, AT&T is not the only company which
blocks calls.  Sprint completely blocks many countries from Travelcard
access.


john

[Moderator's Note: In the new edition of the {International
Telecommunications Guide}, a publication of the AT&T International
Rate and Dialing Information Service, the use of call blocking as a
deterrent to fraud is noted on page 15 in a footnote referencing their
tariff authority as Tariff FCC # 1, Section 2.9.5.  So apparently they
are behaving lawfully -- the tariff *is* the law -- even if it still
stinks. Incidentally, to get your free copy of this 88 page paperback
book which gives much detail on city codes, dialing procedures on
international calls, etc. phone AT&T at 1-800-874-4000.  From outside
the USA call 1-412-553-7458, ext. 348. You may reverse the charges.  PAT]

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The "Four-Wire Line" - An Explanation
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 1991 12:54:46 GMT


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

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

>  [ an excellent introduction to four-wire lines ]

>>       So, a local telephone plant uses only one pair per subscriber.
>>  In engineering terms, it is far from a perfect transmission line.  The
>>  main reason is that no transmission line operates at its normal
>>  electrical "impedance" until it is a significant portion of an
>>  electrical wavelength of the signal it carries.

>That's not exactly right.  A transmission line has a characteristic
>impedance, which in the case of your local subscriber loop is probably
>around 100 ohms or so.  I don't know the exact number but it can be
>calculated from the dimensions of the wire.  If the line is exactly
>matched to the terminating impedance, then you don't get any
>reflections, regardless of how long the line is.  The problem with
>local loops is that they aren't a good match to the endpoints, which
>have an impedance of around 600 ohms.  But even if the characteristic
>impedance of the line were carefully set to 600 ohms, it wouldn't
>matter until the line becomes a substantial fraction of a quarter wave
>long, which would be at least several miles.

>Any resistance in the local loop will also make the loop deviate from
>an ideal transmission line.

>I think the biggest cause of reflections is probably the subscriber
>phone set, which doesn't present an exact 600 ohm resistive
>termination at all frequencies.  I would guess that the resistance of
>the subscriber loop is secondary, and that actual transmission line
>effects are last.  Can anyone confirm this?

Despite slight mis-interpretation all the theory of transmission
lines, this last paragraph is quite close.  The DC resistance of the
loop really doesn't have much affect.

The characteristic impedance of telephone cable pairs varies with
length, wire gauge, frequency, terminating impedance and whether
loading coils are used.

  Non-loaded cable tends to have higher Z at lower frequencies.
  For instance 1200 ohms at 300Hz, 600 ohms at 1000Hz and 150 ohms
  at 3000Hz, all with 100 to 700 ohms of capacitive reactance.

  Loaded cable tends to have 400-800 ohms Z in the mid range and
  higher Z toward either high or low frequencies.  The range of
  reactance is from inductive to capacitive and may jump very
  rapidly from one to the other extreme as the frequency is changed.

  Loaded cable tends to have less loss per unit of length, but there
  is an extremely high loss increase at higher frequencies.

I poked around in an old AT&T (1960's vintage) book of tables for
cable parmeters thinking I would post some examples, but decided a
gross generalization would be boring enough (the tables are *really*
boring).

As can be seen it isn't just that the subscriber set is not a 600 ohm
load at all frequencies.  Thing else is either.

The significant measure of a cable pair termination match is "return
loss".  There are a number of different methods for used to measure
return loss, depending on what type of interference would be the most
problem.  But a simple example would be to measure how well a cable
pair (with a termination at the distant end) balances a hybrid circuit
when white noise is measured across the hybrid.  Anything less than
11-12 dB would likely be annoying (it might sound like talking through
a 20' piece of 6" pipe).  Anything better than 20 dB is astounding.


Floyd L. Davidson  |  [e-mail]   |  Alascom, Inc. pays me
Salcha, AK 99714   |    Univ. of Alaska      |  but not for opinions.

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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 09:43:08 CST
From: Steve Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Small Defeat For COCOT's?


My health club dumped its COCOT phones for genuine IBT.  The COCOT
never kept up on programming and the phones tended to charge you $1.50
for a local call it thougt was long distance.

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

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pepsi Call-in Contest Cancelled
Date: 31 Jan 91 18:00:16 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>Yesterday, during Super Bowl coverage, I heard that Pepsi had planned
>a telephone call-in contest, but that it decided to cancel it out of
>concern over the phone network.  This (as I have read since in a news-
>paper) was done after consultation with the FCC.  I don't know much
>else about this.

The details I read were as follows: Pepsico had scheduled a promotion
for Diet Pepsi to run during the first three quarters of the Super
Bowl.  There were three 1-800 numbers, one each for AT&T, MCI, and
Sprint.  After dialing the number, you would be asked to record your
name, address, and phone number (or something like that) and you would
receive a coupon for a two-liter bottle of Diet Pepsi.  Also, the 75,000
caller would receive $1,000,000.

I assume that the different IXCs were prepared to handle the calling
volume (I know AT&T was).  However, the FCC and the LECs found out
about it and were considerably more worried because after every
commercial showing the numbers, thousands of lines of every CO would
go off-hook, attempting to dial one of the three numbers.  Not
surprisingly, the LECs and the FCC were not prepared to deal with this
peaked load, and were able to negotiate with Pepsi to get the call-in
portion of the promotion cancelled.  Part of the FCC's concern was the
possible disruption in telecommunications nationwide during Operation
Desert Storm.


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.

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

From: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Flashing an AT&T Operator; Calling Card Calls
Date: 31 Jan 91 18:07:16 GMT
Reply-To: Bryan Richardson <[e-mail]>
Organization: Purdue University


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

>NOW.  The number you are calling is NOT correct." By entering the #
>key after your sequence call, ie, #-415-555-1212-#, you will get a

In my experience, I use the '#' key after dialing in the calling card
number and get much faster response, either on AT&T or LEC calls
(typically, IBT and New Jersey Bell, as the site of my favorite
airports).  In dialing sequence calls, (e.g., #-415-555-1212# as
above), sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

>[Moderator's Note: I tried 415-767-1212 just now from home. I was
>intercepted right here in Chicago by three-one-two, five-tee, and told
>my call could not be completed as dialed.  PAT]

I think, but can't be sure, that 312-5T is an IBT Access Tandem (probably
a 4 ESS switch)


Bryan Richardson     [e-mail]
AT&T Bell Laboratories and, for 1991, Purdue University
Disclaimer:  Neither AT&T nor Purdue are responsible for my opinions.

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Call Screening Intercept Message / CLASS Curiosities
Date: 31 Jan 91 23:42:49 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Al L Varney)
writes:

> [Moderator's Note: The tests I performed were these:  My office has a
 ...
> Finally, if you have been screened, the operator cannot put you
> through either! It works like our 900/976 blocking here: If I block my
> phones from 976-whatever, dialing the operator won't help. She cannot
> connect me. And likewise, if I screen you, then calling the operator
> *from the line(s) being screened* to ask for an emergency interupt or
> 'assistance in dialing' will be to no avail. Her calls will be
> screened also, because the equipment apparently is smart enough to
> know the number placing the call.  Very clever service!  PAT]

I have Call*Block, which is what NJ Bell calls the service IBT
apparently calls Call Screening.  The service works a bit differently
here.  Our three business lines are billed to the same account, but
are all identified by the actual calling line number on a Caller*ID
device receiving a call from any of them.  When Call*Block is invoked
and one of these lines is entered, callers from other lines still get
through.

Calling-card calls come through without identification (out of area)
and bypass the Call*Block option.

My two residence lines have Caller*ID and Call*Block.  They are also
in a hunt group.  If I block calls from some arbitrary number on the
first line in the hunt group, then calls from that number reach the
refusal recording if the first line is idle, but ring the second line
if the first is busy.

That is not the way I would have implemented the feature interactions,
but that's how it works in NJ, in 908-647, today.


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

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

From: "Fred R. Goldstein" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rolm Phone Compatibility
Date: 31 JAN 91 17:54:42 EDT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bernie Cosell)
writes:

>Anyhow: does anyone know what the compatibility of 'ordinary' phones
>are with the Rolm system?  It looks like the 'official' Rolm
>instruments all just have vanilla modular connectors on them, but I
>observe that the phone has at least two not-very-standard features:

Presuming that your desk has a standard "Flashphone" instead of one of
the electronic Rolm sets (ETS-100 or Rolmphone), then it's basically
an ordinary phone, probably made by Comdial for Rolm.  When I
installed the original LCBX at BBN, we started with ordinary ITT
(later Alcatel Cortelco) sets with a message lamp.

> 1) it supports a "message waiting" light

The BBN message lights were installed before Rolm supported message
lights, so the wiring was non-standard: The second pair to each set
carried the lamp voltage (90 vdc through 100k ohms).  Rolm had to
hand-bugger each set to move the lamp off of tip and ring.  Nowadays
they have standard superimposed message lamps; you can tell them apart
because the latter blink when the phone rings.

>  2) it has some magic in the switchhook so that it holds the line down long
>     enough to ensure that it is really a 'hangup' [and there is a separate
>     'flash' button].

That's done by the Flashphone.  It just has a two-second timer on
switch hook.  That solves the "ringback" problem that plagued all
pre-Flashphone Rolm installations, like BBN! (Rolm rings you back with
the first call after you put it on hold and finish the second call.
Other PBXs hang both up at once.  Depress the hookswitch too quickly
between calls and you'll hold the first call instead of hanging it up.
Hence the ringback.)

> Are there random commercial [speaker] phones that are actually fully
> compatible with the Rolm system [including the two items above]?  Even
> if the answer is 'yes', I'm curious about what'll happen [besides that
> I'll obviously lose the above two items] if I just use a real-vanilla
> phone --- it won't hurt the system or otherwise not work, will it?

No problem -- the flash button and hookswitch timer are for your
convenience, and the switch doesn't see them.  The lamp voltage won't
harm anything.


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

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

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Jan 31 10:11:45 CST 1991
Subject: Re: Class Action Suit Against IBT 'Charge For Poor People'


Pat,

With all this talk about Illinois Bell's latest 15c tax to help the
poor (what about me? I certainly ain't rich!), I was just wondering:
what's your opinion on it?


Randy Borow
Rolling Meadows, IL.


[Moderator's Note: I think universal service is an admirable goal if
for no other reason than it increases the value of my own service. But
I prefer the voluntary donation method used by People's Gas (the gas
utility here) with a 'checkoff box' on your bill asking "do you wish
to include $1 extra to assist in paying the gas bill for a needy
person?" (Or words to that effect.)  Also, I'd prefer to see the
Welfare Department here increase the allotment in general, allowing
the recipients more flexibility with all their utilities, including
the phone.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #84
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00615;
          2 Feb 91 3:23 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa19831;
          2 Feb 91 1:53 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab14839;
          2 Feb 91 0:47 CST
Date:     Sat, 2 Feb 91 0:19:51 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #85
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Feb 91 00:19:33 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 85

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Digital Communication Over Radio [Paul Schleck]
    Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS) [Carl Wright]
    Re: Calling Cuba from the USA [John R. Levine]
    Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Ralph Zazula]
    Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference? [Julian Macassey]
    Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing? [Adam Keith Levin]
    Re: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia [Bob Goudreau]
    Re: Tel Aviv Pingable Systems [Brian Crawford]
    Re: NEC P300 Programming [Craig R. Watkins]
    Weird Two-Letter Prefixes [Carl Moore]
    What do the Numbers in Intercept Messages Mean? [C. M. Wolf]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 22:21:40 PDT
From: Paul Schleck <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Digital Communication Over Radio
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE


The abstracts of the 1st through 8th Computer Networking Conferences
of the American Radio Relay League come to mind.  They consisted of
amateur radio operators discussing X.25, TCP/IP, and other networks
over radio links.  They are available for five or six dollars apiece
from the American Radio Relay League, 225 Main Street, Newington CT
06111.  Request a list of publications from them.


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)

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

From: Carl Wright <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Accessing AT&T (Was AT&T ACUS)
Organization: UMCC, Ann Arbor, MI
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 1991 03:46:04 GMT


Lars Poulsen suggested that having the LECs reprogram their switches
to handle 950-YXXX access to ATT would be the preferred solution. I
wonder if ATT may be avoiding charges from the LECs for this
programming.

I don't know that the LECs would charge ATT, but I learned from an
Ameritech audiotext sales person that Ameritech could not provide me a
900 number I wanted becuase they had paid for it to be programmed in
the routing tables of only selected switches. They wouldn't provide
for national 900 usage because of the expense to them to get routing
done in all the switches.

Can anyone confirm this?


Carl Wright                     | Lynn-Arthur Associates, Inc.
Internet: [e-mail]        | 2350 Green Rd., #160
Voice: 1 313 995 5590 EST       | Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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

Subject: Re: Calling Cuba from the USA
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 11:48:31 EST
From: "John R. Levine" <[e-mail]>


In article <[e-mail] you write:

>My 1982 Edition of "Telephony's Dictionary" shows a cable between Key
>West, Florida and Havana Cuba.

I read somewhere about that cable last year.  It was in terrible
shape, and AT&T wanted to replace it.  However, various government
regulations forbid their using the latest state of the art cable to
Cuba, so they went out into the Atlantic and rolled up 100 miles of
one of the old unused TAT cables to reuse between Key West and Havana.
No word on whether it's actually been relaid yet.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (RALPH ZAZULA)
Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When ...
Date: 31 JAN 91 01:13:37
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona Physics Department


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

>On 30 Jan 91 06:25:10 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:

>Z>  ... a phone in another part of the house has been picked up?  I
>Z>  want to do this via the phone line in my room.

>Easy: get the cheapest $2 phone you can find, and turn its ringer
>switch "on".  Voila, you can hear all kinds of activity, from just the
>other phone being picked up, to the whole conversation -- all without
>taking your phone "off hook".  Just don't have your ear to the phone
>when it rings.  [Disclaimer: not all cheap phones do all this].

The purpose I had in mind is this: My roomate and myself both have
computers with modems.  I'm sure that most of you know what happens if
someone picks up a phone on your modem line when you are connected to
your favorite service :-(.  What I want to do is put a little box next
to each of our computers (so we don't try to use modems at the same
time) and near the phones (so we don't pick up the phone while modems
are in use) that will have a light that remains lit while the line is
open.

I probably should have said "is in use" rather than "has been picked
up" in my first message...

I don't think I'd want to have modem sounds playing all the while I
was connected...


Ralph Zazula              "Computer Addict!"
University of Arizona      Department of Physics
UAZHEP::ZAZULA             (DecNet/HEPNet)
[e-mail]  (Internet)

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Ring Voltage in Asia Countries
Date: 31 Jan 91 15:06:07 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 79, Message 7 of 12

>I've been trying to call Dabo since I got back, and I can't convince
>the AT&T operator to stay on the line for the ten minutes or so that
>it takes the operator in Indonesia to get through.  Seems to me that
>in the old days, the operator would take the number you wanted to
>call, then ring you back when she was able to get through.  Is there
>some way to get them to do that today?

    Probably like me, the operator sometimes forgets that there is
still a ton of plug-board stuff out there. Tell the operator you are
calling a "Rural Plug Board system" and either to stay with you until
the local operator responds or call you back when she is connected.

    My earlier comments on line and ring voltages were of course
for semi-automatic and automatic exchanges. This does not include, RF
links, long lines etc.


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

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

From: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Network Interfaces: What's the Difference?
Date: 1 Feb 91 11:51:09 GMT
Reply-To: Julian Macassey <[e-mail]>
Organization: The Hole in the Wall  Hollywood California U.S.A.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
cornell.edu (seth cohn) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 81, Message 7 of 8

>I recently had a second phone installed for a BBS system.  The
>operator gave me a choice of:

>1) a testable network interface
>2) a NONtestable network interface

>What's the difference? (Besides about $5 :) )

    The testable interface has a really nifty feature. It has an
RJ-11 type jack and plug in it. Your line runs through this plug. To
disconnect every phone in the house, just un plug at the interface.
That much is neat, but the real reason is testing. The network
interface is also your "demarc" (demarkation point). If your phones
fail and you are not sure whether it is your house wiring and phones
(which you own and have to pay for repairs to) or whether it is the
telco's lines, the plug is used. Get a good working phone, go to the
testable interface and plug it in. If it works, dials, talks and
rings, you have a problem with your wire and phones. If it is dead, or
no ringing etc, they have a problem with their wires and CO.

    If you call repair and have tested at the demarc, get the
clerk to note it on the ticket.

    If you don't have a "testable" demarc, you can do the same at
the protector - yes Esmarelda, your protector is your demarc - only
you then need he-man tools. The macho tool belt is optional. For
unscrewing the nuts holding the house wire, the proper tool is a "can
wrench", but a regular adjustable wrench will do fine. To listen and
test a "hang from your belt to make you swagger" butt set is nice, but
you can use any old phone and a pair of alligator (crocodile) clips.

    Yes, just to impress the girls, I have the full tool kit and
hard hat, but I would go for the testable network interface.


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

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

From: Adam Keith Levin <cbmcats![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing?
Date: 1 Feb 91 17:18:30 GMT
Reply-To: Adam Keith Levin <cbmcats![e-mail]>
Organization: Commodore Business Machines, Tech Support


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ben Singer)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 81, Message 1 of 8

>Every now and then I receive a message on my answering machine (same
>line as my Panasonic 3910R) telling me I attempted to dial a long
>distance number incorrectly or something that effect (of course, a
>recorded message). Does anybody have any idea of why this should be,

I used to come home to similar messages on my answering machine.  I
finally figured it out when the following happened:

1 The phone rang but I let the machine answer it.
2 The caller hung up as soon as the outgoing message began.
3 The phone line was released and went to dial tone during
  the (firly long) outgoing message.
4 The dial tone timed out just as the incoming tape started
  to record.
5 I got a copy of the "To place a call, please hang up and
  retry your call." message.


Adam Keith Levin - Commodore Applications and Technical Support BIX: aklevin
Mail: 1200 Wilson Drive / West Chester, PA 19380 USA   Phone: [phone]
UUCP: ...{rutgers|uunet}!cbmvax!adam   USENET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 12:46:51 est
From: Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia


In article <[e-mail]>, arnold%audiofax.com@mathcs.
emory.edu (Arnold Robbins) writes:

>         For more information on the Georgia Relay Center, please
>     call Southern Bell at the following numbers:

>             Residence Customers:    780-2355
>             Business Customers:    780-2800

> The numbers above are in the 404 area code.  I'm posting this just to
> provide the information to the Telecom readership.

Beware these numbers!  Southern Bell is implementing a uniform service
number scheme throughout all its service regions (2355 = BELL, get
it?).  My Raleigh phone book lists the same numbers, and I've also
received various bill inserts telling me to call 780-BELL "from any
Southern Bell phone" (or words to that effect).  What they *don't*
tell you is that these special numbers are *not* reachable from
outside of Southern Bell territory (such as my workplace, which is in
GTE-land).  Trying to dial 1-404-780-2355 from GTE territory
intercepts after a few rings with a "Your call cannot be completed as
dialed" message, exactly the same as trying 1-919-780-2355.  I suspect
that no one outside of Georgia's Southern Bell territory will be able
to get information about the Georgia Relay Center from the above
numbers.


Bob Goudreau                [phone]
Data General Corporation        [e-mail]
62 Alexander Drive            ...!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!goudreau
Research Triangle Park, NC  27709, USA

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

From: Brian Crawford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Tel Aviv Pingable Systems
Date: 1 Feb 91 21:41:01 GMT
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hank
Nussbacher) writes:

> You are free to ping them as you wish.

At the risk of appearing overly naive, what is the formal definition of a
'ping' ??


Brian Crawford               INTERNET: [e-mail]
PO Box 804                   FidoNet:  1:114/15.12
Tempe, Arizona  85280  USA   Amateur:  KL7JDQ


[Moderator's Note: Here is the 'man ping' command at eecs.nwu.edu
tells us.  PAT]

PING(8)

NAME
   ping - send ICMP ECHO_REQUEST packets to network hosts

SYNOPSIS
   /usr/etc/ping [ -r ] [ -v ] host [ packetsize ] [ count ]

DESCRIPTION
   The ping command sends an Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) man-
   datory ECHO_REQUEST datagram to elicit an ICMP ECHO_RESPONSE from a host
   or gateway.  ECHO_REQUEST datagrams (``pings'') have an IP and ICMP
   header, followed by a struct timeval, and then an arbitrary number of
   pad bytes that fill out the packet.  The default datagram length is 64
   bytes, but this can be changed by specifying packetsize on the command
   line.  Other options are:

   -r   Bypass the normal routing tables and send directly to a host on an
        attached network. If the host is not on a directly-attached net-
        work, an error is returned.  This option can be used to ping a
        local host through an interface that has no route through it (for
        example, after the interface was dropped by routed(8C)).

   -v   Verbose output; list ICMP packets other than ECHO RESPONSE that are
        received.

   When using ping for fault isolation, it should first be run on the local
   host to verify that the local network interface is up and running. Then,
   hosts and gateways further and further away should be pinged.  ping
   sends one datagram per second, and prints one line of output for every
   ECHO_RESPONSE returned.  No output is produced if there is no response.
   If an optional count is given, only that number of requests is sent.
   Round-trip times and packet loss statistics are computed.  When all
   responses have been received or the program times out (with a count
   specified), or if the program is terminated with a SIGINT, a brief sum-
   mary is displayed.

   This program is intended for use in network testing, measurement, and
   management.  It should be used primarily for manual fault isolation.
   Because of the load it can impose on the network, ping should not be
   used during normal operations or from automated scripts.

SEE ALSO
   ifconfig(8C)
   netstat(1) in the UMAX 4.3 User's Reference Manual

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: NEC P300 Programming
Date: 1 Feb 91 18:43:00 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Bob
Sherman) writes:

> If anyone knows the programming access codes etc. for the NEC P300
> handheld cell phone, I would really appreciate it if you would pass
> them along to me via e-mail or here on the net.

I should have also mentioned in my last message the number for NEC's
parts department: [phone] They sell service and tech manuals for
their cellular phones.  I suspect that they would include programming
codes.  For the P-9100 they were on the order of $50 each.  I haven't
bought any (yet).


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

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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 10:38:48 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Weird Two-Letter Prefixes
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


I don't intend this to digress to a discussion of ALL exchange names
 -- just the ones which are not apparently the first two letters of a
normal word.

That was XX4 (994), not XX7 (997), in the Bronx.  Other weird
central-office designations I found in the New York City area, besides
LT1 (581) in Manhattan: TN7 (867), LR3 (573), LR8 (578), all in
Manhattan TT5 (885) in the Bronx TN8 (868) in area 516 on Long Island
LR4 (574), LR5 (575) in area 516 on Long Island I also see LL2,3,6,8
in Manhattan, but LL could stand for Llewellyn.

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

Date: Fri, 01 Feb 91 13:08:18 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What do the Numbers in Intercept Messages Mean?


>[Moderator's Note: I tried 415-767-1212 just now from home. I was
>intercepted right here in Chicago by three-one-two, five-tee, and told
>my call could not be completed as dialed.  PAT]

What are these weird numbers, e.g. 312 5T, that are said when one dials
a wrong number?

CMWOLF@MTUS5


[Moderator's Note: When the recording originates with a BOC or AT&T,
the first three digits are the area code where the message is coming
from and the last two numbers/letters are the ID of the phone switch
giving the announcement.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #85
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21264;
          2 Feb 91 19:30 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa07769;
          2 Feb 91 18:04 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa31573;
          2 Feb 91 16:59 CST
Date:     Sat, 2 Feb 91 16:19:56 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #86
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Feb 91 16:19:48 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 86

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available [John Higdon]
    Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available [Mark C. Henderson]
    Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service [Steve Gaarder]
    Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service [Bob Yazz]
    Re: MCI Personal 800 Number [Steve Forrette]
    800 Directory For "Personal" 800 Numbers [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System [William Degnan]
    Re: Network Interfaces: What's The Difference? [Doctor Math]
    Re: Personal Communications [Charles McGuinness]
    Cincinnati Bell 950-xxxx Payphone Problems [Ralph Hyre]
    Phillipsburg, NJ [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available
Date: 1 Feb 91 10:10:47 PST (Fri)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


"Eddy J. Gurney" <[e-mail]> writes:

> So I called MCI, and as I suspected, the so-called 800 number you are
> issued is basically just a shared number among a large number of
> customers.  (Anyone know how many?)  They say it is much like a
> "calling card", where you dial an 800 number, and after the "bongggg",
> enter a four digit code.  (This would allow at least 8000 people to use
> the same number, even if they didn't offer codes like "0000", "1111",
> etc.)  This is what I was trying to avoid by going with Telecom*USA.

You might just want to bite the bullet and get a REAL 800 number (and
forget the "residence" garbage). I have had a REAL 800 number (with
its own pair, etc.) that covers the state of California for about five
years now. It has saved me thousands of dollars over standard rates
and that doesn't include all the "alternative billing" arrangements
that would have otherwise had to be made to call home.

I realize you are not in CA, but there might be a similar arrangement
available where you are. You are limiting yourself considerably when
you shop for "residence" services. Remember, residences can have
business service, but not the other way around. Sometimes for a
particular application, a "business" service might be more suitable
for one's needs.

You must also evaluate YOUR real needs. If you want an 800 number for
toy purposes, it is possible that there would be no plan that would be
"cost-effective". In my case, I put 30 to 40 hours on the line per
month that would just have to be carried some other way if the line
did not exist. There is a real need; therefore it is cost-effective.


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

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

From: "Mark C. Henderson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service NOT Available
Date: 1 Feb 91 18:00:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Eddy J. Gurney)
writes:

>Ahh ... the wonderful problems all these merger create ...

>So it appears I'm out of luck, unless any readers know of other LDC's
>that offer residential 800 service at reasonable rates?  (Preferably
>without a shared 800 number.)

US Sprint offers 800 numbers for $10/month + usage billed in six
second increments. This is a real 800 number (not the shared scheme
described above). Note that they also offer the ability to get a
number that can be reached from anywhere in the USA and Canada. I
don't know if MCI's service allows Canadian access.


    Mark C. Henderson, Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc.
         MS 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077, U.S.A.
INTERNET: [e-mail]  (alternate: [e-mail])
Tel: [phone]   Fax: [phone]    AT&T Mail: !mchenderson

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

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 11:32:27 EST
From: Steve Gaarder <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service


I recall getting a blurb from RCI long distance (an arm of Rochester
Telephone) about some sort of personal 800 service.  Unfortunately, I
don't have it any more, and I don't remember details.  Their number,
if anyone wants to investigate, is 800-836-7000 or 716-777-8000.

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom*USA 800 Service
Date: 2 Feb 91 20:02:23 GMT
Organization:


[e-mail] (Brian Jay Gould) writes:

> Someone had asked about getting wrong numbers to their 800 line.  I
> get quite a few.

> For a premium, Telecom*USA will sell numbers that spell something.  I
> bought one for $100.  Now I get calls all the time of people wanting
> to know who answers the phone, or looking for a company of that name.

I learned the same expensive lesson ($25 signup + $50 for the "vanity"
number 1-800-SCUMBAG) about wrong numbers arriving on my 800 line.

There WAS abuse and it came from all over the country, and almost
always from phone prefixes where the last four digits were marked
"XXXX" on my bill.  Finally disgusted, I forwarded my local phone to
which the 800 number had been routed back to the 800 number itself.
The phone was never answered, should have looped once and then gotten
a busy.  NO such luck; on the final bill (I had asked that the number
be turned off) I got a couple of weeks worth of doubly billed calls.
So, contrary to Pat's experience, I DID get bills for unanswered or
busy calls by Telecom USA.

But when I complained I also mentioned that I had been bothered by
wrong numbers from all over the country -- any call that wasn't from
CA or MA or in one case NJ were wrong numbers.  Amazingly they offered
to removed these calls from my bill!  I truly did not expect this from
an 800 company, but they did it!  It changed my last bill from $49
something to -$4 something; I still haven't gotten a refund check and
it's been months since I switched over to Cable & Wireless's
programmable 800 service.

C&W didn't charge me extra for my new vanity number (which is
decidedly more upbeat than SCUMBAG but which I opt not to publish
here) and they also have Programmability -- you can call their
computer on Its 800 number and tell it where to reroute calls to Your
800 number.  If you sign up now for their very new call detail billing
(where they give you the number that called you on your bill) it's
free.

When I signed up for C&W I knew there would not immediately be call
detail but I did expect each call to be itemized.  It wasn't.  Just
daily summaries of how many minutes the calls lasted.  I was appalled!
I actually have one of those Radio Shack CP-1000 clackety-clack units
that prints every digit you dial and the duration and time and date of
every call received, right down to the number of rings before it was
answered.

Well, when I complained to C&W about the utter inability to verify
that the calls the put on my bill were accurate or not they told me
they'd run a special program to get the info and FED EX it to me for
free!  I was once again amazed!  I told them send it by regular mail,
I could wait the extra days.

I've signed up for the free call detail so I'll start getting
"conventional" 800 bills next month.  BTW, their rates were more like
15 cents a minute, not the 20 something to 29 cents a minute of
Telecom USA.

Happy to report two positive customer service stories.


Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I tried your experiment of forwarding the line my
800 calls come in on back to the 800 number itself. There was one
small difference: my 800 numbers ring via the distinctive ringing
number assigned to my first line. Since I cannot make outgoing calls
on that line I could not actually forward that number; just the actual
first line number. But in my case I had telco set the distinctive
number so it would NOT forward when the first line did. In other
words, you call my first line, it forwards (if set to do so). You call
the distinctive ring number attached to it, and it rings through to
here regardless of forwarding status on the first line itself. With
the first line working normally, I dialed the 800 numbers. Instead of
them going out to Cedar Rapids or wherever then dialing back here on
the distinctive line and giving me the distinctive call-waiting tone
as I expected, the 800 number returned a busy signal, just like
dialing your own number returns a busy signal rather than a
call-waiting tone. This would seem to imply the 800 number does not
supervise, ie, does not charge until someone answers.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 15:23:10 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI Personal 800 Number


I called MCI a couple of months ago to find out about their service.
The rep gave me the same story about having to select a four-digit PIN
that callers need to know in order to call you.  I pressed the issue,
pointing out that users with universal dial (around 40% of the U.S.,
right?) would not be able to use it.  She paused, and put me on hold
while she checked this out with her supervisor.  When she came back,
the indication was that they assigned a prefix, then you selected your
"PIN" to form the number.  So, the PIN is really just the suffix of
the number.  Callers just dial 800 then the seven digit number.  The
implication was that they presented it in this "PIN" manner to give
people the security that "only the people that know your PIN can use
the service."  While this is indeed true, it is very misleading.  And
of course, this is assuming that the supervisor had the correct
information.  Has anyone here acutally signed up to see what happens?


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 15:34:21 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Directory For "Personal" 800 Numbers


When I signed up for my 800 service with Cable & Wireless, they
indicated that a listing in 800 Directory would be $12/month extra.
The explanation offered was that this fee is what was charged them by
the providers of 800 Directory.  I didn't spring for it, but it would
be kinda funny for people to be able to ask for me by name at 800
Directory.

By the way, my service costs $10/month.  The per-minute rates are
quite good: around $.21/day, $.14/evening, $.11/night.  And they now
have call detail with caller's ANI on the statement.  For an extra
$10/month, you get "Programmable 800", which lets you call into their
switch from anywhere, and instantly reprogram where your 800 calls go.
It works quite well, and C&W is the only carrier that I know of that
offers this service.  Call them at 800/486-8686.  (I've no
affiliation, other than as a customer).


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 07:36:28 CDT
From: William Degnan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wanted: Recommendations For Small Key-System


On <Jan 29 00:43> Kent Hauser writes to All:

U> What's the latest and greatest in small business telephone
U> systems?

U> 6-8 incoming lines 16-20 telephone lines
U> "Normal" features such as intercom, paging, DND, etc.
U> Ability to connect normal two-wire devices such as FAX, answering
U> machine, cordless phone, etc.
U> Good value (ie cheap).

I suspect the advice you receive will be worth the price paid. It is
not enough to know that you are looking in the 8x20 range.

The answer depends on what you _really_ need. It depends on what you
can get installed properly and supported. It depends on the track
record of the manufacturer and the installation/service company.

And if you buy the first one in town, will the vendor have spares? For
how long?

We would be distributing questionaires to your users, looking at your
phone bills, wandering around looking for ways that a skilled
implementation could improve your operation and we'd be writing a
specification based on all that.

We'd qualify vendors, looking at past installation work and talking to their
customers. We'd find out what references _they_ were given when they bought
_their_ system... and we'd call those references.

We narrow the field down to three finalists and recommend one. The
client picks.

It can be a long process but the fit of a telephone system to your
operation is very important. All the details are important.

Find yourself an honest, reliable, independent consultant.


Disclaimer: Contents do not constitute "advice" unless we are on the clock.

William Degnan                   | [e-mail]
Communications Network Solutions | !wdegnan@at&tmail.com
 -Independent Consultants        | [e-mail]
   in Telecommunications         | UUCP: ...!natinst!tqc!39!William.Degnan
P.O. Drawer 9530                 | ARPA: [e-mail]
Austin, TX 78766-9530            | Voice [phone]

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

From: Doctor Math <moocow![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 91 00:13:16 EST
Subject: Re: Network Interfaces: What's The Difference?
Organization: Brown Cow Software (a licensed Waffle developer)


[e-mail] (seth cohn) writes:

> I recently had a second phone installed for a BBS system.  The
> operator gave me a choice of:

> 1) a testable network interface
> 2) a NONtestable network interface

> What's the difference? (Besides about $5 :) )

The "testable" network interface probably has a modular jack wired
inside of it such that all the wiring in your house (past demarc) can
be unplugged, allowing the customer to plug in an ordinary phone and
see if the inside wiring is at fault before calling repair. A less
likely possibility is that it contains a chip that the telco can "see"
from the CO, also to determine where any problem lies. I say "less
likely" because (at least here) they've stopped using these chips;
apparently they register about a ringer and a half and this was
causing problems (installer told me this as I watched him yank out all
six of the little buggers).

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

From: Charles McGuinness <jyacc![e-mail]>
Subject: Personal Communications
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 16:04:29 EST


For those who can't wait for universal "Personal Numbers" that
stay with you when you move around, I have an easy solution:
Get an 800 number.  Of course, there are a few differences
as far as the billing is concerned, but that's an financial, not
technical, issue... ;-)


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Of course you are referring to programmable 800
numbers; otherwise they don't move anywhere either.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Jan 30 13:31:49 EST 1991
Subject: Cincinnati Bell 950-xxxx Payphone Problems


In Cincinnati Bell territory, RBOC payphones in certain exchanges
(231, 752, and 772) are unable to dial '950' numbers. The calls are
marked as 'bogus', and routed to an AT&T operator with a charge of
$77.77.  I suspect that LEC switches are misconfigured, since the
calls work from certain exchanges but not others (The phones are plain
old Cincinnati Bell payphones, not COCOTs. Residential lines in the
same exchanges can apparently dial the 950 numbers.)

Calls to repair and the business office fail to get any meaningful
response.  In one case, I was told that my troubles resulted from the
phone being switched over to MCI long distance service (in error) and
the LEC switched it back to AT&T.

My understanding is that the switches are 5ESS or DMS-100 series.
Distinctive ringing is the only new service that has been added
recently, so I suspect that switch software was upgraded to allow for
that.

Can anyone supply me with the proper buzzwords to use to convince
Cincinnati Bell that their equipment is to blame? I'd prefer not to
escalate to the PUC unless I have to.

Thanks.

Ralph Hyre ([e-mail])

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

Date: Thu, 31 Jan 91 10:46:19 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phillipsburg, NJ


I visited Phillipsburg, NJ recently (U.S. 22 and I-78 just across the
Delaware River from Easton, PA).  Phillipsburg is going into the 908
area, but I found pay phones displaying 201 in some cases and 908 in
others.  (Does someone have the dates for 908 becoming useable and for
the full cutover?)  The Phillipsburg prefixes are 213,454,859; and
they are a local call from Easton in 215 area; notice the N1X prefix
(213), but (quite recently) 215 area began requiring 1+NPA+7D instead
of 7D for local calls into a different area code.

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #86
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa22402;
          2 Feb 91 20:34 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa23362;
          2 Feb 91 19:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab07769;
          2 Feb 91 18:04 CST
Date:     Sat, 2 Feb 91 17:26:36 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #87
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Feb 91 17:26:14 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 87

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls [Phydeaux]
    The Best Cellular Roaming Guide [John R. Covert]
    Caller*ID in Indiana Put on Hold [Bill Berbenich]
    Telecom Info Management Questions [Mike Sullivan]
    Caller Info Needed [Joe McGuckin]
    CLID Blocking Introduced in C&P Territory [Bill Berbenich]
    Interesting Note on Call*Trace [Phillip Wherry]
    75/120 Balun Needed [Raymond Conmey]
    Watching the Listeners [Jeff Sicherman]
    What Happened to 1990 DOJ Divestiture Report? [Sandy Kyrish]
    Roaming in Los Angeles [Steve Forrette]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 09:49:26 PST
Subject: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls
Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]
Organization: From the grass eaters at the Bovine Munching Works
From: Phydeaux <mtxinu!ingres.com![e-mail]>


Last evening I had occasion to make a LD call from a friend's house.
Somehow I got disconnected (I think the cordless phone on the other
end ran out of power). I dialed "00" for the operator - to get
reconnected.  Turns out it was the MCI operator who told me that she
could connect me with the credit operator to give me credit for the
last 1 minute and to reconnect me.

After the credit operator came on the phone and asked a couple of
questions about how the call was billed she offered to reconnect me.
"Would you like me to assist you with reconnecting your call?"
Something didn't sound right about that, so I asked if she'd be
charging me operator assisted rates.  Guess what?  Of course they
would!  I declined and redialed myself.

At home I've got AT&T.  AT&T has *never* chaarged operator assisted
rates to reconnect me. The whole process seems much easier with them
too. How do other carriers handle such situations?


reb

*-=#= Phydeaux =#=-*      [e-mail]     [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W      h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365

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

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 13:01:11 PST
From: "John R. Covert  31-Jan-1991 1516" <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Best Cellular Roaming Guide


The third edition of "The Cellular Telephone Directory" by
Communications Publishing Service has recently appeared.

This book contains coverage maps for the U.S. and Canada (including
quite a few of the new rural service areas that have just started
coming on line), roamer access numbers, roaming rates, Follow-Me
Roaming, Roam-America, and automatic roaming agreements.  In addition,
the book contains information on roaming in Hong Kong, Mexico, and the
Caribbean.

The book costs $17.00 in quantities of 1-2, $14.00 for 3-9, and less
for larger orders.

You may order by calling 800 366-6731 and giving a credit card; there
is no charge for shipping.  Or you may send a check to Communications
Publishing Service; P.O. Box 500; Mercer Island, WA 98040-0500.


john

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID in Indiana Put on Hold
Date: Sat,  2 Feb 91 10:28:46 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


UPce 01/31 0738  Caller ID Plan on Hold

   INDIANAPOLIS (UPI) -- State utility regulators will not allow GTE
to test its controversial Caller ID plan in a way that costs money for
telephone customers who have no desire for the service, officials
ruled Wednesday.

   The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission invited GTE to return
with a different plan in fifteen days.

   A GTE spokesman said the company may or may not submit a new plan,
but first must study Wednesday's IURC ruling. Such identification
plans are opposed by some people as invading the privacy of the
caller.

   James L. Turner, Indiana utility consumer counselor, said the GTE
plan to test the service in 50,000 homes was flawed because even
customers who did not want the service would have been required to pay
$8.50 per month for a protected number service.

   Commission Chairman James R. Monk agreed there was insufficient
consideration by GTE for customers who had no desire for the service.


Bill Berbenich       [e-mail]
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, Ga. 30332-0250

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

Date: Sat,  2 Feb 91 07:12:34 PST
From: Sullivan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Info Management Questions


I am an applications programmer for Stanford University Communications
Services.  I wrote and maintain many of the online systems in
production for our campus phone system.  Some of it actually kinda
works ok :^) Stanford has a NT SL100 switch with 24000 voice, 5500
gandalf data, and some 5000 point to point circuits that we service
and bill for.

Years ago, I investigated various Facilities managment systems on the
market.  Decisions were made, now we got what we got.  There is effort
from management to move us in other directions, naturally different
managers, with different needs, all clearly see different directions.
As I am up to my eyebrows in the nuts and bolts of the current
systems, I'm pretty isolated and ignorant from how the rest of the
world of Telecommunications DBMS's.

I'd like a word or two with some folks:

1. Who maintain, develop, spec out, code, document, Telecom DBMS's
and Telecom Facility management systems.
  specifically,

     CAD, Line Inventory, Billing, Cable management, service order
     processing, switch performance tools, financial summaries,
     Trouble ticketing, Network management, and more.

2. Who have a bibliography of specific periodicals, books, that
discuss above.

3. Who have all the hot answers for telecom info management

4. Or, like me, just have all the dumb questions.

I'd be happy to provide a summary of our current system and some of
our future projects, also some of the questions I'm asked I can't
answer.  In return I'd like to see a summary of other systems, or talk
via email/ telephone, or come for visit.  I'd be happy to collect
whatever summaries I receive, and resend, or post.

Email or call me at office: 415-725-0503
Snail mail at home:  7480 Kelsey Creek
                     Kelseyville, CA 95451


Mike Sullivan

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe McGuckin)
Subject: Caller Info Needed
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Joe McGuckin)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 00:05:15 GMT


I'm building a computer interface to the phone network. One of the
things I'd like to be able to do is receive Caller-ID info. Does
anyone know where I can get the technical information? A sample
implementation would be great.


joe

[e-mail]     -- or --    [e-mail]

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: CLID Blocking Introduced in C&P Territory
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 14:34:18 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


UPma 02/01 1320  C&P to begin offering free Caller ID blocking

   BALTIMORE (UPI) -- C & P Telephone Co. plans to begin offering
free, per-call blocking for people who do not want their number to
show up on Caller ID, officials say.

   Beginning Sunday, touch-tone phone users can dial a three-digit
code -- star, 6, 7 -- before placing a call to ensure their telephone
number does not appear on a Caller ID device. The code is 1, 1, 6, 7
for rotary phones.

   When the code is dialed, a "P" or "Private" will show up on the
Caller ID device instead of a number.

   People who want to make sure their numbers are not revealed will
have to dial the code every time they make a call, officials said.

   C&P had opposed offering free blocking in Maryland, contending it
would undercut the value of the service.

   C&P appealed a Public Service Commission order in November calling
for it to provide free blocking.

   The appeal was rejected in December, when the commission gave C&P
45 days in which to begin offering blocking. C&P's deadline expires
Sunday.

   PSC spokesman Frank Fulton said C&P made an eleventh hour appeal to get
the deadline extended. C&P contended Caller ID might be helpful in
deterring terrorist threats, such as bomb threats, as a result of the
Persian Gulf war, he said.

   The commission did not concur with that view and pointed out that
Caller ID is not available statewide. The panel also said there are
other ways to track down those kinds of calls, including Call Trace, a
C&P service that automatically traces calls when users dial star, 5,
7.

   "C&P, the schools and the police respond very quickly to those
kinds of calls," said Fulton, referring to bomb threats and other
terrorist threats that may be relayed by phone.

   "The commission didn't see where Caller ID would be that effective
in those kinds of cases," he said in Friday editions of The
(Baltimore) Sun.


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

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

From: Phillip Wherry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Note on Call*Trace
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 1991 01:17:54 GMT


An interesting note on the Customer-initiated call trace feature in
the areas served by C&P Telephone's CLASS-equipped exchanges:

A friend of mine had occasion to use the *57 customer-initated call
trace to attempt to track down the source of an annoying call. She did
this, and received a recorded message to the effect that the trace was
complete.  I explained to her that it was then necessary to call the
business office to find out the identity of the caller, and that it
usually/always meant involving law enforcement. As it turns out, this
isn't exactly the case.  When her telephone bill arrive, the number
which called her APPEARED ON THE TELEPHONE BILL under a heading to the
effect of "Customer Initiated Call Traces" (don't know exact wording).

I haven't talked with anyone within C&P, but I suspect the logic
involved is that since Caller*ID is available within the entirety of
C&P's serving area, and since it's non-blockable, there was no
particularly good reason to have Call*Trace act like anything other
than a one-shot Caller*ID.

Without commenting on the merits/drawbacks of non-blockable Caller*ID,
the C&P approach to Call*Trace seems pretty reasonable to me, given
the status of Caller*ID (non-blockable).


Phillip Wherry   The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA    [e-mail]

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

From: Raymond Conmey <motcid![e-mail]>
Subject: 75/120 Balun Needed
Date: 1 Feb 91 13:44:29 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I am looking for a vendor of 75 ohm to 120 ohm Balun PCM interconnectors.

I need BNC at the 75 ohm side and wire-wrap at the 120 side. It (they)
can be discrete units or 19" relay rack mountable.

Thanks in advance.

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 22:00:44 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Watching the Listeners
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  The local PBS station (KCET) had an episode of their public affairs
program "By the year 2000" about surveillance and monitoring on the
job and the effects it has on employees, whether it's legal (or ought
to be), etc.

  Not unexpectedly, one of the cases examined was the intense
measurement that directory assistance operators are under to meet
certain performance standards and how there is pressure to constantly
improve (what have you done for us lately?). One of the supervisors
who was questioned about why this was done apparently had been
programmed properly by the company - Pac*Bell - and responsed that the
communications world was competitive now and they had to perform or
lose customers. Funny, I thought they had a local monopoly on
dial-tone and related services.

  One of the real problems with this intensive cost cutting effort is
that the LA area is a very multicultural society with many people
speaking or reading little or poor English or having various accents.
This can make it very difficult for the DA operator to understand in
some cases. But since they are under pressure to keep their time-on
down, there's no incentive to listen carefully or double-check. And
since the phone company charges for DA after a certain minimum,
there's actually a monetary incentive to at least tolerate (if not
promote) high error rates on the information given out.

  Don't know if the program is distributed to other PBS stations but
you might watch it to see an example of monopoly power and attitude at
work.


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 15:01 GMT
From: Sandy Kyrish <[e-mail]>
Subject: What Happened to 1990 DOJ Divestiture Report?

One of the terms of the divestiture agreement was that the Department
of Justice was required to report to the Court every three years on
the state of competition in the telephone industry.  In 1987, of
course, Peter Huber produced "The Geodesic Network" for them.

Whatever happened in 1990?  Was a similar report produced, and where
can I obtain it?

Thanks in advance,


Sandy Kyrish   MCI ID 320-9613

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 16:14:27 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Roaming in Los Angeles


I recently got to speak to the Roaming Coordinator at Cellular One of
San Francisco regarding some problems I was having with RoamAmerica,
and got to pick his brain regarding some other things.

We all know how maxed out the Los Angeles system is - they're even
charging for uncompleted calls to reduce system usage.  The following
refers to the "A" system; "B" system's milage may vary.

An interesting thing that came out is that they are now using the
"ping" command in the cellular protocol.  This is the command whereby
the switch can page your phone in each cell, and your phone answers
back whereever it happens to be, so that the switch knows that your
phone is alive, all without your phone giving any indication that this
is happening (similar to what happens on incoming calls, but no
ringing).

The reason has to do with the Super Access system we have throughout
California and Nevada.  Roamers from other systems in these areas have
their calls reach them automatically, and get all of their custom
calling features.  It works much better than "Follow-Me Roaming" on
the "B" system, as the switches are permanently connected.  So,
activation happens instantly and reliably.

When you roam into another area, that switch contacts your home switch
to verify the MIN and ESN, and also tells your home switch what
"pseudo-number" was assigned to your phone.  Then, if you get a call
at your home number, your home switch simply forwards the call to this
"pseudo-number" at the roam switch, which then connects to you if
you're on the air.

The problem in LA is that they are running short of these
pseudo-numbers.  So, after you register there (just by doing a
SEND/END), if you're not actually talking, every five minutes the
switch will "ping" you.  If you're not there, it resets the follow-me
functionality, and can then reuse the pseudo-number for someone else.
So, if you turn your phone off, you have to do a SEND/END each time
you turn it back on if you want your calls to find you.

This sounds fine to me, but I know some paranoid people (the "privacy
phreaks") will undoubtedly feel that their every move is being
tracked.  The only problem that *I* see with this is that if my phone
temporarily wanders into an area with poor or no reception and misses
the ping, that the follow-me functionality may go away without me
knowing about it.

It may be that this only occurs when the system is running short of
pseudo-numbers.  In fact it would make sense to only do it in this
case, as otherwise, it would generate a lot of unneccesary traffic on
the paging channels.

Apparently, the other systems in the Super Access areas don't do this,
as their plan of resetting everything at midnight is sufficient.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #87
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24643;
          2 Feb 91 22:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa11840;
          2 Feb 91 21:15 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21977;
          2 Feb 91 20:10 CST
Date:     Sat, 2 Feb 91 19:58:38 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #88
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sat, 2 Feb 91 19:58:29 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 88

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission [Apple PR via Tom Neudecker]
    LD Credit Card Not Tied to Home Phone [Jim Rees]
    How to Market a One-Armed Bandit [Sander J. Rabinowitz]
    Cost of Dialing UK -> US and US -> UK [David Gast]
    When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [John Richard Bruni]
    Sprint to Offer Billing Through LEC [Steve Forrette]
    Everybody's Getting Into Telemarketing These Days [Steve Forrette]
    Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Michael P. Deignan]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri,  1 Feb 91 10:46:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Thomas Neudecker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission


Moderator's Note: Mr. Neudecker passed along the following press
release from Apple Computer which has appeared in the print media and
other newsgroups recently.  PAT]


Contact:
Cindy McCaffrey               - or -          John Cook
Apple Public Relations                        Apple Public Relations
[phone]                                [phone]


Apple Petitions FCC for Use of Radio Waves For Data Transmission by
All Computer Makers

WASHINGTON, D.C.--January 28, 1991--Apple Computer, Inc. today filed a
petition with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that, if
approved, would let computers transmit and receive information over
radio waves instead of through a wired network.  The petition asks the
FCC to allocate a part of the radio spectrum so that all computer
manufacturers be permitted use of radio waves for wireless computing.
Apple believes that approval of the petition is an important step in
the establishment of a new generation of personal computing.

Apple's petition paves the way for the establishment of a new class of
data communications, called Data Personal Communications Services
(Data-PCS).  If Apple's petition is approved, personal computer users
in the future will be able to communicate with other users and with
computer peripherals within a building or a campus over radio waves.
This innovation would eliminate the need, in many cases, for local
communications to travel on wired networks.  "With the rapid advances
in portable computing and wireless communications, we believe it is
essential that computer users have access to this vital communications
resource in the future," said John Sculley, Apple's chairman and chief
executive officer.  "Wireless networks will change the nature of
information tools, making them as mobile and spontaneous as the
individuals using them.

"Apple's action, which will benefit all personal computer users, is
motivated by a desire to ensure that the United States will have made
the most forward-looking public decisions, allowing wireless
networking to become a reality," Sculley added.

Specifically, Apple petitioned the FCC to allow computer
communications exclusively on 40 MHz of the radio frequency bandwidth
between 1850-1990 MHz to transmit data at high speeds (for example, 10
megabits per second) over short distances (up to about 150 feet).

"The convergence of wireless communications and computers will
dramatically change the nature of computing," said David Nagel, vice
president of Apple's Advanced Technology Group. "For example, students
and teachers would no longer be confined to a rigid classroom set-up.
Instead, computing and communications -- and therefore learning --
could happen any place. Users in the workplace would enjoy similar
advantages.  Employees would be liberated from the constraints of
physical networks, which would enhance ativity and personal
productivity," Nagel said.

This type of "spontaneous" or "ad hoc" local area networking would
supplement today's wired network configurations, which typically
consist of telephone lines, coaxial cables, and fiber optics.  The
cost, particularly the capital cost, of hardwiring a building is high
and then users are restricted as to when, how and where they can use
their computers to move data.  Apple recognizes that radio spectrum is
scarce and in high demand.  Considering this, along with the intense
activity being focused on proposals for new voice communications
services, Apple is requesting that the FCC move quickly in giving
equitable consideration to data communication when determining future
bandwidth allocations.

"We're urging the public to support Apple's appeal that the allocation
of radio spectrum go beyond voice communications to include an
appropriate emphasis on data communications," Sculley said. "Our hope
is that computer users will view the allocation of the radio spectrum
for wireless computing as Apple does -- as an important step in
advancing the future of personal computing technology."

  -30-

Apple and the Apple logo are registered trademarks of Apple Computer, Inc.


Apple Press Releases
PR Express   1/28/91

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: LD Credit Card Not Tied to Home Phone
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Fri Feb  1 19:29:28 1991 GMT


I'm trying to find a long distance carrier that will give me a credit
card number that can be used with 10xxx and isn't tied to any
particular local telephone service.  None of the big three seem to be
able to give me one.  AT&T won't open accounts at all for people who
don't have a local phone (is this because of billing?) and the other
two will issue a card, but it can't be used with 10xxx.

Just to head off a lot of misguided replies, note that a phone credit
card number does not have to contain a valid local phone number.


[Moderator's Note: Someone at AT&T gave you bad information. They've
had a miscellanous billing account calling card for many years. They
give it to people in the military, in dorms with switchboards, etc all
the time. And of course the AT&T Universal Card can somewhat meet your
requirements also. I think you have to actually have phone service
with AT&T / a local telco for credit approval purposes, but you can
definitly have a card which does not relate to any specific number.
Maybe you are going about it the wrong way. Explain that you DO have a
phone (or someone does who will guarentee your payments), but that you
want a miscellaneous billing type number. They are billed out of
Orlando, FL I believe; same as cellular phone billings, with separate
bills sent each month not attached to any regular phone bill.   PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 23:24:02 -0500
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: How to Market a One-Armed Bandit


Having read quite a few complaints and horror stories about COCOTs in
TELECOM Digest, I thought you'd be interested in some literature I
received in the mail today from a COCOT manufacturer.  The company is
listed below:

Company: Goldbeam Electronics, Inc., 1741 West Rose Crans Ave.,
Gardena, CA 90249    [phone] / [phone]
[Disclaimer: I don't speak for or endorse the above company -SJR]

There were two models of COCOTs which being advertised.  One model,
#PT-138N, is shorter, wider, and deeper than a "genuine" pay phone,
with the handset located on the left-hand side.  There is a red button
located on the face of the phone, and from what I surmise, you insert
25 cents, make a call, the party answers, and then you have to press
the button (which collects the quarter) to speak to the other party.
The following is a list of the phone's capabilities (quoting
word-for-word from their literature):

  - One quarter seven-digit call for one to nine minsutes or no
    limit.

  - Owner can define up to fifteen sets of area call numbers as one-
    quarter calls.

  - Owner can define up to 25 sets of prefix and/or area call
    numbers as two-quarter calls.  Time limit can be adjusted from
    one to nine minutes or no limit.  [After the time limit,
    you are asked for one or more quarters -SJR]

  - Four-quarter call for any 1+ calling, except the owner's
    predefined one-quarter and two-quarter calls.  Time limit can
    be adjusted from 40 to 90 seconds.

  - Owner can restrict up to 25 sets of prefix numbers, such as
    976, 1900, and some overseas calls which do not start with
    001 [sic] or 011, etc.

  - Owner can restrict the factory set coinless calls, such as 1800
    or operator, where it is legally allowed.

  - Owner can allow or eliminate the continuous coin deposit
    feature for one and two-quarter calls.

  - The factory set or owner predefined time limits can be increased
    by 50 or 100%, when it is desired.

The literature also indicates that it will ONLY take quarters (no
nickels, dimes, etc.).  The selling price is between $400 and $600,
depending on whether or not it's on sale (the literature quotes the
sale price as being currently in effect "for one month only".)

The other model being marketed, #GB-676, is a grossly-oversized desk
telephone, beige in color, which operates in a manner similar to the
first phone I mentioned (ie., use of the "Push to Talk" button,
quarter-only operation), except that (my summary):

   - It doesn't allow _any_ call greater than seven digits long.
     (Presumably, this include 800 numbers; I don't know for sure).

   - All dialable seven-digit numbers (including, presumably, 950)
     are charged 25 cents for every three minutes.  There are
     apparently no exceptions, and it would even appear that not even
     the owner can program the COCOT to allow exceptions to this
     rule (except to manually bypass the charging mechanism with a
     key).

   - The literature does state that it will allow 911 and 411 calls.
     (Can it be programmed such that 411 calls are actually dialed
     out as 1-555-1212?  I don't know.  Ditto with 911.)

   - It's being sold by this company for between $270-$370.

Now, this is what Goldbeam tells their potential customers as to why
they should buy a COCOT (once more, I'm directly quoting their
literature):

   "No installation necessary.  Simply plug it in and ... you keep all
the money!  A new profit center...

   "Every call made generates a profit for you.  A local three minute
call costs about six cents on a business telephone.  Your customers
and employees deposit a quarter and you make 19 cents profit ... long
distance calls generate even greater profits.

   "If you currently have a pay phone in your resturant/bar, you are
paying The Telephone Company about $30.00 a month, and THEY keep all
the revenue.  Install [the COCOT], and YOU keep all the revenue."

Like I said, it made rather interesting reading.  One final
disclaimer: My speculations are entirely on their basis of their
literature.  I have not actually used these particular devices.


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

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 22:49:06 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cost of Dialing UK -> US and US -> UK


In early December there was a discussion about why it costs more to
call from the UK to the US than from the US to the UK.

The answer is actually fairly simple.  There is no fixed exchange rate
for dollars and pounds.  It can very substantially across time.  Last
September the exchange rate was about 1 pound = $2.00; a few years ago
it took only one dollar to buy a pound.  At present exchange rates,
one the recipients noted that the cost from England was almost 50%
greater than from the U.S.  If the exchange rate were one for one (as
it recently was), then it would cost about 50% more to call from the
U.S.

I was in England recently and my overall impression was that almost
everything in England is about twice what is costs in the U.S.  The
primary exception was beer; pub meals were not too bad either.
Lodging, most food, transportation, phone were all terribly expensive.
At only 50% higher transatlantic telephone service is actually a
relatively good deal.


David Gast     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked!
Date: Sat,  2 Feb 91 03:53:46 PST


Regarding testing phone lines at the demark ... those who are new at
this should be told that ringing voltage can give you one heckuva
memorable shock.  I learned this the hard way when I was fourteen.

I was tapping my sister`s phone and had just begun attaching a
permanent line ... I happened to hold onto an iron pipe (the demark
was in our basement) and you guessed it, the phone rang and I *very*
temporarily made a complete circuit between ring and ground.  My guess
is this would be fatal for someone with a weak heart.  This does not
apply to demarks with the test option, I think.

Alas, I am now triple the age I was back then, so this true confession
is beyond prosecuting ... my sister was pushing for it back then,
however.

Regards,

ROCKY


[Moderator's Note: Yes-sir-ee! I think we all had to learn our lesson
the hard way at one time or another. It helps a little if it is a hot,
humid day and your hands are sweaty. Then you don't even have to wait
for the bell to ring!  :) This reminds me of the time I was 'brousing'
inside a 100-watt linear amplifier for a CB and I forgot to put my
screwdriver in there first to discharge the capacitors.  Instead of
'arguing with' the metal part of the screwdriver, the DC worked me
over good on the way to ground instead.  I've had a couple of RF burns
also. That really feels good!  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 23:25:17 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: US Sprint to Offer Billing Through LEC


My recent Sprint bill insert had a mention that they will be offering
billing directly on the LEC bill in the near future in several areas.
They mention that the benefit to the customer is that they only have
to write one check each month.  (They didn't mention that a benefit to
Sprint is that the customer is much more likely to write that check,
since he would be risking disconnection if he didn't pay).

As for me, this would NOT be a benefit.  I have four lines on my
Sprint account: four Pacific Bell lines (three are
consolidated-billed, one by itself), and one cellular phone.  They all
work together to give me the maximum volume discount.  So, my
occasional cellular long distance calls benefit from a discount based
on my high modem use at home.  By splitting up the bills, I would end
up paying more for the same calls.

I confronted Sprint customer service about this, and they said that
they could flag my account so that it wouldn't be switched over.  If
you are in a similar situation, you may want to call before you get
surprised by a larger bill.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 1 Feb 91 15:09:03 -0800
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Everybody's Getting Into Telemarketing These Days


Last night, I got what may be the strangest telemarketing call yet.
Let me say that based on the caller's voice and reaction, that I don't
think it was a joke.

me>        "Hello?"
female caller>    "Hi.  I'm in the neighborhood, and could use some extra money.
         Are you interested?"
me>        "Uh, (thinking, then realizing!) oh, no thanks!"

Given the state of the Oakland/Berkeley area these days, this is
entirely believable.  I'll leave it as an excercise to the readers as
what the product or service was.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: She could have been the Avon lady calling.   PAT]

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

From: "Michael P. Deignan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm
Organization: Small Business Systems, Inc., Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 1991 00:24:17 GMT


[e-mail] (McMahon,Brian D) writes:

>Which reminds me ... again.  :-) Does anyone know if MARS is still in
>business?  MARS is/was the Military Auxiliary Radio Service (or
>System, I'm a bit hazy on the acronym), and provided a radio link
>between soldiers and the Stateside phone network.  Has this service
>been declared outmoded, or are they still doing their good work?

MARS is still in operation. Both my father-in-law and brother-in-law
are MARS members here in the Rhode Island area.


Michael P. Deignan
Domain: [e-mail]
UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd
Telebit: [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #88
*****************************












Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04118;
          3 Feb 91 5:46 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30800;
          3 Feb 91 4:22 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17348;
          3 Feb 91 3:16 CST
Date:     Sun, 3 Feb 91 2:58:35 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #89
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Feb 91 02:58:15 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 89

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    416 Area Code Split Announced [Bell Canada News, via David Leibold]
    Is it a Good Idea to Run Digital and Analog in Same Cable? [Casey Leedom]
    Headset Installation Help Needed [Heath Roberts]
    Who Manufactures Caller-ID Devices? [David R. Zinkin]
    Re: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia [John Higdon]
    Re: CNN From Baghdad [Jim Redelfs]
    Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [Richard Budd]
    Telecom Joke From _Reader's_Digest_ [Timothy Newsham]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: woody <[e-mail]>
Subject: 416 Area Code Split Announced
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 17:21:29 EST


[This is the info in the 28 January 1991 _Bell_News_ on the eagerly awaited
splitting of the 416 area code by Bell Canada.]

416 area code to split

By Deborah Sura

TORONTO - Ballerinas do it. Gymnasts do it. Even bananas do it!  In
this case "it" is the splits, and Bell will be doing just that with
its 416 area code in late 1993.

Rapid growth within the Golden Horseshoe region, which stretches from
Colborne in the east, around Lake Ontario to Fort Erie [map was
printed to accompany the article], as well as the popularity of new
communication technologies like cellular and faxes, have created a
huge demand for telephone exchanges and phone numbers.

About a year ago, Bell took steps to alleviate the problem by
implementing a system whereby either 1+416 or 0+416 is dialed when
placing long distance calls within the "416" area.

This measure freed up the use of "0" and "1" for use as the second
digit in telephone exchanges providing tens of thousands of new
telephone numbers, but by the end of 1993 the supply will be
exhausted.

In order to provide numbers for our customers in the years to come,
Bell will introduce a new area code on October 4, 1993.  Metropolitan
Toronto will retain the 416 area code and the rest of what is now 416
will be assigned to the new code.

"A steering committee and several working committees within Bell have
been set up to ensure a smooth transition not only for our Networks,
Sales and Service people, but primarily for our customers whom they
support," says Ted Edmonds, associate director, Network Planning.

A major communications campaign has been developed to get the message
across.

"Focus studies of business and residence customers revealed that most
participants readily accepted the reason for the area code split when
it was clearly stated. However, they were concerned about who would
get the new area code, how it would affect their bills, and changes to
their dialing," points out Geoff Matthews, associate director, News &
Information.

Bell plans to announce the new area code at a press conference on
March 25 as part of the official campaign launch.

Coincident activities include visits from Bell officials to advise our
major-impact clients, such as the municipal governments, a direct-mail
package to all business customers and a billing insert in April to all
416-area-code- customers to give general notification of the change.
Detailed mailings will follow closer to the implementation date.

A key issue to be communicated to the 1.7 million customers who will
be transferred to the new area code is that the change will not be
reflected on their phone bills.

Calls placed within a customer's local calling area will remain toll
free. The only difference will be the addition of three digits (416 or
the new area code) when placing a call into or out of metro Toronto.

To ease the changeover, there will be a three-month period of
permissive dialing followed by a period of automated referrals on
misdialed calls. As well, a training video produced by our Region's
Audio-Visual team will help Bell employees handle their customers'
concerns, and a 416-Changeover Hotline will provide a direct means of
answering customer queries.

[note from djcl@contact - No info on just what the number of the new
area code will be; perhaps that will be announced at the 25th March
press conference, or sooner or later. - Anyone out there have a scoop,
or is Bellcore sworn to secrecy on this?]


[Moderator's Note: Is this the first time an area code in Canada has
been split? It is pretty routine here in the States now, but I cannot
recall such an instance in Canada before.   PAT]

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

From: Casey Leedom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is it a Good Idea to Run Digital and Analog in Same Cable?
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 91 18:02:02 -0800


  We're planning on completely rewiring our home.  We want provision
for three analog voice lines, AppleTalk PhoneNet and 10baseT Ethernet.
Each analog voice line needs a pair of wires, PhoneNet requires a pair
and 10baseT requires two pair.  Two of the analog voice lines would be
used for high speed modems (V.32bis.)

  We're thinking of running copper six pair, twisted pair cable
throughout the house.  I have several questions regarding the wiring:

    1.    I've heard that there's a potential problem with running high
    level (loud) digital signals in the same cable with lower level
    analog signals on other lines -- even if using twisted pair
    throughout.  It was suggested that we should consider running two
    three pair cables; one for the PhoneNet and 10baseT and one for
    the three phone lines.  Is there any truth to this?

    2.    ISDN may hit our area sometime in the distant future.  This would
    obviate the need for two of the voice lines because we could use
    an ISDN B channel.  Would the three pair we have allocated for
    voice service and modems be enough to support an ISDN connection?
    Can one use one B channel for voice and the other for data
    simultaneously?  I.e. in order to support our need to be able
    to use a phone in a standard manner and operate a data connection
    require that we get *TWO* ISDN drops?

  Basically we'd like to do the cabling job *RIGHT* once and not have
to go back and run new cable because of electrical problems (cross
talk, too thin wire, etc.), mechanical problems (insufficiently robust
insulation, etc.) or not enough wires.  We don't care that much about
the cost of the raw wire.  The biggest cost as far as we're concerned
will be the effort of running the cable and wiring the stations.
Thus:

    3.    Can people recommend specific wire for our needs?  Please
    specify brand and model or provide explicit descriptions of
    features I should look for.

  Which brings up a related topic: all this wire is going to go to and
from some place.  We're planning on running all the wiring out from a
central junction in a star pattern.  Individual wires that aren't in
use by particular end station won't be hooked up at the junction.  The
questions are:

    4.    What kind of junction would be best for our needs?  It would be
    really nice if it were easy to [de]activate lines to stations
    simply by throwing a switch instead of having to pull wires off
    of and punch them down into a punch down block of some kind.
    Again, specific brand and model recommendations are welcome.

    5.    What kind of end stations would be easiest to work with and look
    nicest?  It would be really nice if there was a modular box
    capable of holding several varying jacks.  Three RJ11s for the
    voice lines, an RJ45 for the 10baseT and whatever PhoneNet uses.
    I doubt whether such a box exists, but I can dream.  What do
    people recommend for this?

  Thanks for any and all advise you can give!


Casey

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

From: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Subject: Headset Installation Help Needed
Reply-To: Heath Roberts <[e-mail]>
Organization: Computer and Technologies Theme Program
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 06:14:52 GMT


I bought an telephone-type headset at a garage sale, and haven't been
able to get it to work. I suspect that I'm not connecting something
correctly.

There's an over-the-ear mic boom, and an in-the-ear receiver,
connected via a connectorized cord to an electronics box. The box says
"UNEX Controlonics Corp., Westford, MA" and then what looks like a
model, "Ventel II, Operator" It also has an FCC reg. number and a REN
of 0.

There's an RJ plug (same as normal handset cords) on the other end of
the box. The box came with a coil cord and a twin-phone plug.
Connecting it to a phone doesn't do anything. Since it's not a
line-type connector, I haven't tried plugging it into an active line.
I understand that the tip connetors on the twin plug is receive, and
ring is transmit (or vice versa) so the device is pretty clearly not
intended to plug into a normal two-wire circuit.

My best guess to what's happening is that the box expects some power
supply that a normal phone isn't going to provide. It's a nice headset
and I'd like to be able to use it. Anyone have any helpful
information?

I've tried calling Westford, MA directory assistance, but they don't
have a Urex Corp. listed.


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

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

From: "David R. Zinkin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Who Manufactures Caller-ID Devices?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 00:13:54 GMT


Can anyone tell me the names (and addresses and phone numbers,
preferably) of companies manufacturing Caller-ID equipment?

I know of something called ClassMate, but I don't know who makes it or
any other similar devices.


Thanks (again!)

David Zinkin ([e-mail]) -- Rochester General Hospital Radiology
   (Consultant) and Case Western Reserve Univ. (Psychology/Chemistry)

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

Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice / TTD Relay Service Instituted in Georgia
Date: 2 Feb 91 02:15:08 PST (Sat)
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>


Bob Goudreau <[e-mail]> writes:

> What they *don't*
> tell you is that these special numbers are *not* reachable from
> outside of Southern Bell territory (such as my workplace, which is in
> GTE-land).  Trying to dial 1-404-780-2355 from GTE territory
> intercepts after a few rings with a "Your call cannot be completed as
> dialed" message, exactly the same as trying 1-919-780-2355.  I suspect
> that no one outside of Georgia's Southern Bell territory will be able
> to get information about the Georgia Relay Center from the above
> numbers.

For years, Pac*Bell has had numbers reachable by the public of the
form 811-XXXX. These are toll-free and can be used anywhere with
Pac*Bell's territory. For a period, these numbers could not be reached
by any non-Pac*Bell telephone. Gradually, the independents started
making them available from their phones as well. At least GTE and
Contel (soon to be one and the same) did.

However, no area code is used when calling. My local residence
business office is 811-5700. If I wanted to call that number from San
Diego, I would pick up the phone and dial 811-5700 and would then be
connected with the same people in the same office as if I dialed it
from 408 or 415. For this reason, it would seem impossible to reach
these numbers from outside of the state, since none is associated with
a particular NPA.

Anyone from outside CA ever tried one?


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


[Moderator's Note: For many years here, 811 was used for hotel/motel
or other institutional accounts with switchboards which had to charge
back calls to individual extensions. 811 reached a long-distance
operator who knew automatically to send back time and charges ASAP via
teletype to the subscriber following each call. (Although usually they
batched the tickets and sent back all results once an hour.) The rest
of us used 211 to reach the same long-distance operator. 811 has been
gone for many years. I just now dialed 811, also 1-811. I got
intercepted locally at that point and told my call could not be
completed as dialed.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun,  2 Feb 91 00:58:42 GMT
From: Jim Redelfs <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CNN From Baghdad
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Brian Crawford wrote:

>> 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.

As of 21:00, 1-20-91, he was reporting, voice-only, from Baghdad.  CNN
Headline News was VERY proud to announce that theirs was the only
service allowed to stay - based on their balanced reporting!


JR

Copernicus V1.02
Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)

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

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 12:57 CDT
From: Richard Budd <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA
Organization: Marist College, Poughkeepsie, NY


[e-mail] writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #83:

>Paying for the calls is quite illegal, however, under the 'trading
>with the enemy' act.  You can not legally pay any money to Cuba.

I don't know about calls to Havanna, but as of January 25, you could
still call Baghdad from the USA.  A guy in the office said he called
and made a reservation at one of the hotels there.

Does that mean he doesn't have to pay for either the call or the
hotel?  (Does CNN have to pay their reporter's hotel bill as well?)  :-)


Richard Budd                 | E-Mail: IBM        - [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer        |         All Others - [e-mail]
IBM - Sterling Forest        | Phone:               [phone]

IBM and Marist College don't ask me about my opinions, they just let me
play with their computers.


[Moderator's Note: The way I heard the story was that last week
someone placed a prank call to the Sheraton Hotel in Baghdad and asked
for reservations. He asked, "do you have any rooms available?". The
reservations clerk said yes, there were presently rooms available, and
when did he need his reservation?  He told her in about two weeks he
would be wanting to book the entire hotel for an indefinite period.
The reservations clerk asked, "Who is this calling, please?", and the
caller replied "The name is Bush ... George Bush.  I work for the US
Government.  My party will include several thousand people."  It is
not known if the clerk took the caller seriously or not.  :)  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 2 Feb 91 13:27:48 hst
From: Timothy Newsham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Joke From _Reader's_Digest_


I got a small chuckle from this joke I read in this month's
_Reader's_Digest_:

Department-Store automatic answering machine:

     "If you are calling to order or send money, press 5.
     "If you are calling to register a complaint, press 6459834822955392.
     "Have a good day."

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #89
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24590;
          4 Feb 91 1:03 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa26139;
          3 Feb 91 23:30 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa18816;
          3 Feb 91 22:25 CST
Date:     Sun, 3 Feb 91 21:25:18 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #90
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Sun, 3 Feb 91 21:25:07 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 90

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Wiretaps in Virginia - a Year's Summary [UPI Wire, via Bill Berbenich]
    Michigan BBS Results (Round 1) [GRID News via Ed Hopper]
    Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [Todd Inch]
    GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service [David Gast]
    _Boring_ Telecom Joke From _Reader's_Digest and Bill Inserts [D. Jacobson]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Wiretaps in Virginia - a Year's Summary
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 20:25:42 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The following story came from the UPI wire.  I thought we Telecommers
might be interested in it.

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

UPse 02/03 1734  State police attribute 20 arrests in 1990 to bugging

By United Press International

   State police in 1990 bugged 3,885 phone calls between 72
unsuspecting parties at a cost of $117,593, a published report says.
As of December, the effort had resulted in the arrests of twenty people
and the convictions of three.

   The {Richmond Times-Dispatch} said Sunday that during the past five
years, agents of the state police Bureau of Criminal Investigation
have eavesdropped on 18,330 conversations involving 5,096 parties at a
cost of $1,049,296.

   All told, probes involving bugging resulted in the arrests of 97
people and, so far, 58 convictions.

   The thousands of intercepted conversations seems widespread, but
they all were accomplished by investigators' bugging of 25 phones.

   Three wiretaps were approved in 1990, three in 1989, five in 1988,
three in 1987, three in 1986 and eight in 1985.

   Bureau Director Carl Baker said the rationale for so few intercepts
is that the use of a wiretap can be approved only at great effort and
as a final resort.

   "The mere fact that you have to exhaust all other investigative
techniques prior to obtaining an eavesdropping warrant" makes their
use scarce, Baker said.

   Most of the phones that investigators targeted were in single-family
homes; however, investigators also bugged telephones in apartments,
two businesses and a city arena in Virginia Beach, as well as a car
cellular phone.

   The legal bugging effort was used nearly exclusively in drug probes
and resulted in 199 incriminating calls from 1985 to 1990.

   The BCI conducts all of the bugging for authorities in Virginia.
Some years more warrants are issued than in other years, Baker said,
but apparently there is no trend.

   Once police conclude a wiretap is needed, Baker said, approval is
sought from the Virginia attorney general's office. Then authorities
have to seek the warrant from a circuit court judge in the locality in
which they seek the wiretap.

   No annual budget is allotted specifically for wiretapping, Baker
said.  The costs in the annual reports from the attorney general's
office to the clerks of the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates
include the costs involved in paying the agents installing and
monitoring the equipment as well as any tapes, rent, lodging, vehicle
and meal expense incurred.

   Localities in which judges approved wiretaps in the past four years
were Richmond with one wiretap, Henrico County with four, Chesterfield
County with one, Henry County with two, Halifax County with two,
Fluvanna County with two; Albemarle County with one, Lynchburg with
two, Martinsville with one, Virginia Beach with three, Bristol with
one, Chesapeake with four and Charlottesville with one.


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

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

Subject: Michigan BBS Results (Round 1)
From: Ed Hopper <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 91 10:35:23 CST
Organization: Ed Hopper's BBS - Houston, Texas 713-997-7575


I am posting the following, verbatim, from a message passed on to me
by Bruce Wilson at his request.  Anyone who wishes to engage in flames
over the completeness of this report should direct their comments via US
Mail to the address given.

                        ----------

GRID News. vol 2 nu 4. January 29, 1991.
World GRID Association, P. O. Box 15061, Lansing, MI  48901 USA

Michigan Bell Fends off BBS Complainant
by Michael E. Marotta

James R. Imhoff is the sysop of Variety and Spice BBS.  In January of
1990, Michigan Bell began assessing him business rates.  He filed a
complaint with the Michigan Public Service Commission.  MBT filed for
and was granted a motion hearing.  On January 18, 1991 at 10:00 am, a
hearing was conducted by telephone.  Judge Daniel Nickerson presided.
Two MPSC staffers were present in person.  Michigan Bell's Craig
Anderson and Char Hoffman were connected and James R. Imhoff was
connected.

At that time, Michigan Bell asked for several "discoveries".  As the
defendants, they had a right to know what proofs and witnesses Imhoff
intended to rely on.  Judge Nickerson granted most of the eight
requests.

Docket U9725, James Imhoff vs Michigan Bell Telephone was heard on
January 29, 1991.  Present were Bruce Rainey, Tomasin Garcia, and Sam
Khattar of the MPSC staff.  Craig Anderson, Charlene Hoffman, Nancy M.
Rhoads, and Amy Edwards of Michigan Bell.  James Robert Imhoff
appeared, also.  Daniel Nickerson was the administrative law judge.

We met in a pre-hearing at 9:00 am.  The judge announced that the
purpose of the pre-hearing was to define the issues of discovery.
Craig Anderson, speaking for Bell, said that discovery was not
resolved.  The MPSC staff said that it did not see the complaintant's
reponses to the request for discovery until this morning.  Craig
Anderson said he had a motion. The judge said he would continue
presently.

Anderson's motion was heard.  "I spoke to Imhoff and reminded him of
the deadline," he said. That deadline was Friday, January 25, 1991 at
5:00 pm.  According to Anderson, Imhoff delivered the responses to
Bell on Monday at 12:10 pm. Speaking for the MPSC staff, Tomasin
Garcia said she did not receive the response.  Anderson said that
Imhoff did not provide addresses or other materials as directed by the
judge.  MBT asked that Imhoff be precluded from calling witnesses as
they did not have adequate time to prepare a defense or response.

James Imhoff said that he delivered the materials to Bell's Michigan
Avenue Detroit office at 4 pm on Friday, January 25, 1991, but that
the guard was unconcerned.  The guard did not know Craig Anderson.
Imhoff said that three guards were present, two men chatting with
women, a third woman chatting with another woman.  Imhoff also said
that he did not know he was to give materials to the MPSC staff, he
thought he was to deliver them to MBT staff.  Further, he does not
know the addresses of his witnesses because they are all computer
people whom he knows online only.  He did not know who could and could
not appear.  Judge Nickerson asked Imhoff if he received a letter
outlining is responsibilities.  Imhoff replied that he did not know if
he got the letter because he gets a lot of mail, some of it redundant.

Some discussion transpired on the state of readiness of security at
MBT and whether and when every package delivered is logged.

After a recess to consider the arguments, Daniel Nickerson ruled.
"Discovery is allowed," he said, calling it an important aspect of an
efficient and fair hearing. "Therefore," he said,"I find that my order
was not complied with.  Both staff and respondant are prejudiced for
not receiving the answers ... The matter is dismissed without
prejudice."

James Imhoff said he would file again and take it up later.

After the hearing, I spoke with the principals and the audience.
Craig Anderson said that Michigan Bell is not interested in going
after every BBS.  He would not comment on two hypothetical cases.  He
would not say whether he would consider file uploads to be a value
rendered and he did not feel he could say what this might mean in an
information society.  Anderson and his colleagues all agreed that
these issues would have to be addressed in the future as we continue
to wire our network nation.

I also spoke with James Imhoff.  "I do charge for access," Imhoff
said.  When a user sends him money, "they get time on my system...
they get into the library."  Imhoff feels he should not be charged
business rates.  "The last seven years I have run this system I have
not made dime one on this system. I actually lose between $100 and
$150 a month. It is a hobby for this reason. If I were charging by the
minute like a Prodigy or a CompuServe, it would be a business.  I just
want to get close to break-even.  According to the IRS, anytime you
lose money on a business for three years, that is a hobby.  I make
anywhere from $1000 to $1200 a year and it costs me about $800 a
month.  The cost of a man's toys do not determine whether his hobby is
a business or a residence.

                          -----------

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

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

From: Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]>
Subject: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Todd Inch)
Organization: Global Tech International Inc.
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 91 05:40:27 GMT


Our Moderator suggests:

> . . . have the number on your second line changed to something non-pub,
> and have it hunted when the first line is busy.  That way the busy
> first line will automatically forward a second call to the other line
> if it is not busy with a data call.

That's what I have.  GTE (north of Seattle, WA, near Everett) didn't
charge extra to make the first line hunt to the second line when the
first is busy, which surprised me a bit.  Monthly and LD charges for
both lines are intermixed on a single bill.

I had originally asked for a "circular hunt" where calls coming into
the second line would also hunt the first, but they won't give it to
me.

We wanted this so long distance callers (inlaws in Spokane) could
avoid the answering machine attached to line one by calling line two
and letting it ring indefinitely.  In the case where two was busy with
data, we would be home (sending the data) and would answer one (which
their call would hunt to) before the machine, so either way it would
be a guarantee of avoiding the machine.  That was my plan, anyway.

After not giving me what I'd asked for and then playing around for a
few days, GTE finally said that a circular hunt wasn't tarriffed, so
they couldn't do it.  They admitted that their equipment could do it,
and even said they had it programmed that way for about a half day,
then realized there was no tarriff for it and changed it back.  Can
anyone give evidence that this IS tarriffed?  (Tad?)

I figured they were full of it and checked out our key system lines
(POTS) at work (also GTE) and sure enough, the last line won't hunt to
the first, so now I'm not so sure.

So now my line one hunts to two only and two is unpub and nobody knows
the number.  But, we get LOTS of wrong numbers on it.  We know they're
wrong numbers because we aren't on line one so they couldn't have
hunted.

We used to answer line two (when line one isn't busy) "I'm sorry, you
have the wrong number."  But that just confused them and they wanted
to know how we knew.  Now I just answer "We're sorry, the number you
have dialed has been disconnected or is no longer in service . . ." :-)
Their response is now usually just a click as they hang up after the
first few words of my intercept impression.

We really confused a GTE repairman who dialed line two when he was
troubleshooting some noise on it - poor guy.

Now here's another oddity: We had a custom-calling feature package for
about the first month of service when the first line was installed.
We later had them turn the features off, but some of them seem to
persist.  When we flashed the hookswitch too quickly and then hung up
again, it would ring back.  Three-way calling wouldn't really work,
but almost.

That "feature" went away when they installed line two and programmed
the hunt, but we still have speed dialing and call-forwarding on line
one, which we don't especially want and aren't paying for, but no
features on line two.  I'm fairly sure it's a GTD-5 switch, if anyone
cares.


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

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

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 02:14:29 -0800
From: David Gast <[e-mail]>
Subject: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service


I just received an insert with my GTE phone bill.  It details three
changes.  The first is that ``Touch Call Service'' (must be marketing
lingo) will automatically be available to all GRE California customers
(given the marketing lingo, I am surprised we aren't clients).  This
change becomes effective February 1.  To compensate GTE for the lost
revenue, ``local telephone service'' (I am not sure what is
included -- monthly service, ZUM charges, local calls (if applicable),
etc?) will be surcharged 4.74%.  Assuming that it only covers Basic
Service, I assume that I will save $1.00, but pay $0.55 cents more for
a savings of $0.45 per month.

The second change is that starting June 1, the CPUC has ordered local
calling areas expanded from eight miles to twelve miles.  I am not
sure what they do for the substantial portion of us in GTE land that
live closer than twelve miles from the ocean.  Perhaps we can call the
Soviet subs at local rates.  :-)  Anyway, they will take on an
additional 6.37% to compensate for this change.  I estimate that I
will lose money on this one as I rarely make non-local calls in CA.
The additional charge will likely be about $0.75 per month.

The third change is hidden in the last paragraph and the title ``Touch
Call Service, Local Calling Area Changes Upcoming'' clearly does not
reflect this third change.  It says that GTE has requested that local
and toll service increase by .41% and 2.45% respectively.  This change
it is noted is part of a filing under the idiotic plan approved by the
CPUC last year (see an article John Higdon for further information)
that is supposed to lower the cost of telephone service.

The bottom of the page says ``Telecommunications Excellence.''  I
think the truthfulness of this advertising hype has already been fully
discussed by this forum so no further comments are necessary.


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

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

Date: Sun,  3 Feb 91 11:08:27 CST
From: Daniel Jacobson <[e-mail]>
Subject: _Boring_ Telecom Joke From _Reader's_Digest and Bill Inserts
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T-BL, Naperville IL, USA


>>>>> On 2 Feb 91 23:27:48 GMT, [e-mail] (Timothy
Newsham) said:

Timothy> "If you are calling to order or send money, press 5.  "If you
Timothy> are calling to register a complaint, press 6459834822955392.

Har har.  I'm sorry to say that I find that {Reader's Digest} joke as
weak as those "comics" Illinois Bell puts in their phone bills.  There
are also the monthly "news items" in there, along the lines of ten
paragraphs on "Feeling bored, just call!", "Friends are just a call
away!", "Calling puts a wide range of services at your fingertips!",
"Calling: inexpensive and Ccnvenient!"


[e-mail]  Naperville IL USA  [phone]

[Moderator's Joke: This one also from *Reader's Digest* some time ago:
A man in a trench coat huddled in a payphone whispering into a
receiver is speaking to the operator, and the operator in turn is
speaking to someone who has answered on the other end: "I have an
obscene call for anyone at this number. Will you accept the charges?"
That's it, you can laugh now!    :)    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #90
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa26523;
          4 Feb 91 3:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa28832;
          4 Feb 91 1:35 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa16628;
          4 Feb 91 0:30 CST
Date:     Mon, 4 Feb 91 0:25:23 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #91
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Mon, 4 Feb 91 00:25:18 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 91

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Ms. Mobile Manners Has Advice For You [Toronto Globe via TELECOM Moderator]
    Re: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls [Floyd Davidson]
    Re: How Do You Tell When ... (I Need Information Also) [Bob Falcon]
    Re: Who Manufactures Caller-ID Devices? [Bill Berbenich]
    Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [Phil Gunsul]
    Silly Question [Dan Bloch]
    Re: Personal Communications [Jim Rees]
    Rural Areas Getting Hooked on Cellular [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 21:54:42 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ms. Mobile Manners has Advice For You


Cellular Companies Call on Users to Mind Their Manners

by Mary Gooderham, {Toronto Globe and Mail}, Sunday, February 3, 1991


Emily Post did not have to deal with this social skill, but cellular
phone companies are trying to teach their users some manners.

The era of personal communications is getting a little too impersonal
for a growing number of people put off by the use of the devices in
public places. Warnings to switch off cellular phones are becoming
common in restaurants and theatres.

The menu of the Teahouse Restaurant in Vancouver, BC carries a notice
telling patrons they may not use portable phones at the table.

Felix Zurbuchen, manager of the restaurant said, "If someone is
celebrating an anniversary or birthday and they are sitting next to a
table where the phone is ringing every three or four minutes it is
annoying. When people are in business conversations they raise their
voice to make themselves understood."

Motorola Cellular, Canada's largest manufacturer of cellular phones
recently issued guidelines on safety and good manners. They include
turning off the phone while dining or attending theatre or sporting
events, stepping away from the crowd when making a call and speaking
softly, since the phones have very sensitive microphones.

On driving manners and safety, Motorola suggests that drivers use
'hands-free' or 'eyes-free' methods to place calls without having to
hold the phone or punch numbers into it.  Speakerphone attachments or
phones with voice-recognition systems allow such conveniences.

According to Mark Lukowski, vice president and general manager of
Motorola Cellular, "We're encouraging people to be more aware of the
environment they're in. If the environment you're in is not
comfortable with the use of a phone, don't use it."

Cellular phone companies have been overwhelmed by growth. Sellers
predict that some day each user will be reached at one telephone
number anywhere in the world, rather than having separate numbers for
home and work.

Under the guise of 'Ms. Mobile Manners', Cantel Inc., one of two
companies that provide national cellular service in Canada warned
customers in a recent newsletter to use the phones so they do not
annoy others or lead to awkward situations.

"It really comes down to a matter of respect for other people as well
as one's own convenience," said David Parkes, president of Cantel
Ontario.


PAT

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

From: Floyd Davidson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls
Organization: University of Alaska, Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 1991 11:38:51 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]
writes:

>Last evening I had occasion to make a LD call from a friend's house.
>Somehow I got disconnected (I think the cordless phone on the other
 ...

>Something didn't sound right about that, so I asked if she'd be
>charging me operator assisted rates.  Guess what?  Of course they
>would!  I declined and redialed myself.

>At home I've got AT&T.  AT&T has *never* chaarged operator assisted
>rates to reconnect me. The whole process seems much easier with them
>too. How do other carriers handle such situations?

Alascom is the regulated carrier in Alaska, much as AT&T is for the
rest of the US.  Our handling of disconnects is much the same as you
described for AT&T: we reconnect the call and credit your bill with a
small discount.

That is not the end of it though.  I don't know the figures, but I am
aware that in a significant percentage of instances we can't find any
recorded call to credit!  There might be a number of reasons (wrong
times given or the operator erred in recording the data, etc.).  That
is not a problem unless there is a pattern that indicates fraud.

Each time a "cutoff" is reported the operator records it in such a way
that we can separate various types: observed (the operator was on
line), reported by customer, one-way transmission, noise, etc.  All
known data is recorded by the switch (DMS-200) and output as a log
report that is collected by a separate computer.  Every day this data
is passed to each toll center as a dual list, one sorted by time and
another sorted by telephone number.

We keep a running count on cutoffs from each toll center and each
trunk group.  Needless to say there have been many problems come to
light because of this.  The common problems are with line switches,
and less likely the trunk facilities (microwave, carrier, etc.), and
least likely with the toll switch.

I know of only one case of suspected fraud.  It is interesting in view
of recent events, but we just thought it strange at the time.  One
number reported approximately five cutoffs per week calling to Kuwait.
We could find no record of normal calls from that number to Kuwait.
After watching this pattern for a month or so we just called the
number and asked if there was a problem ... not one cutoff has been
reported since.

One other interesting point.  I do not know exactly how AT&T handles
the same data, but I do know they collect it and analyze it.  And if
they don't like the percentages they will complain about high cutoff
rates to connecting LD carriers.


Disclaimer:  Alascom, Inc. may not agree with anything I say.

Floyd L. Davidson  |  [e-mail]   |  Alascom, Inc. pays me
Salcha, AK 99714   |    Univ. of Alaska      |  but not for opinions.

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

Subject: Re: How Do You Tell When .... (I Need Information Also)
Date: 3 Feb 91 04:26:20 EST (Sun)
From: Bob Falcon <[e-mail]>


Hi TCD 'ers,

In a message posted : Date: 2 Oct 90 14:53:05 GMT, Craig Steinberger
asks :

>I'm trying to find a device that lights up when a phone extension is
>picked up. That way I can know if a phone line with multiple
>extensions is in use without picking up the phone itself ...

>[Moderator's Note: We have discussed this many times in the Digest.
>Would one of you readers with a schmatic send it along to Craig, with
>a parts list, etc.  Thanks.  PAT]

I find I am in need of a similar device, and would appreciate much if
someone could mail me any info/schematic/etc needed to put this
together.

Thanks Pat, all.  Have a good one.

Catchya later,

Bob Falcon [ Co-Sysop : Turbo 386 Remote Access ]
[ 1:273/906 @Fidonet ][ [phone] HST/DS ]
internet: [e-mail]
uucp: { cdin-1 || dsinc.dsi.com }!alba2l!rescon!bfalcon

[Moderator's Note: So send Bob the information also please.   PAT]

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

From: ccocswb <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Who Manufactures Caller-ID Devices?
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 17:47:14 EDT
Reply-To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (David R. Zinkin)
writes:

>Can anyone tell me the names (and addresses and phone numbers,
>preferably) of companies manufacturing Caller-ID equipment?

>I know of something called ClassMate, but I don't know who makes it or
>any other similar devices.

Well, Bell Atlantic sells a bunch of Caller-ID boxes and phones in its
catalog.  Their phone number is [phone].  Their prices seem
reasonable enough, considering that there is not really a lot of
competition yet in the Caller-ID display market.  Bell Atlantic sells
ClassMate for $49.95 (save your money though, don't buy the "special"
cable.  It's just a 9-to-25 or 25-to-25 pin RS-232 cable.  It costs
$24.95 from BA.)

But more in line with answering your question, ClassMate is made by
MHE Systems Corporation, 14251 Chambers Rd., Tustin, Cal., 92680.  The
following companies also sell Caller-ID devices:

Eagle Telephonics Inc.
375 Oser Avenue
Hauppauge, NY  11788
[phone]

CIDCO, Inc.
56 Harrison Street
New Rochelle, NY  10801
unknown phone #

Colonial Data Technologies Corp.
80 Pickett District Road
New Milford, Connecticut  06776
[phone], ask for Ron LaBarbera (he is Marketing Director)

Bell Atlantic sells devices made by all of the above companies.  Be
sure to call them and ask for a catalog of their telephone equipment.
Also, Hello Direct (800) HI-HELLO, sells the products of Colonial Data
(Hello's prices are a bit more than Bell Atlantic's).

I am a satisfied customer of both Hello Direct and Bell Atlantic, but
in this case my personal recommendation goes to BA because of their
large selection and competitive pricing.  In my opinion, both
organizations "aim to please" and will do nearly anything to keep a
customer or potential customer happy.

Hope this has helped David and anyone else in the Telecom wings who
may have wondered where this stuff comes from.

(Note: different account, same guy.  [e-mail] is
undergoing repairs for now.)


Bill Berbenich   School of EE   DSP Lab
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!eefacwb
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: Gunsul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked!
Date: 3 Feb 91 22:40:14 GMT
Organization: AT&T Montgomery Works, Montgomery, IL


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

< Regarding testing phone lines at the demark ... those who are new at
< this should be told that ringing voltage can give you one heckuva
< memorable shock.  I learned this the hard way when I was fourteen.

< [Moderator's Note: Yes-sir-ee! I think we all had to learn our lesson
< the hard way at one time or another. It helps a little if it is a hot,
< humid day and your hands are sweaty. Then you don't even have to wait
< for the bell to ring!  :) This reminds me of the time I was 'brousing'
< inside a 100-watt linear amplifier for a CB and I forgot to put my
< screwdriver in there first to discharge the capacitors.  Instead of
< 'arguing with' the metal part of the screwdriver, the DC worked me
< over good on the way to ground instead.  I've had a couple of RF burns
< also. That really feels good!  PAT]

Pat, a 100-watt linear amplifier for CB!!??  I thought that was
illegal??


Phil


[Moderator's Note: Indeed they are illegal for use on Citizens Band
frequencies in the USA; i.e. 26.965 - 27.405 megs.  They can be
purchased in the USA for export purposes only, although a lot of guys
buy them claiming they will be used only in the ten meter band while
knowing good and well the amp can easily be tuned to eleven meters
(CB) with no hassle.  For that matter, I think the FCC has banned the
use of linear amps in ten meters also; they're not fooled! About 25
years ago a fellow sold me a tuneable ten/eleven meter rig made by
Allied Radio. (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years ago
for you young'uns reading this.)  He threw in a bunch of stuff: the
linear, a phone patch, lots of RG-8 coax, the Sams Photo-Facts book,
etc. I never did use the linear.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun,  3 Feb 1991 18:12:48 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Silly Question


This is pretty basic, but a friend asked me and I don't know the answer.

The question is, how does a telephone signal get between my phone and
the CO?  It's an analog signal on a two-wire pair when it leaves my
house, and there isn't a sheaf of twisted pairs a foot across running
all around the city.  So what happens to it?


Dan Bloch     [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: Personal Communications
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 23:47:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, jyacc![e-mail]
(Charles McGuinness) writes:

> For those who can't wait for universal "Personal Numbers" that
> stay with you when you move around, I have an easy solution:
> Get an 800 number.

I thought you could only call 800 numbers from within the NANP.
That's not very universal, is it?

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

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 23:54:58 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Rural Areas Getting Hooked on Cellular


In the {St.Louis Post-Dispatch}, Sunday, February 3, 1991, Jerri
Stroud reported on the rapid growth of cellular systems throughout
rural and small-town America.

She points out that only eighteen months ago, the idea of virtually
one hundred percent coverage across the USA by cellular carriers was
at best an optimistic plan for the future.

She noted that rural cellular service is seven years behind urban
service. It was only in 1989 that the Federal Communications
Commission began handing out provisional licenses for 428 rural and/or
small town areas. As in the big cities, the FCC awarded two licenses
in each of these areas: one went automatically to the local telco and
the other by lottery.

As part of the lottery process, the potential licensees had to
demonstrate financial responsibility and technical competence. At that
point, once a qualified carrier was selected by lottery, the carrier
was permitted to apply for a construction permit. Once construction is
complete the carrier then applies again for an operating license.

One of the first carriers to turn on their service was Missouri
Cellular Management Corp., serving the Steelville, MO area. It began
operations on October 10, 1990.

According to Tim Cherry, owner of Missouri Cellular, demand for the
service has far exceeded his greatest expectations. Just three months
into operation, he has over 400 subscribers. Cherry said he had to
start taking orders for the service almost a year ago because so many
people were stopping in to sign up. Apparently his experience is not
unique. Other rural cellular companies are reporting booming sales
figures in their territory.

The Federal Communications Commission requires that cellular companies
must put at least one tower into operation within eighteen months of
receiving their construction permit. They then have five years once
service is started to entend their service to 75 percent of their
designated territory, and several more years to reach 100 percent
coverage.

Every tower -- including land, construction costs, antenna, radio
equipment and miscellaneous expenses -- costs between $300,000 and
$600,000. Before the FCC awards a license, they want to see where the
money is going to come from. And before a cellular carrier puts up a
tower they want to make sure it will amortize, or pay for itself in a
reasonable time.

Because most cellular companies start with a very small subscriber
base, revenue from roamers is very important. Time and again, the
first tower to be constructed is along the interstate highway
someplace. Roamers cost the cellular company almost nothing since the
home system handles billing and customer service. So the new cellular
carrier puts the first tower in a place where they can catch all the
roamers passing through the area easily.  Once that tower is up and
running, meeting the FCC's requirements to start operations within 18
months (a kind of use it or lose it philosophy), then the carrier
begins expanding with towers in the most prosperous towns and villages
in the service area.

Tom Rudd of CyberTel Cellular seems to think that once a carrier has
built its most profitable tower, ie, the 'interstate highway outside
of town', they have little incentive to build more towers in less
prosperous areas.  According to Commission records, 150 of the 428
rural area licensees have begun at least limited service. All but 45
have at least begun construction of their first tower. Most of these
45 are in very thinly populated Western states, and the FCC says if
they have not begun service by the end of March another lottery will
held to find other interested operators.


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #91
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29200;
          5 Feb 91 4:37 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa32122;
          5 Feb 91 2:47 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa13868;
          5 Feb 91 1:40 CST
Date:     Tue, 5 Feb 91 0:47:15 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #92
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Feb 91 00:46:56 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 92

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Electronic Surveillance Bill in WA; Electronic Communications [P. Marshall]
    Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland [Carl Moore]
    Long Distance Rates and Access Codes [Bernard F. Collins]
    John Bardeen is Dead [TELECOM Moderator]
    Sprint World and Sprint Billing Options [Ken Jongsma]
    Bell of PA Calling Card Calls [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    MCI Pays to Switch [Ray Guydosh]
    Correction to "Flashing an Operator..." [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    Electronics 10 Commandments [Bob Izenberg]
    Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing? [David Singer]
    Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing? [Ted Marshall]
    Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA [Steven W. Grabhorn]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Electronic Surveillance Bill in WA; Electronic Communications
From: Peter Marshall <halcyon![e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 91 13:17:00 PST
Organization: The 23:00 News


A bill recently introduced in the WA State Legislature, ostensibly
dealing with use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, but
intended to void a key State Supreme Court decision that is an
important component of current communications privacy protection in
Washington State, is otherwise disturbing given its apparent
application to what the bill defines as "electronic communications."

Essentially, SB5126 and HB1351, its House companion, would broaden the
use of these devices with only minimal standards and minimal, if any,
consent required. These devices basically track and record the
transaction-generated information related to communications; the pen
register re: outgoing calls initiated and trap-and-trace devices re:
incoming calls.

These bills define "electronic communication service" as "a service
that provides to its users the ability to send or receive wire or
electronic communications;" and "electronic communications system" as
"a ... facility for the transmission of electronic communications, and
computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic
storage of such communications."

The Senate version of the bill appears headed for the Senate Floor
after coming out of the Senate Law & Justice Committee. The House
version has its first hearing this week.

The bill's Senate sponsor, Senator Gary Nelson, has been a longtime US
West employee, and is a Republican.


Peter Marshall

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 14:27:05 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland


With this year's 301/410 split coming in Maryland, I thought I'd
review two prefixes (both at military bases) which seem to have a wide
calling area.  The 800-477-4704 helpline says they both stay in 301,
but note the comments by me (and I don't know what the calling
instructions from these prefixes are):

688 at Fort Meade -- This appears in Baltimore call guide as "Fort
Meade (Waterloo)", and in Washington-area call guides as "Fort Meade
(Berwyn)", apparently because it has both Baltimore and Washington
metro local service.  This prefix was apparently never in the 202 area
(that's moot now, because all Maryland and Virginia points were
removed from 202).  As far as I know (not having been to Fort Meade),
the other phones on that post are in the Odenton exchange, which is
going into 410 (causing a problem as to how to list the area code for
zip code 20755?).

878 at Fort Ritchie -- This appears in Baltimore call guide as
"Fort Ritchie (Baltimore city)", and in Washington-area call
guides with the Silver Spring prefixes.  Also, I found out
back in 1989 that the same prefix is reachable in area 717,
as part of the (neighboring) Blue Ridge Summit (Pa.) exchange.
Fort Ritchie proper is in a part of Maryland which is to stay
in 301, but notice the reference to Baltimore city, which is
going into 410.  878 as a Washington-area prefix was reachable
in area code 202, but should have dropped out of that area as
part of the DC area changes last fall.

(By the way, a useful rule of thumb might be this: If local to
Baltimore, it goes into 410; if local to DC, it stays in 301.  Notice
that 804 in Virginia is too far away to affect the local calling from
the Va. suburbs of DC, but 410 will include some points local to the
Md. suburbs of DC.)

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

From: "Bernard F. Collins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Long Distance Rates and Access Codes
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 21:28:41 GMT


This must have been covered many times.  But I'm new to this group and
need to know.  Is there some way to find out the LD rates for
different carriers at different times between my home area
code/exchange and the many LD exchanges that I call regularly?  What
about access codes?  What 10XXX codes are available for consumer use?
Does their use affect rates in comparison with using normal Dial-1
long distance?  The level of service I received from AT&T, MCI and
Sprint via mail and phone in answering these questions varied from
worthless to nil.  "Get it in writing" seems only to apply to business
customers.

Many thanks,


Skip Collins (collins@128.8.71.3)  [phone],  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 91 21:37:44 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: John Bardeen is Dead


John Bardeen, 83, professor emeritus and faculty member of the
University of Illinois in Champaign, IL since 1951 died January 30 in
Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

Dr. Bardeen was a two-time Nobel Prize winner for his work on
transistors and superconductivity. He was widely regarded by the
scientific community as a genius on the level of Albert Einstein.

Dr. Bardeen was the last surviving member of the Bell Telephone
Laboratories team that invented the transistor many years ago which as
we all know prompted the electronics revolution. We owe him a moment
of silent praise and thanks.


PAT

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

Subject: Sprint World and Sprint Billing Options
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 18:59:21 EST
From: Ken Jongsma <wybbs![e-mail]>


Sprint World:

In my bill flyer this month, Sprint announced a new world calling
plan.  Entitled Sprint World, it offers calls to Europe for .59/min,
Canada for .19/min, Asia for .79/min and Mexico for .24-.89/min. The
charge is 3.00/month in addition to the per minute charges.

I did call Sprint for details: The rates apply during the existing
Sprint Economy periods, plus all day Saturday and Sunday. There is a
5% discount during standard rate time periods.

RBOC billing:

Sprint has announced that some Sprint subscribers will start getting
their Sprint billing included with their local service billing. If you
are like me and prefer Sprints bill, you can call Sprint and ask that
you not be billed via your local BOC.


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

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

Date: 4-FEB-1991 20:03:01.39
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell of PA Calling Card Calls


Note: This is NOT another "new"/"old" Calling Card system post! :) :)

I got my phone bill today, and took a comparative look at the local
and LD sections:

 -A 1 minute call (11:30PM) from Reading, PA (215-373-9??? -payphone)
to New Castle, DE (302-740-7626), with my calling card, was $1.18, via
"Bell Atlantic" (or really Bell Of PA). This was the "default" which
the payphone used, naturally.

 -The same call the next day, from the same payphone, to the same DE
number, at 12AM, was only $.12 cents on my Reach Out America Plan. If
I did not have the plan, it would have been $.92. (Note that this is
between two states, 1so ROA's Calling Card discount is applicable.)

Why would Bell of PA charge MORE for a call than AT&T, in between TWO
states?  (and not IN-State).

IE, in an area where there is competition, as in the NY/NJ corridor,
NY Tel and NJ Bell charge LESS than AT&T (not including ROA). NJ Bell
even "makes" itself the default carrier from its payphones on all
calls which it is allowed to handle to NYC.

It would seem to be that either there is a VERY low volume of calls
between PA and DE that Bell O' PA doesn't mind this business going
over to AT&T, or no one told them about this! Is it as strange with 1+
calls as well?

So much for rational toll pricing ... (not that it was ever all that
great to begin with ...)


Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 1991 20:52 EST
From: Ray Guydosh <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI Pays to Switch


I received a mail promotion for MCI Primetime accompanied by a gift --
a Twenty Dollar check in my name.

 From the promotional literature: "Don't forget to endorse your check
before depositing or cashing it.  With your signature, you authorize
MCI to notify your local telephone company to switch your primary long
distance service to MCI PrimeTime (SM)."

And from the back of the check, under the space for endorsement: "With
this signature, I authorize MCI (R) to switch my Dial-1 Long Distance
Service to MCI PrimeTime, and I authorize MCI to notify my local
telephone company of this choice for the telephone number listed on
the front of this check.  I understand that I may choose only one long
distance company for this telephone number, and that if I choose more
than one company, none of my choices will be considered valid."

I already DO have more than one long distance carrier on some of my
lines, none of which are MCI -- as far as I know, that is.  ;-) I
suppose that they really mean "no more than one Dial-1 carrier".  But
what are the implicatons of "if I choose more than one ... none of my
choices will be considered valid."  If that were true, that would help
eliminate the slamming practice, right?

Also, as it turns out, the telephone number "listed on the front of
this check" is a telephone number that I haven't "owned" in seven
months.  I suppose that if I cashed the check, MCI might "slam" the
number's new "owner".  (Don't worry, I'm not going to cash it.)


Ray Guydosh,

  [e-mail]   (Even if the header says something else.)

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

Date: 4-FEB-1991 20:00:45.96
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Correction to "Flashing an Operator..."


re: My post on flashing an operator on the "new" vs. the "old" calling card
systems (used by AT&T and some BOCs), Pat noted:

> [Moderator's Note: I tried 415-767-1212 just now from home. I was
> intercepted right here in Chicago by three-one-two, five-tee, and told
> my call could not be completed as dialed.  PAT]

Hmmm...woops...what I *meant* to say was:

1. Dial 0+out-of-lata AT&T call (for those not in Canada dial
   0-416-455-9950, which is not in service. Any INTER-lata number
   will work, though..)
2. Enter Calling Card Number.
3. Hit the "#"/Octothorpe button.
4. Dial 415-767-1212.

You should then get the message from the AT&T Calling Card system, and
not the generic local one.

(Later, try making another sequence call, but this time, push the "#"
at the end of the number, and see how much faster it goes through, or
rather, how much longer the "new" system takes if you do not enter the
"#". )

I also tried dialing 0-415-767-1212 as a "first" call, and NOT as a
sequence call. I got "Your call can not be completed as
dialed...[etc.] 914-0T".  That's nice...

THEN, I tried 1-415-767-1212 ... I got "Your call can not be completed
as dialed ... [etc.] 203-2T" Hmmm...
                     ^^^^^^

So 1+ calls to invalid prefixes are stopped locally, while 0+
(initial) calls to invalid prefixes are stopped at the nearest (or a)
"Calling Card center"?  (White Plains?)  Interesting ... Is this
correct?

Sorry for the lack of clarity in my previous post.

Doug

[e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

From: Bob Izenberg <balkan!dogface!zitt![e-mail]>
Subject: Electronics Ten Commandments
Date: 4 Feb 91 21:37:05 GMT
Organization: The Shekhinah Project, Austin, TX


Pat,

Your post about shocks that you've gotten reminded me of a chart
hanging on the wall in the engineer's office at a radio station that I
once worked in.  The applicable line was something like:

Thou shalt not work on ungrounded circuits, for electrical cooking is
a slothful process, and thee might sizzle in thine own fat for hourse
before thy Maker saw fit to bring thee into his fold.  I wish that I
remembered the rest.  Perhaps an alert c.d.t. reader has seen and
saved a copy from somewhere.


Bob

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing?
Date: 4 Feb 91 19:27:32 GMT
Reply-To: David Singer <[e-mail]>
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center


When someone calls my answering machine and hangs up just before the
beep, the machine will often wind up recording the "You have exceeded
the time allotted to dial this call" message from the phone company.
The timing has to be just right for this to happen; usually, the
machine detects and erases null calls.


David Singer -- Internet: [e-mail]   BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN
                Voice: [phone]      Fax: [phone]

(amusing disclaimer du jour goes here)

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 16:47:07 PST
From: Ted Marshall <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cordless Phones False Dialing?


I don't think it's your cordless phone but your answering machine,
although this depends on exactly what message you are getting.

I use to get the last part of the message "Your call cannot be
completed as dialed; please hang up ..." on my answering machine. What
I finally descovered was that the caller(s) was hanging up as soon as
my outgoing message started.  During the time that the rest of the
outgoing message was playing, the phone company presented and then
timed-out dial-tone (because the outgoing message was playing, the
machine did not notice the hang-up or dial-time). By the time the
machine started recording the incoming message, the phone co. was
playing the dial-tone time-out message, which the AM recorded.

I solved the problem by shortening my outgoing message so the AM would
notice the dial-tone.


Ted Marshall                                       [e-mail]
ShareBase Corp., 14600 Winchester Blvd, Los Gatos, Ca 95030     [phone]
The opinions expressed above are those of the poster and not his employer.

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

From: "Steven W. Grabhorn" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: You Can't Call Anywhere From USA
Date: 4 Feb 91 06:28:47 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego


    The January 7th, '91 issue of {Telephony} contains a two page
article on the Cuban phone system. The article states:

    AT&T, the sole company authorized to handle telephone traffic
between the United States and Cuba, says a miniscule 79 lines connect
south- ern Florida ... to the Caribbean nation of 10.6 million
inhabitants. The reason is plain and simple: Washington's 1962 trade
embargo against Fidel Castro.

    "Approximately 40 million attempts are made to reach the AT&T
operator to place calls to Cuba, of which we complete about 400,000,"
says AT&T's managing director for the Caribbean.
    ...

    Despite the absence of diplomatic ties, AT&T will soon
complete an $8-million cable running from West Palm Beach, Fla., to
Cojimar, a town east of Havana. The cable, expected to begin operation
by March, will replace a 1949 cable that has long since decayed, as
well as an obsolete 1957 radio link between Havana and the Florida
Keys.

    "Once we get the cable in service, quality should improve, but
there won't be a substantial change in the number of lines," Cavanagh
told Telephony, adding that the U.S. and Cuba also have signed a new
agreement governing telephone traffic between the two countries. The
treaty, subject to U.S. Treasury approval, was signed June 28 and
replaces a previous agreement that had been in effect for 40 years.


Steve Grabhorn, Code 645, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA, 92152
Phone:[phone] Internet:[e-mail] UUCP:..!sdcsvax!nosc!grabhorn

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #92
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00595;
          5 Feb 91 5:39 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02303;
          5 Feb 91 3:51 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab32122;
          5 Feb 91 2:47 CST
Date:     Tue, 5 Feb 91 2:14:22 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #93
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Feb 91 02:14:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 93

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [Neil Rickert]
    Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [Gunsul]
    Allied Radio / Radio Shack [John L. Shelton]
    Whoopsie [Nick Sayer]
    Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [Craig Watkins]
    Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [John Higdon]
    Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm [Harry Burford]
    Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service [Peter da Silva]
    Re: Prank Call to Sheraton in Baghdad [Carl Moore]
    Re: Phillipsburg, NJ [Tom Coradeschi]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Neil Rickert <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked!
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 1991 14:55:00 GMT


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

>[Moderator's Note: Indeed they are illegal for use on Citizens Band
>...
>years ago a fellow sold me a tuneable ten/eleven meter rig made by
>Allied Radio. (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years ago
>for you young'uns reading this.)  He threw in a bunch of stuff: the

Wrong.  Allied Radio was one of Radio Shack's competitors.  Radio
Shack had several competitors, all of whom were (in my opinion) better
than Radio Shack.  There was quite some choice in those days.  Alas
the business became non-profitable, probably because of the integrated
circuit.  Radio Shack bet on computers (with its TRS80 series) and
survived.  The others (or most of them are no more).


  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <[e-mail]>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Yes and no. See the next couple of messages for
more detail on this.  PAT]

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

From: Gunsul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked!
Date: 4 Feb 91 15:55:36 GMT
Organization: AT&T Montgomery Works, Montgomery, IL


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

< Pat, a 100-watt linear amplifier for CB!!??  I thought that was
< illegal??

< [Moderator's Note: Indeed they are illegal for use on Citizens Band
< frequencies in the USA; i.e. 26.965 - 27.405 megs.  They can be
< purchased in the USA for export purposes only, although a lot of guys
< buy them claiming they will be used only in the ten meter band while
< knowing good and well the amp can easily be tuned to eleven meters
< (CB) with no hassle.  For that matter, I think the FCC has banned the
< use of linear amps in ten meters also; they're not fooled! About 25
< years ago a fellow sold me a tuneable ten/eleven meter rig made by
< Allied Radio. (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years ago
< for you young'uns reading this.)  He threw in a bunch of stuff: the
< linear, a phone patch, lots of RG-8 coax, the Sams Photo-Facts book,
< etc. I never did use the linear.  PAT]

Thanks Pat, I'm proud of you!  'Had me worried for a second!

Allied Radio!  I remember the thrill of getting my mother to take me
into Chicago to pick up the speakers for my "Sweet Sixteen" speaker
encloser which I built from the plans in "Popular Electronics"!  Those
were the days.


Phil - WB9AAX


[Moderator's Note: Then you no doubt remember the big warehouse store
they operated at Western Ave. and Washington Blvd., right across the
street from Olson Electronics (remember them also?).  In the late
fifties and early sixties we'd go shopping there on Sunday. Unless you
went in right at 10 AM when they opened you could count on being there
several hours before you got out, what with the sales people having to
call to the back for 'stock checks' and such. Credit approval could
take another thirty minutes (they did their own credit in house) and
you would then wait until your name was called on the public address
speaker: "Townson, go to cashier seven". You'd wait in line there for
maybe ten minutes to sign off on everything and pick up your package.
After Tandy/Allied closed the store, it was vacant for a few months;
since that time it has been a local office for Illinois Public Aid.
Olson Electronics remained open several more years but I guess they
are gone now also.  That whole neighborhood is the pits now:
stereotypical inner city advanced urban decay. Nothing around there
now but the welfare office, a couple of liquor stores and the
omnipresent Illinois State Lottery agents.  *Ancient* painting on the
side of the welfare office now mostly faded away welcomes everyone to
Allied Radio, open Sundays, HAymarket 1 - 2600, parking for customers
only.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 16:25:53 -0800
From: "John L. Shelton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Allied Radio / Radio Shack


 ... (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years ago for you
young'uns reading this.)...

Not true.

Radio Shack was formed in 1920 (approx) in Boston, MA, and for years
had the one store on Commonwealth Ave.  They branched out into mail
order over the years.  In the 60's, Radio Shack was bought by the
Tandy Corporation, which at the time was doing mostly leather and
craft stuff.  Eventually, RS became the large portion of Tandy, and I
believe the craft business is almost completely gone.

Allied Radio is as old as RS, and was based in Chicago, as PAT should
well know.  Allied Radio was a mail order house only, doing both
commercial and residential electronics.  They sold brand-name hifi out
of the same catalog that listed GE transistors etc.  Allied also
eventually branched out to retail stores and had in the neighborhood
of a hundred or so when ... in the late 60's or early 70s, Tandy
bought Allied and tried to merge it with R/S.  For a few years, all
the stores were labelled "Allied Radio Shack".  The Justice Department
stepped in, deciding that this was a "Bad Idea", but by the time they
did so, Tandy had closed all but about 30 or so of the original Allied
stores.  Tandy took Allied to wholesale only, and eventually sold off
the Allied business, though for years Allied carried Radio Shack
parts.


=John=


[Moderator's Note: You are wrong on the 'Allied was mail order only'
statement. See the message before this. They did have a mail order
division but their big warehouse store on the west side of Chicago was
a beehive of activity for hams, CB'ers, and lots of other early radio
freaks for thirty years or more, circa 1930 through the mid-60's.
When they annouced that Tandy had bought them out (yes, Tandy was
originally into handicraft type projects, a sort of Heathkit for
people who liked basket weaving and knitting sweaters, etc) they had a
big sale and got rid of all *non Tandy* merchandise. They cleared out
all sorts of radio equipment from other companies and filled the
place with Tandy stock. Allied lost most of its loyal customers as a
result. Then came the Allied Radio Shacks, the final closure of the
west side warehouse store in Chicago, and the birth of the dozens
of much smaller (Tandy merchandise only!) Radio Shack stores across
Anerica. Say! Speaking of Heathkit ... what are *they* doing these
days? Are they still around?  My first terminal was a Zenith Z-19
which I built from a Heathkit in 1980, meaning it was actually an H-19
instead.  The last I heard, they closed the Benton Harbor facility.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 20:16:38 -0800
From: Nick Sayer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Whoopsie


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

> For that matter, I think the FCC has banned the use of linear amps
> in ten meters also [...]

That's not true. They just made HF amplifiers intended for use in the
Amateur service type accepted equipment, and the type acceptance is
based on the inability of the amp to do any amplifying in the 10/11
meter vicinity. You can, if you're a licensed amateur, build or modify
an amp to work on 10 meters - you can even build up to one a year and
sell it to a licensed ham without type acceptance.

The upshot is that once you've got an amp that works on 10 meters,
there's nothing to keep you from using it. Getting it is made a little
more difficult, but for a licensed ham, it's no big deal.


Nick Sayer     [e-mail]
N6QQQ  [44.2.1.17]
209-952-5347 (Telebit)

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator)
Date: 4 Feb 91 08:50:26 EST
Organization: HRB Systems


In article <[e-mail]>, gtisqr![e-mail].
washington.edu (Todd Inch) writes:

> That's what I have.  GTE (north of Seattle, WA, near Everett) didn't
> charge extra to make the first line hunt to the second line when the
> first is busy, which surprised me a bit.  Monthly and LD charges for
> both lines are intermixed on a single bill.

Same thing here in Bell of PA land.

> I had originally asked for a "circular hunt" where calls coming into
> the second line would also hunt the first, but they won't give it to
> me.

[...]

> After not giving me what I'd asked for and then playing around for a
> few days, GTE finally said that a circular hunt wasn't tarriffed, so
> they couldn't do it.  They admitted that their equipment could do it,
> and even said they had it programmed that way for about a half day,
> then realized there was no tarriff for it and changed it back.  Can
> anyone give evidence that this IS tarriffed?  (Tad?)

Here's how it works here according to Bell of PA when I checked a few
years ago: Circular hunting is tarriffed as a business service.  So if
I wanted circular, I would have had to switch my service to business
and pay a fairly high monthly rate for it (I think it was around
$8/month -- I forget if that was per line for sure, but I think it
was).

I found this out right after moving across town into a new place.  In
the old place I had (free) circular hunting with the folks next door
(different address, different bill).  (In case one wonders what use
that would be, we had both lines running into a shared PBX.)  The
folks at Bell that moved my service for me had no idea how I got that
installed originally (I just asked, I think).

It seems like the old business/residence thing.  Many residential reps
don't even know what circular hunting is.

> We used to answer line two (when line one isn't busy) "I'm sorry, you
> have the wrong number."  But that just confused them and they wanted
> to know how we knew.

I have some "extra" lines on my electronic set at work (software
defined numbers -- no actual addition hardware involved).  When they
ring, I know it's a wrong number.  I've actually been suprised at the
number of people that accept "Sorry, wrong number" that I actually now
use that most of the time.  It lets the people know they dialed wrong
and it lets me get off the phone fairly quickly.

> Now I just answer "We're sorry, the number you
> have dialed has been disconnected or is no longer in service . . ." :-)
> Their response is now usually just a click as they hang up after the
> first few words of my intercept impression.

I like that.  Good idea.


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

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 17:07 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator)


Todd Inch <gtisqr![e-mail]> writes:

> We used to answer line two (when line one isn't busy) "I'm sorry, you
> have the wrong number."

You are absolutely correct: people cannot deal with a phone answered
in that manner. Throughout life, I have always had at least one
telephone line that was not only unlisted, but one that I had never
given out to anyone for any reason. If the line was connected to an
answerable phone, I would sometimes answer it in the manner you
describe. Most of the time people are just bewildered. But sometimes
they became hostile and insisted that I could not possibly know that
they had a wrong number without their announcement of whom they were
calling. Those were even funnier at times since I would begrudgingly
invite them to tell me to whom they wished to speak and then (with
greatly enforced authority) inform them that they had indeed reached
the wrong number.

Few people in our society can deal with the notion that someone would
have a telephone and not give ANYONE the number.


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

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

From: Harry Burford <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Big Phone Bills For Desert Storm
Date: 4 Feb 91 13:50:02 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation, Wichita, KS


MCMAHON%GRIN1.BITNET (McMahon,Brian D) writes:

|>Which reminds me ... again.  :-) Does anyone know if MARS is still in
|>business?  MARS is/was the Military Auxiliary Radio Service (or
|>System, I'm a bit hazy on the acronym), and provided a radio link
|>between soldiers and the Stateside phone network.  Has this service
|>been declared outmoded, or are they still doing their good work?
|>Brian McMahon  <[e-mail]> Grinnell College Computer Services

Yes, MARS is in operation.  I'm not a member, but a recent WESTLINK
story (WESTLINK is a ham-radio news service) said that there was a ham
that has completed over 300 phone patches so far.  The story also said
that SPRINT was picking up the phone bill.  Try lurking on the
rec.ham-radio to pick up more complete info.  There is also a topic
area on the ham radio forum on Compu$erve where radio frequencies are
listed and this topic is more completely discussed.


Harry Burford - NCR Peripheral Products Division
PHONE:[phone]  TELEX:417-465  FAX:[phone]    CALL:KA0TTY
SLOWNET:3718 N. Rock Road, Wichita KS           C-$erve:76226,2760
SS: 9.5       [e-mail]

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 1991 15:03:57 GMT


Higdon, et al, keep pointing out how the PUC screwed up by allowing
rate increases for dropping touch-tone charges, when they already did
them a bunch of other favors in exchange for dropping this charge.

Have any of you guys told the PUC about this?


([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 10:09:06 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Prank Call to Sheraton in Baghdad


Did anyone check the latest Sheraton directory to look for any comment
about the Sheraton in Baghdad (also Kuwait if they have a hotel
there)?  Holiday Inn has a hotel in Kuwait, and the latest edition of
their directory still lists it as usual, but adds a note that Holiday
Inns currently cannot take reservations for it.

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

Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 11:52:10 EST
From: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phillipsburg, NJ
Organization: Electric Armaments Div, US Army Armament RDE Center
Reply-To: Tom Coradeschi <[e-mail]>


>I visited Phillipsburg, NJ recently (U.S. 22 and I-78 just across the
>Delaware River from Easton, PA).  Phillipsburg is going into the 908
>area, but I found pay phones displaying 201 in some cases and 908 in
>others.  (Does someone have the dates for 908 becoming useable and for
>the full cutover?)  The Phillipsburg prefixes are 213,454,859; and

908 works right now, and is being given out by DA, appears on phone
bills, etc. It becomes mandatory on 8 Jun 91.

>they are a local call from Easton in 215 area; notice the N1X prefix
>(213), but (quite recently) 215 area began requiring 1+NPA+7D instead
>of 7D for local calls into a different area code.


tom coradeschi    <+>    [e-mail]    <+>    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: These area code changes always take years to get
the payphones properly identified for some reason. The Chicago
suburban area still has payphones whose number tag reads '312'. I
don't think they ever bother to change the number tag. The phones are
in 708 of course.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #93
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27690;
          6 Feb 91 1:45 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14555;
          6 Feb 91 0:09 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa30165;
          5 Feb 91 23:01 CST
Date:     Tue, 5 Feb 91 22:49:05 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #94
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Tue, 5 Feb 91 22:48:53 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 94

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Story Continues [Bill Huttig]
    Re: Phillipsburg, NJ [Gerry Lachac]
    Re: LD Calling Card Not Tied to Home Phone [Mark Van Buskirk, Randy Borow]
    Re: Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today [S. Srinivasan]
    Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service [John Higdon]
    Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [Peter da Silva]
    Help Needed Cancelling Call Waiting [Jonathan White]
    Re: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls [Roy Smith]
    Re: ROLM Phone Compatibility [Robert Brauer]
    Telecom Industry Directories: Get Listed Free! [Nigel Allen]
    Payphone Number Stickers [Carl Moore]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Story Continues
Date: 5 Feb 91 00:13:45 GMT
Reply-To:  Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


I just thought I'd post an update on the status of my account.

The Telecom*USA central divison finally changed the flags on my phone
line around the 27th of Jan.  I received a copy of my 1/1/91 invoice
today. I also recieved two welcome kits.

The first one was a PrimeTime plus Personal 800 and it had the info on
the second 800 number I set up (The one that rings at my aunt's).  The
other one had a brand new 800 number and was a regular Personal 800
account ($5/mo $.25/min type) ... so I called and the rep found that
they had set up a new account for me.  She transfered (I guess
she requested that it be transferred) it to my existing account. Then I
had her explain the other charges section on the bill.  It seems that
they break down the monthly charge into PrimeTime Minimum Adjustment
which only shows if you didn't use your hour ($6.50) usage.

The other is called PRIMETIME OPTIONS ... mine shows $4.75 which is
$1.00 for the 10% day discount and $1.75 for intrastate option and
$2.00 for the 800 number ... She said somthing to the effect that the
charge was $2 no matter how many 800 numbers you received.  (According
to the bill I have this seems true.)

On my first invoice I had a lot of calls that were for one minute and
I thought were not answered and I asked for credit, (This might be due
to the fact that the equipment in this area was at one time SouthLand
before SouthernNet bought it and then Telecom*USA but the
TELECOM*USA/MCI Supervisior stats that is impossible to have
unsupervised calls and will not credit those calls. As far as 800
calls are concerned there were only a couple on my bill so I couldn't
tell. I guess I need to keep a log every time the numbers are used.

I called Torie several times last week to see if my account was
credited or not ... she was 'unavailable'. I left one message but she
never returned my call.  They say I owe $149.19 (for two months). I
did a rough rerate my self and decided that Telecom*USA rates that
showed are about 27%-30% too high. So I should end up with about $105
after adjustments.

Also, I have found a way to get signed up for the service without
getting MCI/Telecom*USA (if you have RingMaster) as the dial one
service.  Simply sign up for PrimeTime and use the RingMaster (or
whatever your Phone Co. calls it) number as the line you want
connected. There is no way a call can originate from that number.

>> issued is basically just a shared number among a large number of
>> customers.  (Anyone know how many?)  They say it is much like a

When I talked to MCI/TELECOM*USA a while back a very nice Customer
Service Representative said 3000 PIN's per number.

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

[about MCI/TELECOM*USA stating that the PIN was the last four digits
of the number]

They asked me for a PIN also ... I don't know why ... Maybe the
originally planned to give each user his/her own number with a PIN so
that they didn't have to adjust for wrong numbers.

But if you dial a call from a rotary phone the MIC/Telecom*USA
operator will answer and ask for the PIN and complete the call.


Bill

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

From: [e-mail] (Gerry Lachac)
Subject: Re: Phillipsburg, NJ
Organization: Dialogic Corporation
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 91 15:18:27 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>others.  (Does someone have the dates for 908 becoming useable and for
>the full cutover?)

The 908 area code is usable now, as of Jan 1 I believe.  NJ Bell
advertises about the change over in the local newspapers.  Full
cutover is either June 1 or July 1, I forget.  As the deadline grow
near, I'm sure I'll see some full page adverts.

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon Feb  4 09:43:09 CST 1991
Subject: Re: LD Calling Card Not Tied To Home Phone


Regarding Jim Rees inquiry on calling cards he can contact AT&T at
1-800-525-7955 and ask for a non-subscriber calling card.  These cards
are issued to people with out a home telephone number.  Bills are
issued from the Orlando billing center.


Mark Van Buskirk         Rolling Meadows, Il


[Moderator's Note: And thanks also to Randy Borow for his message
saying almost the same thing and noting that the cards usually have a
$100 credit limit at first.   PAT]

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

From: "S. Srinivasan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Change in Dialing Procedures to Mexico Effective Today
Date: 4 Feb 91 19:43:33 GMT
Organization: Ultra Network Technologies


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


>*** Reminder: Starting February 1st, instead of dialing 905 or 706 to
>call certain parts of Mexico, you will be able to call anywhere in the
>country from the United States by dialing 011 + 52 + NATIONAL NUMBER.
>In areas where operator assistance is required, there will be no
>additional charge.

On a related note, why didn't Mexico choose to go with the "Gringo
Peeg" Bell System, and opted instead for the European one?  With the
onset of free-trade (hopefully), this might be a severe detraction.  I
suspect a call to Mexico would be routed to one of the International
Switching Centers (AT&T-speak) - and where's the closest one to San
Diego - Atlanta?!!!

Anyone care to explain what is it about the European telephone system
that makes it different from the Bell System that the two require
"internetworking with special-purpose routers"?  Is it just that we
use the North American Digital Hierarchy, i.e. DS-0,DS-1,DS-3, etc,
and that they use the CEPT?  Or is it more to do with Inter-Office
Signalling?

Thanks, and sorry for all the question marks,


(S. Srinivasan  ...!{ames!}[e-mail])
Ultra Network Technologies - "Home of the Gigabit Network" - San Jose, Calif.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 04:16 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: GTE Changes and Cost of Local Service


Peter da Silva <[e-mail]> writes:

> Higdon, et al, keep pointing out how the PUC screwed up by allowing
> rate increases for dropping touch-tone charges, when they already did
> them a bunch of other favors in exchange for dropping this charge.

> Have any of you guys told the PUC about this?

Many of those on the board at the time this abortion was approved are
no longer there. However, they were well aware of what a bad deal this
was. There is an active member of this forum, a legislative analyst
who made it quite clear to all and sundry that this was not a good
thing for the public. But, of course, Pac*Bell being the behemoth that
it is, pulled the necessary strings and sufficient pressure was
exerted from on high (legislators who oversee the PUC) to
expeditiously pass all of this stuff. At the time, our wonderful
watchdog media printed every piece of fluff the Pac*Bell PR people
spewed forth.

I wrote letters to the editor, letters to state assemblymen, and even
posted heavily in this forum against the matter. But it was all swept
in on a wave of euphoric bliss. This is one of the major events that
have caused my distrust of our news services. Anyone who has studied
this package walks away with mouth hanging open in disbelief. If the
media had actually reported reality instead of public relations
propaganda, the "people" would have risen up.

To answer your direct question with a direct answer: the PUC was the
co conspirator in the piece. The PUC and a half dozen other state
officials know very well what I think about all of this, for all the
good it does.


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

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

From: Peter da Silva <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator)
Organization: A corner of our bedroom
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 1991 15:08:30 GMT


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

> Few people in our society can deal with the notion that someone would
> have a telephone and not give ANYONE the number.

Back when I was going to Berkeley someone accidentally gave out the #
of the payphone outside the door instead of their own. They got a lot
of calls, and some of the store's regulars would take to answering the
phone in "interesting" ways after "Pay Phone" and "Wrong Number" wore
off. "AT&T security, hold for a trace please" was one of the more
memorable ones. I used a number of them a couple of years later when
telemarketers started running up our dial-out modem banks. Answering
with the name of the company calling always got a reaction, too. They
don't do that much any more. Wonder why?


([e-mail])

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

From: jonathan white <acf5![e-mail]>
Subject: Help Needed Cancelling Call Waiting
Date: 5 Feb 91 17:04:20 GMT
Reply-To: jonathan white <acf5![e-mail]>
Organization: New York University


There was a previous posting of an, I think, BASIC program to be used
when *70 will not work to cancel call waiting that would at least
prevent disconection of the modet(m call in progress. *70 works for me
so I didn't take it down but have since found a need for it.  If
someone could mail it to me or give me a pointer I'd appreciate it.

Thanx in advance.


Jonathan White     [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 15:09:06 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI "Hidden" Charge on Reconnected Calls
Organization: Public Health Research Institute, New York City


[e-mail] writes:

> I got disconnected (I think the cordless phone on the other end ran out of
> power). I dialed "00" for the operator - to get reconnected.  Turns out it
> was the MCI operator who told me that she could connect me with the credit
> operator to give me credit for the last 1 minute and to reconnect me.

    This is not a flame.  The point of reb's note was to gripe
about the MCI operator being sly about getting him to put through the
reconnect call at operator assisted rates, but I wonder what the point
of getting the operator involved at all was.  Getting credit for the
last minute of the call is only worth a few cents; it's hardly worth
the time and effort to explain to the operator what went wrong.
Besides, if it was the customer's equipment which caused the
disconnect (as reb suggests), why should the carrier owe you anything
at all?  It's not their fault the call was disconnected, is it?


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

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: ROLM Phone Compatibility
Date: Mon,  4 Feb 91 21:49:42 PST


Bernie Cosell writes:

>Here at BBN we have a ROLM VLCBX system.  As it turns out, I'm getting
>some grief from the phonedroids about replacing my instrument with a
>speakerphone, and so I'm thinking of finessing the whole matter by
>simply going out and BUYING a speakerphone --- phones are cheap enough
>and easy enough to come by that it is hard to fathom why providing a
>'BBN approved' speakerphone should be an expensive hassle, but it is.

>Anyhow: does anyone know what the compatibility of 'ordinary' phones
>are with the Rolm system?  It looks like the 'official' Rolm
>instruments all just have vanilla modular connectors on them, but I
>observe that the phone has at least two not-very-standard features:

<...stuff deleted...>

>Are there random commercial [speaker] phones that are actually fully
>compatible with the Rolm system [including the two items above]?  Even
>if the answer is 'yes', I'm curious about what'll happen [besides that
>I'll obviously lose the above two items] if I just use a real-vanilla
>phone --- it won't hurt the system or otherwise not work, will it?

The ROLM phone you describe is an electronic phone. The deskset
performs the analog-digital conversion for the voice channel and the
link from the deskset to the switch is digital (proprietary format).
This link is constantly active and, if unplugged for too long, it can
be deactivated. So don't unplug your phone and definitely don't plug
in a Plain Old Telephone Set.  Now for your problem: all of the ROLM
phones I've seen have the speakerphone built in. One of the
configurable buttons is usually programmed to select the speaker
option.  You can check your phone as follows:

1. Is there a small (1/2in. x 1/2in.) set of slots in the very front
of your phone? This is the microphone pickup for the speakerphone.

2.  When the phone rings with a call, tap the line button that flashes
and see if the call is answered in speaker-phone mode.

OK, I just checked the manual and you might not have the two-way
speakerphone. Check the underside of the phone for the model number.
RP400 and RP240 have the two-way speakerphone hardware but the RP120
has the speaker only.  This is to allow one-handed dialing, you don't
have to pick up the handset until the called party answers.


Robert Brauer    ROLM Systems Inc., Santa Clara, CA.
Disclaimer: These OPINIONS are mine and if you think I speak for
anyone else, you're wrong.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 04:41 EST
From: Nigel Allen <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom Industry Directories: Get Listed Free!


Here is a list of directories that telecommunications-related
companies and associations may want to get listed in.  A basic listing
in each of them is free, but the Telephony Buyers' Guide and TE&M
Directory also sell advertising. All of them depend on questionnaires
to put together their listings, so if you would like to be listed,
contact any or all of them and ask for a questionnaire.

Telephony Buyers' Guide
Attn:  Tina Rubin
55 E. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604 USA
tel [phone]
fax [phone]

(Formerly a thick annual directory which also listed operating
companies, now just an annual special issue of {Telephony Magazine}.)

Telephone Engineer & Management Directory
One East First Street
Duluth, MN 55802  U.S.A.
telephone [phone] ext. 552
fax [phone]

(Also lists U.S. and worldwide operating companies.)

Telecommunications Systems and Services Directory
Attn: Mr. John Krol, editor
Gale Research Inc.
835 Penobscot Bldg.
Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094 USA
tel. [phone]
fax [phone]

Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory
P.O. Box 6789
Silver Spring, Maryland 20916 U.S.A.
telephone [phone]
No fax

This lists consultants in general, not just telecommunications
industry consultants.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 10:14:31 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Payphone Number Stickers


The situation described in my message about Phillipsburg, NJ is the
first case I have been to an area with permissive dialing, as I don't
visit New York City that much.  Removing area code 202 from Md. and
Va.  suburbs in the Washington DC area did not change the area codes
to be displayed on pay phones there.


[Moderator's Note: Well, things remain real messy here in the suburbs.
Many payphones still have the old stickers with 312 on them. I guess
they do not bother changing them until it is otherwise necessary to do
maintainence on the phone, and that makes sense in a way.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #94
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa00212;
          6 Feb 91 3:43 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa14205;
          6 Feb 91 2:16 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa00428;
          6 Feb 91 1:11 CST
Date:     Wed, 6 Feb 91 0:42:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #95
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Feb 91 00:41:58 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 95

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Paul S. Sawyer]
    Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Barton F. Bruce]
    Tandy/Heathkit [Ed Greenberg]
    Speaking of Heathkit [Steve Wolfson]
    Tandy Leather and Radio Shack [Sean Williams]
    Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland [Dale Neiburg via John Covert]
    Voice Compression on MCI Trunks? [Howard G. Page]
    IEEE Conference: TENCON 92 - AUSTRALIA [Srinivasa K.R. Murthy]
    Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [John Luce]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Paul S. Sawyer" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack
Organization: UNH Telecommunications and Network Services
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 18:11:56 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 93, Message 3 of 10

> [Moderator's Note: (Allied Radio was Radio Shack's name thirty years
> ago for you young'uns reading this.)...

> Not true.

> Radio Shack was formed in 1920 (approx) in Boston, MA, and for years
> had the one store on Commonwealth Ave.  They branched out into mail
> order over the years.  In the 60's, Radio Shack was bought by the
> Tandy Corporation, which at the time was doing mostly leather and
> craft stuff.  Eventually, RS became the large portion of Tandy, and I
> believe the craft business is almost completely gone.

I seem to remember when the ONE store they had was downtown, on
Washington Street, and had just about everything.  I think Comm Ave
was when they started to expand, become a serious commercial jobber,
etc.  Then Tandy made them into the McDonald's of electronics....

>[Moderator's Note: ...
>         Say! Speaking of Heathkit ... what are *they* doing these
>days? Are they still around?  My first terminal was a Zenith Z-19
>which I built from a Heathkit in 1980, meaning it was actually an H-19
>instead.  The last I heard, they closed the Benton Harbor facility.  PAT]

I think I have you beat on this one, Pat, I built an H-9 (yes, NINE)
around 1977.  It was upper case only on transmit, and RECEIVED lower
case as garbage, so I had to add a gate to shift that bit on only
those characters ... I have an H-89 here in working condition, which
is really an H-19 with a Z-80 computer and floppy disk in it.  There
were still two Heath stores in the Boston area as of a few years ago,
but they had a lot more of a consumer electronics/computer store feel
to them ... sigh....


Paul S. Sawyer             {uunet,attmail}!unhtel!paul    [e-mail]
UNH CIS - - Telecommunications and Network Services      VOX: [phone]
Durham, New Hampshire  03824-3523                        FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: The H-19 (Z-19) had a hollow space on the right
side of the monitor where the disk drive would fit if you were
converting it to a 89. Then inside the unit right in front of the logic
board there was a place to install the board for the 89 if desired. The
coversion was not real hard, but I did not bother. What I did do with
the H-19 was install a 'Graphics Plus' board in there instead which
improved the terminal's performance greatly and made it a very smart
terminal.  PAT]

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

From: "Barton F. Bruce" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack
Date: 5 Feb 91 22:29:58 EST
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
writes:

> Radio Shack was formed in 1920 (approx) in Boston, MA, and for years
> had the one store on Commonwealth Ave.  They branched out into mail

They moved out to Commonwealth Ave. right near the BU bridge actually
quite late in their history, and well into their downward slide (IMHO)
that they still continue today.

They WERE on Washington St. right between what is now Government
Center, and what has long been Haymarket Square. Back when I was a
kid, and the subway was a nickel, they had bins of all sorts of WWII
surplus electronics stuff along with the new stuff. The quality and
atmosphere has never been quite the same. Back then the sales folk
generally knew what they were talking about.

When they finally moved to Comm. Ave. they got a bit fancier, and they
were heading down hill. Now they are mostly blisterpacked gadgets on
the 800% markup racks.


[Moderator's Note: Sad to say, there is *no way* a radio/electronics
gear store of the 1950-60 era could operate today, given the economics
involved. The old Allied Radio store had *barrels* of capacitors and
other components sitting around everywhere -- sort through them and
take what you want. If you did not know what you wanted, the salesman
would consult directories, indexes and tables to find the proper part
number from other companies, etc. The salesman would spend thirty
minutes with you if needed to help you find the gizmo you were looking
for to use in modifying your radio, etc ... all for a two dollar sale.

Olson was the same way. How they made a profit I'll never know. I
guess in fact they did not make a profit since they, like Allied, are
out of business. Blisterpacked gadgets and salespeople who know from
nothing are where the profit is now-a-days. In the old days, the sales
help in those stores were almost always hobbyists themselves, with
hobbyist mentalities, stringing components together to make things
work like they wanted. It was easy for them to empathize with the
customer and spend time discussing your project and helping you dig
through barrels of poorly marked capactitors, vacuum tubes, switches
and plugs finding what was needed. Imagine most RS clerks doing that
today or even knowing/caring what your home-brew project is about.  PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 10:39 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Tandy/Heathkit


>Eventually, RS became the large portion of Tandy, and I believe the
>craft business is almost completely gone.

We have a "Tandy Crafts" store near my home (San Carlos Avenue in San
Jose) but their hours are 10-5 Mon-Sat so I haven't been able to get in
there, the few times I've wanted to try.  It's an old dusty store,
from what I can see, and it's not clear to me how anyone can make any
money with such limited access by the public (in this day and age.)

> [Modertor: Say! Speaking of Heathkit ... what are *they* doing
> these days? Are they still around?

Many people recently got a Heathkit catalog.  I think that the mailing
list included the FCC Amateur Radio Operators database, since all the
hams I know got one addressed to their FCC mailing addresses.

It was pitiful. About 30% of the stuff in the catalog was buildable.
The rest was sold assembled-only.  The ham gear line has been
decimated, the stereo/television line is about gone, and their concept
of building a computer is to plug the boards in.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 08:47:45 CST
From: Steve Wolfson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Speaking of Heathkit


Heathkit is still around and there are two or three stores left in the
area.

A few years ago when Zenith bought them out to get the computer
technology the Heathkit part began to diminish a bit, especially since
it became cheaper to buy built than the kits.  A friend of mine who
was an engineer for Zenith Data Systems said that they would pull the
key caps off of keyboards that were imported for the "Kit" versions of
the PC clones.  Since the purchase of ZDS by Group Bulle, the status
of Heath may be in doubt, but they are still in Benton Harbor (where
the Zenith computers are made as well).

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Tue Feb  5 21:31:50 EST 1991
Subject: Tandy Leather and Radio Shack


John L. Shelton writes:

| In the 60's, Radio Shack was bought by the Tandy Corporation, which at the
| time was doing mostly leather and craft stuff.  Eventually, RS became the
| large portion of Tandy, and I believe the craft business is almost
| completely gone.

At the Summerdale Plaza in Enola, PA (a local mini-mall) there is a
Radio Shack, and a few doors down, there is a Tandy Leather and Crafts
store.  I always wondered about the possible connection of the
companies, but I always just tossed it as a coincidence.


Sean E. Williams            | attmail.com!seanwilliams
333 Prospect Avenue / PO Box 227    | [e-mail]
Duncannon, PA 17020-0227 USA        | voicemail: (717)/957-8139


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

From: "John R. Covert  05-Feb-1991 1125" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland
Date: Mon, 5 Feb. 91 10:42 EST


  From: Dale Neiburg
  Organization: National Public Radio
  Subject: Re: Forts Meade and Ritchie in Maryland

On 4 Feb., Carl Moore wrote:

>  As far as I know (not having been to Fort Meade),
>the other phones on that post are in the Odenton exchange, which is
>going into 410 (causing a problem as to how to list the area code for
>zip code 20755?).

I live about ten miles from Fort Meade, and about thirty *YARDS* from
the new 301/410 dividing line.  In fact, I live on the 410 side of the
line, but my CO is on the 301 side, so I'm keeping the old, unimproved
301.

As I understand it, my Zip Code (20723) will end up being divvied up
between 301 and 410 also.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 08:37:12 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Voice Compression on MCI Trunks?


I've had the honor of using MCI's LD service lately. The voice quality
on a significant of my calls from the East Coast to the West Coast is
slightly distracting. There seems to be some type of speech detecting
circuit that annoyingly clips the first several hundred milliseconds
off the voice of the called party. If the called party's transmitting
power is very low, which is the case when he/she has a soft voice or
is using "cheap" phone, there is intermittent cut outs of the speech.
In addition, interestingly enough, when the circuit is idle there is a
moderate amount of circuit (white) noise in the background that
disappears as the called party speaks.

I'm guessing that MCI is using some type of fast packet voice
compression technology (hence the speech detection/clipping).

Anybody know the definitive story?


Howard G. Page      [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue,  5 Feb 91 15:47:30 EST
From: Srinivasa K R Murthy <[e-mail]>
Subject: IEEE CONF - TENCON 92 - AUSTRALIA
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


   A SPECIAL CALL FOR ALL THE EARLY BIRDS. TENCON 92 - AUSTRALIA

                IEEE TENCON 1992, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA

The TENCON 1992 will be held in the

            World Congress Center,
            Melbourne, Australia.

                   from 9th through 13th Nov 1992.

The topics are  Computers, Communications and Automation
The theme of the conference is

               TECHNOLOGIES ENABLING TOMORROW

I am the International Program Co-ordinator.

We are planning for tutorials on 9th and 10th Nov 1992 covering
the three topic tracks - Computers, Communications and Automation.

I am seeking volunteers for the conference.

TENCON is an international IEEE conference. It is a Region 10
conference conducted every year. Region 10 covers the Far East (Japan,
Hong Kong, Taiwan, China, Singapore, India, South Korea and other
countries), New Zealand and Australia among other countries. The
conference organizers and attendees will come from many countries
around the world.  The conference was hosted in 1989 by the IEEE
Bombay Section. I was the Program Co-Chair of the conference.

The conference featured around 70 paper sessions, a dozen panel
discussions, three two-day tutorials. The conference had a very
successful product exhibits program with around 90 stalls participated
by companies from around the world. The conference was very successful
and even attracted the attention of the press (news papers, TV and
radio).

The attendance was around 1200 from around 24 countries.  The 1990
Tencon was conducted in Hong Kong in September, for which I was an
International Advisor.  We have received around 600 papers.

The 1991 Tencon will be held in New Delhi, India from 26th through
30th August 1991. I am the Program Co-Chair.

I am giving below suggestions for your involvement in the conference.
I am sure all of you can be creative and think of more ways to
contribute to the conference:

    a. First thing you can do is to publicize
about the conference in your organization (university, industry).

    b. You can submit a paper for the conference and identify people
in your organization and professional circles who will be interested
in submitting a paper.

    c.  More experienced people can organize a session.
Students and new graduates can identify more experienced people
(seniors professionals, professors) interested in organizing a
tutorial or paper session and pursue it.

I will be glad to guide and provide help for any of the activities.

You as a volunteer, attendee, paper presenter or session organizer can
convince your employer of the benefits of your and your management's
participation in this conference.

Please send me your session proposal and / or paper by e-mail first.
Please include the following:

Title of the session
Summary of the session
Sub-topics of the session
Potential / actual papers (title, author, estimated number of pages
                           abstract, if any)
Details of the session organizer(s) / chair(s)
(address, phone(s), fax, e-mail address bio, IEEE experience,
session experience)

For a paper please include:

Title of the paper
Author's details (address, phone, fax, e-mail address)
Abstract
Estimated number of pages

Your role in TENCON can not only benefit you, but also your employer.

Please respond as soon as possible with a note / letter giving the
role you would like to play in TENCON 1992 (example: session chair or
paper presenter with topic(s)).  If you send e-mail now, you have to
send a hard copy of your submittal later.

Thank you, again.

With warm regards.

K.R.S. Murthy   AT&T Bell Labs    Room 2N-437
Holmdel NJ 07733  (201)-949-4850  (201)-949-5196 (Fax)
E-mail ..!att!homxb!murthy  or [e-mail]  or homxb![e-mail]

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

From: "J. Luce" <aurs01![e-mail]>
Subject: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it
Date: 5 Feb 91 17:55:55 GMT
Reply-To: "J. Luce" <aurw46![e-mail]>
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC


Up to a year ago, I was an employee of BNR, Inc. (Bell Northern
Research), the R&D arm of Northern Telecom, the perpetrator of this
horrid thing called Caller ID. It should be noted that MANY MANY
software designers who worked on this were against it's concept
without the capability to block it by the CALLER. The software to do
so is actually trivial but in the true sense of software companies we
told our customers it was not. Anyway, we had great outpouring of
disdain for this feature on the company mainframe 'Gossip' area. I
give great attaboys to BNR that no action was taken via censorship or
reprimands by the BNR management.

In fact, several of these articles were forwarded to the PUC for
insertion to the documents against No. Carolina allowing SoBell to
sell Caller ID.  I believe NC did not allow it at that time, but will
allow SoBell to bring it up again. (BTW, I have nothing but respect
for BNR, it is in general one of the best places to work, bar none).

We already had a feature in place to allow crank caller numbers to be
printed at the CO by pressing *XX (depends on BOC usage). Therefore,
no need for CID. I feel that this is one large marketing scam only for
the RBOCs and feel that if I pay for a non-published listing, that CID
should be inactivated. Believe me, the software hooks are there.


John Luce    Alcatel Network Systems   Raleigh, NC
Standard Disclaimer Applies     919-850-6787
Mail? Here? Try aurs01!aurw46![e-mail]
or ... !mcnc!aurgate!luce  - or - [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: A copy of Mr. Luce's article is being posted to the
Telecom Privacy mailing list ([e-mail]) so that
continued discussion may take place between interested parties in that
forum.  If you wish to subscribe: [e-mail].  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #95
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27122;
          7 Feb 91 2:01 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa21139;
          7 Feb 91 0:29 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab11457;
          6 Feb 91 23:24 CST
Date:     Wed, 6 Feb 91 22:44:49 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #96
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Wed, 6 Feb 91 22:44:28 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 96

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Unbreakable Dialtones [Pete J. Bowden]
    Re: Phillipsburg, NJ [Stephen Tell]
    Re: Headset Installation Help Needed [Paul Elliott]
    Re: Voice Compression on MCI Trunks? [Peter M. Weiss]
    Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator) [John Abt]
    Re: Speaking of Heathkit [[e-mail]]
    Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it [Wayne Folta]
    Re: LD Credit Card Not Tied to Home Phone [Phydeaux]
    Re: MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Story Continues [Bill Huttig]
    Motorola Programming Manual in Archives [TELECOM Moderator]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 00:46:11 -0500
From: "Pete J. Bowden" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Unbreakable Dialtones
Reply-To: [e-mail]


  I happen to have a multitude (14) of lines in my residence which
happen to be on a GTE GTD-5 switch and experienced the same trouble
which Singer mentioned, plus an added touch.  Occasionally when people
called my voice line they would hear me garbled. I called my house
once when this intermittent condition was occurring and the best way
to explain it was that the person on my phone sounded like Mickey
mouse.

  I had similar results with GTE, with them turning around and usually
not calling me to tell me that it had been "cleared" even though the
problem persisted.  After a while the phone repair people were getting
"annoyed" with me -- I would use much stronger words for how I felt
the phone company was treating me.  The repair person sent someone out
to my house and said it was INSIDE my house and that if I called in
again they would charge me some outrageous hourly rate to repair it.

  I said it was similar to his problem so let me get back to that.  In
addition to me sounding like Mickey mouse to my callers I would
occasionally pick up the phone and be unable to break dialtone.  I
found out, however, that I could dial-pulse -- so I switched the phone
over to pulse and called my other line and low and behold I sounded
like Mickey coming out the one end.  Now then, when confronted with
this obnoxious repair person saying he was going to charge me I kept
picking up the line until I could not break dialtone and I dialed his
supervisor direct.  He heard me as Mickey mouse and realized it was a
real problem.

  A friend of mine installs GTD-5's and told me that it is the line
card which was bad -- so I told them to replace the line card when they
finally listened to me the problem went away.

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

From: Stephen Tell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Phillipsburg, NJ
Date: 6 Feb 91 06:57:00 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


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

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>>others.  (Does someone have the dates for 908 becoming useable and for
>>the full cutover?)

>The 908 area code is usable now, as of January 1 I believe.

It has been active for a lot longer than that; I reprogrammed my
autodialer for parents in NJ as soon as I heard about 908 right here
on the net, probably last March or earlier.  I've used it heavily for
eight months or so.

>NJ Bell advertises about the change over in the local newspapers.

It is discussed in the new 90-91 phone books delivered this past fall.
My parents live right near the boundary, and their phone book has to
list numbers in the white and yellow pages with the full ten digits.
Actually, it only prints 908, and says "201 unless otherwise stated"
in the front and atop many pages.  Most numbers listed in the book are
in fact still in 201.  For those of you keeping track, their number is
in 908-464, which is in the "Surban Essex" phone book.

Sometime this past fall, CNID in that area started delivering 908 where
appropriate.


Steve Tell       tell@.cs.unc.edu   H: [phone]   #5L Estes Park apts
CS Grad Student, UNC Chapel Hill.   W: [phone]   Carrboro NC 27510

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

From: Paul Elliott x225 <optilink![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Headset Installation Help Needed
Date: 6 Feb 91 04:22:13 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Heath Roberts) writes:

> I bought an telephone-type headset at a garage sale, and haven't been
> able to get it to work. I suspect that I'm not connecting something
> correctly.

> There's an over-the-ear mic boom, and an in-the-ear receiver,
> connected via a connectorized cord to an electronics box. The box says
> "UNEX Controlonics Corp., Westford, MA" and then what looks like a
> model, "Ventel II, Operator" It also has an FCC reg. number and a REN
> of 0.

If memory serves, Ventel is a manufacturer or distributer of phone
paraphernalia

> There's an RJ plug (same as normal handset cords) on the other end of
> the box. The box came with a coil cord and a twin-phone plug.
> Connecting it to a phone doesn't do anything.

Well, Try it again!  Actually, if it is similar to the ones I've
designed, it should plug right into the phone in place of the handset
cord.  Make sure you lift the handset off the hook buttons (this is
kinda like asking "Did you plug it in?", but just thought I'd mention
it).

> Since it's not a
> line-type connector, I haven't tried plugging it into an active line.

Definitely don't do that.

> I understand that the tip connetors on the twin plug is receive, and
> ring is transmit (or vice versa) so the device is pretty clearly not
> intended to plug into a normal two-wire circuit.

The headset amp uses the hybrid inside the phone to do the two-to-four
wire conversion.

> My best guess to what's happening is that the box expects some power
> supply that a normal phone isn't going to provide. It's a nice headset
> and I'd like to be able to use it. Anyone have any helpful
> information?

The phone actually will provide about five volts (depends on the
current drawn) across the transmitter (microphone) connections, and
this is the power that the headset box uses to power the boom
microphone (probably an electret).  It may also steal some power to
amplify the receiver (earphone).  At least mine did.

Of course, you said it didn't work when you plugged it into the phone,
so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.  Or it's broken.  They
are usually fairly simple inside, you might be able to fix it.

[A personal note: I regularly annoy my wife and kids by excitedly
pointing it out when I see one of "my" headsets on T.V. (Miami Vice
liked them a lot).  Also got to see one in use in orbit on the Space
Shuttle; NASA was trying out a few different types of communications
headsets.

I guess I have to take my glory where I find it ;-) ]


      Paul M. Elliott      Optilink Corporation     [phone]
            {uunet, pyramid, pixar, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott

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

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 6 Feb 1991 09:45:38 EST
From: "Peter M. Weiss" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Compression on MCI Trunks?


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

>I've had the honor of using MCI's LD service lately. The voice quality
>on a significant of my calls from the East Coast to the West Coast is
>slightly distracting. There seems to be some type of speech detecting
>circuit that annoyingly clips the first several hundred milliseconds
>off the voice of the called party. (deleted)

What does this do to modem data calls?


Peter M. Weiss                   | pmw1 @ PSUADMIN
31 Shields Bldg - PennState Univ.| not affiliated with psu.vm.edu | psuvm
University Park, PA USA    16802

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

From: John Abt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Home Data Line (was: Data Interruption by Operator)
Date: 6 Feb 91 14:37:51 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA


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

> Few people in our society can deal with the notion that someone would
> have a telephone and not give ANYONE the number.

I have a sister who is an OB/GYN in the SF Bay area. As you can
imagine, she was a slave to her beeper. A while back she bought a
handheld cellular (on my recommendation) which she now says "changed
her life".  But when I asked for her cellular number, she refused to
give it to me (her husband does not have it either). She "never"
receives calls on the cellular - it's only for "calling in when I'm
beeped".


John Abt

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 1991 11:31:11 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Speaking of Heathkit


>A few years ago when Zenith bought them out to get the computer
>technology the Heathkit part began to diminish a bit, especially since
>it became cheaper to buy built than the kits....
>Since the purchase of ZDS by Group Bulle, the status
>of Heath may be in doubt, but they are still in Benton Harbor (where
>the Zenith computers are made as well).

I received a letter from Heathkit a couple months ago, stating that
all of the stores were being converted into strictly computer stores
(they store here in Rochester, NY hasn't paid any attention to kits
for quite a while).  The kit business is now being handled completely
via mailorder catalog.


Don

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

From: Wayne Folta <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Many Software Designers of Caller ID Also Disliked it
Date: 6 Feb 91 21:40:01 GMT
Reply-To: Wayne Folta <[e-mail]>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742


>no need for CID. I feel that this is one large marketing scam only for
>the RBOCs and feel that if I pay for a non-published listing, that CID
>should be inactivated. Believe me, the software hooks are there.

In Maryland, you can now dial *67 before a call and the CID box shows
"Private #" on the display. As a (free) counter-feature, I would like
to be able to have the phone company block all *67'd and otherwise
private # calls from ringing my phone. If you want to call me (enter
my house as it were), I believe I have a right to know who you are
before granting you entrance.

On another note, I wonder if the *XX to report crank calls to the
phone company is a true alternative to CID. CID allows me (in theory)
to find out who is crank calling, and attempt to solve the problem
without resorting to legal proceedings. In some cases, this is more
appropriate.


Wayne Folta          ([e-mail]  128.8.128.8)


[Moderator's Note: The way to refuse calls from blocked numbers is
pretty simple if you also have call screening. Please note that *67
does not refuse to pass the caller's number to the CO ... but merely
instructs the CO not to give it to you. So what you do is, you have to
get called once by the blocked number. Answer it or not as you
please. When that call is off the line, then do *60 #01# or whatever
you do to 'add last caller whether or not you know the number' to your
list of calls to be screened. Henceforth what they will get for their
*67 + your number will be a recording saying "The customer you have
called has activated call screening, meaning they are not accepting
calls at this time."  Even if they call back unblocked they won't get
through. Anything that Caller*ID can grab can also be handled by its
close cousin, Call Screening.  Above code is from Bell of Illinois,
your telco may have different codes / intercept messages. PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 13:49:34 PST
Subject: Re: LD Credit Card Not Tied to Home Phone
Reply-To: mtxinu!Ingres.COM![e-mail]
Organization: From the grass eaters at the Bovine Munching Works
From: Phydeaux <mtxinu!ingres.com![e-mail]>


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

>able to give me one.  AT&T won't open accounts at all for people who
>don't have a local phone (is this because of billing?) and the other
>two will issue a card, but it can't be used with 10xxx.
>[Moderator's Note: Someone at AT&T gave you bad information. They've
>had a miscellanous billing account calling card for many years. They

I've had one for a while.  At the time I had no phone billed to me.  I
had no problem at all getting it.  I also have a similar card with MCI
(Billed to my Amex card). I've never had a problem with either of them
and 10xxx.  You just have to use 10xxx+0+[10D] ...

>want a miscellaneous billing type number. They are billed out of
>Orlando, FL I believe; same as cellular phone billings, with separate
>bills sent each month not attached to any regular phone bill.   PAT]

Hmm ... my AT&T card is billed out of Cincinatti, OH.


reb

*-=#= Phydeaux =#=-*      [e-mail]     [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W      h:558 W.Wellington #3R Chicago, IL 60657 312-549-8365


[Moderator's Note: The reason yours is billed out of Cincinatti is
because for many years, Cincinatti Bell handled all miscellaneous
billing accounts for AT&T and the other Bell Companies. I think a lot
of those accounts are still with Cincinatti Bell and newer ones are
being handled by AT&T.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 20:40:20 EST
From: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MCI/Telecom*USA Personal 800 Story Continues
Reply-To: Bill Huttig <[e-mail]>
Organization: Florida Institute of Technology, ACS, Melbourne, FL


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

>I just thought I'd post an update on the status of my account.

[stuff deleted]

>the second 800 number I set up (The one that rings at my aunt's).  The
>other one had a brand new 800 number and was a regular Personal 800

See below

>I called Torie several times last week to see if my account was
>credited or not ... she was 'unavailable'. I left one message but she
>never returned my call.  They say I owe $149.19 (for two months). I
>did a rough rerate my self and decided that Telecom*USA rates that
>showed are about 27%-30% too high. So I should end up with about $105
>after adjustments.

 Well I called her again today and she said that she hadn't heared
anything from the billing department ... so she offered a $25 general
credit. I said that I thought it should be a little higher so she
offered $50 which was $5 more then I was hoping. I will do a rerate
myself when I get the February invoice and see what the bonus for all
my time was.  I dont see why they dont do what the other half of MCI
does and issue a blanket credit instead of spending all that
personnel time to rerate, etc.

>They asked me for a PIN also ... I don't know why ... Maybe the
>originally planned to give each user his/her own number with a PIN so
>that they didn't have to adjust for wrong numbers.

The third number I received comes with the PIN I requested: 2455 which
spells BILL.


[Moderator's Note: Why do they have all those employees to correct
errors, you ask?  The rule of thumb for many (most?) huge companies is
that about half the people there have as their main duty correcting
the mistakes of the other half. Consider how large most customer
service departments are the telcos. What would they do if there were
not lots of mistakes to be corrected constantly?    PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 23:00:22 CST
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Motorola Programming Manual in Archives


A copy of the Motorola programming manual for certain models of
cellular phones is now available in the Telecom Archives. This was
donated to us (and typed in) by Andy Rabagliati <[e-mail]>.

When you next visit the archives you may want to get a copy of this
file if you own or work with Motorola cellular phones. Look under the
cellular category in the main directory.

The Telecom Archives is ftp'able from lcs.mit.edu. You would login as
anonymous, give your name@site as a password, then 'cd telecom-archives'
to reach our section. Of course the archives mail server can also be
used: send mail to [e-mail] ([e-mail]).

Thanks Andy!


PAT

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #96
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28679;
          7 Feb 91 3:08 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa12606;
          7 Feb 91 1:34 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab21139;
          7 Feb 91 0:29 CST
Date:     Thu, 7 Feb 91 0:09:04 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #97
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Feb 91 00:08:43 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 97

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Herman R. Silbiger]
    Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit [Alan Ruffer]
    Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit [Allyn Lai]
    Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit [Dave Levenson]
    Radio/Electronics/Parts/Stuff Stores [[e-mail]]
    Re: Prank Call to Sheraton in Baghdad [John Tombs]
    Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [John Richard Bruni]
    Re: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission [Joe Stong]
    Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Gordon Baldwin]
    Re: How Do I Tell When ... [Jon Sreekanth]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed,  6 Feb 91 20:37:47 EST
From: Herman R Silbiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Barton F.
Bruce) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Sad to say, there is *no way* a radio/electronics
> gear store of the 1950-60 era could operate today, given the economics
> involved. The old Allied Radio store had *barrels* of capacitors and
> other components sitting around everywhere -- sort through them and

> Olson was the same way. How they made a profit I'll never know. I
> guess in fact they did not make a profit since they, like Allied, are
> out of business. Blisterpacked gadgets and salespeople who know from
> nothing are where the profit is now-a-days. In the old days, the sales
> help in those stores were almost always hobbyists themselves, with
> hobbyist mentalities, stringing components together to make things
> work like they wanted. It was easy for them to empathize with the
> customer and spend time discussing your project and helping you dig
> through barrels of poorly marked capactitors, vacuum tubes, switches
> and plugs finding what was needed. Imagine most RS clerks doing that
> today or even knowing/caring what your home-brew project is about.  PAT]

Actually, Olson only handled their "own brand" of stuff, while Allied
handled many brands.  I assembled my first hifi system from Allied,
and bought most of it out of the Chicago store.  The Allied catalog
was required reading to find out what was new in electronics.
Allied's principal competitor was Lafayette Radio, in New York City.
Lafayette was located on Lafayette Street in NYC, near Hudson and
Varick Streets.  This area was known as Radio Row, and had many radio
and electronics parts and surplus strores.  The area disappeared when
the World Trade Center was built.  One store from that area still
exists uptown, Harvey Radio (now Harvey Electronics), and is an
upscale sound system dealer.

I bought one rarity from Lafayette, an black dial phone ("for hobbyist
use only" in those days :-) ), which turned out to have been
manufactured by HEEMAF in the Netherlands, a company mainly known for
its AC motors.


Herman Silbiger


[Moderator's Note: Ah yes, Lafayette! There was a nice Lafayette store
in Chicago on Wabash Avenue until about 1968 or so ... I bought a few
things from them, but mostly for my stereo: a pre-amp, cartridges, a
couple of speakers, a reverb unit, etc.   PAT]

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

From: Alan Ruffer <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit
Date: 6 Feb 91 06:06:38 GMT
Reply-To: Alan Ruffer <[e-mail]>
Organization: Perfect Partners Inc., Sulphur, LA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John L. Shelton)
writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 93, Message 3 of 10

 ....text deleted regarding Allied Radio and Radio Shack.

>[Moderator's Note: You are wrong on the 'Allied was mail order only'
>Anerica. Say! Speaking of Heathkit ... what are *they* doing these
>days? Are they still around?  My first terminal was a Zenith Z-19
>which I built from a Heathkit in 1980, meaning it was actually an H-19
>instead.  The last I heard, they closed the Benton Harbor facility.  PAT]

Heathkit IS still alive and well.  They were bought by Zenith
primarily because of their educational courses and computer systems.
A good friend of mine was a technical consultant at the time this
occurred.  During the resulting streamlining process he and many
others lost their jobs.  I still get catalogs from them, though the
last few times I attempted an order, I always wound up with a refund
for this or that because it had been "discontinued".

Heath is more into selling "assembled" products these days, for
instance their amateur radio equipment is Yeasu with Heaths name plate
on it, much as Sears does with their "Kenmore" products. They still
sell a few kits.  The quality of the construction manuals has declined
however.  By the way I have a vintage H-19 terminal serving STILL as
console to this Unix box!  Those things were huge as you know, but
they are cement mixers!  It was old already when I bought it used,
then I put it thru hundreds of on-off cycles, and finally the last
four years its been running 24 hours a day.

On an unrelated subject I have two questions: Does anyone know when
South Central Bell will be adding caller-ID to the 318 area?  How much
a month is the typical bill for service in areas that already have
this feature?


Alan R. Ruffer      UUCP: {csccat,chinacat!holston}!adept!alan
Route 1, Box 1745   Amateur Radio Station WB5FKH
Sulphur, LA 70663   BBS: [phone], 19200(PEP)/9600(V.32)/2400/1200


[Moderator's Note: Many years ago we used to drive over to Benton
Harbor on Saturday to visit the Heathkit surplus outlet store. Talk
about some steals!  Returned kits, merchandise with slight defects, it
was all put out at 70% off retail price. Those were the days! Bell of
Illinois has indicated Caller*ID will cost about $6 per month when
they begin offering it later this year. Of course, you have to buy the
display box from whomever ... figure about $70-100 for that.   PAT]

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

From: portal!cup.portal.com![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit
Date: Wed,  6 Feb 91 19:18:46 PST


I believe Heathkit is a strictly mail order business now.  I have a
feeling that it will not last very much longer....


Allyn Lai
[e-mail]

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

From: Dave Levenson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Whatever Happened to Heathkit
Date: 7 Feb 91 03:45:12 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Many people recently got a Heathkit catalog.  I think that the mailing
 ...
> It was pitiful. About 30% of the stuff in the catalog was buildable.
> The rest was sold assembled-only.  The ham gear line has been
> decimated, the stereo/television line is about gone, and their concept
> of building a computer is to plug the boards in.

I'm sure there are other factors, but one thing that happened to
Heathkit was FCC part 15.  I got to know Heath as a kid back in the
50's.  In those days, if it wasn't a transmitter, no FCC certification
was required.  As a result, you could assemble a Heathkit table radio,
or a shortwave receiver, and it was legal.  Today, it has to be FCC
type-accepted, and that means it has to be assembled by an FCC-approved
factory, etc.  About all you could do now is ship the RF parts
pre-assembled and build the case around it.  The market for kit-built
electronics is pretty much limited to amateur radio (still legal for
home-builts) and audio equipment with no RF-radiating ability.

I have built a dozen or so Heathkits, ranging from a shortwave
receiver (remember the AR-3?) to an electronic air filter for a
domestic central HVAC system.  I still have the IM-11 vacuum tube
voltmeter, but the FET-VOM from Radio Shack is less expensive, more
accurate, and more user-friendly.


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: When I was in 5th grade or somewhere back in that
era a buddy and I tried to build a Heathkit table radio. I think it
had three or four tubes in it. Somehow we accidentally wired it up
wrong and sent the wire which carried the IF (intermediate frequency
at 440 kc) out the antenna. Although the radio would not play, we soon
discovered it would radiate all over the house. With that in mind, we
attached another 80 feet or so of wire to make a quarter-wave antenna
at 1620 kc's and played 'radio station' for everyone within a three
block range of my house. We re-broadcast Muzak from an SCA receiver my
buddy had found at a junk dealer and the time signal from Boulder, CO
at 15 megs. My parents found out a couple days later, raised cain and
the 'radio station' signed off the air for good.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 12:01:15 -0500
Subject: Radio/Electronics/Parts/Stuff Stores


About Pat's comment about old style radio/electronics stores not being
able to exist these days, I'd say that this isn't true. Maybe not to
the same level of expertise of the staff that they used to have, but
there are a number of stores in NYC and at least one in College Park,
MD. (Electronics Plus, formerly Surplus Electronics) where the bins of
parts, priced per, the stuff, nonsense, bits, pieces, etc. still
exist. Come to think of it, I went digging around one of this type of
store last time I was in Toronto.

In most of them that I've seen, the staff has a reasonable clue. They
may not be quite as into/up on everything as they once were, but they
can and do help alot.  Come to think of it, there are a couple around
MD/DC ... I've gotten stuff from all of them ... only these days,
ethernet connectors are a more likely purchase than caps and
resistors.


Rich.  (If replying and mail bounces, please resend. mail can be
flakey around here.)

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

From: [e-mail] (John Tombs)
Subject: Re: Prank Call to Sheraton in Baghdad
Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 1991 18:28:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

>Did anyone check the latest Sheraton directory to look for any comment
>about the Sheraton in Baghdad (also Kuwait if they have a hotel

I once stayed overnight at the Kuwait Sheraton, courtesy of British
Airways.  I read that it is now the Iraqi army headquarters. No
vacancies, probably.


John Tombs at Teltronics/TCT             <[e-mail]>, <uunet!pdn!tct!jtt>

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked!
Date: Wed,  6 Feb 91 15:30:27 PST


Hi Patrick,

I see from your postscript to my letter that you shared some
electrifying experiences with me ... I got zapped by plate voltage a
few times while hamming, thank God not on a linear amp.  The best zap
I ever got was off a power supply I made for a linear accelerator in
high school.  This was basically a Tesla coil, but the primary was
tuned and drew about .15 amps at 12,000 volts.  I was playing with it
one day using a four foot florescent tube attached to the proverbial
ten foot pole.  A lightning bolt traveled down the tube, down the
pole, down the *outside* of my arm and under all my clothes where it
went to ground through the safety kicker switch I was standing on.

The only place I got shocked was where the bolt went through my toe.
It left a little black pinhole in my big toenail.  Oh, and when this
happened I got thrown off the kicker switch, which shut down the coil
just before I hit it.  I got a second shock from the large static
electric field that the secondary coil always built up after a minute
or so of operation.

This tall but true tail has nothing to do with Telecom, I present it
here for your amusement.  The coil was designed, BTW, to put out 2.5
MEV of tuned power to a linear accelerator tube, unrectified.  The
tube was short enough that AC merely made it put out a beam from each
end.  Vacuum problems put the fini to this project, as well as
radiation concerns from the people granting me money to build it.  I`d
guess that of the 2.5 MEV I was shooting for, 1.5 of it vanished in
solid blue corona.  The device built up enough ozone in the room it
was being tested in to give one a severe headache in only a minute or
two of operation, and lit florescent bulbs in several houses nearby.
TVI and RFI were problematic as well.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 20:16:33 PST
From: Joe Stong <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Apple Wants Radio Waves For Data Transmission


[Apple computer petitions the FCC for 40 MHz in the area of 1.8 to 1.9
GHz for digital 10MB/s LANs, with a max of about 150 feet.]

A hundred and fifty feet?  What garbage!  Maybe they want to sell a
lot of repeaters, and keep me from doing my connection to the building
across the street!

I certainly wouldn't max the license out at 150 feet, 2000 feet might
be more like it, with provisions for the transmitters using only as
much power as necessary, like cellular systems.  With the frequencies
they're using, it should be easy to put a small directional antenna on
it to boost the ERP.

I'm sure I've seen portable telephones with 2000 foot ranges, even
though a majority are probably less than this.  I'd think this would
give a clue for what a maximum "personal convenience" radio connection
distance would be.

To me, wiring between buildings is MUCH more trouble than wiring
within a building.

I'm pleased that somebody's introducing an FCC petition for commercial
data useage, but this sounds much too restrictive!  If they want to
produce most of the UNITS with a 150 foot range, that's fine with me,
as long as they can legally sell higher power units with somewhat
greater ranges for the circumstances where they're needed.

BTW, someone told me about the NCR WaveLAN product.  I've asked NCR
for literature and pricing.

[As usual, please CC: me in mail if you post about this, I try to
read telecom faithfully, but I miss things ]


Joe Stong   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I'd think the risks of having your data snooped on
or deliberatly messed with would be too great at 2000 feet. Some
people would deliberatly park in front of your plant to mess around
with you. 150 feet is more realistic from a security standpoint,
although of course someone could interfere with that also, but not as
easily unless they were inside your premises.

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 10:09:36 PST
From: Gordon Baldwin <sherpa2![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When ...


>I'm trying to find a device that lights up when a phone extension is
>picked up. That way I can know if a phone line with multiple
>extensions is in use without picking up the phone itself ...

>[Moderator's Note: We have discussed this many times in the Digest.
>Would one of you readers with a schmatic send it along to Craig, with
>a parts list, etc.  Thanks.  PAT]

Could I also get the info/schema!

I have a two year old that loves to play with the phone, and it would
be nice to not have a light so that we know the phones are in "play
mode."


Gordon Baldwin   ELDEC Corp    sherpa2![e-mail]

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

From: Jon Sreekanth <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do I Tell When...
Organization: The World
Date: 6 Feb 91 13:42:52


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
writes:
 ....
[See previous message if you need to review the question.  PAT]

Regarding commercial units that do this (I've heard mention of a Radio
Shack box) Does anyone know what their REN is ?

Just yesterday, a consultant told me that the REN was calculated as a
worst case of several measurements, one of which was DC on-hook
resistance. A device of REN 1.0 has 25 Meg ohm of DC resistance.

Since the customer of a 'privacy LED' box presumably has several other
extension phones, such a box would need to have about 50Meg ohms of DC
resistance in its DC comparator (which is how I assume they detect an
off-hook extension), in order to have an REN of 0.5 (which seems to be
a reasonable design goal.)

Was this consultant right ? (Have the FCC 68 rules changed recently?)
If so, does anyone know if commercial units have such high resistance?

It's moderately challenging, I'd assume.


Regards,

Jon Sreekanth

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #97
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06666;
          7 Feb 91 8:07 EST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa27020;
          7 Feb 91 3:41 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab27247;
          7 Feb 91 2:36 CST
Date:     Thu, 7 Feb 91 1:51:44 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #98
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Thu, 7 Feb 91 01:51:35 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 98

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty [John Murray]
    MIR Revisited [Mark Steiger]
    The Internet Explained (Pointer to Print-Article) [Werner Uhrig]
    India on Calling Card [Arun Baheti]
    Telular Address and Phone [Mark Earle]
    Answer Supervision From Telco is Possible [Tom Lowe]
    Recording International Phone Calls [Paolo Bellutta]
    Cellular Phone Theft [Kevin Bluml]
    Phoney Number Games (re: Payphone Outside Store) [Dan'l DanehyOakes]
    Simple Telephone Wiring Question [Christopher Lott]
    CNA Numbers Needed for 202 and 301 [Michael Rosen]
    Call Waiting and Answering Machines [Eric Tholome]
    Pac*Bell to Provide Answer Supervision [John Higdon]
    You Can Help AT&T Sue the COCOT SOB's [Bob Yazz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Murray <[e-mail]>
Subject: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty
Date: 7 Feb 91 05:28:37 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University


The US shortwave station WWCR 7520 KHz just reported at about 5:00 UTC
2-7-90 that two gentlemen have been convicted of violation of Texas
sweepstakes laws due to their 1-900 marketing of a sweepstakes to win
a crewmember position on a russian space mission.

No other details were reported at the time.

I'd like to see email from anyone that caught the details of the
conviction.


Disclaimer: Yeah, right, like you really believe I run this place.

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

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

Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 23:39:18 CST
From: Mark Steiger <[e-mail]>
Subject: MIR Revisited


I have some more info on that MIR space travel contest.

It's void in NY,FL, & RI

Also, how to enter for free (OK -- 29 cents!)

Send in a #10 (Must be #10) size envelope on a 3" X 5" (Must be 3X5)
your name, address, phone number.  Must be hand printed.  to:

     Space Travel Services
     P.O. Box 580249
     Houston, TX   77258

Or call 1-900-258-2647 for $2.99


[ Mark Steiger, Sysop, The Igloo BBS 218-262-3142  300-19.2K Baud (HST/Dual)]
Internet: [e-mail]              MCI Mail: MSteiger
UUCP: ...crash!pro-igloo!penguin                 ATT Mail: MSteiger
ProLine: Penguin@pro-igloo                       America Online: Goalie5
TELEX: 51623155  MSTEIGER


[Moderator's Note: Not only is it void in NY, FL and RI, it may be
void everywhere by now if the latest news report is accurate.
Supposedly the guys running it have been found guilty.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 1991 7:48:56 CST
From: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: Werner Uhrig <[e-mail]>
Subject: The Internet Explained (Pointer to Print-Article)


This week's {InfoWorld} (Feb 4, page 48) has a two-page description of
what the Internet is all about; the main article is titled: Riding the
Internet - This vast collection of networks is a mistery even to
people who call it home.  on page 57 are two side-bar articles titled:
JUST WHO OWNS THE INTERNET and HOW TO GET ON THE INTERNET.

Not every statement is completely correct, but its as good an
introduction as I have seen in the popular press (useful part of a
collection of handouts to give to someone.)

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 09:02 CDT
From: Arun Baheti <[e-mail]>
Subject: India on Calling Card


Does anyone have any information about when/if I will ever be able to
call India on one of my calling cards at any point in the near future?
The ban on calls (due to fraud a few years back) has been one for at
least a few years (five?) and I'm curious as to whether there is still
a need or have all the LD servers simply forgotten?  There is
something inherrently wrong with carrying around over $3 in quarters.


ab


[Moderator's Note: And how long does $3 get you? One minute? The ban
on using calling cards to international points seems to come and go
depending on various factors. Israel was banned for awhile, and now
seems to be open again from some areas. Call the AT&T International
Information Center for an answer:  1-800-874-4000.

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

Date: Wed,  6 Feb 91 20:51:49 CST
From: Mark Earle <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telular Address and Phone


Pat, as a follow up to my post (originally about CMT installation in a
van) the address for Telular, makers of the Celljack (gives an RJ-11
connection, dial tone, battery, supervision, etc) between a CMT and
'normal' telephone device:

Telular Inc.
Mobile & Fixed Cellular Telephony
1215 Washington Ave
Wilmette, IL 60092-3566
(708)-256-8000
Customer/product support: (800)-333-8899

Also try:
Dave Tellmac, @ Cellular Solutions
(800)-999-7758

Have had several email enquiries about this, so please post it to the
net, as aparently there is interest in this or similiar products.


[e-mail] (Mark Earle) [WA2MCT/5]
My BBS: (512)-855-7564       Opus 1:160/50.0
CI$ 73117,351   Packet: WA2MCT @ KA5LZG.TX.NA.USA

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Answer Supervision From Telco is Possible
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 10:58 EST


With regard to recent discussions about getting answer supervision
from the local phone companies, it is possible.  I just had sixteen
outbound trunks installed by New Jersey Bell that were configured to
provide answer supervision. They are called Wink Start trunks and they
are not a tariffed offering.  I had to wait for several weeks of
Special Rate Approval for these trunks, and they are not exactly
cheap.  I think they were something like $100 each to install and $85
per month, plus usage, although I have no idea what standard tariffed
ground start trunks cost as a comparison.  I was told that being AT&T
had nothing to do with getting these trunks approved and that anyone
who wants to pay for them can get them.  I was always under the
impression that the phone companies weren't permitted to offer
non-tariffed services, but apparently that's not so.  Can anybody
explain this?

The way I understand it, they work just like standard DID trunks,
except reverse.  When the PBX wants to place a call, it siezes an
available trunk by taking it off hook (This works with a standard
phone, also).  The CO responds by attaching digit receiving equipment
then sending a wink which consists of a momentary reversal of current
(A volt meter shows a change from approximatly 6 volts between Tip and
Ring to -6 volts and back to 6 volts) (My polarity may be backward ...
I wasn't paying attention to which was tip and which was ring).  This
means the same thing as a dial tone ... i.e. go ahead and send digits.
The PBX recognizes this wink and sends the digits, which are standard
DTMF digits.  Again, you can do this with a standard phone.  When the
called party answers, supervision is provided to the PBX by means of a
reversal of line current (from 6 to -6 volts or whatever).  When the
called party disconnects, line current flips again to signal the
disconnect.

I tried using these trunks on my AT&T Voice Power VP4 boards which are
designed to sense presence of current, as well as current reversal,
and it worked like a charm.  My program watched for the initial wink
and sent the DTMF digits.  When the called party answered, it sensed
the reversal of current, and when they hung up, it again sensed the
reversal of current.

If you have any questions about these, please send me email.  I don't
know if I'll be able to tell you more than what I said here, but I'll
try.

Disclaimer:  This represents the way I understand (or mis-understand) how
things are.  It may be wrong and does not represent any official statements
of AT&T or NJ Bell or me.


Tom Lowe   [e-mail]   AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ   908-949-0428


[Moderator's Note: The way telco handles non-tariffed special
situations is to go and have a tariff written for that customer. There
is an overall master tariff which covers 'special situations', and
this tariff allows for filing tariffs subscriber by subscriber as
needed.  If they see some profit in your proposal, they'll find a way
to do it and get it tariffed!  PAT]

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

From: Paolo Bellutta <[e-mail]>
Organization: I.R.S.T. 38050 POVO (TRENTO) ITALY
Subject: Recording International Phone Calls
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 16:16:03 MET DST


What if the recording part is in a country where you don't have to put
the fifteen seconds beep, or in general where the law about recording
a telephone conversation is different?


Paolo Bellutta ([e-mail])

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 10:53:37 CST
From: Kevin Bluml <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cellular Phone Theft


A 'what if' question:

As a new cellular user the thought comes to mind: What if my phone is
stolen? I know I'm to contact the company ASAP to get my number
disabled, but can the phone still be used some other way? What I'm
wondering I guess, is cellular theft a problem, or are they almost
unusable once stolen due to the systems in place to check (ESN,
others?). My guess is that's a dream world, and anybody with a
soldering iron and a friend can bypass that stuff, but I'm not sure.

Thanks,


Kevin V. Bluml  - Cray Research Inc. 612-683-3036
USmail -   655E - Lone Oak Drive, Eagan, MN 55121
Internet - [e-mail]  UUCP - uunet!cray!kevin


[Moderator's Note: When your ESN goes on the inter-company negative
listing, that should end the problem. As you point out, some people
can change the ESN, but it is not a trivial matter for most folks with
the phones manufactured in the last couple of years. The phone's worth
to a buyer of hot merchandise goes down quite a bit when it cannot be
immediatly used as is, and most with disabled ESN's can't be. But
cellular phreaks all know that every cellular carrier has certain
phone numbers on their switch which for one reason or another are
flagged to *ignore* or not check the ESN. Why? Well, consider a Radio
Shack dealer with dozens of cell phones for sale and a single cellular
phone line given to him for free by the carrier to use in
demonstrating his products: how could he take a phone off the shelf,
put a battery in and let a prospective customer test it out if he had
to have a phone line to cover every ESN in the place?

All the cellular companies give free demo phone lines to their
dealers. Program *your* phone to one of those numbers and you'll make
free calls too, without regard to your ESN. The cellular carriers also
keep several phones around the office; in customer service; for use by
their technicians at work, etc.  They want to be able to grab a phone
(from several laying around all on the same phone number) and use it
 ... again that being the case you can't very well check the ESN, can
you? Then there are the lines used for temporary assignment to
roamers. ESN's aren't checked on those lines either.  PAT]

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

From: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phoney Number Games (was: Payphone Outside Store)
Date: 6 Feb 91 16:57:37 GMT
Reply-To: Dan'l DanehyOakes <[e-mail]>
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA


Peter the Hacker writes:

>Back when I was going to Berkeley someone accidentally gave out the #
>of the payphone outside the door instead of their own. They got a lot
>of calls, and some of the store's regulars would take to answering the
>phone in "interesting" ways after "Pay Phone" and "Wrong Number" wore
>off. "AT&T security, hold for a trace please" was one of the more
>memorable ones...

Not surprising after 10+ years, Peter, but your memory of this is a
bit off.

They installed a pay phone right outside the door of The Other Change
of Hobbit, a science fiction bookstore in downtown Berkeley, in 1978.
The number on the payphone was one of a bank that had recently been
converted to COT use, and in fact had been in other use for some time
and until very shortly before the change ... as the business line of
"The Wild Ones Massage Parlor."

Some of the employees and regulars of the Other Change began answering
the phone in strange ways, as you say; a few female persons began
putting on their slinkiest voices, and saying, "Wild Ones, this is
Prudence [or whatever], may I help you?" -- and making appointments
for these "gentlemen."  Unfortunately, none of us knew where TWOMP had
actually *been* or we might have gone down to watch their amazement
and dismay when they arrived for their, ahem, massages and found that
the place no longer existed.

My favorite, however, was when Eric "the Large" Larson answered the
phone, with an appropriate second-generation Irish-American accent
"Wild Ones Massage Parlor, Sgt O'Malley speaking.  May I help you?"

Momentary fum, fuh, uh, ah:  then a click.


The Roach

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 12:18:22 -0500
From: Christopher Lott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Simple Telephone Wiring Question


Hi,

This past weekend I visited relatives in AT&T country (NJ) and tried
to help them activate an old telephone jack in an upstairs room.  I
found the network interface outside - left it alone - and also found
the knot of interconnections in the basement.  Single terminal with
two brass knobs, and then a mess of wires and goofy connectors.  We
got nowhere in a hurry.

Can anyone explain what the installers do?  I know that only red and
green are needed, so usually black/yellow are left dangling.  But this
setup looked odd; in some cases it looked like all four wires were
used, and in some cases only black/yellow (not red/green at all).  A
complicating factor in this is that they have two lines, but I didn't
expect this to make it *too* nasty.  They use a two-line phone, but it
has exactly two lines running to it, nothing fancy.

In the knot of connections, I found two interesting connectors: thin,
3/4-inch diameter disks with some three or four wires sticking out of
each.  One was green and the other red.  Are these magic?

Thanks for any and all explanations, pointers to literature, etc.


chris

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: CNA Numbers for 202 and 301 Needed
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 23:12:08 EDT


I would like to find out the CNA numbers for the 202 and 301 areas if
anyone has them.


Mike

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

From: Eric THOLOME <[e-mail]>
Subject: Call Waiting and Answering Machines
Organization: Stanford University - AIR
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 18:27:07 GMT


I bought a Panasonic answering machine and it has a switch that should
be set to A or B, depending on whether I have Call Waiting or not.

Can anyone tell me what difference it makes ?


Eric THOLOME   [e-mail]   Stanford University

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 13:42 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pac*Bell to Provide Answer Supervision


Beginning 1/31/91 Pac*Bell will offer answer supervision indication on
PBX (including Hotel/Motel) and COCOT service. This will (for now)
only be available on exchanges served by DMS100 switches.

Well, there it is folks. You might know if it deals with billing,
Pac*Bell is always at the fore.


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

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

From: Bob Yazz <[e-mail]>
Subject: You Can Help AT&T Sue the COCOT SOB's
Date: 7 Feb 91 03:23:01 GMT


I ran into a new pair of COCOT's the other day that said "AT&T is the
carrier" very promininently.  No one here will be shocked that when I
dialed 0 + the long distance number, the electronic voice said
"Telesphere".  10288 didn't work, of course.

I called AT&T at 800/222-0300 and started out with "I'd like to report
an act of fraud against AT&T."  The woman I spoke with was happy to
hear from me.  She was in NJ and said that as of the first of the year
it was illegal for a payphone to deny you your choice of long distance
carriers.  People had come down from Pennsylvania [I might have the
two states reversed here] to tell everyone in her office about the
pending lawsuit that AT&T was filing, so it seemed serious to her.
She took all the information I could give her.

It's great to see someone with big legal guns going after the COCOT
slimeys.  Anyone have any confirming stories?


Bob Yazz --  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #98
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28788;
          8 Feb 91 9:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa01315; 8 Feb 91 8:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa15215;
          8 Feb 91 3:59 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa17495;
          8 Feb 91 2:50 CST
Date:     Fri, 8 Feb 91 2:01:23 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #99
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Feb 91 02:01:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 99

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty [John Murray]
    Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty [Dave McCracken]
    Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty [John Higdon]
    Re: MIR Revisited [Chris Jones]
    "Ultimate Contest" a Real Lottery! [David Lemson]
    Re: MIR Revisited [Frank Vance]
    900 Space Travel Scam (?) [Edward Hopper]
    YA9S (Yet Another 900-Number Scam) [Dr. Tanner Andrews]
    Allied Electronics is Still in Business [Paul J. Zawada]
    Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked! [Roy M. Silvernail]
    Telephone Pioneers, Allied R/S, etc. [Fred E.J. Linton]
    Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack [Phil Gunsul]
    Lafayette Radio [Alain Fontaine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Murray <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty
Date: 7 Feb 91 15:44:49 GMT
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University


Michael Ho sent me an excerpt of an article in the {Omaha World-Herald},
which reports that David Mayer, president, and James Davidson, senior
vice president of Space Travel Services were arrested Wednesday for
alleged violation of Texas gambling laws.

Note that there is a bit of a difference between an arrest and a
conviction. Since I can't get WWCR right now to see what they're
saying at the moment, I must assume that I misheard them last night.
Sorry for the possible misreporting, folks.


Disclaimer: Yeah, right, like you really believe I run this place.
John R. Murray    [e-mail]   Supercomputer Research Inst.

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

From: Dave McCracken <baldur![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty
Organization: Dell Computer Corporation, Austin, Texas 78759-7299
Date:  7 Feb 91 15:40:10 GMT


[e-mail] (John Murray) writes:

>The US shortwave station WWCR 7520 KHz just reported at about 5:00 UTC
>2-7-90 that two gentlemen have been convicted of violation of Texas
>sweepstakes laws due to their 1-900 marketing of a sweepstakes to win
>a crewmember position on a russian space mission.

>No other details were reported at the time.

>I'd like to see email from anyone that caught the details of the
>conviction.

There was an article in the Austin paper about it this morning.  They
have not been convicted, merely indicted.  The Houston DA's office
claims they are running an illegal lottery because of the 1-900 phone
charges.  The people running the sweepstakes maintain they were told
by the DA's office in December that since they also allowed free
mail-in entries that it was legal.

The impression I get from sci.space is that the organizers are space
enthusiasts honestly interested in putting an American on Mir, and
used the 900 number to help defray the $10 million charged by
Glavcosmos.  It sounds like they are getting jerked around by yet
another publicity-seeking prosecutor out to advance his political
career.


Dave McCracken   [e-mail]   [phone]
Dell Computer    9505 Arboretum Blvd  Austin, TX 78759-7299

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 03:13 PST
From: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Texas Space-Travel Entrepreneurs Guilty


John Murray <[e-mail]> writes:

> The US shortwave station WWCR 7520 KHz just reported at about 5:00 UTC
> 2-7-90 that two gentlemen have been convicted of violation of Texas
> sweepstakes laws due to their 1-900 marketing of a sweepstakes to win
> a crewmember position on a russian space mission.

Justice certainly moves swiftly in Texas. I heard yesterday on KGO
(San Francisco) that these people had just been arrested on charges of
operating an illegal lottery. They were released (or perhaps held in
lieu of) $2000 bail.

Once again, we seem to have conflicting reports on this matter. Just
another example of our super-accurate media at work.

> [Moderator's Note: Not only is it void in NY, FL and RI, it may be
> void everywhere by now if the latest news report is accurate.
> Supposedly the guys running it have been found guilty.  PAT]

And where did your report come from? Are there now at least three
different versions of what happened to these guys? Arrested and guilty
are usually separated by more than one day even on traffic offenses.


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


[Moderator's Note: I say if they're arrested they must be guilty, and
if they're guilty they must be hung immediatly. Of course I am a
Bigoted and Very Biased Immoderate Moderator ... :) Seriously John,
all I know about this is what I read in TELECOM Digest, and my
reputation for lying is not any worse than {Readers Digest}.  I just
went with the original poster's comments ... sorry!  PAT]

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

From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MIR Revisited
Date: 7 Feb 91 09:22:21 EST
Reply-To: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp


In article <[e-mail]>, penguin@pro-igloo (Mark Steiger)
writes:

>I have some more info on that MIR space travel contest.
>It's void in NY,FL, & RI

>[Moderator's Note: Not only is it void in NY, FL and RI, it may be
>void everywhere by now if the latest news report is accurate.
>Supposedly the guys running it have been found guilty.  PAT]

(Gee, I haven't even visited Mir once, and here people are planning
revisits.)  I think there's a presumption of innocence that applies in
cases like these.  As I heard it, they've been charged (with running
an illegal lottery, I believe), but not found guilty.


Chris Jones    [e-mail]    {world,uunet,harvard}!ksr!clj


[Moderator's Note:  Alright already.   PAT]

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

From: David Lemson <[e-mail]>
Subject: "Ultimate Contest" a Real Lottery!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 1991 17:19:32 GMT


I just read in our Clarinet UPI feed that the dial-in 900 lottery in
which you could possibly win a trip on the Soviet Mir Space Station
has been declared an "illegal lottery" by the Harris County (Texas)
DA's office.  The DA finally decided to press charges of running a
lottery after the people who were running the contest said that they
would return all of the monies received from people who called in, and
then did not actually return the money.

If your site subscribes to the Clarinet service, check out the story
in clari.news.top with a subject line like "Charges Filed against
sweepstakes promoters".


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Frank Vance)
Subject: Re: MIR Revisited
Date: 7 Feb 91 18:55:43 GMT
Organization: Western Geophysical, Houston


Other's comments:

>[Moderator's Note: Not only is it void in NY, FL and RI, it may be
>void everywhere by now if the latest news report is accurate.
>Supposedly the guys running it have been found guilty.  PAT]

>The US shortwave station WWCR 7520 KHz just reported at about 5:00 UTC
>2-7-90 that two gentlemen have been convicted of violation of Texas
>sweepstakes laws due to their 1-900 marketing of a sweepstakes to win
>a crewmember position on a Russian space mission.

The true story is that they were arrested 2/6/91, after failing to
heed the warnings of the district attorney's office.  The district
attorney contends that under the laws of the State of Texas, they are
not running a sweepstakes, but a lottery, and lotteries are illegal.
As I understand it, if they would cease collecting money on the
telephone calls to register, everything would be kosher.

According to the {Houston Chronicle}, they were charged with promotion
of gambling, which is a third degree felony, and were later released
on $2,000 bond each.  As far as I can determine, No one is questioning
the legitimacy of the prize itself.


Frank Vance  [phone]    Western Geophysical
[e-mail]    10001 Richmond Avenue
 ...!uunet!airgun!fvance    Houston, TX 77042   USA

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Thu Feb  7 10:36:13 CST 1991
Subject: 900 Space Travel Scam (?)


An earlier message reported that the founders of Space Travel Services
had been convicted of a crime.  Not true.  They were ARRESTED
yesterday 2/6/91.  The charge was conducting an illegal lottery.
Please note that this charge does not hinge on whether or not they
could actually deliver the prize to the winner, just that a $2.99
phone call for entry (or the mail in entry option) was gambling.
Obviously, they will use the mail-in entry option as a defense, since
that will break the traditional prize-chance-consideration definition
of alottery.

I wonder, if this is an illegal lottery, what about MTV's big giveaways?
They seem to be the same deal.


Ed Hopper

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

Subject: YA9S (Yet Another 900-Number Scam)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 91 18:51:51 EST
From: "Dr. Tanner Andrews" <[e-mail]>
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


Sent with the usual residential junk-mail from Donneley Marketing,
printed inside the envelope, is a plug ('now you can save hundreds of
dollars with a single phone call!') for Value-Phone.  For only
$1.50/$0.95 for first and following minutes, you can enjoy ``High
Value Savings!''

You must call Value-Phone (TM) to get these offers.  Void where
prohibited by law.  TM--ValuePhone is a trademark of 900 Rebaytes
Inc., NY, NY.

I ought to open a 900-based financial advice line, offering the
wisdom that you can save big money by not calling 900 numbers.


 ...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 14:14:55 -0500
From: Paul J Zawada <[e-mail]>
Subject: Allied Electronics is Still in Business


Allied is still in business ... at least there is a company called
Allied Electronics Inc. in business.  They use the old Allied Radio
logo, the A with the dot in the middle.  They are supposedly a
subsidiary of a company called Hall-Mark Electronics.  They have a
HUGE catalog (in keeping with the Allied tradition) of about 800
pages, the size of a good sized phone book.  They seem to be more of
an industrial electronics supplier now, meaning prices are only a deal
when you buy in quantity.

I was impressed with their service though.  The couple of times I
ordered something from them, they were very courteous and went out of
their way to make sure I found what I was looking for.  I was very
impressed with their inventory, they carry a lot of hard to find
items.  It is also kind of interesting how there are a number of Radio
Shack items in their catalog.  Kinda makes me want to know what the
real Allied <-> Radio Shack connection is.


Paul Zawada   KB9FMN

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

Subject: Re: When I Found Out, I Was Shocked!
From: "Roy M. Silvernail" <cybrspc![e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 91 20:40:15 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


(Ob telecom: Holding on to both wires of a phone line when it rings is
even better than casual contact. Learned that when I was only 16 ;-)

> [Moderator's Note: Then you no doubt remember the big warehouse store
> they [Allied Radio] operated at Western Ave. and Washington Blvd.,
> right across the street from Olson Electronics (remember them also?).

Ah, memories of sweet youth, Pat!  When I was just a little electron
herder, I used to drool over the Allied and Olson catalogs for hours.
(after all, Nome, Alaska had very few electronics stores in those
days) The other two standbys were Newark and Lafayette. I haven't seen
anything indicating that Lafayette is still around, but Newark is a
regular supplier to my place of employment.

I was also a Heathkit fan ... built a HW-16 and a digital clock, among
everything else. The clock still runs, and will be 20 years old next
year. If Heath is still around, I think I'll send 'em a picture of it.


Roy M. Silvernail   now available at:  cybrspc![e-mail]

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

Date: 6-FEB-1991 17:54:03.79
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Pioneers, Allied R/S, etc.


Following a hint of the Moderator's some time ago, my first act upon
settling in at my Dallas UniForum motel earlier this month was to look
up Telephone Pioneers in the local phone book -- Eureka, there it was,
with a Museum to boot, housed in the SWBTL building right in the heart
of downtown, open daily 9-5, admission free ...

Spent a pleasant afternoon there Monday -- displays included: Watson's
ringer; Watson's magneto; Strowger's original 50-pair stepper; a bank
of steppers behind see-through plexiglass, stepping in response to
visitors' pulse-dialing; an Alexander Graham Bell mannequin seated at
a replica/model of the Bell workbench; and much, much more.

208 S. Akard, a.k.a. One Bell Plaza, corner of Akard & Commerce, 2nd
floor, [phone].  Well worth a visit.

You've already been corrected about "Allied Radio Shack" -- but
perhaps someone can fill in further details about the life and death
of the original Allied Radio's principal competitor -- Lafayette Radio
-- or about how such other former competitors as Newark Electronics,
Hatry, et al., managed to survive after all.

Finally: Internet folks _can_ TELNET to both mcimail.com and
attmail.com -- login prompts appear, but whether using my username, my
userid, or my account number there, and whether using my password or
any of the preceding at the password prompt, I am barred entry.
Should it _not_ be possible for me to access my accounts with these
services via TELNET, or am I just doing something wrong?  (Methinks
DREUBEN, fellow Wesleyan local, might also like to know.)


Fred     <[e-mail]>  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com>


[Moderator's Note: You can't *really* 'telnet', 'rlogin' or 'ftp' to
MCI Mail or AT&T Mail ... what you wind up reaching are the gateway
sites which handle their mail. For example, I tried 'rlogin
mcimail.com' and wound up connecting with NRI in Reston, VA. Trying
the same with 'rlogin attmail.com' simply got me some system within
att.com which serves as a gateway. Since you do not have an account on
the machine at NRI (or the machine at att.com) then your login will
fail. Your MCI Mail (ATT Mail) login/user name is meaningless to the
gateway itself. I also tried 'telnet' with the same results. I think
(am not sure) that the phrases 'mcimail.com' and 'attmail.com' are --
to the Internet's point of view -- just basically aliases that point
to the respective gateways rather than the end sites themselves. I'm
sure 'alias' is not the right term, but you probably know what I am
trying to say.  Also try 'finger @mcimail.com' to see what happens!  PAT]

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

From: Gunsul <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Allied Radio / Radio Shack
Date: 7 Feb 91 04:43:51 GMT
Organization: AT&T Montgomery Works, Montgomery, IL


Just one more Pat and I'll stop living in the past!

I can remember my junior high and high school days, back in the early
and mid '60's, waiting by the mailbox for the Lafayette catalog to
arrive.

I also remember the great smell of the Allied and Lafayette catalog --
gosh I loved getting those in the mail...

Oh well, like I said ... guess I've gotten off the intent of the news
group, but thanks for the trip back in time Pat, I enjoyed it!!!


Phil


[Moderator's Note: Those 'trips back in time' are fun, and really I
think they are essential to a complete understanding of modern day
technology and telephony. There are a lot of politics and history
involved in why things are as they are today. Things don't just
happen. We cannot dwell in the past but we must learn from it.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 07 Feb 91 15:37:18 +0100
From: Alain FONTAINE <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lafayette Radio


Would you believe that, in the late sixties, there was a Lafayette
Radio store in Brussels, Belgium ? As far as I remember, they were
selling the most abrasive magnetic tape one could find.... 8-) /AF

BTW : There was also a Heathkit store carrying the entire line...

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #99
*****************************










Received: from hub.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01375;
          8 Feb 91 11:45 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id aa02760; 8 Feb 91 10:45 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab15215;
          8 Feb 91 4:06 CST
Received: from mailinglists.eecs.nwu.edu by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id ab17495;
          8 Feb 91 2:50 CST
Date:     Fri, 8 Feb 91 2:32:21 CST
From:     TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
[To]:     [e-mail]
Subject:  TELECOM Digest V11 #100
BCC:
Message-ID:  <[e-mail]>


TELECOM Digest     Fri, 8 Feb 91 02:32:04 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 100

Inside This Issue:                         Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    NYNEX/Boston Charges for FMR [Douglas Scott Reuben]
    New Book on Integrated Broadband Networks [Amit Bhargava]
    Will Digital Make Analog Cellular Phones Obsolete? [T. Govindaraj]
    Answering Machines and Rotary Phones [Daniel A. Margolis]
    Caller*ID in Georgia / Atlanta [Bill Berbenich]
    Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop? [Alan Nishioka]
    On-Line X.400 and X.500 Code Needed [Ju Zhang]
    Re: Stolen Cellular Phones [Ed Greenberg]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6-FEB-1991 01:51:03.12
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: NYNEX/Boston Charges for FMR


I noticed that NYNEX/Boston was charging airtime and a daily charge
for simply ACTIVATING (not using) FMR, so I complained to GTE
Mobilnet. They were very understanding, yet said that this was the way
things were, and that only a few system actually did this.
Unfortunately, NYNEX/Boston is one.

I was told that if I wish to take this matter further, I should write
to:

Ilene Sandrafield (not sure of the spellimg, they didn't spell it for me)
GTE Mobilnet
616 FM 1960 West.
Suite 400
Houston, TX 77090

So I took them up on it, and wrote her the letter which follows.

If they don't correct this soon, I'm pretty much willing to junk GTE
and FMR, and use the Roam America service that the "A"s are offering.
I spoke with the person responsible for instituting "Roam America" for
McCaw/Cell One, and we had a twenty minute conversation all about how
Roam America works and a few specific details on the system's
operation. I am impressed enough by what he told me that I think it is
more than a viable alternative to FMR, and thus, failing to get a
satisfactory result from GTE (who I am otherwise satisfied with), will
look into this "Roam America" thing.  (I called 800-426-2229 and asked
for info on Roam America -- the guy seemed genuinely interested in
talking about the system, and was quite knowledgeable as to where it
was in place, where it was pending, some problems they were having,
etc. )

Anyhow, without further delay, yet another addition to my collection of
"Letters to Mobile Phone Companies" :) ....or rather, :( !!

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

 DATE:  6-FEB-1991 00:58:59.45
 FROM: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
 SUBJECT: SEND TO: GTE Mobilnet, Houston
 TO: [e-mail]

Dear. Ms. Sandrafield,

I was referred to you by Mr. Rudy Kadett at GTE Mobilnet, San
Francisco, after an inquiry I had made about FMR activation charges on
the NYNEX cellular system in Boston, Mass.

After traveling to Boston numerous times and using Follow Me Roaming,
I noticed on my GTE bill that I had been charged airtime for EACH
activation/ deactivation, and as a result, also incurred a "daily
charge" of $3 for each day that I had activated FMR at least once.

I have never looked favorably upon the practice of a daily roamer
surcharge, yet, this seems to be a rather unfortunate fact of life
when roaming these days, one which I reluctantly pay so that I may use
my phone in foreign systems.

However, I flatly refuse to pay a daily charge as well as airtime for
the "ability" to activate FMR, even if I receive no calls via the
service nor initiate any outgoing calls myself. Regardless of what
your literature indicates (and after carefully scrutinizing GTE/SF's
past mailings on the subject I find no indication that some systems
will actually bill for FMR activations), the practice of assessing a
charge for FMR activations goes too far.

There have been plenty of times when FMR was "slow" or "sluggish", and
thus I had to press *18 repeatedly so as to invoke FMR properly.
Moreover, as you may know, FMR deactivates at approximately 12:15AM,
local time, each night.  This thus requires that I hit *18 for EACH
day that I am in the area, thus incurring a dialy roam charge and a 1
minute airtime each EVERY day.

NYNEX charges $3/day for their daily charge, and $.75 per minute
airtime.  This results in a handy $3.75 automatic charge each day I am
in the system and choose to activate FMR. I find this appalling.

It is not enough that I must pay $3 for the "privilege" of using their
system (a charge which I think we all know is MUCH higher than the
cost of verifying my ESN/MIN will ever be), yet they are so
outrageously greedy that they must make sure that they get this from
their FMR roamers even in the event that the a roamer receives/places
no calls on a specific date.

In my conversation with Mr. Kadett, I was told that GTE would not hold
me to my service contract should I wish to repudiate it due to these
FMR charges, yet I would earnestly prefer to remain a customer of GTE
Mobilnet/SF. It came to my attention that some efforts had been put
into drafting a new roaming agreement between GTE and NYNEX/Boston, so
as to eliminate these petty charges, yet nothing came of it. I am thus
writing to you so that I may strongly request that GTE undertake a new
effort to come to an agreement with NYNEX/Boston so as to address this
issue.

When other "B" companies such as Southern New England Telephone/LINX
in Connecticut offer a "no-daily-roam-charge and $.60 per minute
airtime" package for anywhere in the United States, or the "A"
carriers offer a service similar to FMR (Roam America), yet one where
there are no activation charges, I find it increasingly hard to remain
with GTE. I would think that in light of these newly emerging (and
less costly) alternatives to GTE's FMR service, GTE would desire to
take measures to make itself more competitive.

Let me once again stress how much I do appreciate the service and
value which GTE Mobilnet provides, yet these excessive and unwarranted
FMR charges can not continue, and I will take whatever action is
necessary to avoid them, including, unfortunately, leaving GTE for
another cellular firm.

I thus await your response as to what action, if any, you propose to
take to remedy FMR activation charges with NYNEX/Boston. I shall base
my continued use of GTE Mobilnet on your reply.

Thank you very much for your time and attention in this matter,


Douglas Scott Reuben

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

GTE was rather prompt in its previous reply to me (about FMR midnight
deactivations and delays in re-establishing FMR), so hopefully they
will respond similarly to this letter.


Doug    [e-mail]  //  [e-mail]

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

From: amit bhargava <codex![e-mail]>
Subject: New Book on Integrated Broadband Networks
Date: 7 Feb 91 15:16:19 GMT
Organization: Codex Corp., Canton MA



                    INTEGRATED BROADBAND NETWORKS
                    -----------------------------

                          by Amit Bhargava
                     Codex Corp. (Motorola Inc.)

Here's an ideal opportunity to catch up on the latest research in
communication networks. The first book to address congestion control
and traffic integration in fast packet networks, Integrated Broadband
Networks describes how larger transmission bandwidths and more
sophisticated multi-media applications have created a demand for
integrated networks and how this demand has spawned new problems and
issues for the industry.

Organized into four sections, each of which presents a brief tutorial,
references, and six or seven papers, Integrated Broadband Networks
brings you up-to-date on key advances in network architectures,
switching, modeling and performance analysis, and congestion control
and traffic integration. Computer scientists and engineers will
welcome this collection of twenty-six outstanding papers painstakingly
selected from recent literature.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Amit Bhargava has been involved in conducting research in networking
technology at Codex Corp. (a subsidiary of Motorola Inc.)  since 1987.
Since Fall 1989 he has also been a fellow at the Center of Advanced
Engineering Study at MIT. He received his MSEE from the Univ.  of
Massachusetts, Amherst and his B.Tech. EE from the Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay. Mr. Bhargava is a member of the IEEE.


For more information and details about the book (contents, order information
etc.):

    * See posting on comp.newprod
    * OR send mail to codex![e-mail]
    * OR Call Artech house at 1-800-225-9977 ext. 4002 (0900-1730 EST)
      Within Massachusetts or outside the US call (617)-769-9750 ext. 4002
    * OR  Write to Artech House,685 Canton Street,Norwood, MA 02062, USA.


Integrated Broadband Networks
by Amit Bhargava
Softcover, 331 pages, December 1990.
Order Book 425483
ISBN: 0-89006-483-0


DISCLAIMER: This notice has been posted by the author of the book on Usenet
for informational purposes only and does not constitute any action on part
of either Artech House or the author's employer Codex Corp.


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

From: "T. Govindaraj" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Will Digital Make Analog Cellular Phones Obsolete?
Date: 8 Feb 91 01:24:44 GMT
Reply-To: "T. Govindaraj" <[e-mail]>
Organization: Center for Human-Machine Systems Research - Georgia Tech


Greetings!

I have been thinking about getting a cellular telephone and am
wondering if current cellular phones will become obsolete and unusable
when cellular goes digital. When are we expected to go digital? What
is the conventional wisdom on the format? (The immediate trigger for
this question is an article in the February 1991 issue of {IEEE
Spectrum} entitled "Ericsson bets on a cellular world".)

If digital cellular is expected in the next couple of years, I don't
want to spend a lot of money if the phone is likely to become
unusable.

Also, I would welcome opinions and suggestions about a small portable
that would fit in my spouse's purse (i.e., light and small), but not
too expensive. Any opinions on the advantages of going with PacTel or
BellSouth?

Thank you very much.


T. Govindaraj     [phone] (voice)        [e-mail]
        [phone] (fax)        [e-mail]; 128.61.3.10

School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology
765 Ferst Drive, ISyE-0205, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205, USA

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

Date: Thu,  7 Feb 91 17:38:51 EST
From: Daniel A Margolis <[e-mail]>
Subject: Answering Machines and Rotary Phones


>>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.

I bought my girlfriend one of these.  If you are at a touch-tone
phone, you just dial touch-tones in response to voice prompts like any
answering machine.  If you are on a rotary phone and you leave no
message (silence for a few seconds), it figures you have a pulse phone
and goes into voice response mode.  It gives you prompts and you
respond by saying simple words.  For example the conversation might
go:

Machine:  Entering first digit of remote access password now.  Enter 0...
          Enter 1...Enter 2...Enter 3...Enter 4...
Person:   Enter.
Machine:  Enter second digit...Enter 0...Enter 1...Enter2...
Person:   Enter.
Machine having accepted 42 as your password plays message 1.
Machine:  Repeat?
Person:   Repeat.
Machine repeats message.
Machine:  Repeat?...
No response from person, machine plays 2nd message.  And so on.


Dan Margolis

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

From: bill <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller*ID in Georgia / Atlanta
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 18:07:12 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Here's the latest...

On Tuesday, Feb. 5, I spoke with a nice woman from Southern Bell who
answered all my questions about Caller*ID in Atlanta and was just
otherwise quite helpful.  Her name eludes my memory (but not my
Dayplanner at work), but her phone number (actually for Southern Bell
Direct Marketing) is [phone].  Please note that this number is
available from outside SB territory.

As I said, she answered all my "when, where, how, who" questions about
Caller*ID, which served to reconfirm information which I have posted
here and to Telecom Privacy digest.  The WHEN is February 14 (for
ordering), the WHERE is the Atlanta metropolitan area (outlying areas
to come on line at an unannounced future date, depending on where it
is), HOW is by calling the Southern Bell order line (780-2355 for
residential customers), and WHO is everyone in the north Georgia LATA
 - whether or not your CO is capable yet for receiving the CLID info,
it still sends it out.  (Note to John Higdon: I think north Georgia
lost its last crossbar in Dec. 90 - but that may have just been
Atlanta's last crossbar - and if you ever move to Atlanta, you can
still get either paging or cellular service here from PacTel (-:.)

I say that the WHEN is Feb. 14 for ordering.  Presumably, orders will
go through as before, usually within a few hours unless a visit to
customer premises is necessary.  I gave Ms. Nicewoman my "pre-order"
when I spoke with her under her assurance that my order would be
entered in with all deliberate speed as soon as possible.  Ms.
Nicewoman told me that the customer inquiries about the new service
had leveled off within the last few weeks, but once the service was
actually on-line and being advertised the queries would likely
increase (as she analogized with the new Call* Answer service).
Strangely enough, with the furor attributed to Caller*ID in other
locales, the Atlanta media and professional activists and protestors
have had little to no mention of this coming "horror."  I suppose the
war has a war of diverting attention away from less important things.

In any case, less than a week to go before Caller*ID hits Atlanta.


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

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

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 91 22:27:09 -0800
From: Alan Nishioka <[e-mail]>
Subject: Why Does Device Cause Ringing to Stop?


I've been trying to build a box to make key phone's lights flash and
to implement a hold button. I am using a 1M/5M voltage divider across
the line and some comparators to detect voltage levels and thus ring
and off-hook.  This isn't the best method, but I want it to coexist
with other phones on the line in parallel and to be adjustable (ie.
sans zener diodes) for now.

(I forget what you call these phones but they have fifty wire cables,
five line buttons and a hold button, ex-standard AT&T office phones)

The problem enters when I add a 200ohm resistor and a 2n2222
transistor across the line to implement the hold button. (Common
emitter, with a 47K base resistor to a CMOS latch output)

When I call the line, a phone wired in parallel chirps shortly (a
Ferrari phone, if that matters :-) and the ringing voltage ceases.
The ringback is still heard on the calling line and the called line is
still on hook and can be answered, but there is no ringing voltage.
When I wire the base of the transistor low (off), the problem goes
away.

Is this some sort of protection that is tripping because there is a
wierd impedance across the line?  What could be causing it?

My CO is a 1AESS, I think.  It has been a long time since they
installed it and offered tours.  You hear a clunk when call waiting
beeps.


Alan Nishioka      KC6KHV      [e-mail]      ...!ucbvax!cory!atn
974 Tulare Avenue, Albany CA 94707-2540     37'52N/122'15W    [phone]

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

From: Ju Zhang <dset![e-mail]>
Subject: On-Line X.400 and X.500 Code Needed
Date: 7 Feb 91 04:33:18 GMT
Organization: DSET Corporation, Lebanon, NJ


Anybody knows how to get on-line ASN.1 code for X.400 and X.500?

Thank you.


Ju Zhang

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

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 91 13:17 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Stolen Cellular Phones


Kevin at Cray asks about stolen cellular phones.

My understanding is that phones stolen and/or disconnected for non-
payment go onto a hot list and that new service cannot be attached to
them.

On more than one occasion, I've heard of phones that come into a store
for programming, and when the person who left them comes back, the
cops are waiting.


edg

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #100
******************************