Telecom/1996-04-telecom-walnutcreek.iso/back.issues/1991.volume.11/vol11.iss1001-1050

Text File | 1991-12-26 | 950KB | 22,871 lines

Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27548;
          6 Dec 91 3:36 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17321
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 01:49:02 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26844
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 01:48:51 -0600
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 01:48:51 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1001

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Dec 91 01:48:42 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1001

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Ken Jongsma)
    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One ([e-mail])
    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Tim Gorman)
    Re: Control Tone Frequencies (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Jay Ashworth)
    Re: Oddities About Area 809 (Tom Hofmann)
    Re: 900-Number Trade Show and Exposition (Warren Burstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 91 09:03:00 EST
From: "Ken Jongsma" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One


Tim Gormon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Let me also make one other observation. I made it in another message
> and was amazed to get no response. I have never seen anyone question
> usage based charges in the toll arena. Yet the switches and facilities
> (i.e. investment) are exactly the same as are used in the local
> network. If usage based charges in the toll network are acceptable,
> why not in the local network? Is it just perception?

Let me state at the outset that I very much appreciate Tim's
contributions to the Digest over the years. So, this in no way should
be considered a personal putdown. But, this line of thinking is
precisely what seems to be permeating the minds of all the LEC
management that have visions of dollar signs in their eyes as usage
goes up.

The reason that usage based billing for local service is different
that that for the toll network is that the local network *is a
regulated monopoly!* I do not have any choice for local service, I
must deal with the LEC.

Now, there are many long distance companies. Some are just resellers,
but they all offer different plans. Some sell flat rate, some sell
bulk, some sell on a per six second basis. The point is that I have a
choice.

I would support any type of billing arrangement the LEC proposed, as
long as I had the option of selecting a carrier that offered the
billing I prefered.  I do not mean the regulated duopoly that exists
with Cellular, either.

Until that time comes, local service should be strictly cost based.
Once the plant is in place, the marginal costs of providing service
are so small that billing becomes more expensive than the call itself.
This has been proven many times.

Most telcos are guaranteed a certain rate of return already. In fact,
since RoR is largely based on the cost of funds, there should be some
massive rate reductions about now, considering how low interest rates
have dropped.

Well, I've gone on enough. Tim touched one of my "hot buttons!"


Ken Jongsma     [e-mail]
Smiths Industries  Grand Rapids, Michigan

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

Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 91 14:42:55 -0500
From: [e-mail]


Tim Gorman writes:

> Those whose use the network not at all (or very little) want their
> bill to be very low. Those who use the network a lot want their bill
> to be very low. In the first case, having all usage based pricing
> makes the most sense. In the second case, strictly flat rate pricing
> makes the most sense.

Economically, what makes the most sense is to bill for
usage-insensitive things (like the subscriber loop) at a flat rate,
and bill for usage-sensitive things (like peak-hour capacity) by
usage.  When measuring the usage is more expensive than the usage
itself, flat-rate charges should also be used (i.e., "too cheap to
meter").

> I also agree with Mr. Lewis: "Usage-based pricing is part of a general
> trend towards cost-based pricing; It recovers costs based on the use
> of resources in way which is generally deemed by regulators to be fair
> and equitable, and the usage of those resources is relatively easy to
> measure."

*As*implemented*, usage-based pricing is not a part of cost-based
pricing, since the usage charges are not commensurate with the
incremental cost of the usage charged for.  Usage charges are in fact
a more efficient way for telcos to reap monopoly profits.

Like all monopolies, telcos dislike cost-based pricing, much
preferring demand-based pricing (i.e., what the market will bear)
instead.  Measured service allows telcos to much more efficiently
extract the "perceived value" of telephone service from their
subscribers, independent of costs.  As profit-making monopolies, this
is precisely what they should do.

The problem is that far too many PUC's are going along with this
natural desire of the telcos, instead of fighting for cost-based
pricing as they should.  The telcos know how to play the game, and
they can often talk a PUC into letting them maximize their monopoly
profits, under the guise of minimizing residential rates.

> Let me also make one other observation. I made it in another message and
> was amazed to get no response... If usage based charges in the toll
> network are acceptable, why not in the local network?

The cost of a subscriber loop is completely independent of its usage.
Any usage charges for it are therefore part of a strategy of
demand-based (i.e., monopoly) pricing, or part of some subsidy scheme,
or (most likely) both.  The cost of local switching is dependent on
usage, but the cost of measuring local usage can be greater than the
cost of the usage itself (too cheap to meter, but it's metered
anyway).  A flat-rate component is therefore always appropriate in
local telephone service; a measured component may also be appropriate,
but it is dangerously susceptible to telco manipulation, as it tries
to exploit its monopoly position.

The cost of a long-distance network is much more dependent on its peak
call capacity, and therefore on its usage.  Usage-based pricing for
long-distance service is therefore appropriate.  Also, effective
competition between long-distance companies reduces their ability to
impose demand-based pricing.

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One
Date: 3 Dec 91 21:59:00 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(tim gorman) writes:

> Let me also make one other observation. I made it in another message
> and was amazed to get no response. I have never seen anyone question
> usage based charges in the toll arena. Yet the switches and facilities
> (i.e. investment) are exactly the same as are used in the local
> network. If usage based charges in the toll network are acceptable,
> why not in the local network? Is it just perception?

The toll network is entirely traffic-sensitive with regard to cost!
While the facilities don't cost "to use" them, the amount required is
directly dependent upon usage.  If nobody made any calls, the toll
network would be much smaller.  As it stands, high-capacity fiber
optics and 4ESS switches don't come cheap.  The cost is divided
amongst the total usage.  Some of the cost is distance sensitive, some
isn't.

Those aren't the same switches used in the local network.  The toll
networks are quite separate.  Even the trunks between COs are usually
separate for toll and local services.

Be that as it may, a large proportion of inter-LATA toll goes to the
local telcos, as their cut.  Inter-LATA toll is competitive, though,
so some customers (like FTS-2000) pay under 10c/minute.


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

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

Date: 03 Dec 91 19:43:59 EST
From: tim gorman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sneaky! Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One


Let me reply to comments made by Ken Jongsma ([e-mail]):

Ken,

I appreciate your reply. Let me throw out a couple of things I see
from my viewpoint.

First, when talking about toll, there is intraLATA toll as well as
interLATA toll. IntraLATA toll is still billed based on usage whether
the individual PUC has allowed competition or not. Therefore, this
still falls under the "regulated monopoly" umbrella. Yet, I have seen
no complaints on this either.

> local service should be strictly cost based. Once the plant is in place,
> the marginal costs of providing service are so small that billing becomes
> more expensive than the call itself....

The problem I see with this is that it doesn't address the recovery of
costs associated with the base investment. The "marginal cost"
associated with a specific call is not what is at issue. Just because
the initial investment has been made and is sitting in place does not
mean you can forget about it.  The cost of gasoline (i.e. electricity)
is not the only cost associated with a new car. Wear and tear, saving
for future replacement (depreciation), taxes, insurance, loan
payments, etc. all take a toll.

The problem with rate of return and cost of funds is that the base is
so big and rates were so high for so long and turnover is so slow that
the recent downturn in rates probably won't reflect in costs for quite
some time yet. There should be a time, however, when it should. I'm
not involved in the financial side (especially the HIGH finance side
:-> ) so I can't really say when. Hopefully the PUC's will watch this
closely.

> I would support any type of billing arrangement the LEC proposed, as long
> as I had the option of selecting a carrier that offered the billing I
> prefered.

I think this is what I was trying to say also. Different people want
different kinds of billing based on what makes their service the
cheapest.  I personally think this is what is coming. It is only a
matter of time now that it has been started. No going back. What
results it will have on the urban, inner city, rural, suburban, rich,
poor, etc. subscriber, Lord only knows because I certainly don't. And
not much of the debate I have read (by the policy makers in this
country, e.g. PUC's and Congress) leads me to believe they have a clue
either. Not even a coherent, comprehensive plan to guide anything
with.

Anyway, hopefully what will be seen is not only a multitude of
suppliers but a multitude of billing options. That's what competition
is supposed to do isn't it? Hopefully, as a LEC employee, we won't be
tied into one kind of billing but can have different strokes for
different folks.


Tim Gorman - SWBT
* opinions are my own, any resemblence to official policy is coincidence*

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Control Tone Frequencies
Date: 4 Dec 91 02:33:25 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Joseph Chiu) writes:

> Can anyone tell me the frequency/timing specifications for the
> intercept three-tone sequence?  I'm putting together a project (a
> self-contained exchange :-) and would like to emulate the
> look-and-feel (or is that sound-and-feel?) of The Real Thing.

I don't remember where I got this information (may from the Telecom
Archives!), but it's been sitting around in my Vax account for quite a
while:

Special Information Tones (SIT Codes) are used by some telephone
companies for automating various reporting and network observation
operations.  They are special coded tone sequences transmitted at the
beginning of network advisory recorded announcements.

There are four sequences defined:

Seq  Symb  Catagory                 Announcements

 1    NC   Trunk Blockage           No Circuit, emergency.
 2    IC   Customer Irregularity    Vacant Number, AIS, CENTREX Number
                                    Change and Non-Working Station, Access
                                    Code Not Dialed/Dialed in Error,
                                    Manual Intercept Operator.
 3    VC   Vacant Code              Vacant Code.
 4    RO   Equipment Irregularity   Reorder Announcement.

The tone sequences are coded as follows:

Seq    First Tone/Duration    Second Tone/Duration    Third Tone/Duration

 1     985.2 Hz / 380 msec    1428.5 Hz / 380 msec    1776.7 Hz / 380 msec
 2     913.8 Hz / 274 msec    1370.6 Hz / 274 msec    1776.7 Hz / 380 msec
 3     985.2 Hz / 380 msec    1370.6 Hz / 274 msec    1776.7 Hz / 380 msec
 4     913.8 Hz / 274 msec    1428.5 Hz / 380 msec    1776.7 Hz / 380 msec

Note that these tones are defined for 'advisory messages' and are not
(usually) used for billing or supervisory purposes.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet       [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jay Ashworth)
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 91 12:03:00 EDT
Organization: Psycho: The Usenet<->Fidonet Gateway of St. Pete Florida


RN> From: [e-mail] (Russ Nelson)

>> Many years ago, the old Bell System always had the number
>> 311-555-2368 shown on the dial of phones in advertisements and
>> display windows, etc. I think this would have been 1960-ish.

> Why doesn't the FCC mandate a number (or two) in each exchange to be
> permanently out of service?  Then when someone wanted to use a fake
> phone number for any purpose, they could use that number and be
> assured that they weren't causing trouble for anyone.

This used to be the case, and [phone] was, in fact, the dead
number.  Since 555 was almonst _always_ a dead exchange code, anyway,
you'd see ads for call directors (probably tm) and such, with -2368,
-2369, -2370, etc ...

With the explosion in station addresses, some places assign 555 now.
I expect someone from Bellcore could tell us if any or all parts of
that special S.A. are actually reserved.


Cheers,

Jay R. Ashworth                    [e-mail]
Ashworth & Associates              Jay_Ashworth@{psycho.fidonet.org,
An Interdisciplinary Consultancy   f160.n3603.z1.fidonet.org,
  in Advanced Technology           petexch.relay.net}
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write root.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Hofmann)
Subject: Re: Oddities About Area 809
Organization: Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Basel, Switzerland
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 08:00:04 GMT


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

> While we are on the subject of the 809 area code, why is it that
> Dominica has 809 for an area code, Martinique just south of Dominica
> has country code 596, and St. Lucia just south of Martinique is in the
> 809 area code?  Does this have something to do in the way the local
> phone companies charge for calls to each of these countries, or is
> there some other reason?

> Another oddity I've found is Haiti has a country code and the
> Dominican Republic uses 809.  My atlas shows that both countries are
> on the same island.

The system is as follows:
                                                country code
Territories with connections to France
(Guadeloupe, St. Barthelemy, St. Martin):           +590
        Exception: Martinique                       +596

Territories with connections to the Netherlands
(Bonaire, Curacao, Saba, St. Eustatius,
St. Maarten):                                       +599
        Exception: Aruba                            +297-8

Territories with connections to the USA or UK:      +1-809

Independent countries:                              +1-809 or
                                                    own country code

Notice the island St. Martin/St. Maarten: Although there are no
customs between the French and the Dutch part (St. Martin/St. Maarten
is a free port) the French part has country code +590, the Dutch part
+599-5. However, there are convenience codes for dialling from one
part to the other.


Tom Hofmann        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 12:11:52 IST
From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: 900-Number Trade Show and Exposition
Date: 4 Dec 91 10:11:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> For information, call PPC Expo, Inc. at [phone].

Why not a 900 number? :-)


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1001
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29162;
          6 Dec 91 4:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17906
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 02:32:49 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28614
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 6 Dec 1991 02:32:39 -0600
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 02:32:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1002

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 6 Dec 91 02:32:25 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1002

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (Patton M. Turner)
    Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of (H. Peter Anvin)
    Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? (John Stanley)
    Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc. (Martin Harriss)
    Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone (B. Berbenich)
    Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls (Bill Sohl)
    Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem (Rick Wessman)
    Re: How Does a Cellphone Duplex? (Marcus Leech)
    Re: Logic Bombs (Haroon H. Dogar)
    Re: Where to Find Caller ID Devices? (John R. Levine)
    Re: KLondike and YUkon (Scott Fybush)
    Re: New Kinds of Roamer Charges ;-{ (Randall L. Smith)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 13:11:58 CST
From: Patton M. Turner <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  ANI Numbers That I Know of


Doug Krause <[e-mail]> writes:

> I just tried this ["ANI" #] from my work phone and the voice gave me
> the correct exchange, but wrong last four digits.  I know that our
> phone system is some sort of Ericson contraption, so it probably confused
> things.

The answer I think is obvious.  The number read back to you has no
relationship to the ANI, but rather is the number assigned to the
physical pair the you call was routed to the CO on.  These line-ID
numbers are put into service for OSP, CPE, and perhaps CO techs.  They
have no interest in ANI, which is the process that pass the originating
number outside the CO.

This number used by IXC's to bill toll calls, and for a customer with
multiple lines, the same number may be used for all calls being passed
on any of their lines.  This number, like the Line-ID number may not
bear any resemblance to your published number.  For example ANI from
AU numbers passes a number that doesn't even contain our prefix, and
intercepts if dialed.  There are ANI numbers, but they are a different
breed, and usually rely on ANI from 800 calls.  I have heard of
several, including one mentioned here that was a demo message for a
security firm.

You mentioned something about your "number". If you mean your
(personal) office number, chances are it's DID, and bares no
resemblance to any physical pair.  Call to DID numbers are carried on
DID trunks, and the dialed number is passed to the PBX which will then
route it.  Outgoing calls from a PBX with DID are hopefully never
passed on the DID truck, as they are more expensive.

For a residence, your ANI# = LOOP# = dialable number = CLID in most
cases, for most people, John Higdon excluded.

 From what I understand CLID can be toggled in most CO's to deliver
either ANI, or a line number.  The former is more meaningful and
consistent.

A question of some of the CO experts: What happens if you dial a
line-ID number on a PBX that is connected to the CO via T1? Are all 24
channels assigned a unique number?  [I am assuming the format of the
number/blocking, is such that the call is passed.]  I know this is the
case for T1's connected to SLC's, but I can't think of a good reason
for it to be done with T1 trunks.


Pat Turner    [e-mail]     KB4GRZ @ K4RY.AL.USA

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

From: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Subject: Re: ANI Numbers That I Know of
Reply-To: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 19:40:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> of comp.dcom.telecom,
Doug Krause <[e-mail]> writes:

> I just tried this from my work phone and the voice gave me the correct
> exchange, but wrong last four digits.  I know that our phone system is
> some sort of Ericson contraption, so it probably confused things.

It probably gave you the billing number for your office system.  ANI
does not necessarily give the number you call from, but the number
your call should be billed to.  That is a big part of the difference
between ANI and Caller-ID.

In my home town of V{ae}ster{aa}s, Sweden, which is served by a
battery of Ericsson AXE exchanges, dialling 0058 and hanging up would
cause your phone to ring, but when you picked it up it was only dial
tone.


INTERNET: [e-mail]   TALK:      [e-mail]
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC     HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4   NeXTMAIL:  [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 15:06:16 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> wabwrld![e-mail]
(Bill Berbenich) writes:

> What's the phone number for PC Pursuit Customer Service?

Before you sign up for this service, be very sure you want it.

1. They will not bill you. They demand either a credit card number or
a checking account number, which they will debit for you automatically.

2. If the first bill they sent me is correct, they will not even send
you a statement of charges unless you exceed the hour limit you sign
up for. You will have no way of knowing how many hours they think you
used, and no way of detecting whether they are charging you for every
attempt at connecting, even those less than 90 seconds, which they say
they won't.

3. The only way of finding out how many hours of time you have used is
by running THEIR software on your PC (at least this is the information
that the billing department gave me -- billing has no way of knowing
how much time you have used (?), and the product manager that was
supposed to call me with more information almost two weeks ago has not
yet bothered to call back.)

4. They will start billing you for the service before you receive the
password you need to have to be able to use it. When you call them on
that tactic, they promise a credit to show up in a month or so. When
you mention that you intend to contest the charge when it shows up on
your credit card bill, they immediately tell you that they will NOT
credit you for their mistake, and continue by threatening that if the
credit card company makes a mistake and includes the $30 signup fee in
the contested amount, they will immediately cancel your service. Real
friendly folks, eh?

I think it was a mistake to sign up, but, unfortunately, it is the
only game in town and they know it.


[Moderator's Note: My experience with PCP has been a bit different.
I've been a subscriber since approximatly a week after the service
began in 1984. Billing was offered originally, and as might be
expected, it was fraught with problems, not the least of which was
fraud aplenty. Phreaks ruined the billing program at PCP with false
billing information. We subscribers who have been with PCP since the
beginning were encouraged to switch to the credit card or bank debit
system, but if we chose to continue being billed, we were grand-
fathered under that system. I find PCP to be an extremely useful and
economical method of placing data calls long distance. Regardless of
how newer users are required to pay, where else can you get long
distance data transmission for $1 per hour (or 83 cents per hour under
the $50 per month plan?).  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Subject: Re: 'Easy' Numbers, Teleslime, Wrong Numbers, etc.
Reply-To: bdsgate![e-mail] (Martin Harriss)
Organization: Beechwood Data Systems
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 15:45:49 GMT


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

    [ stuff about rude numbers deleted ]

Our office number here at Beechwood is 382 5xxx.  I'll leave it to the
reader to figure it out.  You will notice that there are 999 other
numbers like this, some of which are in fact also ours.


Martin Harriss   uunet!bdsgate!martin

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

Subject: Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 11:02:03 EST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]


The answer lies as far as your nearest source of AT&T phones.  They
have a cordless phone/answering machine that meets ALL of the
requirements that you gave.  I don't know the model number off-hand.
I've got one of them at home and it's great.  Street Price on the
thing is about $240, as I recall.  I got mine at a bankruptcy sale
about a month ago, new, unused and in the box, for $100.

Sound quality is very good via the handset, inside my home.  If the
base unit was in a metal locker the transmission quality would likely
suffer, though.


Bill Berbenich, School of EE, DSP Lab
Georgia Tech, Atlanta Georgia, 30332

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

From: [e-mail] (24411-sohl)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 16:12:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Legalities of Taping Phone Calls
Reply-To: [e-mail] (24411-sohl,william h)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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

>> Speaking of recording phone conversations:
>> The federal government does not require that all parties being
>> recorded must give their prior consent or that all parties being
>> recond must hear a 'beep'. According to FCC rules, as long as one of
>> parties is aware of the conversation is been taped it is legal.

> Okay so if *I* am taping every call that involves my home phone,
> obviously I am aware that the calls are being taped.  Legal??

Unless the state you are in (see below) has a more restrictive law,
I'd say, yes that is legal.

>> some states impose strict laws such as insisting both parties be
>> aware.  For example, in the state of Utah, there are no regulations.

Maybe someone has a list of the states that require beeps or that
otherwise require that both parties know that the call is being
recorded.

Now, even if a state requires that both parties know the call is being
recorded, what is the probability that anyone would ever be be charged
(if the violation on the state level is even a criminal offense) if
such a recording was made?  For example: If I live in a state that
requires beeps or that both parties know the call is recorded and I
"violate" that law by recording sveral calls that I received,
obviously, unless I tell someone, there's no probability that I'd be
able to be charged.  Now, if the calls I recorded happened to be
obscene calls and I took them to the police to help in the prosecution
or to otherwise help catch the caller of these obscene calls, is it
likely that I'd be prosecuted myself?  I doubt it.  Odds are that the
calls might not then be admissable in court, but I don't think
anything else would likly to happen to me.  Any existing "case-law" in
this area?


Standard Disclaimer - Any opinions, etc. are mine and NOT my employer's.

Bill Sohl (K2UNK) || email Bellcore, Morristown, NJ || UUCP
bcr!taichi!whs70 (Bell Communications Research) || or 201-829-2879
Weekdays || Internet [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Rick Wessman)
Subject: Re: USWEST Voicemail Problem
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, CA
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 16:00:55 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan L
Varney) writes:

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

> If PAT will permit a borderline commercial message ...

Why not? It's got to be better than the dreck that AT&T is
broadcasting. :-)

> AT&T offers the AUDIX system (I can't find a Trademark on my Quick
> Guide!)  off of both PBXs and COs -- lots of features, etc., but most
> importantly, the recording quality is very good, with any DETECTABLE
> cut-off of words.  I don't know if it has the additional capabilities
> a LEC might need to convert it to a PUBLIC Voice Mail System, but it
> is excellent as a PRIVATE one.

I heartily agree with Al. The AUDIX system that we have here at ORACLE
has excellent sound quality. I have never had any problem with words
being cut short.


Rick Wessman    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Nor is this a problem with Ameritech voicemail here
in IBT-land. All messages are loud and clear.   PAT]

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

Date: 4 Dec 91 12:28:00 EST
From: Marcus (M.D.) Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Does a Cellphone Duplex?


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

> How does a cellphone duplex its antenna for send and receive?  A
> traditional cavity duplexor wouldn't fit in a shirt-pocket phone, even
> at 800 MHz.  Even if it would, it wouldn't be frequency-agile enough.
> So how do they do it?

The newer phones use these rather expensive SAW filters -- Motorola
has a line of them specifically for cellular.

The older ones (base unit/handset) used cavity filters.


Marcus Leech, 4Y11    Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
[e-mail]         P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
[e-mail]    Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs


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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Haroon H. Dogar)
Subject: Re: Logic Bombs
Date: 4 Dec 91 17:55:37 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


[e-mail] writes:

> According to the seminar I attended last week, your only safe
> alternative is to reload the system from backups that were secure
> before the miscreant hit.  You might reload the system from the
> original disks, or from replacement disks from the vendor.  You
> absolutely CAN'T be sure that the relative didn't leave any more
> little presents in the code, although you can choose to compromise
> between your security and your efforts at some point.

It seems to me that if faced with the threat of prosecution or
financial damages, the vandal would be willing to remove any other
bombs that he may have planted. He/she may have installed the first
bombs in a fit of anger and, having considerd the consequences (or
having been presented with the possible punishments), may be
regretting that rash action.


hd

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

Subject: Re: Where to Find Caller ID Devices?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 4 Dec 91 14:40:40 EST (Wed)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

> I would appreciate it if people would send me phone numbers for
> suppliers of caller ID devices.

I've seen C-ID boxes at K-Mart for about $50.  It wasn't at all clear
whether anyone at the store understood what it was, even though there
was a little countertop display with some explanatory flyers.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 14:01 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: KLondike and YUkon


Here in Waltham MA, the 89x- phone numbers (originally 893, 894, and
899, with later additions of 890, 891, and 895) were TWinbrook
numbers.  A few old signs downtown still show TW4-XXXX numbers on
them.  Watertown, next door to Waltham, had WAtertown numbers, today's
923, 924, and 926 exchanges.  If anyone is familiar with other
exchange names in today's 617/508 area codes, I'd be happy to
summarize in e-mail.


Scott Fybush - voice 617/TWinbrook 1-5261 :) - [e-mail]

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

From: rls![e-mail] (Randall L. Smith)
Subject: Re: New Kinds of Roamer Charges ;-{
Date: 4 Dec 91 17:04:12 GMT
Organization: The Internet


[e-mail] (Phydeaux) writes:

> Daily surcharges and high per minute rates -- that's what you have to
> pay for roaming.  But now it seems that *everyone* wants to get a
> piece of the pie. [...]

> It appears that Celular One here in Chicago recently realized that
> there is more money to be made from roamers than just this.  [...]

> I'd consider switching carriers, but their 'friends' across town
> probably have already matched this 'offer' ... nickel and diming
> customers sure adds up when it's $1 here and $2 there ...

Largely the market or physical regions of expansion for cellular
communication is gone forever.  All the cellular competitors have
mapped out their turf and no longer have that type of growth to fuel
their companies.  What you describe is the new fuel for cellular
carriers, roaming charges.  That is their way of stealing their
competitors nickel.


Cheers!

randy

[e-mail] | <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy |
rls![e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1002
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27875;
          8 Dec 91 2:40 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31951
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 00:52:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21521
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 00:52:09 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 00:52:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1003

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Dec 91 00:52:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1003

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    News From Rochester Tel Land (Scott Fybush)
    Caller ID for Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (Russ Latham)
    Caller ID in Oklahoma (Stan Hall)
    Interesting Caller ID Experience (Ron Schnell)
    UK Area Codes (was How IL Bell Chose AC 708) (John Slater)
    AT&T Spirit Phones -- Where to Get? (Maxime Taksar)
    Just Dial 1-900-Pizza (Jeff Wasilko)
    Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (Richard Thomas)
    Dougie Howser's Phone (Randall C. Gellens)
    Info on Watson 2400 VIS Wanted (Natural Microsystems) (Scott Hinckley)
    A Question on Digital Switches (References) (Krishnan Sakotai)
    A Short Story Telecom Readers Might Enjoy (Warren Burstein)
    No Surcharge 950 Company (Hansel Lee)
    Michigan Bell Gets Christmas Early (Ken Jongsma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 16:06 EDT
From: Scott Fybush <[e-mail]>
Subject: News From Rochester Tel Land


I've just returned from a Thanksgiving trip home, to the territory of
Rochester Telephone.  Roch Tel is doing some innovative things that
the RBOCs might want to imitate someday.  Here are two of them:

*Miniature Phone Books.  Last year, an independent directory publisher,
White Directory Publications, introduced a reduced-size edition of their
_Talking Phone Book_ (716/427-7777 if you want to try it out :)  The same
thickness as the regular directory, the small edition's pages were photo-
reduced so the whole book measured about the same size as a standard
paperback.  The new books were popular with car-phone owners and others
who didn't want the bulk of a large directory.

Roch Tel followed suit with its 1992 books, which came out in October
or thereabouts.  Roch Tel subscribers received both the standard-size
white and yellow pages directories and the miniature-size books.  The
mini books even came packaged with a plastic Fresnel-lens-type
magnifying sheet!  With the standard-size books growing every year,
this is certainly an improvement when it comes to storing the books in
kitchen drawers and other small spaces.

BTW, Roch Tel, as an independent telco, also operates an info-line
similar to the "Talking Phone Book."  The Roch Tel "Informer" is on
716/777-3000.  The 1992 books have a strong environmental theme, from
the green covers with paintings of trees (and Joyce Kilmer's poem!) to
the recycling message inside.  With paper and disposal becoming so
expensive, I wonder if Roch Tel isn't working towards eliminating the
large-size directories entirely?

*971 numbers.  I wish the RBOC's would imitate Roch Tel's pseudo-900
service, only because the Roch Tel service failed so miserably.  971
numbers were supposed to be the Rochester LATA's equivalent of 976
numbers elsewhere -- numbers which incurred a largish charge to call.
According to a recent article in the Gannett Rochester Newspapers, though
(I don't have the exact paper or date with me), only two customers
ever signed up for 971 service.

One, a hotel-reservations service, moved off the exchange after
customers complained about the charge.  Seems the service was
attracting customers through one of those wonderful autodialers.
Customers had no way of knowing what a 971 number was (there's almost
no mention in the phone book, and you don't have to dial a 1 before
the number), and as a result yelled and screamed when the bill
arrived.

The other 971 customer is a dating voice-mail service.  It's still
active.  I don't know if 716-971 numbers are dialable from outside the
Rochester Tel service area.  I suspect they're not.  Roch Tel also has
some information services (time and temp, etc.) on 974 numbers.  These
bill 8.3 cents per call ... again, with no leading "1."  The newspaper
article says Roch Tel is no longer actively selling 971 numbers to
customers.  Good riddance, IMHO.


Scott Fybush -- [e-mail] -- Waltham, Massachusetts USA

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

From: Russ Latham <[e-mail]>
Subject: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area?
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 16:28:01 CST


Does anyone know when Southwestern Bell and GTE are going to start
offering Caller ID service to the Dallas-Ft Worth area?  I've talked
to a customer service rep, and they weren't much help.

Any info appreciated.


Thanks!

Russ Latham  ([e-mail])
motorola, inc  radio telephone systems group
fort worth research and development center
internet address:   [e-mail]

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

Subject: Caller ID in Oklahoma
From: Stan Hall <obelisk![e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 91 05:20:15 CST
Organization: The Obelisk


I have seen references saying that CNID is available in Oklahoma, yet
I haven't seen any mention of it locally.

The word from the SWBell rep is that the Tulsa and Muskogee areas
already have it and that the service will be available in Oklahoma
City sometime next year.

I'll be waiting.


Stan Hall
The Obelisk [ uokmax!obelisk!kilgore   [e-mail] ]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 13:30:11 -0500
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Interesting Caller ID Experience


As I have already posted, I have CLID for my phone line in South
Florida (Southern Bell).

As many of you already know, CLID only displays calls from phones that
are in your LATA.  If a call is coming from outside the LATA, the CO
still passes the date and time of the call and an "out of area"
message.

I was very surprised the other day to have a call come in with a local
phone number displayed, but when I picked up the phone it was a friend
of mine calling from Los Angeles!  After insisting that he was really
in Florida for a while, he finally convinced me that he really was
still in California.  I forced him to call me right back, and the same
number appeared.  I asked him to find out what crazy long distance
service his office was using, and he asked someone who told him it was
MCI.  I told him I didn't believe him and forced him to call
700-555-4141 via three-way.  The message was from "ExpressTel."  I
called the local number and got a brief ring, followed by a click,
then a busy signal (not a reorder).  If the Moderator finds it
appropriate, I will post the number.  I have called it several times
since then, and always have gotten the same thing.

What method of completing long distance calls would account for this
happening?  Whatever it is, it seems to me like it would be more
expensive than most other methods.

While I'm on the subject, will CLID always only show intra-LATA calls?
If not, when will it work for long distance?


Ron


[Moderator's Note: I don't care about the number. The carrier for the
call was getting it from El Lay to your town via whatever method, and
dropping it off at its local POP (point of presence) in your town,
where the call was then patched into a local outgoing line and dialed
as a local call to you. If you get calls from a cell phone locally you
will get the same kind of reaction from Caller ID: The box will show
some number which turns out to be an outgoing line from the cellular
company's switch rather than the actual cell phone number.   PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 10:56:32 GMT
Subject: UK Area Codes (was How IL Bell Chose AC 708)
From: [e-mail] (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE)


In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Bob Goudreau)
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Clive
> Feather) writes:

>> However, the real winner is going to be the Great Renumbering on
>> Easter Sunday 1994 -- *every* number in the UK is going to change. For
>> those interested in the details, simultaneously: every area code will
>> be prefixed with a 1, the international access code will change from
>> 010 to 00, and a second emergency number (112) will be added to the
>> existing number (999). Thus dialing will change:

>>   National          0 223 462 131      -> 0 1223 462 131
>>   International     010 1 npa nxx xxxx -> 00 1 npa nxx xxxx

> Well, don't leave us hanging -- why is the "1" change necessary?  Are
> they planning something special for sequences beginning with 02
> through 09 (which will otherwise be rendered completely unassigned by
> the change)?  If so, what?  If not, then why the extra digit for area
> codes?  Enquiring minds want to know :-).

First of all, it gives a ten-fold increase in telephone numbers
available.

Secondly it indeed allows for special uses for 02 .. 09: cellular,
1-900 style services, GSM, more free exchanges (we have 0800-xxxxxx,
so only a million numbers are available today).

Thirdly, it is a long-term aim of Oftel (the government regulatory
body) to be able to assign "portable" numbers. This means that you
keep one phone number for life, and potentially you can always be
reached at that number, whether at home, work, in the car, in a plane,
whatever.

Fourthly it is about the least painful way to expand the system: make
a no-brainer change to area codes, with no cause for misunderstanding.

Note also that 00 for international access is becoming standard across
Europe.


John Slater     Sun Microsystems UK, Gatwick Office

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

Subject: AT&T Spirit Phones -- Where to Get?
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 91 04:15:06 -0800
From: "Maxime Taksar" <[e-mail]>


Before anyone takes out their flame-throwers, please examine the
situation.

A friend of mine not-so-recently acquired an AT&T Spirit controller
box and two extension phones.  Now, this system is pretty worthless
with just the two phone sets.  What is needed is at least two more
station sets.

I'm unsure as to how old this system is, but I've seen it in use at
some small establishments.

My question is: Is it possible to get station sets for this system for
under $100?  My friend's parents are perfectly willing to buy extra
station sets, but I think that AT&T will sell them only for some
obscene price.

Please email me any leads.  Thanks in advance.


Maxime Taksar  KC6ZPS   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Wasilko)
Subject: Just Dial 1-900-Pizza
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 8:49:41 EST
Organization: RIT Communications, Rochester, NY


 From the {Rochester Democrat & Chronicle}, in a story about 900
numbers:

    If there are teenagers in your house, don't be surpised if you
find charges for pizza on your phone bill someday.

    That's right: Mr. Shoes Pizza in Rochester is about to launch
its own 900-style phone number that will allow you to order pizza and
pay for it on your phone bill, according to President John Natalie.


Jeff

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard A. Thomas)
Subject: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 18:11:47 GMT


At our facility, people often step down the hall a few doors to confer
briefly with someone in another office.  Then a phone will ring and
all the people who aren't in their own offices interrupt their
conversations to run back to their office to see if it is their phone
that is ringing.

Or you may have just stepped down the hall to pick up your output from
the shared printer, which you may find is a job or two backed up when
you get there, and then you hear a phone ringing.  Is it yours?

Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must
now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones
located in the same region, but I've never heard of it.  Does it
exist?  Is it possible?

Of course, you could have people modify the hardware (supply people
with different telephone sets that have different and distinguishable
ringers), but that sounds like it would be much more expensive than
making the ring pattern a programmable option in the switch itself.
And if the firm has already supplied everyone with telephones, it
certainly won't consider buying all new ones in order to avoid the
confusion of identical rings.

If this is a FAQ, please accept my apology for bringing it up again.

Thank you.


Richard Thomas


[Moderator's Note: You might get a few beehive lamps, and mount them
on the wall or ceiling in a common area. Then when a phone rings, the
respective beehive will flash as well, and people will know which
beehive belongs to which line.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 06:06 GMT
From: Randall C Gellens <[e-mail]>
Subject: Dougie Howser's Phone


I happened to catch a few minutes of _Dougie_Howser,_M.D._ this
evening, and noticed that Dougie (who supposedly lives in the Chicago
area, I think) has a wonderful switch!  Not only does he get call
waiting on a three-way, but he can add incoming callers!  And with
only a flash of the switchhook!  He added two callers to his existing
conversation, ending with four people at once.

I should note the characters seemed to realize how special their phone
system is, since one remarked "I really love my phone; sometimes I
pick it up just to hear the dialtone -- it's so reassuring."

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 09:01:14 CST
From: [e-mail] (Scott Hinckley)
Subject: Info on Watson 2400 VIS Wanted (Natural Microsystems)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


I am looking at purchasing (second hand) a voicemail system made by
Natural Microsystems called Watson 2400 w/VIS. If you have any
information on using this system (positive or negative) please send me
mail detailing it.


Thank you,

[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Krishnan "krish" Sakotai )
Subject: A Question on Digital Switches (References)
Organization: University of Lowell Computer Science, Lowell MA
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 16:14:53 GMT


Could someone please let me know of THE most authoritative book/paper
on Digital Switching technology, encompassing everything, including
Broadband ATM switching?

I am considering Stallings book on ISDN, but would be glad if there
are some tutorial papers regarding the above or any other alternative.

I would be very much interested in a book that has sample code (like
the Stevens book on Unix networking).

Please email, I will post a summary if there is sufficient interest.


Thanks,

Krishnan C.Sakotai   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: A Short Story Telecom Readers Might Enjoy
Date: 4 Dec 91 10:23:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


I just finished reading a story by Primo Levi, "For a Good Purpose".
It appears in "The Sixth Day", a collection of his short stories under
the Abacus label which belongs to Sphere Books.

In the story, the European network begins to take actions on its own
initiative.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Hansel Lee)
Subject: No-Surcharge 950 Company
Date: 4 Dec 91 04:27:15 GMT
Organization: Public Access Info Network  (818/776-1447)


Regarding a LD company w/ a 950 calling card w/o a surcharge, I feel
that ITT/Metromedia [phone] (I think) is the best. They are
very reasonable regarding local calls.

They breakdown their calls of between 1-10 miles, 10-20 miles, 20-100
miles, etc. each with differnet prices. For local calls it is the
best; for long distance calls they are better.

Both Allnet and ITT have no surcharges for 950 calls. (ITT does charge
for the use of their 1-800 port and Allnet only has a 1-800 port).

Allnet 800-783-2020
ITT    800-275-0200


Hansel

Standard Disclaimers Apply   [e-mail]
usc.edu!celia!techsys!pain!hansel

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

From: [e-mail] (Ken Jongsma)
Subject: Michigan Bell Gets Christmas Early
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 19:59:28 EST


Well, it looks like Michigan Bell has received a very nice Christmas
present. In a compromise between House and Senate versions of a
telecommunications reform billed passed a few weeks back, the
consolidated bill expected to be signed by the Governor provides for
the following:

o Freezes basic rates for two years, raises thereafter less than
  inflation will automatically be approved.

o Flat rate residential service eliminated. Local calls in
  excess of 400 per month to be billed at 6 to 8 cents per call.

o Explicitly allows Michigan Bell to enter cable TV, information,
  paging, alarm and other services at will, subject only to
  federal regulation.

Oh well.


Ken Jongsma                [e-mail]
Smiths Industries          [e-mail]
Grand Rapids, Michigan     [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1003
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23863;
          8 Dec 91 16:34 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29158
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 14:48:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29483
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 14:48:05 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 14:48:05 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1004

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Dec 91 14:48:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1004

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Tricomm 92 High Speed Network Conference (Harry Perros)
    E-Mail Link to Japan? (Phil Tait)
    Re: GTE Screwups in NW Ohio (Alan Boritz)
    Re: CB vs Cellular in Accident (Alan Boritz)
    Prodigy Running Trial of 9600 Service (Seng-Poh Lee)
    Israel Briefly Allows Direct Dialing to Arab Countries (Warren Burstein)
    410 Now Seen on a Pay Phone (Carl Moore)
    Could Cellular be Used as Competition for LEC's? (Robert Lindh)
    Suggestions Wanted For Books and Magazines (Kevin Crowston)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 13:12:07 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Harry Perros)
Subject: Tricomm 92 High Speed Network Conference


                CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT
                =======================

                    Tricomm '92
    Fifth Triangle Conference on Computer Communications
            High Speed Networks

            February 27-28, 1992
               McKimmon Center
        North Carolina State University
           Raleigh, North Carolina


**Chairman**
    Harry Perros, NCSU

**Program Committee**
    Brad Makrucki, BellSouth
    Arne Nilsson, NCSU
    Raif Onvural, IBM RTP
    Dan Stevenson, MCNC
    Yannis Viniotis, NCSU

**Sponsorship**
    Computer Science Department, NCSU
    Center for Communications & Signal Processing, NCSU
    IEEE Communications Society, Eastern NC Chapter
    IBM RTP

**Local Arrangements**
    Margaret Hudacko, NCSU

Events and Arrangements
=======================
    The registration desk at McKimmon Center will open at 8:00 a.m.
    Thursday morning, February 27, 1992

    Luncheon buffets served at McKimmon Center on Thursday and Friday
    are included in the registration fee.  Please indicate on the
    registration form if you are a vegetarian.

    A reception will be held at McKimmon Center on Thursday evening
    immediately following Thursday's final session.

Accommodations
==============

A block of rooms has been reserved for attendees at the Mission Valley
Inn Conference and Expo Center, 2110 Avent Ferry Road, Raleigh.  If
you plan to stay at the Inn, please make your reservations by February
13 to receive special rates: single or double $47 per night.  After
February 13, reservations will be subject to availability.  To make
reservations, call (toll free) 1 [phone] and reference TriComm '92.

Location
========

The Conference will be held in Raleigh at North Carolina State
University's McKimmon Center on the corner of Western Boulevard and
Gorman Street.If you like this conference, tell your friends about it!
Additional copies of the program are available from:

    Margaret Hudacko
    Tri Comm '92
    CCSP, Box 7914
    North Carolina State University
    Raleigh, NC 27695-7914
    [phone]
    Email:    [e-mail]

Program
=======

**Thursday, February 27, 1991**

8:00    Conference Registration
9:15    Welcome
    Harry Perros, NCSU
    Bob Funderlic, NCSU
9:30    Keynote Address
    Dennis Kekas, IBM RTP
10:00    Break

Session 1:    Local ATM
Chair:        Dan Stevenson

10:30    Architectures of Local and Metropolitan ATM Networks: New
    Trends
    G. Pujolle, Paris 6 Universite
11:00    Supercomputing Communication as an Application for ATM LANs
    D. Stevenson, MCNC
    D. Winkelstein, MCNC
11:30    Gigabit LANs
    A. Pierce, GTE Labs
    D. Casey, GTE Labs
12:00    Lunch Break

Session 2:    Congestion Control I
Chair:        Jerry Marin

1:30    A Framework for Bandwidth Management and Congestion Control in
    High Speed Networks
    L. Gun, IBM RTP
    R. Guerin, IBM Research
2:00    Performance Analysis of the Unbuffered and Buffered Leaky Bucket
    D. Holtsinger, NCSU
    H. Perros, NCSU
2:30    Gateway Congestion Control in High Speed Backbone Networks
    S. Fdida, Paris 5 Universite
3:00    Break

Session 3:    Congestion Control II
Chair:        Yannis Viniotis

3:30    Forward Notification Congestion Control
    B. MaKrucki, BellSouth
4:00    Backward Notification with Balloon Buffer
    I. Viniotis, NCSU
    S. Jagannath, NCSU

Session 4:    Standards
Chair:        Brad MaKrucki

4:30    What's New in Standards?
    D. Spears, BellSouth
5:30    Reception

**Friday, February 28, 1991**

Session 5:    Routing in High Speed Networks
Chair:        Raif Onvural

8:30    Overview of Routing and Strategies in High Speed Networks
    R. Onvural, IBM RTP
    I. Nikolaidis, Georgia Tech
9:00    A Queueing Network Model for Half Duplex Routing and Data
    Communications
    V. Kulkarni, UNC-CH
    S. Sditham, UNC-CH
9:30    Break

Session 6:    Transport Protocols
Chair:        Alf Weaver

10:00    The Xpress Transfer Protocol
    A. Weaver, University of Virginia
10:45    Radiology Communications for Imaging Systems
    B. Chimiak, Bowman Gray
11:15    High Speed Transport Protocols Evaluation at VISTAnet Project
    Y.-H. Cheng, MCNC
12:00    Lunch Break

Session 7:    Traffic Measurements
Chair:        Arne Nilsson

1:30    Traffic Models for ISDN and B-ISDN Users
    P. Wirth, AT&T Bell Labs
2:00    Traffic Characterization in a Wide Area Network
    Laura Bottomley, NCSU
    Arne Nilsson, NCSU
2:30    Break

Session 8:    Telecommunications Software
Chair:        Mladen Vouk

3:00    Software Engineering of Telecommunications Software
    M. Vouk, NCSU
3:30    Reliability of Telecommunications Software
    W. Jones, BNR
4:00    Software Metrics and Quality of Telecommunications Systems
    T. Khoshgoftaar, Florida Atlantic University
4:30    EpilogueThursday, February 27

Workshop Reservation
====================

Registration fees include lunch each day and one reception ticket.
Please circle the appropriate fees from the following list and
indicate if you prefer vegetarian meals. Make check or money order
payable to:

    TriComm '92

Please return this form, with full payment, to:

    Margaret Hudacko
    TriComm '92
    CCSP, Box 7914
    North Carolina State University
    Raleigh, NC 27695-7914

    Before    After
    2/10/92    2/10/92

Registration    $100    $120

Student Rate    $50    $60

Vegetarian Meals?    Yes    No

Name__________________________________________________

Organization__________________________________________

Address_______________________________________________

City____________________State___________Zip___________

email_________________________________________________

Let Us Know
===========

If you plan to attend but cannot pre-register, please let us know so
that we can better estimate our attendees.  Please call Margaret
Hudacko at [phone], write to her or send her email at:


        [e-mail]

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

Subject: E-Mail Link to Japan
From: [e-mail] (Phil Tait, [phone])
Date: 6 Dec 91 08:07:18 MST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Robert J. Woodhead) writes:

 ... apparently from a location from Japan. If postings to this
newsgroup must be mailed to the Moderator, how was this done in the
absence of Internet E-mail connectivity to that country? Or is this no
longer the case?


Philip J. Tait    Allied-Signal Aerospace, Garrett Engine Division, Phoenix, Az
[phone]    Aeronet: GED::B12635         Internet: [e-mail]
UUCP: [e-mail]  or  ...!{hrc|mcdphx|asuvax}!gedphx!tait


[Moderator's Note: We receive a number of submissions from Mr. Woodhead
here and they come through with no difficulty, so my assumption is
that email works as well from Japan as anywhere else. I know the
Digest goes to a couple sites there which have telecom news groups.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 30 Sep 91 08:25:07 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: GTE Screwups in NW Ohio


In an article <[e-mail]> sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.
rn.com wrote:

> One of the people I consult for just got a strange call from GTE.  It
> seems that they just switched 419-88x over to a new electronic switch.
> In the process they discovered that they had given him touchtone service
> accidentally.  Now they want him to pay for what he was receiving free
> of charge.

I would suggest that your client tell GTE to forget about collecting
any money for a service he didn't order.  However, be aware that GTE
can get real nasty with collections.  If they don't accept his refusal
to pay for services previously rendered, be prepared to make a timely
PUC complaint.

Although, if it was a marketing call to get him to "change" his
service, a simple "no" should suffice.  If GTE is as greedy and
vindictive as Rochester Telephone, your client should soon find that
the switch will not accept touchtone digits (Rochester Tel has their
newer switches programmed to intercept touchtone dialing on rotary
lines and play extremely loud obnoxious noises so "encourage" you to
"upgrade" your service).


Alan Boritz
[e-mail]
      * The Hourglass BBS * [phone] *
Fidonet: 1:2604/[e-mail]   1:269/[e-mail]
UUCP: tronsbox!hourgls!%s         Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Sat, 21 Sep 91 12:36:34 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: CB vs Cellular in Accident


In an article <[e-mail]> written 17 Sep 91
07:59:00 GMT, [e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

> The Associated Press reports of an traffic accident involving a woman
> afflicted with muscular dystrophy. A flatbed truck ran her off the road
> (State 2, south of Exit 11, Glastonbury, CT area). Her van overturned
> when it was forced off the road.

> One quote from the article mentioned that "As soon as she could, she
> reached for her cellular telephone to dial 911 but got a busy signal".
> Would this be the result of having a cell phone out of range (if so,
> where does the busy signal come in?). Or is there a problem with dialing
> 911 in some parts of Connecticut? Another question that could be asked
> was whether she tried to contact other cell numbers such as 0 or 411 or
> whatever.

American media is stupid, where the details of how telecommunications
devices function.  If the disabled woman's van flipped, you don't
really think her cellular mobile telephone antenna would still remain
attached, do you? ;-) If it was a portable, would you trust equipment
that may have been damaged in an accident rather than blame "the phone
company" (other than AT&T :-)?  911 works fine on the non-wireline
system in CT, but in that kind of situation I wouldn't be looking
first at the carrier in the event of difficulties.

> In any event, the woman managed to take her wheelchair battery and in
> three hours splice wires to power her CB (the van battery had since died
> out). After various calls on the truckers CB Channel 19 (why not the
> emergency channel 9?) and having 20 people ignore calls for help, a
> trucker finally took notice and arrived to help ten hours after the
> incident.

The answer to the question, "why not the emergency channel 9?," is
pretty simple.  There's nobody listening.  Although FCC rules set
aside the channel for "emergency communications or for traveler
assistance," there is no effective organized monitoring effort that
makes a difference.  If you tried to use it for what it was intended
(i.e. "traveler assistance, rather than purely emergency in nature)
don't be surprised if more than one wanna-be radio "buff" tells you to
shut up and get lost.  When I drive cross-country I rarely monitor
channel 9, but instead listen to the "washer-women" ;-) on channel 19.
However, in the event of a real distress call on ANY channel, I
wouldn't likely respond unless if I was sure it wasn't a phony.

> [Moderator's Note: Citizen's Band Radio is still a viable alternative to
> cellular phones; or perhaps it should be considered a way to complement
> cellular service in poor/no coverage areas.

No, Pat, it's not a "viable" alternative unless if OTHER people in
your area rely upon it as much as you.  It can be a great asset
sometimes, but in reality is no more serious than figuratively
shouting out the window of your car and hoping that someone (you
trust) can hear you.


Alan Boritz
Moderator, FidoNet FCC Conference
[e-mail]
         * The Hourglass BBS * [phone] *
Fidonet: 1:2604/[e-mail]   1:269/[e-mail]
UUCP: tronsbox!hourgls!%s         Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: As you point out, channel 9 here receives little
coverage other than some REACT people who monitor faithfully. The
place here is Channel 19 which always has a lot of traffic.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Prodigy Running Trial of 9600 Service
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 9:52:54 EST


Prodigy (tm) recently announced that they are conducting a trial of
9600 V.32 service in the Dallas/Ft Worth area. They are inviting
participants to sign up to try the service at no extra cost (other
than the cost of the phone call). The implication is that they will
charge extra for 'premium' 9600 service if the trials go well.

I wonder how they will handle the people who can currently call in to
Prodigy at 9600 NOW, via Tymenet. Presumably, if they chose to go 9600
nationwide, they will still use Tymenet's network, but those people
won't get a free ride anymore.


Seng-Poh Lee    <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Israel Briefly Allows Direct Dialing to Arab Countries
Date: 7 Dec 91 18:32:23 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


According to stories in the December 6th editions of the {Jerusalem
Post and Chadashot}, Bezeq (the Israeli telco), conducted a test of
direct dialing, in preparation for the possibility of peace.  The
experiment began early in the week and ended on Thursday morning.
While it lasted, it was possible to dial numbers in Jordan, Algeria,
Yemen, South Yemen, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar,
Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Lebanon.

While the experiment was not announced, rumors spread and many people
made use of the connection to dial countries whose codes do not appear
in the local phone books.  Faisal Husseni took advantage of the
opportunity to place a phone call to his brother in Amman, Jordan.

Communications Minister Rafael Pinchasi, interviewed in Chadashot,
refused to provide details of how the connection was established.

No information was available concerning tarrifs.  It will be
interesting to see what shows up on the bills of people who used this
service while it was available.


[e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 13:35:20 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: 410 Now Seen on a Pay Phone


In North East, Maryland, there is a (C&P) pay phone on the street
alongside the telephone building.  Yesterday, I saw the sticker on it
with 410 area code displayed instead of 301.  Across the street from
this is a convenience store with two C&P pay phones side by side,
still displaying area code 301 and marked "no incoming calls" on such
stickers.  (These are touch-tone phones, so the sticker is displayed
above the keypad.)

Earlier this year in area 908 in New Jersey, the new stickers with
(new) area code 908 were white numbers on black background, without
the words "AREA CODE".

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Lindh)
Subject: Could Cellular be Used as Competition for LEC's?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:44:23 GMT


Most people are connected to the local office by telephone wire (not
radio).  Would today's cellular telephones be able to access more than
one cellular operator WITHIN the SAME area?

My question is really: Does it sound reasonable to have a cellular
telephone with a switch A/B on it?  (When switch is in 'A'-position,
my outgoing calls go through one cellular operator and when switch is
in 'B'-position the other operator is used for outgoing calls.)

Could this possibly be a way to get competition on local calls, not
only on long-distance calls? (Assume that a cellular telephone will
become much cheaper to buy and operate compared with today.)


Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course."


[Moderator's Note: As a matter of fact, dual-NAMS and quad-NAMS (four
distinct settings) are very common on cell phones. There is no reason
you can't subscribe to a different carrier for each setting since
there are two in most locations. Cell phone service will only become
competitive to wireline once the price comes down quite a bit.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Crowston)
Subject: Suggestions Wanted For Books and Magazines
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 91 14:21:30 EST
Organization: Cognitive Science Machine Intelligence Lab, Univ of Michigan


I have a reasonable background in data communications but am fairly
new to telecom.  I'm trying to get up to speed and would appreciate
suggestions about books and other things to read.

It seems that the technology and details of companies' offerings are
changing very quickly; are there particular trade journals that do a
better job of covering the field?

As usual, please reply to me and I'll post a summary.


Kevin

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1004
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24581;
          8 Dec 91 16:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21693
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 15:14:47 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24908
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 15:14:38 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 15:14:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The Kinds of Work We Do


This lengthy article was received from Stan Reeves summarizing
responses he received to a recent posting in the Digest.

 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 14:36:27 CST
 From: Stan Reeves <[e-mail]>
 Subject: BS EE jobs in comm/DSP (summary)


A few weeks ago I posted:

> Sorry, I'm not offering any jobs here.  :-)  I am teaching an undergrad
> class in communications.  I was thinking that it would be instructive
> to give the class an idea of some of the kinds of jobs that B.S.-level
> electrical engineers do in the communications and DSP fields.  The
> experience and observations of the readers of this group should be
> relevant, so I thought I would ask you.  If you're in a position to
> observe the kinds of jobs that B.S.-level electrical engineers do in
> the areas of communications or DSP, then I would appreciate your sending
> me a *short* description of the job (general problem being worked on,
> particular responsibilities of B.S.-level people, etc.).  It needs to be
> pretty succinct because I won't be able to go into a lot of detail in
> class.  Please EMAIL your responses to me, and if there's enough interest,
> I'll summarize to the net.  Thanks.

Here's a summary of the responses.  First, I have an outline of what I
actually mentioned in the communications class I'm teaching, which is
a condensed version of what I thought people were saying.  :-) After
that, I have included all the actual net responses I got.  The outline
may also reflect some sources other than net sources included below.

                               -------
Outline:

Applications
------------

cellular phone switching
transmitting voice over various media (telephony)
transmitting data over various media (computer network)
interfacing one medium (channel) with another
modem design
military applications:

        communications for AWACS
        electronic warfare and countermeasures
        spread-spectrum communications
        radar processing using DSP

Activities
----------

hardware design

        determining appropriate equipment for particular job
        understanding and meeting industry standards

software design (assembly, C)

        switching software
        encoding/decoding
        detection/estimation filters
        channel equalization

troubleshooting

Notes:
1)  95% of time to understand existing work, only 5% to implement new.
2)  C seems to be the high-level language of choice.
3)  Emphasis on digital communications and digital signal processing.

                          -------

Responses from others:


 From: [e-mail] (Ted Hadley)

Stan:

I've had two jobs in datacom: former and current. I have a BSEE '83 UofAz.

Former: Halley Systems, Inc. San Jose, CA (failed startup)
Duties: Designed and implemented a non-source-routing Token-Ring
bridge in local and multi-port remote flavors. I was project leader
with 3 other engrs.  My duties: Architecture design of software,
hardware troubleshooting, designing and coding all low-level, utility,
and systems software in 'C' and 80286 assembly for an AT-class PC (our
base platform). Very little paperwork (this was the downfall: no specs
meant little cohesion in the various modules of the design -- I was
following my boses orders here, much to my dislike).

Current: Cylink Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA (very successful small company)
Duties: Much design and spec writing (yuck, but important).  Many
reviews of specs authored by others, interviewing new candidates, and
significant software writing. I also do much of the troubleshooting of
new hardware. The products I work on are all related to high-speed
data encryption. I am not a project leader, but I _do_ consider myself
a senior engineer.


 From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>

I work in telecommunications within my company (a Fortune 50 company),
and work with a number of other people in information systems who do
communications work.  How's this for a list of things that a BSEE
might do at one time or another?:

o  Voice networking.  We have a fiber-optic network connecting all of
   the sites of our "campus" together which has T1 connections.  EEs
   in our transport group take requests for end-to-end connectivity
   and design how it should be routed: local phone company, private
   fiber, private T1 muxs, etc.  They also have to deal with how
   to back up circuits, how to handle new sites or a large influx,
   exflux of users/circuits, etc.

o  Data networking.  Given the need to get a particular bandwidth
   data pipe from one computer to another, they design how to
   do it -- what set of equipment should be used, etc.  They also
   look into future products and evaluate any potential use.

o  Data/Voice management.  BSEE's design our networks.  And part of
   that task is figuring out how to keep a handle on who is going
   where and pinpointing exactly where a problem is when it
   occurs.

o  Project management.  I know one BSEE who was responsible for
   calling for RFPs, evaluating voicemail systems, choosing a
   particular vendor, and headed the project to install it and
   interface it with our existing telephone switches (PBXs).

I could probably come up with some others, but those couple are
off the top of my head.


 From: [e-mail]

Stan,

Hello.  My name is Bob Bosse and I am an Engineer with Xerox Corp. in
Dallas, TX (actually a business park area called Las Colinas that is
in the city of Irving, TX but it's easier just to tell someone
Dallas!)  My job title is Manager, Technical Support.  The following
list defines job titles that we use here in Las Colinas for positions
that "overlap" into Telecomm as well as being directly involved:

Note: It might help to understand that I support only our own
"internal" networks and systems (my "Customer" is Xerox) and that we
are presently migrating into a tolal integaration of our internal
voice and data systems throughout the U.S.  Because of this, we are
seeing a lot of "overlap" between the traditional "Telecom" and
"Systems" functions.

FTM - Field Telecom Manager & Sr Field Telecom Manager - This is a
"Project" management position responsible for all "telecom" project
planning and implementation throught the Southern Region.

Technical Support Manager -This is another "Project" management
position responsible for all "data systems" project planning and
implementation throught the Southern Region.

Systems Technology Specialist - New title for the "Technical Support
Manager" above.

System Analyst (IV, III, II, I, Sr, Systems Consultant) - Multi-grade
position with ever increasing levels of responsibility and reduced
supervision required.  Responsible for project / program assisnments
associated with coding, unit testing, system testing (which is primary
responsibility here), documentation, test plans, project schedules, etc.

Telecommunication Analyst (IV, III, II, I, Sr) - Responsible for
monitoring and troubleshooting network / systems problems, equipment
installations, configurations management, and operational documentation.

The following "used" to reside here:

Communications Network Specialist - Mainly associated with the data
side of Telecom with responsibility for investigating / identifing
network problems including Facsimile, PBX systems and other non-standard
telephone interfaces.


 From: optilink![e-mail] (Paul Elliott x225)

Stan-

Here at Optilink/DSC, we design and manufacture a SONET (Synchronous
Optical NETwork) - based digital loop carrier.  This involves 155
Mbit/s optical interface, analog line and trunk interface, T1 (1.544
Mbit/s), ISDN, DDS, and other interface design, and lots of
microcontroller and general high-speed logic design.  Most of our
engineers are BS with typically five to ten years of experience in the
telecom field. We do have some engineers with only a few years in the
field -- no fresh grads though.

(I am non-degreed with about fifteen years of engineering experience.)

Here are a few typical projects being worked on.

(Mine:)

Design of a peripheral interface card that transmits and receives a T1
digital trunk signal and maps it into the SONET format.  The bulk of
this consists of designing a CMOS gate-array that interfaces to the
system backplane, performs rate-convertion and overhead termination
and generation, timeslot mapping, and interface to an on-board micro-
controller.  The chip contains DSP filters and frequency synthesis
circuitry.  Other related tasks include locating and analyzing the
relevant industry specifications, attending industry standards
meetings, writing the architectural and functional specifications for
the unit, and working with printed-circuit board designers, test
engineers, and component engineers.  (And supporting my existing
designs.)  Tools used include four computers in my office, and a
hardware simulation accelerator.

(Someone else, pretty senior guy:)

Design a high-speed 4096 port time-slot interchanger (kind of a
time-space crosspoint switch).  This involves the design of a
high-speed gate-array used to control banks of high-speed RAM.

(Someone else, BSEE with a couple of years experience:)

Design switching power-supply for use on remotely-powered line-card.
This involves off-the-shelf ICs, custom transformer design, and the
use of analog simulation tools (PSPICE, mostly).

(Someone else, BSEE with five years experience:)

Design analog line card detection circuitry, for use with proprietary
signaling systems.

All of these jobs involve documentation and working with other
departments.  Our design engineers all become heavily involved with
the testing of the prototypes, and are proficient in the 'c' language
(for use with the computers we hook up to the microcontrollers on the
units we design), and use the standard tools of the trade, along with
lots of telecom-specific test equipment.  We hardly ever breadboard
our designs, but go immediately into a PB board, and rely on lots of
digital simulation.  The power-supply and optical interface designers
still do preliminary breadboarding though, due to the mostly analog
nature of these areas.

Hope this helps,

Paul


 From: [e-mail] (Steven King, Software Archaeologist)

Okay, I'll give you a little on my job.  I'm a Software Engineer at
Motorola, working on the EMX 500 family of cellular telephony
switches.  I graduated from Michigan Tech in 1988 with a BSEE.  About
a third of the software engineers here have EE degrees, the other
two-thirds have computer science degrees.

My job description is, roughly in order of priority:

  1) Ferret out reported problems in our software
  2) Discover fixes to the above problems
  3) Provide assistance to other engineers doing similar work
  4) Implement the fixes in software
  5) Implement new features

Finding where the bugs are requires a lot of time reading prinouts
from customer sites, reading code, and futzing around in the lab
trying to reproduce the situtations.  This takes a lot of intuition
and some solid knowledge about the way things work in our product.
Once the problem is found the way to fix it usually pretty obvious.
Implementing the fixes new features can be tricky, mainly because of
limitations imposed by the existing code.  It's not usually an option
to tear out and re-write a module "the right way"; we've got schedules
to meet, and just testing new code can take approximately forever!

One piece of advice: If Motorola Cellular is any kind of example, 95%
of all the work involves figuring out the way things *ALREADY* work
and writing new code within the existing framework.  Any schmuck can
write code from scratch, but it takes real skill to successfully
integrate a new feature into someone else's kludged-up, poorly
documented code.


From: [e-mail] (Jeff Carroll)

    I have a BSEE (1981) from Northwestern University and three
years of part-time grad school, but no masters'. The graduate work was
in electromagnetics, and thus not directly related to comm or DSP.

    Until I went into computer marketing recently, I worked on a
variety of communication and DSP projects at Boeing. Among them:

* writing and conducting test procedures for the AWACS system

* designing and programming automatic test equipment for a radio factory

* assisting in technical oversight of subcontractors and integration of
their products into sophisticated spread-spectrum radio comm systems

* investigating new approaches to airborne radio communications, including
research and prototyping

* doing system design of communication suites of military aircraft,
including satellite link budgets, running and interpreting propagation
models, and antenna design

* designing and programming real-time DSP systems for a propagation
experiment, and supporting them in the field

* designing DSP architectures for radar processing

Other things I've seen BSEEs doing:

* marketing of DSP products

* design of cellular mobile phone plant

* consulting on low-voltage systems for buildings


 From: [e-mail] (Bryan Richardson)

I think giving descriptions is a wonderful idea.  When I was an
undergrad, I didn't really have a clear idea what I might do when I
graduated.  The description below represents my particular division at
Bell Labs.  Of course, AT&T employs gobs of EEs in any number of
positions.  Hope this helps ...

I work in the Development Planning of AT&T's 4 ESS (tm) switch, which
acts as the backbone switching product of AT&T's long distance
network.  My job consists of working with AT&T Business Units to help
define new products and features within the AT&T Worldwide Intelligent
Network.  Once a business need is identified, a technical
implementation must be chosen, and system specifications and
requirements must be developed.  We then work with software and/or
hardware engineers to implement these solutions.

[Note: while it sounds and is largely a software-engineering type job,
my office-mate, who did an almost identical job to mine, held a Ph.D.
in EE]

Stan Reeves
Auburn University, Department of Electrical Engineering, Auburn, AL  36849
INTERNET: [e-mail]












Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29931;
          8 Dec 91 19:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04772
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:14:45 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17043
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:14:33 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 18:14:33 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1005

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Dec 91 18:14:29 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1005

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GTE Owns Dominican Republic Telco (was Strange Chatline) (Nigel Allen)
    Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates (Tony Harminc)
    Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates (Fred R. Goldstein)
    Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Anthony E. Siegman)
    Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Carl Moore)
    Need Brief Info on Frame Relay ([e-mail])
    Fax Machine Tried to Call Me Daily (Mark Ahlenius)
    Woman Abuses 911 - Gets Phone Disconnected (Jacob R. Deglopper)
    Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Gordon Grant)
    Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708 (Carl Moore)
    Re: A Thousand of These Things! (Bob Izenberg)
    Re: A Thousand of These Things! (Robert J. Woodhead)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1991 09:52:15 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: GTE Owns Dominican Republic Telco (was Strange Chatline)


[e-mail] (Colin Tuttle) writes:

> In TELECOM Digest volume 11 issue 974 Jack Decker mentioned a chat
> line in the 809-544 area code and prefix.  I checked with MCI and
> found the number to be in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic.
> They told me the call would be .94 for the first minute and .64 for
> each additional minute, during the Economy time (after 10 PM in the
> evenings).

> Those are some hefty phone charges ... similar to the domestic 900
> chatlines. This could give the local phone company in the Dominican
> Republic a bit of money to pass on to the chat line provider, as PAT
> had suggested.

Those of you who deal with GTE will not be surprised to hear that the
phone company in the Dominican Republic, Compania Dominica de
Telefonos (Codetel), is indirectly owned by GTE. I suspect it's even
more horrible than GTE's California operation.

For reasons that aren't clear to me, GTE's interest in GTE is held
through a Montreal-based holding company, Anglo-Canadian Telephone
Company, which also owns just over half of Quebec-Telephone, based in
Rimouski, and about 40% of the British Columbia Telephone Company. A
further 10% of B.C. Tel is held by GTE International, giving the GTE
group just over 50% of B.C. Tel.

This information is as of a few years ago, but as far as I know
it's still correct.


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 05 Dec 91 13:25:20 EST
From: Tony Harminc <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates


On Tue, 03 Dec 91 17:52 EST "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> The Japanese telecommunications company, Nippon Telegraph and
> Telephone (NTT) In January 1991 began R&D of ATM. Their partners are:
> Fujitsu, Hitachi, NEC, OKI, Mitsubishi, Toshiba (all Japanese), AT&T
> (USA), Northern Telecom (Canadian company that has a HQ in Washington
> and so is called American), and Siemens (German).

Northern Telecom has become expert at chameleon-like behavior.  When
in Canada it proclaims its Canadian identity (majority owned by Bell
Canada, etc.)  When in the US it neatly forgets its roots and claims
to be an American company (even the president is a US citizen).

A couple of years ago NT managed to have both the US and Canadian
governments supporting it as "one of ours" when trying to sell
switches to Japan.


Tony Harminc

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Long-Distance at Local Rates
Date: 5 Dec 91 21:24:36 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peng_H.
Ang) writes:

> The Japanese are really interested in ATM because of high- definition
> TV (HDTV). Their HDTV signals require greater bandwidth so they are
> looking for transmission technology that would allow them to reduce
> costs.

Indeed, ATM people are very interested in HDTV as an application.

> I pointed out that a call going 100 miles would use up more plant
> and equipment than a call going 50 miles. We went around in circles
> on that for a while and he finally said that mine was the layman's
> view while he was offering an engineer's perspective. Also, and this
> is the kicker, *all* the smaller competitive carriers were afraid of
> ATM.

Engineers where he comes from must have a terrible sense of direction!

> Meanwhile, because they believe that ATM will wipe out the smaller
> carriers, NTT has set a five-year deadline for ATM deployment in
> exchange and transmission systems.

> Goldstein observes that "we'll be paying LD rates for local traffic,
> not the other way around." From a policy perspective, this raises
> interesting questions: is this what happens with true competition in
> telecommunications? Is it the long-distance carriers or the RBOCs who
> are out of business?

In America, all of the major LD carriers are excited about ATM, while
the local telcos are in less of a hurry.  Since AT&T and MCI will be
able to offer ATM next year (using dedicated T3 access lines), it'll
be a "bypass" (of a sort) technology.  The RBOCs are, of course, free
to compete within their LATAs, but their investment model is
different.  If the cost per CO is high, then RBOCs need a very dense
population to justify adding ATM (or anything else) to many little
COs.  LD carriers have relatively few COs (POPs), so it's cheaper for
them to introduce new switched services.  LD carriers spend more on
long-haul transmission and less on switching (relatively) than RBOCs.

So the RBOCs aren't totally sticks in the mud.  They have some
economic reason for not offering local ATM until demand grows more
widespread.  NTT has both LD and local services, so they have a
different competitive model.  Any big new investment probably raises
the cost of entry, protecting the entrenched market entrant(s), here
NTT.


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

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

From: Anthony E. Siegman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 18:56:51 GMT


> Some person or group is calling people's electronic pagers, and giving
> a call-back number of 212-540-xxxx.  (This prefix in New York acts
> just like a 900 number.)  When the callee dials 212-540-xxxx, s/he is
> connected to a recording and is billed $55.

Dear Mr. Moderator:

   I ask you once again: How can anyone argue that a contractual
relationship, an agreement to pay, can ever be created SIMPLY BY
DIALING A PHONE NUMBER, without _any_ _previous_ agreement between the
two parties?  It's legally absurd (not to mention bad public policy).

   The callee has NOT entered into ANY contract with answering party,
and can't possibly be considered to owe them anything.  Right?


AES


[Moderator's Note: Although the added charges resulting from calls to
900/976/540-like services is in a gray area, there is no question
whatsoever about your 'agreement to pay simply by dialing a phone
number'. When you subscribe to telephone service from any telco, you
are bound by federal and state tariffs which govern telco operations.
One such tariff of every telco says that you are responsible for the
use of your instruments. Period. Would you agree that a contract (and
only a verbal one at that) exists if you specifically request some
service (ie a connection) verbally from an operator?  The dial tone is
telco's solicitation for your service request; your spinning the dial
or pressing the buttons is your response.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 15:32:41 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam


Please note that the Moderator's Note left out area code 516, found
in the Long Island suburbs (NYC area).


[Moderator's Note: Alright already. The point was the 212-540/pager
scam works from NYC and environs. It does not work elsewhere, and the
various memoranda being distributed at present merely contribute to a
new Urban Legend.  My thanks also to several other writers who made
comments on this new Urban Legend, discouraging the repetition of the
story.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thursday, 5 Dec 1991 17:36:20 EST
Subject: Need Brief Info on Frame Relay


Need brief rundown on Frame Relay.  What is it?  Where is it available?

Advantages?  Disadvantages?


Thanks in advance.


Shawn

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Mark Ahlenius)
Subject: Fax Machine Tried to Call Me Daily
Date: 5 Dec 91 14:15:37 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


I had a very bad experience with the phone number that our friends at
Illinois Bell gave me when I moved to our new house.  As it turned out
every evening at 10:27 pm we would get a call from some machine.
Thanks to help from this group, it turned out to be a fax machine
trying to poll another fax machine at my number.

I called Illinois Bell and they told me that a trap would cost me
money to catch this pesty device.  So I borrowed another fax machine
and tried to catch the faxer, hoping that its cover sheet would reveal
who it was and then I could call the folks and kindly request them to
change one of the stored numbers in their machine so it would not call
me anymore.

Well the calling fax machine must have been looking for some password
or ID, so my trap never worked.  Fed up with things I called Illinois
Bell and worked myself up through a few supervisors till I got someone
who was sympathetic with my problem and dilemma.  They first offered to
change my number, but since we had already published it to a large number
of friends and businesses, I declined.  They then told me that the
previous "owner" of that number (Mr and Mrs. X) had a similar problem,
and that it was some bank fax machine that was the culprit.  Apparently
their efforts to catch and correct the problem failed.  They had their
number changed and that cleared that.

Well, Illinois Bell let the number lie dormant for six months or so,
and then when I requested phone service, gave it to me.  So I then
told them that this was "their" problem not mine.  They gave me a
number with a problem attached to it.

They finally agreed to put a trap on the line at no charge to me.
Within a few days of me calling them and telling them, we received the
last call from this phantom fax.


Mark Ahlenius       voice:(708)-632-5346  email: uunet!motcid!ahleniusm
Motorola Inc.      fax:  [phone]  Arlington, Hts. IL, USA     60004


[Moderator's Note: One major bank here in Chicago almost created an
international incident by their irresponsible use of a Fax machine a
few years ago. They had the machine programmed to call some number in
(then) West Germany at 8 PM our time five nights per week to transmit
some sort of report to their agent in that country. But they had the
wrong number in the dialing sequence. The machine was to dial over and
over again until it got through. So at 2 AM in Germany, a family got
calls from a Fax machine in Chicago once a minute or so for about an
hour until the machine would finally give up trying. This went on for
about two weeks until Bundespost got AT&T to get on Illinois Bell's
case and figure it out.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Subject: Woman Abuses 911 - Gets Phone Disconnected
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jacob R. Deglopper)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 21:55:20 GMT


I'm familar with several cases of what are more or less abuses of the
911 system.  There are some people who will call 911 for no other
reason than that they are lonely and need someone to talk to.  One
woman in Oklahoma had a local ambulance stopping by her house each
afternoon just to talk with her and drink tea.  She wouldn't call
if they stopped by, and they had the spare time.

On the other hand, there was a woman in my rescue squad's area who
would call at least once a week at three in the morning, and claim to
be having trouble breathing.  When we got there, she would always be
sitting on the porch smoking, and her problem would miraculously clear
itself up after five minutes, at which time she would refuse to go to
the hospital.  The calls finally ceased when, after months of being
spoken to by both our duty officer and the county police had no effect
on her, C & P disconnected her service.  We got a few calls from her
using her neighbor's phones, but nowhere near what the volume used to
be.


  _/acob DeGlopper, EMT-A, Wheaton Volunteer Rescue Squad
  [e-mail] -- Biomedical Engineering '95, Case Western Reserve
  Opinions my own...

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

From: [e-mail] (gordon grant)
Subject: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations?
Organization: Joint European Torus
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 12:29:23 GMT


I am interested in researching my family's history, and use a wide
variety of sources to piece together the social history of the time.

It struck me that future generations doing the same thing would find
telephone directories a useful source of information. They are neatly
indexed in alphabetical order and while a two year old book ain't much
good a fifty year old one would be interesting.

So do any communities or countries kept old phone just because one day
they will be very old.?


[e-mail]     Gordon Grant     Jet Abingdon OX14 3EA UK
Voice [phone] x4822     Fax [phone]
Disclaimer: Please note that the above is a personal view and should not
be construed as an official comment from the JET project.


[Moderator's Note: The Chicago Public Library has the alphabetical
directories of Illinois Bell (and its pre-1923 predecessor Chicago
Telephone Company) on microfilm back to 1879. I think IBT also has
quite a few old directories on microfilm also. Most large metropolitan
area libraries keep the old directories on film.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 91 16:15:23 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Illinois Bell Really Chose AC 708


The article mentions "every [UK] area code will be prefixed with a 1".
But the only instructions listed are for calls within the UK and for
calls from the UK to abroad.  What does that new "1" mean for calls
from abroad to the UK?  In the case of your number, would it mean:

access code + 44 + 1223 462 131 (i.e. insert that new "1")

or

access code + 44 + 223 462 131 (i.e. ignore that new "1", which would
only affect calls within the UK)?

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Izenberg)
Subject: Re: A Thousand of These Things
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 5:20:29 CST


In Issue 1000, the proud parent wrote:

> Four years ago we had 200+ issues per year, and two years ago we had
> 603 issues. Where will it end?

With a teletype in my living room, or the All-Telecom Channel on
cable.  :-)


Bob
DOMAIN-WISE: [e-mail]  BANG-WISE: ...cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: A Thousand of These Things!
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 03:31:07 GMT


[e-mail] (TELECOM Moderator) writes:

> Four years ago we had 200+ issues per year, and two years ago we had
> 603 issues. Where will it end?

Only when you go to that big telephone exchange in the sky, Patrick,
where the lines are never busy, you never get put on hold, and long-
distance is free.

[sorry, but what a straight line, really ...]

OBTELECOMJOKE

The leader of the Mormons visits the Pope.  During the audience he
notices a shiny red telephone and inquires.  "Oh, thats my direct line
to God, just installed" says the Pope, "go ahead and give him a ring."
The Mormon does so and chats for about 5 minutes.  After the call he
asks, "How much do I owe you?"  The Pope tells him it's about a dollar
a minute.

A few months later the Pope pays a return visit to Utah.  During
the audience he notes the presence of an identical phone.  "It
was such a good idea I had one of my own installed," he is told,"
go ahead and use it."  After the call, the Pope inquires as to
how much he owes.

"Nothing, it's a local call from here!"

(Disclaimer: I'm neither a Mormon nor a Catholic, nor do I play
one on TV)

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


[Moderator's Note: Thanks to everyone who send notes responding to
this comment.  There were far too many to be included here. I found
out just recently from an article written by a Socially Responsible
person in CuD that I am a toad, and I thank him for his input also.
It does me good to be abused occassionally!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1005
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06846;
          8 Dec 91 23:52 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10392
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 19:41:06 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01499
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 8 Dec 1991 19:40:47 -0600
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 19:40:47 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1006

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 8 Dec 91 19:40:38 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1006

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: TV Show Ignores Risks of Radio Phones (Tim Tyler)
    Re: IMTS Mobile Phones (John Gilbert)
    Re: How Does a Cellphone Duplex? (Rob Warnock)
    Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Info Wanted (Cordless Phone Security) (Tad Cook)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Brian Matthews)
    Re: A Thousand of These Things (Richard Budd)
    Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit (Bob Peterson)
    Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? (John Stanley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Tim Tyler)
Subject: Re: TV Show Ignores Risks of Radio Phones
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 91 22:14:20 EST
Organization: UMCC


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

> [e-mail] (Russ Nelson) writes:

>> The screenwriter blew it, though.  Instead of pointing out the
>> insecurity of wireless communication, the Bad Guy had bugged the home
>> office, and that end of the conversation had been overheard that way.

> And, from the Bad Guy's point of view, wiretapping the home office is
> much, MUCH easier.  After all, the Bad Guy knew Our Heroine would
> eventually phone home, right?  He could just bug the office and wait.
> If he had tried to tap the cellular transmissions he'd have had to
> find the particular cell and frequency Our Heroine was using, which
> would be difficult or at least time-consuming.  Then, if she moved to
> another cell in mid-conversation, he'd have to start over!

> Cellphones are insecure, but not *that* insecure.

  Ho-hum, if you worked for Ma Bell, you'd be sprouting the party-line
about how it is difficult to "wiretap."  I knew after reading the
first few lines of your response that you had to be connected with the
cellular industry ...

  If you know the location of the target, it isn't tough to figure out
what cell their conversation would most likely be using.  It is easy
to come up with the channel/frequency matrix used by cells, too, so it
isn't like the bad guy would have to search thru 869.040MHz to 894MHz.

  It isn't too tough to have a physical surveillance on a target, and
kick in some electronic surveillance by simply attenuating the gain on
your receiver, and searching thru the CMT input frequencies until you
locate the input frequency the target is using, then just add 45MHz to
the input frequency to get the full-duplex output.  It isn't tough to
do at all.  In fact, it is much simpler and in most cases less
expensive then gaining physical access to a building, finding the
right circuit pair, and covertly attaching some sort of device that
would provide real-time intelligence.

> The insecurity of a cellphone mostly comes from random people scanning
> random channels.  You can easily listen in to some random

 A lot of the insecurity comes from public ignorance, which the
cellular phone industry uses to their advantage.  Once the digital
systems start to come on-line, the cellular industry will switch
tactics, and start talking about how non-secure/vulnerable the 'old'
analog CMTs are, and how people that want privacy (who doesn't?) should
dump their old CMTs, and spend $1500+ on the digital ones ...

> I'd say the screenwriter called this one pretty well, whether or not
> they knew it.  Bad Guys are a lazy bunch, and it's just too darned
> much work to trail someone and constantly scan for their cellphone!

  I didn't watch the TV show in question, but apparently you think it
is easier to find, access, tap, and monitor a particular office phone
than it is to use a little 800MHz scanner and follow someone in a car?


Tim Tyler   Internet: [e-mail]  MCI Mail: 442-5735  C$erve: 72571,1005
P.O. Box 443   Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
Ypsilanti MI   48197-0443

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

From: [e-mail] (John)
Subject: Re: IMTS Mobile Phones
Organization: Motorola, Inc. Land Mobile Products Sector
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 02:19:05 GMT


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

>> I recall these mobile phones selling for about $1500-$2500 used back
>> in 1980 -- and in some areas, someone literally had to die before a
>> mobile phone number would become available....

> Very true!  I knew of a Westinghouse corporate executive who waited
> for over two years for a moble phone number.  He told me that had he
> not been with circle W (lots of pull in the Pittsburgh area) he would
> not have gotten it when he did.

Often times mobile numbers would be obtained in unpopulated rural
areas in the midwest for use in the more populated cities.  This
created even more congestion in the cities.  While working for a two-way
shop in Florida I programmed several IMTS car phones for Kansas/Nebraska
area codes.  These guys lived in Florida and had these numbers because
that was their only choice.

The roaming information was kept on a common data base that allowed
easy roaming all over the country.  Land-to-mobile calls had to be
operator handled, but that was a small price to pay.

These IMTS car phones were programmed by using wire jumpers to program
the area code and last four digits of the local phone number.  As a
result of this, only 10,000 IMTS phones can exist per area code.
Changing a number was as simple as opening up the radio and moving the
wires.


John Gilbert     [e-mail]     KA4JMC
Secure and Advanced Conventional Sys Div    Astro Systems Development
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector   Schaumburg, Illinois

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

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 07:16:17 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re: How Does a Cellphone Duplex?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Rob Warnock)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc., Mountain View, CA


[e-mail] writes:

> How does a cellphone duplex its antenna for send and receive?  A
> traditional cavity duplexor wouldn't fit in a shirt-pocket phone, even
> at 800 MHz.  Even if it would, it wouldn't be frequency-agile enough.

Surprise! It's a pretty traditional duplexor! Made out of stripline,
to be sure, but about what you'd expect. However, remember that the
transmit and receive frequencies are 832 channels apart, so it's not
as hard as if they were co-frequency.


Rob Warnock, MS-1L/515      [e-mail]
Silicon Graphics, Inc.      [phone]
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.   Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

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

Subject: Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted (Cordless Phone Security)
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 5 Dec 91 23:57:22 GMT


[e-mail] (Michael Rosen) says:

> I used to use a Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone that had a dip-switch
> security code system.  At times I could pick up other conversations
> without them hearing me, which I assumed was due to the security code
> -- they couldn't cut in on my phone but I could on theirs.  Is this a
> correct assumption?

No!  All the security code does is provide some sort of protection
against other parties randomly accessing your dialtone and making
unrestricted calls on your phone line.  There is no fancy voice
scrambling or any other kind of encryption going on.

> Should I feel reasonably safe that no one will overhear my phone
> calls on this Panasonic phone?

No!  Any cordless phone call can be easily monitored by anyone in the
area, sometimes blocks away, who has a cheap VHF scanner radio tuned
to the ten frequencies at 46 MHz that are assigned to the base units
of cordless telephones.  They can be listening much further away than
you would normally operate the remote handset, so it is easy to get
fooled by the range of these things.  Depending on the cordless phone,
the local RF environment and the placement of the base unit, sometimes
monitoring can be done from over a quarter mile away.  Privacy of
cordless phone calls is specifically not protected by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.

If anyone is curious about what the frequency pairs are, email me and
I'll send you a list.  Some of the ten frequencies in the 49 Mhz band
which serves the remote handset part of the unit are also shared with
those Radio Shack room monitors, Fisher Price nursery monitors, and
kids' walkie talkies.


 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
              |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad

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

From: 6sigma2@polari!sumax.seattleu.edu (Brian Matthews)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix [phone]
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 17:17:09 GMT


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

> For some reason, people who get a wrong number are hard to convince
> that they could have dialed wrong ...
> And for the most part they are very rude. Lately, I have noticed an
> upsurge of wrong numbers on all of my voice-answerable lines.

I thought I was the only one.  Recently I've been getting far more
wrong numbers than I ever have before.  I've got the same number I've
had for at least ten years, and there doesn't seem to be one specific
person everyone is looking for.

Every once in a while, one of the callers will be nice and apologize
for distrubing me.  Most of them are rude and obnoxious.

> Now someone tell me: why, making forty or fifty calls a day, do I not
> ever remember reaching a wrong number (at least in the past few
> years), and yet I receive five to ten of them a day?

The only time I can recall dialing a wrong number is when I was given
a wrong number by someone.  I only had to dial it once to realize it
was wrong (unlike some people who insist on calling three or four
times within a few minutes, even though I told them the first time
that they got the number they were dialing but the party they are
looking for isn't and has never been at this number).  I guess I've
never understood the difficulty in dialing a telephone.


Brian L. Matthews    [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Why not use the Townson Plan For Rude Wrong Number
Callers? I just use *69 to get them back on the line and say something
like "uh, what did you want? you just called me."  "Oh," they say, "I
got a wrong number, sorry."  I ask them in the future to say that
automatically, without waiting for a callback.  Since *69 only works
within the 312/708 area, I don't worry that it might be a long
distance call. The number of people who do not yet know about *69 is
quite amazing, based on the number of 'how did you know who I was'
replies I get from the people I call back and intimidate. :)   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 17:30:11 EST
From: "Richard Budd" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: A Thousand of These Things!


The Moderator writes in TELECOM DIGEST #1000:

> Who would have expected TELECOM Digest to ever reach the point there
> would be in excess of 1000 issues each year?

It's a sign that TELECOMMUNICATIONS has become a CRITICAL issue in the
Information Age.  You also have many more subscribers receiving these
newsletter than before, hence more contributors.

The problem now is TELECOM is time-consuming to read that I and others
must be more selective about which articles to look at.  Some days the
whole packet has to be deleted ... there is too much happening.

Suggestions on how to scan for articles of interest would be well
appreciated. (You may already have some, I'm sure.)


Richard Budd          Internet: [e-mail]
IBM Sterling Forest   Bitnet:   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: I strongly encourage *selective* reading of TELECOM
Digest. I don't know anyone who actually reads it all and absorbs it.
I liken it to reading the daily newspaper. You don't cancel your
subscription to the paper merely because you never read every single
article in the paper. I use relatively little of what is received, and
yet there still is a huge output as you have seen. Use software tools
at your disposal to selectively find articles of interest. Use the
index which appears at the start of each issue. If reading comp.dcom.
telecom (like any other Usenet group) then use the '=' command which
scans new article titles to select only the ones of interest. I try
like a newspaper editor to have things here for everyone, not actually
expecting everyone to read everything (except Moderator Notes of
course, those are mandatory reading.)  :)   PAT]

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

Subject: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit
From: [e-mail] (Bob Peterson)
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 91 19:40:08 CST
Organization: The Zeitgeist BBS, Plano, TX  214 596 3720


/PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com writes:

> [Moderator's Note: You can get on and off of PC Pursuit in the same
> city, although they discourage it since it ties up two ports and as we
> have been reading here, they are not authorized to sell service within
> the same LATA.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't understand why PC Pursuit falls under the same regulations as
a long distance telephone company.  I understood PCP offered offpeak
time on a packet-switched data network, quite independent of the
switched telephone service used for each end of the connection.  That
is, PCP never was a part of the "telephone" network, but a distinct
entity.  Your logic would imply the Internet could not send a message
between two machines in the same city!


Bob Peterson         Waffle BBS: [e-mail]
P.O. Box 861686      Internet: [e-mail]  TelCo: 214 995-6080 days
Plano, Tx USA 75086  BBS: 214 596-3720 @1200, 2400, 9600-14400 (HST & V.32bis)


[Moderator's Note: Good point. I think you are correct and I stand
corrected. Telenet has in the past objected to same-city calling over
their network and it does not make a lot of sense to do it since you
have to pay telco for a call to the PCP indial anyway ... why not just
dial the desired seven digit number instead.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John Stanley)
Subject: Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?
Organization: Oregon State University, College of Oceanography
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 15:21:42 GMT


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

> Before you sign up for this service, be very sure you want it.

> [Moderator's Note: My experience with PCP has been a bit different.

I don't doubt that.

> I've been a subscriber since approximatly a week after the service
> began in 1984. Billing was offered originally, and as might be
> expected, it was fraught with problems, not the least of which was
> fraud aplenty.

So, are you saying that PC Pursuit's ability to commit fraud is more
important than mine? They now have an open line into my credit card,
and have open lines into many people's checking accounts.

Think about it this way: if PC Pursuit doesn't trust me to pay my
bill, why should I trust them not to clean out my checking account
were I stupid enough to give them that number?

> I find PCP to be an extremely useful and
> economical method of placing data calls long distance. Regardless of
> how newer users are required to pay, where else can you get long

I didn't say otherwise.

> distance data transmission for $1 per hour (or 83 cents per hour under
> the $50 per month plan?).  PAT]

$50 for 50 hours is $1/hour.


[Moderator's Note: It is not a question of their ability to commit
fraud being more important than yours ... it is the fact that the
likelyhood of them committing fraud which goes undetected and without
restitution being made is much less than the likelyhood of their
customers doing the same to them ... present readership excepted, of
course. They have been in a fixed location for many years and the
'audit trail' left by their billing/bookkeeping practices is easy to
follow. Unfortunatly the same cannot be said about all their
'customers' in the past, some of whom ripped them off repeatedly with
bogus names, addresses and phone numbers for a couple years prior to
the changes they implemented.

Under the old system, you opened an account and said 'bill me'. They
in good faith issued a user ID and password to you that day ... then
they never heard from you again and the mail would bounce from the
post office after you (and others you gave the password to) had used
the service for several hundred hours over a couple months. If you
like the present arrangement, thank the phreaks for making it
possible!  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1006
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14496;
          9 Dec 91 3:25 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25642
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 9 Dec 1991 01:36:05 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22728
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 9 Dec 1991 01:35:52 -0600
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 01:35:52 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1007

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Dec 91 01:35:43 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1007

Index To This Issue:                      Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (John Higdon)
    Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Robert L. McMillin)
    Re: ISDN on BBC (Alan Boritz)
    Re: Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One (Jack Decker)
    Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA? (Jack Decker)
    Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted (Richard McCombs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 18:36 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan


[e-mail] (Phil Tait, [phone]) writes:

>  ... apparently from a location from Japan. If postings to this
> newsgroup must be mailed to the Moderator, how was this done in the
> absence of Internet E-mail connectivity to that country? Or is this no
> longer the case?

Depends on what you mean by "The Internet". There are many private
individuals and companies who have e-mail links between locations in
the United States and Japan. Many of these people and organizations
also have Internet connectivity. If you look closely, you will notice
a number of people who participate in this forum from Japan, as did I
when in Tokyo earlier this year.

In my case, the trans-Pacific hop was accomplished by a private
company. Even this site has private connectivity with a site in Japan.
Most of these gateways are documented in the UUCP maps.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 04:07:12 GMT


[e-mail] (Phil Tait, [phone]) writes:

    [asking about email to Japan]

> [Moderator's Note: We receive a number of submissions from Mr. Woodhead
> here and they come through with no difficulty, so my assumption is
> that email works as well from Japan as anywhere else. I know the
> Digest goes to a couple sites there which have telecom news groups.  PAT]

Newsgroups are widely distributed in Japan.  There are two main email
links, one through Bitnet (supposedly, for academic use only) and one
through "INET-CLUB," which basically dials up the USA and charges the
Japanese senders/recipients for the costs of the calls.  Also, in the
near future, a consortium here is arranging to put up a proper inter-
net link.

In addition, inside Japan there are a number of "fj" newsgroups and
mailing lists, both in English and Kanji, that are not distributed
outside of Japan because they contain information that scrutable
westerners are not meant to know.


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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 20:09:58 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan


Phil Tait asks about Internet connectivity to Japan:

> ... apparently from a location from Japan. If postings to this
> newsgroup must be mailed to the Moderator, how was this done in the
> absence of Internet E-mail connectivity to that country? Or is this no
> longer the case?

According to my copy of _!%@:: A Directory of Electronic Mail
Addressing and Networks_ (Donnalyn Frey/Rick Adams; O'Reilly &
Associates, Inc., 2nd Edition, May 1990), Japan has *several* links to
the Internet, including the WIDE Internet link, JUNET (which connects
to EUnet, USENET, UUCPnet, CSNET, and Internet), among about a dozen
or so.

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

Date: Wed, 09 Oct 91 07:49:34 EDT
From: [e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Subject: Re: ISDN on BBC


In an article <[e-mail]> Harold Hallikainen
writes:

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

>> Speaking of heavy signal
>> processing, I remember going to a New York SBE meeting and getting a
>> tour of Andy Alford's multiplexor antenna.

>> station's segments of the multiplexor had common household fans aimed
>> at their exposed innards.  Each of the stations with a fan punched up
>> the bass and used companding.  It was amusing to watch a VU meter
>> measure their audio level: Never more than a 4db change in amplitude.
>> (PPM metering told a much different story, however.)

>     I don't think "punched up bass and companding" would make the use of
> a fan necessary on the multiplexor.

The fans are made necessary because of seasonally high ambient
temperatures within the mooring mast, since there is no ventilation
system installed in that area of the building.  The apparent
sloppiness is a testimonial to something other than "ingenuity," since
a few clever station "engineers" rigged more asthetically pleasing
muffin fans under the reject loads.  When I last inspected them in
August, the "household fans" were gone and most of the muffin fans
were seized or burned out.  The extra fans were merely a precautionary
measure, since the reject loads should be well within manufacturer's
tolerance during normal operation.

The system was designed with thermostatic switches and optional fans
for the diplexor cavities, but it appears that after the power
increase project in the 70's all thermostatic switches were gone in
favor of everyone running their cavity cooling fans continuously.
Unfortunately, that also means that the interlock has no temperature
sense, but at least 10 of the 11 stations on the system have a VSWR
alarm that will shut down all the stations in the event of a VSWR
fault.

However, none of the stations use "companding," just a garden variety
of contemporary broadcast audio processors.  I would hope the original
writer wasn't referring to the uncalibrated reject load reflectometers
as "VU" meters, since they look similar and are mounted on the
diplexor supports.

> The power on an FM should be
> independent of the modulation, unless real high frequencies modulate
> real heavily, going outside the bandbass of the multiplexor, which I
> don't think was the case.

Well, the last AEL transmitter in the US is still there, though not in
daily use.  Just fire up one of Arno Meyer's old half-finished AEL
exciters into that thing and you'll see LOT'S of heat! ;-)

Incidently, speaking of FM's and high temperatures, the system failure
earlier this year wasn't caused by air temperature at all.  The
neoprene sleeve inside one of the diplexors (through which a tuning
bullet slides) shrunk, allowing dust and dirt to enter the inside of
one of the diplexor cavities and deposit itself within one of the RF
hybrids.  An arc across the contamination started it burning, and the
rest is history.  Funny thing was that Alford identified precisely
that problem about 20 years earlier (even the section that recently
burned), and presented a method of preventing it from happening.
Needless to say, it was never followed, even though all of the
stations received a copy of the inspection report.  Sure gives you a
warm fuzzy feeling to know that radio stations in the nation's largest
radio market know their business so well, eh? ;-)


Alan Boritz    former Telecom Manager, Empire State Building
[e-mail]   * The Hourglass BBS * [phone] *
Fidonet: 1:2604/[e-mail]   1:269/[e-mail]
UUCP: tronsbox!hourgls!%s   Internet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 22:22:12 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Michigan Bell Pulls a Fast One


In a message dated 27 Nov 91 17:26:12 GMT, [e-mail]
(tim gorman) writes:

> [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein) writes in TELECOM
> Digest V11 #971:

>> While it's true that some tiny teeny amount of the telco's cost is
>> related to local USAGE, it probably costs them more to measure it than
>> the usage itself costs.

>> The cost of hauling a LOCAL call usually ranges from about a penny a
>> minute (in the highest-cost places) down to a small fraction of a mil
>> per minute.  So the proposed rates are literally ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
>> higher than the costs!

> Exactly the same equipment, facilities, etc. are used on toll calls,
> both intraLATA and interLATA. Technically, there is no difference
> between the costs for an interLATA carrier and an LEC to provide their
> network switches.  Facility milage, of course, has a much wider range
> but many interLATA toll calls are no longer than intraLATA toll calls.

> Would you thus apply the same logic to toll calls? Is it a ripoff that
> they are priced based on usage?

Well, since you asked ...

In some respects I DO in fact think it's a bit of a ripoff, and is
becoming more and more so as technological advances yield greater
circuit capacity at far lower cost.  The problem is that some parts of
the telephone system are still a monopoly and therefore they can still
dictate how a call must be charged by the way they set their charges.

Let's suppose for a moment that a company like MCI or Sprint were
suddenly allowed to compete at the local exchange level.  At that
point they could offer end-to-end service, without the necessity of
paying "per-minute" access charges to a local exchange carrier.  At
that point, they just might decide (especially if they have a LOT of
excess circuit capacity) to offer some sort of flat-rate off-peak
calling plan for residential users ... for example, pay a flat $50 a
month and talk to anyone in the country, as long as you like, between
(let's say) 8 PM and 8 AM and all day Saturday.  Note that in this
case, although there would be a time-of-day restriction, the calls
themselves would not be charged based on usage.

I think such a plan could be a very profitable one for a long distance
carrier, but we'll never know because the local exchange companies
keep insisting that somehow they have a commodity that can be "used
up" in some sense.  The ONE thing that is different about toll calls
(I'll consider only intraLATA toll calls here) is that there may in
fact be a finite amount of circuit capacity between two points that
could conceivably be (and at present sometimes is) exceeded during
heavy calling periods.  However, most local exchanges have
traditionally been designed with sufficient capacity to handle local
calling volumes, including normal amounts of "extended area service"
calls to adjacent exchanges.

What really gets me is that, at least in this area, most of the
interexchange trunking has been replaced with fiber-optic cabling in
recent months.  Where in the past, there might have been 20 or 200
circuits between a given pair of exchanges, now there is several
thousand ... MORE than enough to handle ANY anticipated call volume
and then some ... and if by some odd chance more capacity is needed,
you simply hang newer eqipment on each end of the fiber that is
capable of pushing even more calls through the same fiber.

For the past fifty years or so, when the phone companies were dealing
with metallic cable or microwave for interexchange connections, and
had only a limited number of circuits available, they were perfectly
able to offer flat-rate service within a local calling area.  Now all
of a sudden they have this marvelous increase in capacity, and
suddenly they feel the need to charge by the call and/or by the
minute!  Why?  Not because the have the NEED to do so, but because new
computerized equipment gives them the CAPABILITY to do so.

It all kind of reminds me of the German barons who used to build
castles along the river and then set up lines across the river to stop
any ships that happened along, and then charge hefty tolls to the
hapless captains before they could proceed.  On the one hand, I
suppose you could say that the barons "owned" the river ... BUT, in no
way were their costs increased when a ship passed; they just saw an
opportunity to take money from someone else and they did it.  The
phone companies are doing the exact same thing, in my opinion.  They
could run a profitable system while charging everyone only a flat
monthly charge, as they did for many years (for local calls), but
GREED gets in the way.

When AT&T first introduced outgoing WATS lines back in the mid-60's,
you could purchase a flat rate option.  For example, you could pay
about $2,000 per month for a "Band 5" WATS line (all of the
continental U.S. except your home state).  This was later discontinued
BUT I have to think that if there had been other competitors around at
the time, not only might that option still be available but it would
likely be priced much more reasonably.

So to answer your question directly, I definitely think that LOCAL
measured service is a ripoff, and there ARE times when I think that
the lack of availablilty of flat-rate toll options may also constitute
a ripoff as well.  Just because flat-rate toll options have only
rarely been offered in the past doesn't mean they couldn't be, and you
wouldn't dare cite traditional pricing in this context anyway unless
you wanted us to consider that local flat-rate service has been
available in most areas since phone servive began!


Jack Decker   [e-mail]    FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 22:31:48 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Non-PacBell Calls in SF Bay Area LATA?


In a message dated 1 Dec 91 04:10:00 GMT, fmsys![e-mail].
CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) writes:

> Here in Ohio (wherever the heck that is ...), we have at least one
> carrier (Litel) that takes any call dialed with a 700 area code and
> routes it as a home area code call.

I believe that Telecom USA (now owned by MCI, but still operated as a
separate company) also offers this capability.  You can reach their
customer service department at 1-800-955-5444 if you want to check on
this (no, I'm not affiliated with them in any way).

> In Ohio, intra-LATA competition is entirely legal and open ... unlike
> the People's Republic of California.

The same is true in Michigan, although you must dial the 10XXX code of
the carrier you want to use (or some other mechanism such as 1-700+ if
your carrier allows it) ... if you just dial "1" plus the number on an
intraLATA call, it defaults to Michigan Bell or GTE North, depending
on which of those two provides intraLATA toll service to your
exchange.


Jack Decker    [e-mail]    FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Subject: Re: Panasonic KX-T3910 Information Wanted
From: [e-mail] (Richard McCombs)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 91 19:16:08 CST
Organization: The Red Headed League


[e-mail] (Alan Marc Gallatin) writes:

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

[original poster said something about a security dip switch.]

>> Should I feel reasonably safe that no one will overhear my phone calls
>> on this Panasonic phone?

> I'd like to think so, but I suppose we'll never know for sure!!

I'm suprised someone else hasn't told you but the security dip switch
thingy is so that you can prevent someone esle within range of your
base from getting a dial tone and making long distance calls. It does
_not_ prevent you calls from being monitored by scanner listeners and
possibly other cordless phones.  In fact there was a case a year or
two ago where a guy recorded someone's conversations regarding some
illegal activity and gave the tape to the police and I think the case
went to the Supreme Court, and they ruled that when you give up the
cord, you give up privacy.  (I don't know why they don't see cellular
the same way.)

> Any other specific questions?  E-mail, don't post!
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        Does that mean you aren't reading this and I should have sent
you a copy?


Rick    Internet  [e-mail]
UUCP  ...!ricksys!rick [use the maps]


[Moderator's Note: I think he means that quite frequently an answer
may be of interest mainly to the original poster, who wishes to help
hold traffic in the newsgroup to a minimum.  But his comment was a
good one and your reply warrented inclusion here.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1007
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17036;
          9 Dec 91 4:32 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12036
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 9 Dec 1991 02:32:44 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21743
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 9 Dec 1991 02:32:30 -0600
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 02:32:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1008

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 9 Dec 91 02:32:23 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1008

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    C & P Stupidity (Baby Bell on the Loose) (Steven P. Miale)
    FAX Switch; Distinctive Ringing Switch Wanted (Ron Saad)
    Questions to Stimulate Conversation (Jack Decker)
    Cellular For Second Home Now Very Common in Sweden (Robert Lindh)
    Details Wanted on LogiTech "Fax Back" Number (Steven M. Palm)
    Recycling Phone Books (Nigel Allen)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (F. Roeber)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (Jon Allen)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (A. Sherman)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (V. Shipley)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Paul Wallich)
    Last Laugh! Re: 900-Number Trade Show and Exposition (David Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Steven P. Miale)
Subject: C & P Stupidity (Baby Bell on the Loose)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Steven P. Miale)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 01:08:10 GMT


A phone company near where I live - C&P - has now got that great idea
in its head to charge BBSs business rates. Seems someone gave them a
list of about 15 or so.

Apparently, they had a meeting and had 25 fliers printed to handle the
expected turnout. 200 showed up :-). They quickly decided to rescind
the rates -- temporarily.

The BBSs which *do* make a profit have agreed to pay business rates,
but as always, the vast majority make no profit. Once again, the "Baby
Bell on the loose" syndrome.


Steven Miale       University of Virginia
Undergraduate Researcher  [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri,  6 Dec 91 15:43:46 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ron Saad)
Subject: FAX Switch; Distinctive Ringing Switch Wanted
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I am in search of two items -- a FAX/phone/modem/etc switch that
checks for the FAX CNG but that can also be controlled by DTMF tones,
and a switch that directs calls based on distinctive ringing
("IdentARing" in this part of the country).

I have searched through the archives of this group to only discover
one 800 number, which currently is answered by "Weber Grill, may I
help you?" ...

Any pointers would be appreciated -- especially for sources that are
not as expensive as Hello Direct.  (Is there a list somewhere of some
of the mail order suppliers?)

I'd be happy to summarize email responses if there's an interest.

Thanks in advance,


Ron Saad - WF2K      ...!att!whamg!ron    [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 17:11:08 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Questions to Stimulate Conversation


There are a couple of questions that have formed in my mind for which
I'd really like to get responses from others:

1) Suppose YOU were put in charge of your state's Public Utilities
Commission (or the FCC) and could actually have a say in how telephone
companies are regulated.  What one or two things would you most like
to see changed, keeping in mind that the phone companies DO have to
make a profit?  I would only say to please not limit your response
because you think it's something that will never happen, or that it's
a silly idea or some such.  I'd really be interested to know what
changes people would really like to see in the way telephone service
is offered.

2) Let's say that you were a bit of a telephone enthusiast but had
very little money to start a business (let's suppose that, heaven
forbid, you just got out of jail after a 25 year sentence for phone
phreaking and you went in when you were 15, so now you're 40 and have
no money and no way to get a loan, but you want to start an HONEST
telephone-related business.  Okay, it's stretching a point, I admit,
but I think you see where I'm leading).  Is there any sort of honest
business (not a scam of some sort) that a person with a fair amount of
knowledge about the phone system, but very little capital or formal
education could start and run successfully?  The first thought that
comes to mind is a telephone answering service, but that does require
some equipment and in many areas there's already stiff competition.
Any other thoughts come to mind?

If you don't feel comfortable posting to the newsgroup, or if Pat
prefers, you can send your responses to me and I'll summarize.
Obviously, you need NOT answer BOTH questions, a response to either of
the two will be fine.


Jack Decker    [e-mail]    FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert Lindh)
Subject: Cellular For Second Home Now Very Common in Sweden
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 20:02:23 GMT


According to an advertisment from one of the cellular operators in
Sweden (Televerket) more than 100,000 new subscribers in the last six
months have subscribed to the cellular service 'NMT 450 Red'.

This may not sound very much, but Sweden only has eight million
inhabitants.  So 100,000 means that 2% of all households in Sweden
have purchased a cellular telephone in the last six months.

When you subscribe to 'NMT 450 Red', the cellular operator will not
charge you anything unless you make any calls. (No fixed charge,
regardless if you make calls or not.) If you make calls during
business hours, they cost appr USD 2.50/minute. If you make calls
outside business hours (including weekends) the cost for a call is
approximately USD 0.50/minute.

The advantage of the cellular solution is of course that when you make
very few calls and more or less want to have a telephone available for
an emergency only and the telephone is not for your first home, the
cellular is cheaper. (To get a telephone for your first home cost USD
100, regardless if you have ten feet or 1000 miles to the telephone
network.)

Standard disclaimer: "Only my personal opinion, of course."

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 91 10:18:27 CST
From: "Steven M. Palm" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Details Wanted on LogiTech Fax-Back Number


I recently `discovered' a "Fax-Back" number.  Actually it was
mentioned on a BBS system in town here, but no details were given with
it, and the person is not a regular user.

It is operated by LogiTech, and the number is 1-800-245-0000.
However, it mentions "Ordering" a catalog.  There is no mention of
pricing or of any billing method, but I am leary of this sort of
thing.  I'd hate to get a nice surprise on a phone bill for a $250
catalog or something. <shudder>

Does anyone have any information on it?


[e-mail]   Steven M. Palm

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 7 Dec 91 21:37:00
Subject: Recycling Phone Books in Canada
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


Telephone books have traditionally been harder to recycle than old
newspapers because the directories are glued together and have covers
made of coated (shiny) paper.

The following article from the Quebec edition of Bell News, Bell
Canada's employee newspaper, describes how discarded phone books end
up as paper towels. The article also refers to Tele-Direct
(Publications) Inc., Bell Canada's directory subsidiary.

Let Your Fingers Do The Mopping ... With the Yellow Pages

When are Bell's and Tele-Direct's directories more green than their
White or Yellow Pages? When they land on grocery store shelves as a
new recycled product.

The supermarket chain, Loblaws, is introducing recycled paper towels
made of 33% used telephone directories. They are billed as the
President's Choice G.R.E.E.N. Jumbo Club Pack Yellow Pages with the
Yellow Pages name and logo featured prominently on the packaging.
[President's Choice is the Loblaws' house brand for products of
comparable quality to nationally-advertised brands. Some President's
Choice products - chocolate chip cookies, for example - are extremely
good. - NDA]

Loblaws is selling the eight-roll Yellow Pages as another product in
its variety of "environmentally-friendly food service products." The
paper towels are also being sold in a number of other stores,
including Mr. Grocers, Valumart and Hasty Market.

Cascades, a Quebec-based manufacturer of paper products, recovers and
recycles Bell directories and then produces the beige-colored paper
towels which contain post-consumer recycled paper fibres exclusively.
The two-ply towels are not bleached because this process is considered
harmful to the environment.

Cascades is also helping Bell to "close the recycling loop" by
recycling material -- including directories and office paper --
collected from the company and then selling back to Bell the finished
products, such as paper towels, toilet paper and envelopes.

However, Bell's preference is to reduce the amount of solid waste
leaving its premises. Automatic air dryers are being installed in Bell
buildings to minimize paper towel usage.

It is estimated that about 25% of the 40,000 tons of paper used each
year to produce the phonebooks are collcted and earmakred for
recycling through initiatives such as blue box [a receptacle for
recyclable garbage such as newspapers and metal cans, itself made of
recycled plastic -- nothing to do with the phreaker's blue box] or
curb-side pick-ups and recycling depot collections.

One of Bell Canada's environmental objectives is to find new uses for
discarded directories. Last year, Bell and Tele-Direct provided
approximately $300,000 in funding to Canadian universities to research
alternative uses such as animal bedding and as a component in
low-strength concrete.

(end of Bell News article)


Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario   NorthAmeriNet Host

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Date: 8 Dec 91 14:58:44 GMT


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

> Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must
> now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones
> located in the same region, but I've never heard of it.  Does it
> exist?  Is it possible?

The phones in my building -- Swiss PTT "Tritel Davos" -- have a knob
which changes the ring cadence.  Well, not exactly the cadence: the
PBX always sends one of two ring cadences, for internal and external.
But the phones generate electronic noise, and the speed of this can be
changed.

For example: at one end of the spectrum, the two-second ring sounds
like: "Doooo Daaaa Deeee."  Crank the knob, and you get "Do Da De Do
Da De Do Da De."


Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: [e-mail] or [e-mail] | work: [phone]
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Allen)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Jon Allen)
Organization: AT&T IMS - Piscataway, NJ (USA)
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 16:21:10 GMT


At my office most phones attached to our AT&T System 85 PBX have a
switch to select one of several different rings/pitches.  These are
the fancier phones, I guess, that come with the switch (phone models
74XX??).  I have found that the ring type/pitch can be adjusted on
both analog and digital types of these phones.


jon

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

From: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Date: 8 Dec 91 23:21:35 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Andy Sherman)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


The terminal sets (fancy telco-talk for phones) that came with System
85 (now the Definity(R) system) PBX had switch settable ring patterns
on the phone.

The AT&T 7xxx (I don't remember the number) ISDN set on my desk at
work has a settable ring pattern.  While I can identify the switch as
a 5ESS(R), it is a property of the set.

Definity and 5ESS are registered trademarks of AT&T.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  [phone]
READABLE: [e-mail]  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1991 04:20:04 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Richard A. Thomas) writes:

> Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must
> now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones
> located in the same region, but I've never heard of it.  Does it
> exist?  Is it possible?

Sure, this is common.  As an example the Northern Telecom
SL-1/Meridian 1 has selectable ring cadences for the digital business
sets and the POTS style Unity sets have a frequency adjustment on the
bottom.


Vance Shipley     vances@xenitec  vances@ltg  ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 17:28:43 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Wallich) writes:

> On the other hand, as a journalist I find this a potentially
> interesting concept. Ever since Caller-ID started coming, I've been
> having these horrible not-so-paranoid fantasies about trying to reach
> a source at <pick-your-major-corporation-or-government> and finding
> that their PBX no longer accepts calls from the media or else
> transfers them to the PR office. (Ditto for blocked calls) Remember
> that sources already have to think twice about calling reporters
> because it's easy to compare the outgoing call log to published
> numbers for people you don't want called.

And PAT writes:

> [Moderator's Note: If you 'have fantasies' about people not accepting
> phone calls from newspaper reporters, has it ever occurred to you that
> the way some reporters and newspapers abuse people, totally fabricate
> some stories while mis-reporting others may be part of the reason they
> would not accept your call? I am not singling you out -- I am saying
> many reporters shape their stories to match their preconcieved ideas.
> Consider the ridiculous things which have been printed about this net
> at one time or another.  People and companies have been burned by the
> media many times.  Then there are those reporters who always are given
> gracious access to whomever they wish. Why is that?  PAT]

It has occurred to me, and I have discarded the idea. Many reporters
are given gracious access by some (perhaps even many) companies, but
_some_ companies and organizations have decided that they will either
write a reporter's story word-for-word or attempt to have it killed.
Those companies, for example, may refuse to connect a reporter's calls
through the switchboard. With Caller-ID, they could block the calls
even if the reporter had the direct-dial number of someone who wanted
to talk.

My point is that if people at an organization have decided they want
to talk to me, it would be nice if the telecomm staff of that
organization was not in a position to prevent such communication. In
addition to certain large companies, institutions that I expect to put
in PBX blocks include many local and federal government offices,
especially the five-sided kind. If you believe that your boss should
be able to control the phone calls you receive, fine. If you believe
in even some limited version of a public right to know, this could be
a problem.


Paul


[Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the
public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist
that all communications come from the individuals they designate.
Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or
about their employer without the employer's permission to do so.  PAT]

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

Date: Saturday, 7 Dec 1991 08:56:28 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Last Laugh! Re: 900-Number Trade Show and Exposition
Organization: York University


[e-mail] (Warren Burstein) wrote:

> [e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

>> For information, call PPC Expo, Inc. at [phone].

> Why not a 900 number? :-)

Must have something to do with the maxim regarding honour among
thieves :-)


[e-mail], and just about every other mail service known
in the universe it seems....

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1008
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11039;
          10 Dec 91 6:59 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14700
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 10 Dec 1991 03:27:57 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11932
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 10 Dec 1991 03:27:33 -0600
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 03:27:33 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1009

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 10 Dec 91 03:27:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1009

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Public Payphones on German ICE Trains (Nigel Roberts)
    FCC Information Seekers Guide (Dave Leibold)
    T1 on Fiber? (Juergen Ziegler)
    Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Phydeaux)
    Cancelling Pacbell's "Message Center" Service (Henry Mensch)
    Telcommunications BOF at ICIS in NY? (Kevin Crowston)
    FCC, COCOT's and DA (David Lesher)
    ATT Mail Minimum Monthly Billing Plan Cancelled (Van Schallenberg)
    Re: Are Phone Books Archives For Future Generations? (Nigel Roberts)
    Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Carl Moore)
    Re: A Short Story Telecom Readers Might Enjoy (Cristobal Pedregal Martin)
    What is an RF1400 Noise Eliminator? (Michael Rosen)
    Re: AT&T Spirit Phones -- Where to Get? (Macy Hallock)
    Looking For Networks List ([e-mail])
    Just Dial 1-900-Pizza (Robert L. McMillin)
    Humour : Urban Legend (John Slater)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Larry Rachman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 06:30:54 PST
From: "Nigel Roberts, FRN-605, DTN 785-1018" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Public Payphones on German ICE trains


Last weekend, I had the occasion to travel between Frankfurt/Main and
Hamburg on the new ICE train (InterCity Express, similar in some ways
to the French TGV).

There are two public telephones on the train, which are connected to
the C-Netz cellular network. They are of a new design, quite
dissimilar from the old B-Netz coin operated phones and look like one
of the new generation of German public telephones. They don't take
cash, but operate using 'smart cards` (either pre-payment or debit
cards) from Telekom (Deutsche Bundespost). The pre-payment variety
(costing DM 12 -- about five or six dollars) are readily available
from the "ICE-Service" compartment, conveniently located close by.

On Friday I had no problem making several calls; I got through first
time and the connection quality was excellent. Returning on Sunday was
a different matter, though, and it proved extremely difficult to get
through, no matter whether the call destination was Germany or abroad.

Call charges are expensive. There were no tariffs posted anywhere that
I could see (Somehow I thought that was required in Germany ...) but
timing the call showed that a national call within Germany to be
charged at a rate of DM 2.00 per minute. ($1.25 or so)

One *really* nice feature is that both BT _UK Direct_ service and AT&T
_USA Direct_ service are available via the usual access numbers. (I
didn't try MCI's _Call USA_, but that should work too.) You will still
need to insert a pre-payment card but there will be no charge except
in the normal way via BT or AT&T. (This is MUCH MUCH cheaper than
dialing direct from these particular phones).

There are a couple of technical oddities -- in the case of directly
dialed calls, the distant ringing tone seems to be generated locally
(a directly dialled call to the UK gave an odd mixture of German
ringing tone with the British rhythm). Additionally, for some odd
reason, supervision doesn't seem to happen until a couple of seconds
after the called party answers (This was on a direct dialled call to
the UK and was noticeable when I hung up on on a friend's answering
machine and didn't get charged.).

Oh yes, there always seemed to be a queue for the phones, at least in
standard class!!


Nigel Roberts    [phone] or [phone]

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

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1991 02:31:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: FCC Information Seekers Guide


The FCC in the U.S. has various libraries and reference rooms, not to
mention all kinds of sources of information. An Information Seekers
Guide. This document gives addresses, types of information available
(technical, legal, etc).

Some places of note are the main FCC library (6th floor, 1919 M St NW
Washington) or the Tariff Review Public Reference Room (5th floor,
same address -- has documents such as AT&T Tariff #10 which lists
NPA/prefix/V&H info) or the Treaty Library (2025 M St NW - ITU docs
and other international stuff).

To get a copy, these are available in the lobby of the building where
the main FCC library is located (1919 M St NW, Washington DC) ... or
try writing to The Consumer Assistance and Small Business Division,
Offics of Public Affairs, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington DC USA 20554.


[e-mail]  [e-mail]
[e-mail]   [e-mail]
(please hold off on the new fidonet.org address until things settle down...)

 * Origin: The Super Continental/Toronto/HST&V.32bis [phone]
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 15:59 MET
From: [e-mail]
Subject: T1 on Fiber?


Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1.  Somehow
we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would
be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable,
because fiber is very EXPENSIVE.

So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at
the customers premises, or how do they handle this?


Juergen

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 08:39:42 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call


When CallerID [sic] starts here in January, it will cost $6.50/month
for the first 300 numbers displayed and $.02 for each additional
number displayed.  I'm waiting for the day when there is a surcharge
on the bill for ringing your telephone when someone calls... it takes
electricity to ring the bell, you know ...


reb
-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:828 South May Street  Chicago,  IL 60607  312-733-3090
w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry Mensch)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 14:06:52 -0800
Subject: Cancelling Pacbell's "Message Center" Service
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Having overcome much inertia, I called today to cancel my Pacbell
Message Center service (for those who don't know, Message Center is
Pacbell's voicemail system).  Snippets from the phone conversation
follow:

PacBell: ... and the main reason for cancelling your message center
service?

Me: Well, it doesn't do anything my answering machine doesn't do.
(n.b. -- this isn't quite true in general, but for my application it
is).

PB: That's it?

M: Yup.

PB:  Oh.  I see.  We'll have you service cancelled for <some date in
the near future>.  Can we have someone contact you about why you
wanted to cancel yuor message center service?

M: sure ...

The Pacbell dude really was incredulous.  It was fun.


# henry mensch / advanced decision systems / <[e-mail]>

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

From: [e-mail] (Kevin Crowston)
Subject: Telcommunications BOF at ICIS in NY?
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 00:14:31 EST
Organization: Cognitive Science Machine Intelligence Lab, Univ of Michigan


I'm now teaching telecommunications and plan to organize a Birds of a
Feather meeting (or whatever they call them) on teaching
telecommunications at next week's ICIS meeting in New York.  The
session will be an opportunity to trade ideas about what works and
what doesn't, information about useful resources, etc.  If you're
going to be at ICIS and are interested, you might let me know, but
more importantly, please bring along copies of your course syllabus,
reading lists, etc., look for the announcement of the meeting and
attend.


Kevin Crowston

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: FCC, COCOT's and DA
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 20:49:29 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


I've run into several COCOT's here in VA that want $0.30 for local DA.
What did the {proposed?} FCC regs have to say about that?


[e-mail]

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

From: oktext![e-mail] (Van Schallenberg)
Subject: ATT Mail Minimum Monthly Billing Plan Cancelled
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 21:56:18 CST


[Moderator's Note: Mr. Schallenberg sent this along thinking other
readers might be interested.   PAT]

Forwarded message:

 From UUCP Mon Dec  9 10:29 CST 1991
 To: oktext!schalle
 Date: Mon Dec  9 11:04:27 EST 1991
 From: attmail!els004!ecollyer (ecollyer )
 Auto-Forwarded-From: attmail!schallenberg (Van H Schallenberg )
 MTS-Message-ID: <els0043431617080>
 Subject: Minimum Monthly Billing
 To: attmail!schallenberg (Van H Schallenberg )
 Cc: gbridge
 Cc: chewitt

Dear Mr. Schallenberg;

This is in response to your message of November 16, 1991.

We have recently decided to suspend the minimum monthly charge on AT&T
MAIL to give customers such as yourself the opportunity to choose a
new billing arrangement that does not require a minimum monthly
amount.  We have included a notice of this on the December bill with
details to follow shortly thereafter.  You will be pleased to know
that this new arrangement will include credit card billing as well as
electronic delivery of billing detail.

Thank you for your feedback.  It has helped us formulate a plan we believe
will be responsive to our customer's billing needs.

Edward A. Collyer
Product Director
Electronic Mail Services


[Moderator's Note: That *is* good news, isn't it!   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 05:02:10 PST
From: "Nigel Roberts, FRN-605, DTN 785-1018" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations


Gordon Grant asks about the use of telephone directories for
researching family history.

BT (formerly British Telecom) keeps telephone directories dating back
to the 1890s at the British Telecom Museum in London.

Odd you should ask this just now -- I read about it in a copy of
"Family Tree" magazine only yesterday. Serendipity, perhaps.


Nigel Roberts
[phone] or [phone]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 11:01:06 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations?


I used microfilm to learn about the 305/904 split of July 1965: 1.
Washington Post newspaper in 1973 announcement of 703/804 split in
Virginia said that the last previous split was in Florida in 1965.  2.
TELEPHONE DIRECTORY microfilm (in this case, Diamond State Telephone
in the public library in Wilmington, Delaware) showed 305 including
what is now 904.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: A Short Story Telecom Readers Might Enjoy
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 13:36:23 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[e-mail] (Warren Burstein) writes:

> I just finished reading a story by Primo Levi, "For a Good Purpose".
> In the story, the European network begins to take actions on its own
> initiative.

Along the same lines: there's a very nice short story by Arthur C.
Clarke entitled "Dial F for Frankestein", where the newly
interconnected world telecom network acquires "conscience".  It is in
the book "The Wind from the Sun".  The story is dated 1961 if memory
serves (definitely before 1970).


Cristobal Pedregal Martin               [e-mail] (internet)
Computer Science Dept. - LGRC           [phone] (facsimile)
UMass / Amherst, MA 01003               [phone] (voice)

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: What is an RF1400 Noise Eliminator?
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1991 00:15:57 GMT


I'm looking at a 47th St. Photo catalog and found an item called an
RF1400 Noise Eliminator.  It says it "Eliminates noise and
interference on telephone and data communication instruments.  Great
for cordless phones."  It's priced at $6.95.

How does this most likely work and do owners of the 3910 think I might
need it?  I don't get much line noise on my modem as it is.


Mike

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 11:52 EST
From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Re: AT&T Spirit Phones -- Where to Get?
Organization: A Fool's Paradise


To buy used Spirit sets:

Several used phone equipment brokers sell these.  Glancing thru
"Telecom Gear" magazine's December issue:

DSI 800-462-5930
ComTeam 800-729-8326
Business Teleconsultants 800-627-7585
McParent 800-288-7466
Telephone Systems 206-695-7644
ATL 203-327-0907
Dorr-Ben 800-950-9998
CBT 408-462-9373 (Seem to have some 6 button sets for $50)
Telesavers 800-277-5377
Telephone Exchange 800-777-8079
KTA 800-950-4KTA

This is only a partial listing.  I've got other things to do today,
too [grin] ...

Most advertise the six button sets for $125 and 24 button for $160
As always, haggling works with brokers.  Be sure you buy
guaranteed working/refurb equipment, some brokers take VISA/MC
so you can have some recourse ... of course there's lots of
"as-is" stuff out there to make deals on, too.

"Telecom Gear" is the unofficial leader for used station type
telephone equipment/key systems/PBX.  Used by everyone in the industry
I know of to sell and buy used stuff.  If there is interest, I will
compile a list of other similar publications and post.

(For subscriptions to "Telecom Gear" call 800-866-3241)

Regards,


Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Looking For Networks List
Date: 9 Dec 91 15:47:56 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University


Hi netters,

I am working on a project that requires all the K-12 schools to have
on-line access to our database. I am interested in exploring the
possibilities of using different networks that makes this feasible.

So if anybody out there has any suggestions, it is most welcome.

Thanks in advance.


Regards,

suresh

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 20:14:07 PST
From: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)
Subject: Just Dial 1-900-Pizza


Jeff Wasilko writes:

> If there are teenagers in your house, don't be surpised if you
> find charges for pizza on your phone bill someday.

> That's right: Mr. Shoes Pizza in Rochester is about to launch
> its own 900-style phone number that will allow you to order pizza and
> pay for it on your phone bill, according to President John Natalie.

I guess that won't happen in California ... Thanks to the new PUC ruling,
if you don't like the way the pizza tasted, you can always refuse
payment after you've ordered it.  :-)


Robert L. McMillin                     | Voice:    [phone]
Hughes Aircraft/Hughes Training, Inc.  | Fax:      [phone]
Los Angeles, CA                        | Internet: rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com

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

Date: Fri, 6 Dec 91 11:10:04 GMT
Subject: Humour : Urban Legend
From: [e-mail] (John Slater - Sun UK - Gatwick SE)


I spotted this today on alt.folklore.urban. Enjoy.

John

                        ---------

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (John
Eaton) writes:

> ObUL: Ball Lightning will come into your house through the telephone lines,
> and kill you.

The only way to prevent this is to forward all your calls to another number
before the storm arrives.


John Eaton   !hp-vcd!johne

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

Date: 09 Dec 91 21:16:56 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311


In the Mel Brooks movie "High Anxiety", there is a brief scene where a
character looks up a number in the niftiest phone book I've ever seen.

*Every* number in the book begins with 555!


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX          Reply to [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1009
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19845;
          12 Dec 91 2:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA27225
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 00:39:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28996
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 00:39:23 -0600
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 00:39:23 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1010

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Dec 91 00:39:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1010

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (M. Hallock)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (Berentsen)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (M.Ferguson)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (T. Roberts)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (T. Perrine)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (S. Sun)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (R. Tilley)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (C. Mingo)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (D.Levenson)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (S.Forrette)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (Goldstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 12:37 EST
From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: A Fool's Paradise



In article <[e-mail]> is written:

> Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must
> now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones
> located in the same region, but I've never heard of it.  Does it
> exist?  Is it possible?

A perceptive and all too often tough question.

I have customers with open office areas full of phones that have had
exactly the same problem: every doggone phone sounds the same when it
rings.  This is not a new problem, of course.  There are some ways to
deal with the situation:

Single line (2500) sets:

What works best here is good old fashoined hardware hacking, but of
the mechanical variety.  Standard two gong C4 type ringers can be
modified several ways.  Using black electrical tape on the gongs (not
too large a piece!) can modify their sound.  Note the the location of
the tape on the gong affects the sound.  Try reversing the gongs.
Note that rotating the gongs affects the ring.  (The gongs are
intentionally drilled off center to allow adjustment).

Perhaps a few notes are in order here:

2500 sets are easy to take apart.  There are two screws in the base
plate, one in the front center and one in the rear, slightly off
center.  There are usually "captive" type screws and you do not remove
them completely.  The top cover of the set will come off in your hand.
It is wise to unplug the set when you disassemble it.  Although 2500
sets do not have voltage which is really dangerous, ring voltage is
enough to surprise and sting.  For ring tests, plug the set back in,
hold down the hookswitch arm and have someone call you.  When
reassembling the set (you are going to put it back together, aren't
you?) the tricky part is getting the base and handset cord jacks back
in the right position.  It helps to look at an assembled set when you
do this.

Now, back to the fun ...

You can also try gong swapping, especially from older phones.  At one
time WE made some different gongs just for this purpose.  Its not too
hard to make ten different 2500 sets sound differently from each other
 ... as delivered, the left and right gongs are slightly different
tones.  Different manufacturers of ringers/phones often tend to sound
slightly different, too.  All C4 gongs I know of interchange.  Go to a
hamfest and buy some old rotary dial phones just to steal parts ...

None of this damages the phone or makes it unrepairable.

Also note: You can install a ringing lite on a phone very easily.
These are the same as the message waiting lights you see on hotel 2500
sets and similar to the beehive 19A type lamps Pat mentioned.

Go to Radio Shark or any other electronic component store and get some
110VAC neon pilot lamp assemblies.  Be sure they have the ballast
resistor built in (they should be marked as ready to use on 110VAC
with no additional parts).  These can be installed on your 2500 set
and wired directly accross the incoming telephone line (Green and Red
wires coming from the base cord/wall jack) right in the phone.

Note that buying the plastic cartridge type lamps with long leads
works best ... then drill out a mounting hole carefully near the top
right or left corner of the 2500 front faceplate ... making sure that
the depth of the cartridge will not interfere with the hookswitch
mechanism.  Connect to the phone line neatly (don't want to make any
trouble for the phone tech, do you?) and away you go ...

Electronic sets:

These can be tough.  Some manufacturers are getting smart and putting
ring tone switches on their sets as well as ring loudness switches.
Many manufacturers hide small rotary adjustment pots on their sets for
this purpose.

In the past, the rule was only the more "deluxe" model had
adjustments.  Since production cost is related to parts count, most of
the standard and economy set versions were not adjustable.  This is
beginning to change, though.  Be sure to read your User's Manual ...
There were exceptions:

Mitel SuperSet 3's have adjustment pots hidden under the front label
faceplate.  Some older Fujitsu and Comdial sets have internal pots you
have to disassemble the set to get to.  Some newer Mitel SuperSet 4's
have a small hole in the bottom (marked with a musical note symbol)
for ring tone adjust.  There are ways of altering ring tone on some
(but not all) AT&T, Rolm and Nothern models ...

I have swapped resistors in sets for customers just to alter the tone
of ringers in office areas.  Not a practice well liked by most
manufacturers, though ...

Your best bet is to treat your phone tech right.  Sometimes they will
show you if it can be done, and how.  Sometimes they do not know
themselves ...

I agree that this should be a programmable option on a set or phone
system.  Sadly, this is the exception.  I have seem a couple of sets
that could actually be programmed by the user for ring tone.  I have
seem only one PBX that allowed ring tone to be programmed at the main
PBX maintenance station/console.  Perhaps this will begin to change.

Now that the market is so competitive and systems so much alike,
perhaps a few more manufacturers will add this feature in an effort to
make their systems just a little better.  That's what all this
competition is supposed to be about ...


Regards,

Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

Date: Mon,  9 Dec 91 13:29:00 EST
From: [e-mail] (Guy R Berentsen)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


One of the features of the ISDN Centrex System that we use here, is
that each user may choose one of eight ring patterns.  (This may be a
feature of the phones (AT&T ISDN 7506) rather than the switch.)

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 10:46:59 PST
From: [e-mail] (Mickey Ferguson)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: Rolm Systems


In  Richard A. Thomas writes:

> At our facility, people often step down the hall a few doors to confer
> briefly with someone in another office.  Then a phone will ring and
> all the people who aren't in their own offices interrupt their
> conversations to run back to their office to see if it is their phone
> that is ringing.

Nearly any PBX I've seen has this capability.  Our RolmPhone digital
phones, when combined with our Rolm CBX, has multiple ring tones so
that one can tell which one is his or hers.  Of course, my tone-deaf
friend can't tell the difference between any of them ... :)


Mickey Ferguson      Rolm Systems      [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon,  9 Dec 91 16:01:12 CST
From: [e-mail] (Thomas J Roberts)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


 From article <[e-mail]>, by thomas@bnlux1.
bnl.gov (Richard A. Thomas):

> [discussion of how people often don't know which phone is ringing]

> Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must
> now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones
> located in the same region, but I've never heard of it.  Does it
> exist?  Is it possible?

Here at Indian Hill, a location of AT&T Bell Laboratories, we have an
ISDN Centrex system implemented with a 5ESS(Rg) Switch. The ISDN
telephones have 8 ring patterns, which each user can individually
select. THe phones will prefix the selected pattern by 1 or 2 extra
rings for special and priority alerting (those are part of ISDN user
alerting (aka ringing)). These are AT&T 7505, 7506, and 7507 ISDN
station sets (yes, standard production -- we don't get any special
stuff). This service is from Illinois Bell (Ameritech), not AT&T, even
though AT&T makes the hardware.

There are three tones, varying in pitch. The eight patterns are variations
in the number and sequence of these three tones.  The switch does not
know or care what pattern any user has selected.


AT&T Bell Laboratories (where the 5ESS Switch is developed)
Tom Roberts    att!ihlpl!tjrob        [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Perrine)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Date: 9 Dec 91 21:21:38 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


It would have helped if you had identified the phone system, but here
goes ...

We have a ROLM switch (PBX), and the ring *pitch* is user-selectable,
although you have to dig into the reference book (not the Quick
Reference Guide), to fing out that *572 starts your phone ringing;
then you hit the numeric (1-8) buttons until you get a tone you like.
When you hang up, that tone becomes the ring tone.


Tom Perrine (tep)   |Internet: [e-mail] |Voice: [phone]
Logicon - T&TSD     | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep     |  or : [phone]
P.O. Box 85158      |GENIE: T.PERRINE               |  FAX: [phone]
San Diego CA 92138

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 01:54:00 GMT


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

> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
> (Richard A. Thomas) writes:

>> Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must
>> now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones
>> located in the same region, but I've never heard of it.  Does it
>> exist?  Is it possible?

> Sure, this is common.  As an example the Northern Telecom
> SL-1/Meridian 1 has selectable ring cadences for the digital business
> sets and the POTS style Unity sets have a frequency adjustment on the
> bottom.

I figured this would be pretty common too, because a friend of mine
and his brother had two separate phone numbers on what essentially was
the same phone line (in layman's terms, I dunno how this is actually
done technically) with something called Identa-Ring.  He lives in
Glenelg, Maryland (although I guess the phone number shows up as
Ashton or Laurel or something).  His dad works for C&P but I doubt
that has anything to do with its availability ...

I am trying to say, of course, that when the phone rang my friend and
his brother could easily determine the intended recipient of the call
by the pattern of the ring, even though it was all on the same
physical phone line.


S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. -
[e-mail]: : Clockwork Orange / Princeton Ultimate
WWIVnet #1 @6913

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

From: [e-mail] (Richard Tilley)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 04:26:41 GMT


Trivial solution:

 - get a $5 cheepo phone
 - disable the hook switch
 - turn off the ringer on your regular phone.

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

From: [e-mail] (Charlie Mingo)
Date: 09 Dec 91 14:35:52
Subject: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?


[e-mail] (Richard A. Thomas) writes:

> Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must
> now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones
> located in the same region, but I've never heard of it.  Does it
> exist?  Is it possible?

    The Rolm PBX has in my office has an option allowing users to
change the tone of their phone ring.  There are ten different notes
available.  Ring patterns are reserved for identifying the party
calling; the tone indicates the party called, and anyone can "pick up"
any ringing phone in the office by typing a special code.

    Neat, eh?

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Date: 10 Dec 91 13:13:18 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

> Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must
> now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones
> located in the same region, but I've never heard of it.  Does it
> exist?  Is it possible?

AT&T's Merlin(tm) systems allow individual station users to program
the sound of their alerting signals.  You can program the ring
cadence, pitch, and duration, allowing a large number of
easily-distinguished sounds.  (I used to work in a place where people
had lots of fun with this feature.  When several phones were ringing,
the place sounded like a zoo!)


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

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 04:21:56 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Surely the companies that make telephone switches for large firms must
> now provide a way to give different ring patterns to the telephones
> located in the same region, but I've never heard of it.  Does it
> exist?  Is it possible?

We have a Lexar System 2000, and it allows exactly this feature.  Each
set can be individually configured by the user for one of six
attractive ringing variations.  When I first saw this feature, I
thought it was quite esoteric, but then I realized that it's for just
the sitation you describe.  The six options are all difference
frequencies.  I would imagine that they could have added more
possibilities by providing difference ringing cadences in addition to
different frequencies, but I guess they thought six were enough.  It's
certainly much better than 1!

All in all, I'm very pleased with the Lexar.  It has all of the
"little" things well thought out, such as sounding the actual tones
when you dial a number, so you can audibly verify that you've hit the
right key, and when generating tones in the middle of a call, it will
sound them for as long as you hold down the key.  Our previous system
(a Toshiba) had neither of these and it was really annoying.  I don't
have anything to do with its administration, but from what I understand,
it's really good from that end as well.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Fred R. Goldstein)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Date: 10 Dec 91 22:46:45 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Littleton MA USA


You want programmable ring pattern?  The Ericsson MD-110 has a neat
feature.  The various ring functions (ring back when free, ring
external, ring internal, ring intercom, etc.) can be programmed with
arbitrarily defined cadences (up to some limit).  So it's even
possible to program in Morse Code for the different functions!  (I've
never seen it in practice, but I saw it in some documentation.)


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1010
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24621;
          12 Dec 91 3:22 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06951
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 01:35:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09993
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 01:35:10 -0600
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 01:35:10 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1011

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Dec 91 01:35:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1011

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation (Joe Konstan)
    Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation (Daniel Herrick)
    Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation (John Higdon)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Michael Ho)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Mark Fulk)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 22:30:31 PST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> asked two questions:

1)  what would you do if in charge of your state's PUC?

I'd probably make two big changes.  First, I'd change the reward
structure so that the telephone companies' allowed profits (Pac Bell
and GTE) were computed as s function of the amount of phone use in
their area, weighted by the "featureful-ness" of the usage.  For
instance, phone companies would be allowed higher profits for an area
where everyone used touch tone, call waiting, etc.  Similarly, an area
in ISDN service would allow for more profit than POTS or POTS with
some features.  Of course, the PUC would determine the weighting
factor for each feature.  I believe that this would encourage phone
companies to price features in a more reasonable way.

Second, and this is probably much harder and in the domain of the FCC,
I'd like to encourage the move towards universal personal phone
service (where everyone has one or more personal phone numbers that
follow them around, and the possibility to attach those number to
either cellular or wired phones whereever you happen to be).  I
imagine that the key parts of this involve allocating radio space for
lots of digital cellular phones and arranging for a reasonable scheme
for delivering and charging for routing and phone number lookup (after
all, if I call someone whose number seems across the country but they
are physically local, I might pay a small charge for finding them but
would expect to pay for a local call thereafter).

2)  what business can a telephone-knowledgeable person get into without
    education or capital?

My best guess would be going to small and medium-sized businesses and
offering to analyze their phone bills and set up appropriate call
routing tables or hardware.  If you arranged to do this for a
percentage of the savings (after any new equipment cost) with nothing
up front, I think you could get some business.  Larger companies might
be wary, but if you start small you could build a reputation.


Joe Konstan

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

From: [e-mail] (daniel lance herrick)
Subject: Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation
Date: 10 Dec 91 09:57:38 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jack Decker) writes:

> 1) Suppose YOU were put in charge of your state's Public Utilities
> Commission (or the FCC) and could actually have a say in how telephone
> companies are regulated.  What one or two things would you most like
> to see changed, keeping in mind that the phone companies DO have to
> make a profit?

First, remove the exclusive franchise that each LEC has for some
geographical area.  Then try to keep things fair until the dust
settles.  Probably the easiest way to prevent Ameritech from under
pricing all possible competition is to make sure Michigan consumers
(and the other Ameritech states) know what their rates are in Ohio.

Second, invalidate the exclusive franchise that local governments gave
to cable TV carriers.  I suspect this could be effectively
accomplished by prohibiting local governments from granting monopolies
in future renewals, possibly overruling the franchise on ones that
don't renew soon enough.

I would be reasonably careful to preserve contracts, except the
monopoly clauses which I believe were improperly granted in the first
place.  In particular, I would try to prevent any further use of
eminent domain to build plant.

Expected result is for the boundaries between companies to become
fuzzy for residential customers and for second carriers to go after
plums like apartment buildings and office buildings.  Over time,
prices come down and customer satisfaction goes up.


dan     [e-mail]
dlh Performance Marketing  POBox 1419 Mentor Ohio 44061

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 11:54 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation


Jack Decker <[e-mail]> writes:

> 1) Suppose YOU were put in charge of your state's Public Utilities
> Commission (or the FCC) and could actually have a say in how telephone
> companies are regulated.

All of the aspects of this topic, including billing details, costs of
operation, distribution of revenues, etc., etc., could (and does) fill
volumes. But after giving it a bit of thought, I have come up with one
major change for which I would press: the abolition of the regional
holding company.

The root of many ills in the LEC business today comes from the fact
that the entities that own the local exchange network also own and
participate in related, non-regulated businesses. Profits from these
endeavors never flow back into the regulated monopoly, however through
slight-of-hand manipulations financing for these ventures frequently
comes out of the pockets of ratepayers.

What we need is Divestiture: The Sequel. In this production, RBOCs
would be required to divest themselves of either their LECs or ALL of
their other subsidiaries. There is no such thing as "arms length".
There is not enough regulatory horsepower in the world that can
supervise these tricky RBOCs. The only way to ensure a lack of funny
business is to chop the "arms" off.

When this is done, then the LEC would operate on its own revenues,
period. They would not be siphoned off elsewhere. We, the ratepayers,
would know that the money we paid each month really did go for
telephone service, not to finance the latest loser scheme that
attempted to put some other real company out of business.

Of course, it might even be necessary to limit cross ownership of
major blocks of stock. This is already done in the broadcast industry
in order to "protect the integrity of a limited resource". Since there
are not going to be any new local telephone companies required anytime
soon, I would say that the LEC business could fall under the "limited
resource" category.

> 2) Let's say that you were a bit of a telephone enthusiast but had
> very little money to start a business (let's suppose that, heaven
> forbid, you just got out of jail after a 25 year sentence for phone
> phreaking and you went in when you were 15, so now you're 40 and have
> no money and no way to get a loan, but you want to start an HONEST
> telephone-related business.

Frankly, until something is done about common ownership of LECs and
related non-regulated businesses, setting up such a business is a
poor-odds crapshoot. If your enterprise requires the services of the
LEC, you can bet that at some point, particularly if you are very
successful, that the company that runs the LEC will try to figure out
ways to shut you down and take your business away.

This applies to answering services, paging services, alarm companies,
equipment vending companies, information providing firms, and now even
cable companies. In essence, if what you do requires a pair from
telco, you are in potential trouble. I have friends and acquaintances
in all of these businesses and have watched them struggle to survive
as each one is targeted by Pacific Telesis. The first wave is tariff
filings that make the requisite telco service unavailable or
cost-prohibitive.  The second wave is "technical difficulties" that
create operational problems for the provider. Then, after they have
been softened up by these methods, PacTel offers its own version WAY
BELOW COST to grab what market share it can.

Under the current regulatory climate, I cannot think of a telecom-
related business that I would recommend to anyone. As long as the
playing field is tilted at a steep angle toward the RBOCs, a person
will have to be a real warrior to survive. Anyone getting out of the
joint after serving a sentence for phreaking probably ought to become
a lawyer.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Organization: A Figment of Your Imagination
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 15:47:37 GMT


In a caustic reply to a reporter, the Esteemed Moderator writes:

> [Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the
> public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist
> that all communications come from the individuals they designate.
> Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or
> about their employer without the employer's permission to do so.  PAT]

Does this include posting to netnews?  If not, where do we draw the
line?  At reporters themselves?  At media that might reasonably be
read by reporters?  At people who may be inclined to leak things to
reporters?

I sympathize with what you're saying, as there are many, many
reporters out there who simply don't know a reorder from a busy
signal.  But to assert a company's absolute right to control the
speech of its employees is downright IBM-like, and I really didn't
expect that from you.  I agree that persons who are not in public
relations should not be able to claim that what they say represents
the view of the organization.  But to gag them from being about to
speak "about their employer without the employer's permission" -- your
term -- goes way beyond what I consider reasonable.

Normally when people start threads like this (and there are but two
people who generally do so, one of whom is in my permanent kill file),
I simply unsubscribe from the group for a couple of weeks and let it
blow over without replying.  But folks, the dung is getting awful
deep.


Michael Ho | UNTIL JAN. 9: University of Nebraska, Internet:[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Of course people can 'talk about their employers'
without permission, but there has to be some understanding about what
they are free to discuss and what they should be referring to the
proper spokespersons. You think my comments were very 'IBM-like', but
I happen to think IBM is a generally successful and well-run company.
That probably makes me -- as our Socially Responsible commentators
would point out -- a 'toady'.    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 15:59:22 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the
> public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist
> that all communications come from the individuals they designate.
> Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or
> about their employer without the employer's permission to do so.  PAT]
  ^^^^^

Then you don't believe in the First Amendment.  The right of free
speech, about your employer or anyone else, is inalienable.  An
employer can restrict who speaks FOR it, but not who speaks ABOUT it.
The thought of an employer restricting the speech of its employees is
chilling; perhaps the following ``honor roll'' will jog your memory:

Johns-Manville, for hiding evidence of the dangers of asbestos.
American Tobacco, similarly tobacco.
General Dynamics, for obscuring fraud and bribery.
A Swiss chemical company (name forgotten), for hiding the health effects
    of working with vinyl chloride.
A number of obscure generic drug manufacturers, for failing to meet
    production standards.
Armour Meat Packing, for hiding the conditions of the packing plants
    (remember ``The Jungle''?).

The list goes on for a very long time.  The initial indications that
these companies were not behaving properly came from employees,
generally employees speaking to reporters.

The freedom of employees to speak about their employers is critical to
the continued functioning of our democracy.  Judging from your
statement above, I think you need to take Civics again.


Mark A. Fulk            Computer Science Department
[e-mail]        University of Rochester
Omit needless words -- Strunk    Rochester, NY  14627


[Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to
take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization
which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I
have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice
when you please and where you please?   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 10:47 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option


[e-mail] (Paul Wallich) writes:

> On the other hand, as a journalist I find this a potentially
> interesting concept. Ever since Caller-ID started coming, I've been
> having these horrible not-so-paranoid fantasies about trying to reach
> a source at <pick-your-major-corporation-or-government> and finding
> that their PBX no longer accepts calls from the media or else
> transfers them to the PR office.

What a frightening thought: Caller-ID can allow a telephone system
owner to take more control over his very own telephone system. How
dare people even think of such a thing.

But all this reminds me of an incident a couple of years back when an
phone system owner (and administrator) did some blocking in reverse.
An associate of mine mentioned one day that his girl friend (who
worked in the administration office of Shoreline Amphitheater) had
complained that a certain salesperson from one of my client firms was
using her "influence" to attempt to get free passes on a continuing
basis.  According to the report, the salesperson would call the office
many times a day badgering the Shoreline staff.

With the approval of authority, I devised a technical solution. The
next time the salesperson attempted to call Shoreline, she got a
recording that said, "We're sorry, but it is necessary to dial a '1'
when calling this number. Please hangup and try your call again." If
she followed directions, she would get the following, "We're sorry,
but it is not necessary to dial a '1' when calling this number. Please
hang up and try your call again."

This behavior would only take place when one tried to call Shoreline.
Naturally, this person reported the problem to me and I told her that
I would "look into it". Apparently the inconvenience of having to
place calls to Shoreline from another location (or paying toll from
home) was enough to deter this woman from her "telephone mooching",
since it was reported that the calls stopped.

When this woman left the employ of my client, I removed the block from
the system. This little bit of deviousness solved the problem and did
not require any scene made by someone having to inform this person
that her calls were inappropriate.

BTW, if anyone tries to call a 900 or 976 number on that system, s/he
gets a recording that says, "The call you have made requires a 20 cent
deposit. Please hangup, deposit 20 cents, and dial your call again."
And guess what happens when someone comes complaining about hearing
THAT recording!

> [Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the
> public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist
> that all communications come from the individuals they designate.
> Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or
> about their employer without the employer's permission to do so.  PAT]

I'll second that.


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


[Toady's Note: The thing about newspapers and their reporters is they
should practice what they preach; except as my pastor, the Reverend
Bob Dobbs of the Church of the Sub-Genius would say, they're not the
type of person they're preaching to. The reporter hinted that holding
back information from the public is a Very Bad Thing to do.  I'll bet
his employer didn't feel that way about the identity of the alleged
rape victim in Florida this past month. Newspaper reporters, you see,
are qualified to decide what the public should know about ... corpor-
ations are not to withhold anything from them however.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1011
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28716;
          12 Dec 91 4:21 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19583
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 02:38:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03086
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 12 Dec 1991 02:38:13 -0600
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 02:38:13 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1012

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 12 Dec 91 02:38:08 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1012

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Robert Thompson)
    Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Henry E. Schaffer)
    Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? (Curtis E. Reid)
    Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit? ([e-mail])
    Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone (S Narasimhan)
    Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone (P. Bodenbach)
    Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Jim Haynes)
    Re: UK 1994 "Great Renumbering" (was IL Bell/708) (Linc Madison)
    Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Will Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Robert Thompson (727-2597, X3012)" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam
Date: 9 Dec 91 13:04:20 EST
Organization: Forsyth County, Winston-Salem  NC


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
edu (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:

>> Some person or group is calling people's electronic pagers, and giving
>> a call-back number of 212-540-xxxx.  (This prefix in New York acts
>> just like a 900 number.)  When the callee dials 212-540-xxxx, s/he is
>> connected to a recording and is billed $55.

> Dear Mr. Moderator:
>
>    I ask you once again: How can anyone argue that a contractual
> relationship, an agreement to pay, can ever be created SIMPLY BY
> DIALING A PHONE NUMBER, without _any_ _previous_ agreement between the
> two parties?  It's legally absurd (not to mention bad public policy).

>    The callee has NOT entered into ANY contract with answering party,
> and can't possibly be considered to owe them anything.  Right?

> [Moderator's Note: Although the added charges resulting from calls to
> 900/976/540-like services is in a gray area, there is no question
> whatsoever about your 'agreement to pay simply by dialing a phone
> number'. When you subscribe to telephone service from any telco, you
> are bound by federal and state tariffs which govern telco operations.
> One such tariff of every telco says that you are responsible for the
> use of your instruments. Period. Would you agree that a contract (and
> only a verbal one at that) exists if you specifically request some
> service (ie a connection) verbally from an operator?  The dial tone is
> telco's solicitation for your service request; your spinning the dial
> or pressing the buttons is your response.  PAT]

What you seem to be overlooking is that a contract can exist only if
all of the necessary items obtain.  I seem to remember from Contract
101 that one of these conditions is a "meeting of the minds," i.e.
that both parties must understand that a contract is being entered
into and further must understand at least the essence of what each is
obligating himself to perform.  While nothing in the law prohibits a
competent adult from making a foolish contract, it does require that
that person know that a contract is being made.

Further, contracting requires an "exchange of consideration." While
the $55 is certainly fulfilling that obligation on the part of the
caller, my understanding of what was provided (or not provided) by
the 540 vendor suggests that no such exchange occurred.

Your comparison of this situation to placing an ordinary long-distance
call is fallacious.  It can safely be assumed that a "reasonable
person" knows that placing such a call obligates him to pay for the
service rendered, and has undertaken this implicit contract with full
foreknowledge.  The same assumption cannot be made vis-a-vis the 540
scam.  In fact, the very fact that this scum succeeded in getting so
many bites proves prima facie that a reasonable person might well not
be aware of the obligation he was undertaking by placing the call.


Robert Bruce Thompson                [e-mail]
Forsyth County MIS Department        [phone] x3012
Winston-Salem, North Carolina USA    [phone] (FAX)


[Moderator's Note: Well here we go again! To what extent is telco
obliged to explain their tariffs in detail to their subscribers prior
to the subscriber's use of the service? Is it merely sufficient to
have the tariff on file for examination? In that case, 540 qualifies,
since the paperwork has been filed where anyone can examine it and
aquaint themselves with the rates. Suppose the two year old living
here with us -- who obviously wouldn't know a tariff from a tomato --
takes our phone off hook and pushes buttons connecting him to Hong
Kong ... am I financially responsible despite his lack of knowledge of
the tariff and my lack of knowledge that a connection was even being
established?  Of course I am ... I'm responsible for my phones.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1991 23:29:33 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Anthony E. Siegman) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Although the added charges resulting from calls to
> 900/976/540-like services is in a gray area, there is no question
> whatsoever about your 'agreement to pay simply by dialing a phone
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Pat,

  I do think that there is a question.  I think that there is no
question with respect to the phone charges, but that this does not
extend to every other possible charge.

> number'. When you subscribe to telephone service from any telco, you
> are bound by federal and state tariffs which govern telco operations.
> One such tariff of every telco says that you are responsible for the
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
  BUT -- this doesn't mean that if I call someone, and they defraud me,
that I still have to pay them because I used the phone.

> use of your instruments. Period. Would you agree that a contract (and
> only a verbal one at that) exists if you specifically request some
> service (ie a connection) verbally from an operator?  The dial tone is
> telco's solicitation for your service request; your spinning the dial
> or pressing the buttons is your response.  PAT]

  No, I have to pay the telco for what they provided.  If I order some
clothes by phone and they don't send them, but bill me anyway -- why
should I have to pay if they arrange to bill it through the phone
company?  Regardless of what other way I pay, a court will agree to
have the amount paid returned to me if the court is convinced that I
didn't receive the goods ordered.

  So if I call a telephone number for which I have no reasonable way
of knowing that the recipient wants to charge a fee -- I maintain that
I've not entered into a contract with *that* person, and I, at that
point, do not owe *that* person anything -- either directly or billed
through the phone company.  I agree that I owe the telco the toll
charges, if any.


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1991 14:25 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?


I found this bit of information from another BBS that contains 800
numbers TELECOM Digest readers have been asking for:

 The new phone number for getting information about the service is
 now:

 [phone]  (voice) information, registration, and to learn your
                closest Sprintnet local access number.

 Shortened Summary:  You can buy a 30 hour block of off-hours
 (18:00-07:00 local time, plus all day weekends) for $30 per month,
 fixed charge.  Pay by credit card.  There are also various prime time
 plans, too, and something for the disabled.  With the local access
 number, you can get details on all these prior to registration by
 logging into the PC Pursuit guest account.  Dial your local access
 number obtained from the voice service and after the modem CONNECT
 enter:

    @D<Return>                (no prompt, must* be upper case D)
                              (Sprintnet output shown in {} brackets)
    {TELENET}
    {nnn nnx}
    {TERMINAL=}d1<Return>     (reply d1 and hit return)

    {@}c pursuit<Return>      (connect to PC Pursuit service)

 This will start PC Pursuit.  Follow the displayed procedure to access
 the guest account.  You can get details and costs of the various
 services offered, as well as much other information about use of PC
 Pursuit.

 You should probably confirm you can access the service okay before you
 register.  You may also want to check with your phone company about
 your local charges to dial the number, if any.

 You can register on-line by dialing [phone], a 2400 baud service
 dedicated to PC Pursuit registration.


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

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 00:48 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand


>  where else can you get long distance data transmission for $1 per
>  hour (or 83 cents per hour under the $50 per month plan?).

It's not the only game in town any more.  OK, take that $1/hour for a
1200-baud connection.  You can hope to pump something close to that
through the lines if you're lucky.

Now compare: AT&T offers" Reach Out America" service at $6.60 per
hour. You subscribe for a minimum of one hour (not 30 or 50), and you
can use a `blazer through it, pushing about 1400 cps (over ten times
the rate of PCP).

Divide by data rate, and PCP is already behind.  Add in the charges to
reach the nearest PCP dial-in ($4.80/hr here), consider whether the
target city can be reached via PCP, and it doesn't appear to be such a
bargain any more.

Of course all this assumes that dealing with PCP dialing and outages
has no cost.

At one time, the raw phone charges were slightly cheaper via PCP (when
we only had low-speed modems).  I wrote a PCP dialer for use with UUCP
at that time.  We dropped PCP when they changed the rates.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Sundar Narasimhan)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone
Date: 11 Dec 91 00:05:20 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory


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

> The answer lies as far as your nearest source of AT&T phones.  They

Let me add -- the Panasonic KX-T4300. It sells for around 150.00$.  I
looked into buying this, but still haven't made up my mind.  I'm
presently looking into all-digital answering machines.. (Does anyone
have one they recommend? Does any of these come with a cordless
phone?)

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 17:08:24 cst
From: [e-mail] (Peter Bodenbach)
Subject: Re: Wanted: Combination Answering Machine and Cordless Phone
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Inns of Court, Papillion, NE


Harold,

Yes, there is a combination answering machine/cordless phone.  I have
such a machine from AT&T called Model 5600 that does all that you ask
and more.  It can be bought at any Sears store for about $250, but I
have seen it on sale for as low as $189.  I hope you find this machine
to your liking ... it has served me well.


Take care,

Pete
Ybbat (DRBBS) 8.9 v. 3.13 r.3   (1:285/27.0)

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations?
Date: 10 Dec 91 01:30:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


Our library has a lot of phone books on microfiche.  This hasn't been
going on for many years, but would be a good way to archive them
henceforth.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 18:03:54 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: UK 1994 "Great Renumbering" (was IL Bell/708)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Clive Feather):

> Other contributors have mentioned the cost of an area code split --
> One candidate for this prize may have been the UK's first ever
> area code split [London (1) split into Inner London (71) and Outer
> London (81)] (we don't often have area code splits -- we have area code
> merges!).

> However, the real winner is going to be the Great Renumbering on
> Easter Sunday 1994 -- *every* number in the UK is going to change. For
> those interested in the details, simultaneously: every area code will
> be prefixed with a 1, the international access code will change from
> 010 to 00, and a second emergency number (112) will be added to the
> existing number (999). Thus dialing will change:

This strikes me as being even more collossally STUPID than the plan to
introduce 52x pseudo-area-codes for dialing Mexico from the U.S.

In the case of the U.K., the only conceivable purpose to adding a
digit to the city code is to allow for future splits.  Given that
they've been merging rather than splitting, why create this USELESS
capacity?  If the total of 9 digits for national numbers (3 city + 6
local or 2+7) is inadequate, the only reasonable solution is to add a
digit to the LOCAL number.  Or are we supposed to remember that (0171)
is everything within a three-block radius of Parliament, the Tower of
London is (0271) but St. Paul's is (0371), Buckingham Palace all by
itself is (0471), and so on?  The sign of real status will be having
your own STD code, instead of just your own Post Code.

In the case of the U.S. and Mexico, we *USED* to have pseudo-area-
codes for dialing some parts of Mexico.  They have been discontinued,
so that the ONLY way to dial Mexico (excepting local border in places
like El Paso/Ciudad Juarez) from the U.S. is via 011 + 52 + city +
number.  People will become accustomed to this method, if they have
any reason to call Mexico.  Now, three or four years from now, we will
dial 1 + 52 + city + number for the same call, all for the sake of
saving TWO DIGITS of dialing??  WHY????  Furthermore, {is | why is}
Mexico willing to strap itself to the rigid configuration of U.S.
numbers?  All numbers in Mexico will have to be exactly eight digits.
I seem to recall that some numbers in Mexico City are already eight
digit local numbers, which means that it just WON'T WORK.

What is the logic behind EITHER of these ideas??  It certainly escapes
me.  This is not a flame at Clive or anyone who has posted about the
Mexico plan, but rather at the people who originated such nonsense.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 8:12:49 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones


[e-mail] (Michael Rosen) wrote:

> I hate these damn independent computer payphones.  Does anybody know
> why, upon dialing a number, sometimes touchtones are disabled?

> [Moderator's Note: ...  COCOTS are very
> seldom intended for anything except to make fast money for their
> owners, and what you mention is not uncommon ...

This "feature" of some/many COCOTs has been mentioned over and over
throughout the years of discussions on Telecom, but I don't recall
ever seeing anyone post the explanation of just *why* the extra effort
in programming was ever made to tell the phone to turn off the
touchtone pad after a call is completed. How does doing this "make
fast money" for the owners? I would assume that there is some item in
the phone's programming to "disable tone pad after call completion"
versus leaving it alone, and there must be a programming manual for at
least *some* of these COCOT models that has some level of explanation
to tell the new owner why to chose one option over the other. So why?

I know there are at least a few COCOT owners out there reading the
list.  Please post -- what reason would you have to set this option
one way or the other? My first reaction would be like that of Michael;
if the thing didn't let me do what I needed to do when making the
phone call (use the tone pad to access an automated response system
after completing the call), I would never use that phone again. Thus,
setting this option to "turn off pad" would mean the owner was
forfeiting potential future revenue. For that matter, someone angry
enough after the phone did that to him might even destroy it. So all I
can see for the COCOT owner is negative results from that option
setting. So what are the possible positives that would outweigh these
possible negatives and make the owner choose the "turn off" option?


Regards,

Will


[Moderator's Note: For one thing, disabling the '#' forces people
whose long distance carriers allow the use of that symbol to end one
call and start another without redialing the 800 number and putting in
their card number again to have to pay X cents for an additional 800
call, or whatever the COCOT guy is charging.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1012
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa01173;
          13 Dec 91 3:08 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22388
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 13 Dec 1991 01:15:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23762
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 13 Dec 1991 01:15:02 -0600
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 01:15:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1013

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 13 Dec 91 01:15:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1013

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Will Martin)
    Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank (Daniel Herrick)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Larry Rachman)
    Re: FAX Switch; Distinctive Ringing Switch Wanted (Alan Marc Gallatin)
    Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (Macy Hallock)
    Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (Eric Dittman)
    Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: IMTS Channel Designators (Macy Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Dec 91 7:49:20 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank


> [Moderator's Note: Had the same DJ aired a 'news bulletin' saying
> several areas of the USA were currently under a nuclear attack from
> some foreign nation, would you also blame the 'idiots' who would swamp
> 911 asking for instructions or confirmation?

I get the impression, from reading this thread, that people are using
the "fake nuclear attack alert" as an extreme example of improper DJ
behavior which a DJ would never do. They are wrong.

This precise thing happened here in St. Louis during the Gulf War.

John Ullett, a "Morning Zoo" DJ on station KSHE (94.7 MHz FM here in
St. Louis), put together an edited and effects-enhanced tape of a
'50s-era nuclear attack alert recording designed to give listeners the
impression that an attack was really under way; he used the EBS tones
in conjunction with the vocal announcement. This happened on Jan 29
'90.

There was an uproar here about it, of course. The station got an FCC
letter the next day, which contrasts with the usual three weeks or so
it takes the FCC to formally notify a station regarding obscenity or
other more-common offenses, so the reaction was an extraordinarily
quick response.

Ullett was fired from his other job as the baseball Cardinals' "field
announcer". The station management claimed that the action was that of
the DJ acting by himself alone. However, it was noted in local
radio-news columns that other individuals at the station were involved
in the preparation of the tape and were aware of the broadcast, but
did not act to prevent it or immediately follow-up with a disclaimer
or retraction. Some say the whole thing was a deliberate publicity
stunt; the net effect some months later was that the FCC imposed a
$25,000 fine on KSHE, and many local critics estimated that the
station had gotten far more publicity than it could have purchased
with that amount. The DJ is still on the air. KSHE was number two in
the Arbitron ratings after all this, slightly up from its previous
standing.

Since my musical tastes more closely parallel that of our esteemed
Moderator than coincide with "popular" taste, I never have listened to
these "Morning Zoo" type of programs and have no idea how this
incident fit in with their usual run of material. However, the net
result of this being a negligable fine ($25,000 might seem hefty to an
individual, but it is peanuts to a high-rated station; they give away
more than that in contests to garner even less publicity) indicates
that the FCC is pretty much of a "paper tiger" these days when it
comes to large corporations.  They can make miserable the life of a
kid playing with a pirate radio station doing a low-powered shortwave
broadcast, but they appear to be pretty much ineffective in
controlling the actions of a large broadcaster.


Regards,

Will

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

From: [e-mail] (daniel lance herrick)
Subject: Re: E911 System Brought to it's Knees By a Prank
Date: 9 Dec 91 14:21:27 EST


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

> [Moderator's Note: Had the same DJ aired a 'news bulletin' saying
> several areas of the USA were currently under a nuclear attack from
> some foreign nation, would you also blame the 'idiots' who would swamp
> 911 asking for instructions or confirmation? I'm not interested in

Pat,

Are you consciously modeling your example on the Mercury Theatre of
the Air's presentation of H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds?  There were
several kinds of panic reaction to that dramatic production.  A few
years later, a station in Mexico ran the show.  When listeners
decided they had been hoaxed, they demolished the transmitter building
and killed an announcer or two.

I've listened to a recording of the original broadcast.  It was a good
piece of work.


dan     [e-mail]
dlh Performance Marketing  POBox 1419 Mentor Ohio 44061


[Moderator's Note: Your example occurred to me, yes.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 02:05:17 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, 6sigma2@polari!sumax.
seattleu.edu (Brian Matthews) writes:

> The only time I can recall dialing a wrong number is when I was given
> a wrong number by someone.  I only had to dial it once to realize it
> was wrong (unlike some people who insist on calling three or four
> times within a few minutes, even though I told them the first time
> that they got the number they were dialing but the party they are
> looking for isn't and has never been at this number).  I guess I've
> never understood the difficulty in dialing a telephone.

I think what's going on here is people who are given phone numbers,
dial them, find out that the number they have REACHED is incorrect,
are not sure if they just dialed wrong (by the time the other person
picks up and says "Hello" and you say "Is ___ there?" and they say
"Sorry, you have the wrong number" you've forgotten what buttons you
actually pushed because the mind works that way) or if the number they
were given was incorrect to begin with.

The best way to avoid this, if someone calls twice in succession, is
say something along the lines of "Sorry, you did it again, what number
are you trying to reach?"  Very straightforward and after you ask that
it's impossible for them to call you again by accident.


S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - [e-mail]

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

Date: 09 Dec 91 21:17:15 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers


We've got a phone number here that was once assigned to an appliance
repair shop, and is also only one digit off from a local doctor. The
wrong numbers are fairly frequent, but usually fairly entertaining.

Apparently, the appliance shop had *lots* of stickers printed up with
the number, and these are now attached to refrigerators and stoves all
around the area. Most people are quite reluctant to believe that we
don't fix Kitchenaids. Often, they'll leave rather detailed messages
on the answering machine about the problem they're having. One caller
I answered was quite insistant about ordering a new washing machine.
Despite my statements that I did not, and never have, sold washing
machines, she repeatedly insisted that "... I don't need it right away,
all I want is a quote".

Calls for the doctor are also fairly frequent, and somewhat sadder, in
their own way. People will call up the answering machine and leave
rather detailed descriptions of their symptoms, sometimes with fairly
gory specifics. I used to call them back and tell them that they had
the wrong number, but I gave up because of the number of calls.

The saddest one of all came from a woman on the verge of tears,
telling the 'doctor' that her mother had died. I did try, repeatedly,
to call her back but the line was continually busy, perhaps off the
hook. I hope that everything worked out as well possible.

Perhaps the most bizarre one was from a crematorium telling me that
<name omitted's> remains were ready to be picked up. I declined the
offer.

Generally, I try to be as polite to the callers as possible, and most
are polite to me as well. Occasionally they just hang up in my ear, or
curse at me, and then hang up. We don't have the call-back feature
here yet.

Do I have a social obligation to call back people who leave wrong
number messages on my answering machine, to let them know they haven't
reached their target?


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX          Reply to: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: You have no obligation to do anything with the
callers except possibly not be deliberatly misleading. I once had a
number for outgoing calls from the computer which was *so* polluted
with wrong numbers ... how polluted, you ask? It was so bad (and since
I never got any calls on that line myself), I put an old answering
machine on the line which had as its announcement only message: "You
have reached the Wrong Number Repository ... you have reached a wrong
number. No messages will be taken. This is a wrong number; please hang
up now. <click>"  Otherwise when I was on the computer, the line was
busy of course.  Imagine someone trying for hours to get through the
busy signal only to get the above message with they finally did get
through the next day, etc!   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Alan Marc Gallatin)
Subject: Re: FAX Switch; Distinctive Ringing Switch Wanted
Date: 9 Dec 91 15:55:12 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.


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

> I am in search of two items -- a FAX/phone/modem/etc switch that
> checks for the FAX CNG but that can also be controlled by DTMF tones,
> and a switch that directs calls based on distinctive ringing
> ("IdentARing" in this part of the country).

Two products by "Lynx Automation" might be of interest to you:

 * Fax Director
 * Ring Director

I know very little about the first, except that it is generally
available for less than $100 and does basiacally what you wanted.

I have more experience with Ring Director as I use it here.  (I
thought about getting Fax Director but it would be impossible to
continue using telco voicemail since my phone line would actually have
to be "answered" in order to detect a fax machine).

Ring Director comes in two models -- one which detects two distinctive
rings and one which detects four.  (The second, third and fourth
number ringing patterns are pretty much standardized) - When one
"number rings" the switch passes the ring on to the relevant device
and cuts off the other for the duration of the call.  Similarly, when
one device is picked up to make an outgoing call, anything plugged
into the other port is disabled for that call.

I have my Ring Director hooked in at the network interface.  The two
lines coming out of the unit (corresponding to each of the two ring
formats) are then fed through my apartment's phone line distribution
as a simulated "line 1 and line 2" -- The fax-modem is then plugged
into "line 2" and my voice phones into "line 1" -- my modem never
hears my voice calls ring and I never here the double-ring associated
with the fax on my voice line.

(A nice plus is that the switch makes it impossible for me to pick up
in the middle of a data transmission!!!)

Both models retail under $100 -- I bought the two ring version for
about $70.

Further questions?  E-mail -- don't post (unless you believe the follow-up
to still be of general interest!)


ALAN M. GALLATIN                   Internet:  [e-mail]
 Duke University School of Law                [e-mail]
 Home: [phone]                GEnie:  A. GALLATIN

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 91 13:01 EST
From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area?
Organization: A Fool's Paradise


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

> Does anyone know when Southwestern Bell and GTE are going to start
> offering Caller ID service to the Dallas-Ft Worth area?

Bear in mind many of the GTE Central Offices are the GTE/Automatic
Electric (now AG Communications) GTD-5's.

GTE has exited the central office equipment market with the agreement
forming AG Communications and at some point will not own any part of
AG.  I presume AT&T will eventually integrate AG into their own
structure at some point.

Although the GTD-5 seems to be a servicable central office machine (it
beats the AE No.1 EAX, for sure), its not a production item anymore.
All new GTE CO's in this area seem to be Northern Telecom DMS's (I
thought they might be AT&T since GTE formed AG with AT&T, but not so
 ... GTE also seems big on selling Northern's PBX and key systems ...)

I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines
anywhere.  To the best of my knowledge, development on these has
stopped as well.  I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I
believe CLASS is not planned, either.  That seems to mean Caller-ID in
many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are
replaced many years from now.

It would also seem to mean Signalling System No. 7 will not be used by
the GTD-5, either.  I know that many GTD-5 CO's are scheduled to have
sophisticated DACS installed ahead of the machines to permit better
access and some enhancement.  These DACS are not GTE or AT&T made.

My local GTE contacts tell me that CLASS services have no introduction
date planned in Ohio and they comment that no one is talking about it
inside GTE.

I'd appreciate any GTE or AG staffers on the net who know what the
current status of GTD-5 service enhancements are ... offering either
the official version or actual first hand information.


Regards,

Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

From: [e-mail] (Eric Dittman)
Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area?
Date: 9 Dec 91 14:53:46 CST
Organization: Texas Instruments Component Test Facility


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
rtsg.mot.com (Russ Latham) writes:

> Does anyone know when Southwestern Bell and GTE are going to start
> offering Caller ID service to the Dallas-Ft Worth area?  I've talked
> to a customer service rep, and they weren't much help.

The last time I checked the best guess Southwestern Bell had for
Dallas was 1993.  Their reason for such a long delay was the need for
replacing most of the switches to support CID and other new features
(like selective call blocking).


Eric Dittman   [e-mail]
Texas Instruments - Component Test Facility

Disclaimer:  I don't speak for Texas Instruments or the Component Test
             Facility.  I don't even speak for myself.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Intra-Lata LD Using PC Pursuit
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 02:04:53 GMT


[e-mail] (Bob Peterson) writes:

> Telenet has in the past objected to same-city calling over
> their network and it does not make a lot of sense to do it since you
> have to pay telco for a call to the PCP indial anyway ... why not just
> dial the desired seven digit number instead.   PAT]

Telenet often has several indials in a large city, so one is often a
true, untimed local call from you.  The modem you want to call, on the
other hand, may be a more expensive call than the PC PURSUIT charge.

Which brings up an interesting point!  At the time I was using PC
PURSUIT, it cost about $1 an hour after 6pm.  I always wondered how
they could make money at this, given that they had to pay business
rates (even discounted ones) for the outdial phone line.


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

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

Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 20:16 EST
From: fmsys![e-mail] (Macy Hallock)
Subject: Re: IMTS Channel Designators
Organization: A Fool's Paradise


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

> What is the reason/purpose behind the alphabetic IMTS channel
> designations?

> Low band freqs are called ZO, ZF, ZH, ZM, ZA, ZR, and ZB.

> High band freqs are JL, YL, JP, YP, YJ, YK, JS, YS, YR, JK, and JR.

> UHF freqs are QC, QJ, QD, QA, QE, QP, QK, QB, QO, QR, QY, and QF.

There were used to:

1. Designate the channel the was your "home" channel and you
   were to monitor for calls on MTS.

2. It made the phone number look right.  My old MTS number
   was JL5-1337.

3. The old low band channels are now abandoned and I believe
   the frequencies have been reassigned by the FCC.


Macy M Hallock Jr N8OBG 216.725.4764 [e-mail] [e-mail]
[No disclaimer, but I have no real idea what I'm saying or why I'm telling you]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1013
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02409;
          14 Dec 91 17:58 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19075
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Dec 1991 15:46:39 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03061
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Dec 1991 15:46:30 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 15:46:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1014

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Dec 91 15:46:27 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1014

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T: From Leading Edge to Bleeding Edge (Dave Niebuhr)
    British Cellular System Charge For Uncompleted Incoming Calls (N. Roberts)
    AT&T SDN Reselling (Martin Harriss)
    Message Express (Carl Moore)
    What Exactly in Georgia Goes Where (404/706 Split)? (Dave Leibold)
    Yet Another Teleslime Idea (Jack Winslade)
    The AC Split That Never Happened (Jack Winslade)
    Consumer's Guide to Cellular Information (Robert John Zurawski)
    800 Discrimination (Bob Frankston)
    What's a "Turret"? (Roy Smith)
    Ring Detection Circuit (T.C. Peng)
    Teleconferencing System Manufacturing Companies (Sanjeev Tavathia)
    MCI Mail Student Rates (John R. Levine)
    Telephone Set Push Bottom signal (T.C. Peng)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 7:38:32 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: AT&T: From Leading Edge to Bleeding Edge


In the 12-10-91 {Newsday} there was an article concerning AT&T and
some of their recent problems and how fast they can recover.  One
section listed some of these, called Gnawing Problems.

In each one of these the FAA had its communications disrupted and
luckily no planes crashed due the them.

Oct. 29, 1990: Operational error while converting to digital circuits
in Garden City, NY.  Lost multiple services for two hours.

Jan. 4, 1991: Fiber cable cut by construction crew in Neward; 77 lines
lost.  Massive operational impace with 262 air traffic delays.  Outage
lasted nearly 12 hours.

Apr. 9, 1991: Fiber cable hit by lightning near Decatur, Ala.
Multiple services and land lines lost for nearly 16 hours.

May 4, 1991: Four of the FAA's 20 major air traffic control centers
shut down for five hours and 22 minutes.  Fiber cable cut by farmer
burying a dead cow at unspecified location.  Massive operational
impact.

July 17, 1991: Vandals cut cables in three utility holes in Elkton, Mass.
Sporadic outages for more than seven hours.

Aug. 26, 1991: Fiber cut in Massachussetts during hurricane cleanup.
Lost multiple services for more than 15 hours.

November 1991: Kansas City, Mo. air traffic center lost communicatons
for four hours and 16 minutes because a beaver chewed fiber cable.

The article puts AT&T in a bad light, even though AT&T spokespersons
tried to minimize the damage (as they would and should).

Mention is made of the new FASTAR (Fast Automatic Recovery) system
which brings lines back to service fairly quickly.  Examples were 131
of 193 circuits between Colombus, Indiana and Louisville, Ky. and 114
on Sept.  17 in NYC.

All in all, the article was somewhat disturbing since too much
reliance is being put on machines and not people (meanwhile letting
more and more employees go).


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 15:17:31 GMT-1:00
From: "Nigel Roberts, FRN-605, DTN 785-1018" <[e-mail]>
Subject: British Cellular System Charge For Uncompleted Incoming Calls


Many of you will know of the British cellular phone system, operated
as a duopoly by Cellnet (BT)and Vodafone (RACAL). Some of you will
also know that the system charges you for uncompleted calls. This
generates an enormous amount of revenue for them.

As an example, supposing you decide to call me on my U.K. cellular
number ([phone]). If you get the ringing tone, the call will
supervise when either I or Angelika answer. This is perfectly normal,
and the expected behaviour.

If, however, you get the message indicating that we couldn't be
reached, perhaps because (usual reason) the phone is turned off or out
of area then the call will supervise immediately and you will have to
pay for the privilege of listening to the Cellnet intercept message.
Worse, this can also happen even when the phone is active but the
local cell is congested. You STILL will have to pay for the call.

If you had used a calling card or similar means of placing the call,
you could easily imagine having had to pay three or four dollars for
an uncompleted call.

A couple of years ago, it was suggested to me (by John Covert) that
charging for such intercept messages was contrary to CCITT
recommendations.  I do hope so, because if so, I intend to complain
loudly to Oftel about it. If you ever have had occasion to call a UK
cellular number (+44 860, +44 850, +44 836 & +44 831 numbers) and this
has happened to you, I believe you should complain to your LD carrier
and demand a refund.

I do have access to CCITT recommendations via the IEE/British Computer
Society Library but unfortunately this is only a photocopy by post
service, so I wonder if anyone can give me a reference to specific
Recommendations which deal with this.

Any suggestions?


Nigel Roberts   [phone]   [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 14:57:01 EST
From: Martin Harriss <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T SDN Reselling


My company has recently been approached by an AT&T SDN reseller, and I
would like to get some opinions on the service.  I know this has been
discussed in the Digest fairly recently, but currently I do not have
ftp access to the archives.

I would like to get any opinions you might have on the service, and I
have a couple of specific questions:

Is this set up as your 1+ carrier, or do you need to dial an access
code (10-SDN?) to route your calls?

In the case of billing inquiries, call handling difficulties, etc, who
do you talk to?  Do you go via your reseller, or can you talk directly
to AT&T?

Anything else, good or bad, about the service?

I am also considering what we might save by connecting directly to a
long distance carrier.  I was therefore wondering at what volume of
calls does it pay to start talking directly to a long distance
carrier?

Any opinions/information would be welcome.  I will forward the
information to anyone who requests it.


Martin Harriss    uunet!bdsgate!martin

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 12:09:21 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Message Express


I saw a few C&P pay phones in Baltimore which have, instead of the
"out of change?" message, an announcement for Message Express at
800-477-0334.  (I forgot to try this number from Delaware later,
although I note that this is the same prefix as the C&P helpline at
800-477- 4704.)  The Message Express offers (for 75 cents if the call
is local, 1.75 if long distance) 10 attempts, beginning immediately
and continuing for the next 24 hours, at the delivery of your message.

I later sent a message to myself using the Message Express.  The first
attempt was made within the hour I had sent the message, and the
sender's name and message were played only once.  This is not as
"nice" a service as AT&T Voicemark, where I have the option of replay.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 18:25:32 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: What Exactly in Georgia Goes Where (404/706 Split)?


I have a list of Georgia prefixes; the question is, what are the exact
exchanges that will stay in 404, and what goes to 706? I've heard that
"Metropolitan Atlanta" will remain in 404, but I'm looking at a more
exact idea as to what exchanges are involved. Are these the current
local calling area to Atlanta, or is this more a political metro
boundary involved?


[e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 18:25:46 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: Yet Another Teleslime Idea


Here's an idea that a few of us were bouncing around this morning, but
I doubt if any of us will seek to cash in on it.  Maybe someone has
already -- maybe someone will read this and do so.

We were discussing two semi-related topics, one being COCOT slime and
the other being the 976 slime that has tried many times (and failed)
to run a successful time-temperature rip-off service here in Omaha.

Is there anything to prevent the operator of COCOTs to install, either
within the units or central to a whole gaggle of them, a private time
and/or temperature box with digitized voice ??

This could be accessed either as a (otherwise unassigned) seven-digit
number, perhaps a quickie code (dial *1 for time and temp, only $.50
per call), maybe even as a free public service from the generous
operators of the COCOTs >>FAT CHANCE<<, or worse, maybe intercepting a
976 or $.25 local seven-digit time/temp line and pocketing the change.
(Would anyone know the difference?)

On a more general level, is there anything to prevent COCOT operators
from connecting calls to anything other than the pair that comes from
the local telco? Direct bypass to a LD carrier (or AOS slime) perhaps?
Would it be legal/feasible to run several hundred COCOTs in a large
shopping center out of, say, a private PBX to concentrate the many
units into a group of trunks?  (They wouldn't even have to have DID
 -- everyone knows that COCOTs cannot be dialed. ;-)

Comments?


Good day.
JSW  [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 18:22:16 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: The AC Split That Never Happened


The original message in this thread has long since fallen off the far
end here, so I can't do a quote or same-subject reply, but ....

In response to a recent post of area code splits which included a
402/308 split for Nebraska (which I doubted -- and still do) I posted
a general query on the subject in a local conference (either OMAHA or
oma.general, depending on your religion ;-) and I am posting excerpts
from the responses here for your info.  The bottom line seems to be
that as long as area codes have been usable in Nebraska, there have
always been two, 402 and 308.

JSW>> A recent list posted [in TELECOM Digest] shows a Nebraska
JSW>> 402-308 split sometime in the past. I can't remember, but DID
JSW>> Nebraska at one time consist of only one area code ??   Does
JSW>> anyone remember when, if at all, the split occurred?

A Ma Bell employee responded ...

JR> That's the FIRST I've heard of that, Jack.  To my knowledge,
JR> there were always the two NPAs.

JR> Of course, the Numbering Plan was introduced in 1961 (or earlier),
JR> so I can't REMEMBER back THAT far!        :)

And a long-time Omaha resident added, among other telephone trivia ...

AJ> If my memory serves me well, Nebraska was always two area codes
AJ> as long as Nebraska had Direct Distance Dialing. Now Omaha didn't
AJ> get Direct Distance Dialing until 1962 or so. California had
AJ> Direct Distance Dialing in the 1950's, so maybe you could call
AJ> all parts of Nebraska that you could call with one area code at
AJ> some time in the 1950's.

AJ> ... A couple years later, we could dial long distance directly
AJ> to the places that could take it. It was strange, because you
AJ> could dial all the way to California, but Bennington {NE} was
AJ> still long distance and you had to go through the operator. ...

AJ> ... On the 342 lines you could dial long distance just like you
AJ> can today. On the 346 lines, the operator would always come on
AJ> and ask what number you were calling FROM. Not the number you were
AJ> calling, the number you were calling from, as if they could not
AJ> tell at the telephone office. I always thought I could lie and
AJ> name any old number at random, but honesty got the best of me.

That's about it.  If anyone has anything concrete concerning a split
of 402/308, I would be interested in seeing it.


Good day!
JSW  [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 12:35:52 EST
From: [e-mail] (Robert John Zurawski)
Subject: Consumer's Guide to Cellular Information
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


I am looking into buying a Cellular phone as a Christmas gift, but I
don't know anything about them.

Is there a guide (like in any magazines) that tells about the features
in these phones. I would like to know things like what differance does
it make to get a phone with less watts, how to change from one carrier
to another, how long the batteries will last, etc.


Bob Zurawski    ...!att!cbnewsc!rjz

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

From: <frankston![e-mail]>
Subject: 800 Discrimination
Date: 12 Dec 1991 14:43 -0400


I was at a hotel and I guess I keyed in 81-800 too fast and got 8-00
which got me an ATT operator.  I decided to simply ask for my 800
number.  But it is a Cable and Wireless 800 number so she said she
couldn't connect me!  Is this new?


[Moderator's Note: It has been the case for some time now that AT&T
operators will only assist in dialing to 800 numbers which are
assigned to AT&T. I guess they figure if an 800 customer of some other
company needs assistance in being reached the caller should ask the
operators of the LD company involved to spend their time placing the
call.  PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 15:34:23 EST
From: Roy Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: What's a "Turret"?


    I'm trying to order a data circuit.  I call our local business
office, who said they would have to have somebody from marketing call
me back.  Since I was in a hurry, I asked for marketing's number so I
could call them.  Apparently, they are not supposed to give out this
number, but did anyway.  To get to the point, the person who answered
the phone there twice mentioned that she couldn't help me because she
was just answering calls that came into the turret, or something to
that effect.  What's a turret?  Is this some special telcospeak for
"order desk"?


[Moderator's Note: A 'turret' in this instance is the operator or
receptionist's telephone console where many lines are available on
line buttons they depress, etc ... like a 'call director'. PAT]

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

From: T. C. Peng <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ring Detection Circuit
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 12:26:27 PST


I received a CLID receiver with ring detector chip (MC145447) from
Motorola lately. I am intested in the ring detection circuit within
this chip or something performs the same function.

I am working on a small experiment on my telephone set. If anyone
knows the ring detect circuit (not necessary the same as the one of
Motorola's design) and willing to share the information with me,
please let me know. Thanks.


Alan TC Penn

email : [e-mail]
voice : [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Sanjeev Tavathia)
Subject: Teleconferencing System Manufacturing Companies
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1991 02:05:03 GMT


I would like to get in touch with companies manufacturing
teleconferencing system/or hands-free mobile telephones. I am working
in Acoustic echo cancellation area and mainly interested in current
technology companies using for teleconferencing.

Please direct all mail to [e-mail].


Sanjeev

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

Subject: MCI Mail Student Rates
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 23:36:02 EST
From: John R. Levine <[e-mail]>


MCI Mail recently announced a special pricing plan for students called
College Mail.  For $5 per month, you get up to 100 outgoing e-mail
messages per month.  Messages beyond that and their other services
such as fax and hardcopy messages cost what they usually cost.
Incoming messages are free, as always.  There is a one-time $10
sign-up fee and you have to have a credit card (Amex, MC, or Visa)
which they can bill.  Proof of student status, a photocopy of the ID,
must be provided annually.

For students who don't have net access through their schools, this
looks to be a very good deal, particularly considering MCI Mail's
gateways to nearly every other e-mail system including the Internet.
MCI has a nationwide 800 access number, so I'd expect this to be
particularly attractive to students at out of the way little schools.

Call 1-800-444-6245 for more info.


Regards,

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

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

From: T. C. Peng <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telephone Set Push Bottom Signal
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 10:24:44 PST


Pat,

I have a question about the telephone push bottom signal.

When I call someone with the dial tone (or rotary) phone, first, I
dial his phone number, then, before he picks up the phone, i.e. before
the phone gets connected, I dial something else, for example 1234, can
this extra stuff reach his telephone set or will the CO remove this
stuff before it reaches the called person?


Alan TC Penn

email : [e-mail]
voice : [phone]


[Moderator's Note: It gets dumped. The other end does not get it. PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1014
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04001;
          14 Dec 91 18:57 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19971
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 14 Dec 1991 16:44:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28374
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 14 Dec 1991 16:44:08 -0600
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 16:44:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1015

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 14 Dec 91 16:44:06 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1015

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    FCC Says No More Slamming Allowed (TELECOM Moderator)
    No More Slamming (Dave Niebuhr)
    House Panel Faults FCC (Dave Niebuhr)
    AMD and Motorola and ISDN (John P. Hascall)
    Telephone Directory on CD-ROM (Direct Access; Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt)
    Residential Toll Diversion (Jack Adams)
    Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services For Iridium (Lloyd Buchanan)
    Seasonal Riposte Reposted (Jim Haynes)
    EFF Announces The Pioneer Awards (Gerard Van der Leun)
    Frame Relay (Steve Silverman)
    More Checking on 878 and 688 Prefixes in Maryland (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator ([e-mail])
Subject: FCC Says No More Slamming Allowed
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 91 10:30:29 CST


[Moderator's Note: I received several copies of the press release
issued by the FCC Friday pertaining to 'slamming'. My thanks to
everyone who submitted this.   PAT]

                           --------

WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A., 1991 DEC 13 (NB) -- The Federal
Communications Commission adopted rules to halt a practice called
"slamming," under which long-distance customers are switched to other
long-distance carriers, often without their knowledge. The agency said
slamming was a leading cause of consumer complaints.

The practice took many forms. Telemarketing firms hired by MCI were
once accused of getting spoken permission to "try" the carrier, then
switched. AT&T was accused of "slamming" customers from smaller long
distance carriers. Newsbytes reported earlier this year of how its
Atlanta bureau felt "slammed" when it purchased MCI Fax service, then
had its long-distance service transformed to that carrier's
international division.

Under the new rules, telemarketers must verify a customer's decision
to switch either through a written authorization, through the consumer
calling a toll-free number, through an independent third party, or
through a pre-paid postcard. The long distance company would then have
to wait 14 days before ordering the switch, which is made by a local
phone company, giving customers time to change their minds.

Some of the new requirements were proposed by the National Association
of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, which represents state
regulators. Other portions came from an agreement reached by AT&T and
MCI to settle a lawsuit over the issue.

In a press statement, MCI tried to claim credit for the decision.  Its
statement read that the new rules "are derived from recommendations
submitted by MCI in December 1990." The statement ignores the part
AT&T or state regulators played in the decision, or the legal
background behind the recommendations. MCI also said in its statement
it will continue to use telemarketing firms in an effort to get
customers to switch carriers.

In other FCC action, the agency clarified rules under which TV
stations sell political candidates broadcast time, banned the use
of cellular telephones on airplanes, because of interference with
ground-based systems, except when authorized by the plane's
captain, and proposed new rules to ease the entry of foreign
phone firms with open markets, especially UK firms, into the U.S.
market.


(Dana Blankenhorn/19911213/Press Contact: FCC Press Office,
202-632-5050; MCI, Debra Shriver, 703-415-6904)

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 10:52:05 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: No More Slamming


According to today's {Newsday, 12/14/91}, the FCC has adopted rules
that supposedly will prevent telcos from slamming the comptetion by
requiring that they must document the customer's decision to switch
from one long distance carrier to another.

Let's wait and see if this comes to pass or not.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 11:02:47 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: House Panel Faults FCC


In today's {Newsday, 12/14/91}, there is an article that says that the
House of Representatives fault the FCC for laxity for the recent phone
outages.

I quote:

"A good deal of the blame ... belongs to the Federal Communications
Commission which has been unwilling to acknowledge the severity of the
problem," said Rep. Bob Wise (D-W.Va.) chairman of the House
Government Operations information, justice and agriculture
subcommittee.

These comments accompanied a report by the Government Operations
Committee on outages in local phone services that affected millions of
phone lines on the East and West Coasts and disruptions in AT&T's
domestic and international long-distance service, which tied up East
Coast air traffic and forced the stranding of thousands of airline
passengers.

The FCC's rebuttal was that it would set up a council of government
and telephone indurstry officials who will look for ways to improve
the networks.

They also said that the report was expected and that they don't act in
a reactive manner.  The FCC also said that the improvements were
planned before this happened.

Alfred Sikes, FCC Chairman, appointed Paul H. Henson, former chairman
of Untied Telecommunications, to chair the FCC's Network Reliability
Council.

A unit is to be formed within the FCC to investigate outages in a
similar manner to the National Transportation Safety Board with its
handling of airplane crashes.  The panel probably won't go so far as
the NTSB and has not been fine tuned.

While the article is good and makes some valid points, I wonder how
the FCC and the telcos will respond when, not if, the next major
outage occurs.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

From: [e-mail] (John P Hascall)
Subject: AMD and Motorola and ISDN
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 16:31:14 GMT


I am a grad student looking for addresses (e-mail or postal) to write
to request specifications, tech notes, and engineering samples for a
project I am undertaking.

In particular, I am interested in the Motorola MC68302 IMP and the AMD
LANCE chipset (Am7990, Am7992B & Am7996).

Any good reference on the nuts&bolts layer of ISDN would also be appreciated!


John Hascall   Project Vincent
Iowa State University Computation Center
[e-mail]   Ames, IA  50011   515/294-9551 [fax -1717]

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

From: [e-mail] (Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt)
Subject: Telephone Directory on CD-ROM
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 01:32:41 GMT


 From Direct Access, December 13, 1991:

Nynex introduces national electronic telephone directory on CD-ROM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

New York, N.Y. - Nynex Information Technologies Co. has introduced a
national consumer and business digital telephone directory for use
with personal computers.

This new expanded national version of Nynex Fast Track Digital
Directory will be available on a nine-volume set of CD-ROM discs.

                         ---------

So much for the quote. I just thought it might be of interest to some
of the telecom readers.

Merry Christmas!


Witold Dziewaltowski-Gintowt

Carleton University * School of Business * Computer Consulting
net  : [e-mail]   voice: [phone] x. 2362

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

From: [e-mail] (26350-adams)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 13:35:50 GMT
Subject: Residential Toll Diversion
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


In contributing to the above discussion, I would like to point out
that recent events in the industry (Ameritech, Bell Atlantic and
Southern Bell experiments) surrounding "Advanced Intelligent Network"
Release 0 technology has the promise of being able to support a toll
diversion (Someone will come up with a clever marketing name for this)
service affordable by residential customers.  Without going into
details, a database look-up against a table of "allowed" or
"disallowed" toll NPA-NXX or simply NXX digits coupled with PIN
overide (In case of a valid toll call) is almost a tamper proof
solution to this problem.

One might argue that controlling your households use of the telephone
is a more straightforward approach to toll diversion, but situations
can and do arise (babysitters for one...) where this service has
merit.  Of course tariffing, marketing, etc. issues still remain to be
addressed, but the technology is there ... I know, I'm working on the
Bell Atlantic approach to AIN and it works as advertised!


Jack (John) Adams        | Bellcore RRC 4A-253
[phone] {Voice}        | [phone] {Facsimile}
[e-mail]    | [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Lloyd Buchanan)
Subject: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium
Organization: Axe Core Investors, Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 16:41:15 GMT


I noticed on the Dow Jones News wire an article about Motorola
acquiring the rights to the defunct Geostar with the intent of using
them for Motorola's world-wide satellite-based cellular telephone
system, Iridium.

Wasn't Geostar a navigation system?  If Moto can convert it into a
phone system, they could revolutionize (and obsolete) cellular phones.
Could this acquisition really jump-start a brilliant concept?


Lloyd Buchanan           [e-mail]
Axe Core Investors       uupsi!axecore!lloyd
Axe Castle              [phone] (phone)
Tarrytown,  NY  10591    [phone] (FAX)

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Seasonal Riposte Reposted
Date: 13 Dec 91 18:40:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


"It is my heart-warm and world-embracing Christmas hope and aspiration
that all of us -- the high, the low, the rich , the poor, the admired,
the despised, the loved, the hated, the civilized, the savage -- may
eventually be gathered together in a heaven of everlasting rest and
peace and bliss -- except the inventor of the telephone."

    Mark Twain, 1890


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 14:13:24 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Gerard Van der Leun)
Subject: EFF Announces The Pioneer Awards


                   -==--==--==-<>-==--==--==-

  THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION'S FIRST ANNUAL PIONEER AWARDS
                       CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

  (Attention: Please feel free to repost to all systems worldwide.)

In every field of human endeavor, there are those dedicated to
expanding knowledge, freedom, efficiency and utility.  Along the
electronic frontier, this is especially true.  To recognize this, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation has established the Pioneer Awards.
The first annual Pioneer Awards will be given at the Second Annual
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference in Washington, D.C. in
March of 1992.

All valid nominations will be reviewed by a panel of outside judges
chosen for their knowledge of computer-based communications and the
technical, legal, and social issues involved in networking.

There are no specific categories for the Pioneer Awards, but the
following guidelines apply:

   1) The nominees must have made a substantial contribution to the
health,growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based communications.

   2) The contribution may be technical, social, economic or cultural.

   3) Nominations may be of individuals, systems, or organizations in the
private or public sectors.

   4) Nominations are open to all, and you may nominate more than one
recipient. You may nominate yourself or your organization.

   5) All nominations, to be valid, must contain your reasons, however
brief, on why you are nominating the individual or organization, along
with a means of contacting the nominee, and your own contact number. No
anonymous nominations will be allowed.

   6) Every person or organization, with the single exception of EFF
staff members, are eligible for Pioneer Awards.

You may nominate as many as you wish, but please use one form per
nomination. You may return the forms to us via email at:

             [e-mail].

You may mail them to us at:
             Pioneer Awards, EFF,
             155 Second Street
             Cambridge MA 02141.

You may FAX them to us at:
             [phone].

Just tell us the name of the nominee, the phone number or email
address at which the nominee can be reached, and, most important, why
you feel the nominee deserves the award.  You can attach supporting
documentation.  Please include your own name, address, and phone
number.

We're looking for the Pioneers of the Electronic Frontier that have
made and are making a difference. Thanks for helping us find them,


The Electronic Frontier Foundation

          -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------

Please return to the Electronic Frontier Foundation via email to:
          [e-mail]

or via surface mail to EFF 155 Second Street, Cambridge,MA 02141 USA;

or via FAX to USA [phone].


Nominee:_________________________________________________________________

Title: __________________________________________________________________

Company/Organization:____________________________________________________

Contact number or email address: ________________________________________
Reason for
nomination:______________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

  _______________________________________________________________________

Your name and contact number:____________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________

Extra documentation attached: _______

              -------EFF Pioneer Awards Nomination Form------

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

Date: Tuesday, 10 Dec 1991 08:32:31 EST
From: [e-mail] (Steve Silverman)
Subject: Frame Relay


Frame Relay is a new packet mode that was defined by T1S1 and CCITT
Study Groups XI & XVIII.  It combines OSI layers 2 and 3 into one
relatively small (& I think elegant) protocol.  The data transfer
state is based on a stripped down version of HDLC.  The actual
standards (for data transfer state) are T1.618 (the ANSI version) and
Annex A of Q.922 (CCITT).

This may be used as a PVC or Switched Virtual Circuit.  The standards
for SVC set up are T1.617 and Q.933.

Under these standards, the network does error detection but the user
is responsible for retransmission if it is desired.  This allows less
burden on the network and allows FR to run at T1.  T3 (45 Mb/s) seems
to work too and at least one carrier is promising this in a few years.


Steve Silverman

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

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 12:05:59 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: More Checking on 878 and 688 Prefixes in Maryland


In Maryland, the 878 prefix is at Fort Ritchie and the 688 prefix is
at Fort Meade.  Both are listed as local calls from both Baltimore and
Washington, and both are listed as remaining in area 301 after the
301/410 split.

I tried 0+ calls to these prefixes (cutting it off before entering my
card number) from Aberdeen and from Baltimore.  Both prefixes are
apparently NOT reachable in area code 410, so the remainder of this
note refers to them in area 301 only.

 From Aberdeen, both prefixes are long distance; 688 got the AT&T
prompt, and 878 got the C&P prompt!  From Baltimore, both prefixes got
the C&P prompt.  (If you use 0+ for local calls, does the local
company -- in this case, C&P -- handle it even if it crosses the LATA
boundary?)

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1015
*******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13301;
          15 Dec 91 18:09 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00554
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 15 Dec 1991 15:50:25 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28646
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 15 Dec 1991 15:50:15 -0600
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 15:50:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1016

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Dec 91 15:50:10 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1016

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia - Archives Updates and Midwinter Doldrums (TELECOM Moderator)
    Merry Christmas from BellSouth! (Charles Hoequist)
    Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago (TELECOM Moderator)
    Local Competition in Washington (Peter Marshall)
    ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (George Herson)
    Students Registering via Touch Tone (tm) (Dave Niebuhr)
    France Telecom Offers Free Network Simulation Diskette (Nigel Allen)
    Vartec 1 Cent Calls - Revisited (James Hartman)
    Sprint For Local Calls Instead of Pacbell (Steve Elias)
    Source For PBX in a PC? (Larry Rachman)
    AT&T Mail Rate Minimum Suspended (Tony L. Hansen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 15:03:36 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia - Archives Updates and Midwinter Doldrums


In an issue of the Digest on Saturday, an article entitled 'FCC Says
No More Slamming' was based on a press release from the FCC, but
according to a couple notes I received was in fact written up
originally in {Newsbytes}, from where the copy I reprinted first
appeared. I guess the attribution to {Newsbytes} got missed in the
process of editing it for the Digest. So sorry!

For next: I've been working feverishly in the Telecom Archives for
several hours getting some new files on display and organizing some
old files. David Leibold has sent along a revised version of the
Canadian area code / esxchange lists and these were swapped in for the
older version of the files. He also sent along (in cooperation with
Carl Moore I believe) the start of a very detailed country codes
listing. A new sub-directory in the archives is called 'country.codes'
and the new files are stored there by zone number. This file is not
yet complete (we have only three of the zones installed), and Dave
will tell us more about it when the directory is completed.

Due to a nagging cold and stomach upset this past week I have gotten a
long way behind in getting out messages waiting here, and as a result
several hundred REply messages received more than a few days ago which
have not already been printed here are being sent to the bit bucket.
I am doing this so that space can be given to more recent news items
of interest. There will be several more REply messages coming out
later today however.


Patrick Townson

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

Date: 15 Dec 91 13:59:00 EST
From: Charles (C.A.) Hoequist <[e-mail]>
Subject: Merry Christmas From BellSouth!


The following excerpts are from an article that appeared in the
{Orlando Sentinel}, Dec. 2nd, under the headline, "Foreign guests
learn America is land of the free (calls)."

"A telephone computer glitch gave dozens of foreign travelers at
downtown Orlando hostel early Christmas presents Saturday and Sunday.

"The giving began when a guest at the Plantation Manor, an
international youth hostel across from Lake Eola, discovered Saturday
afternoon that pay phones were allowing free long-distance calls to
virtually anywhere in the world.

"As the news spread, the four public phones, which are normally
deserted at the hostel, were busy non-stop until Sunday afternoon,
when Southern Bell discovered the problem and dispatched technicians
to shut off long-distance service.

[quotes from delighted Aussies, Brits and Kiwis deleted, talking about
how wonderful it was to call home and talk for one or two hours for 25
cents.]

"Roger Swain, a clerk at Plantation Manor, said the discovery was made
by accident.

"'One of our guests said he tried to call Houston, Texas, from the
second floor,' Swain said. 'The operator told him he didn't need to
use coins because the phone was not listed as a public phone. He was
on the phone for 40 minutes, and they didn't charge him.'

[ section on recovering costs deleted. Basically, the BOC has no leverage
on either called or calling party. ]

"A spokesman for AT&T, which handles long distance for some of
Southern Bell's phones, said the problem seemed to be with a Southern
Bell computer.

"'Our equipment is working fine,' said Randy Berridge, AT&T spokesman.
'If it's a Southern Bell problem, they would bear the costs.'

"It's possible Southern Bell recouped some money: it stll cost
25 cents for a local call.

"'This is a drop in the ocean to them', one English traveler said of
the phone company, which had just covered the cost of his call home at
the Sunday rate of $21.74 for each half hour."

                             --------

Charles Hoequist   |Internet: [e-mail]
BNR Inc.           | 919-991-8642
PO Box 13478, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3478

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

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 14:52:41 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago!


Cellular One here in Chicago has announced that all air time will be
free on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. (From 12:00 AM through 11:59
PM of each day.)

Normal charges for long distance, directory assistance or other
premium billed charges will apply ... but not airtime or local calls.

I have no word yet if Ameritech will counter with the same gift to
their subscribers or not.


Patrick Townson

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

Subject: Local Competition in Washington
From: [e-mail] (Peter Marshall)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 11:04:42 PST


On 12/6, the WA Utilities & Transportation Commission issued a split
decision on the application of Electric Lightwave, Inc. for
registration as a telecommunications company. The WUTC's order
partially granted ELI's application.  Splitting 2-1, the WUTC limited
ELI's registration as a telecom company to interexchange private line
or special access services and to intraexchange dark fiber services in
only US West exchanges.  According to the order, a key issue in the
case was "Whether allowing the proposed service would unlawfully
interfere with rights of local exchange companies currently operating
in the area of the proposed service." ELI, a subsidiary of Citizens
Utilities Capital Corp., controlled by Citizens Utility Co., planned
to provide a fiber digital MAN, supplying services between IXCs,
end-users and IXCs, and between end-user sites.

ELI, said the order, had claimed its proposal did not interfere with
LEC rights because the LECs have no exclusive rights re: local
exchange boundaries; and that if so, such LEC rights were limited to
basic switched voice services.

US West supported ELI's proposal, denied there are exclusive exchange
area rights, and maintained LECs should also be allowed to provide the
same services as ELI in other than their own areas.

In what was perhaps a relatively conventional analysis, two
commissioners asserted that "The public policy issue ... is the effect
on LEC consumers of basic, voice-grade, switched services ..." These
two commissioners focused on what they called "imprudent and
inopportune investment in transient technologies to the eventual
detriment of the subscribers of basic telephone service." The decision
states that "The local exchange company is entitled to be the
exclusive provider of wholly intraexchange services."

WUTC Chair Sharon Nelson's dissenting statement asserted "The majority
opiniion errs both in its legal and policy analyses ... represents a
step backwards in regulatory policy and could threaten reasonable
technology deployment ..." Nelson stated "At a time when it is
becoming clear to most economists that hardly any 'natural monopoly'
remains in the telecommunications industry, this order would create a
legal monopoly.  Such an approach cannot endure against changing
technology and economics." Nelson asserted that "To claim a perpetual
monopoly over all intraexchange services currently offered or yet to
be invented strains credulity," and that "the majority opinion flies
in the face of emerging federal and state policies, which generally
encourage interconnection of alternative local transport systems ..."
Nelson added that "When information gateways evolve, the Commission
may be limited to allowing one gateway per local exchange. This is
hardly the way to stimulate the information economy." The WUTC
Chairman concluded, "The majority's conclusions ignore legal
precedent and technological realities and therefore will not be
sustainable in the long run. This decision contravenes the state's
goals of promoting diversity, efficiency and availability of
telecommunications services, and is not in the public interest."


  The 23:00 News and Mail Service - [phone] - Seattle, WA USA
                          PEP, V.32, V.42bis
                  +++ A Waffle Iron, Model 1.64 +++

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

From: George Herson <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?
Date: 15 Dec 91 13:58:20 GMT


I'm presently investigating investment in a wireless cable company.
One of the drawbacks is I won't see any return on that investment for
five or six years (FCC takes onee year to process application, takes a
year to get a station on-line, and three or four to recoup costs).  By
that time I wonder if ISDN will be a long way off, and of course
provide a superior conduit for video into the home.  Anyone know, or
have an idea as to find out?


george

Quick -- while there's still time -- dispatch your worthless $$$ to:
George "Easy Money" Herson  5312 Verano Place, Irvine CA 92715
[e-mail]  voice: [phone]  fax: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 6:40:05 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Students Registering via Touch Tone (tm)


I subscribe to a LISTSERV, called OPERS-L, which is devoted to
computer operations issues and has over 300 subscribers world-wide.
Normally, the issues discussed there wouldn't pertain to c.d.t. with
maybe one or two exceptions.

One of which is student registration for classes via Touch Tone (tm)
phones.  It seems that more and more schools are going this way but
are floundering quite a bit due to their "inexperience" with this
method.

I'm enclosing a recent post about a conference and what must be done
for the schools to get up to speed, so to speak.

 ... start of text ...

 This is for all of the people with questions about student
registration by phone, voice_response_technology.  A good place to
start would be the "TOUCH-TOME TELEPHONE CONFERENCE" at BYU
Conferences and Workshops; 136 Harman Building; Provo, Utah 84602.  It
is a three day event, but was worth the money for our Registrar's
programmers.  The Registrar's programmers also suggested signing up
for the Registrars discussion list, I do not know the address.

 The TWO things which always should be mentioned are,

1) Coordinate with your local phone company on the number of phone
lines you will need etc.  It is a lot easier to take out a phone
system than most people will ever imagine.

2) Spend time on the "sell and instruction" of the system on the
DEPARTMENTS NOT on students.  The students will pick it up very fast,
everything in the world is new to them in any case.  The people you
have to "convince" that phone mail is a good thing are the professors,
deans, department heads, and MOST ESPECIALLY the clerk in each office
who has been doing their job the same way for the last 10 years.
These are the people who can make your life a lot more difficult.  The
Students will simply adapt and follow the already fluid life they are
in.

  ... end of text ...


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 14 Dec 91 (18:27)
Subject: France Telecom Offers Free Network Simulation Diskette
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


France Telecom's New York office is offering a free network simulation
diskette to promote France as a location for a multi-national
company's European network hub.

North American readers can obtain the diskette or more information
about France Telecom's ideas on networking and hubbing from Gabriel
Sidhom at France Telecom in New York (telephone [phone]; fax
[phone]).  Readers elsewhere can probably obtain the diskette
from the nearest office of France Telecom (Beijing, Bonn, Brussels,
Budapest, Caracas, Chicago, Jakarta, London, Moscow, Paris, Singapore,
Tokyo).  The ad didn't give a Paris address to contact for the
diskette, unfortunately.


Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario   NorthAmeriNet Host

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

Subject: Vartec 1 Cent Calls - Revisited
From: unkaphaed![e-mail] (James Hartman, Sysop)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 20:37:50 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy


In a not-too-scientific study, the same telephone number was called
via SWB long distance vs. Vartec long distance.  Since the SWB call
was made during daytime rates and the Vartec call during evening
rates, I used the list from the handy dandy white pages which states
that evening rates are discounted 25% from daytime rates.

Note also that I live by Hobby Airport (on the SE side of Houston, 713
area code) and the number called was on the west end of Galveston
island (409 area code); your mileage/rates may vary.

On SWB, the call (accounting for the discount) ran at around
$.27/minute.  On Vartec, the call ran at around $.20/minute.

The sound quality seemed to be the same as SWB's long distance.

Anyone else try this, or am I the only fool?  :-)


[e-mail] (James E. Hartman, Sysop)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, near Hobby Airport, Houston, TX

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

Subject: Using Sprint For Local Calls Instead of Pacbell
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 15:37:52 PST
From: [e-mail]


Lately I've begun using my US Sprint FONcard for intra-lata long
distance.  Pacbell's rates steam me so much that I prefer giving my
money to Sprint.

I save money if it's day or evening and I make a ten minute or longer
call from San Jose to Santa Rosa, for example.  I just thought I'd
pass this along to see if others do this and what yall think of it.

If it wasn't for the 75 cent access charge to 800 877 8000, Sprint
would be cheaper for every call!  During day or evening, for any
length call, it's cheaper for me to call Boston than it is to call San
Fran, from San Jose.  Ridiculous.


Steve Elias

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

Date: 11 Dec 91 13:48:38 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Source For PBX in a PC?


In the past several years, I've heard quite a bit about firms offering
a card that transforms a PC into a PBX. As usual, I can't find one now
that I need to.

What I'm looking for is a board (boards?) that live in the PC and
provide station and trunk interface and switching capability. I'm
planning to write my own software so I'll need either driver routines
or a detailed description of the hardware.

Please reply directly. Thanks in advance to anyone who does.


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX        Reply to: [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 10:31:31 EST
From: [e-mail] (Tony L Hansen)
Subject: AT&T Mail Rate Minimum Suspended
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


Recently, AT&T Mail put out a notice whereby they would install a
minimum $25 monthly fee per billing address. Given that there used to
be a $30 per year charge instead, this was a large increase for the
"small customer".  Well, given the feedback from many of those "small
customers", AT&T Mail decided to suspend the minimum fee until other
options are in place which will allow better service for those "small
customers". Yes, someone WAS listening. The following is a note which
was sent out to some of the customers who gave feedback. (A euphemism
for "complained". :-) )

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

We have recently decided to suspend the minimum monthly charge on AT&T
MAIL to give customers such as yourself the opportunity to choose a
new billing arrangement that does not require a minimum monthly
amount.  We have included a notice of this on the December bill with
details to follow shortly thereafter.  This new arrangement will
include credit card billing as well as electronic delivery of billing
detail.

Thank you for your feedback.  It has helped us formulate a plan we
believe will be responsive to our customer's billing needs.

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

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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1016
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13937;
          15 Dec 91 18:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22207
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 15 Dec 1991 16:48:31 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00863
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 15 Dec 1991 16:48:20 -0600
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 16:48:20 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1017

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 15 Dec 91 16:48:18 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1017

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Dial-up Data Connections: Recommendations Wanted ([e-mail])
    AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Cristobal P. Martin)
    Is Anyone Having Trouble With Easylink? (Derek Billingsley)
    Fibre Optic Network Planned for Moscow Metro (Nigel Allen)
    What is This Stuff? (Tom Perrine)
    Meteorite Burst Communication (Emmanuel Disini)
    C&P Allows 10XXX For Some Local Calls But Not All (Skip Collins)
    AT&T Mail $25 Monthly Charge Suspended; More News to Come (Toby Nixon)
    BT Gold / CLASS Features (Bryan Montgomery)
    Response From ATT Mail - Credit Card Billing Required (Steve M. Kile)
    VAX CIT Experiences Wanted (Lee C. Hauenstein)
    Telephone Company Employees (Gloria C. Valle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (TEST)
Subject: Dial-up Data Connections: Recommendations Wanted
Organization: Military-Industrial Complex (Thanks, Ike)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 09:26:29 -0500


I need to do inter-city binary data transfer, usually in the 5-15
megabyte range, about once or twice per month.  The ideal would be a
proper T1 connection to the internet, but really uneconomical for such
infrequent use.  9600-baud modems are way too slow, and tests have had
poor results, even at slower rates. (Usual connection is between
Boston and Honolulu.) We've fallen back to express-mailing tapes, but
this is a rotten compromise.

Is there a reasonable way to do infrequent, high-speed data transfer,
preferably with an internet gateway somewhere?

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom?
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 10:38:35 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]


A friend of mine recently called me from the Los Angeles airport.  He
was using a credit card on an AT&T "computerized" payphone. I offered
to call back, and he gave me the number on the phone (a 213 area code
number).  I hung up and called; I got a "the number is disconnected"
intercept.

After talking with my friend again (he called again after a while), I
called the AT&T operator and explained what had happened. I figured
the phone might be mislabelled. She tried and got the same intercept.
After a while she transferred me to her supervisor, who tried again,
same result.  Finally she promised to find out, and in 15 minutes she
called back.  She said that the number was indeed one of AT&T's
payphones in LAX. She said that (against her expectations), " [the
disconnected number] intercept is what they use there [as opposed, I
guess, to what they do in the East Coast] when it is not wired for
incoming calls ".  She also attempted to explain the "profit" reasons
for wiring their phone that way.

I am disappointed. I've generally had very good service from AT&T, and
expected them to allow incoming calls to an airport's payphone.  I'd
also like to get a meaningful intercept and visible labelling on the
phone (my friend can read, and saw no notice of this) when a payphone
does not allow incoming calls.  Yes I am being picky, but I consider
that allowing incoming calls is part of the service they provide; and,
no, I don't agree with disabling incoming calls by default: please
don't give me the drug-dealers argument, it doesn't apply here.

So, my question is: how do I complain about these things? The operator
was nice but not very helpful on that.


Regards,

Cristobal Pedregal Martin               [e-mail] (internet)
Computer Science Dept. - LGRC           UMass / Amherst, MA 01003

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

From: [e-mail] (Derek Billingsley)
Subject: Is Anyone Having Trouble With Easylink?
Organization: University of New Brunswick, Fredericton
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 16:59:48 GMT


Where I work (Avis Rent-a-Car), we subscribe to AT&T's Easylink
service (Well, we don't, but the reservation center in Tulsa does)
which sends out mail via fax machine.  Now every time we get a
reservation, it says, "ERROR, START OVER" and then calls us back three
minutes later with the same reservation prepending a (Duplicate
suspected) to the header.

We do not personally get billed for every single reservation sent to
us, but instead, every reservation received (Billed by head office,
Avis).  Who is causing this problem?  The first reservation which
comes through is fine and our fax is a typical Canon fax machine -- no
garbled output or anything.)

Is anyone else experiencing the same problem? or are we doomed to a
life of wasted fax paper ...

By the way, the return number that is given on the fax header is
pretty weird. It doesn't fit the (npa) xxx-yyyy type of number, but
instead it is something like a six digit number.  Any takers?


Derek Billingsley   University of New Brunswick - Electrical Engineering
[e-mail]  -  MUSIC Account (IBM something or other)
[e-mail]    - A real computer, a UNIX box

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 10:03:15 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/438, Echo Beach, Toronto


The following article appeared in the Transit Outlook section of
{Railway Age}, November 1991.

Moscow Metro takes the capitalist line. Moscow's subway system has
joined the ranks of Soviet institutions that want to cash in on
capitalism.

The Andrew Corp. of Orland Park, Ill., announced last month that it
has signed a joint venture with the Moscow Metro to develop a fiber
optic network covering the metropolitan Moscow area.

Moscow Metro will own 69% of the joint venture, contributing the use
of 162 miles of right-of-way, all 151 Metro stations, and a limited
fiber optic network already in place. Dr. Floyd L. English, president
and CEO of the Illinois company, said Andrew will provide network
engineering design, and will also serve as general manager of the
joint venture.


Nigel Allen - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber
optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the
many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil
the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more
appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Perrine)
Subject: What is This Stuff?
Date: 11 Dec 91 19:04:20 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


Our phone system was recently replaced.  We had a DIMENSION (we all
called it "demented"), which we replaced with a ROLM.

After the ROLM had been running for a month or so, ALL the old phone
equipment was removed from the telcom closets.

I discovered several small chassis from this removal process beside
the dumpster.  When I asked the local telecom folks about it, they
said that Pac Bell and "ATTIS" DID NOT WANT THIS STUFF BACK, NO WAY,
NO HOW.  PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. DON'T-CALL-US-WE'LL-CALL-YOU.

This building was a recent acquisition, after being empty for several
years.  I suspect that what I "rescued" is the remnants of a phone
system left over from the previous tenants.

Anyway, I am now the proud possesor of two identical gray plastic,
wall-mount widgets, approximately 8.5' wide by 18.24" high. There is a
stamped label "620A" near the bottom.

Each one has eight slots for circuit boards near the top. Some of the
cards are labeled:

    400D
    KTU
    SD-69513-01
    ISS 15
and
    400G
    KTU
    CO/PBX
    LINE CKT
    WE
    <bell symbol>
    ISS2
and
    400H2KTU
    CO/PBX LINE CKT
and
    400D
    KTU
    SD-69513-01
    ISS 8

There are two pink 20 high by 10 wide (connections points) punch block
at the bottom of each unit.  There are 8 sets of lamp and fuse/circuit
breakers in the center of the unit.

What is this stuff??  Is there anything here that would be useful as
part of a home PBX?



Tom Perrine (tep)   |Internet: [e-mail] |Voice: [phone]
Logicon - T&TSD     | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep     |  or : [phone]
P.O. Box 85158      |GENIE: T.PERRINE               |  FAX: [phone]
San Diego CA 92138

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

Subject: Meteorite Burst Communication
From: [e-mail] (Disini SW, Emmanuel Disini,PRT)
Date: 12 Dec 91 11:39 GMT


Hello, can anyone tell me what vendors out there carry MBC (Meteorite
Burst Communication) transponders?  I am very interested in MBC and I
would like to know where I can learn more about it. (Magazine articles,
books, company literature).

Please respond by email. I am not a subscriber on this list.


Thanks,

joel disini

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 15:52:45 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Skip Collins)
Subject: C&P Allows 10XXX For Some Local Calls But Not All


Living in Virginia, near Washington, I am served by C&P.  Doing a
little experimentation, I found that I can make calls within my local
area using a long distance company accessed via 10XXX0 or 10XXX1.  The
only restriction seems to be that the calls must be out of state, to
DC or Maryland.  Attempting to make a local call within VA using
another carrier results in an error.  I suppose this is true also for
non-local calls usually handled by C&P.

Going a step further, I tried using the AT&T operator to help me place
a calling card call to a nearby phone.  She said that she could not do
it, but that she was able to place an AT&T call to local points in
Maryland and Virginia.  To the best of my recollection, trying normal
1+ dialing to a local number, no matter which state, yields an error
message.

Why would C&P not intercept all such attempts to bypass their non-toll
and, presumably, toll service?  Why make such restrictions for in-state
calls only?


B. Collins

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Mail $25 Monthly Charge Suspended; More News to Come
Date: 11 Dec 91 15:40:59 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


This afternoon, I received a telephone call from Jennifer Gilbert with
AT&T EasyLink Services.  She reports to Daniel Rosen; you may recall
that in a previous posting I mentioned that Rosen was in charge of
developing a "consumer oriented" email service for AT&T EasyLink.  Ms.
Gilbert apologized profusely for not having called or written to me
sooner; she said that company policy is to respond within 24 hours
whenever anyone writes or sends a message to Bob Allen (AT&T
chairman), which I had done after hearing about the $25 per month
minimum charge.

Ms. Gilbert explained that the number of messages they received
indicated on the issue indicated that they had not done an adequete
assessment of the impact the new pricing plan would have on individual
users.  She apologized, and offered the following information.

AT&T EasyLink Services has immediately suspended the $25 minimum
monthly account charge.  The December billing for all users will
include information on several new billing options and programs
designed to appeal especially to individual and small business users.

She didn't say much more than that, but I was pleased that she would
take the time to call me individually and explain the situation.  I am
also pleased that AT&T EasyLink is responding so well to the outcry
from individual users.  Those of us who have individual AT&T Mail
accounts would probably be well-served to not cancel them right away,
but look at the information they're sending before making a final
decision.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]


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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 20:08:36 GMT
From: eb4/91/92 <[e-mail]>
Subject: BT Gold / CLASS Features


        Time for another posting while I wait for my ADA to compile
(BTW are there any ADA experts out there??); isn't UNIX wonderful!!

    Anyway, following the recent discussion on CLASS type feature
availbility and history I thought people may be interested to know
that it is really only in the last couple of years that these have
become available in the UK over most of the country with BT's
digitalisation process (at least as far as I am aware). Even now most
of Joe Public (John Doe) is unaware of call waiting, three way
calling, phone last caller etc. Personally I have heard no mention of
caller ID either.

    However, when I recently dialed 999 (911) instead of being
asked for my number by the operator as in the past, she automatically
gave it to the police. Is this ANI or C-ID or what? Personally I
haven't heard mention of either over here.

    Finally as an aside, did you know that NYNEX is moving into
the South of England? Not as a telecommunications operator per se, but
in the new field (over here!) of Cable TV?

    Some food for thought?


Bryan

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Response From ATT Mail - Credit Card Billing Required
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 18:32:18 PST


Pat:

After seeing the letter from Ed Collyer at ATT Mail the other day I
thought I would see if I could get my ATT Mail account reinstated
(although I don't know why, I'm happy with MCI Mail.)

Here's Mr. Collyer's response:

Mr. Kile:

It is our plan to offer reinstatement without charge to customers such
as yourself.  You will need to choose an alternative, credit card
billing arrangement to avoid the minimum usage charge however.  I have
asked my staff to reinstate you immediately to give you the
opportunity to make the choice.  Details on making this choice will
follow in the near future.  This will not result in a minimum charge
immediately since we have suspended same through first quarter 1992.
Please advise if this is not acceptable to you.


Ed Collyer

                             ----------

Steve
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]

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

From: "Lee C. Hauenstein - Phone # [phone]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: VAX CIT Experiences Wanted
Date: 11 Dec 91 16:58:16 EDT
Organization: Ziff Information Services, Medford MA


I'm looking into the DEC product, "CIT" and some of the third party
add ons.  Is anyone out there familiar with the product, and/or using
it?  It looks like it lets you roll your own as far as managing your
phone "system" from your VAX.  Looks like lots of potential.  Is this
basically how others are using the product, what kinds of benefit have
you seen in employing this software?  Any comments?  Any further
comments on the NPRI product, TTMS which is a CIT application package?

Thanks very much.


Lee Hauenstein

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

From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Date: 12 Dec 91 22:33 UT
Subject: Telephone Company Employees


I'm sure you have all noticed articles in the newspapers about the
telephone companies all over the US letting employees go in the
name of saving money and compitioation. As a long time employee
I'm one to agree that the companies in the past have had more
personal and higher prices then needed, but much of that was and
still is caused by overregulation, not regulation as we still need
that no matter what they say.

Well as you are seeing with this loss of trained people the service is
getting less (not many payment offices). The systems around the world
are getting better and it may seem like that is happening here with
all the new equipment, but who will be around in just a few years to
maintain it when we few are gone. Get your tin cans and strings out
people!  :)

All this phone company bashing that is done here may make the person
doing it feel good, but it sure does no good. Many of you are in
education and just look at the condition of that now. My brother and
sister are teachers and I was trained as one but was unable to stay
with it since the pay is so low. These may have been to different
subjects but as you can see we both are in the same situation and
something needs to be done now.


[Moderator's Note: The world is changing all around us ... or as
Cardinal Newman said in his ode long ago, ' ... change and decay, in
all around we see ... '  What would *you* suggest 'we' do?   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1017
*******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27466;
          16 Dec 91 2:32 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13954
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:27:12 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19452
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:27:03 -0600
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 00:27:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1018

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Dec 91 00:27:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1018

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Life on Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers (Dave Leibold)
    Voice Response Technology (Colin Campbell)
    Prodigy at 9600 (Steve W. York)
    ISDN in Japan and USA (Jim Haynes)
    CallerID + Plus from Rochelle Communications (Joel Upchurch)
    CNID/Caller ID Profiled on Canadian TV (David Leibold)
    Wire vs. Fiber Expense (Bruce Perens)
    Cost-Effectiveness of PCP (was How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?) (Spencer Sun)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (R. Woodhead)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Ted Timar)
    Re: 800 Discrimination (Steve Forrette)
    Re: 800 Discrimination (David G. Lewis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 17:08:33 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Life on Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Much has been said in the Digest regarding "outbound" telemarketers
and their effects on the general populace, namely telemarketing calls
of all sorts at all sorts of hours.

Let's look at the "inbound" side of things, specifically companies
that keep people on hold for vast amounts of time to the tune of
elevator music and frequent requests to "stay on the line, someone
will be with you shortly".

{The Toronto Star} circulation line is doing for inbound what the {San
Jose Mercury} has done for outbound. Namely, the tendency to wait long
periods of time to get at a "customer service" operator. By their
frequent requests to stay on the line, they must want subscriptions
desperately ... NOT.

The {Sun-Sentinel} (Ft Lauderdale, FL) ran an article on the holding
patterns encountered on some phone numbers. Several numbers were rated
according to such factors as how long it took to answer the call (if
the call was answered at all) and how long before a live operator was
reached. Three call attempts were made at various times for each
number. Then, each number was rated by a number of "bells" with three
bells being the best response. A few numbers did get a high rating,
while a few were awarded one or fewer bells.

Yet, when people are staying on hold more and more, one can only
conclude that putting callers on excessive hold ranks down there on
the food chain with COCOTs, 540-xxxx pager scams, etc. For those who
incur long distance or payphone charges (or local time-measured
costs), such practices are a theft of time; those who have to call
during working hours would no doubt feel the heat from their employers
for being kept on hold. In cases where long distance or local
time-measured costs are involved, camping out trying to get an
operator on-line truly becomes a rip-off. Maybe some user-pay
"services" (eg. 900- or 976-) already operate this way ...

Expanding the use of touch-tone automated services could help;
customers could get many transactions done without waiting. Indeed,
this is done by an increasing number of companies. VIA Rail Canada has
such a system to allow for automated schedule/rates information as
does Gray Coach Bus Lines in Toronto and some cable TV companies. VIA
Rail, in particular, used to waste vast amounts of time on their
toll-free lines (years ago, some calls stayed on hold for 20 minutes
or more). Other options include fax and e-mail if support for these
can be improved.


[e-mail]
[e-mail]  [e-mail]  [e-mail]
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Campbell)
Subject: Voice Response Technology
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Colin Campbell)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 01:31:03 GMT


I am looking for smaller scale hardware that would enable me to write
a voice response application similar to phone registration systems
used by universities or account query systems used by banks and credit
card companies.

My investigation has led me to large systems compatible with CICS, but
I have yet to find anything that could be used with personal computers.

Any leads would be appreciated.


Colin Campbell            Internet: [e-mail]
Evans & Sutherland        UUCP: !uunet!dsd.es.com!ccampbel
Salt Lake City, UT 84108  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Prodigy at 9600
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 13:13:16 PST


Recently there was a reference here to accessing the Prodigy service
at 9600, as opposed to the routine 1200 or 2400 they publicize.  Short
of moving to Texas, how does one alter the various setup strings in
order to do this from any access point.  I'm sure it can't be all that
difficult, but I don't have a 9600 modem with which to play and
interested friends are bugging me.  Please e-mail directly and I'll
post a concise set of directions to the Digest.  Thanks.


Steve York  [e-mail]   2617.503 Compu$erve

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

From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISDN in Japan and USA
Date: 12 Dec 91 00:40:47 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


At the Sun User Group conference this week a lunch speaker was David
S. H. Rosenthal of SunSoft.  He remarked that in Japan one can just
call the telephone company and ask to have your home service converted
to ISDN and it will be done the next day, no charge for the conversion
and no extra charge for ISDN service.  He contrasted with the U.S.
where if you can get it at all ISDN is available only at high cost.

He also noted that ISDN pay phones are becoming common in Japan; they
have an RJ-45 jack on the side.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joel Upchurch)
Subject: CallerID + Plus from Rochelle Communications
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 23:56:41 GMT
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL


In the December 13th Issue of {PC Magazine} on page 93, John Dvorak
mentions an interesting product called CallerID + Plus from Rochelle
Communications. Apparently CID++ picks up the CID signal and looks up
the phone number in the associated data base and pops the information
in the data base up on the screen. If the call if from an unknown
number then a form pops up so you can fill in information for the
database.  Apparently Dvorak thinks this is going to be a killer for
for salespeople.


Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718
Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809 [e-mail]
{uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 23:02:24 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: CNID/Caller ID Profiled on Canadian TV


The CBC program {Marketplace} will have a segment on Caller-ID and its
effects on the general populace. This will be broadcast Tuesday night,
17th December 9pm (local CBC broadcast times in Canada).  Just about
anyone in Canada can get CBC; in the U.S., those not near a border
station could try picking up the program on satellite on one of the
Anik channels (such as E2 - I don't have exact transponder numbers for
CBC feeds, and they occur at various times for the various time
zones).

Outside of North America, things get a bit difficult in this respect,
but perhaps a synopsis or something can be done.


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Please send along a synopsis when the program is
shown. Thanks.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bruce Perens)
Subject: Wire vs. Fiber Expense
Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1991 21:32:37 GMT


I would think that fiber is less expensive than wire for the telephone
company, over the long run, even if you won't use all of the bandwidth
today.  I'd expect that the cost of installing a fiber cable is
virtually same as that of installing a wire run of the same length.
The labor and heavy equipment used to install it probably cost much
more than a wire or fiber. And once it is installed, there is existing
physical plant for 60 MHz or so of bandwidth per strand that can be
divided up and sold to multiple customers without incurring that
installation expense again.

The materials that make up optical fiber are not expensive. Copper
probably costs more per MHz/foot .

Pacific Bell puts up fiber runs on speculation around here. They don't
wait for an order before they establish a "fiber pole" near an
industrial park.


Bruce Perens

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Cost-Effectiveness of PCP (was How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?)
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:20:05 GMT


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

>> where else can you get long distance data transmission for $1 per
>> hour (or 83 cents per hour under the $50 per month plan?).

> [mentions how PCP pales in comparison to direct-dial LD]

Ditto that.  For WWIVnet, I transfer an average of 80-150k per night
long distance to McAllen, TX.  Analysis of my phone bill shows that
these calls run between $7-10 a month (not sure what the connect time
is but it's way less than 30 hours).

Compare to $30 for PC Pursuit, which would tie up my BBS for six times
as much time (average 1400-1500 cps, two USR DS's connecting with
v.32bis), and I'm saving myself $20 a month.

Which means my modem will pay for itself in two years just on network
connects alone.  Not a bad investment.


S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - [e-mail]
      Clockwork Orange / Princeton Ultimate - WWIVnet #1 @6913

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 08:03:09 GMT


PAT writes:

> [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to
> take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization
> which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I
> have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice
> when you please and where you please?   PAT]

* A Company should have the right to determine who speaks FOR the
  company, and also restrict the speech of employees made using it's
  facilities.

* What an employee says on his/her own time, without using the
  Company's facilities, is their business.

* If a Company is defamed or libeled by an employee's speech, there
  are many remedies under the law.  Likewise, vice versa.

Bottom line: PAT is right that a Company has the right to keep phone
logs and decide not to accept or allow calls from/to certain phone
numbers.  It's their phone, and their dime.  The recent case where
(P&G was it?) went and got phone records was way over this line, of
course, and I believe it's being remedied in the courts right now.

At the same time, the employees are free to go to the nearest payphone
and spill their guts, (although in an ideal world, they should be
responsible for their actions).

In the real world, any investigative reporter who is stupid enough to
call a sensitive source at work from an non-payphone won't be in the
business long.  The first rule of leakdom for a source is to tell the
reporter "Don't EVER call me, I'll call you!" and set up a signalling
mechanism to let the leak know the reporter wants a call.

Same goes for spies too.


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

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

Date: 12 Dec 91 17:24:42 JST
From: [e-mail] (Ted M A Timar)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Omron Corporation
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option


> [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to
> take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization
> which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I
> have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice
> when you please and where you please?   PAT]

Throughout Canada, the Engineering Codes of Ethics (one per province)
states that a Professional Engineer's responsibility is to the public
first, and to his employer second.

While this code of ethics does not apply to anyone except for
Professional Engineers in Canada, the logic does.

If you believe that responsibility to your employer is more important
than responsibility to the public, you won't find me as a customer of
your company.  (I guess that I won't be attending NWU :-)

This does not mean that you should be spreading company trade secrets,
but it does mean that you should be reporting 'evidence of the dangers
of asbestos' even when this is contrary to the good of your employer.
Otherwise, you will be morally (and probably legally) responsible for
the damage (or deaths) caused by it.


Ted Timar - [e-mail] - [e-mail]
Omron Corporation, Shimokaiinji, Nagaokakyo-city, Kyoto 617,  Japan


[Moderator's Note: I do not believe responsibility to the public and
responsibility to one's employer are mutually exclusive. If you have
problems with what your employer is doing, then *resign your employment*
and seek something else. You have no right to take your employer's
money while knifing him in the back.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 02:04:05 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: 800 Discrimination
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


> [Moderator's Note: It has been the case for some time now that AT&T
> operators will only assist in dialing to 800 numbers which are
> assigned to AT&T. I guess they figure if an 800 customer of some other
> company needs assistance in being reached the caller should ask the
> operators of the LD company involved to spend their time placing the
> call.  PAT]

But have you ever tried to do this?  As it turns out, no other carrier
will even try to help you with 800 calls, even their own.  So, if you
need assistance in dialing an MCI, Sprint, or other 800 number, you're
out of luck.  The way I see it is this is another reason why AT&T
provides better service to its customers (in this case, their business
customers with 800 numbers).


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: 800 Discrimination
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 16:37:03 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> frankston!Bob_Frankston@
world.std.com writes:

> I was at a hotel and I guess I keyed in 81-800 too fast and got 8-00
> which got me an ATT operator.  I decided to simply ask for my 800
> number.  But it is a Cable and Wireless 800 number so she said she
> couldn't connect me!  Is this new?

> [Moderator's Note: It has been the case for some time now that AT&T
> operators will only assist in dialing to 800 numbers which are
> assigned to AT&T. I guess they figure if an 800 customer of some other
> company needs assistance in being reached the caller should ask the
> operators of the LD company involved to spend their time placing the
> call.  PAT]

In addition, I believe there is a physical limitation that prevents
AT&T operators from connecting a caller to another IXCs 800 number.
Distribution of 800 calls to various carriers is done by the
originating LEC based on the NXX of the 800 number.  While I would not
doubt that AT&T has in various databases the carrier associated with
each NXX, it's not obligated to.

Furthermore, so far as I'm aware, there are no trunks between AT&T and
other IXCs, so the only way an OSPS operator could connect a call to
another carrier's 800 number would be to crank it back into the
originating LEC's network.  I don't know if this is technically
feasible or allowed from a regulatory standpoint.  And if the hotel
had direct connections into AT&T, there is no originating LEC
involved, so there's nowhere to crankback to.


David G Lewis        AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1018
*******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29206;
          16 Dec 91 3:07 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23641
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:12:21 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14760
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:12:12 -0600
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 01:12:12 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1019

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Dec 91 01:12:07 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1019

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Gary W Sanders)
    Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Lazlo Nibble)
    Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (David S. Greenberg)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Paul Fuqua)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Jamie Mason)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Joel B. Levin)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Carl Moore)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option (Paul Wallich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 09:59:46 EST
From: [e-mail] (Gary W Sanders)
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> When CallerID [sic] starts here in January, it will cost $6.50/month
> for the first 300 numbers displayed and $.02 for each additional
> number displayed.  I'm waiting for the day when there is a surcharge

Oh great --  now we have measured rates on in comming calls. 300 calls,
heck just the telemarketers alone could use that up.


Gary Sanders (N8EMR) AT&T Bell Labs, Columbus Ohio
[e-mail]         614-860-5965

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

From: [e-mail] (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 17:24:38 GMT
Organization: Gizmonic Institute -- Cleaning-Up-After-Frank Division


It sounds like that's what this amounts to anyway.  Suppose you have
CLID on your line.  If you go on a week's vacation, what's to prevent
J. Random Jerk from wardialing your line and running up your tab with
Illinois Bell?  If you're not there to see where he's dialing from ...


Lazlo ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (David S. Greenberg)
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1991 23:00:09 GMT


Great, take a useful service which doesn't cost them a damn thing and
charge for it -- just like Touch-Tone (TM).  I could see charging for
TT during the days of it's introduction when switches probably
required some expensive box to decode the tones, but now that the
switches have all that built-in, ya still have to pay 0.75 per month
for the privilege of making use of touch-tone ...

As for billing for the first 300 numbers, and then two cents for each
additional number, is there any way to tell the box that you don't
want to see that number?  Say for instance, that you're only
interested in the number of the caller who keeps wanting to chat at
3AM ... I think that this is just another IBT scam to rip off everyone
who makes use of their phones (pizza places, homes with teenagers
 ...).  How many phone calls do you get in a month?  I know I get a
lot, and sure don't think I ought to be billed on a monthly basis for
what is basically a peephole ...

I also wonder how the CID system is going to be set up ... will one be
able to subscribe to CID so one can tell who's calling, but also be
able to have "per call blocking" so that one's number won't show up if
one doesn't want it to?  Also, will it be possible to have your phone
set up so that it will reject ALL blocked CID calls (i.e. BE-DE-BEEP
 ... 'At the request of the customer, blocked calls from annoying
telemarketers are refused.  Release blocking if you wish to contact
this customer.'

Or will IBT just offer some moronic whittled-down version of the block
rejection by allowing you to only reject "pre-programmed" numbers (how
many telemarketers have more than one line?!).

I for one would like to see the CID provided free of charge to
residences, and perhaps have a nominal charge for businesses (like
$6.50 per month - FLAT RATE -- forget the sliding scales ...), and
then give you the option to have blocking turned on or OFF for all of
your calls.  If you choose to have it OFF, then turning it on should
cost you something -- say $0.05 per call.  If you have it on, and want
to turn it off, a similar charge ought to apply.  The charge for
rejecting any/all blocked calls should also be free IMHO -- with the
peephole in my front door, if I don't like who I see or don't see
because they've covered the hole -- I don't open the damn door.

Just goes to prove the old TAP motto: "Ma Bell is a Cheap Mother".


Microcomputer Support Specialist, Graduate Assistant, Student Residential
Programs Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL  61455
Internet: [e-mail] (preferred) GEnie: GREENY (about 1 time per month)

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91  12:52:11 CST
From: Paul Fuqua <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers


6sigma2 at polari!sumax.seattleu.edu (Brian Matthews) wrote:

> I thought I was the only one.  Recently I've been getting far more
> wrong numbers than I ever have before.  I've got the same number I've
> had for at least ten years, and there doesn't seem to be one specific
> person everyone is looking for.

I get a lot of wrong numbers, too, and they usually leave messages on
my answering machine, even though I included my name in the outgoing
message.

I recently changed my outgoing message to: "You have reached 340 xxxx.
If that's the number you *wanted* to reach, please leave a message."
It gives my family a good laugh, and does seem to have eliminated many
wrong-number messages (except those for the man who had the number
three years ago, but that's another story).


Paul Fuqua                     [e-mail], ti-csl!pf
Texas Instruments Computer Science Center, Dallas, Texas

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

From: Jamie Mason <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: University of Toronto Computer Services Advisor
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 07:09:27 -0500


The Moderator notes:

> I once had a number for outgoing calls from the computer which was *so*
> polluted with wrong numbers ... how polluted, you ask? It was so bad I
> put an old answering machine on the line which had as its announcement
> only message: "You have reached the Wrong Number Repository ... you
> have reached a wrong number. No messages will be taken. This is a wrong
> number; please hang up now. <click>"

    I had a simmilar problem.  Since it's just an outbound line for
the computer, what's wrong with either:

a) turning off the ringer and ignoring it, or
b) "at s0=1" (Hayes-style command to enable auto-answer after one ring.)

    I like b) in particular.  It seems to work quite well.


Jamie

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 08:57:21 EST


In article <[e-mail]>, 6sigma2@polari!sumax.
seattleu.edu (Brian Matthews) writes:

> I guess I've never understood the difficulty in dialing a telephone.

The wrong numbers I've received are mostly "typos" -- misdialed
numbers.  In the old days it was often off-by-one type errors (people
not pulling the dial correctly, or possibly a missed pulse).  Nowadays
it is clear that the dialing errors are touchtone related; most
notably I get two or three calls at work for a Cambridge hardware
store; they are on the 876 exchange, while I am on 873; and the 3 is
directly above the 6.  Similar things happen at home from time to
time.

At home, where my number is of the form ABAA people occasionally dial
ABBA or AABA; its easy to see why.  Also, my home exchange is 880; but
since the same city has all but one of the 88X exchanges, sometimes
the error is in that digit.

No, there is no difficulty in dialing a telephone; it is somewhat
error prone, however.


nets: [e-mail]    |    BBN Communications
  or: ...!bbn!levin    |    M/S  20/7A
POTS: [phone]  |    150 Cambridge Park Drive
FAX:  [phone]  |    Cambridge, MA  02140

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 10:01:32 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers


I had a recent case (before the 301/410 split) which I may have sent
to the Digest before: I answered two calls at 301-278-xxxx where I was
hung up on, apparently by the same person; I had been answering the
phone with the extension number and my last name.  The third time, I
simply answered "hello" and was able to catch the caller and try to
find out what her problem was.

She told me she was trying to reach 301-278-xxxx, which matched the
number I had answered at.  She was trying to reach "Patterson" and I
was thinking of the Patterson Park area in eastern Baltimore city, but
then I managed to get "Paterson, NJ" (that Paterson is spelled with
one "t") and realized that she had been given a wrong number (301 area
code when 201 should have been used).

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

From: Toby Nixon <hayes![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Date: 13 Dec 91 17:27:59 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


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

> Then you don't believe in the First Amendment.  The right of free
> speech, about your employer or anyone else, is inalienable.  An
> employer can restrict who speaks FOR it, but not who speaks ABOUT it.
> The thought of an employer restricting the speech of its employees is
> chilling...

> The freedom of employees to speak about their employers is critical to
> the continued functioning of our democracy.  Judging from your
> statement above, I think you need to take Civics again.

I strongly disagree.  The First Amendment says that _the government_
(specifically, Congress) cannot pass a _law_ restricting freedom of
speech.  This has absolutely nothing to do with corporate policies
that say "If you comment about this company in public with our express
permission and preclearance of the remarks to be made, then your
continued employment here will be in jeopardy."  Something similar to
that is _in_ the employment agreement of many companies.  It is a
firmly stated policy at Hayes.

> [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to
> take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization
> which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I
> have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice
> when you please and where you please?   PAT]

PAT is absolutely right.  Nobody has a right to a job.  If the
employer wants to include in your employment contract that you must
preclear any remarks about the company before releasing them, they
have every right to do so.  You can choose to not join the company,
or you can choose to leave if something later occurs that you feel
compelled to comment on.  Of course, you can also try to blow the
whistle anonymously, if you think you can get away with it and are
willing to take the risk of being fired upon discovery.

The Constitution does NOT restrict the actions of individuals or
companies.  It grants to the government certain specific powers,
places certain limitations on those powers, and reserves to the people
everything else.  The idea that every limitation placed on government
by the Constitution also applies to private companies and individuals
has resulted in an obscene amount of government interference in
private affairs, and it should be stopped.


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Bell Canada to Offer Caller-ID "Alternate Number" Option
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 01:46:33 GMT


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

> [e-mail] (Paul Wallich) writes:

>> On the other hand, as a journalist I find this a potentially
>> interesting concept. Ever since Caller-ID started coming, I've been
>> having these horrible not-so-paranoid fantasies about trying to reach
>> a source at <pick-your-major-corporation-or-government> and finding
>> that their PBX no longer accepts calls from the media or else
>> transfers them to the PR office.

> What a frightening thought: Caller-ID can allow a telephone system
> owner to take more control over his very own telephone system. How
> dare people even think of such a thing.

> But all this reminds me of an incident a couple of years back when an
> phone system owner (and administrator) did some blocking in reverse.
> An associate of mine mentioned one day that his girl friend (who
> worked in the administration office of Shoreline Amphitheater) had
> complained that a certain salesperson from one of my client firms was
> using her "influence" to attempt to get free passes on a continuing
> basis.  According to the report, the salesperson would call the office
> many times a day badgering the Shoreline staff.

[story of how he fixed it so she could no longer call from work]

> When this woman left the employ of my client, I removed the block from
> the system. This little bit of deviousness solved the problem and did
> not require any scene made by someone having to inform this person
> that her calls were inappropriate.

This is a cute story. Now of course you might also want to fix your
phone system so that employees can't call OSHA or the EEOC from work,
and that might not be so cute. Not to mention that telling the
salesperson that her calls were inappropriate might have helped her to
do her job better and might have contributed to a generally less
devious work environment. Technical solutions to social problems is
generally bad idea.

>> [Moderator's Note: I believe the public has a right to know what the
>> public finds out. I also believe a corporation has the right to insist
>> that all communications come from the individuals they designate.
>> Individual employees do not have an automatic right to speak for or
>> about their employer without the employer's permission to do so.  PAT]

> I'll second that.

As I used to say when the organization that owned my former employer
asked how it could stop seeing stuff that zinged its members published
in its own newspaper, "Don't do stuff you don't want published."
Individuals, furthermore, most certainly have a right to speak about
their employer without their employer's permission.  All of us
probably do it quite a lot. If you mean "speak for publication" that
may be another matter.

In either case, however, I do not relish the prospect of having both
my job made more difficult and my friendships with any number of
people disrupted because some telecom maven has a bright idea about
who should be talking to whom. The press may be the scapegoat-du-jour,
but I don't expect it will be the only organization on the list.
(Trivia question: why don't some European countries record called
numbers on long distance bills?)

> [Toady's Note: The thing about newspapers and their reporters is they
> should practice what they preach; except as my pastor, the Reverend
> Bob Dobbs of the Church of the Sub-Genius would say, they're not the
> type of person they're preaching to. The reporter hinted that holding
> back information from the public is a Very Bad Thing to do.  I'll bet
> his employer didn't feel that way about the identity of the alleged
> rape victim in Florida this past month. Newspaper reporters, you see,
> are qualified to decide what the public should know about ... corpor-
> ations are not to withhold anything from them however.   PAT]

Wasn't there someone who said something about not wanting to talk to
any reporter unless they could veto the final story, and yet here
postings get all these nasty little notes appended without notice or
consent. Huh. (If you want to talk about publishing names of rape
victims, you will find that reporters have been arguing about it for
about 20 years. My employer, a fellow who bears a strong resemblance
to a bantam rooster in a three-piece suit, would no doubt fire any of
us if we published the identity of a rape victim.)

Once again, I have never said that corporations shouldn't withhold
anything, just that using fancy technology to prevent reporters from
finding people who might help them print a little more than press
releases and prepared statements is an idea that makes me
uncomfortable. Think about it: if a company that employed a friend or
colleague of yours put _you_ on their call-blocking list, wouldn't it
make you a little uncomfortable? It may be their legal right, but is
it _right_?

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1019
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02119;
          16 Dec 91 4:06 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25096
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:03:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA20168
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:03:16 -0600
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 02:03:16 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1020

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Dec 91 02:02:41 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1020

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Ted M. A. Timar)
    Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Bill Martens)
    Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (George Herson)
    Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Michael G. Katzmann)
    Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Sander J. Rabinowitz)
    Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Linc Madison)
    Re: T1 on Fiber? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: T1 on Fiber? (Bud Couch)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Steven Leikeim)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Brett G. Person)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Ted M A Timar <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 91 11:59:55 +0900
Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan


[e-mail] (Phil Tait, [phone]) writes:

>  ... apparently from a location from Japan. If postings to this
> newsgroup must be mailed to the Moderator, how was this done in the
> absence of Internet E-mail connectivity to that country? Or is this no
> longer the case?

Was this ever the case?  As long as I've been on the net (almost six
years), Japan has been connected via BITNET (JPNSUT00) and UUCP (kddlabs).

There have also been dozens of private links to uunet and I believe a
CSNET link.  !%@:: also lists an IP link via HEPNET.

Also, the WIDE network has been operational for several months now.
This is a full IP link to the NSFNET.  It is presently only available
for research purposes.  Most (I think) universities and large
companies in Japan are connected to it.


Ted Timar - [e-mail] - [e-mail]
Omron Corporation, Shimokaiinji, Nagaokakyo-city, Kyoto 617,  Japan

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

From: [e-mail] (Bill Martens)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan
Date: 14 Dec 91 16:02:26 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Bill Martens)
Organization: Info Connections @ Mt. Fuji


Well, I am one of those people who send mail to the U.S. from Japan,
but I must make a note about this.  Currently, my mail is sent through
another machine which does connect to the States daily, but in reality
there are several such sites.

One of these sites is run by a company call TWICS which sends their
stuff through KDD labs (KDD is the international long distance company
here which is controlled by the government (or it used to be)).  But
KDD labs charges a large sum of money for this connection which the
average user would not ordinarily want to pay.

Many of us here batch up several user's stuff and send it all at the
same time.  This is fine for the time being.

JUNET which is the Japan internet, charges for line coverage somehow.
I'm not real sure how this is done.  But government locations or
educational institutions are charged nothing for these services.  But
ordinarily in order to reach someone in a japanese company here, you
must either have a direct link like I have or you must go through a
second party like KDD labs.

** Note **

On KDD labs, I think the receiver has to pay for the line charges for
notes coming from the U.S. (I could be wrong on this but they did send
my friend a nastygram.)

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

From: George Herson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan
Date: 15 Dec 91 12:59:01 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> [e-mail] (Phil Tait, [phone]) writes:

>    [asking about email to Japan]

>> [Moderator's Note: We receive a number of submissions from Mr. Woodhead
>> here and they come through with no difficulty, so my assumption is
>> that email works as well from Japan as anywhere else. I know the
>> Digest goes to a couple sites there which have telecom news groups.  PAT]

> Newsgroups are widely distributed in Japan.  There are two main email
> links, one through Bitnet (supposedly, for academic use only) and one
> through "INET-CLUB," which basically dials up the USA and charges the
> Japanese senders/recipients for the costs of the calls.  Also, in the
> near future, a consortium here is arranging to put up a proper inter-
> net link.

> In addition, inside Japan there are a number of "fj" newsgroups and
> mailing lists, both in English and Kanji, that are not distributed
> outside of Japan because they contain information that scrutable
> westerners are not meant to know.

I get scores of the "fj" newsgroups here at UCalifornia, Irvine.  This
is probably because we have the highest Asian population by percentage
than any other campus in the mainland US (as I read somewhere). Looks
like random ASCII.


George Herson     [e-mail]
fax: [phone]     voice: [phone]

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

From: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones
Date: 13 Dec 91 18:11:49 GMT
Reply-To: vk2bea![e-mail] (Michael G. Katzmann)
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.


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

> [e-mail] (Michael Rosen) wrote:

>> I hate these damn independent computer payphones.  Does anybody know
>> why, upon dialing a number, sometimes touchtones are disabled?

>> [Moderator's Note: ...  COCOTS are very
>> seldom intended for anything except to make fast money for their
>> owners, and what you mention is not uncommon ...

> This "feature" of some/many COCOTs has been mentioned over and over
> throughout the years of discussions on Telecom, but I don't recall
> ever seeing anyone post the explanation of just *why* the extra effort
> in programming was ever made to tell the phone to turn off the
> touchtone pad after a call is completed. How does doing this "make

I have a COCOT at home (just a novelty item you understand), as I've
mentioned before on TELECOM Digest.  Many features of the phone are
user-programmable with this model (electronics by ELCOTEL, housing by
WECO). The keypad can be enabled after the call connected BUT as it
warns in the manual, if the line can give a secondary dialing tone
after the called party has hung-up, the possibility of fraud exists.

So the process would be for the caller to call, wait for the called
party to hang up, wait for the second dial tone and then dial a second
and third etc call (still being billed at the original call rate). The
telco can configure lines, apparently, not to give a secondary dial
tone but perhaps the COCOT owners are being cautious, or more likely
it costs money.

Yes, yes I know what you're thinking ... if there is a dial-tone
detector already in the phone to detect the first dial tone, why can't
it be used to detect the second dial tone and hang up the line
(preventing possible fraud). I don't know, but I suspect that it looks
for energy in a particular band of frequencies and may be spoofed by
non-dial tone stuff.


Michael Katzmann     Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~     Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amteur Radio Stations:
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV     opel!vk2bea![e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 91 02:02 GMT
From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones


The Moderator notes:

> [...  COCOTS are very seldom intended for anything except to make
> fast money for their owners, and what you mention is not uncommon ...

Will Martin <[e-mail]> responds:

> This "feature" of some/many COCOTs has been mentioned over and over
> throughout the years of discussions on Telecom, but I don't recall
> ever seeing anyone post the explanation of just *why* the extra effort
> in programming was ever made to tell the phone to turn off the
> touchtone pad after a call is completed. How does doing this "make
> fast money" for the owners?

If the touch tones cut off immediately after dialing your number, that
means you can't use long-distance companies such as MCI, which allows
you to call through their network via a 950 number.  Or Sprint,
through their 800 number.  I once even encountered a COCOT that cut
off the touch tones when I was trying to place a calling card call
through the local telco.  In any event, the COCOT owner is trying (no
matter how much a pain in the *** this may be), to make you use
*their* long-distance company or AOS, or pay *their* local rates.

But I suspect what really makes "quick money" for the owner are the
COCOTs which accept touch tones for a limited time or number of digits
after call completion.  That means, for example, you put in your money
to make a call into your voice mail system, then you get part way into
the session, and the touch tones get disabled.  If you were in a
hurry, you might place another call and try again.

But what brings someone to the point of going after one of these
things with an ax (** figuratively speaking! **) is when you try to
contact customer service.  You dial 211, then you're prompted to press
"1" for a certain kind of trouble, "2" for another, and so on, but
then the touch tones become inoperative.  Now *that*'s a pay phone
from straight out of hell.

Needless to say, no complaints can be heard from within the COCOT
company itself, as the employees are only allowed to make politically
correct statements to the reporters.  :->


Sander J. Rabinowitz ([e-mail]), Brentwood, Tennessee.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 91 02:48:27 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


In article <[e-mail]>:

> [e-mail] (Michael Rosen) wrote:

>> I hate these damn independent computer payphones.  Does anybody know
>> why, upon dialing a number, sometimes touchtones are disabled?

>> [Moderator's Note: ...  COCOTS are very seldom intended for
>> anything except to make fast money for their owners, and what you
>> mention is not uncommon ...

> [Moderator's Note: For one thing, disabling the '#' forces people
> whose long distance carriers allow the use of that symbol to end one
> call and start another without redialing the 800 number and putting in
> their card number again to have to pay X cents for an additional 800
> call, or whatever the COCOT guy is charging.   PAT]

I think the main point is to make you dial 0+ instead of 10XXX-0+ or a
950 or 800 access number to place your long distance call in a manner
that gives them no revenue.  If you use their carrier, they get a cut.
If you dial 950-XXXX, they can't charge you (at a public payphone --
hotels can charge you for breathing near the telephone).  Since they
can't charge you money, they don't let you do it.  Of course, it
hasn't only been COCOTs that have done this -- AT&T blue phones used
to, for the same reason, I expect.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]
*I own neither a COCOT nor a law degree*

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1991 17:50:55 GMT


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

> Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1.  Somehow
> we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would
> be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable,
> because fiber is very EXPENSIVE.

> So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at
> the customers premises, or how do they handle this?

There are three parts to leased line (e.g. Accunet(R) T1.5) service:
an access portion at each end and an interoffice portion.  The
interoffice portion is provided on AT&T-owned facilities, and I
suspect this is what the rep was talking about.  The access portion
can be obtained from the LEC, an access provider such as Teleport or
MFS, or on customer-owned facilities (e.g. microwave).

Virtually all of the interoffice facilities for DS1 service are
optical.  (I say "virtually all" because digital radio is used in some
places where physically placing fiber is not economically justified.)
These facilities range from 90Mbps -- 56 DS1s -- up to 3.4Gbps -- 72
DS3s a.k.a. 2016 DS1s.  A single T1 is not placed on a fiber pair;
individual DS1s are multiplexed together into a higher capacity fiber
optic system.

In the access portion, DS1s can be provided on copper pairs (the
original T1), on digital radio (microwave, either LEC owned, access
provider owned, or customer owned), or on fiber.  Single DS1s can be
placed on an individual fiber pair; AT&T makes the FT-1 fiber modem,
ADC has a similar product, and I believe there are other companies
which also make similar products.  However, since this varies by
application and provider, I doubt that the rep was talking about
access.

In the access portion of the network, putting a single DS1 on a fiber
pair could be justified for a number of reasons; for example, the
customer could require the low bit error rate of fiber transmission.
Or the fiber could be already in place.  Fiber itself isn't that much
more expensive than copper -- for most plant, the installation cost
outweighs the material cost.  It's the electronics that cause fiber
plant to be more expensive than copper plant for low-usage
applications.


David G Lewis    AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

From: kentrox![e-mail] ()
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber?
Organization: Kentrox Industries, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1991 19:33:07 GMT


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

> Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1.  Somehow
> we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would
> be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable,
> because fiber is very EXPENSIVE.

> So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at
> the customers premises, or how do they handle this?

It is unusual to install fiber to handle T1, but not unknown. Yes, it
is expensive, *if* that is all that will ever be done with the fiber.

However, if growth seems to be occuring in your neighborhood, then
running the fiber now, operating it at T1 for a period, then upgrading
it to T3 or SONET in a year or so may make good economic sense.

BTW, last I looked (which was over a year ago) the crossover for fiber
with a T3 mux vs. a 25 pair cable with T1 was at about 15 miles. It's
probably lower today.


Bud Couch - ADC/Kentrox   If my employer only knew...  standard BS applies

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

From: [e-mail] (Steven Leikeim)
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311
Organization: ECE Department, U. of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 91 20:30:38 GMT


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

> The entire 555 exchange is reserved for telco use. And the telco's and
> Hollywood have come to an agreement to prevent juveniles of all ages
> from harassing people with phone numbers the same as are used in
> movies.
 ...

It appears that Alberta isn't reserving this exchange. In the
Lloydminster telephone book there are a couple of numbers listed as
1-555-xxxx with the comment that long distance charges may apply. I
don't know where these numbers are actually located, but I suspect
that they may be cellular or otherwise special numbers.


Steven Leikeim     University of Calgary
Department of Electrical Engineering
Internet: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a
while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had
phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there
apparently for billing purposes only.   PAT]

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

From: plains![e-mail] (Brett G Person )
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311
Date: 13 Dec 91 05:24:12 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


In the early 80's there was a pop song about a girl named Jennie.  The
chorus of which gave her 'phone number'.  Except that this happened to
be a valid phone number in some parts of the country.  These poor
people got hundreds of calls for ther fictitious girl.


Brett G. Person   North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1020
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04699;
          17 Dec 91 1:26 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16999
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 23:06:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26596
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 23:06:04 -0600
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 23:06:04 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1022

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Dec 91 23:06:02 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1022

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Wrong Numbers (Chris Ambler)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Tom Neff)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Bill Berbenich)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Phydeaux)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (David Lesher)
    Re: Interesting Caller ID Experience (Marcus Adams)
    Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Edwin G. Green)
    Re: ISDN in Japan and USA (Joe Talbot)
    Re: Telephone Company Employees (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: Telephone Company Employees (Thomas Lapp)
    Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Carl Moore)
    Re: C&P Allows 10XXX For Some Local Calls But Not All (Carl Moore)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (The Squire, Phish)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: Fantasy, Incorporated: Reality None of Our Business.
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 11:27:29 GMT


[e-mail] (Jamie Mason) recently informed us:

> I had a simmilar problem.  Since it's just an outbound line for
> the computer, what's wrong with either:

> a) turning off the ringer and ignoring it, or
> b) "at s0=1" (Hayes-style command to enable auto-answer after one ring.)

> I like b) in particular.  It seems to work quite well.

Not really a wrong number, but a similar situation.

A few days ago, our main voice line rang at 8AM. My room is pretty far
away from the phone, and my policy this early in the morning is to let
it ring. It rang five or six times, then stopped.

Then my private line rings. Remembering that it's 8AM, I didn't want
to yell at the person calling, so I let the machine get it. Sure
enough, it's a "hanger-upper." Grrr...

Then I saw the BBS get an incoming call. Wait ... nothing ... recycle.
Hmmm.

Shortly therefter, the UNIX box lights up as the telebit T2500 begins
its most amusing Search-For-The-Perfect-Protocol singsong. The hangup
click is obviously audible.

By this time I'm pretty much awake and annoyed.

The private line rings again. The answering machine does it's bit, and
this time they decide to leave a message:

  Mr. Ambler, this is special agent _________ from the (3-letter-agency).
  I need to speak with you at your earliest ---

  I picked up :-)

After getting over the initial adreneline rush (I wasn't the picture
of an ethical computer user in my youth ...), he explained that he
needed to interview me, as a friend was applying for a security-
clearance related to his job (background check).

Sigh...


[e-mail] | Fubar Systems BBS   (805) 54-FUBAR

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Date: 16 Dec 91 06:00:26 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Tom Neff)


Button bounce (one 8 becomes two, etc) is one great way to get wrong
numbers.  The cheaper the phone, the more prone you are.  I also
suspected our Centrex for a couple of years on this, since EVERYONE
seemed to be getting me at xxx-5880 when they wanted xxx-5800.

The other is numeric dyslexia. I can't tell you how many people who
wanted xxx-8550 got me at 5880.

Both of the above are things you can do, again and again, and honestly
have no idea you're doing it, although in the latter case most people
can force themselves to get it right the second time if they want.

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

Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 11:30:27 GMT
From: [e-mail] (Bill Berbenich)
Reply-To: [e-mail]


Jamie Mason writes:

> a) turning off the ringer and ignoring it, or
> b) "at s0=1" (Hayes-style command to enable auto-answer after one ring.)

I have found that your b) idea works well for me.  I have a modem line
with CLID on it.  Every call that comes into that line gets its number
sent to a line printer.  I also keep the records on my hard disk, too.

Once "wrong number" callers figure out that all they are going to get
when they call my modem line is "that screeching sound" (as one person
who called repair service said), they don't call back.  The GREATEST
number of times any of these people has tried to call is five times.
I should qualify that by saying it was five times from the same
calling number.

And the nerve of someone who calls repair service because she calls my
computer line and gets a "screeching sound."  I suppose in her mind
she was just trying to help (ha).  The repair guy was real
understanding about it.  He thought it was a fax machine, but he had
the right idea.  I stood right by the repair guy when he called the
"complainer" on his butt-set and told her that there was nothing wrong
with my line and that I had asked that she not call my number again.
She swore up and down that "that number belongs to my ex-husband and
he needs to sent me some money!"  I know he's there ... you men are
all alike ... that sort of thing.  The repair guy told her at least
once that she apparently had the wrong number, then I got on the
butt-set and told her who I was ("It's my phone that you reported to
repair service") and asked her not to call my number any more.  I
don't think she was convinced, but she did stop calling.

So, in concurrence with Jamie, I believe that hooking up a fax or a
modem for a while is probably the best way to get wrong-number and
junk callers to stop calling.  I'm down from a peak of three to five
wrong numbers per day to about one wrong number per week.


Bill


[Moderator's Note: I had a case just like yours several years ago.
Some woman calling from a pay phone at the Clark and Division subway
station called my modem line four times ... got the carrier four
times, and lost four quarters in the process. She turned me in to
repair service, and when the repair foreman told me about it later he
said he got a big laugh when she asked how to get a refund of the
money 'she lost because the number she called was out of order'!  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 10:26:31 PST
From: [e-mail] (Phydeaux)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers


> a) turning off the ringer and ignoring it, or
> b) "at s0=1" (Hayes-style command to enable auto-answer after one ring.)
>    I like b) in particular.

 ... until someone decides to call 611 to report 'trouble' on your line ;-)


reb
-- *-=#= Phydeaux =#=-* [e-mail]  or  [e-mail]
ICBM:  41.55N 87.40W  h:828 South May Street  Chicago,  IL 60607  312-733-3090
w:reb Ingres 10255 West Higgins Road Suite 500 Rosemont, IL 60018 708-803-9500


[Moderator's Note: Oh, has it happened to you also?  :)   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 19:12:29 GMT


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

> Do I have a social obligation to call back people who leave wrong
> number messages on my answering machine, to let them know they haven't
> reached their target?

Well, the simplest solution is the one I've applied:

"This is NOT Allstate. There are NO insurance agents here.  If you
want to leave a message for Stephanie or Peter..."

Occasionally we have had some variant of:

"Hi, this is Peter. Right now Alien Creatures are eating my brain.
Please leave a message at the tone and when they are finished one of
the Alien Creatures will assume my form and get back to you..."

I don't think we've used that one since we started getting Allstate
wrong numbers, but I would assume that anyone receiving that message
would figure they hadn't got Allstate. Or if they couldn't figure that
out they're probably a poor insurance risk anyway. :->


Peter da Silva
Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;  [phone]


[Moderator's Note: But just be sure some real Alien Creatures -- such
as lawyers for the Hilton Hotel chain -- don't try to sue you for
making trouble for them, as they tried to do to John Higdon.  :)  PAT]

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

From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 19:31:09 EST
Reply-To: [e-mail]  (David Lesher)
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex


There will likely be a few more wrong numbers coming up.  DC/VA/MD
just went through ten digit dialing, and now a 410/301 split is afoot.
410 will cover Baltimore and such.

Well, the SW Bell "One Book" Yellow Pages has started listing 401 area
codes. The trouble is they've lised such places as the Circuit City in
Tysons Corners as having a 410 number.  Here I thought that was up the
road here in VA.

Well, maybe it's a interstate FX line ;-?


[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Rather than an FX line, (although it may be that)
it is probably just a 'foreign directory listing'. Anyone can buy a
listing in a directory other than that of the telco serving them. Just
call the telco in question and be prepared to pay whatever they charge
for extra listings in their book.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marcus Adams)
Subject: Re: Interesting Caller ID Experience
Date: 16 Dec 1991 10:10:26 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron
Schnell) writes about a LD call he got which had a local number listed by
Caller ID. PAT responded with:

> [Moderator's Note: I don't care about the number. The carrier for the
> call was getting it from El Lay to your town via whatever method, and
> dropping it off at its local POP (point of presence) in your town,
> where the call was then patched into a local outgoing line and dialed
> as a local call to you. If you get calls from a cell phone locally you
> will get the same kind of reaction from Caller ID: The box will show
> some number which turns out to be an outgoing line from the cellular
> company's switch rather than the actual cell phone number.   PAT]

Is this something that happens a lot? Will this happen to Caller ID
when more of the country is hooked up with CID?

It seems to me that this would allow people to hide behind these
tricks when they wish to prevent somone from finding out their real
number.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 07:09:38 EST
From: [e-mail] (Edwin G Green)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]> Cristobal Pedregal Martin
writes:

> A friend of mine recently called me from the Los Angeles airport.  He
> was using a credit card on an AT&T "computerized" payphone. I offered
> to call back, and he gave me the number on the phone (a 213 area code
> number).  I hung up and called; I got a "the number is disconnected"
> intercept.

> After talking with my friend again (he called again after a while), I
> called the AT&T operator and explained what had happened. I figured
> the phone might be mislabelled. She tried and got the same intercept.
> After a while she transferred me to her supervisor, who tried again,
> same result.  Finally she promised to find out, and in 15 minutes she
> called back.  She said that the number was indeed one of AT&T's
> payphones in LAX. She said that (against her expectations), " [the
> disconnected number] intercept is what they use there [as opposed, I
> guess, to what they do in the East Coast] when it is not wired for
> incoming calls ".

I understand your disappointment, but I would like to set the record
straight.  AT&T does not make the decision about incoming service.
LAX is the agent that is in charge of the configuration of that phone.

AT&T puts card reader phones in airports, hotels, etc. only after we
receive (win) the contract to provide long distance service to those
facilities.  The agents (owners, operators, authorities, etc.) make
the decisions about advertising, speed dial numbers, second lines,
incoming calls, etc.  Since they make money from outgoing long
distance calls and nothing from incoming calls, agents are generally
not very interested in allowing incoming calls to these phones.  A few
states (Florida for example) require that these phones receive
incoming calls.  We have no problem complying.

> I'd also like to get a meaningful intercept and visible labelling on the
> phone (my friend can read, and saw no notice of this) when a payphone
> does not allow incoming calls.

I don't know about the intercept situation.  However, since we design
and administer the card reader phones here, I will hand carry your
request for visible labeling to that group today.  (I can't guarantee
they will agree, but I am on your side.)

> Yes I am being picky, but I consider
> that allowing incoming calls is part of the service they provide; and,
> no, I don't agree with disabling incoming calls by default: please
> don't give me the drug-dealers argument, it doesn't apply here.

No drug-dealers arguments!  In this case "they" isn't AT&T.

> So, my question is: how do I complain about these things? The operator
> was nice but not very helpful on that.

This forum is a good place to start.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 05:08 PST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Talbot)
Subject: Re: ISDN in Japan and USA
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Joe Talbot)
Organization: Green Hills and Cows


ISDN Pay phones are now becoming more common in Japan (they are ALWAYS
right next to telco offices). They say you can order service, but that
really isn't yet the case, as engineering limitations do apply.  I
wonder if anybody has EVER used the digital access. I kind of doubt
it.

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

From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Date: 16 Dec 91 01:53 UT
Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees


If you ask what my plan to stem the loss is to demand to talk to a
real person everytime you call the telephone company and that includes
long distance. You will notice that in every department you get a
voice director. I find this to be very cold and in many cases not very
helpful. I myself don't have to worry about a loss of a job since I
have been with my job for 25 years and have seen more changes then I
can or even want to remember.

The need for more and better trained personal can be seen everytime
there is an outage and there have been many and I'm affraid they will
continue and get worse unless something is done to correct it.  I can
see the only way being more personal to take care of the work and
routines that need to be done. Remember a computer is only as good as
the person that programs it.


Steven H. Lichter   GTE Calif.

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

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 21:32:52 EST
From: Thomas Lapp <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees


> Well as you are seeing with this loss of trained people the service is
> getting less (not many payment offices). The systems around the world

Although she was speaking to the subject of people service, the
equipment uptime seems to be falling as well.  At the data center
where I work, we used to look at the telephone companies as role
models for uptime for our computer network.  Our goal, of course, was
to "have the network as available as your telephone."  I think we're
getting very close these days, although I never intended that the
phone service drop to meet us halfway as we got better :-).


tom
internet     : mvac23![e-mail]  or  [e-mail] (home)
             : [e-mail] (work)
OSI          : C=US/A=MCI/S=LAPP/D=ID=4398613
uucp         : {ucbvax,mcvax,uunet}!udel!mvac23!thomas
Location     : Newark, DE, USA

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:01:53 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom?


I am assuming that this phone is going to area 310, with 213 still
being useable.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:05:07 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: C&P Allows 10XXX For Some Local Calls But Not All


In the second paragraph of the message to telecom, it said "...using
the AT&T operator to help me place a calling card call to a nearby
phone. ... could not do it, but ... able to place an AT&T call to
local points in Maryland and Virginia".

Was that supposed to be "Maryland and DC", in order to be the same as
what your first paragraph said?

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 13:17:07 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311


And in the early 1960s there was "BEechwood 4-5789".

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1022
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa06971;
          17 Dec 91 2:30 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA15295
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:20:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11375
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:20:06 -0600
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:20:06 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1021

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 16 Dec 91 22:20:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1021

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: GTE Screwups in NW Ohio (John Higdon)
    Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (James Sinclair)
    Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation (John Holman)
    Re: Need Brief Info on Frame Relay (Paul Elliott)
    Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed? (V. Shipley)
    Re: Pay-per-Call Scam (Adam Thompson)
    Re: What Exactly in Georgia Goes Where (404/706 Split)? (Monte Freeman)
    Re: AT&T SDN Reselling (Mark Oberg)
    Re: AT&T: From Leading Edge to Bleeding Edge (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: What's a Turret ? (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
    Re: CallerID + Plus from Rochelle Communications (Mike Bray)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 91 17:03 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: GTE Screwups in NW Ohio


[e-mail] (Alan Boritz) writes:

> In an article <[e-mail]> sbrack%bluemoon@nstar.
> rn.com wrote:

>> In the process they discovered that they had given him touchtone service
>> accidentally.  Now they want him to pay for what he was receiving free
>> of charge.

> I would suggest that your client tell GTE to forget about collecting
> any money for a service he didn't order.

GTE would probably not try this in California. Some years ago, Pacific
Bell got its hands slapped really hard for enabling (and charging for)
unordered custom calling features. Those mostly affected were senior
citizens and others who did not know Call Waiting from Spring
Planting.  Even some of us telecom junkies found inexplicable problems
with modem lines that turned out to be Call Waiting.

"Accidentally" enabling any feature is the equivalent of sending
unordered merchandise. Even if you go ahead and use it, it is yours
for free if you never ordered it in the first place. (This is why I
never had any problem using touch tone service that telco could not
turn off.) This viewpoint is shared by the CPUC, who ordered Pacific
Bell to refund every dime collected for these custom calling features
to any customer who claimed he did not order them or did not
understand that there were extra charges.

A non-telecom-knowledgeable friend moved from Sunnyvale to Mountain
View back in those slimy days. While talking to him on the telephone,
he complained that Call Waiting was less convenient in MV than in
Sunnyvale. Since both locations were served by a 1AESS, I asked why.
When he had the MV service installed, the rep ordered "Commstar"
(mini-Centrex) and Call Waiting. When a second call is received with
this arrangement, it is necessary to flash the switchhook and then
dial '*9' to answer the second call. To switch back and forth, it is
necessary to flash and dial '*9' each time.

I informed him that not only was it more inconvenient, but that
instead of paying $3.50/month, he was now paying $10.00/month ($8.00
for the Commstar and $2.00 for the Call Waiting). Needless to say, he
went back and had words with the business office.

> If GTE is as greedy and
> vindictive as Rochester Telephone, your client should soon find that
> the switch will not accept touchtone digits (Rochester Tel has their
> newer switches programmed to intercept touchtone dialing on rotary
> lines and play extremely loud obnoxious noises so "encourage" you to
> "upgrade" your service).

I am so happy that in California, touch tone service is now accepted as
a standard method of subscriber signaling and does not carry any
premium charges. Now if the rest of the country would come around...


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

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

From: [e-mail] (James Sinclair)
Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area?
Date: 13 Dec 91 14:08:30 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (James Sinclair)
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc.


Macy Hallock's article contains several inaccurate statements.

In article <[e-mail]>, fmsys![e-mail].
CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) writes:

> Although the GTD-5 seems to be a servicable central office machine
> (it beats the AE No.1 EAX, for sure), its not a production item anymore.

I'm not sure how Macy defines production, but a new SVR of the
switching software is currently being rolled out, and I'm sure that
AGCS would be more than happy to sell you a new machine.

> I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines
> anywhere.  To the best of my knowledge, development on these has
> stopped as well.  I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I
> believe CLASS is not planned, either.  That seems to mean Caller-ID in
> many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are
> replaced many years from now.

CLASS is available on the GTD-5.  I know for a fact that it is
provided in Lexington KY.  Reasons it is not offered in particular
areas may be regulatory or economic, but they aren't technical.

> It would also seem to mean Signalling System No. 7 will not be used
> by the GTD-5, either.

The new SVR does support Signalling System No. 7.

> I'd appreciate any GTE or AG staffers on the net who know what the
> current status of GTD-5 service enhancements are ... offering either
> the official version or actual first hand information.

Hope this helps clear things up.


Jim Sinclair   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1991 09:10:31 CST
From: John Holman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Questions to Stimulate Conversation


It sounds like question #2 is to stimulate our economy ... and a back
pocket.  :-) I have two ideas for start ups for you.  There seem to be
quite a few new LARGE HOMES being built.  It would seem to me they
could use telephone jacks in most of their rooms with a door box
connection to a small key system.  There are plenty on distributors
out there to buy equipment from.  A good down payment would go a long
way and if you can wire befor the dry wall is up you don't need to put
much time into the job.  One could also sell and install answering
machines or call processors to small business with very little
capital.

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

From: optilink![e-mail] (Paul Elliott x225)
Subject: Re: Need Brief Info on Frame Relay
Date: 13 Dec 91 16:56:50 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA


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

> Need brief rundown on Frame Relay.  What is it?  Where is it available?
> Advantages?  Disadvantages?

The November 1991 issue of {BYTE Magazine} has an article on Frame
Relay.  (Page 173, Author: William Stallings, Title: _Faster Packet
Networks_)


  -----     Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - Petaluma, CA USA      ------
{uunet,pyramid,tekbspa}!optilink!elliott -or- optilink![e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Are There Switches Allowing Ring Pattern to be Programmed?
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1991 00:31:10 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].'
dec.com (Fred R. Goldstein) writes:

> You want programmable ring pattern?  The Ericsson MD-110 has a neat
> feature.  The various ring functions (ring back when free, ring
> external, ring internal, ring intercom, etc.) can be programmed with
> arbitrarily defined cadences (up to some limit).  So it's even
> possible to program in Morse Code for the different functions!  (I've
> never seen it in practice, but I saw it in some documentation.)

My Northern Telecom M3000 set (no keys just a touch sensitive LCD)
gives me a piano keyboard to program my incoming "ring".  I like
"Smoke on the water". :)


Vance Shipley     vances@xenitec  vances@ltg  ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: [e-mail] (Adam Thompson)
Subject: Re: Pay-per-Call Scam
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1991 06:01:57 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Robert
Thompson (727-2597, X3012)) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
> edu (Anthony E. Siegman) writes:

>>    The callee has NOT entered into ANY contract with answering party,
>> and can't possibly be considered to owe them anything.  Right?

>> ... there is no question whatsoever about your 'agreement to pay
>> simply by dialing a phone number'. ...

>> ... The dial tone is telco's solicitation for your service request;
>> your spinning the dial or pressing the buttons is your response.  PAT]

> Further, contracting requires an "exchange of consideration." While
> the $55 is certainly fulfilling that obligation on the part of the
> caller, my understanding of what was provided (or not provided) by
> the 540 vendor suggests that no such exchange occurred.

Sorry ... the consideration involved is the privilege of public,
electronic (?)  means of rapid communication, as opposed to
walking/driving/whatever over to where they are at that moment, and
striking up a conversation with them.

The use of a phone is *not* an "inalienable right" (in either Canada
or US).  It is a "privilege" that is made commonly available under
certain restrictions imposed by law and the details of the contract
you enter into with the telco for phone service.


Adam Thompson   ----   Computer Engineering  ----  University of Manitoba
[e-mail]  !uunet!decwrl!alberta!  ccu.UManitoba.CA!umthom61

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

From: [e-mail] (Monte Freeman)
Subject: Re: What Exactly in Georgia Goes Where (404/706 Split)?
Date: 15 Dec 91 14:53:15 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


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

> exact idea as to what exchanges are involved. Are these the current
> local calling area to Atlanta, or is this more a political metro
> boundary involved?

   As I understand it, everything here that is *currently* in the
local Atlanta dialing area will remain in the 404 area code after the
split. All other areas that are in 404 now will go to the new 706 area
code.

   So Atlanta, Decatur, Dunwoody, Norcross, Chamblee, Lawrenceville,
Lithonia Snellville, etc (Metro-Atlanta communities) will remain in
404.

   Places like Rome, Augusta, Athens, Gainsville, etc that are in 404
right now will be moved to 706.

  Hope this helps.


Monte Freeman  --  Operations Department / Information Technology
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:      ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!ccoprfm
Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: grout![e-mail] (Mark Oberg)
Subject: Re: AT&T SDN Reselling
Date: 15 Dec 91 14:25:13 GMT
Organization: Grout, Beltsville, MD


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

> My company has recently been approached by an AT&T SDN reseller, and I
> would like to get some opinions on the service.  [....]

> I would like to get any opinions you might have on the service, and I
> have a couple of specific questions:

> Is this set up as your 1+ carrier, or do you need to dial an access
> code (10-SDN?) to route your calls?

Yes, this usually must be set up as your primary interexchange
carrier.  Calling card access under SDN CC rates is also possible.

> In the case of billing inquiries, call handling difficulties, etc, who
> do you talk to?  Do you go via your reseller, or can you talk directly
> to AT&T?

You will not be doing business *with* AT&T (even though your calls
will be carried by them and your monthly billing usually will come
from them).  All adds and changes must be done by the SDN aggreggator.
You should be comfortable with the aggregator's interest in providing
any service beyond making the sale and collecting money.  You may find
that some SDN aggregators do not consider themselves to be in the
customer service business and this will be important to you if/when
you require assistance with your account.

> Anything else, good or bad, about the service?

Another option to consider is a good regional carrier or reseller that
provides its own billing and customer service.  I do not know where
you are located, but if you are in a relatively populated area, you
may find smaller carriers that give very personalized service,
excellent rates for small and mid-sized users and provide very high
quality connections.

The bad old days of getting unusable connections and being required to
dial an extra 18 digits before placing a call are over.  With the
advent of digital switching and fiber the quality of any decent small
carrier can be every bit as good as the "Big 3" carriers.


Disclaimer: These opinions are my own and do not reflect the views of
NATel, Inc. (a regional long distance company serving NYC, NJ, PA, DE,
MD, DC & VA), its subsidiaries or its carriers.

Mark Oberg   NATel, Inc.   |  UUCP: wb3ffv!grout!mark
Voice: [phone]       |  Internet: [e-mail]
  BBS: [phone]       |  Fidonet: 1:109/506

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

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 12:48:23 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T: From Leading Edge to Bleeding Edge
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Well, this isn't about AT&T's recent technical problems, but they
appear to be bleeding a little elsewhere. Saw a short mention (sorry,
can't recall exactly where) that AT&T was looking for either someone
to buy some of the receivables of or form a joint venture with their
credit card operation.

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

From: [e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
Subject: Re: What's a Turret?
Date: 16 Dec 91 04:29:56 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario


A Turret, is a multi line ( 60 or 120 button ) high capacity, line
intensive telephone.  They are made by TEC which is a division of TIE
telecommunications.  They are a favorite of places that have a high
line to telephone ratio ( rather than the usual tel to line.  A Turret
has a left and a right handset, and they can each access individual
lines.  The Turret also has a long vertical yellow release bar on both
the left and right of the front panel.  Stock trading locations,
police departments, and centralized service providers are common
places to find turrets.  Bell Canada use them because they have many
lines coming in from various exchanges. (service and internal voice
links.) The Toronto Stock Exchange on Bay Street, Toronto, Canada has
quite a few of them.  I am very familiar with them mainly because I
install and service them for both 911 systems, and for a few other
applications.  I hope this clarifies the matter.


[e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
The Western Business School BBS  --  London, Ontario

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 02:57:04 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bray)
Subject: Re: CallerID + Plus from Rochelle Communications


[e-mail] (Joel Upchurch) wrote:

> In the December 13th Issue of {PC Magazine} on page 93, John Dvorak
> mentions an interesting product called CallerID + Plus from Rochelle
> Communications.  [some text deleted]  Apparently Dvorak thinks this
> is going to be a killer for salespeople.

Indeed this product does look quite neat and has the ability to import
and export its data in ASCII and dBase format.  One local BBS even has
one and uses it to identify you before you log in.

The bad thing about this product is the cost.  Their "ANI-232" adapter
hardware and associated software was originally priced at $295, but a
Rochelle salesdrone recently told me that the price has been reduced
to $245.  Still, I think $245 is a bit much to pay for something like
this.


Mike Bray on Campaign Headquarters, Fidonet 1:2606/533
70 Miami Trail, Rockaway NJ 07866 USA
[e-mail] or  ...!apple!camphq!mike

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1021
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10580;
          17 Dec 91 4:02 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12941
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 17 Dec 1991 02:06:46 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21650
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 17 Dec 1991 02:06:32 -0600
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 02:06:32 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1024

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Dec 91 02:06:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1024

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Wire vs. Fiber Expense (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (Jon Baker)
    Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (Marvin Sirbu)
    Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (Charles McGuinness)
    Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area? (William G. Becks)
    Re: Using Sprint For Local Calls Instead of Pacbell
    Swedish Telecommunications Network (Philippa Morrissey)
    CNID For a Computer (Roy M. Silvernail)
    Part 68 Registration (Mike Bray)
    Silent Night (Jeff Sicherman)
    Slooow Downloads on Datapac! Help!!! (Ed Gaudet)
    Disneyland (was Psuedo-Area Code 311) (Carl Moore)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 20:02:12 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> Yes, yes I know what you're thinking ... if there is a dial-tone
> detector already in the phone to detect the first dial tone, why can't
> it be used to detect the second dial tone and hang up the line
> (preventing possible fraud). I don't know, but I suspect that it looks
> for energy in a particular band of frequencies and may be spoofed by
> non-dial tone stuff.

This would also prevent the use of many calling card services, such as
US Sprint's, which present their own secondary dialtone (standard
frequencies) as a prompt.  Then, the "live" keypad would be useless
anyway in a lot of situations.  I would think that most telcos would
be clever enough to disable the second dialtone for lines that have a
COCOT class-of-service.  Even if this is not done, if the phone is at
least as clever as my Panasonic answering machine, it could detect the
momentary loss of loop current just before the secondary dialtone is
provided.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:57:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wire vs. Fiber Expense


Fiber strands cost about $.15 - $.20 per meter today as compared to
$.02 - $.03 for copper.  Add about $4.00/m for the sheath around a
multi-fiber bundle, somewhat less for copper since you don't need
kevlar strengthening members to avoid breaking the fiber when you pull
on the cable.

Fiber is more expensive to install, since a fiber splice costs $15 - 30
in time and materials as compared to $1.00 to twist a pair of copper
wires together.

Finally, the cost of electronics needed to make fiber usable are a
significant fraction of a fiber loop plant cost.

Recent estimates of the cost of an all fiber based local loop -- for
telephone services only -- show fiber to cost three times as much as
copper.  Fiber to the curb systems with copper drops are 80% more
costly than copper.  See "Integrated Broadband Networks", Martin
Elton, editor.


Marvin Sirbu    Carnegie Mellon University

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

From: [e-mail] (Jon Baker)
Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area?
Organization: gte
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:43:30 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, fmsys![e-mail].
CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) writes:

> Although the GTD-5 seems to be a servicable central office machine (it
> beats the AE No.1 EAX, for sure), its not a production item anymore.

The GTD5 is a 'production item', available to anyone who wants to buy
one.  GTE has made a strategic decision to not purchase any more
GTD5's, though I belive that moratorium is under negotiation.

> I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines
> anywhere.

SS7 and CLASS services have been available on the GTD5 since SVR1631,
released several years ago.  Regulatory hurdles have delayed the
universal deployment of CLASS, however.  CLASS is available on GTD5's
in Kentucky, at the least, and I think several other states as well.

> To the best of my knowledge, development on these has
> stopped as well.  I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I
> believe CLASS is not planned, either.  That seems to mean Caller-ID in
> many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are
> replaced many years from now.

Development of new System Version Releases, including hardware and
software upgrades, continues on the GTD5.  The possibility of
providing ISDN services on or through a GTD5 has not been totally
abandoned.

> It would also seem to mean Signalling System No. 7 will not be used by
> the GTD-5, either.  I know that many GTD-5 CO's are scheduled to have

It already is, and for several years now.

> I'd appreciate any GTE or AG staffers on the net who know what the
> current status of GTD-5 service enhancements are ... offering either
> the official version or actual first hand information.

Ask and ye shall receive .....


J.Baker    asuvax!gtephx!bakerj)

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 22:43:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Marvin Sirbu <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?


George Herson wrote:

> I'm presently investigating investment in a wireless cable company.
> One of the drawbacks is I won't see any return on that investment for
> five or six years (FCC takes onee year to process application, takes a
> year to get a station on-line, and three or four to recoup costs).  By
> that time I wonder if ISDN will be a long way off, and of course
> provide a superior conduit for video into the home.  Anyone know, or
> have an idea as to find out?

"Wireless cable company" is another name for microwave multipoint
distribution service.  I wouldn't go anywhere an investment in such
technology.

It isn't the telcos that are a competitive threat, it is the CATV
companies. 90% of households are currently passed by wired cable;
about 60% of all households subscribe.  Wireless cable generally
offers fewer channels and if it is not competing head to head with an
entrenched cable company, is in some rural area with few potential
customers.  Be sceptical of their subscriber projections.


Marvin Sirbu   Engineering and Public Policy
Carnegie Mellon University

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

From: Charles McGuinness <jyacc![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 9:38:05 EST


At the end of a posting of a new fiber optic network being planned
for Moscow, the Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber
> optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the
> many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil
> the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more
> appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended.   PAT]

Pat, you're missing the true problem here! People in Moscow wouldn't
be starving if they could call Pizza Hut and have pizza delivered!
It's only the sad shape of the local plant that keeps the people from
the wide variety of delivered foods that all big city residents enjoy!
 ;-)


[Moderator's Note: Well ... I know it was meant to be funny, and I
agree with writers in an earlier issue of the Digest tonight about the
need to 'teach people to fish', but there is still a very urgent need
for humanitarian action in the (former) Soviet Union right now.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 91 17:05:39 EDT
From: "William G. Becks" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft. Worth Area?


Macy M. Hallock Jr writes:

In article <[e-mail]> is written:

>> Does anyone know when Southwestern Bell and GTE are going to start
>> offering Caller ID service to the Dallas-Ft Worth area?

> Bear in mind many of the GTE Central Offices are the GTE/Automatic
> Electric (now AG Communications) GTD-5's.

> GTE has exited the central office equipment market with the agreement
> forming AG Communications and at some point will not own any part of
> AG.  I presume AT&T will eventually integrate AG into their own
> structure at some point.

Stuff deleted...

> I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines
> anywhere.  To the best of my knowledge, development on these has
> stopped as well.  I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I
> believe CLASS is not planned, either.  That seems to mean Caller-ID in
> many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are
> replaced many years from now.

The AGCS GTD-5 EAX digital switch is still very much alive and does
support CLASS from it's introduction at SVR 1.6.3.2 with testing in
the field dating back to early 1990, at Muskegon North, Michigan.  The
current load is SVR 1.6.3.3 as implemented at many of GTE North's
5-EAX switching sites.  Still others in the regional company are on
the docket to receive this load in the near future.

Although SS7 has been supported for several years now on the GTD-5,
there is still some software protocol development continuing with the
next release expected in SVR 1.6.4.1.  This prevents such CLASS
services such as calling number delivery from outside area callers
being displayed, but then the PSTN is still a long way from being
ready for full SS7 deployment.

Calling number delivery is technically available within any GTD-5
based clusters at SVR 1.6.3.3 without the aid of SS7.  That is, among
any Base Unit (DSO) and any of it's family of (RSO's) consisting of
the GTD-5 EAX RSU/RLU and MXU (SLIC).

By the way, switched 56K service is supported by the GTD-5 EAX, and it
is my understanding that marketing is going to hit the streets with
this product very soon!  Much more development still in the works for
the 5-EAX.


Best regards,

William G. Becks   GTE North, Inc.
GTD-5 Installation Test (COEI)

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 09:36 EST
From: "Peng_H.Ang" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Using Sprint For Local Calls Instead of Pacbell


Steve Elias wrote:

> it's cheaper to call Boston than it is to call San Fran, from San Jose.

Same thing in Michigan. It's cheaper to call Los Angeles than Detroit
from the next LATA. Some politicians here have said that this was
inhibiting investments in Michigan. I don't know how true that is but
it certainly does not help.

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

From: [e-mail] (Philippa Morrissey)
Subject: Swedish Telecommunications Network
Organization: Telecom Australia
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 23:43:03 GMT


I'm looking for some information on the telecommunications network in
Sweden - such as:

    What numbering system is used?
    What does the network look like?
    Is CLID available at all points in the network?

The population in Sweden is similar to that in Australia. It would be
interesting to see how their network is setup.


Hope someone can help me.

Thanks.


Philippa Morrissey - Telecom   |MHSnet: [e-mail]
Network Services               |Snail : 8th Floor, 91 York Street, Sydney 2000.
Customised Software Solutions  |  or PO Box A226, Sydney South 2000, Australia.
     Centre - Sydney           |Phone : [phone]   Fax: [phone]

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

Subject: CNID For a Computer
From: cybrspc![e-mail] (Roy M. Silvernail)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 19:35:13 CST
Organization: Villa CyberSpace, Minneapolis, MN


Well, someone has asked me a question I don't have a ready answer
for ... but I'm hoping the erstwhile Telecom denizens can fill me in.

I'd like to find out what the options are for receiving Calling Number
ID with a computer.  I know of a couple RS-232 interface boxes, but
only that they exist.  I hope to discover names and model numbers,
along with support software (if any).

I'm also aware of Motorola's CNID chip, and in fact, I have ordered a
sample to play with.  However, my inquisitor is interested in a
currently manufactured solution.

Perhaps it's best if you e-mail your findings to me, rather than post
to the Digest.  When I've collected what appears to be the canonical
list, I'll submit a summary to the group.


Thanks in advance!

Roy M. Silvernail |+|  [e-mail]

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

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 18:49:18 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mike Bray)
Subject: Part 68 Registration


Can any of our subscribers enlighten me/us a little bit to the exact
requirements of passing FCC Part 68?

Also, have any of our subscribers seen a product pass FCC Part 68?
Are you familiar with what they do to your circuit and what they check
for?  How long does it take for certification?  And how do they
determine if your circuit must also pass Part 15?

If folks want to answer privately, I'll create a mini-digest and pass
it along to others who ask for a copy ...


Mike Bray on Campaign Headquarters, Fidonet 1:2606/533
70 Miami Trail, Rockaway NJ  07866  USA
[e-mail]  or  ...!apple!camphq!mike

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 03:46:27 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Silent Night
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


   I was catching up on some industry rag reading from a few weeks
ago and caught sight of a short blurb that mentions that Illinois Bell
is starting (as a pilot project, I guess) a new service that will let
utility companies read meters remotely using the customer's telephone
lines. It's called the Ameritech Automatic Meter Reading service.  The
current application is for water meter reading and a previous market
trial was done with Consumers Illinois Water Co. in Kankakee in 1989.

   The test is being run in the Chicago suburbs of Bensenville and
Niles.  The meter is connected to the phone line through a special
reading unit that can be polled by the switching center without
ringing the customer's line. The polling can supposedly be interrupted
by customer us of the line and the normal polling will usually be done
at night to minimize conflicts and line usage. The readings are also
delivered to the utility by phone.

  Time to replace the dog with a good RF source, I guess ...

  Know any more about this, PAT and how it works ?


[Moderator's Note: My understanding is this: As the meters are
otherwise replaced due to old-age and malfunctioning, etc. the new
meters have little boxes on them with terminals which tie into your
phone line. They are fixed so that anytime your phone is off hook, the
terminals on the meter are cutoff, sort of like one of those things
you buy at RS to protect your data. The utilities use a computer which
accesses the pair -- without any reference to the phone number -- and
poll or 'read' the meter. Meters are read once each month and the
operation takes about two seconds, usually in the wee hours of the
morning. If the subscriber is on the phone (or places/receives a call)
during the two or three seconds the utility is on the line, the
utility is unable to access the line (or gets cut off mid-reading)
until the line is free again. There is no charge of any sort to the
phone subscriber, and the subscriber is never denied the use of the
line, even for a few seconds in the early morning.    PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 12:27:39 -0400
From: [e-mail] (Ed Gaudet)
Subject: Slooow Downloads on Datapac! Help!!!


Help!

I have a 2400etc. modem ane 90% of my telecommunications is with
Canet/Internet.  All my Canet work is done using Datapac as a carrier.
Before the flames start, yes ... I did check for the information
locally.

The problem is slow downloads.  Originally I couldn't download at all.
After discovering PROF 3, I could download slowly (82cps).  Currently
I am getting about 105 cps. which is about half the speed I get on
regular tel lines.  I am using:

        prof 3
        set 4:4,7:8
        line(128) xxxxxxxx

to log onto my university Atlas computer from my Olivetti computer.

Does anyone out there in netland have any clues to help speed up
downloads?

send responses to:       [e-mail]

If there is sufficient interest, I will post a summary.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 9:51:52 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Disneyland (was Psuedo-Area Code 311)


To comment on a Moderator's Note: Do not confuse Disneyland in
Anaheim, California, with Disney World near Orlando, Florida.  They
do, however, come under the same organization.  I was at the one in
California this year, and made a phone call from an enclosed booth
where I did not have to hold an instrument to my ear, but rather just
sit in the booth and talk!

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1024
*******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11594;
          17 Dec 91 4:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25353
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 17 Dec 1991 01:13:14 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03907
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 17 Dec 1991 01:13:03 -0600
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 01:13:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1023

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 17 Dec 91 01:12:59 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1023

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: CLID and Answering Machines (John Boteler)
    Re: Voice Response Technology (George Herson)
    Re: Cost-Effectiveness of PCP (was How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?) (M. Ho)
    Re: ISDN in Japan and USA (Kenji Fujisawa)
    Re: The AC Split That Never Happened (Carl Moore)
    Re: What is This Stuff? - ANSWERED (Tom Perrine)
    Re: British Cellular System Charge For Uncompleted Incoming Calls (A Laird)
    Re: Annoying Computer Payphones and Further Comments on COCOTs (Frankston)
    Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (John Higdon)
    Re: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium (Steve Pope)
    Teleconferencing System Manufacturers Wanted (Sanjeev Tavathia)
    Changes in New York (George S. Thurman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: CLID and Answering Machines
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 1:50:35 EST
Organization: Express Access Public Access UNIX, Greenbelt, Maryland USA


In article <[e-mail]> rls![e-mail]-state.
edu (Randall L. Smith) writes:

> [e-mail] (Paul Wexelblat) writes:

>> Does anyone know of any answering machine that has/plans-to-have the
>> capability to access/store CLID info of caller?

> Strangely enough, this was being discussed in rec.humor a month ago.
> Furthermore, it was proposed (by me :-) that the answering machine
> could discriminate by ID number and play an appropriate message.
> Since, IMHO, there isn't a decent answering machine at any price in
> the free world, (much less elsewhere) the chances of any
> sophistication in the near future seems abysmal.

I didn't find it so funny when I finished Phase 2 of my voice mail
clone last month. In fact, I found it downright useful, when I was on
the road with no way to contact a friend, to leave a custom outgoing
message for him. Sure saved a lot of telephone tag! I have also found
some very handy business uses for custom outgoing messages.

It's even neater when you press '2' to reply to the message and it
Centrex transfers you to the calling number, if available, with no
pain, no strain.

>> [If you think this is a good idea and make a fortune on it, at least
>> send me one of the machines.

I don't think I'll make a fortune on it by residential users; I mean,
who wants to pay > $2000 for a spiffy computerized answering machine
which does all that! Small businesses, well ...


[e-mail]    Bote Communications 703.241.7818

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

From: George Herson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Voice Response Technology
Date: 16 Dec 91 14:05:57 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Colin
Campbell) writes:

> I am looking for smaller scale hardware that would enable me to write
> a voice response application similar to phone registration systems
> used by universities or account query systems used by banks and credit
> card companies.

> My investigation has led me to large systems compatible with CICS, but
> I have yet to find anything that could be used with personal computers.

Vendors of call processing equipment are listed in a trade periodical
{Networking Management}, 11/91, p52, "When hello isn't enough."  The
only one of the vendors I've contacted so far is Intervoice, which
designs its hardware for PS/2s.  I don't know which computers the
others support; the article doesn't say.

The numbers refer to those to circle on the magazine's "reply card."
I assume that you don't need the card, you can just send your list of
numbers to Networking Management, 1421 S. Sheridan, P.O.Box 21728,
Tulsa OK 74121-9977 for more info, before 2/29/92.

AT&T  Bridgewater, N.J. #265
Applied Voice Technology, Kirklan, Wash. #266
Aristacom International Inc.  Alameda, Calif. #267
Aspect Telecommunications  San Jose, Calif. #268
Brite Voice Systems  Wichita, Kan. #269
Centigram Corp.  San Jose, Calif.  #270
C-T Link  Boston, Mass. #271
DEC  Littleton, Mass. #272
Digital Sound Corp.  Carpinteria, Calif. #273
Dytel Corp.  Schaumburg, Ill. #274
Hewlett-Packard Co.  Cupertino, Calif. #275
IBM Corp.  White Plains, NY #276
InterVoice  Dallas, Texas #277
Microlog  Germantown, Md #278
Northern Telecom  Santa Clara, Calif. #279
Octel Communications  Milpitas, CA #280
Perception Technology  Canton, Masss. #281
AB Preseco  Solna, Sweden #282
Rockwell International  Downers Grove, Ill. #283
Rolm Corp.  Santa Clara, CA #284
Simpact Associates  San Diego, CA #285
Syntellect Inc.  Phoenix, AZ #286
Teknekron Infoswitch  Fort Worth, TX #287
Unifi Communications  Billerica, Mass #288
Willow Telecommuting Systems Inc.  Richmond Hill, Ont., Canada #289
Viking Electronics Inc  Hudson, Wis. #290
Voicetek Corp. Chelmsford, Mass #291
VMX Inc.  San Jose, Calif. #292


George Herson    [e-mail]
voice: [phone]    fax: [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Tiny Bubbles...)
Subject: Re: Cost-Effectiveness of PCP (was How Do I Contact PC Pursuit?)
Organization: A Figment of Your Imagination
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 14:44:56 GMT


In previous articles, a laundry list of TELECOM Digest readers say:

>>> where else can you get long distance data transmission for $1 per
>>> hour

>> [mentions how PCP pales in comparison to direct-dial LD]

> Ditto that.

Hey, Sprint Select is better than Reach Out America!

Wait, MCI's PrimeTime with the Friends & Family option is better yet!

Hold it, but I make lots of international calls ... say, what if I
just post my usage patterns, and the Digest can analyze 'em figure out
which calling plan on which carrier is best for me!  ;-)

Seriously, folks, the PC Pursuit arguments are as old as Telenet (uh,
er, SprintNet) itself.  Can we drop it now?  Please?


Michael Ho | UNTIL JAN. 9: University of Nebraska, Internet:[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenji Fujisawa)
Subject: Re: ISDN in Japan and USA
Date: 16 Dec 91 15:39:24 GMT
Organization: Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jim Haynes) says:

> He remarked that in Japan one can just call the telephone company
> and ask to have your home service converted to ISDN and it will be
> done the next day, no charge for the conversion and no extra charge
> for ISDN service.

It's overstated.  The time for instllation varies between one week to
six months depending on the area, the availability of the digital
exchanges.  And you have to pay an instllation fee of about $100 -
$150.  Futermore, the monthly charge becomes twice of the analog
telephone: ie, about $35.


Kenji Fujisawa    [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 9:46:36 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: The AC Split That Never Happened


I take it that was me wondering about 402/308 split, if there ever was
one.  The reason this was listed was that I was seeing an N0X area
code in a state having more than one area code.

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Perrine)
Subject: Re: What is This Stuff? - ANSWERED
Date: 16 Dec 91 19:23:37 GMT
Organization: Logicon, Inc., San Diego, California


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

> What is this stuff??  Is there anything here that would be useful as
> part of a home PBX?

I got two responses: both agree that I am now the proud owner of parts
of a 1A2 key system.  Welcome to the wonderful world of telephony
circa 1967 :-)

Thanks to:
  zygot.ati.com![e-mail] (Joe Talbot)
  [e-mail]


Tom Perrine (tep)   |Internet: [e-mail] |Voice: [phone]
Logicon - T&TSD     | UUCP: sun!suntan!tots!tep     |  or : [phone]
P.O. Box 85158      |GENIE: T.PERRINE               |  FAX: [phone]
San Diego CA 92138

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

From: Alan Laird <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: British Cellular System Charge For Uncompleted Incoming Calls
Date: 16 Dec 91 21:11:14 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Nigel Roberts, FRN-605, DTN 785-1018) writes:

> Many of you will know of the British cellular phone system, operated
> as a duopoly by Cellnet (BT)and Vodafone (RACAL). Some of you will
> also know that the system charges you for uncompleted calls. This

> As an example, supposing you decide to call me on my U.K. cellular
> number ([phone]). If you get the ringing tone, the call will
> supervise when either I or Angelika answer. This is perfectly normal,
> and the expected behaviour.

I was under the impression that charging started as soon as ringing
started. This is certainly the case for calls made from Vodaphone to
Cellnet. Every call attempt whether successful, intercepted, answered
etc. gets charged for. Not so, luckily, for Vodaphone to Vodaphone
calls and Vodaphone to BT.

> Any suggestions?

Wish I had some, I'm certainly not pleased about it.


Alan  I  M  Laird,   Department  of  Computer  Science,
University  of  Strathclyde,   Glasgow  G1  1XH,    UK.
[e-mail],  041 552 4400 x3622,  0836 320786

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

From: <frankston![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones and Further Comments on COCOTs
Date: 16 Dec 1991 16:51 -0400


Sounds like the source of fraud from things like getting a second
dialtone is a classic "risk" of kludgery.  The phone is trying to
second guess the network with local spoofing of billing tables and
actions.  This is a prime example of why the network protocols need to
be extended to the subscriber premises equipment.  It also makes the
point that the old Bell Galactic Monolith was conveniently able to
ignore any problems by handwaving.  Thus they didn't worry about the
network costs of 800 number calls.

Note that anyone really interested in fraud would simply carry one of
the handheld DTMF generators and do what they wanted unless the phone
actually filtered out the DTMF signals.

It seems more reasonable for a COCOT provider to create a dedicated
circuit (logical or leased line) for each instrument and provide full
CO services to the instruments.  In fact, this might already be
occurring.

While there is a concensus in this forum that all COCOTs and AOSs are
sleazy operations, hopefully we'll make it past this immature stage to
the point where there is competition on price and services.  But a
requirement is the level playing field where third parties can provide
services integrated with **THE NETWORK**.  (Sorry about shouting, but
references to deities inspire awe).

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

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 17:21:57 PST
Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


TELECOM Moderator noted:

> Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber optic network
> all over, they might find a way to get some food for the many
> people who are starving over there ... it might seem a more
> appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended."

I've no argument with spending money on food, but you've got to spend
money to create some infrastructure as well or the Russian economy
will never get moving.  If they need a workable telephone system to
attract new (foreign) ventures to create wealth to feed people, then
let them do so.  "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day; teach him
to fish (or give him a fishing reel?) and he eats forever."


  -=- Andrew Klossner  ([e-mail])
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

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

Date: Sun, 15 Dec 91 20:15 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) writes:

> The Andrew Corp. of Orland Park, Ill., announced last month that it
> has signed a joint venture with the Moscow Metro to develop a fiber
> optic network covering the metropolitan Moscow area.

> [Moderator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber
> optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the
> many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil
> the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more
> appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended.   PAT]

At the risk of sounding hard-hearted and cruel, I would suggest that
in fact the best use of investment capital in the USSR would be to
create an environment that would put that country into the economic
mainstream. This means looking slightly beyond food handouts and
planning for the practical future. The old saying, "Give a man a fish
and you satisfy his hunger for a day; teach him how to fish and you
feed him for a lifetime", is most applicable here.

Also, I would submit that these funds would not exist if it were not
for investment opportunity. Money does not fall from heaven. Venture
capital materializes in response to the opportunity for investment
growth, not because people are hungry. Like it or not, right or wrong,
this is reality.

Again, the most appropriate use of money in the USSR is to bring that
nation into the world community -- politically, economically, and
socially. The immediate emergency of starving people is something best
left to those who specialize in this endeavor. There are
organizations, supported by those who are concerned with the suffering
of people, who handle these matters. It is, frankly, not the place of
venture capitalists to provide such relief. Better to teach the USSR
how to fish with that money, as it were.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Steve Pope)
Subject: Re: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium
Date: 17 Dec 1991 00:13:54 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL


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

> I noticed on the Dow Jones News wire an article about Motorola
> acquiring the rights to the defunct Geostar with the intent of using
> them for Motorola's world-wide satellite-based cellular telephone
> system, Iridium.

> Wasn't Geostar a navigation system?  If Moto can convert it into a
> phone system, they could revolutionize (and obsolete) cellular phones.

More likely Motorola intends to use Geostar as part of a positioning
system for the 77 (or thereabouts) Iridium platforms.


steve

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

From: [e-mail] (Sanjeev Tavathia)
Subject: Teleconferencing System Manufacturers Wanted
Date: 11 Dec 91 01:58:53 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA


I would like to get in touch with companies manufacturing
teleconferencing system/or hands-free mobile telephones. I am working
in Acoustic echo cancellation area and mainly interested in current
technology companies using for teleconferencing.

Please direct all mail to [e-mail].


Sanjeev.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 03:37 GMT
From: George S Thurman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Changes in New York


I have not seen anything in the group about this, so I thought that I
would mention it.  Everyone should know by now that New York will get
another area-code on Jan 1,1992 of 917.  But it has now come out that
the new code will be used for Cellular phones and pagers only.  The
new 917 code will sort of "overlap" what is now 212/718.  All new
Cellular/Pager subscribers in 212/718 will get a 917 number, and plans
are to move all current Cellular/Pager exchanges in 212/718 into the
new 917.  Also, in a related matter, on July 1, 1992, all 212 numbers
in the Bronx will be transferred to 718, leaving 212 for Manhattan
numbers only.


[Moderator's Note: We've had mention of this in the Digest over the
past few months. I don't think there has been any definitive ruling on
how 917 was to be used until recently.  Thanks for passing on the note
regards the Bronx.   PAT]

------------------------------
End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1023
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa23538;
          18 Dec 91 3:57 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA26617
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:16:44 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30964
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:16:30 -0600
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:16:30 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1026

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Dec 91 02:16:19 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1026

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Scott Loftesness & Alan Toscano)
    McGowan Steps Down as MCI Chief Executive (TELECOM Moderator)
    Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits (Eric Kiser)
    Voice Mail and TDD: Rolm (Curtis E. Reid)
    Consumer's Guide to Cellular Information (Paul D. Nanson)
    PC Based Key-Systems/PBX's (Jeff Sicherman)
    Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone (Glenn Leavell)
    Bell Science Series (Joel B. Levin)
    How Can I Get an Area Code Updated Listing? (Manuel J. Moguilevsky)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Scott Loftesness)
Subject: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 21:52:32 PST
Organization: Glenbrook Systems, Inc.
Reply-To: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: The end of an era!  Thanks also to Alan Toscano for
sending this AT&T press release.   PAT]

     BASKING RIDGE, N.J. -- Familiar to the world over through the
clickety-clack of ticker tape machines and teletypewriters, telegraphy
has been gradually bowing out of the telecommunications picture during
the last twenty years.

     The nonstop chatter has been replaced by the hum of laser
printers and the electronic beeps on computer screens.  AT&T, a
leading innovator and major service provider of telegraphy, announced
this year it is withdrawing the service due to the universal
availability of lower-cost, higher quality digital telecommunications
services.

     "The incredible advances in our industry means customers can get
more for less," said Wes Bartlett, AT&T district manager, Business
Communications Services.  "Today's digital technology can transmit
information hundreds of thousands times faster than telegraphy and is
considerably more cost-effective for users.

     "Telegraphy has been to the twentieth century what
state-of-the-art digital telecommunications services will be to the
next century," Bartlett added.  "We are proud of our contributions in
both areas."

     The transmission of telegraph service is based on analog
technology, which sends information by continuous electrical waves.
Today's digital technology breaks information into its smallest
components, the binary "ones and zeros" of computer language.

     However, telegraphy was the actually the first digital service --
although a very simplified version compared with today's technology --
since it was produced on the customer's premises in terms of "on or
off," or "dash or space."  It was converted to analog for transmission.

     Telegraphy usage accelerated rapidly during the 1920s when the
financial industry adopted the technology to send records of
transactions.  At this time, news organizations began using telegraph
service for transmitting stories between offices.

     In November, 1931 the Bell System inaugurated the teletypewriter
exchange service, often called the TWX (pronounced "twicks") service.
It provided a complete communications system for the written word,
including teletypewriters, transmission channels and switchboards.

     Telegraphy was adopted by many kinds of businesses, including
utility companies, alarm companies, airlines, and brokerages as well
as government agencies.  It was used heavily through the 1960s.

     Most of AT&T's telegraph service customers have been converted to
digital private line services such as DATAPHONE (R) Digital Service
and ACCUNET (R) Spectrum of Digital Services.

     "Our name remains American Telephone and Telegraph," Bartlett
said.  "It is an historic name and our legacy.  We are proud to have a
corporate name that spans generations of communications technology.

     "Despite rapid technological change, AT&T remains focused on
helping people communicate," Bartlett added.  "Telegraphy helped bring
us to this point.  Digital technology is taking us into a new era of
global messaging."

                             ###


                         Background

                WHAT WAS TELEGRAPH SERVICE?

Telegraph service made it possible to communicate large volumes of
information between two or more locations.  Telegraph circuits
permitted customers to send to each other a printed or hard copy
version of the information at reasonable cost, which was impractical
with the telephone.

A telegraph circuit consisted of four components: station equipment
installed on the customer's premises, such as a teletypwriter and
teleprinter; the local loop, or wires, between the customer location
and the AT&T central office; the central office equipment in the AT&T
telegraph serving test center (STC); and the wires connected to the
telegraph STC serving the other customer.

Here's how it worked: Customer A sent information to customer B by
typing the information on a teletypewriter keyboard.  The
teletypewriter converted the message to a coded signal which was sent
out on the local loop to the STC and central office equipment.  There
the signal was converted to make it compatible with the carrier's
lines and sent on to the STC serving the distant city.  The central
office equipment then converted the signal again and sent it over the
local loop to customer B's teletypewriter which decoded the signal and
printed the information.

The procedure was reversed if customer B wanted to send information to
customer A.  This method of sending information, where only one
station could send at a time, was accomplished over a simple
half-duplex, or two-wire circuit.  When both customers wanted to send
and receive at the same time a full-duplex, or four-wire circuit, was
used.

At its peak in 1970, telegraph service could transmit data at 150 bits
per second.

                             ###


                 AT&T and Telegraph Service

1887:  First private-line telegraph service, for L. H. Taylor
       & Co., brokers, between their offices in New York and
       Philadelphia.

1888:  First service for news media customer, Globe Newspaper
       Company, between New York and Boston.

1915:  Teletype offers speeds of 30 or 50 words per minute.

1920s: Press and financial markets create a boom for usage of
       the service.

1939:  Speed reaches 75 words per minute.

1944:  Speed reaches 100 words per minute.

1957:  Teleprinter introduces speeds of 300 words per
       minute.

1970s: Decline in usage begins as electronic data processing
       replaces many telegraph functions.

1980s: Wireless and digital methods accelerate decline.

1991:  AT&T exits telegraph service.

                             ###


Scott Loftesness            Internet: [e-mail]
515 Buena Vista Avenue      Others: [e-mail]
Redwood City, CA 94061      [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:27:54 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <telecom>
Subject: McGowan Steps Down as MCI Chief Executive


William G. McGowan, who founded MCI Telecommunications in 1968,
stepped down Monday as the company's chief executive officer. He was
replaced by President Bert C. Roberts, Jr. who will now serve in that
capacity and as CEO.

McGowan, 64, has had heart problems in recent years. He will remain as
chairman of MCI, but take a much less active role in the day to day
affairs of the company.

Roberts, 49, joined MCI in 1972, and has held a variety of positions
with the company. Observors commented that Roberts had been 'heir
apparent' to McGowan for several years, and had been virtually running
the company since McGowan's heart transplant in 1987.


PAT

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 15:28:49 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits


10 or 15 years ago, back in my younger, wilder college days, we could
never seem to get a "box" (if you have to ask, you don't need to
know!) to work on a pay phone for local calls. Is there some technical
(or magical) reason why the tones used to account for coin deposit on
LD calls function differently than those for a local call? Is the
decoder that the CO uses to detect coin presence for local calls
different than the one for LD ones? Our technical knowledge of the
situation (limited even then) seemed to tell us that this should have
worked. We even tried various experiments to rule out, for example,
our "tones" not being loud enough to overcome the dial tone present
during initial coin deposit.

We guessed then that (a) there was some additional DC or even in-band
signalling present on initial coin deposit, or (b) there were secret
hidden cameras near each phone that allowed the operators to watch us
pick up the phone :+), but neither of these seemed too feasible. I
suppose that we just could have been screwing something up.

Have things changed with the introduction of electronic switches, or
would a phreaker still find it impossible to make a local call by
less-than-honest methods?

If you consider the details too "sordid", feel free to EMail
responses.


Thanks,

Eric

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 19:30 EST
From: "Curtis E. Reid" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Voice Mail and TDD: Rolm


I need to ask questions of the experts of Rolm PBX and Rolm Voice
Mail.  I don't have the product specifications on Rolm systems so I'm
asking here.

Recently last month, Rolm announced that it is provided TDD capability
to its Voice Mail system.

How does this work?  Do you call a special mailbox number and the
system responds in TDD navigating your way around the Voice Mailbox
system?

Is it only for Rolm system?  Can the Rolm Voice Mail be integerated
with other PBX system such as the AT&T System 85?

Who is the best source of contact at Rolm to inquire about the Voice
Mail and the TDD capability?  The sales people don't seem to know
about it and can't answer my questions.

Prompt response is appreciated since we are in the process of
investigating the advantages and disadvantages of Voice Mail system
versus dual voice/TDD answering machines.


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

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 12:27:14 CST
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: "Paul D. Nanson" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Consumer's Guide to Cellular Information


In Digest #1014, Robert John Zurawski writes:

> Is there a guide (like in any magazines) that tells about the features
> in cellular phones ...

I recently picked up a magazine called "Mobile Office Magazine's:
Cellular Buyer's Guide (Vol 1 Num 2, Fall/Winter 1991)."

It contains the following articles:

    FEATURES o Cellular Advertising: The Bottom Line
             o Cellular Roaming: The New Deals
             o Choosing the Right Antenna
             o Accessorize Your Cellular Phone
             o Cellular Data Links

    CELLULAR o Portable Phones
       PHONE o Comparison Chart--Portables
 DIRECTORIES o Mobile and Transportable Phones
             o Comparison Chart--Mobiles and Transportables
             o Glossary
             o Manufacturers' Addresses

The newstand price is US$4.95, CAN$5.95.  The only subscription
information contained in the guide applies to their magazine, "Mobile
Office" (but might prove useful in locating the guide):

   MOBILE OFFICE Subscription Dept.
   P.O. Box 57268
   Boulder, CO  80323-7268
   [phone]


Paul Nanson      FAX: [phone]       NET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 23:58:40 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: PC Based Key-Systems/PBX's
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


  Are there any PC-based key systems or PBX's commercially available?
(Small scale). By that I mean systems that are composed of PC cards to
which one hooks up CO and station lines instead of a custom designed
box with proprietary cards. Absent that, are there any practical ways
to roll-your-own?

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

From: [e-mail] (Glenn F. Leavell)
Subject: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 19:23:23 GMT


I recently had an interesting experience trying to use U.S. Sprint
long distance.  The phone I was using had AT&T default long distance,
so I wanted to dial "10 333 0 xxx yyy zzz", get a "<boing> U.S.
Sprint" message and then enter my Southern Bell calling card number
(I've used this method before with AT&T, MCI, and Telecom*USA).
Instead of getting the <boing>, though, I got a Sprint operator.  I
asked her if I would be charged operator-assisted rates if I gave her
my calling-card number.  She said that I would.  So, I asked her why I
got her and not the <boing>. She said that I should have received it,
and that I should try again.

I tried again, and got another Sprint operator who didn't seem to
understand what I was talking about at all.

I then decided to try entering the card number when I expected to
hear the <boing>.  I did this, and once again got a Sprint operator.

I then called Sprint customer service.  I had to be transferred once,
and a woman told me that I didn't need to dial a zero after the 10
333.  She also said that I wouldn't hear the <boing>, but just to go
on as if I had.  I asked her if she understood that Sprint is unique
among at least MCI and AT&T in the way they operate, and she said
something vague, trying to avoid the question.  Well, of course her
advice didn't work, as it makes no sense.

So, is 800 877 8000 the only way to make a calling-card card with
Sprint without talking to an operator?  If so, I don't think everyone
at Sprint really understands that.


Glenn F. Leavell  Systems Administrator  [e-mail]  404-542-3488
University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602


[Moderator's Note: At present, 800-877-8000 is the only way to make a
Sprint calling card call without an operator. The only situation where
calling card calls via zero plus (or 10xxx + zero +) can be placed
without intervention is when using the (old) AT&T card, and that is
mainly because until recently AT&T and the local telco used the same
card number.

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

From: "Joel B. Levin" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Bell Science Series
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 14:25:25 EST


The Bell Science Series of educational films produced by AT&T during
the fifties has been mentioned here from time to time.  I was browsing
yesterday in the catalog described below and found the following
available -- director and year given where available:

ABOUT TIME - Jack Warner
ALPHABET CONSPIRACY - 1959 (animation by Friz Freleng); host Frank Baxter
GATEWAY TO THE MIND - Jack Warner 1958
HEMO THE MAGNIFICENT - Frank Capra; host Frank Baxter
OUR MR. SUN - Frank Capra 1956; host Frank Baxter with Eddie Albert
STRANGE CASE OF THE COSMIC RAYS - Frank Capra 1957
THE THREAD OF LIFE - Jack Warner; host Frank Baxter; new listing this edition
UNCHAINED GODDESS - Frank Capra; host Frank Baxter ("Meteora" is the goddess)

These are all listed for $19.95 each in:

    The Whole Toon Catalog (winter '91/'92 edition)
    P.O. Box 369
    Issaquah, WA 98027
    [phone] phone
    [phone] fax

I don't know how dated these are.  I saw them in elementary and junior
high school and on television starting not long after they were made,
and I thought they were great.

Disclaimer: I have no connection with Whole Toon Access, even as a
customer (yet).


nets: [e-mail]    |    BBN Communications
  or: ...!bbn!levin    |    M/S  20/7A
POTS: [phone]  |    150 Cambridge Park Drive
FAX:  [phone]  |    Cambridge, MA  02140

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 10:02:03 ARG
From: Manuel J. Moguilevsky <atina!pccp![e-mail]>
Subject: How Can I Get an Area Code Updated Listing


I want to know if there exists any Area Code updated listing (is it
called NPA?)

I run a fax bureau, and it is very difficult to be updated with so
many split areas and changes!

Also I would like to know if there exists any list of fax bureaus
around the world.

Thank you,


Manuel J. Moguilevsky   Buenos Aires, Argentina   FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Bellcore publishes an up to date Area Code
Directory each year. Order them from the AT&T Information Center in
Indianapolis, IN.  NPA refers to the numbering plan generally, and
yes, these are the area codes. I don't know of any fax bureaus as such
but there are fax directories published annually in the USA.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1026
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24751;
          18 Dec 91 4:27 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31386
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:19:23 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22109
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:19:11 -0600
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:19:11 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1025

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Dec 91 01:19:05 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1025

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Wrong Numbers (Jeff Hibbard)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (David Cornutt)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Carl Moore)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (David Lesher)
    Re: 800 Discrimination (H. Peter Anvin)
    Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (Floyd Vest)
    Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago (Scott Reuben)
    Re: T1 on Fiber? (Tom Gray)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Hibbard)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: Bradley University
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 08:08:39 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: But just be sure some real Alien Creatures -- such
> as lawyers for the Hilton Hotel chain -- don't try to sue you for
> making trouble for them, as they tried to do to John Higdon.  :)  PAT]

Gee, given where the fault actually lied, I wonder how firm of ground
the lawyers would have been on if I tried John's tactic on the large
quantity of wrong numbers I got a few years ago.  (I didn't ... I was
nice and referred callers to the correct number).

The university where I work now has a System 85 and does its own
billing, but years ago all the dorms and some offices were served by
Illinois Bell Centrex, and Illinois Bell billed the students directly
for toll calls.  They sent one bill to each dorm room and, since there
were typically two students to a room, they also included a card
describing how to compute each roommate's share of the bill (allowing
for state & federal taxes, etc.).  The card also said "If you have any
questions please call 672-3861".  Although many years earlier this had
been a not-otherwise-published number at the local Illinois Bell
business office, at the time they *STARTED* stuffing these cards into
student phone bills, that number had been MY OFFICE at the University
for a couple of years.

Every month when I got a new surge of these calls, I'd call Illinois
Bell and get someone else there to promise that they'd have this
problem fixed before the next billing cycle.  Every month when the new
bills arrived, it was quickly obvious that nothing had changed.  Note
that students didn't get me by misdialing, by using (or defaulting)
the wrong area code, or any other such error; if they dialed exactly
what Illinois Bell told them to dial in their current phone bill, they
got ME.  I had one of the students bring me his copy of the card (I
still have it) so I could see for myself what it said.

After about five months of this, when I decided they were too
disorganized to ever stop stuffing these cards, I asked to have my
number changed.  They cheerfully agreed to do this FOR THE NORMAL
CHARGE.  When I said I thought they should waive the charge under the
circumstances, my request disappeared into the bureaucracy for another
couple of months.  Eventually (only after I got very angry and very
nasty) they changed my number for free.  The one time I checked (about
a year later I asked a student I knew) they were STILL stuffing that
same erroneous card in every bill.


Jeff Hibbard, Bradley University, Peoria IL


[Moderator's Note: You need to practice guerilla (or do you say
Gorilla?) warfare. You should have made up a recorded announement for
that line which said something like this: "Your comments are too
trivial to waste our time with a live human answer, so this recording
will suffice. Please take note that we are not interested in listening
to complaints from you. Either pay your bills on time in the amount
you were billed or expect more drastic collection action in the near
future. If you don't like the way you are treated when you call here,
then feel free to file a complaint with the appropriate people. <click>"

PLEASE NOTE: Do not include the phrase 'telephone company', 'IBT',
'Illinois Bell' or ANY reference to ANY company or person in your
message. Do NOT say who the 'appropriate people' might be. Then see to
it the Illinois Commerce Commission gets a copy of the notice with
that phone number on it, and watch the fun begin!  If they try to nail
you for 'impersonating a telco employee', ask them where your message
says that, and stand your ground. Also, do NOT use the word 'business'
in your message (they might say you are operating a 'business' using
residential service, etc.)  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (David Cornutt)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 18:19:58 GMT


Here's my favorite wrong number story.  In the mid-'70s, when I was a
teenager, we lived in Chattanooga, TN.  At the time, Chattanooga was
almost all ancient xbar and step equipment.  (Some equipment used in
the outlying areas was so old that the "ring tone" was just a padded-
down version of the ring voltage sent to the called phone, or so I've
been told ... it made this raspberry noise...)

Anyway, one day I was doing some dreadfully dull homework and the
phone rings.  The caller asked for Jerry.  I informed him that no
Jerry lived there, and he hung up.  A minute later, another ring.
Same guy.  Still no Jerry.  He apologized, and hung up.  A minute
later, another ring.  Yep, same guy again.  I asked him what number he
was trying to dial.  "698-xxxx".  "Hmmm, this is 698-xyxx", where y
was a 2 and I belive he was dialing a 7, or something else not
remotely close to a 2.  I suggested that he call the operator.

A few minutes later, the phone rings.  It was a Southern Bell
operator.  Her: "Is this 698-xxxx?"  Me: "No, it's 698-xxyx".  "OK,
thank you."  She hung up.  A minute later, it rings again.  Same
story.

A few minutes pass.  The phone rings.  Me: "Hello."  Operator: "Oh,
no, not again."  A second voice came on and started apologizing
profusely for bothering me.  Apparently, the operator had gotten her
supervisor to try, just to make sure that she wasn't going mad.  The
supervisor went on to say that she had been working for SB for 12
years, and that this was the first time she had ever seen this happen.
She promised me that a tech would be called out to the CO immediately
to examine the switch, and then she gave me her office phone number
and told me to call her directly if I got any more wrong numbers.  She
apologized once more for the bother, and I told her I actually didn't
mind the comic relief, since I was just doing dreadfully dull homework
anyway.

When our phone bill came at the end of that month, there was a $15
credit for "interruption of service".  I never did find out what
happened to the switch, or if the original caller ever managed to get
the party he was trying to call.


David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL  [phone]
([e-mail]; some insane route applies)
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 15:25:37 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers


David Lesher <[e-mail]> writes:

> The trouble is they've listed such places as the Circuit City in
> Tysons Corners [Va., near DC] as having a 410 number.

Occasionally, I notice the Laurel-at-Waterloo-rates exchange in the DC
area as a foreign exchange, to provide local service to and from
Baltimore and suburbs.  The prefixes that I know of for this service
are 792 and 880, and are being moved from 301 to 410.  (Other Laurel
exchanges are local to DC and are staying in 301.)

In response to [e-mail]:

You included a line which said "Well, the SW Bell 'One Book' Yellow
Pages has starting listing 401 area".  Did you intend to say 410 where
you meant 401?  401 is in Rhode Island.  Until 410 is fully cut over,
there will be two ways you can mess up the area code and reach, say,
me at Aberdeen where Rhode Island was intended.  Years ago, I did
answer a wrong-number call intended for Rhode Island, but I was in 301
and there was as yet no 410.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 19:49:18 -0500
From: David Lesher <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers - Beltway Annex
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Lesher)


I've gotten some mail on my posting, so I thought I'd better elaborate
to clear up the confusion.

1) Yes, 401 was a typo. I meant 410.

2) Tysons Corner is in VA.

3) 703-821 is listed as McLean/Falls Church. That's pretty close
to Tysons Corners, or includes it, depending on who you talk to.

4) Since Circuit City is a retail appliance store, with maybe a dozen
storefronts in metro DC, I doubt that the VA store would want a
Baltimore FX, or listing. They don't want to talk on the phone -- they
want you come in and succumb to their salespitch.

My point was and is: SWB has incorrectly translated some numbers in
703 into 410. This will likely create even more confusion in an area
where even the guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue admits his VCR says
12:00 12:00 12:00.


[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Subject: Re: 800 Discrimination
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 22:01:45 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> of comp.dcom.telecom,
[e-mail] (david.g.lewis) writes:

> Furthermore, so far as I'm aware, there are no trunks between AT&T and
> other IXCs, so the only way an OSPS operator could connect a call to
> another carrier's 800 number would be to crank it back into the
> originating LEC's network.  I don't know if this is technically
> feasible or allowed from a regulatory standpoint.  And if the hotel
> had direct connections into AT&T, there is no originating LEC
> involved, so there's nowhere to crankback to.

Hmmm ... I have my own story on that one:

My school, Northwestern University, has in an attempt to reduce the
overcrowding of their dorms decided on a new in-house phone system for
students.  Although we are all required to use a particular AT&T
calling plan for our DDD IXC, dialling 9-0 reaches a U.S. Sprint
operator.  Now, I wanted to place an international credit card call
over AT&T.  Dialling 9-10288-01-46-21-13XXXX# gave an "we're sorry..."
intercept.  Dialling 0 to call the local operator they told me to call
9-0 to reach U.S. Sprint, and ask the U.S. Sprint operator to connect
me to the AT&T operator, who could place the call.  The Sprint
operator took the number and connected me to AT&T's "boing", by which
I entered the AT&T credit card number and the recording announced
"thank you for using AT&T."

I have no clue how this would have worked, but it did ... after the
most complicated connection experience I have ever had!


INTERNET: [e-mail]   TALK:      [e-mail]
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC     HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4   NeXTMAIL:  [e-mail]
IRC:      Xorbon        X.400:     /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW

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

From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro
Date: 17 Dec 91 11:44:41 CDT


[e-mail] (Nigel Allen) wrote:

> The Andrew Corp. of Orland Park, Ill., announced last month that it
> has signed a joint venture with the Moscow Metro to develop a fiber
> optic network covering the metropolitan Moscow area.

> [Moderator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber
> optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the
> many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil
> the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more
> appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended.   PAT]

Pat, while fiber optic nets won't feed anyone, you must understand the
problem in the Soviet DisUnion is not entirely a lack of food.  The
harvest this year was comparable to other years and by some accounts
something of a bumper crop.  Much of the blame for the hunger in
Soviet cities is a collapse of the infrastructure -- transporation,
_communication_, and distribution of resources.  Admittedly most of
these problems are political in origin.  In the transition to a market
economy, however, it is important to redevelop the means of production
and distribution.  Key to that rebuilding is a modern communications
network.  While the fiber net may not feed anyone today, it may
provide the means to feed many in the future.

Besides, it sounds like a pretty good deal -- 69% interest for
providing right-of-way only.  I wonder if I could get Ma Bell to make
that deal for the right-of-way they have on my property?  :-)


Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>  [phone]
       FIDO: 1:3613/3       Auburn, Alabama USA

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 12:59:50 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> This would also prevent the use of many calling card services, such as
> US Sprint's, which present their own secondary dialtone (standard
> frequencies) as a prompt.  Then, the "live" keypad would be useless
> anyway in a lot of situations.  I would think that most telcos would
> be clever enough to disable the second dialtone for lines that have a
> COCOT class-of-service.

   But this is part of the problem; there are several alternatives
that COULD be used by COCOT phones to avoid that (and other)
problem(s).  But the COCOT phones are designed to operate on a
Standard POTS line with no special features.  The "phone company" may
not even be aware that it IS a COCOT phone.  Any new or existing
interface to the phone that would prevent fraud is not the issue --
such an interface would (or does) cost extra, and the COCOT profit
goes down.

> Even if this is not done, if the phone is at
> least as clever as my Panasonic answering machine, it could detect the
> momentary loss of loop current just before the secondary dialtone is
> provided.

   But your Panasonic answering machine won't work on ALL lines,
because there is no guarantee of a loss of loop current before
secondary dialtone.  The COCOT phones have the same problem; they can
detect second tones in many, but not all, places.  That's why the
phones can be set up to operate either way.  Of course, a COCOT owner
can have their service move from a "current loss" line to a "current
hold" line without notice, so they are taking a chance with "active"
pads.


Al Varney, AT&T

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

Date: 17-DEC-1991 16:32:30.97
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago


Cellular One/South Jersey is also offering a "free-airtime" Christmas
deal:

Sign up by Christmas, and get free (airtime only?) weekend calling
until next Christmas. (ie, for one year)

One problem: Cell One/SJ has three coverage areas, none of which are
very large. (New Brunswick - SID 00173, Trenton - SID 00575,
Flemington/Hunterdon County - SID 01487).

You only get the free weekend airtime in your HOME system. You will
pay $.99 per minute in the other two systems. (You will pay $.99 per
minute in the other systems anyhow, regardless of the day or time.)

So I'm not running out and singing up ... you can drive through one of
their "coverage" areas in 20 minutes!


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Tom Gray)
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber?
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 11:40:24 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


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

> Recently I talked with an AT&T rep (for T1 service) about T1.  Somehow
> we were talking about the 'wire'. And he mentioned that the wire would
> be FIBER. Well, 1.5Mbps and FIBER that does not sound reasonable,
> because fiber is very EXPENSIVE.

Fibre is not EXPENSIVE.

Fibre is CHEAP - to repeat - FIBRE IS CHEAP.

> So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at
> the customers premises, or how do they handle this?

They install a fibre transceiver at the customer premises in the same
way that they would have installed a transciever for copper cable.
The only real difference is that the fibre transceiver is CHEAPER than
the copper transceiver

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1025
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25190;
          18 Dec 91 4:37 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22321
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:54:07 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03897
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:53:46 -0600
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 02:53:46 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1027

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 18 Dec 91 02:53:31 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1027

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Scott D. Green)
    The Wrath of Dave (Dave Parks)
    Re: Voice Response Technology (Colin Campbell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 18:42 EDT
From: "Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]>
Subject: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!


Remember back in September/October when {USA Today} was having
"network problems" on its 900-555-5555 line so that it was accessible
via 800-555-5555?  Remember how we speculated what, if anything, would
happen with the charges?  Wonder no more!

I just received my November bill with the calls detailed as "USA Today
900-555-5555" at $.95 per minute.  *And* I have 900 blocking on my
line!

Luckily, AT&T provides the billing, so I called 800-222-0300 and spoke
with Barbara there who was somewhat surprised by my story.  She was
very cooperative and agreed to remove the charges ("one time only") if
I agreed to call Bell of PA to verify the blocking.  She also offered
some interesting advice: 900 blocking should be requested for both
outgoing *and* incoming calls!  I asked her what that was all about,
since I don't operate a 900 number.  She told me that incoming
blocking would prevent an IP from converting a non-900 call to them
into a 900 charge on my bill.  This I had never heard about.  Is
anyone else familiar with this kind of sleazy operation?

What about the ethics of this situation?  After all, we discussed, at
length, the fact that the recording on 800-555-5555 clearly stated
that the service cost $.95 per minute.  Despite that notice, I (and I
assume others) knowingly used that service, firm in our technological
belief that our dialling "800" instead of "900" superceded the terms
stated to us. {USA Today}, having fulfilled its IP responsibility by
clearly stating the cost of the service, used its technological
prerogative to gather the ANI data on the 800 number in order to
recover that which was due them.

Having already claimed my credit, I stand by the "800 Protection"
viewpoint, but to me it doesn't seem that {USA Today} is entirely in
the wrong here.


scott

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 15:13:02 -0500
From: kitenet!plex-1![e-mail]
Subject: The Wrath of Dave


    I called the phone company the other day because for ONCE I
took the time to go over my phone bill (line by line) to track down
where the heck my LARGE Kite-Net (ex. M-Net) bills were coming from.
It all started when I noticed that since I opened up Kite-Net as a
UUCP connection to the world (which requires a LOT of outgoing calls)
my phone bill sky rocketed.

    I looked the bill over and noticed that I have been charged
6.2 cents per call for 1770+ calls ($109.00) and of course said
"%^%#&^&*^*&".  So I jumped on the phone to check on my account,
"Well" the lady said nicely, "It looks like you have five lines flat
rate and one measured line" (a measured line is one that get 50 FREE
calls per/month and is charged 6.2 cents after) to which I replied
"This isn't right I should have five measured lines and 1 flat rate,
that's what I ordered". She of course put me on hold while checking
this out (for 15-20 minutes) and returned with a pleseant "No, you
have five flatrate and one measured".

    I asked when this went into effect and she again put me on
hold and came back with the information of March of last year (which
is when I called to have things changed so M-Net could use one of my
Kite-Net lines for the Merit dialout). I explained to her that they
have had my order turned around 180 degrees from what I wanted for
over 1.5 years. I asked to talk to her supervisor and I explained that
they had screwed up royal and she went right into the ole "Company ass
kisser speech" that I must have ordered it this way because their
operators are instructed to attempt to talk users out of this feature
for this very reason. I took this opening to lay "The Wrath of Dave"
upon her poor excuse for a company by explaining that I have my "First
Class" Radio Telephone ticket, been a "Ham Radio Operator" since I was
9 and worked with telephones for YEARS and had to have their engineers
come out three different times to point out where they had gone
wrong in my order and on top of that I had to explain to their
-operators- what the hell a "Trunk was"!

    After about 1/2 an hour of bantering "coulda been this way ..."
she agreed that I was not a little ole lady off the street and knew
what I was talking about so "PERHAPS" someone on their end could have
misunderstood what I was ordering.  Once we had agreed that the fault
COULD have been on their end I asked for some kind of reduction in in
billing since the ONLY line they were charging me 6.2 cents per call
on was my DIALOUT!

    I guess she was tired of me by this time so she once again put
me on hold to check something else out ... (waiting) ... (waiting) ...
She then came back and said "Theres nothing they could do since I
didn't find the problem for such a long time and I did indeed use the
service, and further more ... she made it clear that the service I am
receving SHOULD be business rates, so don't push it!" Boy was I
steamed at this!

    I asked for her supervisor (and she had to call me back) and
was even MORE pleasent and made it very clear that she did care about
my problem, I was for an instant happy to hear this, well she had been
"FILLED IN" on my problem and checked all the records and was ready to
talk. Her first point to be made was that if I had caught this 30 - 60
- 90 days even 1/2 a year into the problem we could have worked
something out but "A YEAR A A HALF" there just nothing they can do.
So, I say ... "What I'm hearing is that if there is a problem it is
first of all up to the customer to track down and we have a certain
amount of time to do this in"? to which she replied "NO, What I'm
saying is ... that if there is a problem it is up to the customer to
find and they must find it in a certain amout of time".  Hmmmmmmm,
glad she cleared that up for me!

    "OK, we're getting nowhere here I'll just pay the damn thing
and you fix it today, I'll be calling YOU directly each day for ONE
month to make sure that this had been done and NOT changed with out my
consent durning that time" to which "Miss Thing" came back with yet
ONE more analogy to my problem.

    "Mr. Parks ... if you started using lots more electricity in
your home do you think Detroit Edison would notify you?" I said "Yes
and they DID, thank you very much, but thats not the point, I KNOW
when I'm using more electricity because *I* plugged the extra stuff
in ... they can't punch in the wrong numbers into the computer to
MAKE me use more like you can".

    Hmmmmm she thought, BAD analogy ... "When I asked to talk to
the supervisor I knew I wasn't going to get anywhere, I just wanted to
tell you people that *IF* (I say *IF*) there was another game in town
I'd take my business there right now, since there isn't ... good day!
(SLAM)!


 ...sharkey!m-net!kite             Altos 68020 UNIX Sys-III [phone]
 ...sharkey!kitenet!kite           Altos 68000 UNIX Sys-III [phone]
 ...sharkey!kitenet!plex-1!kite    Plexus P/35 68000 UNIX SysV.2   USENET
You can mail Dave Parks at these addresses, or phone [phone] --

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

From: [e-mail] (Colin Campbell)
Subject: Re: Voice Response Technology
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Colin Campbell)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp., Salt Lake City, UT
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 19:55:26 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

> I am looking for smaller scale hardware that would enable me to write
> a voice response application similar to phone registration systems
> used by universities or account query systems used by banks and credit
> card companies.

Here is a summary of the responses I received:

 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 10:16:04 EST
 From: David Wood <[e-mail]>


The Autovox call processing system includes a full "application
generation" programming language along with integration with Paradox
databases.  It is PC-based.  This might be what you are looking for.

Contact:

    Liberty Communications
    [phone]

Ask for Steve.

I believe that their toll-free number is 800-876-7656.


Dave Wood


 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 11:42:53 EST
 From: Mark Kern <[e-mail]>


   I just finished up a proposal for a VRU (Voice Response Unit) to be
installed at our University.  I can tell you right now that this is a
pretty specialized market, and that the companies marketing these
systems design the hardware and software themselves.  The key to the
whole system is the VRU which can be either PC bassed or proprietary.
This unit is responisible for maintaining any number of telephone
lines tied to a single pilot number which the user can dial into.  The
VRU also includes on the average, about one hour of voice recording time
in RAM.  The VRU uses this memory to store all the voice prompts
needed during the interaction with the user and is also responsible
for running the program that performs this interaction.

   The VRU can also handle the student records themselves, updating the
host Mainframe during off-hours, or the VRU can just send the packets
to the Mainframe on a real-time basis.  The former method is better,
since you don't tie up the Mainframe, but can also add to your costs
in that you need large storage capacity on the VRU itself.  It is also
very important that the VRU be able to recover from a system failure
by itself, with little or no operator intervention.  If the power
should go out, once power is back, the unit should be able to restore
itself in under five minutes.

   The average cost of a VRU, including software, is about $40,000 for the
base unit.  Some companies that you might want to contact are :

    Perception Technology [phone]
    Syntellect           [phone]

   Our school's telecommunications division has already implemented a
test system using a PC based VRU, but the PC proved to be too limiting
to handle the tasks needed to register 4800 students.  Hope this helps.


Mark Edward Kern   NET : [e-mail]  GEnie : M.KERN1


 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 12:43:53 -0500
 From: [e-mail] (Robert Virzi)


I know of at least three systems that would allow you to build small
voice response systems.  Two are IBM-based and the other mac-based.

For the IBM machines their are two boards, the Watson board and the
Dialogic d-40 board.  The Watson boards (sorry, don't know the
manufacturer) come in multi- and single-line varieties.  I guess this
is a critical point, as the other two boards are only single-line, to
the best of my knowledg.

I have used the Dialogic stuff and been unipressed.  It seems a little
flakier than need be, and you have to write your own C code to support
the application.

I am working with someone using the Watso board, and he is reasonably
happy with it.  Same story as the dialogic, however, in that you have
to write your own application code from scratch.  This isn't all that
easy, especially if you aren't familiar with telephony applications.

For the mac, their is a system called TFlex or teleflex, which has a
very nice visual programming language.  This makes building
applications very easy, even if one is not familiar with telephone
applications.  It has a lot of built in routines, and the whole system
can be programmed using visual icons.  I believe it is only
single-line, however.  TFlex can be flakey in terms of getting it
running.  Once running, though, it seems reasonably robust.

Those are the choices I know about.  Good luck!


Bob Virzi


 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 20:38:27 CST
 From: "Andrew Luebker" <[e-mail]>

You might want to look into computing-devices for the disabled.  I
think there are some voice-control PC products for people with
physical handicaps.


 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 23:50:04 -0600
 From: Tron <[e-mail]>

MindTech is working on a product that will do this. It has three
parts, the ring detector which connects to the phone outlet and it
detects rings and picks it up, the voice play back and a simple voice
digitizer (11 kHz MACE compression).

You can program this thing to function as a voice mail system.

I don't know if MindTech has released it yet.
You can try to call them at 708 655-2105 or fax them at 708 655-2104.

Be prepared, they might give you a bunch of we don't know what you are
talking about, if they do so just tell them Chuan told you about it.


Hope this helps.

Chuan


Date: 17 Dec 91 08:21:39 EST (Tue)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)


Check out Diaglogic Corp, Parsippany, NJ.

They offer a family of voice-response hardware for the AT-buss, with
drivers for both UNIX and MS-DOS.  They probably have everything you
need to build the voice-response system you want.  We use their
hardware as the basis of a voice-response banking application we
market in the NYC area.


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


 Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 09:51 EST
 From: [e-mail] (Gerry Lachac)


See my .signature.  We make all this equipment, Voice Store And
Forward, Voice Recognition, Fax, etc.  All cards for PC compatibles
and Microchannel.

Keep in mind that we make hardware, and supply development kits
consisting of libraries, device drivers, and sample code.  We sell to
VARs who make things like voice mail systems, and application
generators.  If you don't want to do things from scratch, you may want
to talk to one of our VARs.  (As a matter of fact that list that was
posted today from the magazine contained a number of our VARs)


gerry

%  EMAIL:    [e-mail]
%  USMAIL:   Dialogic Corp.
%            300 Littleton Rd Parsippany, NJ
%  PHONE:   [phone] ext 193


 From: [e-mail] (George Herson)
 Date: 16 Dec 91 14:05:57 GMT


Vendors of call processing equipment are listed in a trade periodical
{Networking Management}, 11/91, p52, "When hello isn't enough."  The
only one of the vendors I've contacted so far is Intervoice, which
designs its hardware for PS/2s.  I don't know which computers the
others support; the article doesn't say.

The numbers refer to those to circle on the magazine's "reply card."
I assume that you don't need the card, you can just send your list of
numbers to Networking Management, 1421 S. Sheridan, P.O.Box 21728,
Tulsa OK 74121-9977 for more info, before 2/29/92.

AT&T  Bridgewater, N.J. #265
Applied Voice Technology, Kirklan, Wash. #266
Aristacom International Inc.  Alameda, Calif. #267
Aspect Telecommunications  San Jose, Calif. #268
Brite Voice Systems  Wichita, Kan. #269
Centigram Corp.  San Jose, Calif.  #270
C-T Link  Boston, Mass. #271
DEC  Littleton, Mass. #272
Digital Sound Corp.  Carpinteria, Calif. #273
Dytel Corp.  Schaumburg, Ill. #274
Hewlett-Packard Co.  Cupertino, Calif. #275
IBM Corp.  White Plains, NY #276
InterVoice  Dallas, Texas #277
Microlog  Germantown, Md #278
Northern Telecom  Santa Clara, Calif. #279
Octel Communications  Milpitas, CA #280
Perception Technology  Canton, Masss. #281
AB Preseco  Solna, Sweden #282
Rockwell International  Downers Grove, Ill. #283
Rolm Corp.  Santa Clara, CA #284
Simpact Associates  San Diego, CA #285
Syntellect Inc.  Phoenix, AZ #286
Teknekron Infoswitch  Fort Worth, TX #287
Unifi Communications  Billerica, Mass #288
Willow Telecommuting Systems Inc.  Richmond Hill, Ont., Canada #289
Viking Electronics Inc  Hudson, Wis. #290
Voicetek Corp. Chelmsford, Mass #291
VMX Inc.  San Jose, Calif. #292


George Herson    [e-mail]
voice: [phone]    fax: [phone]

                        -----

Colin Campbell              Internet: [e-mail]
Evans & Sutherland          UUCP: !uunet!dsd.es.com!ccampbel
Salt Lake City, UT 84108    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1027
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa17236;
          19 Dec 91 10:19 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31653
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 19 Dec 1991 08:02:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA06240
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 19 Dec 1991 08:02:22 -0600
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 08:02:22 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1028

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 19 Dec 91 08:02:18 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1028

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Extremely Unlisted Phone Numbers in China (Andrew C. Green)
    MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (Will Martin)
    EIA/TIA 568: Information Wanted (Michel Dalle)
    Is My Phone OK in the UK? (Ian Watson)
    Signaling System #7 (Wynn Quon)
    ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor (John Boteler)
    Other Data Over That TV Cable? (was ISDN Arrival?) (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls (Dennis G. Rears)
    Information About Modem Chips Required (M.J. Crepin-Leblond)
    Disneyland Speakerphones (Scott Reuben)
    Re: Disneyland (was Psuedo-Area Code 311) (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets (Doctor Math)
    Progress in Email Addressing (Ed Greenberg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 11:33:26 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Extremely Unlisted Phone Numbers in China


The following item is quoted in its entirety from the "News of the
Weird" column by Chuck Shepherd as it appeared in the December 6, 1991
edition of the {Chicago Reader}. The column is a collection of strange
and bizarre news stories from all over, sent in by readers:

> The Chinese Government, concerned about secrecy, recently had its
> entire telephone system rewired so that military officials can't
> call, or be called from, outside the country. A {New York Times}
> reporter trying to confirm the story with China's Bureau of Secrecy
> found the bureau's phone number was classified. Researchers have
> reported being told that, among other things, the number of sheep
> in China and the number of potatoes grown every year are secrets.


Andrew C. Green       [phone]
Datalogics, Inc.      Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron          UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg
Chicago, IL  60610    FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 8:51:19 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: MOST Interesting Telco Recording!


Those of you who like to hear unusual or interesting telco recordings
should try calling this number:

314-644-7542

This is the number listed in the St. Louis White Pages business section
(Feb '91 edition) for TV station KTVI (channel 2).

Here is the text of the recording; I've NEVER heard any telco recording
that is as helpful or informative as this! --

[Beep tones (SIT?)]

"We're sorry, area code 314-644-7542 has been changed due to an error
made in the directory.

KTVI's main telephone number is 647-2222
       ^^^^
KTVI's news telephone number is now 644-7531
                                ^^^
Repeating...

KTVI's main telephone number is 647-2222
       ^^^^
KTVI's news telephone number is now 644-7531"
                                ^^^
[End of recording]

(The "^^^" indicates the voice-stress emphasis.)

Since this is a telco error recording, calling this number from
anywhere should be free (except from a COCOT :-).

What I'm wondering is if the telco would create such a specialized
recording and be as helpful for an ordinary citizen, or even an
ordinary business. This being a television station, with a consumer
hotline feature which could be used to cause the telco untold hassles,
could probably be assumed to be a prime motivating factor in getting
SWBT to be so accomodating! :-)

Does current technology make such customized recordings easy to
implement and maintain, or is this a major pain for the telco to do?
Can we expect this sort of thing to become more common, or will it
always be a rare exception? Are other Telecom readers aware of such
recordings in their areas? Does this signal the end of the generic
"intercept" recording?


Regards,

Will

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

Subject: EIA/TIA 568: Information Wanted
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 16:55:17 MET
From: Michel Dalle <[e-mail]>


Hello there, you lucky people.

It seems that in the USA, the standard EIA 568 on wiring in commercial
buildings and campuses is (will be?) available.  Is that right? Is
there such a thing?

I'd very much like to know how I could get a copy of it sent to me
here in this underdevelopped country (--- at least concerning
standards!).  Even better would be that it existed somewhere in the
Internet in electronic form, but I may be dreaming.

Anyway, I'd very much appreciate any info or pointer to where I could
get it.


michel ... from Belgium.
Michel Dalle   Network Consultant  (well, not yet! I just started...)
SNIS     Col. Bourgstraat 105
B-1040 Brussel   BELGIUM
e-mail: [e-mail]

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

From: Ian Watson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Is My Phone OK in the UK?
Date: 18 Dec 91 12:03:04 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard NSG-PWD, UK.


I received as a gift a novelty phone.  It's one of those ones which is
transparent so you can see the innards, and it has several coloured
lights which light as the phone rings.  It's marked as approved by
FCC, MCI and Sprint, so is clearly made for the US market.  However,
it was bought here in the UK.

My concern is that it carries the 'red triangle' sticker which says
that it is prohibited from direct or indirect connection to the
British Telecom system.  I have connected it up and received a call
OK, but have not yet tried to make a call.

o    What are the likely consequences of using this phone instead of my
     normal BT-rented phoneset?
o    Will it catch fire, refuse to work, trash the BT exchange, get me
     a criminal record?
o    Or am I likely to find it works fine?

o    If it really works fine as far as I can tell, why might it not have
     got the 'green circle' sticker of approval for BT connection?
o    Does BT have any influence over whoever does the certification,
     thus limiting the competition to BT?
o    Who does the certification?

o    If it really is a turkey piece of apparatus, how come it can be
     sold here in the UK?
o    Might I (or rather the person who bought it) have any redress under
     the Sale of Goods Act on the principles that it is "not of
     merchantable quality" or "unfit for the purpose for which it
     was sold"?
o    If not, what legitimate market might such a phone have in the UK?

I don't want to electrocute myself or get thrown in jail.  Please help
before my curiosity gets the better of me and I (potentially) make a
silly mistake.


Ian Watson, HP Pinewood Information Systems Division, England.
Phone :                 (Intl)[phone]
Unix mail (Internet) :  [e-mail]
Unix mail (UUCP) :      ...!hplabs!hpopd!ian
OpenMail :              ian watson/pinewood
OpenMail from Unix :    watson_ian/[e-mail]
X.400 :                 SN=WATSON; GN=IAN; C=GB; ADMD=GOLD 400;

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

From: [e-mail] (Wynn Quon)
Subject: Signaling System #7
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 11:43:31 -0500
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


Hi, I'm looking for information about Signaling System #7 training
seminars.

Does anyone have any personal recommendations for good seminars on
this topic?  On the opposite side, are there ones that you would
recommend staying away from?

I'm also compiling a list of SS7 reading material, if you've come
across any superb books/articles I'd like to hear about it.

I'll post a summary later on.

Thanks,


Wynn Quon   Mitel Corp.  Kanata, Ontario

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 2:13:08 EST


The {Washington Post} Thursday, 12 December 1991 ran an article in the
Metro section about the sentencing of Robert Dunnington for taping a
cellular telephone conversation made by then-candidate for Virginia
governor Doug Wilder to a real estate developer.  The tape eventually
made its way to Senator Chuck Robb, Wilder's political rival.

Dunnington, "who had a hobby of electronically eavesdropping on calls
made from car phones in Virginia Beach", got 30 nights at a halfway
house, allowing him to run his restaurant business during the day, and
a $500 fine.

Apparently, the ECPA was invoked in this case, although the article
leaves one with the impression that it was the political personalities
who made sure it went this far.  An attorney was even quoted as saying
that if Joe Citizen were listening to John Citizen's cellular
conversations that nobody's eyebrows would have been raised.

Might this be the first and last time we hear about the ECPA?


[e-mail] (John Boteler)
Skinnydipper's Hotline => 703.241.BARE  Touch-Tone info at your fingertips


[Moderator's Note: I don't think it will be the last time. You are
correct that normally there is no effort to hunt down and prosecute
people who listen to cell phone calls on their scanner, but at the
same time the authorities do not like having their noses rubbed in
things. An obvious flouting of the law frequently brings a response,
and the violator's status in life (ie, senator, movie actor) will be
the guide for detirmining the harshness of the punishment.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Date: Wed Dec 18 10:15:58 1991
From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Other Data Over That TV Cable? (was ISDN Arrival)
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 18:15:56 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Marvin Sirbu)
writes:

> It isn't the telcos that are a competitive threat, it is the CATV
> companies. 90% of households are currently passed by wired cable;
> about 60% of all households subscribe.  Wireless cable generally
> offers fewer channels and if it is not competing head to head with an
> entrenched cable company, is in some rural area with few potential
> customers.  Be sceptical of their subscriber projections.

(I'd be interested in your assesment of direct-from-satellite's
potential, (as used pretty extensively in Japan currently) but that's
not really the subject ...)

90%?  Jeeezus.  I had no idea they'd gotten that far.  (Talk about
"The Devouring Fungus" ...)  My real question is what's available in
bandwidth on those things; I assume the cable folks would be a little
peeved if I hooked up a baseband tranceiver to the end of my cable,
and started blasting data down it, but are there serious technical
limitations involved?  (You see, most of our company lives in the same
neighborhood, several of us in the same apartment complex, and we
could really use a network ...)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dennis G. Rears)
Subject: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls
Date: 19 Dec 91 03:45:09 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


  I just got my NJ Bell phone bill.  There were a lot charges to AT&T
that I placed in Florida last month.  I was shocked that I was charged
Floridia sales tax for calls placed in Florida to out of state
locations.  I believe that is unconstitional (interference with
interstate commerce).  This post is not about constitionality issues
but more about pragmatic issues.

  What would happen if I sent my payment minus the charge for Florida
sales tax?  I would state that I do not pay Florida sales tax.  I am
aware that NJ Bell is merely a collection agent for AT&T and that AT&T
is merely is collection agent for Florida.  Could NJ Bell cut off my
service for nonpayment?  Could AT&T cut my service (I am on Reach Out
World) but Sprint is dial 1 carrier.  Another point is that NJ Bell
does not have a physical presence in Florida, so how can they be
required to collect sales tax?  When the Supreme Court rules on the
North Dakota case that point may be moot.

  I am cross-posting this to misc.legal and misc.taxes for discussion on
theory only.  Flames to /dev/null.  I will pay the tax amount as it only
a few dollars.


Dennis


[Moderator's Note: They cannot cut your service off for non-payment of
tax. This was a regular occurrence during the Viet Nam war by
protestors. You have to indicate what it is you are not paying so that
your entire payment is not taken as a short-pay or partial payment
against the entire bill. The telcos will short-pay the government with
advice that you would not pay them, and it is up to the government to
then collect from you or prosecute you as appropriate. In order to do
business in a state, a company has to have at least a registered agent
for process of service and an office there. Some local telco in
Florida probably handles that task for Sprint to comply with the law.
Whether or not the sales tax laws supercede the FCC tariffs and the
Uniform Commercial Code relating to interstate commerce is tricky. Ask
in misc.legal for a more precise (and probably correct) answer.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 18:21 BST
From: "Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information About Modem Chips Required


I am looking for information about MODEM or FAX/MODEM ICs which could
be used as a network end to a design of a FAX/MODEM on the PSTN.
(normal telephone service).  In other words, I'd like some references
of manufacturers, chip number code and/or name, so that I can get the
data sheet directly from the manufacturer.

Please answer directly to my email address <[e-mail]>
Thanks for your help.

Olivier M.J. Crepin-Leblond, Elec. Eng. Dept., Imperial College London, UK.

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

Date: 17-DEC-1991 16:02:02.53
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Disneyland Speakerphones


Pat noted:

[Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a
while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had
phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there
apparently for billing purposes only.  PAT]

I believe I may have posted on this previously, but I can't recall if
all (or any) of the payphones were 714-555-9xxx. They may have been
-1444 and other non "9xxx" numbers. They are not standard "payphones",
but rather Speakerphone Booths. There is a rather large speaker
mounted in the ceiling with a LARGE "Bell System" logo on it in blue.
(Pac*Bell may have changed this, however.)

If I get a chance to get to Anahiem soon, (and find a friend who still
buys those "frequent visitor" admission books!) I'll try out the ANI
numbers that I have and see what the computer returns. I have "1223"
and "114" for Pac*Bell ANI in LA - will these work in Orange County as
well (Non-GTE)?

(BTW, dialing "958" on the 212-516-xxxx payphones in Penn Sta. NY
yields a re-order. Dialing the 660 ringback WILL ring them back just
fine, however.)


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Disneyland (was Psuedo-Area Code 311)
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 17 Dec 91 17:10:52 GMT


[e-mail] (VLD/VMB) writes:

> To comment on a Moderator's Note: Do not confuse Disneyland in
> Anaheim, California, with Disney World near Orlando, Florida.  They
> do, however, come under the same organization.  I was at the one in
> California this year, and made a phone call from an enclosed booth
> where I did not have to hold an instrument to my ear, but rather just
> sit in the booth and talk!

A payphone/speakerphone combination at the AT&T pavilion in
Tomorrowland.  The listed numbers on the phones are all of the form
555-xxxx, and I once made a long distance call to see what the
recorded number would be, but it was long ago.  After all, these
wonders of technology were installed in 1957.


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Subject: Hel Needed Wiring Telco Headsets
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 02:08:58 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department


I have two of the old-style Genuine Bell headsets (made by
Plantronics) which sort of hang over one ear and terminate in a little
box with two 1/4" phono plugs. A few years ago, I actually had one of
them interfaced to a phone. It worked great, but I can't for the life
of me remember exactly how it was done. Symbols inside the box seem to
indicate that sleeve/sleeve goes to the earpiece, and that tip/tip is
amplified output from the microphone, but recent attempts to hook them
up fail miserably.  Can anyone out there in Telecom Land give me (a)
instructions (b) pointers to where instructions may be found on how to
hook these headsets up to a standard 500 or 2500 set? Any help
appreciated.

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 09:22 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Progress in Email Addressing


A recent post was listed as from:

>From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com

This is progress?


edg


[Moderator's Note: It was beautiful, wasn't it ... :)   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1028
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16675;
          20 Dec 91 3:34 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04840
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 01:34:11 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28321
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 01:33:56 -0600
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 01:33:56 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1029

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:33:49 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1029

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Poland: Nickel Payphones and USA Direct (Fred E. J. Linton)
    A Product I'd Like to See (Invented AND Widely Used) (Jack Decker)
    How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Steve Vance)
    Line Tapping and CO's (Randall L. Smith)
    Rail Phone (Michael Rosen)
    Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information (Sean E. Williams)
    AT&T Echo to the UK (Scott Reuben)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17-DEC-1991 13:53:34.45
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Poland: Nickel Payphones and USA Direct


Just back from a week in Warsaw, Poland, I can report the following:

1.  The nickel payphone is alive and well in Poland -- Polish
payphones (which as little as two years ago used a 20 zloty coin for
an unlimited local call -- 20 zloty being valued at circa 0.2 cents)
now offer three minutes local calling for a "jeton" costing 600 zloty
 --circa 5.2 cents -- and feature a jeton-queuing ramp that will
ingest the next jeton in line when the current three-minute period
expires, but let you retrieve the jeton if it wasn't needed.

2.  Card phones are becoming available, but very slowly -- there are a
few at the main phone/fax/telex/telegraph office in Warsaw on
Nowogrodska Street, and there are two at the International Departures
building of Okecie airport.  Cards may be bought at post offices.
Service is provided by an outfit called P.P.T.T. -- none of my Polish
friends knew for sure, but P.P.T.T. just *might* stand for Polish
Post, Telephone, and Telegraph.  An instruction placard hung near the
airport card phones lists countries direct-dialable from those phones,
along with their country codes -- conspicuous on that list both by its
presence at all, and by the *absence* of any dialing information for
it, is an entry for USA Direct .  [No other "Home Country Direct"
entries appear at all.]  [For some time AT&T International has
apparently been "negotiating" with the Polish PTT for USA Direct
rights, or so I have heard.]

3.  Both the fax and the telex service at the Nowogrodska center are
reasonably priced, by Western standards -- and those who have telex
messages to send get to compose them themselves, on old punched paper
tape machines, seemingly Polish clones of old WU Telex machines,
before handing the tape to an attendant for transmission.  Lovely old
clunkers, those PPTM's.


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06459
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>     ( or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com> )
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)      or     + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 16:52:01 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Product I'd Like to See (Invented AND Widely Used)


You know, I've been giving some more thought to this business of local
measured service and have thought of one way that consumers could
fight back, IF the proper equipment were available.

Perhaps you have read of the new 900 MHz DIGITAL cordless phones.  I
have, and I understand that they have a 1/2 mile range.  With a decent
antenna and a sensitive receiver (such as the type used to receive
five watt satellite transponders from thousands of milers out in
space!), I imagine that range could be upped a bit.

Now, there are probably folks who never call anyone within a 1/2 to
one mile range of their homes.  But there are also folks who make
frequent calls to neighbors, the store down the street, etc.  My idea
would benefit this latter group, particularly in areas where 1) all
calls are measured, or 2) you live near an exchange boundary and some
of your neighbors are toll calls.

What I'd like to see is a COMBINATION corded/cordless phone, built to
some standard so that phones from different manufacturers would talk
to each other.  When you pick up the phone, you'd key in the number
and it would first try to reach that number via digitally transmitting
it on a common "hailing" channel and listening for any response.  If
another phone in the area identified itself as being that phone
number, the connection would be made via the airwaves and not over the
landline.

If there were no response, OR if prior to dialing you pressed a button
labelled "landline only" (or something to that effect), your phone
would get dialtone from the C.O. and attempt to place the call that
way.

A person purchasing such a phone would have to program in their area
code and phone number (or explicitly tell the phone that there was no
landline connection available, in which case a psuedo-number might be
used).  Calls placed by dialing only seven digits (in the U.S.A. and
Canada) would be assumed to be in the same area code as the phone you
are using.  Both area code and number would be transmitted when trying
to make an over-the-air connection, in case you happen to live along
an area code boundary.

At present these could use existing digital cordless phone frequencies
under "Part 15" FCC regulations (low powered unlicensed devices), I
believe.  If the idea catches on, folks might begin to ask the FCC to
allow higher power and/or operate on different frequencies.

You could market these to folks who have friends or relatives living
close by.  They could be promoted as something that would save on
phone charges AND provide limited-range communications even when the
phone lines are down (they might be very popular with folks in rural
and semi-rural areas who have elderly parents living nearby).  They
would also be useful for businesses that have locations that are close
by but geographically separated (for example, a sales office with a
warehouse a block away).

Going one step farther, you could produce an upgrade model (one that
goes beyond the basic model) with master/slave capabilities.  That is,
you could pick up a "slave" phone and place nearby calls over the
airwaves as described above, OR get dialtone from the line connected
to a "master" phone at a different location.  Incoming calls would
ring both the master and slave phones.  This would be great for people
who have, say, a garage or barn detached from the house.  "Three way
calling" (master, slave, and caller on C.O. line) would be allowed.

In fact, three way and "transfer" calling should be allowed on the
basic units... that is, you could "conference" a call between the C.O.
line and a cordless connection, and the phone in the "middle" should
be able to go on-hook while leaving the cordless-to-C.O.  connection
intact.  Why?  Well, consider a situation where "grandma" (who hardly
EVER uses her phone) lives next door, and can't see to dial.  You buy
her a phone like this and you get one, and when she wants to make a
call, she calls you (presumably using a "speed dial" button) and you
complete the call for her via your landline, and then disconnect while
leaving the connection intact.  Or, perhaps she can dial for herself,
but she wants you to screen incoming calls for her to keep the
telesleaze that prey on the elderly away.  When a call comes in and
it's someone she would want to talk to, you three-way the call to her
and then drop out of the conversation.

If a cordless conversation is in progress and a wireline call comes
in, the phone could beep or otherwise behave just as though you had
"call waiting", but of course there should be a way to disable this.

An upgrade unit might permit plugging in a modem, FAX machine, or
other (normal) extensions.  It would provide dialtone to these
devices, and would then provide the cordless or wireline connection to
the called number, as appropriate.

Does anyone who builds telephones and telephone devices read this
conference?  I think this could become a very popular device, if it
were designed and marketed properly.  I'm available for consultation
and beta-testing!  :-)


Jack Decker   :   [e-mail]   :   FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: well![e-mail] (Steve Vance)
Subject: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU?
Date: 19 Dec 91 08:13:47 GMT


I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom
Calling Feature on my home phone.  I described this to the Customer
Service person as follows:

    "I still have just the one telephone in my house, and just
    one wire from the telephone pole to my house, but two different
    telephone numbers; when 555-1212 is called, it rings normally,
    and when 555-1313 is called, it has the double-ring like in
    England.  When someone calls either number while I am on the
    phone, they get a busy signal."

This seemed pretty descriptive, and is how "Distinctive Ringing" works
as far as I know.

The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows:

                                installation      per-month
    New Phone number              $34.75            $8.35
    "Commstar II"                  15.00             8.20
    Distinctive Ringing option      4.00             5.00
                   Total:          53.75            21.55

My questions to the Net are: is this the typical charge for this
service?  If you have it, how much do you pay?

If you don't mind typing in the description of this service from the
front of your white pages, the Pacific Bell Customer Service person I
talked to is interested in what this service looks like and costs in
other parts of the country, and I promised I would post this and mail
the responses to her.


Steve Vance
{apple,lll-winken,pacbell}!well!stv
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago there is no 'installation charge'
for the distinctive ringing numbers. We pay $4.95 per month for the
first number (gives a short double ring) and $3.95 for the second
number if one is desired (gives a short then long ring).  Distinctive
ringing lines can be programmed at the CO to either observe any call-
forwarding instructions which are on the main number or to ignore
call-forwarding of the main line and simply 'ring through'.  They also
have their own distinctive call-waiting tones, different from the tone
given when the main line gets a call-waiting.   PAT]

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

From: rls![e-mail] (Randall L. Smith)
Subject: Line Tapping and CO's
Date: 19 Dec 91 19:36:26 GMT
Organization: The Internet


I just had an unusual event occur here at home.  I have a two line
phone here in my office and noticed one of the lines lit up.  Hmmm.  I
figured the oaf of a Labrador Retriever that we have must have bumped
one of the phones and took it off hook.

Wandering around the house checking each of five phones, I found
nothing unusual.  On the last phone I picked up and listened to a
conversation between a man and a woman which sounded like some
official business with a good deal of formality.  There was what
sounded like a raspy radio with the mike being keyed on the other end,
but the male sounded so close, it like he was in the house.  The
conversation being on my line was worrysome because my first reaction
was long distance fraud.  Since they weren't speaking in tounges, I
figured it was more domestic.

Given it may be a domestic happening, I decided to get my coat on and
see who's playing out on the phone lines.  Wandering up and down the
back lots, I found a guy with a Bell telephone hat on up on a ladder
with a phone and alligator clips on two leads.  Yep, that had to be
him.  I talked to him a little bit and left.

What I'm left wondering, is that how are lines traditionally tapped or
is line tapping done at the central office?  Anyone know?


randy

[e-mail] | <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy |
rls![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Tapping can be done in a variety of places
including the CO or on the subscriber's premises or various points in
between. Wherever your pair is multipled between you and the office is
a possible tap point. I doubt the guy on the pole was 'tapping your
line'. It is more likely he was working on some phone in the area and
talking to someone in the office trying to find a working pair or get
his next assignment, or??    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Rail Phone
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 23:05:58 GMT


I was riding the train home today and, on my way off the train, I
noticed something new.  They have "Rail Phones" in booths on the
train.  At least, I only saw one, in the car I was in just before the
snack car.  Does anybody know how these work?  I assume they only take
credit cards, calling cards, etc.?  Of course, you can probably get
operator assisted calls as well, for a nominal fee :).


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Subject: Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:33:51 GMT


I am writing a term paper on Telecommunications Fraud and how the
telephone companies have been fighting back.

I need information, however, and am asking for your help.  Could
anyone send me mail about software written to 'catch' customers
'wardialing', trying to break into VM systems, or any other such
security programs?  Calling card abuse?  Whatever?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that an ESS can print an exception
report to show a list of callers who have dialed more than 'x' numbers
in the past 'y' time period.  I'm looking for examples of other things
the telcos have done to catch people doing things they shouldn't have
been doing.

I'm already digging deeply in the telecom-archives, and have also been
looking through 'phreaker' archives on other internet systems.

Note: I'm not looking for ways to defraud the phone company, I'm
looking for measures which the phone company has taken to keep fraud
from occuring.  Please keep this in mind.

Thanks for your help!


Sean E. Williams                      [e-mail]
Rochester Institute of Technology     Telecommunications Technology (ITFT)


[Moderator's Note: ESS' can print out exceptions (to usual, or
average) conditions and notify a human being to review what has been
recorded. Exceptions in and of themselves are not evidence of illegal
activity, of course, but these reports do guide security personnel in
their investigations. ESS' can also detect tones that shouldn't be
coming at them from the subscriber's side of the line and **allow the
call to continue, as though all were well** while notifying a human
being of what is happening, who in turn can tap a few keys on the
terminal and see the whole sordid picture in seconds.    PAT]

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

Date: 19-DEC-1991 07:17:39.65
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Echo to the UK


I just got off the phone with someone in London, calling via AT&T.

I heard her just fine, but she said there was "noise" after I spoke,
and it sounded as if there was some slight delay.

So I tried calling a FAX number in Oxfordshire, as well as some of
those carphone numbers which supervise all the time, with both AT&T,
MCI, and Sprint.

AT&T *always* had a slight delay -- if you hit a Touch Tone key right
when the other side was making some sound (FAX carrier or "not in
area" carphone message), you could hear the touch tone returned to
you. It wasn't as long as what one would expect from a satellite
circuit, so maybe they are using fiber one way and satellite the other
way? (Hey, AT&T *still* uses satellites to Hawaii!)

MCI got static each time, so I didn't bother with them.

Sprint has NO delay and NO echo to any of the numbers in the UK. I
then called the person I was speaking to, this time using Sprint, and
we could talk much more easily, as if it were a domestic call in the
US. (Sprint does still have a delay to Hawaii however -- try 808-545-7610
for Tymnet for an experiment).

This is not the first time that AT&T has had this echo problem to the
UK.

Any reason why AT&T is apparently so cheap that they can't have full
fiber BOTH ways? I always use AT&T for all my calls, but if by dialing
10333+ for Sprint I get better connections than AT&T, and AT&T after
all these years is STILL using satellites, I think maybe I'll give
some of my business to Sprint instead.

Sad to see that at least in some areas AT&T is offering inferior
service ... :(


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1029
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19270;
          20 Dec 91 4:35 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12791
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:36:04 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28375
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:35:52 -0600
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:35:52 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1030

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:33:49 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1029

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Poland: Nickel Payphones and USA Direct (Fred E. J. Linton)
    A Product I'd Like to See (Invented AND Widely Used) (Jack Decker)
    How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Steve Vance)
    Line Tapping and CO's (Randall L. Smith)
    Rail Phone (Michael Rosen)
    Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information (Sean E. Williams)
    AT&T Echo to the UK (Scott Reuben)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17-DEC-1991 13:53:34.45
From: "Fred E.J. Linton" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Poland: Nickel Payphones and USA Direct


Just back from a week in Warsaw, Poland, I can report the following:

1.  The nickel payphone is alive and well in Poland -- Polish
payphones (which as little as two years ago used a 20 zloty coin for
an unlimited local call -- 20 zloty being valued at circa 0.2 cents)
now offer three minutes local calling for a "jeton" costing 600 zloty
 --circa 5.2 cents -- and feature a jeton-queuing ramp that will
ingest the next jeton in line when the current three-minute period
expires, but let you retrieve the jeton if it wasn't needed.

2.  Card phones are becoming available, but very slowly -- there are a
few at the main phone/fax/telex/telegraph office in Warsaw on
Nowogrodska Street, and there are two at the International Departures
building of Okecie airport.  Cards may be bought at post offices.
Service is provided by an outfit called P.P.T.T. -- none of my Polish
friends knew for sure, but P.P.T.T. just *might* stand for Polish
Post, Telephone, and Telegraph.  An instruction placard hung near the
airport card phones lists countries direct-dialable from those phones,
along with their country codes -- conspicuous on that list both by its
presence at all, and by the *absence* of any dialing information for
it, is an entry for USA Direct .  [No other "Home Country Direct"
entries appear at all.]  [For some time AT&T International has
apparently been "negotiating" with the Polish PTT for USA Direct
rights, or so I have heard.]

3.  Both the fax and the telex service at the Nowogrodska center are
reasonably priced, by Western standards -- and those who have telex
messages to send get to compose them themselves, on old punched paper
tape machines, seemingly Polish clones of old WU Telex machines,
before handing the tape to an attendant for transmission.  Lovely old
clunkers, those PPTM's.


Fred E.J. Linton  Wesleyan U. Math. Dept.  649 Sci. Tower  Middletown, CT 06459
E-mail:  <[e-mail]>     ( or  <fejlinton@{att|mci}mail.com> )
Tel.:         + 1 203 776 2210 (home)      or     + 1 203 347 9411 x2249 (work)

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 16:52:01 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: A Product I'd Like to See (Invented AND Widely Used)


You know, I've been giving some more thought to this business of local
measured service and have thought of one way that consumers could
fight back, IF the proper equipment were available.

Perhaps you have read of the new 900 MHz DIGITAL cordless phones.  I
have, and I understand that they have a 1/2 mile range.  With a decent
antenna and a sensitive receiver (such as the type used to receive
five watt satellite transponders from thousands of milers out in
space!), I imagine that range could be upped a bit.

Now, there are probably folks who never call anyone within a 1/2 to
one mile range of their homes.  But there are also folks who make
frequent calls to neighbors, the store down the street, etc.  My idea
would benefit this latter group, particularly in areas where 1) all
calls are measured, or 2) you live near an exchange boundary and some
of your neighbors are toll calls.

What I'd like to see is a COMBINATION corded/cordless phone, built to
some standard so that phones from different manufacturers would talk
to each other.  When you pick up the phone, you'd key in the number
and it would first try to reach that number via digitally transmitting
it on a common "hailing" channel and listening for any response.  If
another phone in the area identified itself as being that phone
number, the connection would be made via the airwaves and not over the
landline.

If there were no response, OR if prior to dialing you pressed a button
labelled "landline only" (or something to that effect), your phone
would get dialtone from the C.O. and attempt to place the call that
way.

A person purchasing such a phone would have to program in their area
code and phone number (or explicitly tell the phone that there was no
landline connection available, in which case a psuedo-number might be
used).  Calls placed by dialing only seven digits (in the U.S.A. and
Canada) would be assumed to be in the same area code as the phone you
are using.  Both area code and number would be transmitted when trying
to make an over-the-air connection, in case you happen to live along
an area code boundary.

At present these could use existing digital cordless phone frequencies
under "Part 15" FCC regulations (low powered unlicensed devices), I
believe.  If the idea catches on, folks might begin to ask the FCC to
allow higher power and/or operate on different frequencies.

You could market these to folks who have friends or relatives living
close by.  They could be promoted as something that would save on
phone charges AND provide limited-range communications even when the
phone lines are down (they might be very popular with folks in rural
and semi-rural areas who have elderly parents living nearby).  They
would also be useful for businesses that have locations that are close
by but geographically separated (for example, a sales office with a
warehouse a block away).

Going one step farther, you could produce an upgrade model (one that
goes beyond the basic model) with master/slave capabilities.  That is,
you could pick up a "slave" phone and place nearby calls over the
airwaves as described above, OR get dialtone from the line connected
to a "master" phone at a different location.  Incoming calls would
ring both the master and slave phones.  This would be great for people
who have, say, a garage or barn detached from the house.  "Three way
calling" (master, slave, and caller on C.O. line) would be allowed.

In fact, three way and "transfer" calling should be allowed on the
basic units... that is, you could "conference" a call between the C.O.
line and a cordless connection, and the phone in the "middle" should
be able to go on-hook while leaving the cordless-to-C.O.  connection
intact.  Why?  Well, consider a situation where "grandma" (who hardly
EVER uses her phone) lives next door, and can't see to dial.  You buy
her a phone like this and you get one, and when she wants to make a
call, she calls you (presumably using a "speed dial" button) and you
complete the call for her via your landline, and then disconnect while
leaving the connection intact.  Or, perhaps she can dial for herself,
but she wants you to screen incoming calls for her to keep the
telesleaze that prey on the elderly away.  When a call comes in and
it's someone she would want to talk to, you three-way the call to her
and then drop out of the conversation.

If a cordless conversation is in progress and a wireline call comes
in, the phone could beep or otherwise behave just as though you had
"call waiting", but of course there should be a way to disable this.

An upgrade unit might permit plugging in a modem, FAX machine, or
other (normal) extensions.  It would provide dialtone to these
devices, and would then provide the cordless or wireline connection to
the called number, as appropriate.

Does anyone who builds telephones and telephone devices read this
conference?  I think this could become a very popular device, if it
were designed and marketed properly.  I'm available for consultation
and beta-testing!  :-)


Jack Decker   :   [e-mail]   :   FidoNet 1:154/8

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

From: well![e-mail] (Steve Vance)
Subject: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU?
Date: 19 Dec 91 08:13:47 GMT


I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom
Calling Feature on my home phone.  I described this to the Customer
Service person as follows:

    "I still have just the one telephone in my house, and just
    one wire from the telephone pole to my house, but two different
    telephone numbers; when 555-1212 is called, it rings normally,
    and when 555-1313 is called, it has the double-ring like in
    England.  When someone calls either number while I am on the
    phone, they get a busy signal."

This seemed pretty descriptive, and is how "Distinctive Ringing" works
as far as I know.

The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows:

                                installation      per-month
    New Phone number              $34.75            $8.35
    "Commstar II"                  15.00             8.20
    Distinctive Ringing option      4.00             5.00
                   Total:          53.75            21.55

My questions to the Net are: is this the typical charge for this
service?  If you have it, how much do you pay?

If you don't mind typing in the description of this service from the
front of your white pages, the Pacific Bell Customer Service person I
talked to is interested in what this service looks like and costs in
other parts of the country, and I promised I would post this and mail
the responses to her.


Steve Vance
{apple,lll-winken,pacbell}!well!stv
[e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago there is no 'installation charge'
for the distinctive ringing numbers. We pay $4.95 per month for the
first number (gives a short double ring) and $3.95 for the second
number if one is desired (gives a short then long ring).  Distinctive
ringing lines can be programmed at the CO to either observe any call-
forwarding instructions which are on the main number or to ignore
call-forwarding of the main line and simply 'ring through'.  They also
have their own distinctive call-waiting tones, different from the tone
given when the main line gets a call-waiting.   PAT]

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

From: rls![e-mail] (Randall L. Smith)
Subject: Line Tapping and CO's
Date: 19 Dec 91 19:36:26 GMT
Organization: The Internet


I just had an unusual event occur here at home.  I have a two line
phone here in my office and noticed one of the lines lit up.  Hmmm.  I
figured the oaf of a Labrador Retriever that we have must have bumped
one of the phones and took it off hook.

Wandering around the house checking each of five phones, I found
nothing unusual.  On the last phone I picked up and listened to a
conversation between a man and a woman which sounded like some
official business with a good deal of formality.  There was what
sounded like a raspy radio with the mike being keyed on the other end,
but the male sounded so close, it like he was in the house.  The
conversation being on my line was worrysome because my first reaction
was long distance fraud.  Since they weren't speaking in tounges, I
figured it was more domestic.

Given it may be a domestic happening, I decided to get my coat on and
see who's playing out on the phone lines.  Wandering up and down the
back lots, I found a guy with a Bell telephone hat on up on a ladder
with a phone and alligator clips on two leads.  Yep, that had to be
him.  I talked to him a little bit and left.

What I'm left wondering, is that how are lines traditionally tapped or
is line tapping done at the central office?  Anyone know?


randy

[e-mail] | <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy |
rls![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Tapping can be done in a variety of places
including the CO or on the subscriber's premises or various points in
between. Wherever your pair is multipled between you and the office is
a possible tap point. I doubt the guy on the pole was 'tapping your
line'. It is more likely he was working on some phone in the area and
talking to someone in the office trying to find a working pair or get
his next assignment, or??    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: Rail Phone
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 23:05:58 GMT


I was riding the train home today and, on my way off the train, I
noticed something new.  They have "Rail Phones" in booths on the
train.  At least, I only saw one, in the car I was in just before the
snack car.  Does anybody know how these work?  I assume they only take
credit cards, calling cards, etc.?  Of course, you can probably get
operator assisted calls as well, for a nominal fee :).


Mike

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

From: [e-mail] (S.E. Williams )
Subject: Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:33:51 GMT


I am writing a term paper on Telecommunications Fraud and how the
telephone companies have been fighting back.

I need information, however, and am asking for your help.  Could
anyone send me mail about software written to 'catch' customers
'wardialing', trying to break into VM systems, or any other such
security programs?  Calling card abuse?  Whatever?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that an ESS can print an exception
report to show a list of callers who have dialed more than 'x' numbers
in the past 'y' time period.  I'm looking for examples of other things
the telcos have done to catch people doing things they shouldn't have
been doing.

I'm already digging deeply in the telecom-archives, and have also been
looking through 'phreaker' archives on other internet systems.

Note: I'm not looking for ways to defraud the phone company, I'm
looking for measures which the phone company has taken to keep fraud
from occuring.  Please keep this in mind.

Thanks for your help!


Sean E. Williams                      [e-mail]
Rochester Institute of Technology     Telecommunications Technology (ITFT)


[Moderator's Note: ESS' can print out exceptions (to usual, or
average) conditions and notify a human being to review what has been
recorded. Exceptions in and of themselves are not evidence of illegal
activity, of course, but these reports do guide security personnel in
their investigations. ESS' can also detect tones that shouldn't be
coming at them from the subscriber's side of the line and **allow the
call to continue, as though all were well** while notifying a human
being of what is happening, who in turn can tap a few keys on the
terminal and see the whole sordid picture in seconds.    PAT]

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

Date: 19-DEC-1991 07:17:39.65
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T Echo to the UK


I just got off the phone with someone in London, calling via AT&T.

I heard her just fine, but she said there was "noise" after I spoke,
and it sounded as if there was some slight delay.

So I tried calling a FAX number in Oxfordshire, as well as some of
those carphone numbers which supervise all the time, with both AT&T,
MCI, and Sprint.

AT&T *always* had a slight delay -- if you hit a Touch Tone key right
when the other side was making some sound (FAX carrier or "not in
area" carphone message), you could hear the touch tone returned to
you. It wasn't as long as what one would expect from a satellite
circuit, so maybe they are using fiber one way and satellite the other
way? (Hey, AT&T *still* uses satellites to Hawaii!)

MCI got static each time, so I didn't bother with them.

Sprint has NO delay and NO echo to any of the numbers in the UK. I
then called the person I was speaking to, this time using Sprint, and
we could talk much more easily, as if it were a domestic call in the
US. (Sprint does still have a delay to Hawaii however -- try 808-545-7610
for Tymnet for an experiment).

This is not the first time that AT&T has had this echo problem to the
UK.

Any reason why AT&T is apparently so cheap that they can't have full
fiber BOTH ways? I always use AT&T for all my calls, but if by dialing
10333+ for Sprint I get better connections than AT&T, and AT&T after
all these years is STILL using satellites, I think maybe I'll give
some of my business to Sprint instead.

Sad to see that at least in some areas AT&T is offering inferior
service ... :(


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1029
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa19952;
          20 Dec 91 4:54 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01486
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:37:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08917
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:37:15 -0600
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 02:37:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1030

TELECOM Digest     Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:37:15 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1030

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Jim Haynes)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Stephanie da Silva)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Peter da Silva)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (John David Galt)
    Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Robert J. Woodhead)
    Re: E-Mail Link to Japan (Darren Alex Griffiths)
    Re: ISDN in Japan and USA (Kenji Fujisawa)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Ron Schnell)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Henry E. Schaffer)
    USA Today Number - An Update on Billing Procedures (Rob Boudrie)
    I Got Billed for "USA Today" 800 Calls, Too (Ron Newman)
    Last Laugh! 976 and 1-900: The Ultimate Solution (Mikel Manitius)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: darkstar!cats.ucsc.edu!haynes
From: Jim Haynes <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business
Date: 18 Dec 91 17:33:26 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


Thanks for the press release, but does anybody know exactly what
services have been discontinued?


[e-mail]   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: TWX and Telex service. I'm told that since they
bought out Western Union, they'll be getting rid of the standard,
familiar telegraph ASAP also.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 7:45:11 CST
From: [e-mail] (Stephanie da Silva)


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

> Well, the simplest solution is the one I've applied:
> "This is NOT Allstate. There are NO insurance agents here.  If you
> want to leave a message for Stephanie or Peter..."
> ... but I would assume that anyone receiving that message
> would figure they hadn't got Allstate.

Let me clarify something here.

We apparently were assigned number that used to be the number for an
Allstate agent, so the people who are calling us aren't misdialling;
they are actually calling our number.  Now that's not so bad, except
for the incredible bozos that I've had to deal with over this.  They
fall into several catagories.

The usual call started with them asking for the agent.  I would reply,
"You have the wrong number."  "Is this 568-xxxx?"  "Yes, it is."  "I'm
sorry, I must have the wrong number."  Click.  Here's the good part --
at least *half* of them would call right back -- after I already
verified the number!  One guy actually called an operator and had her
dial, and she was obviously annoyed once she realized what was going
on.

Then there were the ones who would keep calling back over hour or so
intervals even after I told them they had the wrong number.  After the
third or fourth time of picking up the phone and hearing someone
complain about how they lost their hubcap or about how their rates
went up, I'd just go ahead and hang up.  Yet they'd still call back!

The third kind was the worst -- they were the ones who would insist
they had the right number.  "May I speak to Mr. Crosby?"  "You have
the wrong number."  "Let me speak to Mr. Crosby."  "There is no Mr.
Crosby here."  "Well, where is he?"  "Look, you have the wrong
number."  "No, I don't -- I have it written down right here and I
can't understand why I keep getting YOU."

After a year and a half, we are still getting calls for Allstate,
although it has progressed from people who just haven't got a clue to
people who do.  Typical call now is, "Hello?"  "Uh ... is this
Allstate?"  Of all the countless people who called me and wasted my
time, there were exactly two who apologized for bothering me.

I can sympathize with Mr. Higdon.  It was so annoying that I wanted to
tell these people that Mr. Crosby ran off with the all the premium
money and his secretary to a Carribean island and their policy was
void but Peter didn't think that would have been a good idea.  I also
wanted to record the message on the answering machine that said, "If
you're looking for an insurance agent, call xxx-xxxx" and leave a
State Farm number but instead, I recorded the message we have now.

It got to the point to where I just stopped answering the phone.
Seriously ... what can one do?


Stephanie da Silva   a [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 18:48:07 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: But just be sure some real Alien Creatures -- such
> as lawyers for the Hilton Hotel chain -- don't try to sue you for
> making trouble for them, as they tried to do to John Higdon.  :)  PAT]

In our case I figured out the wording pretty closely before deciding
that it would be childish. It would have been pretty close to:

   "I'm sorry, but this is NOT an insurance agency. There are NO
   insurance agents here. If you want an insurance agent call
   nxx-xxxx."  (where nxx-xxxx is a State Farm agency)

That way I'm not identifying myself as Allstate (in fact, I'm denying
it), and not claiming that nxx-xxxx is Allstate.

But, like I said, I decided it would be childish. But boy did I wish
we had Caller-ID while this was going on. I'd love to get a list of
the numbers and send them, with explanation, to Allstate and ask that
they correct the problem.

I notice that in another followup our esteemed Moderator suggested a similar
course of action.


Peter da Silva
Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 15:37:43 PST


When I lived in San Francisco, I used to get a lot of wrong-number
calls.  It seems there was a company in town called "John Galt
Computer Co.", but their listing in the white pages was under "John"
rather than "Galt."  So people would call information and be given my
number.  After a month or so I added the company's number to the
outgoing message on my answering machine, and 90% of the problem went
away.

I also called the company, but they laughed and either weren't
interested in changing their listing, or didn't understand the
problem.  I don't know if the company still exists.

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

From: [e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan
Organization: Foretune Co., Ltd.
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 01:20:43 GMT


[e-mail] (George Herson) writes:

>> In addition, inside Japan there are a number of "fj" newsgroups and
>> mailing lists, both in English and Kanji, that are not distributed
>> outside of Japan because they contain information that scrutable
>> westerners are not meant to know.

> I get scores of the "fj" newsgroups here at UCalifornia, Irvine.  This
> is probably because we have the highest Asian population by percentage
> than any other campus in the mainland US (as I read somewhere). Looks
> like random ASCII.

Sigh.  I'm getting subtle in my old age.  I should have made it more
clear that I was being a tad wry.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Darren Alex Griffiths)
Subject: Re: E-Mail Link to Japan
Organization: Open Systems Solutions Inc.
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 19:29:26 GMT


[e-mail] (Robert J Woodhead) writes:

> In addition, inside Japan there are a number of "fj" newsgroups and
> mailing lists, both in English and Kanji, that are not distributed
> outside of Japan because they contain information that scrutable
> westerners are not meant to know.

They're not, huh.  All of our systems have the fj groups.  We are a
Unix hacking shop just outside of Berkeley that is owned by a Japan
based Fujitsu.  While we currently don't have any Japanese engineers
residing here a couple of the management folk are Japanese and we do
get visitors from Japan.  It's really rather funny to have engineers
walking around wearing suits, I'm sure we'll get them to see the light
when they start to stay here longer.

I don't understand the Kanji, but the English groups are pretty
boring.  In any case, we do have the groups and a few people around
here do read them.  In addition, another Fujitsu company, Fujitsu
America Inc (FAI), has a T1 link to Japan that is used for internal
Fujitsu stuff, but I believe a number of sites like uunet route mail
through FAI to Japanese sites.


Darren Alex Griffiths   Open Systems Solutions, Inc   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenji Fujisawa)
Subject: Re: ISDN in Japan and USA
Organization: Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
Date: 16 Dec 91 15:39:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Jim Haynes) says:

> He remarked that in Japan one can just call the telephone company
> and ask to have your home service converted to ISDN and it will be
> done the next day, no charge for the conversion and no extra charge
> for ISDN service.

It's overstated.  The time for instllation varies between one week to
six months depending on the area, the availability of the digital
exchanges.  And you have to pay an installation fee of about $100 -
$150.  Futermore, the monthly charge becomes twice of the analog
telephone: ie, about $35.


Kenji Fujisawa    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 11:54:00 -0500
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!


> What about the ethics of this situation?  After all, we discussed, at
> length, the fact that the recording on 800-555-5555 clearly stated
> that the service cost $.95 per minute.  Despite that notice, I (and I
> assume others) knowingly used that service, firm in our technological
> belief that our dialling "800" instead of "900" superceded the terms
> stated to us. {USA Today}, having fulfilled its IP responsibility by
> clearly stating the cost of the service, used its technological
> prerogative to gather the ANI data on the 800 number in order to
> recover that which was due them.

> Having already claimed my credit, I stand by the "800 Protection"
> viewpoint, but to me it doesn't seem that {USA Today} is entirely in
> the wrong here.

I don't care what their recording said.  The local phone company phone
book clearly states that 800 calls are completed "toll-free".  I am
not going to pay for calls to an 800 number.  I am a little worried by
the fact that the phone bill shows no evidence that the calls were
800.  Who's to say that AT&T will believe me when I tell them I dialed
800.  I don't have 900 blocking.  Could anyone who successfully gets
these calls removed please e-mail me the name of the rep with whom
they spoke?


Thanks,

Ron    ([e-mail])

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 15:48:59 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
UPENN.EDU (Scott D. Green) writes:

> ...  She also offered
> some interesting advice: 900 blocking should be requested for both
> outgoing *and* incoming calls!  I asked her what that was all about,
> since I don't operate a 900 number.  She told me that incoming
> blocking would prevent an IP from converting a non-900 call to them
> into a 900 charge on my bill.  This I had never heard about.  Is
> anyone else familiar with this kind of sleazy operation?

  What?  We've had some arguments about the 212-540 calls, which are
moot because apparently you can't get charged for these from out of
that area.  But this seems to say that calling *any* telephone number
can result in an (unlimited?) charge.  Say it ain't so!


henry schaffer  n c state univ

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

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 10:19:50 EST
Subject: USA Today Number - An Update on Billing Procedures


Some time ago (Nov 9th to be exact), I dialed 1-800-555-5555 after
being told that it was an interesting information number (and
subsequently heard about the 800/900 mixup with this number).  I did
this from my home phone (which had 900 blocking in effect at the time)
because of the telco representation that 800 numbers are "free calls",
and was therefore quite surprised that the number answered USA Today
Information, and acted like some sort of 900 number.

I was even more surprised when my November-December telephone bill
showed an itemized call to 900-555-5555 -- at a cost of $1.90 (2
minutes billed).

I called AT&T.  They offered to remove the charge from the bill, but
told me that they could not understand the problem I was describing.
I mentioned that it was a now famous programming error, but that I
should not be charged in any case since (a) I called an 800 number,
with the implicit representation that such calls are free, and (b) I
am on record with New England Telephone as having requested (and
recieved) 900 blocking on my home phone.  I appreciate NE Tel's
cooperation in removing the unauthorized charge, however, the victory
was somewhat hollow since I got the impression they were doing it as a
courtesy to me, not because they understood (or admitted to) the
error.

Has anyone else out there in net land had a similar experience?  Was
this billing part of the programming error, or has USA Today arranged
for a creative way to bill for calls which they offered on a toll free
number?  If this is the case, did they offer these calls on an
apparantly toll free number by "accident", or did they intend to dpo
an ex post facto "conversion" of 800 calls to 900 calls after they
built up volume?

Could anyone from AT&T comment?


Rob Boudrie   [e-mail]

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

From: Ron Newman <[e-mail]>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Subject: I Got Billed For "USA Today" 800 Calls, Too
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 12:29:43 EST


Yesterday, I received my New England Telephone bill for "November
11-December 10", and was surprised to find an AT&T page billing me
$28.73 for four calls to "USA TODAY", 900-555-5555, on Oct 17, Oct 30,
and Nov. 9 -- all earlier than the current billing period.

Since I've never called this 900 number, but did call 800-555-5555 a
few times, I called AT&T at 1-800-222-0300 to explain the situation.
The operator who answered asked me for the page number of my bill, as
well as the date and exact billing amount of each call.

After putting me on hold for about 5 minutes, he came back and told me
he was taking the charges off my bill.  I don't think he really
understood what I had said, however, since he asked me "is there
anyone else in your household who might have called this 900 number?"

I was especially surprised to hear him say, "You should call your
local phone company and order 900 blocking, because none of these 900
numbers are legitimate."  While I generally agree, it was odd to hear
this from a representative of AT&T, the very company that sells this
service to Uselessly Today.


Ron Newman        [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 16:47:50 EST
From: [e-mail] (Mikel Manitius)
Subject: Last Laugh! 976 and 1-900 Charges: The Ultimate Solution
Organization: American Automobile Association, Heathrow, FL


For all those people who have commented on the problems of
disciplining their children on the proper use of telephones,
especially where toll calls are concerned, I have a suggestion for
you: get a COCOT! ;^)


Mikel Manitius   [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: Very funny ... but it sounds like a bit of an
overkill if you ask me. Its sort of like using a nuclear bomb to get
rid of the cockroaches in your home. And we are told that in the event
of a world-wide nuclear war, in all probability the only species to
survive *would* be the cockroaches.    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1030
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25106;
          21 Dec 91 3:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA14269
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:32:18 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12151
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:32:04 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:32:04 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1031

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Dec 91 01:32:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1031

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    GTD-5 SS7/CLASS (was Caller ID for Dallas/Ft. Worth...) (Lauren Weinstein)
    Re: Silent Night (Syd Weinstein)
    Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Andrew C. Green)
    Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Peter da Silva)
    Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom? (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Area Code Splits and our Phone System (S. Spencer Sun)
    Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft. Worth Area (Dave Strieter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 91 23:32:31 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: GTD-5 SS7/CLASS (was Caller ID for Dallas/Ft. Worth...)


Greetings.  For the record, there are GTD-5 switches in Southern
California that are already hooked in to SS7, and more are slated for
SS7 hookup in the near future.  CLASS features exist in test
modalities (not for customer use) in certain GTD-5 switches in the
area.  Any deployment of such features beyond that will depend on
pending regulatory decisions.

It is apparently true, as far as I know, that ISDN is not currently
planned for the GTD-5.  However, to be frank, I don't consider this to
be a significant loss.  Increasing evidence suggests that ISDN
structures, marketing, and pricing will be such that they may well
only be usable by large firms (especially those with large Centrex
requirements).

I've seen absolutely no indication of telco interest in ISDN services
or pricing oriented toward individuals or small businesses.  Even the
trade publications that used to constantly sing the praises of ISDN
are now starting to run articles postulating that the current
incarnation of ISDN might never really pan out in the sort of large
scale manner originally anticipated, particularly in the face of
competing technologies.  Time will tell.


 --Lauren--

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

From: [e-mail] (Syd Weinstein)
Subject: Re: Silent Night
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 18:09:18 GMT


TELECOM Moderator responded to Jeff Sicherman:

> [Moderator's Note: My understanding is this: As the meters are
> otherwise replaced due to old-age and malfunctioning, etc. the new
> meters have little boxes on them with terminals which tie into your
> phone line.

Actually as a homeowner in an area that just converted to them, I can
tell you a lot more about it.  (Our area did a mass conversion, not
due to age.)

The meter is replaced with a meter that can report its reading via
contacts to a side box.  The side box sits passively on the phone
line.

When the utility wants to poll the meter, they access a special number
at the CO that lets them access maintenance mode. This mode places
both a voltage and a tone on the line.  This voltage + tone makes the
box come on line and answer the tone.  Then it bursts the meter
reading back to the CO.  The CO then forwards this to the utility.  It
takes three seconds total.  Note that going off hook changes the
impedence that drops the circuit out of test mode, and an incoming
call terminates the test mode automatically in the CO.

There is no phone bell tap (the voltage is too low) and there is no
way of knowing how often they read the meter.  The meter's box is
connected via a normal RJ11 jack, so you can unplug it if you need to.

The system works well, and here Bell charges the utility $.02/reading
for usage of the service, which is a big savings for them.  Enough so
that they decided it was worthwhile for a massive switchover.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 11:28:01 CST
From: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Re: Silent Night)


[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> ...Illinois Bell is starting (as a pilot project, I guess) a
> new service that will let utility companies read meters remotely
> using the customer's telephone lines.

> The meter is connected to the phone line through a special reading
> unit that can be polled by the switching center without ringing
> the customer's line.

and our Moderator notes:

> [Moderator's Note: My understanding is this: As the meters are
> otherwise replaced due to old-age and malfunctioning, etc. the
> new meters have little boxes on them with terminals which tie
> into your phone line.

All well and good, I suppose, but in real life usage, I suspect this
will open up a whole new field of inter-company bickering and
finger-pointing when something goes wrong. For example, Joe Sixpack
receives a phone bill running to three figures and promptly suspects
the mysterious box on his water meter of dialing Switzerland. Another
customer has phone line problems and now can't decide whether to call
the plumber ("The phone company messed up your meter connection; call
them!") or the phone company ("Sorry, you didn't purchase our in-home
line maintenance service!"). Does the phone company now have to learn
plumbing in order to install the box, or should the plumber subscribe
to TELECOM Digest? (Well, everybody should anyway, of course :-). Who
would have to do the connection work when the meter's at the back of
the house, and the phone line is at the front? What if the phone
service is disconnected?

All right, this is not an earth-shaking concern, but I suspect that we
may be stumbling into a new area of homeowner headaches here if our
telephone lines are called upon (no pun intended) to monitor the
financial aspects of our daily lives.


Andrew C. Green       [phone]
Datalogics, Inc.      Internet: [e-mail]
441 W. Huron          UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!acg
Chicago, IL  60610    FAX: [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Like the 'Security Front Door / Lobby Intercom'
system IBT offered before divestiture (which other companies now
offer) whether or not the phone gets network connections at the CO
(ie, the subscriber is 'connected') is of no consequence. Both the
door opener/lobby intercom and the meter reading device merely require
a pair to the common equipment in the CO. A bigger problem I see than
you mentioned above -- largely in jest, I note! -- is the absolute
need for dedicated pairs where the meter reading devices are
concerned. What happens if in the process of cable repair or in
finding a pair for a new subscriber (an arduous task in older inner
city areas where pairs are sometimes in short supply) telco accidentally
'undedicates' your pair by forgetting to open it on the pole where it
would (as a result) multiple in someone else's basement (and *their*
meter reading device)? Then, whose meter gets read? Record keeping
mistakes in cable and pair assignments in the CO are all too common. I
guess the way you find out is when you get the electric bill for the
factory and your neighbor gets yours!  :(    PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom?
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 00:19:07 GMT


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

> A friend of mine recently called me from the Los Angeles airport.  He
> was using a credit card on an AT&T "computerized" payphone. [...]

Ah yes, the AT&T "COCOT"s. I encountered these some time ago and we
had a bit of a to-do about them. We all know about "you're not dealing
with AT&T", but when they get a little monopoly like this franchise,
dealing with AT&T takes us back to "We're the phone company, we don't
have to care".

Remember, a corporation is a corporation, come hell or high water.
It's not really a person (despite the legal fiction) and has "neither
an ass to be kicked nor a soul to be damned". There's no mind or
morality involved, beyond fiscal responsibility to the shareholders.
There are exceptions, when the corporate culture is socially
responsible and they can afford to be generous, but (a) AT&T still
"thinks" it's "The Phone Company", and (b) is having some hard times
itself.

Don't take this as an attack on capitalism or anything like that. I'm
pretty free market myself. It's just a reminder that loyalty to a
company is not likely to be rewarded, and warm feelings should be
suspicious.

If you want to complain, make sure that you get a few hundred of your
friends to join in. That will be seen as a market reaction, and
they'll respond.


Peter da Silva
Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;  [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: AT&T's Fancy Payphone in LAX: Complain to Whom?
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 17:54:17 GMT


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

> I am disappointed. I've generally had very good service from AT&T, and
> expected them to allow incoming calls to an airport's payphone.  I'd
> also like to get a meaningful intercept and visible labelling on the
> phone (my friend can read, and saw no notice of this) when a payphone
> does not allow incoming calls.  Yes I am being picky, but I consider
> that allowing incoming calls is part of the service they provide; and,
> no, I don't agree with disabling incoming calls by default: please
> don't give me the drug-dealers argument, it doesn't apply here.

On the instruments (I assume we're talking about either the
sits-on-a-desk kind with an LCD panel, or the CRT variety) is a
trouble number.  If you call it (as I recently did with the identical
complaint) you will get a polite, but easily confused, representative,
who will be totally confused by the entire concept of receiving a call
at a public phone.  After you complain for a while, he will make
reassuring noises, and then after you hang up (ref. AT&T SOP #xyzzy)
discard it (since it's not a LD network problem.)

Perhaps a letter would be more productive, as AT&T has a policy (as
recently mentioned by another contributor) of answering such.

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edwin G Green)
writes:

> In article <[e-mail]> Cristobal Pedregal Martin
> writes:

>> [AT&T operator] said that (against her expectations), " [the
>> disconnected number] intercept is what they use there [as opposed, I
>> guess, to what they do in the East Coast] when it is not wired for
>> incoming calls ".

> I understand your disappointment, but I would like to set the record
> straight.  AT&T does not make the decision about incoming service.
> LAX is the agent that is in charge of the configuration of that phone.

Hmmm.  The AT&T rep I spoke with specifically said (I pursued this
very carefully) that the instrument was not equipped to handle
incoming calls.  (I then went on to the stickering suggestion.)

> I don't know about the intercept situation.  However, since we design
> and administer the card reader phones here, I will hand carry your
> request for visible labeling to that group today.  (I can't guarantee
> they will agree, but I am on your side.)

Vital.  I was in the New Orleans Convention Center when this struck,
confronted by a bank of these Vader-phones, and no other instruments.
I.e. no way to receive calls.  Had I at least known, I (and those who
were trying to reach me) would have wasted a lot less time.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)
Subject: Area Code Splits and our Phone System
Organization: Princeton Class of '94
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 17:32:32 GMT


The phone system here at P.U. is a Centrex (at least I suppose so,
that's what everybody calls our phone book, "The Centrex" so it sounds
plausible.  I'm ignorant when it comes to phone systems) ... from what
I've been able to figure out from reading the learned opinions
expressed here, whether an area code can be dialed or not depends on
whether the people responsible for maintaining our phone system have
programmed the system to accept it.

Assuming all that is reasonably accurate, can anyone come up with an
explanation for the fact that 410 is now dialable, but 310 is *not*?
The 310 split happened first, after all ... (I was still able to reach
my 310 party at 213) Might there be a good reason or is it just laziness/
bureaucracy on the part of the administrators here? (Wouldn't surprise me.)


S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: It is the latter. And no matter what you say or who
you complain to, nothing will be done about it since in their eyes you
are only a mere user and couldn't possibly know what you are talking
about.  The only way I got a Rolm programmed to accept 708-518 a few
years ago was by giving them 708-518-xxxx as the ONLY way to reach me.
After a couple months of that, someone finally wised up.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Strieter)
Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft Worth Area?
Organization: AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 18:31:37 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (James
Sinclair) writes:

> In article <[e-mail]>, fmsys![e-mail].
> CWRU.Edu (Macy Hallock) writes:

>> Although the GTD-5 seems to be a servicable central office machine
>> (it beats the AE No.1 EAX, for sure), its not a production item anymore.

> I'm not sure how Macy defines production, but a new SVR of the
> switching software is currently being rolled out, and I'm sure that
> AGCS would be more than happy to sell you a new machine.

Additions for existing central offices are currently being
manufactured, although we have not manufactured a "new start" for
awhile.  I believe that "new starts" are still available for
production should a telco want to order one.  Several future software
releases, to be deployed over the next few years, are currently being
planned/designed/tested.  I'm involved in the planning.

>> I am not aware of CLASS services being offered on any GTD-5 machines
>> anywhere.  To the best of my knowledge, development on these has
>> stopped as well.  I know that ISDN has been scrapped on these, and I
>> believe CLASS is not planned, either.  That seems to mean Caller-ID in
>> many GTE areas will be delayed ... perhaps until the GTD-5's are
>> replaced many years from now.

> CLASS is available on the GTD-5.  I know for a fact that it is
> provided in Lexington KY.  Reasons it is not offered in particular
> areas may be regulatory or economic, but they aren't technical.

Right again.  I have (somewhere) marketing brochures from a couple
years ago pushing the CLASS features.  We're running SVR 1641 here on
our GTD-5 and my desk phone has CLASS.  I think that this is the "new
SVR" that James refers to.

>> It would also seem to mean Signalling System No. 7 will not be used
>> by the GTD-5, either.

> The new SVR does support Signalling System No. 7.

Actually, SS7 was available in the *previous* SVR ("163x") release and
its point releases.  I worked on the team that initially developed the
Layer 3 stuff.  This was completed in 1988.  If the telcos aren't
using it, that's up to them and the regulators.

>> I'd appreciate any GTE or AG staffers on the net who know what the
>> current status of GTD-5 service enhancements are ... offering either
>> the official version or actual first hand information.

> Hope this helps clear things up.

Hope I've helped too.  This is of course not the official version, but it is
first-hand information where indicated.


Dave Strieter,  AG Communication Systems,  POB 52179,  Phoenix AZ 85072-2179
*** These are not my employer's opinions, and I have no intent to advise. ***
UUCP:..!{ncar!noao!asuvax | uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax | att}!gtephx!strieterd
Internet: gtephx![e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1031
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25455;
          21 Dec 91 3:39 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA24513
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:55:51 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04692
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:55:40 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 01:55:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1032

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Dec 91 01:55:40 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1032

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Telephone Company Employees (John Higdon)
    Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (George Herson)
    Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Allen Pellnat)
    Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Nicholas J. Simicich)
    Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network (H. Peter Anvin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 20:53 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees


Steven H. Lichter writes:

> If you ask what my plan to stem the loss is to demand to talk to a
> real person everytime you call the telephone company and that includes
> long distance. You will notice that in every department you get a
> voice director. I find this to be very cold and in many cases not very
> helpful.

In the case of Pacific Bell, there are still customers who do not have
to deal with all of the 'automated attendant' garbage. These are the
"major accounts", who call '811-1500'. Occasionally, there is a wait
on the ACD, but never does one have to go through a touch tone maze to
transact telco business. My business and most of my clients are "major
accounts".

However, on those occasions when I must deal with the residence
department (for my home) or the standard business office, a trick is
used which has proven quite effective. Just select "0" at every
prompt.  Two or three "0"s later, you will either be speaking to a
live person or will be comfortably waiting in an ACD queue. I refuse
to cooperate with Pac*Bell's flagrant "cost reductions" that affect
the way one must do business with the company. PB got the great
give-away of 1989; it now wants more and more. When it attempts to
increase its bottom line on the backs of laid-off employees, it also
degrades the service to its customers.

No, thank you.


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

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?
Date: 18 Dec 91 14:53:40 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> I wrote:

> I'm presently investigating investment in a wireless cable company.
> One of the drawbacks is I won't see any return on that investment for
> five or six years (FCC takes onee year to process application, takes a
> year to get a station on-line, and three or four to recoup costs).  By
> that time I wonder if ISDN will be a long way off, and of course
> provide a superior conduit for video into the home.  Anyone know, or
> have an idea as to find out?

Below are the replies sans sigs that may be useful to those
contemplating a similar investment (if so, call the FCC for their
info. packet on the subject) or are interested in ISDN.


 From: Joe Talbot <[e-mail]>

ISDN won't carry video (like a cable system). I wouldn't be concerned
about competition from the telcos. They have a delusion that "fiber to
the home" will somehow supplant existing technology (hahaha). The
economics don't support this view. The telcos WILL try to do it, the
ratepayers WILL be forced to subsidize it, and over the air cable will
provide better service at lower rates.

There's a system on the air in riverside called Cross Country Wireless
cable, they're making quite a splash since EVERYBODY hates their cable
company, and quality and service are terrible.

One thing, beware of "License Mills" that crank out these applications
to speculators. Many of these are advertised on TV (scams in many
cases). Good luck!


 From: [e-mail]  henry schaffer  n c state univ

Using today's technology, basic rate ISDN basically can't carry video,
and even primary rate ISDN can't carry entertainment quality video.
So it doesn't look like a "conduit" let alone a "superior conduit" for
video.  Broadband ISDN has more possibilities.


 From: "Samuel W. Ho" <[e-mail]>

ISDN is presently available (at least here in Illinois), but is not a
suitable medium for video.  The ISDN BRI provides 2B+D, where a B
channel is 64Kb/s.  For full-motion video, you really want DS3 speeds
of 45Mb/s.  There is a lot of interest in compression technologies for
video.  With luck, we may be able to squeeze video into a DS1
(1.5Mb/s) channel consistently soon.  Video over a DS0 (64Kb/s) is
probably impossible, except as slow-scan frame transmission, like a
bunch of faxes sent at about 10 per minute.

As to whether wireless cable is worthwhile, it's hard to say.  The
main competition to wireless cable is wired cable, not the telco.


 From: "George R. Cross" <[e-mail]>

I don't have any answers on when Broadband ISDN will be here, but you
should be aware that there are numerous fraud investigations pending
against wireless cable investment schemes.  As I understand it,
individuals get to put in something like $5K or so into a consortium
to get a franchise.  But since these franchise or spectrum issues
haven't really been issued by the FCC, the investment company sends
you nothing now and promises to do som stuff later.  An analogy is
made in the pitch to the Cellular lottery which, if you were savvy,
you could have made big bucks on. As I remember, this came out about
September on the wire services, but I don't have an exact reference
except may the Boston Globe.  Try some service offering access to WSJ.


 From: Tom Streeter <[e-mail]>

ISDN could well be a competitor, but the more immediate problem has to
access to program material; established cable programmers don't
generally sell to wireless cable operators because large cable
operators usually have a pretty big equity stake them, and don't like
to see the service sold to potential competitors.  Of course, the
particular operation you're interested in may not be in this position,
but I thought I'd point it out just in case ...


 From: [e-mail] (Marvin Sirbu)

"Wireless cable company" is another name for microwave multipoint
distribution service.  I wouldn't go anywhere an investment in such
technology.

It isn't the telcos that are a competitive threat, it is the CATV
companies. 90% of households are currently passed by wired cable;
about 60% of all households subscribe.  Wireless cable generally
offers fewer channels and if it is not competing head to head with an
entrenched cable company, is in some rural area with few potential
customers.  Be sceptical of their subscriber projections.


(Thanks also to a "voice response" from (??) relating the high
possiblity of fraud.)


[Moderator's Note: In the text I received, there was no name given for
the voice caller ... I did not delete it.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Allen Pellnat)
Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business
Organization: Computer Consoles Incorporated
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 19:09:19 GMT


I retired from AT&T at the end of 1989 after a little over 33 years of
service. I started out in 1956 in Buffalo, N.Y. in what was then known
as the "Long Lines" department of ATT as a tester on a telegraph
service board. We handled all the private line and TWX service for the
Buffalo area.

I'm saddened to see the end of yet another era with the demise of
telegraph service. I thought perhaps some of the readers of this group
would be interested in some observations from someone who has been
there.

In '56 when I started, there were still two working private line
telegraph circuits in Buffalo. By this I mean real telegraph, manual
key and sounder.  Both went to New York for brokerage houses. Both
were kept in service to provide employment for their operators until
they reached retirement. (Try to tell some of today's MBAs, that).

Telegraph service of the key and sounder variety was used quite
extensively for internal company use between testboards, especially on
the evening and night shifts which were usually populated with OTs. As
a young kid of 18, but with four years behind me as a ham radio
operator, I was able to pick up the American Morse code (key and
sounder variety) fairly easy although it wasn't required of me.
Several of the OTs that I worked with then had been professional
telegraphers at one time. To the best of my knowledge, internal
telegraph order wires were still in active use right up through the
mid '60s, especially for communicating "ques" for television and radio
network program switches. When I left Buffalo in 1966, the last
remaining OT telegrapher there still had a sounder mounted in the
false ceiling over his desk and he used to listen to stock quotes from
somewhere on it.

The background info at the end of the article is accurate up to a
point. It describes telegraph service as it was provided more
recently. The conversion to analog wasn't really necessary except to
multiplex many signals onto a single four wire voice circuit. The
earliest multiplex systems that I recall working on, model 40A,
provided six telegraph grade channels on one voice circuit. The last
version, model 43A&B provided 18 telegraph channels at speeds up to
100 WPM on a single four wire voice circuit. The multiplexed analog
systems were used between cities and to large concentrations on a
customer's premises. Customers who were too far out from the STC to be
served by a regular series loop might be served by repeatered Polar DC
telegraph signalling in a variety of forms. It was really slow speed
digital transmission.

I also think the dates given for speeds of teletype services are
probably Bell Labs dates rather than general usage dates. To the best
of my recall, the Model 28 Teletype machine was the first commercial
machine I ever worked with that would handle 100 WPM. My guess is that
that would have been somewhere in the late '50s or early 60's. We
thought 100 WPM was really flying! Today we get annoyed at 1200 b/s
screen paint speeds as too slow. (I think 100 WPM in 5 level baudot
start/stop works out to about 75 b/s).

Not mentioned in the press release or background info was some of the
more sophisticated switching and selection systems employed on those
teletype networks. The Railroads, Federal Reserve Bank, Airlines and
most of the fortune 500 had private line teletype networks that were
the precursors of todays SNA networks. They employed multi-drop, full
duplex circuits with a "Host" polling each station for traffic to be
picked up or selectively activating one or more stations to receive a
message. The first American Airlines SABRE network was one of these.
Today, SABRE sits in every travel agent's office.

Two real big circuits are forever etched in my memory. The Dow Jones
stock quote wire was TT 148. It originated out of New York and had at
least a half dozen or more drops in every city in the country. The
other was TT 8001, the CAA (predecessor of today's FAA) weather
circuit. It originated out of Washington, I think, and went to every
major airport in the country. The various press bureaus, AP, UPI, etc.
also had enormous networks of private line teletype services.

Well so, much for the trip down memory lane. I'd be curious of any of
the readers of this group are former brass pounders like myself. I'm
not all THAT old, yet my experience has gone from manual morse
telegraph to multi-megabit digital services on satellites. Morse
patented his telegraph more than a hundred years before I ever
listened to a sounder and in only 35 years since that time we have
global communications at the touch of a finger.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 10:43:19 EST
From: "Nicholas J. Simicich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business
Reply-To: Nick Simicich <[e-mail]>


I happened to be at a travel agent office last night, and this agent
is a Western Union agent.  A woman came in to send a telegram.  She
wanted to send Anniversary greetings to their daughter and son-in-law
in Vermont.

The travel agent called an 800 number to talk to Western Union, gave
the information, and then she told the travel agent the message, and
he repeated it to the W/U agent over the phone.  The W/U agent looked
up the address and told the travel agent to tell her that there would
be no delivery available, but that they would call Vermont and deliver
the message, and send a mail copy to the hotel.

For about a 25 or so word message, which would be delivered by phone,
after having a chance to be garbled three times, the cost was $14.90.
To me, this really drove home how obsolete this service is in the
modern day.  I think that the only remaining service is wiring money,
and AmEX or your local bank can probably do that more effectively.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Subject: Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 16:46:06 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> of comp.dcom.telecom,
[e-mail] (Philippa Morrissey) writes:

> I'm looking for some information on the telecommunications network in
> Sweden - such as:

>     What numbering system is used?

Phone numbers in Sweden are in one of these patterns:

08-XXX XX XX
08-XX XX XX
0XX-XX XX XX
0XX-XXX XX
0XXX-XXX XX

 ... where the number before the dash is the area code and the number
after is the subscriber code.  The dash used (until the 70s) mean
"wait for new dialtone", but that is now obsolete.

Subscriber numbers begin with any number 1-8.  The area code begins
with 01-09.  The zero is not dialled when calling from abroad.  The
following special codes are also used:

000     = Operator
009     = Foreign, dial: 009 + country code <tone> area code + subscriber.
00XX    = Special functions (foreign operator and the like)
90 000  = SOS emergency number
90 XXX  = Televerket (Telecom authority)
010-    = NMT cellular phones (area code w/6-digit numbers)
          Caller pays for all charges, including airtime.
020-    = Toll free numbers (area code w/6-digit numbers)
071-    = Par-per-call numbers (area code w/6-digit numbers)
07975   = Information
          This used to be 90 140 until Televerked decided they wanted to
          charge per *second* for Information.  07975 is completely
          inconsistent with the numbering plan and in effect takes up
          an area code (0797) by itself.

>     What does the network look like?

As far as I have understood it (I am sure someone at ericsson.se is
going to jump on me for this) there is a digital fiber backbone going
fairly straight through the country.  All fairly major cities are
serviced from Ericsson AXE electronic exchanges, while some rural
areas still have old electromechanical switches.  I would presume they
have nothing with the backbone to do, though.  The last
electromechanical switch is to be retired in 2010.

Televerket recently abolished subscribtion fees for most extended AXE
services (similar to U.S. CLASS services); they are now provided
automatically under the name PLUS.  Some invoke charges upon usage,
while others like 3-way calling apparently is offered free hoping that
people will use their phones more.  (There is no untimed local
calling.)

Televerket also provides various data services, as well as the
transmitter network for Sveriges Radio and Sveriges Television.  (The
latter is microwave linked)

Sweden shares a mobile phone network, NMT, with the other Nordic
countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland).  The system, which
uses one band at 450 MHz (NMT 450) with wide coverage and one band at
900 MHz (NMT 900) with higher capacity, is quite popular; it is
sometimes used as the only phone for a remote second home to avoid
expensive wiring costs.

>     Is CLID available at all points in

If you mean customer Caller ID like in the U.S. I can only say: I
haven't heard of it at all.  In Sweden you only get an itemized bill
if you ask for it in advance, otherwise it is just based on meter
pulses.  I would presume 020- customers can get ANI, but it is not
certain.  If you call a pager number, you have to dial your own phone
number excluding area code; apparently the machine can ANI your area
code but not your number.

> The population in Sweden is similar to that in Australia. It would be
> interesting to see how their network is setup.

> Hope someone can help me.

I hope this has been of some help to you.

hpa

INTERNET: [e-mail]   TALK:      [e-mail]
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC     HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4   NeXTMAIL:  [e-mail]
IRC:      Xorbon        X.400:     /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1032
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13942;
          21 Dec 91 17:32 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA31778
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 15:45:19 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25090
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sat, 21 Dec 1991 15:45:08 -0600
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 15:45:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1033

TELECOM Digest     Sat, 21 Dec 91 15:45:02 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1033

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Wire vs. Fiber Expense (Adam Ashby)
    Re: T1 on Fiber? (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits (Maxime Taksar)
    Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone (Garrett Wollman)
    Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Will Martin)
    Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Ken A. Irwin)
    Re: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago (Wilson Mohr)
    Re: Sprint Calling Card and "Bong" Tone (Scott Reuben)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: motcid!zeus.swindon.SUBDOMAIN![e-mail] (Adam Ashby)
Subject: Re: Wire vs. Fiber Expense
Organization: Motorola Ltd., PEDC, Swindon, U.K.
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 04:48:25 GMT


This is from an article in the British {Electronis Times} December
12th 1991.  I will summarize it, as I can't be bothered to type the
whole thing in!!

"The Deutsche Bundespost Telekom announced a plan to connect 1.2
million homes in the former east Germany to a fibre optic network by
1995.

This is the first time fibre has been used in the local loop for real.
Until now, it has only ben on trial in different locations.  One
example is British Telecom's trial at Bishop's Stortford.

No doubt suppliers will be keen to get the contract.  It will be the
first oppurtunity to acheive economies of scale for fibre in the local
loop.  But there is a catch.  The Bundespost is demanding that the
fibre should cost about the same as copper cable.  this could well be
a quest that turns out to be an impossible dream."

It goes on to say that using fibre for the final drop from the kerb to
the house is estimated to cost three times as much as copper and the
companies are bound to make a loss, but one which they are willing to
make as the long term benefits that will arise from proving that this
sort of installation is feasible will be well worth it in the long
run.

I will fax this to anyone who is willing to scan it and post the whole
article, I am not willing (or able) to 'two-finger' type it in myself.


Adam Ashby  [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber?
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 20:03:50 GMT


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

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

>> ...because fiber is very EXPENSIVE.

> Fibre is not EXPENSIVE.

> Fibre is CHEAP - to repeat - FIBRE IS CHEAP.

As Marvin Sirbu posted earlier, per-meter material costs for fiber are
somewhat higher than per-meter material costs for copper.  Yes, fiber
has more bandwidth -- but if you're putting one T1 on a two-fiber
cable versus one T1 on a four-pair cable, you've got to compare the
cost of those two cables.  I doubt that a two-fiber cable costs less
than a piece of quad.  (If you can even get two-fiber cable -- I don't
know if anyone makes smaller than 12-fiber for outside plant use, or
for that matter if anyone makes quad for outside plant use...)

In addition, again as Marvin stated, installation costs are somewhat
higher for fiber because splicing fiber is more difficult and
time-consuming and requires more expensive equipment than splicing
copper.


>> So, is this true? Do they install some type of 'NETWORK TERMINATOR' at
>> the customers premises, or how do they handle this?

> They install a fibre transceiver at the customer premises in the same
> way that they would have installed a transciever for copper cable.
> The only real difference is that the fibre transceiver is CHEAPER than
> the copper transceiver

If the telco installs a DS1 on a copper loop, the termination is an
RJ-48 jack or something similar.  If the telco installs a DS1 on a
fiber pair, the transceiver is an (AT&T) FT-1 fiber modem, (ADC) Fiber
Loop Converter, or something similar.  FT-1s run a couple of thousand
dollars; RJ-48 jacks run about a buck ninety-five ... Even if you add
the cost to the customer of the CSU, you're still talking hundreds
versus thousands.

While it is true that a single pair of fibers can carry much more
traffic than four copper wires, and that if this capacity is fully
used the cost per unit bandwidth is far lower, installing a single DS1
over copper will in most cases be significantly less expensive than
installing the same DS1 over fiber.  Especially for LECs, where the
copper plant is in place and can be used for individual DS1s, saving
the installed or new fiber plant for higher capacity service.


David G Lewis        AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 03:34:12 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Maxime Taksar)
Subject: Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits


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

> 10 or 15 years ago, back in my younger, wilder college days, we could
> never seem to get a "box" (if you have to ask, you don't need to
> know!) to work on a pay phone for local calls. Is there some technical

> We guessed then that (a) there was some additional DC or even in-band
> signalling present on initial coin deposit, or (b) there were secret

Actually, (a) is the right guess.  Reversed DC voltage is used to test
for the presence of an actual coin.  The box to which you refer, a
"red box", will be useful only once the phone actually admits it has a
real coin in it.  For local calls, the phone won't admit this below
20/25 cents, so the red box is useless.  For long distance calls, I
believe it will admit having a coin at a nickel.

> Have things changed with the introduction of electronic switches, or
> would a phreaker still find it impossible to make a local call by
> less-than-honest methods?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the ACTS (Automated
Coin Telephone System) still works the same way as it ever did, so it
is still impossible to make a free local call using a "red box".


Maxime Taksar             KC6ZPS            [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1991 13:53:13 GMT


PAT writes:

> The only situation where calling card calls via zero plus (or 10xxx
> + zero +) can be placed without intervention is when using the (old)
> AT&T card, and that is mainly because until recently AT&T and the
> local telco used the same card number.

New AT&T card, too, at least here in New England Telephone land.
(BTW, where the area code was in the old system, my new AT&T card has
838...)


GAWollman

The opinions given above are provided under a non-exclusive license
agreement to the University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility, which
will probably ignore them.
      Garrett Wollman - [e-mail] - uvm-gen!wollman

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 8:54:35 CST
From: Will Martin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations?


> [Moderator's Note: The Chicago Public Library has the alphabetical
> directories of Illinois Bell (and its pre-1923 predecessor Chicago
> Telephone Company) on microfilm back to 1879. I think IBT also has
> quite a few old directories on microfilm also. Most large metropolitan
> area libraries keep the old directories on film.  PAT]

I have looked at '50s-era paper phone books at the St. Louis Public
Library, and I just called them to check on their holdings -- they
have PAPER directories all the way back to the beginning of St. Louis
phone books, but none on film. Unfortunately, their collection is not
totally complete -- some of the years are missing. But the lady did
use "1913" as an example year. They also have the Polk city
directories both in paper and on microfiche up until they stopped
publishing in 1980.

(Since these have been mentioned from time to time in Telecom, I asked
her if she knew why Polk ceased publication in 1980. She didn't know,
but guessed that it was because "just about everybody was in the phone
book by that time". That seems incorrect to me; I believe that non-pub
numbers were always around, and probably began to actually increase in
the '70s or so, which would make the Polk directories (which included
non-pub numbers, and also provided criss-cross numeric and address
listings) even more useful. I suspect they ceased publishing paper
directories and instead went to offerring an on-line service.)


Regards,

Will
[e-mail] OR [e-mail]

PS to Pat's comment on nobody trying to read all of Telecom: I do. I
print out the Digests and take them home and catch up on reading them
as I can. I'm usually a day or two behind. I had been saving the
printouts to mail to a friend of mine, but a combination of the rapid
increase in volume of Telecom, plus our office's move out of a
building with a post office in it, has made it impractical for me to
mail these paper copies any longer. I still have them saved and now
sitting in boxes in my garage -- if anyone in the St. Louis area wants
to come by my house and pick them up, they can have them (the past two
years' worth, roughly); they can send me e-mail and we'll work out a
time. They're laser print copies in good shape on regular bond paper. WM


[Moderator's Note: Bless you!  I didn't know there was anyone in the
world who cared enough about TELECOM Digest to keep a garage full of
them. I am inspired to try even harder with this journal in 1992.   PAT]

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Ken A. Irwin)
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call
Date: 18 Dec 91 20:38:34 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

> Great, take a useful service which doesn't cost them a damn thing and
> charge for it -- just like Touch-Tone (TM).  I could see charging for
> TT during the days of it's introduction when switches probably
> required some expensive box to decode the tones, but now that the
> switches have all that built-in, ya still have to pay 0.75 per month
> for the privilege of making use of touch-tone ...

Personally I never thought residential CID was/is a very useful
feature, and I have no problem with people paying out the nose for a
service whose only unique feature amounts to revenge or apathy. The
CLASS features do everything thats the least bit useful without
knowing the number and without the silly box.

> As for billing for the first 300 numbers, and then two cents for each
> additional number, is there any way to tell the box that you don't
> want to see that number?  Say for instance, that you're only
> interested in the number of the caller who keeps wanting to chat at
> 3AM ... I think that this is just another IBT scam to rip off everyone
> who makes use of their phones (pizza places, homes with teenagers
>  ...).  How many phone calls do you get in a month?  I know I get a
> lot, and sure don't think I ought to be billed on a monthly basis for
> what is basically a peephole ...

Just out of curiosity why do you need to know the number of the early
morning caller, if you can auto callback, or block last originating,
or call IBT for a trace last originating? CLASS allows all of these
features on a bill 'em as you use 'em basis. Now I for one answer my
calls from the phone closest to the room I'm in, so in addition to the
monthly charge I've got to buy several display boxes, or run to the
room with the box. This is not a cheap or conveniant feature, and in
all honesty I don't memorize the numbers of people I can't be bothered
with, if they called often enough for me to remember their numbers
they would be on my permenently blocked list, and I don't need CID to
do that, nor do I even need to know their number.

> I also wonder how the CID system is going to be set up ... will one be
> able to subscribe to CID so one can tell who's calling, but also be
> able to have "per call blocking" so that one's number won't show up if
> one doesn't want it to?  Also, will it be possible to have your phone
> set up so that it will reject ALL blocked CID calls (i.e. BE-DE-BEEP
>  ... 'At the request of the customer, blocked calls from annoying
> telemarketers are refused.  Release blocking if you wish to contact
> this customer.'

One side says allow blocking, the other counters with automatic denial
of blocked numbers, next IBT will offer a display if rejected feature
to charge you for, I just can't believe people have bit on this
feature to begin with.  The analogy that CID is a peep hole for your
phone is ludicrous, since I have never walked around a car dealer with
my name, address, and credit history taped to my chest, though CID
will no doubt give them this in the near future if I call them. CID
for businesses is more of an electronic application than a peep hole.

> I for one would like to see the CID provided free of charge to
> residences, and perhaps have a nominal charge for businesses (like
> $6.50 per month - FLAT RATE -- forget the sliding scales.)

Businesses could profit big from CID, free market research, and a no
work customer directory, why should businesses not pay heavy for this
service, many would pay hundreds or thousands a month for this
service, why shouldn't you as a residential customer enjoy a rate
increase free period as businesses pay for network upgrades with steep
CID bills. In answer to the second part, the BOCs pay for these
features, why would they give them to you? Either you pay to use them
or we all pay for you to use them. I don't want to pay your bills.

I just wish people would look at the big picture as to what CID is,
and not look at it as a nifty gadget, you give away a hell of a lot
for what you get.


      Ken A. Irwin                    [e-mail]
      ...!uunet!motcid!irwin                  ...!att!ihplt!kai
      Motorola RTSG, Arlington Heights, IL 60004 [phone]


[Moderator's Note: IBT allows reception of Caller-ID to be turned on
or off as desired using *65/*85. And blocking is *67, of course.  PAT]

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

From: motcid![e-mail]  (Wilson Mohr)
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas From Cellular One/Chicago
Date: 18 Dec 91 18:47:43 GMT
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Div., Arlington Hgts, IL


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

> One problem: Cell One/SJ has three coverage areas, none of which are
> very large. (New Brunswick - SID 00173, Trenton - SID 00575,
> Flemington/Hunterdon County - SID 01487).
> You only get the free weekend airtime in your HOME system ...

There is a difference between a "coverage area" and your HOME system.
A system may include many coverage areas. As an additional twist,
coverage areas can be comprised of different systems! You should
contact the sales dweebs and listen to their pitch *very carefully* if
you are at all interested. As I recall, Cell One /SJ is the areas you
mentioned plus the Long Branch MSA. Whether or not they consider them
one system is all decided in their business office.


Wilson Mohr - Motorola CIG  ...!uunet!motcid!mohr

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

Date: 18-DEC-1991 15:33:31.87
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Card and "Bong" Tone


You CAN get a "Bong" from the Sprint Calling card system designed to
use BOC/"Old" AT&T Cards.

You just have to be at a phone (or only a payphone?) which is
presubscribed to Sprint. There are plenty of payphones that I've been
at which 0+ out of LATA number calls are handled by Sprint, and you
get the full "US Sprint <Bong>" message. Frequently, it rings for a
second before the message comes on, and takes a good deal longer than
the AT&T Calling Card equipment to come on line. (Their system is
pathetic anyhow -- the "Bong" is frequently screwed up, and their
Touch Tone decoding can use some work.  All Wesleyan-owned payphones
use Sprint for out-of-Connecticut calls, since Wesleyan gets a cut
from the profits, and we get the <BONG> all the time, although most
know to dial 10288 for AT&T by now.)

I have noticed that 10333 from non-Sprint 1+/0+ phones (regardless of
how they are labled) will result in an operator, and not a <BONG>
tone.

BTW, Pac*Bell and NETel have sent mail about new AT&T cards (although
I have received nothing from AT&T), SNET hasn't said anything about
AT&T cards being changed, yet there are only 14 days or so until my
"old" AT&T cards will presumably be invalid!


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1033
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa10062;
          22 Dec 91 13:44 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19268
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 11:59:29 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12055
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 11:59:18 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 11:59:18 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1034

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Dec 91 11:59:15 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1034

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls (Linc Madison)
    Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls (Steve Forrette)
    Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls (Dennis G. Rears)
    Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Steve Forrette)
    Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (John Higdon)
    Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (Kenton A. Hoover)
    Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (Michael F Eastman)
    Re: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor (Harold G. Peach, Jr.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 01:49:19 PST
From: [e-mail] (Linc Madison)
Subject: Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls
Organization: University of California, Berkeley


<[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dennis G.
Rears):

> I just got my NJ Bell phone bill.  There were a lot charges to AT&T
> that I placed in Florida last month.  I was shocked that I was
> charged Floridia sales tax for calls placed in Florida to out of
> state locations.  I believe that is unconstitional (interference with
> interstate commerce).  This post is not about constitionality issues
> but more about pragmatic issues.

You are absolutely correct that it is blatantly unconstitutional,
except for one minor problem: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled
otherwise, back in 1987.  I checked on this because the City of
Berkeley charges me its utility tax for my interstate calls, including
calls I place from Oregon to Kentucky, if they are billed to a
Berkeley address.  An interesting case I haven't tested is what
Berkeley would do with an intrastate call I place outside California
 -- e.g., Texas to Texas.  Would I pay Texas taxes, Berkeley taxes, or
both?  (By the way, the state of California does NOT tax interstate
calls, but it allows cities to do so.)

What I'm waiting for next is for Berkeley to charge me city sales tax
on all purchases billed to my Visa/MasterCard if it's billed to a
Berkeley address.

As for the pragmatic issues of withholding the tax, I don't know
anything different from what PAT said in his Moderator's Note.


Linc Madison  ==  [e-mail]
The foregoing is neither legal advice nor official U.C. anything.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 10:07:20 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> I just got my NJ Bell phone bill.  There were a lot charges to AT&T
> that I placed in Florida last month.  I was shocked that I was charged
> Florida sales tax for calls placed in Florida to out of state
> locations.  I believe that is unconstitional (interference with
> interstate commerce).  This post is not about constitionality issues
> but more about pragmatic issues.

I had a similar reaction about a year ago when I noticed that my
Sprint bill (mostly inter-state) had not only the state tax but the
City of Berkeley tax, which was six or seven percent.  On a $300 bill,
this was quite noticable.  So I gave Sprint a call, and of course the
customer service department knew nothing about taxes or the rules
thereof, but knew that "the computer" was probably correct.

So, I called the City of Berkeley, and spoke with an aide to the city
council.  She was quite helpful, and researched the issue for me.  She
found the records where in the previous year the city council had
enacted the tax based on a US Supreme Court ruling, which said that
state and local governments could tax interstate long distance.  She
even sent me a photocopy of the newspaper clipping which announced the
Supreme Court ruling, so I know it was not just made up.  So, my guess
is that you are out of luck on this one.  That is, unless you wish to
propose that the next amendment address interstate long distance!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 13:17:50 EST
From: "Dennis G. Rears " <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Sales Tax on Interstate LD Calls


>> I just got my NJ Bell phone bill.  There were a lot charges to AT&T
>> that I placed in Florida last month.  I was shocked that I was charged
>> Floridia sales tax for calls placed in Florida to out of state
>> locations.  I believe that is unconstitional (interference with
>> interstate commerce).  This post is not about constitionality issues
>> but more about pragmatic issues.

> I had a similar reaction about a year ago when I noticed that my
> Sprint bill (mostly inter-state) had not only the state tax but the
> City of Berkeley tax, which was six seven percent.  On a $300 bill,
> this was quite noticable.  So I gave Sprint a call, and of course
> the customer service department knew nothing about taxes or the
> rules thereof, but knew that "the computer" was probably correct.

> So, I called the City of Berkeley, and spoke with an aide to the city
> council.  She was quite helpful, and researched the issue for me.
> She found the records where in the previous year the city council had
> enacted the tax based on a US Supreme Court ruling, which said that
> state and local governments could tax interstate long distance.  She
> even sent me a photocopy of the newspaper clipping which announced
> the Supreme Court ruling, so I know it was not just made up.  So, my
> guess is that you are out of luck on this one.  That is, unless you
> wish to propose that the next amendment address interstate long
> distance!

  Actually, I wasn't fighting the legality of the tax but the
collecting of the tax.  I live in NJ and I was in Florida when I made
those calls.  My LD carrier is sprint but these were billed on AT&T.
AT&T is the collection agent for Florida and NJ Bell is the collection
agent for AT&T.  The following are good questions:

 1) If I refuse to pay the tax, can NJ Bell shut off my service?

    I say no but it is not a NJ Bell service that was provided to me.

 2) If I don't pay the tax can AT&T do something to me?

 3) If I don't pay it who loses AT&T or Florida?

Dennis


[Moderator's Note: Telco (*any* telco) cannot shut off service for
failure to pay tax. Telco simply reports to the taxing authority that
you have refused to pay. It is up to the taxing authority what they
wish to do about it, if anything. The state levying the tax is the one
which 'loses' since they do not get paid unless they choose to
prosecute you to force payment.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:05:31 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU?
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


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

> I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom
> Calling Feature on my home phone.

> The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows:

>                                installation      per-month
>    New Phone number              $34.75            $8.35
>    "Commstar II"                  15.00             8.20
>    Distinctive Ringing option      4.00             5.00
>                   Total:          53.75            21.55

> My questions to the Net are: is this the typical charge for this
> service?  If you have it, how much do you pay?

The reason this sounds so expensive is that you've been sold a bill of
goods!  What you were quoted was for a second number, ON A SECOND
PAIR, with both of the lines in a mini-centrex group (that's what
Commstar II is).  "Distinctive Ringing" only provides differentiation
between calls originated from within (regular ring) vs. outside (2
rings) the Centrex group.  Pacific Bell does not currently offer any
service which provides more than one directory number over a POTS line
(okay, I'm ignoring Custom 800!).  The problem is that what the rest
of the country calls "Distinctive Ringing" is used by Pacific Bell to
describe its Centrex feature.

Every Pacfic Bell rep I've delt with on this issue is confused: None
of them have ever heard of this "strange feature" that other parts of
the country have that assign more than one Directory Number to the
same line.  In fact, most of them ask me what a Directory Number is!

Then, they look up in their reference materials under "Distinctive
Ringing" and lo and behold, there it is!  But of course it's their
Commstar II (i.e.  Centrex) feature.  It will indeed cause your phone
to ring in two different ways, but in a manner completely unrelated to
what you want.  The sad thing is that the rep was probably so poorly
trained that he/she didn't even know how foolish the quote was.

So the bottom line is `Just Say No' to this feature, and ask them why
California has to be so far behind the game when in comes to providing
new custom calling features.  When they tell you that they don't have
the equipment to provide this, challenge them with the fact that their
1AESS, 5ESS, and DMS-100 switches are no different than the ones in
the rest of the country that have been providing others with this and
other features for years.

Remind them that this is not a CLASS feature and does not require SS7.
When they tell you that yes, it is because they haven't purchased the
software for these features, ask them where they were able to get the
money to invest in the Message Center, an unregulated "arms length"
enterprise, which would lose money on every customer even if there
were zero costs other than buying the busy and no-answer transfer
custom calling features for subscribers' lines, or were able to buy
Cable TV franchises in other parts of the country, or any of a whole
bunch of other unregulated boondoggles.

"Any Questions?"


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:22 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU?


well![e-mail] (Steve Vance) writes:

> This seemed pretty descriptive, and is how "Distinctive Ringing" works
> as far as I know.

> The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows:

>                                 installation      per-month
>     New Phone number              $34.75            $8.35
>     "Commstar II"                  15.00             8.20
>     Distinctive Ringing option      4.00             5.00
>                    Total:          53.75            21.55

You are being completely had. Pacific Bell does not offer the feature
you are seeking. "Distinctive Ringing" in Pac*Bell territory means
"differentiating between calls coming from inside versus outside the
Commstar (mini-Centrex group)".

You are being sold another line ($34.75 to install, $8.35/month for
flat-rate residential) with CommstarII (mini-Centrex) and the
distinctive ringing option which will ring normally for any call
coming from another phone in the Commstar group and with a "European"
ring for calls coming from anywhere else. Since you will not
apparently have any other lines in the Commstar group, this is
somewhat useless. Unless, of course, you are planning to add your
original line to the group ($15 install, $8.20/month for that line as
well).

In essence, you will end up with two lines. With Commstar you will be
able to answer calls coming in on one line from the other line, but I
am positive that this is not what you had in mind.

> If you don't mind typing in the description of this service from the
> front of your white pages, the Pacific Bell Customer Service person I
> talked to is interested in what this service looks like and costs in
> other parts of the country, and I promised I would post this and mail
> the responses to her.

You are dealing with a clueless rep. The problem arises from the term,
"distinctive ringing" which means one thing in Pac*Bell territory and
another thing almost everywhere else.

> [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago there is no 'installation charge'
> for the distinctive ringing numbers. We pay $4.95 per month for the
> first number (gives a short double ring) and $3.95 for the second
> number if one is desired (gives a short then long ring).  Distinctive
> ringing lines can be programmed at the CO to either observe any call-
> forwarding instructions which are on the main number or to ignore
> call-forwarding of the main line and simply 'ring through'.  They also
> have their own distinctive call-waiting tones, different from the tone
> given when the main line gets a call-waiting.   PAT]

Yes, but what will happen to the hapless poster is that PB will show
up to install another physical line and then add all the mini-Centrex
stuff (that unless added to the original line as well will be
completely useless to him).

Again "Distinctive Ringing" as known by most of the country is NOT
available from Pacific Bell, regardless of what ANY rep may tell you.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenton A. Hoover)
Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording!
Date: 19 Dec 91 17:01:28 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: GenBank Computing Resource for Mol. Biology


[e-mail] (Will Martin) writes:

> What I'm wondering is if the telco would create such a specialized
> recording and be as helpful for an ordinary citizen, or even an
> ordinary business. [...]

> Does current technology make such customized recordings easy to
> implement and maintain, or is this a major pain for the telco to do?

The voice recorders used in 'intercept' recordings are pretty
expensive.  The grade of device used by telcos has an entry cost of
about $15K (before the fittings for running off the CO battery), and
you add about $5K per recording on each 'intercept' box.  If you want
extra things like ANI, the cost goes way up.

An interesting source of information on devices like these is the
Graybar Telecommunications Products catalog.  Just about everything
you need to start your own RBOC is in there -- except for the switches
themselves (they do sell PBXs and key systems for businesses thru this
catalog though).


Kenton A. Hoover                            |       [e-mail] |
GenBank/IntelliGenetics, Inc.  415 962 7300 |                               |

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 13:29:41 EST
From: [e-mail] (Michael F Eastman)
Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


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

> Does current technology make such customized recordings easy to
> implement and maintain, or is this a major pain for the telco to do?
> Can we expect this sort of thing to become more common, or will it
> always be a rare exception? Are other Telecom readers aware of such
> recordings in their areas? Does this signal the end of the generic
> "intercept" recording?

The technology to provide "customized" announcements does indeed make it
much easier to implement and maintain. However, these announcements,
as far as I know, are paid for by the subscriber as a special service (may
be businesses only?). I don't think they are cheap either.


Mike Eastman    att!ihlpy!mfe    [phone]
AT&T Bell Laboratories  Rm. 4F-328  Naperville, IL 60566

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

From: [e-mail] (Peach)
Subject: Re: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 20:23:31 GMT
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences


[e-mail] (John Boteler) writes:

> The {Washington Post} Thursday, 12 December 1991 ran an article in the
> Metro section about the sentencing of Robert Dunnington for taping a
> cellular telephone conversation made by then-candidate for Virginia
> governor Doug Wilder to a real estate developer.  The tape eventually

[Stuff Deleted for Space]

> Apparently, the ECPA was invoked in this case, although the article
> leaves one with the impression that it was the political personalities

According to a similar thread running under rec.radio.shortwave, Mr.
Dunnington was convicted of violating provisions of the Communications
Act not the EPCA.  Evidently the prosecutor felt there were some
constitutional issues in the EPCA he did not wish to tackle.


Harold G. Peach, Jr.  N4FLZ  ><>  [phone]  [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1034
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa11657;
          22 Dec 91 15:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08988
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 13:21:45 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13140
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 13:21:29 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 13:21:29 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1035

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Dec 91 13:18:42 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1035

Index To This Issue:                     Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium (R.W. Hyre)
    Re: Disneyland Speakerphones (Kathryn Fielding)
    Re: Is My Phone OK in the UK? (Philip Hull)
    Re: Source For PBX in a PC? (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: Progress in Email (Steven H. Lichter)
    Re: Progress in Email Addressing (Herman R. Silbiger)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Sean Petty)
    Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Subject: Re: Motorola Acquires GEOSTAR's Satellite Services for Iridium
Date: 19 Dec 91 14:52:39 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Ralph W. Hyre)
Organization: AT&T OSS Development, Cincinnati


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Steve Pope) writes:
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 1023, Message 11 of 13

>> Wasn't Geostar a navigation system?  If Moto can convert it into a
>> phone system, they could revolutionize (and obsolete) cellular phones.

> More likely Motorola intends to use Geostar as part of a positioning
> system for the 77 (or thereabouts) Iridium platforms.

Navstar GPS is the positioning system.  I wouldn't think it would be
that useful in space, it was designed for accurate positioning of
objects on Earth.  CMUs Autonomous Vehicle used a Navstar receiver.

GeoStar (Gaerard K. O`neill of High Frontier fame) is (was?) the
global messaging system.


Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.
E-mail: [e-mail]    Snail: Box 85, Milford OH 45150-0085
Phone: [phone]        Radio: N3FGW

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

From: [e-mail] (Kathryn Fielding)
Subject: Re: Disneyland Speakerphones
Organization: Genisco Technology Corp.
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 18:04:48 GMT


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

> Pat noted:

> [Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a
> while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had
> phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there
> apparently for billing purposes only.  PAT]

Sorry Pat, wrong Orange County - DisneyLAND is in Orange County,
Calif.  and is in the 714 area code, serviced by Pacific Telesis aka
PacBell. DisneyWORLD is in Orange County, Florida.

The telephone exhibit with the speakerphone enclosures is in Anaheim
at Disneyland just outside the exit to the CircleVision Film. No one
has yet said that there are any similar exhibits in Florida, so if
you're looking for them in the Magic Kingdom at Disneyworld, it may be
a long walk!


Kathryn   [e-mail]   genisco!kat
Solaris Systems, a Division of Genisco Technology Corporation
My opinions are exclusively mine!

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

From: [e-mail] (HULL PHILIP V)
Subject: Re: Is My Phone OK in the UK?
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Alaska - Fairbanks
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 02:47:02 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ian
Watson) writes:

> I received as a gift a novelty phone.  It's one of those ones which is
> transparent so you can see the innards, and it has several coloured
> lights which light as the phone rings.  It's marked as approved by
> FCC, MCI and Sprint, so is clearly made for the US market.  However,
> it was bought here in the UK.

> My concern is that it carries the 'red triangle' sticker which says
> that it is prohibited from direct or indirect connection to the
> British Telecom system.  I have connected it up and received a call
> OK, but have not yet tried to make a call.

> What are the likely consequences of using this phone instead of my
> normal BT-rented phoneset?

You have nothing to worry about (unless BT has started searching
houses for "unauthorized" phones in the manner of the P.O. vans
looking for "unauthorized" TVs.

I installed seven U.S. phones (well, not U.S.-made but they were designed
for the U.S.) in my parents' home in the the UK several years ago.
They were not (apart from the Coca-cola bottle phone which lasted
about six months) "gimmick" phones and, with the exception noted, all
still work fine.  The only problem is that BT deliberately designed
the UK phone jacks to be incompatible with the US standard to stymie
threats to its control of the UK phone market.

In Hong Kong you can buy cheap, small converters.  Without these, the
best bet is to go to a Tandy store and buy a phone cord with a UK jack
at one end.  The other end you can attach directly to the phone (but
you'll have to open it up to do so).  The wiring conventions are
different (I have them somewhere, let me know if you want them), but
trial-and-error will find the right convention (without elecricuting
you -- this would be VERY difficult as the voltage is very low).  Sinc
you bought this phone in the UK (mine were all bought in the U.S.),
incompatible jacks may not be a problem anyway.

The moral?  Don't be concerned.  Your phone (touch tone or pulse) will
work fine in the UK and its use will threaten nothing more than BT's
legitimacy as arbiter of UK phone standards.


Philip V. Hull

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: Source For PBX in a PC?
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 21:31:57 GMT


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

> In the past several years, I've heard quite a bit about firms offering
> a card that transforms a PC into a PBX. As usual, I can't find one now
> that I need to.

There is a company called Unifi that claim to have a PC/Unix based
system that "replaces ACD, Centrex and PBX systems".

They however do not provide what you want.  What they do have is
software that interfaces with a Basic Rate ISDN board for the PC.
This software takes advantage of a feature of ISDN which allows you to
"deflect" a call without answering it.  One BRA line can have as many
as 60 or 70 (I don't have the exact number handy) line appearances, so
you might have this many incoming calls presented to a single BRA line
simultaneously.  Their software analyzes the incoming CLID, current
load on each agent, time-of-day etc., and redirects the call over the
public network without answering it.  The other end of the picture is
a set of DOS based PS/2's that are also equipped with BRA and telsets.
The agent PCs communicate their status etc.  back to the server over
D-Channel packet X.25 or any other data comm setup.

Actually a pretty good idea, and a good looking product (it runs under
SCO Opendesktop (X-windows).  I however don't see the point in
marketing it as a "replacement" for the ACD, Centrex, PBX.


Vance Shipley     vances@xenitec  vances@ltg  ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 21:56:22 GMT


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
writes:

> I have two of the old-style Genuine Bell headsets (made by
> Plantronics) which sort of hang over one ear and terminate in a little
> box with two 1/4" phono plugs. A few years ago, I actually had one of
> them interfaced to a phone. It worked great, but I can't for the life
> of me remember exactly how it was done. Symbols inside the box seem to
> indicate that sleeve/sleeve goes to the earpiece, and that tip/tip is
> amplified output from the microphone, but recent attempts to hook them
> up fail miserably.  Can anyone out there in Telecom Land give me (a)
> instructions (b) pointers to where instructions may be found on how to
> hook these headsets up to a standard 500 or 2500 set? Any help
> appreciated.

Yes!  I still think these are the best headsets for normal use.
Plantronics still makes them, although I don't see the 327-terminated
(the two 1/4" phonos) version in my Anixter catalog.  The proper name
for these is "Starsets", the current edition is Starset II.

Plantronics sells a "Jackset", their p/n JSO180-1, that connects from
the 327 plug to the instrument (500/2500), with an "on-off rocket
[sic] switch, switch-hook control, recall button."  They also want $80
bucks for it, and that's wholesale.

I have found that this works: Mount your two 1/4" phono jacks,
properly spaced.  Connect a handset jack, pin 1 to tip 1, pin 2 to
sleeve 1, pin 3 to sleeve 2, and pin 4 to tip 2.  (Plugs 1 and 2 are
arbitrarily designated; it doesn't matter.)  Anyone who can improve on
this, particularly with regard to adding a volume control, please
speak up.


Laird P. Broadfield
UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
NET: [e-mail]

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

From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com
Date: 20 Dec 91 02:12 UT
Subject: Re: Progress in Email Addressing


Well since my E-mail has to come over at least two networks I would
guess it has to be this way. I have a script to do my addressing since
I can never get it right the first time with all the (a) and < and (
that have to be included to get to you.


Steven H. Lichter
COEI GTE Calif.


[Moderator's Note: But my question would be, who is 'Gloria C. Valle'?
When the Digest gets produced by the software program used for that
purpose, Gloria comes out as the author of your articles!   PAT]

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 22:36:29 EST
From: [e-mail] (Herman R Silbiger)
Subject: Re: Progress in Email Addressing
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


In article <[e-mail]>, Ed_Greenberg@3mail.3com.
com writes:

> A recent post was listed as from:

> From: /PN=GLORIA.C.VALLE/O=GTE/PRMD=GTEMAIL/ADMD=TELEMAIL/C=US/@sprint.com

> This is progress?

It could have been simplified to:

/PN=Gloria_C_Valle/O=GTE/P=GTEMAIL/A=TELEMAIL/C=US.  The "@sprint.com is only
necessary if you dont have a direct X.400 interconnection.

/PN=Herman_R_Silbiger/A=ATTMAIL/C=US

That's all you need for me.


[Moderator's Note: I still say 'oooh, ick' everytime I see one of
those addresses. Gimme the good old user@site style anyday!   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!
From: Sean Petty <undr![e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 15:04:26 EST
Organization: The Underground - Pennsylvania


[e-mail] (Ron Schnell) writes:

> I don't care what their recording said.  The local phone company phone
> book clearly states that 800 calls are completed "toll-free".  I am
> not going to pay for calls to an 800 number.  I am a little worried by
> the fact that the phone bill shows no evidence that the calls were
> 800.  Who's to say that AT&T will believe me when I tell them I dialed
> 800.  I don't have 900 blocking.  Could anyone who successfully gets
> these calls removed please e-mail me the name of the rep with whom
> they spoke?

Ron-

I just got off the phone with AT&T and let me tell you, THEY WON'T
BELIEVE YOU!  The rep that I talked to said that there was no way that
dialing an 800 number could connect you to the 900 service.  He then
said that he was looking at his copy of {USA Today} and the 900 part
was cleary stated, so I knew what I was getting in to!!  When I
pressed the situation, he put me on hold and came back saying that
"800 Directory Assistance has no listing of a number for USA Today!"..
He was arrogant and accusing, saying that I HAD TO HAVE DIALED 900.
When I tried to explain the programming error, he laughed at me.

What am I to do?


Sean Petty   undr![e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: What are you to do? Is that your question? What you
are to do is take your medicine like a man without wimpering. You and
others who called that number took advantage of a programming error of
which {USA Today} was not at fault. You did however use the newspaper's
information service. You knew what you were doing -- or if you didn't
the first time you called, you should have after that.  See the next
message from John and my response for further discussion on this.  PAT]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 03:50 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures


Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]> writes:

> Has anyone else out there in net land had a similar experience?  Was
> this billing part of the programming error, or has USA Today arranged
> for a creative way to bill for calls which they offered on a toll free
> number?  If this is the case, did they offer these calls on an
> apparantly toll free number by "accident", or did they intend to dpo
> an ex post facto "conversion" of 800 calls to 900 calls after they
> built up volume?

It has been indicated that this was a programming error. It should
also be mentioned that courts generally do not allow someone to profit
through his own error, be it AT&T or {USA Today}. This means that if
push comes to shove, anyone charged for dialing the 800 number will
ultimately prevail if he (rightly) refuses to pay the charges.
Unfortunately, there will be many who will not fight this and pay
without protest. These people will have been had, but AT&T will have
at least squeezed some of what might be otherwise "lost" revenue out
of the public.

Technically, {USA Today} might be able to collect (in court) the
charges for its service from AT&T for the calls it directed via the
800 number, but I am positive that AT&T has lawyers that are any match
for USA Today's law firm.

It does appear, however, that someone has tried to sweep all this
under the rug by billing the 800 callers as if they had actually
called the 900 number. Is there some major sleaziness afoot?

> Could anyone from AT&T comment?

I doubt that you will see any acknowledgement from AT&T on this. I
would like to be proved wrong, but more and more today the trend seems
to be anything except being forthright with the public. Besides, you
can bet that AT&T is hoping many will just pay and be quiet.


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


[Moderator's Note: You forgot to mention that neither are *you or I*
 -- or anyone -- permitted to benefit from these mistakes. Anyone who
encounters a 'mistake' or 'error' or for that matter an accident on
the street or whatever MUST make every effort to mitigate the losses
involved. No one is entitled to deliberatly abuse or take advantage of
the misfortune of someone else. In some instances, the legal name for
it is 'unjust enrichment'. Anyone can misdial one time or two, but
having been told repeatedly -- on each call -- that a charge will be
applied is a sufficient basis for legally making the charges stick.
How do you think Bulmash and his war on telemarketers manages to
collect money? They tell the caller "If you call here you will be
billed for the call..." and the caller persists in calling again.

In the case at hand, people did not innocently dial the number once by
accident thinking they were getting someone else (except perhaps the
first person to post an article here, provided he was telling the
truth on how he came to 'accidentally' discover the number). You people
called the number (and I include myself since I called it also)
knowing full good and well -- or thinking -- that you were getting
something for nothing. You expected to hear the news and weather, or
perhaps your horoscope, and you got what you called for. In other
words, you called it expecting to rip off {USA Today} and/or telco.
You got caught with your pants down ... the system was smarter than
you thought. You made a legitimate call to a 900 information service
regardless of the routing you took to get there.

To put it another way, someone crossing the street is struck by a hit
and run driver. As she lays in the street unconcious, you walk over and
grab her purse laying in the street and abscond with the money. You
ask 'what law did I break by picking up something of value I found
laying in the street?' ... the context is all-important, and in this
context you would be the scum, not the person laying in the street.
Yet somehow you say {USA Today} is sleaze because *they* were victims
and now wish to recover what was taken from them?

There is no sleaze involved since {USA Today} has never once said to
call 'for free' via 800. The newspaper got victimized by AT&T (or some
telco somewhere, as yet unknown) with the routing error. The paper got
victimized further by the people who deliberatly called the wrong
number. When I called the paper, the gentleman who took my call said
specifically 'please do not call the 800 number'. I put a message here
in the Digest relaying his request.  So now all you smart folks -- and
again, I include myself -- can take your whippings and learn from your
error, as I have done.  The paper has a perfect right to demand
payment from all parties concerned. That includes AT&T and *you*.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1035
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa13071;
          22 Dec 91 16:12 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA16604
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 14:16:35 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12002
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 14:16:19 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 14:16:19 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1036

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Dec 91 14:16:14 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1036

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Annoying Computer Payphones (Andrew Klossner)
    Re: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor (Michael Harpe)
    Re: Signaling System #7 (Alan L. Varney)
    Re: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival? (Alan Boritz)
    Re: Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information (Laird P. Broadfield)
    Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording (David Ptasnik)
    Re: EIA/TIA 568: Information Wanted (Toby Nixon)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Alan Boritz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Klossner)
Subject: Re: Annoying Computer Payphones
Date: 21 Dec 91 00:47:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville, Oregon


> if there is a dial-tone detector already in the phone to detect the
> first dial tone, why can't it be used to detect the second dial tone
> and hang up the line (preventing possible fraud).

Because a dial tone isn't always a dial tone?  The brain-dead PBX that
my employer just bought plays a dial tone to the caller as their call
is forwarded to an outside line.  (Of course, this confuses *human*
dial tone detectors: I lose a lot of calls when people hear the second
"dial tone" and hang up.  Sigh.)


Andrew Klossner ([e-mail]) (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Harpe)
Subject: Re: ECPA Invoked by Virgina Governor
Organization: University of Louisville
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 14:48:20 GMT


[e-mail] (John Boteler) writes:

> Dunnington, "who had a hobby of electronically eavesdropping on calls
> made from car phones in Virginia Beach", got 30 nights at a halfway
> house, allowing him to run his restaurant business during the day, and
> a $500 fine.

> Might this be the first and last time we hear about the ECPA?

> [Moderator's Note: I don't think it will be the last time. You are
> correct that normally there is no effort to hunt down and prosecute
> people who listen to cell phone calls on their scanner, but at the
> same time the authorities do not like having their noses rubbed in
> things. An obvious flouting of the law frequently brings a response,
> and the violator's status in life (ie, senator, movie actor) will be
> the guide for detirmining the harshness of the punishment.   PAT]

I think we keep overlooking that this guy alledgedly SOLD the tape to
some people who then used this tape against the politician.  This is
the kind of game that politicians understand very well.  They know how
to retaliate against this sort of thing and will not hesitate to do
so.

Where Dunnington screwed up was leaving a trail that led back to him.
If you want to do this kind of thing, you MUST be as sleazy as the
people you're going up against.  A good politician would never get
caught at something like this.  Look what happened to Nixon, after
all :-).

I think that people who get caught deserve what they get.  The only
reason for announcing to the world that you've done something like
this would be to try to sell the rights to the tape to some tabloid.
There are more discrete ways to go about that.


Mike Harpe   University of Louisville
(strictly my own opinion, I just work for U of L)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 09:11:24 CST
From: [e-mail] (Alan L Varney)
Subject: Re: Signaling System #7
Organization: AT&T Network Systems


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

> Hi, I'm looking for information about Signaling System #7 training
> seminars.

> Does anyone have any personal recommendations for good seminars on
> this topic?  On the opposite side, are there ones that you would
> recommend staying away from?

   SS7 has not generated the flood of seminars and documentation in
the manner of ISDN or OSI, so information is rather limited.  Most
training I am aware of is oriented towards someone OPERATING an SS7
network, not toward an in-depth understanding of the protocol(s).

   If you are asking from an OPERATIONS perspective on existing
hardware, then Bellcore TEC offers a range of SS7-related courses, but
tend to focus on existing vendor's equipment.  I believe there is one
course that does cover the basic protocols (MTP,SCCP,ISDN-UP and
TCAP).

   Bellcore TEC is at 1-800-TEACH-ME (1-800-832-2463). Try ext. 918
for CCS/SS7.

   AT&T offers training on its SS7-capable equipment, again from the
OPERATING viewpoint.  The technical training main contact number is
AT&T Product Training at 1-800-TRAINER  (1-800-872-4637).

   Other than this operational training, I would recommend using the
ANSI T1S1 documents directly.  And remember the protocols are changing
over time.

> I'm also compiling a list of SS7 reading material, if you've come
> across any superb books/articles I'd like to hear about it.

   Good Luck....


Al Varney, AT&T Network Systems

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

Subject: ISDN: Estimate of Arrival?
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 91 07:52:58 EST
Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


In an article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
EDU writes:

> I'm presently investigating investment in a wireless cable company.
> One of the drawbacks is I won't see any return on that investment for
> five or six years (FCC takes onee year to process application, takes a
> year to get a station on-line, and three or four to recoup costs).  By
> that time I wonder if ISDN will be a long way off, and of course
> provide a superior conduit for video into the home.  Anyone know, or
> have an idea as to find out?

You won't see ISDN in the consumer market in your lifetime.
Unfortunately, though, you may not see wireless cable become a similar
contender in your lifetime, either.  MMDS is not doing well these days
as conventional cable penetrates more markets.  The MMDS industry may
disappear almost completely if the operators aren't more creative
about finding their optimum target market.


[e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Looking for Network Security/Fraud Information
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 16:16:19 GMT


> [Moderator's Note: ESS' can print out exceptions (to usual, or
> average) conditions and notify a human being to review what has been
> recorded. Exceptions in and of themselves are not evidence of illegal
> activity, of course, but these reports do guide security personnel in
> their investigations. ESS' can also detect tones that shouldn't be
> coming at them from the subscriber's side of the line and **allow the
> call to continue, as though all were well** while notifying a human
> being of what is happening, who in turn can tap a few keys on the
> terminal and see the whole sordid picture in seconds.    PAT]

This is (technically speaking) pretty obvious, but the one I thought
was interesting was when I was in a Chicago hotel (Hi Pat!) dialing
back to CA to check my email.  Because the dialup was solidly busy, I
spent a few minutes stuffing the arcane get-outside-dialtone sequence
into the terminal emulator, along with the destination number, and my
calling card number, and the assorted appropriate delays (we're
talking about a 60 character or so dialstring here.)  Aaaaanyway, I
turned this loose and waited until it got through (about an hour of
attempts, as I recall.)

The interesting thing is that once I had gotten in (only one entirely
successful call, mind you) I checked my home answering set, and
there's a call from PacBell: "Dear sir [blah blah] excessive use of
your calling card [blah blah] call us collect [blah blah] and admit
you lost the thing, you scumbag." (Paraphrased.  But not by much.)

I would expect *invalid* attempts to trap, but I was interested to see
successful card-validation transactions, with no charge incurred,
trap.  The rep I talked to (who nearly refused to believe I *hadn't*
lost my card) couldn't tell me if it was n-successive-incompletes, or
n-attempts- (valid or not)-within-x, or what, but it was interesting
nonetheless.

(Completely off the subject, why does everyone tie the concepts of "a
permanent number assigned to you, no matter where you are" and "PCN"
together?  I completely fail to see reasonable connection between
them; I'd pay for the first today, the second seems a fundamentally
flawed design.  (Yes, I could get an 800 with variable forwarding,
I've thought about it, but prefer not to open up that big a
vulnerability.  I'd also prefer it to *appear* to be an ordinary POTS
number.))


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

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 9:02:12 PDT


[e-mail] (Will Martin) wrote:

> Here is the text of the recording; I've NEVER heard any telco recording
> that is as helpful or informative as this! --

> What I'm wondering is if the telco would create such a specialized
> recording and be as helpful for an ordinary citizen, or even an
> ordinary business.

> Does current technology make such customized recordings easy to
> implement and maintain, or is this a major pain for the telco to do?
> Can we expect this sort of thing to become more common, or will it
> always be a rare exception? Are other Telecom readers aware of such
> recordings in their areas? Does this signal the end of the generic
> "intercept" recording?

We do it ourselves at the University of Washington.  All disconnected
numbers are forwarded to a PC based audio library (AL) from Applied
Voice Technologies.  It receives the number dialed via ANI from the
CO.  At AL we can play a standard intercept which states that the old
number has been disconnected and what the new number is.  The caller
is then switch-hook transferred to the new number.  (Of course we can
just play a no further information recording.)  We can also play a
customized announcement with the text recorded by our department or
the department wanting the custom service.  This custom service can
also be configured to provide callers with a menu (press one for
electrical engineering, press two for mechanical engineering, etc.).

The price of this is quite low.  We recharge these services to the
departments, and attempt to recover the hardware cost in about five
years.  We charge $.50 per month for basic intercepts (forwarding from
the CO costs $1.00 per month) and $2.50 for custom intercepts.  We
also use the device for other announcements and auto attendant
features, but if you dedicated an AL to just intercepts of
disconnected numbers I expect that the rates we charge would pay for
the machine.  If we can do it for this little, the Bells can almost
certainly do it for less.  Although I am not privy to our deal with US
West, we generally only provide services that are less expensive than
those from US West, so they are either charging more, or just don't
provide this flexible a service.

Those telecom departments who have voice mail or audio library systems
in place might want to consider doing this themselves.  Our
departments are very appreciative of the service.  It requires about
60 AL lines and 40 voice mail lines to support our 15,000 line campus.
Even though we requre the departments to pay for what they use, and
even though we do not "advertise" the availability of some of these
services, we are getting dozens of requests every month for new
services.  These kinds of interactive voice products are letting us
serve more callers more efficiently with no increases in staffing.  It
has been a real help to short staffed and limited budget departments.

 -End of Commercial-


Dave

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

From: Toby Nixon <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: EIA/TIA 568: Information Wanted
Date: 20 Dec 91 12:48:48 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Michel Dalle) writes:

> It seems that in the USA, the standard EIA 568 on wiring in commercial
> buildings and campuses is (will be?) available.  Is that right? Is
> there such a thing?

I don't see EIA-568 in EIA's latest catalog, nor in ANSI's catalog or
any of it's supplements for 1991.  Perhaps 568 hasn't passed a vote
yet.  You could find out for sure by calling EIA; they're in
Washington, DC.  The sales department number is [phone]; they
might be able to sell you the latest draft of the document.

> I'd very much like to know how I could get a copy of it sent to me
> here in this underdevelopped country (--- at least concerning
> standards!).  Even better would be that it existed somewhere in the
> Internet in electronic form, but I may be dreaming.

The CCITT has made its documents available in electronic form, but
they're about the only committee to do so.  Neither EIA nor TIA has
taken that step.

You can buy copies of standards from MANY organizations through Global
Engineering Documents.  They can be reached at [phone], or by
fax at [phone].


Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   [phone]  Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     [phone]  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     [phone]  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:55:42 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephanie
da Silva) writes:

> We apparently were assigned number that used to be the number for an
> Allstate agent, so the people who are calling us aren't misdialling;
> they are actually calling our number.  Now that's not so bad, except
> for the incredible bozos that I've had to deal with over this.  They
> fall into several catagories.

> The usual call started with them asking for the agent.  I would reply,
> "You have the wrong number."  "Is this 568-xxxx?"  "Yes, it is."  "I'm
> sorry, I must have the wrong number."  Click.  Here's the good part --
> at least *half* of them would call right back -- after I already
> verified the number!

  There is probably nothing you can do to stop the initial calls but
you are compunding the porblem on the repeats by saying "you have a
wrong number". They don't have the wrong number, they are getting the
number that they intended to dial. It's just not servicing Allstate's
office anymore. using the term 'wrong number' is a highly amiguous
statement in the way you're using it because it's normally used to
inform people they reached a number that they handn't intended to
dial.  Try telling them 'this number isn't assigned to Allstate
anymore' and give them the right one if you can get it.

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

Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 91 18:14:49 EST
Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[e-mail] (Bill Berbenich) writes:

> I stood right by the repair guy when he called the
> "complainer" on his butt-set and told her that there was nothing wrong
> with my line and that I had asked that she not call my number again.
> She swore up and down that "that number belongs to my ex-husband and
> he needs to sent me some money!"

Geez, Bill, that's a nasty way to avoid your ex. :-)


[e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Not only do ex-husbands pull that scam on their
impoverished former wives, but so do debtors when the bill collector
comes a-calling!    PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1036
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa14212;
          22 Dec 91 17:07 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA01695
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 15:23:52 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07196
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 15:23:36 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 15:23:36 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1037

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Dec 91 15:23:30 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1037

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: What is This Stuff? (Barton F. Bruce)
    Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits (Eric Kiser)
    AT&T Telegraph vs. TELEX (William T. Sykes)
    Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Floyd Davidson)
    Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (William J. Carpenter)
    Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone (John R. Levine)
    Re: Extremely Unlisted Phone Numbers in China (Graham Toal)
    Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Syd Weinstein)
    Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Bob Frankston)
    Re: ISDN in Japan and USA (Kenji Fujisawa)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 (Doctor Math)
    Re: Silent Night (Doctor Math)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Barton F. Bruce)
Subject: Re: What is This Stuff?
Date: 21 Dec 91 02:41:45 EDT
Organization: Cambridge Computer Associates, Inc.


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tom
Perrine) writes:

> Anyway, I am now the proud possesor of two identical gray plastic,
> wall-mount widgets, approximately 8.5' wide by 18.24" high. There is a
> stamped label "620A" near the bottom.

> What is this stuff??  Is there anything here that would be useful as
> part of a home PBX?

You have 1A2 KSUs with KTUs. This is very generic key system stuff,
and is fine if you want to deal with 25 pair cabling and old phones.

Each card you found does one outside line. You may NOT have the needed
power supply ...

You can get a used (scrap) KSU with power supply AND cards (but that
would take your cards) for peanuts.

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

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 03:56:03 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits


I got a lot of responses from pholks claiming that the reason
"devices" wouldn't work on modern pay phones was that, after the
totalizer registered the prerequisite initial amount, it grounds tip
(presumeably to sleeve?). I hope that my question didn't seem that
dumb: I'm talking about coin-after (or would dial-tone-first be
better?) phones - those phones, as most are today, that present dial
tone first.

It didn't take us very long to figure the "ground the tip" trick 15
years ago for coin-first phones that needed to be ground started. Am I
hearing, though, that the totalizer on a modern pay-phone still
grounds the tip, even though it's not for ground starting, in the
purest sense, to signal to the CO that the initial amount was
deposited? Or for that matter would a "device" actually work perfectly
fine on a dial-tone-first phone? I'd like to think MaBell has
progressed a little in those 15 years!


Eric

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

From: [e-mail] (wts1)
Subject: AT&T Telegraph vs. TELEX
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 18:57:34 GMT


Reposted from att.today and AT&T Corporate Media Relations:

                          AT&T TODAY

        Friday, December 20, 1991 -- 10:30 a.m. EST

[Stuff deleted]

OF INTEREST *** TELEGRAPH VS. TELEX -- AT&T this week announced its
exit from the telegraph business.  This does not mean AT&T is exiting
the Telex business.  AT&T EasyLink Services is committed to the
messaging business and to providing and supporting Telex services, TWX
services and e-mail.


William T. Sykes  AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies  Burlington, NC
UUCP: att!burl!wts  att!cbnewsb!wts1

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

From: [e-mail] (Floyd Davidson)
Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business
Organization: University of Alaska Institute of Marine Science
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 11:42:48 GMT


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

> I retired from AT&T at the end of 1989 after a little over 33 years of

What a fascinating story!

I thought you, and maybe others, might be interested in some things
that are related.

> In '56 when I started, there were still two working private line
> telegraph circuits in Buffalo. By this I mean real telegraph, manual
> key and sounder.

I never did see a real telegraph circuit.  But I know where there are
the remains of a real No. 9 Telegraph Test Board.  None of the
original jack fields or test equipment remains.  About all that is
left are the cords, the meter and switch keys ... and the sounder.
Why this sounder ( 2B or 3B ??) is still there I have no idea.  The
nice old style brass key was lifted many a year ago.  I think everyone
realizes that if they took that sounder, and were to be found out,
they would be whipped to death with patch cords by the rest of us.

There is also a sign up about eight feet on the rack that says something
to the effect of No. 9 TLG TST BRD.

> Telegraph service of the key and sounder variety was used quite
> extensively for internal company use between testboards, especially on
> the evening and night shifts which were usually populated with OTs. As
> a young kid of 18, but with four years behind me as a ham radio
> operator, I was able to pick up the American Morse code (key and
> sounder variety) fairly easy although it wasn't required of me.
> Several of the OTs that I worked with then had been professional
> telegraphers at one time. To the best of my knowledge, internal
> telegraph order wires were still in active use right up through the
> mid '60s, especially for communicating "ques" for television and radio
> network program switches. When I left Buffalo in 1966, the last
> remaining OT telegrapher there still had a sounder mounted in the
> false ceiling over his desk and he used to listen to stock quotes from
> somewhere on it.

We even have exactly one real OT left too!  This fellow is a graduate
engineer who works as a testboard tech.  He worked his way through
school as a telegraph operator for one of the railroads, and worked
for them as a communications engineer for a while too.  His original
job in Alaska was as a marine telegraph operator in Nome.

My friend, whose name is Lake (Ed) Trump, is a real OT brass pounder.
And one of his past times is networking over the phone with other OT
BP's.  I don't know how many are doing this, but they are hooking up
old 300 baud modems so they can key the darn things with straight
keys, and receive it with sounders!  (I bet our sounder is the last
actively used, even if not officially used, sounder on a real No. 9
board in a Toll Center anywhere in the country.)

> Well so, much for the trip down memory lane. I'd be curious of any of
> the readers of this group are former brass pounders like myself. I'm
> not all THAT old, yet my experience has gone from manual morse
> telegraph to multi-megabit digital services on satellites. Morse
> patented his telegraph more than a hundred years before I ever
> listened to a sounder and in only 35 years since that time we have
> global communications at the touch of a finger.

If anyone out there wants to know how to get in touch with a whole
network of BP's intent on keeping it alive, send me your name and
phone number and I'll pass it on to Ed.  As I understand it they only
use sounders and American Morse code.  (I haven't discussed this with
Ed, so he may throw your name and number in a round file and go back
to work, but its worth a try.)


Floyd L. Davidson        [e-mail]        Salcha, Alaska

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

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 11:05:56 EST
From: [e-mail] (William J Carpenter)
Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> Thanks for the press release, but does anybody know exactly
> what services have been discontinued?

> [Moderator's Note: TWX and Telex service. I'm told that since
> they bought out Western Union, they'll be getting rid of the
> standard, familiar telegraph ASAP also.  PAT]

Not so.  AT&T's telegraph offerings are going, but Telex and TWX are
staying.


Bill                      [e-mail]        or
[phone]            attmail!bill   or   att!pegasus!billc
AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T EasyLink Services               LZ 1E-207


[Moderator's Note: Both you and Mr. Sykes sent me a copy of the
message from att.today correcting what I had said earlier, and I ran
his message at the start of the thread in this issue. Thanks very much
for clarifying this.   PAT]

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

Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 21 Dec 91 21:03:02 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


Around here, if you dial 10333 + 0 + number, you get a bong and the
word "Sprint" and if you dial your local telco card number the call
goes through.  Your Sprint FONcard number doesn't work. If you time
out to the Sprint operator, it* can take either number but you pay
about a dollar extra.

Occasionally you get passed directly to the operator without a bong,
but I've had that happen with AT&T and local telcos, probably due to a
momentary shortage of bongers.

If you dial 800-877-8000 the situation is the opposite -- the machine
can only take your FON card but the operator can take either.  AT&T
hasn't yet sent me a new card so I don't know where the new numbers
work.


Regards,

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

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

From: [e-mail] (Graham Toal "[e-mail]")
Subject: Re: Extremely Unlisted Phone Numbers in China
Organization: Robobar Ltd., Perivale, Middx., ENGLAND.
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 01:55:44 GMT


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

> The Chinese Government, concerned about secrecy, recently had its
> entire telephone system rewired so that military officials can't
> call, or be called from, outside the country. A {New York Times}
> reporter trying to confirm the story with China's Bureau of Secrecy
> found the bureau's phone number was classified. Researchers have
> reported being told that, among other things, the number of sheep
> in China and the number of potatoes grown every year are secrets.

No big surprise -- the location of the BT tower in London (yes, the
one on all the postcards) is an official secret here...


[Moderator's Note: The other day in the {Christian Science Monitor} I
read a short piece saying a file relating to some American troop
movements in World War *ONE* was still classified here, and for
reasons not known the Pentagon still won't unclassify the file.  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 10:37 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Re: Silent Night)


In comp.dcom.telecom is written:

> All well and good, I suppose, but in real life usage, I suspect this
> will open up a whole new field of inter-company bickering and
> finger-pointing when something goes wrong.

Since here, the water company is responsible for the meter, it also
took responsiblity for the meter box that sends the signal.  I don't
see the problem.

> [Moderator's Note: Like the 'Security Front Door / Lobby Intercom'
> system IBT offered before divestiture (which other companies now
> offer) whether or not the phone gets network connections at the CO
> (ie, the subscriber is 'connected') is of no consequence. Both the
> door opener/lobby intercom and the meter reading device merely require
> a pair to the common equipment in the CO. A bigger problem I see than
> you mentioned above -- largely in jest, I note! -- is the absolute
> need for dedicated pairs where the meter reading devices are
> concerned.

No dedicated pair is used here, My meter reading circuit is on my home
phone line, and I am on a SLIC type circuit (I think its a real AT&T
SLIC, but I am not sure) ...

> Record keeping
> mistakes in cable and pair assignments in the CO are all too common. I
> guess the way you find out is when you get the electric bill for the
> factory and your neighbor gets yours!  :(    PAT]

No, the meters also include a serial number, and part of the burst is
the serial number.  That must match the line read.  I do know when
they tested mine on install, they double checked the 'meter number' as
they called it.  At least they have taken that one into account.


Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP          Elm Coordinator - Current 2.3PL11
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                 Projected 2.4 Release: Early 1992
[e-mail] or dsinc!syd      Voice: [phone], FAX: [phone]

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

From: <frankston![e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Re: Silent Night)
Date: 21 Dec 1991 11:15 -0400


The Moderator raises an interesting question, perhaps more for Risks.
Does the meter indeed have enough self-idenfication and other smarts
to handle miswiring situations?


[Moderator's Note: See the previous item. Syd says they do.  From my
previous experience with the front door security system, it still
seems a little chancy to me.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Kenji Fujisawa)
Subject: Re: ISDN in Japan and USA
Organization: Sony Corporation, Tokyo, Japan
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1991 15:39:24 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim
Haynes) says:

> He remarked that in Japan one can just call the telephone company
> and ask to have your home service converted to ISDN and it will be
> done the next day, no charge for the conversion and no extra charge
> for ISDN service.

It's overstated.  The time for instllation varies between one week to
six months depending on the area, the availability of the digital
exchanges.  And you have to pay an instllation fee of about $100 -
$150.  Futermore, the monthly charge becomes twice of the analog
telephone: ie, about $35.


Kenji Fujisawa    [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 03:00:19 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311


plains![e-mail] (Brett G Person ) writes:

> In the early 80's there was a pop song about a girl named Jennie.  The
> chorus of which gave her 'phone number'.  Except that this happened to
> be a valid phone number in some parts of the country.  These poor
> people got hundreds of calls for ther fictitious girl.

Not only was this a valid phone number in some parts of the country, a
company in the San Jose area (Campbell, I think) bought (?) the number
and set up something called MobyPhone. It was free to call, and it
provided some sort of information, the nature of which I can't quite
recall at the moment. It was certainly unique.

This problem has also been reported in conjunction with a song by
AC/DC, wherein the lead singer screeches out some random digits at one
point in the song. They are apparently not intended to be a real phone
number, but this does not stop people from trying :)

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

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 01:52:13 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Subject: Re: Silent Night


[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> ... Illinois Bell
> is starting (as a pilot project, I guess) a new service that will let
> utility companies read meters remotely using the customer's telephone
> lines.

Moderator notes:

> ... There is no charge of any sort to the
> phone subscriber, and the subscriber is never denied the use of the
> line, even for a few seconds in the early morning.  - PAT

I should hope there isn't any charge! Perhaps the customer should get
reimbursed for the use of "their" phone :-0  Also, has anyone
considered possible privacy aspects of this service, or am I just
being paranoid?  Such technology does enable the respective companies
to compile even MORE information since they can read the meter at
least nightly if not more often. Next thing we know, appliances are
going to include little widgets that plug into your ISDN D channel so
"they" can tabulate things like how often you do your wash and how
much time the refridgerator door stands open.


[Moderator's Note: There are no privacy violations merely because the
reading is done electronically rather than manually. Making something
easier and more convenient to tabulate (ie 'computerizing' the
function) does not automatically mean the tabulators intend to abuse
their new abilities. If the utility chose to send someone around daily
to read the meter they could garner the same data. It seems very odd
to me that the privacy freaks get so upset about every new electronic
innovation used by the banks, utilities, etc ... but it concerns them
not in the least the increasing number of young burglars with home
computers who are out there intent on ripping them off good (all in
the name of intellectual growth and good Socially Responsible Computing
of course!).  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1037
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa15615;
          22 Dec 91 18:11 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA25388
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:27:55 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21484
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:27:39 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:27:39 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1038

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Dec 91 16:27:26 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1038

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (William J Carpenter)
    Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft. Worth Area? (Jack Decker)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Alan Boritz)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (David E. Sheafer)
    Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Andrew M. Dunn)
    Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (John R. Levine)
    Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits (John Higdon)
    Re: What is This Stuff? (David A. Bonney)
    Re: T1 on Fiber? (Terry Kennedy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 09:30:05 EST
From: [e-mail] (William J Carpenter)
Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording!
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> "We're sorry, area code 314-644-7542 has been changed due to
> an error made in the directory.
> KTVI's main telephone number is 647-2222
         ^^^^           [etc; very custom message]

Strange that the number in the first sentence sounds like it's
pronounced by one of these automated glue-the-digits-together systems.
Since they obviously had to go to some trouble to do the lengthy
followup sentences, why not just do the whole thing.  Must be some
telephone stuff or sumthin'.


Bill             [e-mail]        or
[phone]   attmail!bill   or   att!pegasus!billc

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

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 09:59:37 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Caller ID For Dallas/Ft. Worth Area?


In a message in comp.dcom.telecom, is written:

> The AGCS GTD-5 EAX digital switch is still very much alive and does
> support CLASS from it's introduction at SVR 1.6.3.2 with testing in
> the field dating back to early 1990, at Muskegon North, Michigan.  The
> current load is SVR 1.6.3.3 as implemented at many of GTE North's
> 5-EAX switching sites.  Still others in the regional company are on
> the docket to receive this load in the near future.

Just out of curiosity, you wouldn't happen to know what type of
switches they have in Muskegon Heights (616-733 exchange) and what is
probably called "Muskegon South" (or perhaps "Norton Shores",
"Airport", "Mona Lake" or some similar designator ... it's the 616-798
exchange) would you?

My mother presently has service on the 733 number and the "sound" of
the switch reminds me of older Bell electronic models.  Up until this
fall she had service from the 616-798 exchange, and was plagued by
mid-call cutoffs (which seemed to be epidemic ... her neighbors that
lived in the same mobile home park as her also complained of frequent
cutoffs).  At her new location, the service seems much more reliable
(even though I'd guess it's an older switch) but she does get frequent
wrong number calls ... but I guess there's nothing the switch can do
about folks who won't dial correctly!


Jack Decker           : [e-mail]              : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Subject: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:28:52 EST
Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[e-mail] (Scott D. Green) writes:

> Remember back in September/October when {USA Today} was having
> "network problems" on its 900-555-5555 line so that it was accessible
> via 800-555-5555?  Remember how we speculated what, if anything, would
> happen with the charges?  Wonder no more!

> I just received my November bill with the calls detailed as "USA Today
> 900-555-5555" at $.95 per minute.  *And* I have 900 blocking on my
> line!

No need to worry in that event.  Just have telco take the charge off
your bill.  As long as you have blocking in place (always a good idea
to record the date and time it became effective) you are not
responsible for the charges.

Speaking of premium services and blocking, New York Telephone has a
scam going with blocking service and 976- numbers.  NYT customers with
blocking active can call the operator to reach a 976- number, and the
operator will place the call at *operator-assisted* rates.  I
discovered that trick when auditing my former employer's phone bill
one month and found a few hundred dollars of such calls (some
employees were calling the weather and time via the operator after we
blocked all outbound trunks).  I got a credit for that month's
billing, but they were insistant about not giving a similar credit
again.


[e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[Moderator's Note: Of course you are responsible for the charges! You
found a way to circumvent the 900 blocking on your line by taking
advantage of an error in how telco was routing calls. You knew what
you were calling and you chose to call anyway. I'm going to send
copies of the messages on this topic in the past couple of issues to
AT&T and {USA Today} with my personal recommendation -- for whatever
that is worth -- suggesting they not write off a nickle of this unless
the caller can demonstrate from one or two calls ONLY of a minute or
less that their dialing was truly in error.  PAT]

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

From: "David E. Sheafer, Class of 1989" <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills for Free Calls
Date: 22 Dec 91 15:29:52 GMT
Organization: Merrimack College, No. Andover, MA


Regardless whether it states there will be a charge for the call or
not, there is no such thing as charging for 800 numbers.

When {USA Today} was aware of the problem they should have immediately
disconnected the service.  This 800 service was availalble for at
least a month after it was mentioned that USA was informed by Pat of
the error.

There is no reason why the 800 number couldn't be disconnected
immediately after being made aware of the problem.

If I have 900 blocking (I don't), and a 1-900 number shows up on my
bill, I can't see how I should be responsible for dialing this number,
as the phone company has told me that 900 numbers can't be dialed from
my line.

By the way the two calls I did make to this number were from a
payphone. Since one can't dial 900 numbers from a pay phone, will the
pay phone owners pay the charges if they get charged, and if so what
is AT&T's or the newspaper's recourse against them?  AT&T and the
newspaper made a mistake; there were no errors on the public phones as
you are supposed to be able to dial 800 numbers without coin.

Therefore the company that made the mistake should be held responsible
for any lost revenue, and is anyone certain that it was indeed a
mistake?


David E. Sheafer
internet:  [e-mail]   or  uucp:      samsung!hubdub!nin15b0b
GEnie:     D.SHEAFER             Cleveland Freenet:    ap345


[Moderator's Note: The newspaper did not make any mistakes. A telco
whose identity is not known -- but we believe it was AT&T -- made the
mistake. Callers were not charged for the transport to the 800 number.
They were charged for the information provided by the called party,
just as the called party said would happen when answering the call. I
suppose owners of COCOTS will get billed. They can chase after the
folks who used their phones if they wish. Calls from payphones owned
by the phone company will be charged to their respective telcos who in
turn can track down the person making the call or write them off as
they wish.   PAT]

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

Date: Sat Dec 21 10:43:04 1991
From: mongrel![e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
From: [e-mail] (Andrew M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU?
Organization: A. Dunn Systems Corporation, Kitchener, Canada
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 15:42:58 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> well![e-mail]
(Steve Vance) writes:

> I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom
> Calling Feature on my home phone...

> The charge for me to get this in my service area is as follows:

>                                installation      per-month
>    New Phone number              $34.75            $8.35
>    "Commstar II"                  15.00             8.20
>    Distinctive Ringing option      4.00             5.00
>                   Total:          53.75            21.55

> My questions to the Net are: is this the typical charge for this
> service?  If you have it, how much do you pay?

Not NEARLY that much!

> [Moderator's Note: Here in Chicago there is no 'installation charge'
> for the distinctive ringing numbers. We pay $4.95 per month for the
> first number (gives a short double ring) and $3.95 for the second
> number if one is desired (gives a short then long ring).

In Bell Canada Ontario Region territory, the charges are similar.
About $5 per month for each number (residential), and about $8 for
business.  This is in Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.  Where we
also have non-metered local service, about $10 per month for basic
service, and expensive long distance!

> Distinctive ringing lines can be programmed at the CO to either
> observe any call-forwarding instructions which are on the main number
> or to ignore call-forwarding of the main line and simply 'ring
> through'.  They also have their own distinctive call-waiting tones,
> different from the tone given when the main line gets a call-waiting. PAT]

Exactly the same here.  Except that if you forget to specify the
forwarding mode, you get FORWARD BOTH.  They don't ask you.  So if you
don't know about the feature, you don't find out until its too late,
then there's a service charge to correct it :-(


Andy Dunn ([e-mail])  ({uunet...}!xenitec!mongrel!amdunn)

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

Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU?
Organization: I.E.C.C.
Date: 21 Dec 91 21:28:47 EST (Sat)
From: [e-mail] (John R. Levine)


Here in Massachusetts, distinctive ringing hasn't even made it into
the phone book yet.  It is available under the name RingMate.  It
costs $3 per month for one extra number or $5 per month for two.
There is no prerequisite of Commstar (not even available here) or
anything else -- it can be added to any residential phone line where
CO equipment physically supports it.  There was a one-time service
order fee of $11.60.  Ringmate numbers may be listed or not, at no
charge either way.


Regards,

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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 21:06 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Tone Frequencies Used For Coin Deposits


[e-mail] (Maxime Taksar) writes:

> Actually, (a) is the right guess.  Reversed DC voltage is used to test
> for the presence of an actual coin.  The box to which you refer, a
> "red box", will be useful only once the phone actually admits it has a
> real coin in it.  For local calls, the phone won't admit this below
> 20/25 cents, so the red box is useless.  For long distance calls, I
> believe it will admit having a coin at a nickel.

There are two "coin present" states in a utility coin operated
telephone that are tested via DC from the CO. One is the "initial
deposit" that is required for local calls. This amount (for instance
$0.20 in California) is required from initial operation (coming
off-hook) to be deposited before the phone will test for coin present.
This amount is determined mechanically by the totalizer built into the
phone itself. For the rate to be changed, it is necessary for a
technician to physically enter the telephone and make the change; it
cannot be done remotely.

After a long distance call is dialed (and the coin return mechanism
has operated) the coin present signal will be sent with as little as a
nickel in the hopper. If you try "red boxing" without that coin in
there, you better start looking over your shoulder. Frankly, anyone
who is stupid enough to try this kind of fraud ought to spend all of
his energy looking straight ahead so that he does not trip over his
own feet.


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

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

Date: 19 Dec 91 14:41:56 EST
From: David A. Bonney <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: What is This Stuff?
Organization: Independant Telecommunications Consultant of Westford


In TELECOM Digest V1017, [e-mail] (Tom Perrine) writes:

I discovered several small chassis from this removal process beside
the dumpster.  When I asked the local telecom folks about it, they
said that Pac Bell and "ATTIS" DID NOT WANT THIS STUFF BACK, NO WAY,
NO HOW.  PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. DON'T-CALL-US-WE'LL-CALL-YOU.

> What is this stuff??  Is there anything here that would be useful as
> part of a home PBX?

Well Tom, what you have there is 'old', but probably still functional
'1A Key' equipment.  You remember the old (heavy) six button phones
that used to be everywhere?? Well, that's the 'common equipment' that
made it all work.  If you have the power supplies, some 1A Key
telephones and some 25-pair cable for tieing it all together, then you
have the makings for a good old fashioned key system for your house.  :-)

And in the process of trying to get this stuff all wired up and
installed, you will also learn WHY 'state-of-the-art' has passed it
by. :/)

You indicated that you 'used to have a DIMENSION' which was replaced.
If I was your telecommunications manager, I would worry that this
equipment, which was all transferred to AT&T (Information Systems) at
divestiture, has actually stopped billing by AT&T.  It was quite
common to have the '1A' equipment being billed seperately from the
'Dimension' PBX equipment.  I have seen many instances where the
billing has gone on long after the equipment was removed.

My bottom line recommendation: Get it in writing from AT&T that there
are no more equipment bills!  You didn't say whether 'the local
telecom folks' were your in-house personnel, local operating comany,
or AT&T.  But trust me, if you didn't tell AT&T to remove it, they'll
just keep billing.

Of course, if the equipment wasn't being billed to your company, then ...


Regards,

dab      Internet: [e-mail]

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

From: "Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber?
Date: 22 Dec 91 01:50:48 GMT
Organization: St. Peter's College, US


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(david.g.lewis) writes:

> I doubt that a two-fiber cable costs less
> than a piece of quad.  (If you can even get two-fiber cable -- I don't
> know if anyone makes smaller than 12-fiber for outside plant use, or
> for that matter if anyone makes quad for outside plant use...)

  The fiber that comes into my house is an AT&T 3DFX-004-HXM, which is
an outside plant four-fiber cable. The middle of the part number is
the number of fibers in it, and it comes in sizes from two to at least
96. I used the four-fiber kind so I'd be ready for FDDI (right now I'm
using two fibers for Ethernet and have two as spares). The cost for four
fibers wasn't really that much greater than for two.

  Yes, there is an outside quad cable as well -- I have an old WEco
roll of some 5,000 feet around somewhere, although I don't remember
the part number.

  As for total cost of fiber vs. copper, by the time I got done
costing out the installation, etc. it was a toss-up between copper and
fiber. Of course, this assumes no installed plant and a point-to-point
run, neither of which would be true if you were ordering a circuit
from the telephone company.


Terry Kennedy        Operations Manager, Academic Computing
[e-mail]    St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA
[e-mail]    [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1038
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa16141;
          22 Dec 91 18:38 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA11742
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:55:50 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA02742
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:55:38 -0600
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 16:55:38 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1039

TELECOM Digest     Sun, 22 Dec 91 16:55:34 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1039

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Silent Night (Dave Levenson)
    Re: Telephone Company Employees (Dave Levenson)
    Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording! (Vance Shipley)
    Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Ken J. Clark)
    Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network (Dan Sahlin)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (John Higdon)
    CBC Marketplace Segment on Caller-ID (Dave Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Silent Night
Date: 22 Dec 91 14:02:24 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Syd
Weinstein) writes:

> When the utility wants to poll the meter, they access a special number
> at the CO that lets them access maintenance mode. This mode places
> both a voltage and a tone on the line.  This voltage + tone makes the
> box come on line and answer the tone.  Then it bursts the meter
> reading back to the CO.  The CO then forwards this to the utility.  It
> takes three seconds total.  Note that going off hook changes the
> impedence that drops the circuit out of test mode, and an incoming
> call terminates the test mode automatically in the CO.

Something similar is offered by the gas and water companies here in
NJ.  It costs the utility customer a one-time fee of $30 for
installation of a remote-reading device.  If you don't pay, they
continue sending a meter-reader to your premises.  If the reader
arrives when nobody is home, you get an estimated bill.  If this
happens four consecutive times, you get a nasty letter.  If it happens
for a whole year, they threaten to cut off your service.  When they
come to cut off service, they must gain access to the premises.  When
they come inside, they read your meters and go away, with no
interruption of service!  This happened to me a number of years ago,
and I've heard of its happening recently to friends and neighbors.  I
keep wondering if it wouldn't be better for the gas company to offer
(or require) the remote-reading device without the $30 fee.

On a technical note, does anybody know if/whether/how these things
work in an area like this one?  Here most subscriber lines are not
metalic to the C.O. but use SLC-something that provides a digital
multiplex over T-1 facilities?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Dave Levenson)
Subject: Re: Telephone Company Employees
Date: 22 Dec 91 14:10:41 GMT
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA


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

[ regarding automated-attendants at telco customer-service numbers]

> However, on those occasions when I must deal with the residence
> department (for my home) or the standard business office, a trick is
> used which has proven quite effective. Just select "0" at every
> prompt.  Two or three "0"s later, you will either be speaking to a
> live person or will be comfortably waiting in an ACD queue.

What also works is to remain silent when prompted to enter touch tone
digits.  These systems generally don't know whether the caller is
touch-tone-equipped or not.  If the first prompt is met with silence,
it should be designed to assume that tone-dial equipment is not
available, and should attempt to connect you with a human.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: Re: MOST Interesting Telco Recording!
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 20:05:32 GMT


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

> The voice recorders used in 'intercept' recordings are pretty
> expensive.  The grade of device used by telcos has an entry cost of
> about $15K (before the fittings for running off the CO battery), and
> you add about $5K per recording on each 'intercept' box.  If you want
> extra things like ANI, the cost goes way up.

Obviously this is not how this should be done in light of currently
available technology.  One machine per announcement with it's own
connection(s) to the switch is wastefull of both circuits and
machines.  One machine with many connections and a bank of recorded
announcements that can be played over any port would make much more
sense.  I think I just described a VRU :).


Vance Shipley     vances@xenitec  vances@ltg  ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances

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

From: "Ken J. Clark" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night)
Date: 21 Dec 91 18:09:11 PDT
Organization: Simpact Associates, Reston VA


In Volume 11, Issue 1031, Msg #3 <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] writes:

> All well and good, I suppose, but in real life usage, I suspect this
> will open up a whole new field of inter-company bickering and
> finger-pointing when something goes wrong.

  [Example deleted]

> ("The phone company messed up your meter connection; call
> them!") or the phone company ("Sorry, you didn't purchase our in-home
> line maintenance service!").

In up-state New York (read Buffalo area) National Fuel Gas converted
every house in my father's entire neighborhood.  They made their
connection right at the NIT, so at least in this case, there can be no
question about inside wiring.

> What if the phone service is disconnected?

In my father's case, we had disconnected the phone service after he
died, but until the house was sold we kept the gas connected to keep
it heated.  After six months of estimated bills, NFG finally sent me a
letter stating, "We have been unable to read your meter.  Please read
it yourself and send us the reading on the enclosed card."  BTW, the
return card was *not* postage paid. :-)

I suspect that NY Tel did more than just remove my father's subscriber
connection.  Obviously the wire pair was pulled somewhere.

Actually, this was not as much a curiousity as was NFG.  You would
think that after six months of not being able to contact the meter
reading device you would think that they would have sent out someone
at least *once* to check on the device, if not at least to read the
meter.


Ken J. Clark                        [e-mail]
Sys. Integration/Applications Group {uunet..}!simpact!cevax.simpact.com!kclark
Simpact Associates Inc.             Voice: 703-758-0190  ex. 2134
Reston, VA                          Fax:   [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Dan Sahlin)
Subject: Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network
Organization: SICS, Swedish Inst. of Computer Science
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 19:06:08 GMT


H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> Phone numbers in Sweden are in one of these patterns:

> 08-XXX XX XX
> 08-XX XX XX
> 0XX-XX XX XX
> 0XX-XXX XX
> 0XXX-XXX XX

Next year this will change as one more digit will be allowed in the
number, so the following patterns will also be allowed:

    08-XX XX XX XX  (yes that's right, 8-digit numbers!)
    0XX-XXX XX XX
    0XXX-XX XX XX

Otherwise, the information provided by Peter Anvin about the Swedish
telephone system appears to be correct.

And now an anecdote, what may happen if you have a state-owned
telephone company, like Televerket.

Last October Televerket announced that they would change the way
telephone calls would be charged in Sweden. Local calls would be much
more expensive and long distance calls cheaper. International calls
would also become cheaper. The Stockholm area would be the big loser
after the reform that was announced to take place on Jan 1 1992.  One
reason for the changes was technical, local calls are simply not much
cheaper than long distance calls. Another reason, however not at all
emphasized by Televerket, was that they had been told to pay one
billion dollars to the state, as they had been so profitable and
partly to finance the lower income taxes introduced last year in
Sweden.

There were protests from many groups against the raised telecom
charges, retired people in particular.  The newly elected
non-socialist government however said that they accepted the changes.
The opposition, the social democrats, were against the raise. Nothing
would have happened in the parliment, had not the new (started less
than one year ago!) right-wing party "New Democracy" joined the social
democrats on this issue. Last week it was decided in parliament that
the changes in charges would not take place!

Now Televerket complained and said that it was too late, work on
changing all telephone stations had been going on for several months
now, and it was technically impossible to prevent the change in
charging take place on Jan 1 1992! So now people are working overtime
all over the country in telephone stations, trying to stop the change,
but they will not make it for the whole country in time, they say.

(I find this very strange, if the change would take place Jan 1, why
not simply not do it. How come this would be a hard thing to do?  Does
anyone know why this would be a problem?)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!


Dan Sahlin, SICS, Sweden
email: [e-mail]  phone: [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 14:03 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!


Sean Petty <undr![e-mail]> writes:

> I just got off the phone with AT&T and let me tell you, THEY WON'T
> BELIEVE YOU!

> [Moderator's Note: What are you to do? Is that your question? What you
> are to do is take your medicine like a man without wimpering. You and
> others who called that number took advantage of a programming error of
> which {USA Today} was not at fault. You did however use the newspaper's
> information service.

So what we have here is a mistake by AT&T and an unknown number of
people taking advantage of that mistake. Someone at AT&T obviously
became aware of it since the billing of 800 calls would have had to
have been an intentional aberation.

Pat is right about unjust enrichment and anyone calling the 800 number
to hear the program should rightly pay if the INTENTION is to hear the
program and is not a mistake. But I still have a problem with AT&T's
handling of the matter. Over the years, American business has departed
from a forthright manner of conducting affairs.  The "save your ass"
mentality has become the order of the day. Instead of simply telling
customers, "Yes there was a programming error, but your repeated calls
indicate that you intended to use the service so we have billed you
for it", AT&T has elected to call its customers liars or incompetents
and remove the charges on a "demand" basis.

In my consulting business, I have made errors. This will come as a
shock to many of you who thought that I was perfect (at least in my
own mind), but from time to time mistakes are made. My policy is that
a client will learn about my mistake from me first. There is great
power in this. First, credibility is enhanced for when you speak with
authority, those listening know that if there was doubt it would be
expressed. Second, it derails those who would like to see you in
trouble and who gleefully report your mistakes to the client. The
reaction becomes, "yes, I know all about that". Admitting mistakes has
never lost an account for me.

It is a shame that major corporations such as AT&T cannot adopt
similar policies. Yes, AT&T admits failure when there is an outage
that cannot be ignored, but rarely does it admit responsibility.
American business became the envy of the world when it conducted
commerce in an honest and forthright manner. The results of deviating
from that policy are becoming most obvious. The Japanese (or insert
nationality of your choice) are not doing it to us; we are doing it to
ourselves.


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

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

Date:     Wed, 18 Dec 1991 00:31:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: CBC Marketplace Segment on Caller-ID


Tonight's episode (17 December 1991) of Marketplace on CBC Television
featured a story on Called ID/Call Display and some of the privacy
concerns being raised. The segment seemed slanted against Call
Display, a feature which is currently active in certain areas in Bell
Canada territory (Ontario and Quebec). The following posting is a
synopsis of that segment.

A few hypothetical situations were introduced to indicate pitfalls of
Call Display: someone could phone the tax office without giving a
name, yet could get a visit from a tax auditor (based on the phone
number given through Call Display). Someone phoning city hall
regarding a renovation inquiry could have a surprise visit from a
building inspector to see if renovations were made at variance with
city bylaws. Someone calling various shops to solve a problem with a
stereo could find that stereo stolen a month later.

Marketplace continued by showing a citizen with Call Display set up,
displaying callers phone numbers. The gentleman using the Call Display
service considered it a great boon, a deterrent to crank calls.
Marketplace proceeded to have a private investigator, one Harry Lake,
find as much information as possible from that resident's phone
number: his full name, date of birth, his wife's name, date of birth
as well, details on the mortgage and the company handling the
mortgage, the employer, wife's occupation, some credit cards, credit
rating, and car licence plate. Not bad for three hours of a private
investigator's time (one of the investigator's aids was a Bower's
cross-reference directory, incidentally).

Another story was given about a Quebec City doctor who would call
teenaged patients (visiting the clinic without their parents
knowledege), only find out that parents checked the Caller ID displays
to trace calls back to the clinics.

One woman was harassed by a sociopathic freak after she responded to a
newspaper classified ad. She was harassed with details of flowers in
her front yard and other bizarre fantasies from said sociopath.

On Bell Canada's side, the Assistant Vice-President of Comsumer
Marketing (Tony LaVia (sp?)) considered Call Display analogous to
checking who is on the other side of the entrance door.  Benefits to
society consisted of the reduction obscene calls - "the psychological
equivalent of assault and battery".

The British Columbia Public Interest Advocacy Centre is presently
fighting BC Tel's bid for Caller-ID. Four consumer groups were going
to the Federal Court of Appeal to fight Bell's Call Display service.
Meanwhile, Manitoba's Public Utilities Board (the telephone regulator
in that province) will await the results of public hearings before
deciding on Caller ID's fate there.

Dr Rohan Samarajiva, an assiatnt professor of communications at Ohio
State University, was also interviewed regarding Call Display legality
and privacy concerns. He mentions that we are increasingly living in
"electronic space as opposed to physical space" and that the rules of
living in electronic space are being determined now. If the rules
aren't set now, "the rules will be made for us ... that's how these
things go".

Bell Canada will profit from its Call Display services; the expected
take will be CAD$89 million/year by the end of 1995, not counting
equipment rentals or the per call ID blocking charge of CAD$0.75 (the
caller can block number display by calling the number via the
operator; womens shelters can have their calls blocked for free by
special approval of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications
Commission (CRTC)).  Marketplace also showed how just blocking 10
calls per month could increase local service fees by about 50%.

The segment ended with mention of Bell's statement that obscene/
harassing calls have dropped 75% with the presence of Caller ID though
police departments contacted by Marketplace indicated some variance of
success in curbing crank calls. Final mention was made about privacy
advocates recommending the use of Call Trace (a feature that registers
the calling party's number with the phone company) instead of Call
Display.


FD 2.00
* Origin: The Super Continental/Toronto/HST&V.32bis (416)
398.6720 (89:480/126)
Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1039
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29878;
          23 Dec 91 4:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA12020
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Mon, 23 Dec 1991 02:37:33 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA05062
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Mon, 23 Dec 1991 02:37:07 -0600
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 02:37:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1040

TELECOM Digest     Mon, 23 Dec 91 02:37:01 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1040

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    A Telco with Class (John Higdon)
    Abandoned COCOTs? (John Higdon)
    ISDN and Christmas (William T. Sykes)
    Telephone Museums (Nigel Allen)
    Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates (Larry Cole)
    How do I Program Radio Shack Call Forwarding Box? (Greg Darnell)
    AOS Use for Hospital Patients (Jeff Schweiger)
    Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Floyd Vest)
    CNN Announces Federal Anti-Junk-Fax Law (USA) (H. Peter Anvin)
    Gadgets to Help Take Advantage of Custom Ringing (Bob Barker)
    New Residence Message Rate Plan for Florida (Dave Leibold)
    Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida (Dave Leibold)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 20:07 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: A Telco with Class


As I was going through my business mail, I stumbled across an unusual
Christmas card. It was in a hand-addressed envelope directed to my
company. It is a simple card depicting a snowman talking on the
telephone with the inscription:

    Through the years,
    Across the miles,
    From our house to yours,
    The seasons best!

        The Contel Family

Of the firms supplying communications to my company, Contel is still
one of the classiest! It also provides excellent service.


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

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

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 18:28 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Abandoned COCOTs?


After emptying my mail box at the post office, I thumbed through the
mail and spotted a nastygram from a state agency that I questioned. An
800 number was listed for inquiry, so I walked up to the COCOT and
attempted the call. After dialing, I got the following recording:

"Your service has been interrupted. You may call 611, 911, and 811
numbers, but you must contact the business office to arrange to have
your service restored."

The other phone had exactly the same recording. In other words, not
only does the USPS insult us with COCOTs in the first place, but
apparently selects a vendor that does not pay its phone bills. But
that was yesterday. Today, I was faced with a COCOT in a different
part of town which had the same situation.

It appears that COCOT ownership is a marginal enough enterprize that
it cannot weather the ripples in the economy. This is great news. We
have been wondering how these telephonic abominations might be
eliminated and now it appears that the marketplace may do it for us.
Isn't free enterprize wonderful?


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

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

From: [e-mail] (wts1)
Subject: ISDN and Christmas
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 18:51:28 GMT


Copied from internal att.today and AT&T Corporate Media Relations.
Happy Holidays!

                          AT&T TODAY

         Friday, December 20, 1991 -- 10:30 a.m. EST

AT&T ANNOUNCES *** Barbara Bush and Santa Claus will make this
Christmas a time to be remembered for hundreds of hospitalized
hildren.  On Friday, Dec. 20, Mrs. Bush will make three historic ISDN
personal video calls to children's hospitals in St. Louis, Baltimore
and Atlanta.  In each call, Mrs. Bush will read a brief Christmas
story and talk with several children via an ISDN telephone and a
computer screen with a mounted camera.  Since the calls are
interactive, the children will be able to talk with Mrs. Bush and show
off holiday drawings.  Mrs. Bush is expected to make a bed-side video
call to one or two critically-ill children as well.

After each call from the White House, the children will phone Santa
Claus at his workshop to deliver their Christmas wishlist.  Santa will
see and hear the kids, and the kids will see and hear him through a
simple press of a button marked "Santa" on the ISDN personal video
phone.  In St.  Louis, a live appearance by Santa will follow Mrs.
Bush's call and will cap a two-day VideoSanta program in which the
children will be able to see and talk to Santa over a special video
connection to Southwestern Bell headquarters (the "North Pole").

The video call from Mrs. Bush will be a digital call made over an
ordinary copper telephone via the public switched network -- the same
wiring present in most homes across America.  The call will utilize
new and robust data speeds for improved picture quality.  The ISDN
personal video calls are being arranged for the hospitals through a
cooperative effort among the following telecommunications companies:
Bell Atlantic, Southwestern Bell, BellSouth and AT&T.

The demonstration video telephones were provided by AT&T Bell
Laboratories and NCR, using video codecs by Compression Labs Inc. The
three hospitals are St. Louis Children's; Scottish Rite in Atlanta;
and Johns Hopkins in Baltimore.

                            --------

William T. Sykes  AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies  Burlington, NC
UUCP: att!burl!wts  att!cbnewsb!wts1

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

From: [e-mail] (Nigel Allen)
Date: 19 Dec 91 (03:01)
Subject: Telephone Museums
Organization: Echo Beach, Toronto


If you are going to be in a different city around Christmas, you may
want to find out from the local telephone company, tourism bureau or
chapter of the Telephone Pioneers of America whether there is a
telephone museum in the community that you are visiting.

For example, Bell Canada has historical displays in some of its
buildings in Toronto (Bell Trinity Square, 483 Bay Street) and
Montreal (1050 Beaver Hall Hill and 700 de La Gauchetiere West).
Military units responsible for signals and telecommunications may also
have displays, such as the Canadian Forces Signals and Communications
Museum in Kingston.

If you discover a telephone museum in the city you're visiting, you
might want to bring a family member along with you.  It seems that the
only time people visit tourist attractions in their own city is when
people from out of town are visiting.

General science museums, such as the Ontario Science Centre in
Toronto, can also be fun.  If you've done a lot of desktop publishing,
it's fun to look at an old Linotype machine and realize how
typesetting was done before computers. You don't have to be a kid to
enjoy a science museum!

There's plenty of snow outside, and Canada doesn't have any COCOTs
yet.  It's going to be a good Christmas.


Canada Remote Systems.  Toronto, Ontario   NorthAmeriNet Host


[Moderator's Note: And while we are on the topic, I want to wish a
very happy holiday season to all telecom readers, and extend my best
wishes for a happy and prosperous new year!   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Cole)
Subject: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Landover MD
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 14:41:55 GMT


I am working on a program to draw geographic network maps and hope to
locate sites geographically by area code/exchange.  Bellcore offers a
V & H Coordinates Tape containing the needed information, but the
Vertical and Horizontal coordinates are given as 5 digit numbers, for
example, Wilton, Maine is given as V = 03961, H = 01464.  Does anyone
know how to convert these to Lat/Long ? (Wilton, Maine is 44 35 31 N,
70 13 39 W in lat/long).

Is anyone aware of a similiar dataset which gives lat/long coordinates
for Postal Zip Codes ?

Thanks.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 14:48 MST
From: [e-mail] (Greg Darnell)
Subject: How do I Program Radio Shack Call Forwarding Box?


I just purchased a Radio Shack "Call Forwarding System" CFS-200, cat.
no. 43-155, at a closeout price of $30.  This system allows you to
essentially set up your own call forwarding system if you have two
lines.  I'd like to set it up and try it, but there was no manual, and
while they have ordered it, given the competency of the local store it
could be up to six months before I see it.  If anyone has info on how to
program it via the keypad and via touch tone phone, I would appreciate
your help.  All I need is a summary of the commands and their key
codes and formats (e.g. #pw*234# sets the password to 234).

Thanks in advance.


Greg Darnell    Amdahl Corporation    143 N. 2 E., Rexburg, Idaho 83440
UUCP:{ames,decwrl,sun,uunet}!amdahl!tetons!gnd          [phone]
INTERNET: [e-mail]


[Moderator's Note: If you do not get your copy of the instructions
soon, send me your mailing address and I will make a copy of mine to
send to you.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Schweiger)
Subject: AOS Use for Hospital Patients
Date: 21 Dec 91 02:47:26 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA


My father is currently in the Cardiac Care Unit (CCU) of a hospital on
Long Island (NY).  He has been given the opportunity to use a phone
for outgoing calls (this isn't always possible in a CCU).  While he
has been able to make local calls without difficulty, long distance
has been a problem.  He has been completely stopped from using his MCI
Card, with both 950-1022 and 800-950-1022 numbers blocked (resulting
in a recording from "Telesphere" along the lines of 'your call cannot
be completed as dialed').  Interestingly enough, he was also prevented
from making a call using Telesphere, and found out the only way we
could make a long distance call was collect.  I received such a call
today from him, and the operator identified himself as the "ITI
Operator".  How about that, two AOS's on one phone system!

I have a feeling that the hospital using AOS's to make their patient
phones a profit center is probably legal, but I thought I'd ask
telecom folks if they knew.  (Remember, this is not a COCOT -- no coins
involved).

Also, does anyone have any idea what I might expect to be charged when
I finally see this bill? (15 minutes daytime, ITI operator assisted,
New York to California).


Thanks,

Jeff Schweiger              Standard Disclaimer       CompuServe:  74236,1645
Internet (Milnet):                            [e-mail]

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

From: Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311)
Date: 20 Dec 91 21:50:07 CDT


On 16 Dec 91 18:17:07 GMT [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) wrote:

> And in the early 1960s there was "BEechwood 4-5789".

This was the Marvellettes' 1962 telephone song that was covered with a
"number change" in Wilson Pickett's 1966 hit "634-5789 (Soulsville,
U.S.A)".  The '81 number was Tommy Tutone's 867-5309/Jenny.  In the
40's Glenn Miller dialed "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" for a hit.

Blondie (and many others) recorded "Call Me" ... Jim Croce & the
Manhattan's had lyrical conversations with the "Operator" ... Sheena
Easton conducted a "Long Distance Love Affair" ... the Electric Light
Orchestra stayed on the "Telephone Line" ... the Five Americans wired
"Western Union".

Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-)


Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours
Floyd Vest <[e-mail]>  [phone]
     FIDO: 1:3613/3       Auburn, Alabama USA

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

From: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Subject: CNN Announces Federal Anti-Junk-Fax Law (USA)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1991 07:39:55 GMT


Tonight, December 20, 1991, there was a brief notice on CNN, stating
that a new federal law apparently will ban junk faxes and possibly
even telemarketing calls to subscribers who have requested no such
calls.

There is going to be a list maintained by the FCC which will list the
off-limit phone numbers.

Police, hospital and fire department numbers will automatically be
off-limits.

The notice said the law had been passed by Congress and was going to
be signed by President Bush on "Friday" (which could either be Dec 20
or 27).  I did not catch any notice of when the new law is to take
effect, nor the penalty.


INTERNET: [e-mail]   TALK:      [e-mail]
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC     HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4   NeXTMAIL:  [e-mail]
IRC:      Xorbon        X.400:     /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Barker)
Subject: Gadgets to Help Take Advantage of Custom Ringing
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1991 02:14:33 -0600
Organization: Robert Barker & Associates, Eden Prairie, MN.


I've just had custom ringing added to my home line and would like to
have some of the various telephone answering devices around the house
take advantage of it by being able to distinguish between the two
different rings.

I know I've seen some discussion about this in the past but don't
remember seeing any definitive answers to the questions:

1. Is there a commercial device that will listen to the first (full)
ring, determine if its the normal ring or custom ring, and then
connect the line to either device A or device B depending on the ring?

2. How about circuit ideas for the build-it-yourself type?

Any information would be appreciated!


Thanks,

Bob Barker     ...!uunet!jhereg!tcnet!wd0gol!barker
Robert Barker & Associates  [e-mail]   [phone]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 22:45:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: New Residence Message Rate Plan for Florida


Southern Bell in Florida included the following in its bills recently
(yes, I still have unfinished business with these guys, even a month
and a half since moving out) ... the following words are Southern
Bell's [with any commentary of mine in brackets].

NEW OPTIONAL RESIDENCE CALLING PLAN

Would you like to reduce your basic local service charge? If your
answer is yes, we have a new plan that may be just right for you ...

Residence Message Rate

Effective October 1, 1991*, the Florida Public Service Commission
approved an optional Residence Message Rate plan. If you subscribe to
this plan, you will receive a 40% discount on your basic local
residence service charge. You may make 30 calls to your local area
each month at no charge. After that, the charge for each call to your
local area is $.10 per call.

If you order the Residence Message Rate plan before January 28, 1992,
you will save the $9.00 connection charge.

For more information or to subscribe to this plan, please call your
service representative at 780-2355 [in Florida - djcl].

* Residence Message rate will not be effective until January 15, 1992
in the Orange Park and Green Cove Springs exchanges and in the
Hollywood exchange for telephone numbers beginning with 431, 432, 433,
435, 436 and 437. Residence Message Rate is only available in
exchanges where facilities permit.  [presumably meaning electronic
exchanges that can handle local measured billing - djcl].

                          ----------

FD 2.00
Origin: The Super Continental/Toronto/HST&V.32bis [phone]
(89:480/126)  Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1991 22:52:00 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Dave Leibold)
Subject: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida


(from a Southern Bell bill ...)

The Florida Public Service Commission has approved Call Tracing, where
facilities permit, on a per usage basis effective November 25, 1991.
Dialing *57 will automatically send the last incoming number to
Southern Bell's Annoyance Call Center. There is a $4.50 charge for
each successful trace. Blocking is available to subscribers who do not
wish to have Call Tracing on a usage basis available from their
number. A service order charge does apply for blocking usage-based
Call Tracing. For more information, please call your service
representative at the number shown on your telephone bill.

  *********

[another announcement]

The Florida PSC has approved Southern Bell's offering of Automatic
Number Identification (ANI) Service to business customers in Florida.
ANI provides the billing number of the calling line. Whenever you dial
a 440- or 930- number, your telephone number is provided to the
business you have called.  This service is not Caller ID Service and
therefore the Caller ID blocking codes will not apply in these
instances.


FD 2.00
Origin: The Super Continental/Toronto/HST&V.32bis (416)
398.6720 (89:480/126)   Dave Leibold - via FidoNet node 1:250/98
INTERNET: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1040
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa02270;
          24 Dec 91 2:24 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17838
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 00:36:21 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17376
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 00:36:08 -0600
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 00:36:08 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1041

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Dec 91 00:36:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1041

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    AT&T Billing Us For "Free" 800 Call - What May Have Happened (Rob Boudrie)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (John Higdon)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Henry E. Schaffer)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Tad Cook)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Joe Konstan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 00:14:48 EST
Subject: AT&T Billing Us For "Free" 800 Call - What May Have Happened


I have thought of one scenario which would explain the sudden
occurrence of 800-555-5555 calls appearing on bills a 900-555-5555
calls.

A previous poster mentioned talking to {USA Today} about their "800
number", and hearing about how pissed they were (this was well after I
had used the 800 number, of course).  Now, imagine the conversation
between {USA Today} and AT&T 900 service.  {USA Today} would likely
demand reparations for the damages caused by the 800 access, including
refunding of any communications charges to {USA Today}, as well as for
the newspaper's normal fee for the information service (some, or
possibly all, of the services, such as Weathertrac, are bought by the
paper rom outside vendors).  Is it hard to imagine some AT&T
bureaucrat, worried about explaining a large cash settlement to {USA
Today} replying with "I've got a great idea ... we can bill those 800
calls you recieved out as 900 calls and you'll get paid".  [Kind of
makes you wish you made 1E+06 of these 800-555-5555 calls from a
cocot, doesn't it?]

Does anyone have any further information on this?


[Moderator's Note: Read on in this issue. Lots of people have ideas.  PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 15:02:24 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


Telecom Moderator and now apparently protector of AT&T and USA Today
writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Of course you are responsible for the charges! You
> found a way to circumvent the 900 blocking on your line by taking
> advantage of an error in how telco was routing calls. You knew what
> you were calling and you chose to call anyway. I'm going to send
> copies of the messages on this topic in the past couple of issues to
> AT&T and {USA Today} with my personal recommendation -- for whatever
> that is worth -- suggesting they not write off a nickle of this unless
> the caller can demonstrate from one or two calls ONLY of a minute or
> less that their dialing was truly in error.  PAT]

  Though I'm as opinionated as hell, I resisted temptation on this
thread because I didn't have any personal interest in it and really
didn't have anything new to contribute that someone else hadn't said.
I also consider the periodic soap-boxing by PAT part of the territory
and an acceptable trade for all the work he puts into the job as
moderator.

  However, I think he has again gone just a little too far when he
proposes action with these private organizations in a way that appears
to marginally overlap his activities as Moderator of this Digest. I
say *again* because I raised an objection in the past to a seeming
proposal that the email-boxes of certain corporate executives ought to
be flooded with complaints about an issue. I don't want to resurrect
either that issue or the email argument. I just would like to suggest,
PAT, that you may be abusing and overstepping an admittedly
ill-defined boundary of propriety and wisdom when you leave your task
as editor and even editorialist of the Digest and start becoming an
activist and participant in things that are not specifically related
and restricted to your private business matters or to the publication
and distribution of the Digest.

  I guess it's that I feel you may be abusing your ready, uncensored
(unlike ours, in which you do the editing and censoring) access to a
'bully pulpit' and your access to all the correspondence that gets
sent to you but may or may not get published. I'm sure you can mount
all kinds of legal(istic) arguments that you're not doing anything
wrong or illegal or even unethical, but I just don't think it's a good
idea to compromise your roles in this way.  If people think you're
going to act as an unappointed private policeman for others, I think
that may inhibit some of the flow of information that comes into your
'hands'.

  Continue to rant and rave all you want, as much as I may disagree,
but please don't get involved like this. Don't try and be 'journalist'
and "politician'.


Jeff Sicherman


[Moderator's Note: I am not a 'protector' of either AT&T or the
newspaper. But right is right and fair is fair. People called that
number knowing good and well they were going to get something for
nothing as a result of a programming error. There were no mistakes in
dialing, no misunderstandings. And now I get bombed with numerous
messages from people wanting to put up these little smoke screens and
pretend THEY are the injured party, and the newspaper is running some
sort of fraud.  As for me personally saying anything to anyone, I need
not bother calling anywhere. Management people of both AT&T and {USA
Today} have been known to read these columns. I hope I have inspired
them to not back down on this issue.   PAT]

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

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 19:42 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!


On Dec 22 at 16:27, TELECOM Moderator writes:

> They were charged for the information provided by the called party,
> just as the called party said would happen when answering the call. I
> suppose owners of COCOTS will get billed. They can chase after the
> folks who used their phones if they wish. Calls from payphones owned
> by the phone company will be charged to their respective telcos who in
> turn can track down the person making the call or write them off as
> they wish.   PAT]

Now hold the phone! If someone allows (through his COCOT, hotel PBX,
or even a telco-owned payphone) public access to free numbers such as
800, where is HIS responsibility? He allows these calls since by
definition they are free to him and he is just providing a
convenience. Now, through a mistake of another (one who expects to be
enriched, at that), his courtesy turns into a nightmare of charges on
which he has no hope of reimbursement. Even if there was a possibility
of tracking down all those users, would the COCOT owner then be
entitled to re-bill AT&T for the costs of that collection? After all,
it WAS AT&T's mistake, was it not?

AT&T needs to take responsibility for ALL of the inconvenience and
cost on something that is its fault. Period. If AT&T thinks it can
collect from END USERS, fine. But to palm that off on innocent
third-parties would be unthinkable. If I was a COCOT owner and
received a fat bill for IAS charges from AT&T through no fault of my
programming or equipment, I would return it to AT&T with a very stern
note of advice concerning where it might be put.


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

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

From: [e-mail] (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!
Organization: Computing Center, North Carolina State University
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 15:14:35 GMT


Esteemed Moderator!  The problem is to square the well known and
agreed upon toll-free nature of an 800 call with {USA Today} charges.
Since it was an 800 call -- I suggest that the phone company is not
allowed to bill anything for this call.

However, since the call was answered with a message describing the
charges, I suggest that USA Today is allowed to bill for any services
rendered -- but they have to do it themselves, not via the phone
company.

The analogy I consider appropriate is a person calling a Customer
Service 800 number, and being told that some advice or service being
requested is only available for a consultation or service fee of $N.
If the person says "OK, I'll pay." and receives the requested service
then there is an obligation to pay -- even though it was a toll-free
call.  Note that the phone company is not involved.

No, I don't *really* believe that this will please everyone -- just the
reasonable people. :-)


henry schaffer  n c state univ


[Moderator's Note: I've no objections to the newspaper billing direct
for their services instead of via the telco, except that it makes
better sense to bill through telco as a matter of expediency in this
case, since telco has the records of who called, and had the service
been working as intended by its proprietor, calls would have been
billed by telco.  PAT]

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

Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!
From: hpubvwa![e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 22 Dec 91 19:54:04 GMT


"Scott D. Green" <[e-mail]> says:

> Remember back in September/October when {USA Today} was having
> "network problems" on its 900-555-5555 line so that it was accessible
> via 800-555-5555?  Remember how we speculated what, if anything, would
> happen with the charges?  Wonder no more!

> I just received my November bill with the calls detailed as "USA Today
> 900-555-5555" at $.95 per minute.  *And* I have 900 blocking on my
> line!

This thread is really making me nervous.  I have 900-976 blocking on
both my home phone lines, but it sounds like I am about to be billed.

I am not worried about myself.  Being somewhat telecom savvy, I can
get the charges removed.  What makes me nervous is that I can't recall
exactly where ELSE I dialed 800-555-5555 from, other then my office.
I have already informed our telephone guy at work to be on the lookout
for these charges, and told him that he can check up on our station
detail record to verify that I dialed 800, not 900.

But where else did I dial it?  I know I did it from some pay phones
(including a COCOT ... that ought to be interesting for the COCOT
owner!), but I am afraid that some of my friends might wonder who the
sleazeball is who dialed a 900 number from their phone.

Or maybe I didn't dial it from any friend's phones.  I just can't
remember!

This will be intersting.  I don't know how many minutes I ran up
listening to the movie reviews on my speakerphone, playing with the
weather info, seeing which new NPAs wouldn't work with the weather.
One strange thing I recall was that when they finally got the 510 NPA
to work on the weather report, it reported the weather for Marin
County, instead of the East Bay!

I smell trouble.


 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
              |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad


[Moderator's Note: And indeed you should smell trouble. I doubt you
will now succeed in getting the charges removed. The complainers early
on (like last week or the week before) got them removed before people
at AT&T were becoming knowledgeable of what was going on. More of them
are learning about it every day. If the amount is small enough and you
refuse to pay, chances are likely they will write them off and simply
put you in their deadbeat file. If the charges are large enough, I
strongly suspect they will stick to their guns and demand payment. All
your complaints to the FCC, FTC, your senator and others will be to no
avail, at least not if you tell the story honestly, and can the
crapola about how you 'thought it was a free sample', etc.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 14:33:19 PST
From: [e-mail] (Joe Konstan)
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!


[Our moderator made comments about how anyone who used this service
(for more than a trivial trial to find out about the charges) should
be expected to pay for it.  He bases the argument on an obligation to
mitigate damages, among other things.]

Sorry, Pat, but I think you are way off, for three reasons:

1.  This, to me, is identical to walking into a gourmet food shop
where there is a basket of goodies labeled "free samples -- try one"
but each sample has a price tag.  The "reasonable man" would assume
that the price marked on the sample is the "regular" price but that
the merchant is giving away the sample for free to get the customer to
try it.  If, on my way out of the store I was asked to pay for the
samples I'd be quite justified in refusing.

This seems even more true when we consider that the early TELECOM
Digest postings about this included several speculations that this
was, indeed, what {USA Today} was trying to do -- namely drum up
business and then remove the 800-service.

2.  The second reason is that AT&T (and or USA Today acting through
them) committed fraud by billing customers for a 900-number call that
was never made.  Cases of fraud do not put the same obligations on the
participating parties as non-fraudulent contracts.  If, in this case,
{USA Today} had sent a nice letter to each user requesting payment
(and explaining the problem) I'd have more sympathy -- but in this
case they did not.

3.  The "unjust enrichment" argument clearly would indicate that USA
Today should not gain any money from this.  Arguably, if this is their
mistake, then AT&T should get something for carrying the calls, but
conversely if this was AT&T's error then they should not make money
and USA Today should not be billed for the 800 calls.  If callers
received anything concrete they should return it, but this service
doesn't provide anything concrete.

Finally, since TELECOM Digest people called {USA Today} to ask them
about this, they are indeed negligent and failing to mitigate damages
since the line was active long after they were notified (according to
digest accounts).  Similarly, I believe one could argue that since
AT&T employees are among the regular Digest readers, they too were
negligent and failed to mitigate damages.

In summary, if you don't want to pay for the calls, and honestly would
not have called the service as a 900-number, I think you are justified
in refusing here and probably would be justified in enlisting the FCC
or FTC's help in the fraud.


Joe Konstan

Note: I am not a lawyer (but I have read the ABA's "You and the Law"
book! :-).


[Moderator's Note: How odd you sit there and claim the victim (USA
Today) was the perpetrator and you, one of several who pulled off this
petty fraud are actually the victim. You poor boy you!  Yes indeed, go
to the FCC and tell them "I tried a petty scam on a 900 service
provider when I found an error in telco's programming. They caught me
at it and (instead of suing me for theft of service and really making
a stink about it) billed me for the calls. Punish them!"

Try and be for real, okay?   More of these messages in the next issue
on Tuesday morning.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1041
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04846;
          24 Dec 91 3:26 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21509
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 01:48:28 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03614
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 01:48:15 -0600
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 01:48:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1042

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Dec 91 01:47:57 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1042

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Kevin Gallagher)
    Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures (Skip Collins)
    Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures (Steve Forrette)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 15:50:32 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Kevin Gallagher)
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
fidonet.org (Alan Boritz) writes:

> Speaking of premium services and blocking, New York Telephone has a
> scam going with blocking service and 976- numbers.  NYT customers with
> blocking active can call the operator to reach a 976- number, and the
> operator will place the call at *operator-assisted* rates.  I
> discovered that trick when auditing my former employer's phone bill
> one month and found a few hundred dollars of such calls (some
> employees were calling the weather and time via the operator after we
> blocked all outbound trunks).  I got a credit for that month's
> billing, but they were insistant about not giving a similar credit
> again.

> [Moderator's Note: Of course you are responsible for the charges! You
> found a way to circumvent the 900 blocking on your line by taking
> advantage of an error in how telco was routing calls. You knew what
> you were calling and you chose to call anyway.

You have forgotten WHY blocking of 900 and 976 calls has been provided
as a service by telcos in the past year or two.  Soon after 900 and
976 numbers were introduced, parents quickly discovered that these
numbers were virtually all rip-offs and, to use a legal term, it was
clear that they are indeed "attractive nuisances" which can inflict
harm on children and on the parents' pocketbooks!

(Here's an example to help your understand what an "attractive
nuisance" is.  Suppose your neighbor down the street builds a swimming
pool in his back yard, and does not put a fence around it, because
there is no specific law requiring him to put one up.  He then informs
his neighbors that no one is permitted to use his pool without his
permission.  You then inform your eight- and ten-year old children
that they are not permitted to swim in the neighbor's pool without
your and the neighbor's permission.

Two weeks later, your children notice that you and your neighbor are
both not home.  They decide to go swimming in his pool.  One child is
injured seriously.  Is the neighbor legally libel to pay damages to
you for the injury your child received while swimming in the pool
without permission?  Yes, his is.  Because swimming is an attractive
activity to most children, and because there are known dangers
associated with swimming, especially for unsupervised children, the
swimming pool becames an "attractive nuisance" in the neighborhood
when the owner chose NOT to erect a physical barrier to its access.)

Businesses soon realized the same financial harm could easily hit
their pocketbooks, as well.  Local telcos began to be swamped with
complaints from parents and companies.  Local and national politians
soon began to hear the complaints as well.

Under fear that this new lucrative service might soon be banned,
telcos began to offer blocking service, as a defensive measure, in the
hopes that it would stop the push to ban the service.  It has worked.

Blocking is NOT provided as a service to the customer to protect the
customer from himself (or herself)!  It is provided as a service to
the customer to prevent unauthorized use of 900 and 976 numbers on the
customers phone BY OTHER PEOPLE who happened to be authorized to use
the phone to make calls OTHER THAN 900 and 976 calls.

Your response above makes this problem out to be a simple black and
white issue, when in fact there is a large grey area.

When I signed up for 900 and 976 blocking service from my telco, I was
told that 900 and 976 calls would not be allowed from my phone,
period.  If my children can bypass the blocking by calling the
operator and asking the operator to make the call, then the telco has
failed to provide the promised blocking service.  (They put up a fence
around the pool but left the gate open.  By leaving the gate open, the
pool once again becomes an attractive nuisance.)

> I'm going to send copies of the messages on this topic in the past couple of
> issues to AT&T and {USA Today} with my personal recommendation -- for
> whatever that is worth -- suggesting they not write off a nickle of this
> unless the caller can demonstrate from one or two calls ONLY of a minute or
> less that their dialing was truly in error.

Suppose my 15 year old made over four hundred 800 {USA Today} calls
from my phone in a month.  His friend told him about the 800 number.
He thought the calls were free.  Who's liable for the charges?


Kevin Gallagher        [e-mail] OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh
DSC Communications Corporation   Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075


[Moderator's Note: If he thought the calls were free, then maybe you
ought to get him in to the doctor for a hearing test. Everyone else
heard the announcement that the call was 95 cents per minute. But more
to the point of your question, if your child made these calls and you
refused to pay for them then the contract and subsequent obligation
would probably be voided in court. The reason would be that contracts
entered into by minors are generally not enforceable with a few
notable exceptions: If the contract pertained to your minor child's
immediate welfare -- ie. housing away from home, a winter coat if he did
not have one, food if he was unable for whatever reason to obtain food
from you, necessary clothing, etc -- then you would most likely be
held responsible for the contract he entered and the obligations
arising from it. This is because parents are responsible for the
welfare of their minor children. Calling the newspaper's 900 info line
is hardly necessary to his welfare.

Now to address the 'attractive nuisance' aspect: So they go through
the open gate. Now they get caught by the property owner and their
parents, both of whom demand they leave the water at once. Instead of
leaving the water, the naughty children defy their parents and
continue to swim. Despite the property owner telling them to leave and
even posting a sign saying 'the lock on this door is broken, but I
insist you remain outside', the naughty children continue what they
are doing. *Then* one of them drowns. Now who is responsible?   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Skip Collins)
Subject: Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures
Date: 23 Dec 91 18:23:01 GMT
Organization: JHU/APL, Laurel, MD


> [Moderator's Note: You forgot to mention that neither are *you or I*
>  -- or anyone -- permitted to benefit from these mistakes. Anyone who
> encounters a 'mistake' or 'error' or for that matter an accident on
> the street or whatever MUST make every effort to mitigate the losses
> involved. No one is entitled to deliberatly abuse or take advantage of
> the misfortune of someone else....
> To put it another way, someone crossing the street is struck by a hit
> and run driver. As she lays in the street unconcious, you walk over and
> grab her purse laying in the street and abscond with the money. You
> ask 'what law did I break by picking up something of value I found
> laying in the street?' ... the context is all-important, and in this
> context you would be the scum, not the person laying in the street.
> Yet somehow you say {USA Today} is sleaze because *they* were victims
> and now wish to recover what was taken from them?

I believe your analogy is misguided.  Consider for example a cable TV
subsciber who finds that she can receive pay-per-view movies and
premium channels.  She never agreed to pay for such services, but her
contract with the TV company specifically states their cost.  Suppose
further, that the TV company regularly states the cost of the premium
services in their broadcasts.  She knows she is getting something for
nothing.  If the company finds out she is receiving the services, and
is able to determine exactly the cost of those services she used,
should she be required to pay the bill?

What about the case of those telephone users who take advantage of the
limitations of certain telco switches to use DTMF dialing without
paying for the service?

This sounds like a great money-maker for {USA Today}.  If AT&T is
allowed to charge for these 800 calls, why should {USA Today} correct
the mistake?  Sure, leave the 800 number that costs money up and
running.  A whole new market of people who are afraid to dial 1-900
will open up.

I am waiting to hear a more convincing argument than the one Pat gave
for why AT&T or USA Today have a legitimate claim.


Skip Collins


[Moderator's Note: How can you sit there and say a rip off by several
people against {USA Today} 'sounds like a great money maker for the
paper'?  In your example of the person who finds premium cable
channels available, she is obligated to pay for what she views. She
has no right to take advantage of the cable company. I have no love
lost for cable companies, but I don't rip off their programming. Here
is another example: You go into a store and a new teenage clerk waits
on you.  You deliberatly get her confused while she is ringing up your
sale and she gives you twenty dollars too much change. You pocket the
extra money and laugh to yourself on the way out thinking how witty
you are. Are you entitled to keep the money? No ... it is unjust
enrichment whenever you profit in a case like this.   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 05:28:26 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Today Number - A Update on Billing Procedures
Organization: Walker Richer & Quinn, Inc., Seattle, WA


Pat, I must admit that I think you are totally off base on this {USA
Today} issue.  I have two points to make: a legal one and an "in the
best interest of Mother" one.

First, they *did* solicit me to place this call for free.  Not USA
Today, but "they" being the telco (AT&T, RBOC, etc.)  It says in my
White Pages: "800 Service: Calls to 800 numbers are free.  Dial
1+800+the telephone number."  And through the AT&T 800 Directory (the
paper one) and years of advertising, the telcos collectively have
tried to make it as clear as possible to the customer that 800 numbers
are free.  They have done such a good job at this that this fact is
something that virtually every American knows, despite the general
lack of knowledge of telco billing practices.  Certainly, a "ordinary
person, in full possession of their faculties, using reasonable
judgement and prudence" (or whatever the phrase really is) would
assume that calling 1 + 800 + anything is free.

The fact that the recording stated that the call would be charged is
an important issue, but I believe it to be overridden by the "800 is
free" common knowledge.  After all, how often have we all encountered
recordings (both telco and customer) that are completely incorrect?
It happens all the time.  You always have to excercise judgement when
listening to an intercept, and especially a message generated by some
business's CPE.  On the other hand, how common is dialing an 800
number and getting billed 95 cents a minute?  What conclusion would a
resonable person reach as to where the error was?  How does someone
know that USA Today didn't decide to offer this service on a trial
basis on an 800 number (possibly to gather ANI informaion) without
charge, and just forgot to update the recording?  This sort of thing
is far too common.  Again, how common is getting billed for a call to
an 800 number?

And as far as actually enforcing collection, AT&T and/or {USA Today}
would have to establish that the customer knew, or reasonably should
have know, that there would be a charge associated with the call.  In
spite of the announcement, I firmly believe that any reasonable court
would determine that the fact that an 800 number was dialed would be
the overriding issue.  It is true that a lot folks who read about it
here knew of the specifics of the mistake, but could telco establish
this fact in court?

Could I get my own 800 number and just put a recording on it stating
that all calls will be billed at 95 cents a minute?  I know that I
could not get telco to do the billing, but if I had something
reasonably interesting on the line I would get at least a few people
to run up big bills, big enough to make it profitable to enforce my
own collection.  Despite the fact that there was a clearly stated
message, do you really think that I would be able to secure a
judgement against callers?  The only reason that AT&T and {USA Today}
is able to get away with it is that AT&T is the telco.  They can put
the charges directly on your phone bill.  They can also doctor the
records (which they have done since the calls appear as "900" calls on
the bill) to make it appear that the customer actually dialed 900.

Now, my "best interests of Mother" argument: Isn't the absolute common
knowledge that 800 calls are free much more important to AT&T than any
amount of loss they suffered for this one incident?  If they continue
to take the tack that everybody who dialed the 800 number is not
telling the truth, and must have dialed the 900 number because AT&T
doesn't make mistakes, they are really asking for it.  Since this
probably affected at least several thousand people, it is likely that
somebody is going to make enough of a stink about it that at least
some mention of this gets into the general media.  The general media
seems to enjoy to hype the negative reports of AT&T during the recent
outages -- this would be an interesting follow-up.  How much damage
will be done when people read in their papers that thousands of
customers were billed 95 cents a minute for calling an 800 number?
And that after complaining about it, were basically told by AT&T that
they were not being truthful and that this just couldn't possibly be.
Considering the general lack of knowledge about "the phone company" by
the general public, this could serve to permanently lose the trust of
the "little old lady" type.  How much money will AT&T lose by people
being reluctant to call 800 numbers?  Now, I admit, this single
incident is unlikely to make a major difference, but I'm sure you see
my point on how much money Mother makes from people calling 800
numbers, and that the whole reason of 800 in the first place is the
absolute confidence that callers have that the recipient will pay all
charges.

As for me, I think there are about 10 or 12 minutes of charges, during
two calls.  But the interesting twist is that I placed these calls
from work.  Although we don't have 900 blocking, the SMDR log from the
PBX will establish with absolute certainty exactly what number was
dialed.  And I'm sure that I'm not the only one in this position.

This raises yet another issue: What sort of logging goes on in the
local CO regarding this type of call?  I know that mileage will vary,
but what is the general practice, particularly among RBOCs?  I would
guess that 900 numbers are logged, and perhaps 800 numbers as well.
Even if only 900 numbers are logged, the absense of entries to
900-555-1212 should establish what number was really called.  And this
would be available as recourse to all of the residence/small business
users who made these calls and don't have their own SMDR (plus, it is
not subject to the customer adding phalse information after the fact
[I just HAD to get the "ph" in here somewhere.  It's so appropriate
for this story :-)]).  Even though it is unlikely that these records
would be consulted for individual disputes, "spot checks" could be
used to convince any disbelievers in the AT&T billing department that
the customers' complaints on this issue are genuine.

I really look forward to see how this one unfolds!


Steve Forrette, [e-mail], I do not speak for my employer.


[Moderator's Note: To claim that telco 'solicited' your calls by their
comments that calls to 800 numbers are reverse toll is stretching
things quite a bit, don't you think?  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1042
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa07565;
          24 Dec 91 4:34 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA22073
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 03:01:17 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA04200
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 03:01:03 -0600
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 03:01:03 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1043

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Dec 91 03:01:00 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1043

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Ron Schnell)
    Stop The Smoke Screens and Injured Party Routine Please (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made! (Rob Boudrie)
    Calls to 800-555-5555 From Bell Canada Land (Vance Shipley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 22:57:09 -0500
From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!


PAT writes:

> In the case at hand, people did not innocently dial the number once by
> accident thinking they were getting someone else (except perhaps the
> first person to post an article here, provided he was telling the
> truth on how he came to 'accidentally' discover the number). You people
> called the number (and I include myself since I called it also)
> knowing full good and well -- or thinking -- that you were getting
> something for nothing. You expected to hear the news and weather, or
> perhaps your horoscope, and you got what you called for. In other
> words, you called it expecting to rip off {USA Today} and/or telco.
> You got caught with your pants down ... the system was smarter than
> you thought. You made a legitimate call to a 900 information service
> regardless of the routing you took to get there.

The calls were made *knowing* that I would never pay for them.  I am
guaranteed by my local phone company that I will not have to pay for
800 calls.  I did not read your article saying that {USA Today}
requests that I not call.

> To put it another way, someone crossing the street is struck by a hit
> and run driver. As she lays in the street unconcious, you walk over and
> grab her purse laying in the street and abscond with the money. You
> ask 'what law did I break by picking up something of value I found
> laying in the street?' ... the context is all-important, and in this
> context you would be the scum, not the person laying in the street.
> Yet somehow you say {USA Today} is sleaze because *they* were victims
> and now wish to recover what was taken from them?

PAT, you know quite well that is not the reason {USA Today} or AT&T
are sleazes.  They are sleazes because they are reporting erroneous
information to the local phone companies which result in their making
money.  This is fraud.  Fraud by AT&T.

Now, if you want a *really* comparable situation:

Let's say that XYZ mail order company takes an order for a product
from John Doe.  This order is followed by another call from Jim Smith,
who just requests a catalog.  XYZ screws up, and mails the product to
Jim Smith.  Guess what?  Jim Smith gets to keep the product for free,
and XYZ has to eat the loss by sending another one to John Doe.  This
is the law.  You would call this taking advantage of someone's
mistake, and it is!  But it is justified under the law, as it is in
the case of AT&T/USA Today.

What has to happen is for AT&T to pay {USA Today} for the lost money.

> There is no sleaze involved since {USA Today} has never once said to
> call 'for free' via 800. The newspaper got victimized by AT&T (or some
> telco somewhere, as yet unknown) with the routing error. The paper got
> victimized further by the people who deliberatly called the wrong
> number. When I called the paper, the gentleman who took my call said
> specifically 'please do not call the 800 number'. I put a message here
> in the Digest relaying his request.  So now all you smart folks -- and
> again, I include myself -- can take your whippings and learn from your
> error, as I have done.  The paper has a perfect right to demand
> payment from all parties concerned. That includes AT&T and *you*.  PAT]

AT&T has no right to lie to the local CO and say that 900 numbers were
dialed when they were not.  AT&T should take their whipping, as their
error will cost them money.

I intend to go to the press with this, as I think AT&T made a huge
mistake and should be punished.  I am also going to contact the FBI,
and some federal attorneys.  I would appreciate it if people would
save their phone bills and contact me if you would like to help.


Ron   ([e-mail])  ([e-mail])  (305) 797 - 2329 work

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

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Stop the Smoke Screens and Injured Party Routine Please
Date: Tue 24 Dec 1991  01:40:00 CST


Ron Schnell raised many points in the first message in this issue and
I felt compelled to answer in some detail to correct his errors.

> PAT writes:

>> In the case at hand, people did not innocently dial the number once by
>> accident thinking they were getting someone else (except perhaps the
>> first person to post an article here, provided he was telling the
>> truth on how he came to 'accidentally' discover the number). You people
>> called the number (and I include myself since I called it also)
>> knowing full good and well -- or thinking -- that you were getting
>> something for nothing. You expected to hear the news and weather, or
>> perhaps your horoscope, and you got what you called for. In other
>> words, you called it expecting to rip off {USA Today} and/or telco.
>> You got caught with your pants down ... the system was smarter than
>> you thought. You made a legitimate call to a 900 information service
>> regardless of the routing you took to get there.

> The calls were made *knowing* that I would never pay for them.  I am
> guaranteed by my local phone company that I will not have to pay for
> 800 calls.  I did not read your article saying that {USA Today}
> requests that I not call.

You are not going to pay for the *transport* of the call. You ARE
going to pay for the services rendered by the newspaper as a result of
your repeated and frequent use of the service. (I am assuming you made
several calls -- if you didn't then others reading this did.)  Maybe
you did not read my article saying {USA Today} was asking people to
refrain from using the number, but I am surprised that an educated
person like yourself, associated with MIT and all having heard a
statement on the system totally contradictory to your expectations
about 800 service would have continued the connection without first
investigating the matter further. You are not John Q. Public or a
little old lady who knows from diddly-squat about how phones work. How
could you have been decieved? Well, frankly, I don't think you were. I
think *you* were the one being deceptive.

>> To put it another way, someone crossing the street is struck by a hit
>> and run driver. As she lays in the street unconcious, you walk over and
>> grab her purse laying in the street and abscond with the money. You
>> ask 'what law did I break by picking up something of value I found
>> laying in the street?' ... the context is all-important, and in this
>> context you would be the scum, not the person laying in the street.
>> Yet somehow you say {USA Today} is sleaze because *they* were victims
>> and now wish to recover what was taken from them?

> PAT, you know quite well that is not the reason {USA Today} or AT&T
> are sleazes.  They are sleazes because they are reporting erroneous
> information to the local phone companies which result in their making
> money.  This is fraud.  Fraud by AT&T.

I totally repudiate your suggestion that these two organizations are
sleazes. They are not making any money they are not already entitled
to by having caught you and several others screwing around.

> Now, if you want a *really* comparable situation:

> Let's say that XYZ mail order company takes an order for a product
> from John Doe.  This order is followed by another call from Jim Smith,
> who just requests a catalog.  XYZ screws up, and mails the product to
> Jim Smith.  Guess what?  Jim Smith gets to keep the product for free,
> and XYZ has to eat the loss by sending another one to John Doe.  This
> is the law.  You would call this taking advantage of someone's
> mistake, and it is!  But it is justified under the law, as it is in
> the case of AT&T/USA Today.

Utter nonsense!  You have a complete misunderstanding of the law
regarding unsolicited merchandise. The law says the merchandise order
has to have no basis whatsoever ... it does not say the merchant can't
make a mistake and attempt to correct the error. Do you really want to
know *why* the 'unsolicited merchandise can be treated as a gift' law
came into being?  A company was in the habit of reading the obituaries
from hundreds of local newspapers daily. They would then take a large,
very ornate 'Family Bible' and engrave it with the name of the
deceased person on the cover. This was one of those big old-fashioned
Bibles with a section in the center for the family tree, etc. They
would then send it out with an invoice to the deceased person. The
invoice would be for typically a hundred dollars (1950's money!) for a
Bible maybe worth five dollars ... maybe. The family of the deceased
would get the Bible with Grandma's name on it and the invoice made out
to Grandma. The family would *assume* 'grandma must have ordered it
before she died, bless her soul, and to honor grandma and meet her
financial obligations they would pay for it rather than stiff the
company and dishonor grandma's memory.  Now that is sleaze.  And that
is one example of the mail order which was prevalent in the USA thirty
to fifty years ago. Then there were the Indian children who sent out
name and address labels, along with a teary-eyed reminder note a month
later if you had not paid. In other words, the orders came out of the
ether, totally fabricated. No one ordered anything.  And the Congress
of the United States rightfully moved to protect the American consumer
from these scams. Oh yes, and the mentally retarded children (sure!)
who sent out real cheesey pen and pencil sets with inflated price tags
on them with the money going to charity (sure!).  The law did not say
and does not intend that a bonafide merchant with a legitimate order
for merchandise is to be stiffed when a shipping clerk makes an error.

> What has to happen is for AT&T to pay {USA Today} for the lost money.

Certainly. But they can attempt to recover the money from people like
yourself who knew what they were doing and deliberatly continued the
pattern of abuse.

>> There is no sleaze involved since {USA Today} has never once said to
>> call 'for free' via 800. The newspaper got victimized by AT&T (or some
>> telco somewhere, as yet unknown) with the routing error. The paper got
>> victimized further by the people who deliberatly called the wrong
>> number. When I called the paper, the gentleman who took my call said
>> specifically 'please do not call the 800 number'. I put a message here
>> in the Digest relaying his request.  So now all you smart folks -- and
>> again, I include myself -- can take your whippings and learn from your
>> error, as I have done.  The paper has a perfect right to demand
>> payment from all parties concerned. That includes AT&T and *you*.  PAT]

> AT&T has no right to lie to the local CO and say that 900 numbers were
> dialed when they were not.  AT&T should take their whipping, as their
> error will cost them money.

How do you know they lied? How do you know a memo was not sent out to
the local telcos explaining how the charges would appear and the
explanation to be given to subscribers? What makes you think one or
two misinformed or ignorant AT&T reps speak for the company? And what
do you think they should do, write a special billing program for this
one occassion?  You made the essence of a 900 call -- what is the big
deal? You knew what you were doing.

> I intend to go to the press with this, as I think AT&T made a huge
> mistake and should be punished.

You do that ... I am one member of the press, and I am telling you now
what I think of your opinion. Maybe the {New York Times} will fall for
it; that wouldn't surprise me. I know Kay Graham over at {News Weak}
will eat it up; be sure and tell her also. And don't forget 'Seven on
Your Side', the idiotic action line program on television.

> I am also going to contact the FBI, and some federal attorneys.  I
> would appreciate it if people would save their phone bills and contact
> me if you would like to help.
> Ron   ([e-mail])  ([e-mail])  (305) 797 - 2329 work

Be sure to tell the FBI the *whole story*, won't you?  As you know,
they have a great fondness for people who play games with the phone
and try to avoid toll charges, etc. I'm sure they'll be impressed,
especially with how people were ripping off the newspaper using a
programming error they discovered or were told about. Oh, and be sure
to mention in your own case that you knew what the scoop was and (as
you pointed out here) had no intention of paying from the beginning.
They should really love that.  Just explain it like it is: people used
it knowingly; got tracked down and were asked politely to pay for what
they used, and that you feel that AT&T should be punished for having
the audacity to send out invoices to people they caught jerking them
around.  May I suggest your rethink your position?     PAT]

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

From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 00:51:55 EST
Subject: Re: USA Today Bills For Those 'Free' Calls We Made!

If {USA Today} had really wanted to mitigate the damages, they would
have changed the recording to indicate that "if you have reached this
recording by calling an 800 number, please hang up.  There is a
programming error and we intend to have these calls back billed as 900
calls at $.95/minute" The callers to this service, even those who
repeatedly telephoned, were not in a position to evaluate the "reason"
for the 800 connection -- they may have assumed it was an error; an
alternative and equally plausible explaination would be that it was
some sort of promotion.  The "unjust enrichment" here appears to lie
in a service provider representing, through method of delivery, that
the service is free; having the user generate a usage based on this
low cost (ie, free); then charging for it.  Nice work if you can get
it.

> accident thinking they were getting someone else (except perhaps the
> first person to post an article here, provided he was telling the
> truth on how he came to 'accidentally' discover the number). You people

I was that first person who posted.  The total truth: I heard various
stories about the number, but none of them made sense.  I called the
number to see what was up, and if this 555 numebr was really something
other than an alias for "800 directory assistance".  Prior to placing
the call, I would have gladly placed a wager that it would NOT connect
to any 900 number, because everyone knows "that can't happen" (much as
AT&T operators now "know").  I did not call the number a second time
after hearing the recording, nor did I hang on for a long time the
first time I was connected (my call was < two minutes).

There is also a question of honesty here ... TPC (the phone company)
did NOT itemize bills as "charge for 800-555-5555 for service of value
provided", but instead included incorrect and untruthful information
on the bill.  If you have a legitimate dispute with another party in a
business or contractual matter, altering business records to "enhance'
your position borders on criminal conduct.


Rob Boudrie


[Moderator's Note: Indeed there is a question of honesty here, and I
think you know who I am referring to. And yes, the activity borders on
criminal conduct where the repeated and long callers were concerned.
Maybe what I should do is suggest to AT&T/USA Today that the callers
be given an opportunity to pay voluntarily, and if they refuse, then
to treat the matter like theft of service and proceed legally on that
basis.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Vance Shipley)
Subject: 800-555-5555 From Bell Canada Land
Organization: SwitchView Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 22:02:26 GMT


Does this number still work for anyone: 800-555-5555?

Here I get silence for 20 seconds, a soft click, silence for about a
minute and then a ring or two followed by a recording that starts in
french and then follows in english stating that "all circuits are busy
now please try again later. 514 1N"

I've tried it a couple times over the last two days and always get the
same response.  I don't remember for sure what happened the first time
I tried this, back when it was first reported here, but I believe it
was blocked.


Vance Shipley     vances@xenitec  vances@ltg  ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!vances


[Moderator's Note: NO! It does not work from anywhere any longer. You
are getting that 'all circuits busy' recording because technically all
the circuits are busy -- busied out, that is. The equipment considers
it to be a valid number, but on seeking out a circuit finds them all
unavailable because AT&T has cut off the service via 800.   PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1043
*******************************










Received: from [129.105.5.103] by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa03967;
          25 Dec 91 1:23 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA13208
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 23:42:38 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA29737
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Tue, 24 Dec 1991 23:42:24 -0600
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 23:42:24 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1044

TELECOM Digest     Tue, 24 Dec 91 23:42:21 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1044

Index To This Issue:                      Merry Christmas To All of You!

    Telecaroling (Matt Simpson)
    Technological Nightmare Keeps Lincoln [NE] Phone Busy (Michael Nolan)
    AT&T STILL Hasn't DV'ed my Mother-in-Law's Card (Russ Nelson)
    BWI Airport Payphones (Michael Rosen)
    Panasonic EB500 Programming Help Needed [Larry Rachman]
    Phones in the "Buddy" Show (Carl Moore)
    Nevada Bell's "Teen Line" (Ed Greenberg)
    Call Me Card Works With AT&T Voice Mark System (David B. Whiteman)
    Area Code 206 Changes (Dan Braimage)
    AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (Tad Cook)
    Pac*Bell's Greetings (John Higdon)
    Another Way to Make a Profit at Cellular (Steve Forrette)
    ANI number in 312-465-XXXX Chicago (Chris Johnston)
    Call 1-900-SOMEONE (H. Peter Anvin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 09:27:25 EST
From: Matt Simpson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Telecaroling


I was at my parents' house the Sunday night before Christmas. It was a
damp drizzly night. The phone rang. Mom answered it, and started
singing Jingle Bells. The rest of us sat there wondering if she had
gone off of the deep end. At the end of the song, she said "Thank you,
Merry Christmas" and hung up. She then explained to us that the caller
had said he was calling from a local church, and wanted her to sing
Jingle Bells with them.  In the not too distant past, churches and
other groups used to wander the streets singing carols outside
people's homes. I guess the cold and drizzle made it more enticing to
seek a high-tech approach, but somehow it just didn't seem the same.

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Technological Nightmare Keeps Lincoln [NE] Phone Busy
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Tailored Software Services, Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 18:03:50 GMT


The following story is out of the Dec. 22nd {Lincoln Journal-Star}.
When I first read it, I thought it might be a simple case of call
forwarding gone mad.  But then I got to wondering why AT&T was
apologizing for the mistake.  The following story has been shortened
somewhat.

Potential cable television customers in Sterling, VA, were trying to
call their local cable firm Thursday night to take part in an
installation promotion.

But when they dialed the local number, their calls ended up at the
home of Dennis and Mary Manning, in Lincoln, Neb.

For the Mannings, who run their own Manning Financial Services, the
dozens of calls at first made them dumbfounded, then whimsical, and
finally downright irritated as the calls mushroomed into a
technological nightmare.

At least it would have been a nightmare if they could have gotten some
sleep Thursday night.  Instead they fielded phone calls as late as
12:30 a.m. and as early in the morning as 6:30 a.m.

"Who knows how it happened?" asked Dennis Manning.  "We felt so
helpless.  There was nothing we could do.  It was technology gone out
of control.  There was no way to stop it."

They tried calling the company -- Cablevision of Loundoun County, VA,
and got, of course, their own home.  The Lincoln Telephone Co. also
couldn't help.

The problem occurred when, at the close of the business day Thursday,
the firm, as it always does, programmed its computer to route the
calls to an answering service.  Instead, the telephone lines got
crossed and the calls were routed to the Mannings' home, said Cheray
Dixon, a customer service representataive with Loundoun.

"He thought we did it," she said.  "AT&T's been calling us all day
(Friday) to apologize.  I believe it's fixed."

"We got calls from California, Massachusetts and Texas -- other
businesses trying to get through to the cable system," Mr. Manning
said.  "We got calls from MCI, GTE and long-distance operators but
nobody could fix it."

"I called the cable company (Friday morning) and I sand, 'Please,
don't do it again.'  This was one little screw up, but it drove one
person crazy."

"Somebody's going to get a whopper of a phone bill -- and it better
not be me."


Michael Nolan, [e-mail]
Tailored Software Services, Inc.
Lincoln, Nebraska [phone]


[Moderator's Note: In 1974 I had a single-line business phone here,
312-WEbster-9-4600. When the Chicago-Beverly CO cut over to ESS one
cheery morning, I started getting calls by the dozens -- literally the
phone would ring again as soon as I hung it up -- from people wanting
the Sears Roebuck Central Region Credit Office, 312-WABash-2-4600.
Sears had a big, five position cord board and received a couple
hundred phone calls per hour.  I got all the calls which originated in
the Beverly CO because someone there got their translations mixed up
with 922 and 939. It took several hours of hell for me getting IBT to
straighten out the mess ... and Sears never even missed the calls!  PAT]

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

Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 20:36:50 EST
From: Russ Nelson <[e-mail]>
Subject: AT&T STILL Hasn't DV'ed my Mother-in-Law's Card


Back on her October bill, my Mother-In-Law, Tillie, discovered $250
worth of charges on her telephone bill, some of them from LD companies
she'd never heard of.  She immediately called AT&T, got the
run-around, but eventually got them to cancel her card, and issue her
a new one.  She got the new card AT&T, started to use it, and didn't
think any more about it.  Well, the November bill came, and it had
$3000 in fraudulent charges on it!  She called AT&T, and they insisted
that the old card had been DV'ed.  Of course she didn't have to pay
the fraudulent charges, but she had go identify all 90 pages worth as
real or fake.

Well, to make a long story short, she got November's bill today, and
guess what?  Another $3,000 in fraudulant charges!  This is getting
old, she says.

I told her, since she usually makes $800 worth of AT&T calls per
month, she should tell AT&T that she will refuse to pay the bill until
they provide a bill consisting only of charges to the new card, and
she should take her business to her MCI account.

I'll tell you what happens in January ...

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

From: [e-mail] (Michael Rosen)
Subject: BWI Airport Payphones
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 23:00:07 GMT


I was at the Baltimore Washington International Airport (BWI) today
picking up my folks and noticed something interesting.  The last time
I'd been there the payphones were Washington Metro area phones and a
call to Baltimore would be ld.  Now, there are separate phones.  I saw
two phones for AT&T Long Distance, two for C&P Local, and alternating
phones for Washington Metro area and Baltimore Metro area.  I'm not
quite sure if that C&P one was local, I'm trying to remember them now.
It wouldn't make much sense since there were already Baltimore and
Washington Metro area phones.


Mike

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

Date: 23 Dec 91 10:42:15 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Panasonic EB500 Programming Help Needed


Does anyone have programming information for the Panasonic EB-500
cellular transportable? If you are willing, a reply here would be nice
as it would wind up in the archives.


Larry Rachman, WA2BUX    Reply to: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:16:05 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Phones in the "Buddy" Show


The "Buddy" (a Buddy Holly story) show is currently playing at the
Mechanic Theater in downtown Baltimore thru January 5.  Some phones
are used in it.

In the first scene, the deejay has two phones on his desk and is
answering them in alternation.

During the show, two long-distance calls are shown being made by
calling the operator and saying something like "I want (town name and
about five digits)".  In one of them, a bad connection is depicted so
that the receiving party misunderstood a key word.  In the other,
Buddy Holly's phone call from Clear Lake (Iowa) back to his wife in
New York is shown being made on a pay phone (can't recall if it had
those coin-drop slots at the top) with a metal cord.

The phones are all rotary (the most recent incidents depicted happened
in 1959).

And in the Clear Lake show scene (depicting the last show before the
well-known plane crash), the Big Bopper takes a gold-colored phone
receiver (with no cord) from his pocket and starts off his big hit
("Chantilly Lace") with "Hello, baby".

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 09:40 PST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Nevada Bell's "Teen Line"


There was a recent discussion about a fellow who wanted toll
restriction to keep his kids from abusing the phone.

While visiting Reno this weekend, I noted that a service listed in the
"Catalog of Residence Services" was "Teen Line".

Teen Line provides a second phone line equipped with Touch Tone, Three
Way Calling, and toll restriction.  "Long Distance" calls are not
completed.

The amusing thing is that Nevada Bell is one giant LATA, covering
everything BUT Las Vegas.  Everybody knows that intra-lata calls are
typically more expensive than inter-lata calls.  Thus, a call from
Reno to Winnamuca is probably more expensive than a call from Reno to
San Francisco, or even New York.  Of course, 90% of Nevada doesn't
have anybody to call :-)

Notice that even though Nevada Bell is part of Pacific Telesis,
Pacific Bell does not offer this service here in the Bay Area, at
least not in the San Jose book.

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

From: [e-mail] (David B. Whiteman)
Subject: Call Me Card Works With AT&T Voice Mark System
Date: Mon Dec 23 12:51:28 1991


Greetings:

Well believe it or not I discovered this accidentally: While accessing
the ATT Voice Mark System 1 800 562 MARK I unintentionally used my ATT
Call Me Card instead of my normal ATT card.  I just received these two
cards recently with the embedded "fake" phone number, and I placed the
wrong card in my wallet.  The ATT Call Me card worked despite my using
it to send a message to a different phone number.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 10:41:43 -0800
From: Dan Braimage <[e-mail]>
Subject: Area Code 206 Changes


    Many TELECOM Digest readers must be aware of the new dialing
plan here in Area Code 206. Long distance calls within 206 are
supposed to be dialed 1-206-xxx-xxxx. Local calls aren't affected.
Beginning January 12, dialing the old way, 1-xxx-xxxx, will get you an
intercept recording.

    I got a little pamphlet about this that US West apparently
sent out to everybody (whether everybody understood it is another
matter). It says on the front, "Soon, long distance calls within the
206 area code will become 1 + 206 calls. It explains that the plan
will free up exchanges that look like area codes. There's some weird
junk in it. Check this out:

    "When to use the 206 area code ... even local calls, which do
not require a 1, will need the 0 + 206 if they are placed through an
operator or with a Calling Card." That is to say, if they are dialed
with a 0.

    "For directory assistance calls in Western Washington, you
will need to include the 206 area code before dialing 555-1212."

    Don't they mean 1-555-1212?!

    "For calls to informative numbers beginning with the prefixes
976- or 960-, dial 1 + 206 before the prefix (customers in the
following communities will need to dial 1+503 before 976- and 960-
prefixes: Battle Ground, Camas-Washougal, Castle Rock, Cathlamet,
Longview-Kelso, Ridgefield, Vader, Vancouver, Woodland, Yacolt)."

    Huh?? 503 is, of course, most of Oregon, and those communites
are in that direction. Any body know why they hafta do that?

    "If you have questions about the new plan, please call your
local business Office."

    Advice that folks should keep in mind. I predict chaos.
Western Washington residents can find information about this
weirdnesss on page A12 of their phone book.


deprogram, pob 45622 Seattle WA 98145

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

Subject: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers
From: [e-mail] (Tad Cook)
Date: 24 Dec 91 05:53:06 GMT


The {Wall Street Journal} on December 13, 1991 had a short article
titled AT&T LONG-DISTANCE CALLS FOR SOME WILL BE RAISED.

It said that AT&T is raising prices for direct dialed interstate calls
"citing rising costs of providing service to low-income telephone
users."

I am confused.  I thought that local telephone companies were the only
entities in the telephone business involved in providing subsidized
service to low income customers.  I can understand how this could have
been a cost to AT&T prior to divestiture, but why now?


 Tad Cook     |  Phone:  [phone]             |   MCI Mail: 3288544
 Seattle, WA  |  Packet: KT7H @ N7DUO.WA.USA.NA   |   [e-mail]
              |  USENET: [e-mail]          or...sumax!ole!ssc!tad

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 17:25 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Pac*Bell's Greetings


I told you that I got a card from Contel to my company ... well, in
today's mail here at the hacienda I got a card from Pacific Bell
signed by my "residence rep". Come to think about it, I guess I would
qualify for "major accounts" residence service, if there is such a
thing!


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

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 18:20:30 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Another Way to Make a Profit at Cellular


I've got a new bone to pick with my cellular carrier: they bill for
calls from the moment that SEND is pressed.  Uncompleted calls are
free, but once the call answers, you get billed for the call setup
time.  This isn't so bad in itself, as I am using up airtime just the
same.  The thing that really bothers me is that I get billed for the
long distance part the same way.

Since there's only one line item per call, the long distance charge is
calculated using the same call duration as the airtime.  Couple this
with the fact that they most certainly get six second billing from
AT&T, and they bill me in one minute increments, and they get an extra
minute for every long distance call.  And when you add the fact that
they have T1 lines direct to AT&T and a volume discount plan, they
have a substantial markup even though they charge me "standard" rates.
And we thought airtime was expensive!

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

From: [e-mail] (Chris Johnston)
Subject: ANI Number in 312-465-XXXX Chicago
Date: 10 Dec 91 21:20:21 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science


    I live in Rogers Park in Chicago.  Does any one know a number I
can call that will read back the number I am dialing from?  A 312 or
800 or 900 number would be acceptable.


Thanks,

cj


[Moderator's Note: Actually, you live only a few blocks away from me.
We are both in the Rogers Park CO, although I am not on the HOLlycourt
exchange. I've lived here for years and there is no number of which I
am aware you / we can use.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Subject: Call 1-900-SOMEONE
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1991 03:04:12 GMT


This business of Caller*ID and blocking, etc, raises an interesting
question: would it be not only possible but legal to create a 900 or
976 number that would relay a phone call anonymously?  I recall there
was some discussion regarding this in this group earlier, and someone
said that if the 900 operator did not save call records he could get
busted by the CIA, FBI or the NSA (don't remember which one).

In my opinion such a regulation would be pretty scary, considering
that many European countries don't even save call records because of
the risk of government surveillance.

If this is possible, I see a potential market.  I also see a potential
nightmare.


hpa

INTERNET: [e-mail]   TALK:      [e-mail]
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC     HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4   NeXTMAIL:  [e-mail]
IRC:      Xorbon        X.400:     /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW


[Moderator's Note: Actually, there is already a lawyer doing it out on
the west coast. He charges a couple dollars per call (you use a 900
number to access his outbound lines), and he claims it is totally
anonymous since he keeps no records.  I know nothing about how much he
is making from it, or how frequently he has been sued by recipients of
harrassing and/or fraud calls, if at all.  PAT]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1044
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21115;
          25 Dec 91 14:50 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA00859
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 13:09:22 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17296
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 13:09:07 -0600
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 13:09:07 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1045

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Dec 91 13:08:58 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1045

Index To This Issue:                      Merry Christmas to All of You!

    Cell Roaming Questions (Ken Levitt)
    MCI Card and 10222+ (Bob Denny)
    Problem With Telco Systems Channel Bank (John Boteler)
    Adjacent Area Codes (Dave Niebuhr)
    Caller-ID Chip Spec Sheet Humor (Lauren Weinstein)
    Lack of Phone Numbers in Yellow Page Ads (Steve Forrette)
    Gadgets to Help Take Advantage of Custom Ringing (David Ptasnik)
    PCP Throughput (Jack Winslade)
    Re: Life On Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers (Doctor Math)
    Information Wanted on Houston Phone Features (John Schultz)
    Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro (Richard Budd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 15:44:05 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ken Levitt)
Subject: Cell Roaming Questions


I don't own a cell phone, but a friend in Boston with Cell-One service
is loaning me his phone for a trip to Waterbury, CT in February.

My friend has never used roaming before, so I called Cell-One in
Boston and asked how it worked.  I was given the following
information:

1.  There are no daily roaming fees.
2.  Cost of use will be $0.44/min peak and $0.29/min off-peak.
3.  I don't have to do anything to activate the roaming in CT.
4.  For someone to call me, they must do the following:
    a.  Call 203-856-7626
    b.  Wait for secondary dial tone.
    c.  Dial the cell phone number with area code, but without the "1"
        at the front.

I can't tell if the person on the phone knew what they were talking
about especially when they didn't know where Waterbury was.

Can anyone either confirm or refute this information?  Any additional
tips for a new cell user would be appreciated.


Ken Levitt - On FidoNet gateway node 1:16/390
UUCP: zorro9!levitt
INTERNET: [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Bob Denny)
Subject: MCI Card and 10222+
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1991 21:08:37 GMT
Organization: Alisa Systems, Inc.


Why won't my MCI "Vision" card work with 10222+0+ dialing. It works
fine with 1-800-950-1111 style access to MCI. I have verified that
10222+0+ dialing is getting me into MCI because I hear the "MCI" right
after the "bong".


Robert B. Denny       voice: [phone]
Alisa Systems, Inc.   fax: [phone]
Pasadena, CA          ([e-mail], ..uunet!alisa.com!denny)

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

From: John Boteler <[e-mail]>
Subject: Problems With Telco Systems Channel Bank
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 8:10:05 EST


I am having a problem with a Telco Systems channel bank and voice
interface cards that you might be able to help me with.

Equipment: Telco Systems D24 with 2443-20 L2 channel cards, 6691-00
Ring Generator, 6690-00 L2 power supply; Dialogic D41A voice cards.

The Dialogic cards are about 20 feet of copper away from the T1 bank.
The circuits in trouble are optioned for ground start service.

An incoming call starts the ring generator just fine, but it
immediately trips and stops sending ringing current. In fact, it
happens so fast that the CO never sees it and continues sending
ringback to the caller.

I suspect that the D41A cards are not providing a high enough loop
resistance and the ring trip detector in the Telco Systems card is
getting fooled. It works fine on a 2500 station.

Any similar experiences or clues? I suppose I could just use the
proven PAT method and just put some big 10W resistors in each loop. :)


[e-mail] (John Boteler)

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 12:48:28 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Adjacent Area Codes


I've notice that there are at least to pairs of area codes that are
adjacent to each other which could be one of the many causes for wrong
numbers.

The ones that I've seen are 307 - Wyoming and 308 - Western Nebraska
and 301 - part of Maryland and 302 - Delaware.

Why?  (basically I'm just curious)


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 19:02:27 PST
From: [e-mail] (Lauren Weinstein)
Subject: Caller-ID Chip Spec Sheet Humor


Greetings.  Every so often, the otherwise rather colorless
specification sheets that explain the gory details of integrated
circuits and other components will contain a buried gem.

Years ago, for example, I remember the National data book that
included data on a range of "buffer amplifiers".  There were several
listed: "fast", "very fast", and "damn fast"!  This wasn't a joke
either.  This "damn" part actually existed, and had the full
complement of specification writeups.  Not only were the words "damn
fast" featured in the part name, but the chart that described its
speed listed both the microsecond rating and said "damn fast!" in
parenthesis!  Who ever said that electrical engineers don't have a
sense of humor?  Hmmm, of course, a technical writer might have
provided the name ...

But I digress.  As many of you know, I'm very concerned with the
privacy aspects and possible misuse of caller-ID systems.  Along with
the strictly privacy and legislative aspects of such systems, I try to
keep track of related technical developments as well.

Recently a piece of mail plopped onto my desk containing a sample of,
and the spec sheets for, a one-chip caller-ID demodulation chip made
by Motorola (OK, OK, if you insist, it's part number MC145447).  This
chip demodulates the caller-ID signal and provides it as a serial
stream for use by a PC or similar device.  By the way, in all fairness
to Motorola, *they* do not call it a "caller-ID" chip.  They call it a
"Calling Line Identification" Receiver -- if nothing else a more
accurate description of the function.

As usual with such spec sheets, it's chocked-full of detailed data
including sample circuits, voltage and interfacing requirements, and
the like.  It also shows the format of the data passed to the
subscriber by the telco between the rings.  While we all know about
the simple provision of phone number and date/time that is the most
typical use of these systems (this is called the "single message"
format), there is also another format defined (and decoded by the
chip) called "multiple message" format.  This latter format allows for
the sending of an additional 109 bits of data in addition to the phone
number and date/time.

OK, now we finally get to the humor.  In all the examples of calling
party numbers being shown in the data format descriptions, the spec
sheet uses 512-555-1212 (why 512?  Well, the particular Motorola
division involved *is* in Austin, so ...)  Nothing especially funny
about it so far.  But when you look at the sample data message shown
for the extra 109 bits frame in "multiple message" format, did they
use "MOTOROLA"?  Did they say "JOHN SMITH"?  Naw!  They clearly are
looking towards advanced call screening applications for the mass
market, because it says "MOTHER IN LAW"!


 --Lauren--

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 18:20:07 pst
From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lack of Phone Numbers in Yellow Page Ads


I saw an interesting Yellow Pages ad in the Pacific Bell Sacramento
book.  It was a full-page ad for an auto wrecking yard, and it had no
phone number.  It was not a mistake -- the ad clearly stated that no
information is given over the phone.  This was frustrating to me since
the ad did not state their hours, and there was no way to find out
without possibly wasting a trip out there.

But this brings up an interesting question: Isn't the whole point of
the Yellow Pages to increase usage of the telephone?  I thought that
the ad revenue was secondary to the traffic it generated.  Until I saw
this ad, I would have guessed that there was a rule that you had to
include your phone number.  Apparently, Pacific Bell doesn't have a
problem with this though.


Steve Forrette, [e-mail]

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

From: David Ptasnik <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gadgets to Help Take Advantage of Custom Ringing
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 9:44:25 PDT


[e-mail] (Bob Barker) wrote:

> 1. Is there a commercial device that will listen to the first (full)
> ring, determine if its the normal ring or custom ring, and then
> connect the line to either device A or device B depending on the ring?

Be careful of a product called Ring Rite by CMP, Inc.  While it
appears from it's ads that it will send a call to either line A or
line B, it will not.  It is just a filter.  It will prevent a custom
ring from going to line B, but line A will get all rings.  There is no
way around this that I have found.


Dave    [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 21:33:46 cst
From: [e-mail] (Jack Winslade)
Subject: PCP Throughput
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: DRBBS Technical BBS, Omaha


In a recent message, ([e-mail]) writes:

>> where else can you get long distance data transmission for $1 per
>> hour (or 83 cents per hour under the $50 per month plan?).

> It's not the only game in town any more.  OK, take that $1/hour for a
> 1200-baud connection.  You can hope to pump something close to that
> through the lines if you're lucky.

I beg to differ here.  I have been using PCP for several years now,
and one of our local networks uses it to import mass quantities of
mail.  I keep on top of how much it is costing via PCP as opposed to
how much it would cost using v.32 with ROA, Sprint+, etc.  For our
purpose, PCP is still a wee bit cheaper.

Using Zmodem, or a well-behaved windowed variant of Xmodem, such as
Sealink, throughput approaches 235cps or so for 60-70k files.  There
is a problem with overflow in the PCP system, so one retry will be
generated every 70-80k or so, thus reducing the throughput on large
transfers to about 220cps.

I agree that PCP is almost worthless for the UUCP-g protocol.  I tried
that a couple of years ago and found the throughput abysmal.  Even
with a window size of 7, it would never seem to stabilize.  Typically
it would juke back and forth with bursts of data or ACK packets and
throughput would be 100-120 cps or so.  Ditto with non-windowed
XMODEM.  Almost useless.

However, there is one area in which PCP really helps, and that is for
interactive sessions at 2400bps.  (Yes, I know the response is slow
and jerky.  I can put up with that.)  I hate like heck to call a
long-distance system, read the non-abortable sign-on bulletin (not to
mention the crap like graphic Spuds McKenzie drawings that were
popular a couple of years back), wade through menus, directories, etc.
all while the meter is running at 9-15 cents per minute.  Most of the
interactive sessions are made up of idle time.  PCP does offer the
lowest clock time of any (legal) service I have seen.

The time is coming Real Soon Now where PCP will be more expensive than
direct long distance.  I am watching the figures closely, but the LD
companies will have to cut their rates further (or the modem companies
will have to violate the Shannon limit) to make PCP more expensive for
us.


Good Day          JSW

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

From: [e-mail] (Doctor Math)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:30:19 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Subject: Re: Life on Hold: Unhappy Inbound Campers


[e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

> Let's look at the "inbound" side of things, specifically companies
> that keep people on hold for vast amounts of time to the tune of
> elevator music and frequent requests to "stay on the line, someone
> will be with you shortly".

> Expanding the use of touch-tone automated services could help;
> customers could get many transactions done without waiting. Indeed,
> this is done by an increasing number of companies.

I have yet to see this done right. Let's say you call your credit card
company's 800 number, then punch in your card number and zipcode, and
it tells that you have $xxx available credit. You say to yourself,
"That can't be right!" and press the button to get a live operator.
After holding, live operator comes on and asks you for your card
number and address ... even though the auto-attendant already got that
information from you. It was smart enough to grab the next available
operator, but it didn't bother to tell that operator anything about
you!

Related note: Since "they" generally get ANI delivered in real-time,
perhaps they should allow you to flag your account to only allow
certain transactions (if any at all) with the auto-attendant IF the
ANI information matches their database ... granted, it could be very
inconvenient, but it would be hard to beat for "privacy enhancement".

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

From: [e-mail] (John Schultz)
Subject: Information Wanted on Houston Phone Features
Date: 18 Dec 91 01:32:03 GMT


I like to experiment with any interesting features that the local
telco may have implemented.  I would appreciate it if someone could
send me a list of Houston-area phone features and the necessary access
digits.  Or maybe the telco actually has these listed in the phone
book as opposed to GTE here...  ;>


John Schultz (caffeine abuser)
[e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 17:14:54 EST
From: "Richard Budd" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Fibre Optic Network Planned For Moscow Metro


Floyd Vest writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #1025:

> [e-mail] (Nigel Allen) wrote:

>> The Andrew Corp. of Orland Park, Ill., announced last month that it
>> has signed a joint venture with the Moscow Metro to develop a fiber
>> optic network covering the metropolitan Moscow area.

>> YModerator's Note: Gee, maybe in the process of installing a fiber
>> optic network all over, they might find a way to get some food for the
>> many people who are starving over there at present due to the turmoil
>> the government(s) are in right now ... it might seem a more
>> appropriate use of the money and efforts being expended.   PAT"

> Much of the blame for the hunger in
> Soviet cities is a collapse of the infrastructure -- transporation,
> _communication_, and distribution of resources.  Admittedly most of
> these problems are political in origin.  In the transition to a market
> economy, however, it is important to redevelop the means of production
> and distribution.  Key to that rebuilding is a modern communications
> network.

Charles McGuniess writes in TELECOM Digest V11 #1024

> Pat, you're missing the true problem here! People in Moscow wouldn't
> be starving if they could call Pizza Hut and have pizza delivered!
> It's only the sad shape of the local plant that keeps the people from
> the wide variety of delivered foods that all big city residents enjoy!

There are two issues here.  Investment in the soon-to-be-defunct
Soviet Union to encourage a transition to a free market economy and
aid to help the region out of the mess into which the Communist regime
placed the people.  Andrew Corp.'s investment with the Moscow Metro to
develop a fibre optic network helps with both.  First, it will improve
Moscow's communication infrastructure, which the city requires to
foster a free market economy.  Andrew Corp. will have a better chance
with a direct relationship with Moscow Metro to keep money out of the
hands of the nomenklatura by bringing in modern equipment and
technological know-how instead of just money.  Much of the problem was
exacerbated by past aid being spirited away by the Communist
bureaucracy before ever reaching the people for which it was destined.

It is ominous that American politicans in these recessionary times
agitate that aid earmarked for the Soviet Union should be diverted to
our own country.  The issueis how do we guarantee technological and
financial aid finds it way to the people and institutions that will
best achieve the two objectives outlined in the previous paragraph.
Leaving Russia high and dry smacks too much of American attitudes in
the early 1930s (i.e. Smoot-Hawley).  The result brought the Nazis to
power in Germany and tens of millions of civilian and military
casualties before we got rid of the threat.  With nuclear weapons in
Russia and some of the other republics, we certainly cannot afford to
make the same mistake again.

To provide something TELECOM related, C-SPAN has been broadcasting at
times the Soviet evening news (with attempts at simultaneous English
translations.) World News Tonight it is not what with technical prob-
lems, wrong commentary to the film clip, no film clip, and lack of
graphics.  But there are no commercials for laxatives, maxi-pads, and
Preparation-H.:-} Good travelogues too.


Richard Budd                     Internet: [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer - IBM        Bitnet: [e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1045
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa21961;
          25 Dec 91 15:41 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19778
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 14:00:30 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28698
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 14:00:17 -0600
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 14:00:17 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1046

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Dec 91 14:00:11 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1046

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: Disneyland Speakerphones (Alan Boritz)
    Re: Disneyland Speakerphones (Joe Talbot)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (David G. Lewis)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Carl Moore)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Jamie Hanrahan)
    Re: Silent Night (John McHarry)
    Re: Silent Night (Ihor J. Kinal)
    Re: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates (Carl Moore)
    Re: T1 on Fiber? (Darwei Kung)
    Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night) (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets (Alan Boritz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Disneyland Speakerphones
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 07:30:59 EST
Organization: Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[e-mail] (Douglas Scott Reuben) writes:

>> [Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a
>> while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had
>> phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there
>> apparently for billing purposes only.  PAT]

> I believe I may have posted on this previously, but I can't recall if
> all (or any) of the payphones were 714-555-9xxx. They may have been
> -1444 and other non "9xxx" numbers. They are not standard "payphones",
> but rather Speakerphone Booths. There is a rather large speaker
> mounted in the ceiling with a LARGE "Bell System" logo on it in blue.
> (Pac*Bell may have changed this, however.)

Wow, I thought those things disappeared after the last New York
World's Fair.  Just because they're speakerphones doesn't convey
special numbering sequences.  It would be interesting to see if
legislative, or tariff provision makes it mandatory to RECEIVE as well
as make calls from public phones.  Most of us are too busy to research
the issue, unfortunately.

New York Telephone experimented a few years ago with disabling
incoming calls to pay phones at Columbus Circle, in New York City, at
the request of the NYC Parks Commission.  The experiment was
terminated when someone at Parks made it public knowledge (they meant
well, though).

> (BTW, dialing "958" on the 212-516-xxxx payphones in Penn Sta. NY
> yields a re-order.

Understandable, since Penn Station is in the 212 area. ;-)


Alan
[e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Joe Talbot)
Subject: Re: Disneyland Speakerphones
Date: 23 Dec 91 09:08:59 GMT
Organization: ATI, High desert research center, Victorville, Ca


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Kathryn
Fielding) writes:

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

>> [Moderator's Note: Didn't someone point out here in the Digest quite a
>> while ago that the telephone exhibit at Disneyland in Florida had
>> phones in the 555-9xxx series? The numbers were non-dialable and there
>> apparently for billing purposes only.  PAT]

> Sorry Pat, wrong Orange County - DisneyLAND is in Orange County,
> Calif.  and is in the 714 area code, serviced by Pacific Telesis aka
> PacBell. DisneyWORLD is in Orange County, Florida.

> The telephone exhibit with the speakerphone enclosures is in Anaheim
> at Disneyland just outside the exit to the CircleVision Film. No one
> has yet said that there are any similar exhibits in Florida, so if
> you're looking for them in the Magic Kingdom at Disneyworld, it may be
> a long walk!

The "Chatterbox" phones at dismalland provided me with hours of
entertainment while I was growing up in Orange County. We would
frequently call them and pretend to be "operators" and assist them in
completing their calls, often with three way calling, but even before
three way was available. We'd constructed a hybrid 2 wire/2 wire
repeater (for superior transmission!). We'd occasionally have them
deposit coins, which the phone would hold until we'd hang up. Then the
coins would be refunded to the next users of the booth. We billed this
as a "prize" and thanked them for visiting the Bell System exhibit.

The phones used to have the correct numbers on them [phone],
9957, 9927, 9813, and another I can't recall). Then the numbers were
disguised by putting wrong numbers on. Then the phones were changed to
ESS (from crossbar #5) and the numbers were changed. Some retained the
same last four digits, then they got smart and made them outgoing
calls only class of service. These were regular pay phones with the
handset hanger removed and an instruction card glued in place over the
hole. They used a type 3 speakerphone (yecch) with a larger than
normal (and wrong impedance) loudspeaker attatched, thereby making the
speaker level much too low. They DID ring however. I don't know if
they're still there in service.

Disneyland also had plenty of other Phun stuff that I'll tell you
about in another article.


[e-mail]
Slow mail: P.O. Box 1750, Helendale California 92342
Phone: [phone]     Fax [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (david.g.lewis)
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 15:04:41 GMT


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

[list of various telecom-related songs deleted]

> Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-)

Manhattan Transfer did one, I believe called "Operator".  I'd post the
lyrics, but since it's a gospel tune, I'd probably get flamed for
foisting someone's religious beliefs upon others ... [inside joke for
the AT&T readers who also read att.workplace ...]


David G Lewis        AT&T Bell Laboratories
[e-mail]  or  !att!houxa!deej      ISDN Evolution Planning

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:33:29 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311)


I think PEnnsylvania 6-5000 is still in use in New York.  (It would
be 212-736-5000 now.)

In the message I sent about the Buddy Holly show, there is a reference
to the song "Chantilly Lace" by the Big Bopper.

The song "Memphis" had "Long distance information, give me Memphis,
Tennessee ...".

The Beatles have at least two references to telephones:

"No Reply" -- "I tried to telephone, they said you were not home,
that's a lie."

"You Won't See Me" -- "When I call you up, your line's engaged."
(where "engaged" is the British term for "busy")


[Moderator's Note: Also, don't forget the movie about Dracula a couple
years ago with the take-off on Pennsylvania 6-8000 where the phone
number was Transylvania 6-8000.   PAT]

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311)
Date: 23 Dec 91 17:57:00 PST
Organization: Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA


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

> In the 40's Glenn Miller dialed "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" for a hit.

This was the number of the NYC hotel where the Glenn Miller orchestra
was playing a New Year's Eve gig at which they first performed the
song.

> Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-)

An obscure early rock and roll artist named Chuck Berry recorded a
little song called "Memphis".  The title has nothing to do with
telecom, but the lyrics certainly do.  ("Long distance information /
Get me Memphis Tennessee...")

There is a well-known gospel song (with plenty of pop crossover)
called "Operator".  Manhattan Transfer did a dynamite version of this.
It's on their Greatest Hits album.

Country music fans will no doubt mention Glen Campbell's "Wichita
Lineman".


Jamie Hanrahan, Kernel Mode Consulting, San Diego CA
Internet:  [e-mail], [e-mail], or [e-mail]
Uucp:  ...{crash,eisner,uunet}!cmkrnl!jeh

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

From: [e-mail] (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: Silent Night
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: 23 Dec 91 14:01:12 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Levenson) writes:

> On a technical note, does anybody know if/whether/how these things
> work in an area like this one?  Here most subscriber lines are not
> metalic to the C.O. but use SLC-something that provides a digital
> multiplex over T-1 facilities?

Most SLC-96 installations include a metallic pair for testing.  I
would guess they use this.  All this sounds like they are using a test
trunk to read the meter anyway.


John ([e-mail])

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 14:42:58 EST
From: [e-mail] (Ihor J Kinal)
Subject: Re: Silent Night
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


> [Moderator's Note: There are no privacy violations merely because the
> reading is done electronically rather than manually.

This may be far-fetched, but someone monitoring my water meter will
have a darn good idea when I go on vacation, at least until I hook up
my dishwasher/ washing machine/etc. to operate on timers.

Of course, that's getting pretty sophisticated, and since I don't live
in a high-class neighborhood, yet [but just wait until I win that
Publishing House Sweepstakes!!!!], I'm not real worried ...


[standards disclaimers]
Ihor Kinal  att!cbnewsh!ijk

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 818:54 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr, BNL CCD, 516-282-3093)
Subject: Re: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Larry
Cole) wrote:

> Is anyone aware of a similiar dataset which gives lat/long coordinates
> for Postal Zip Codes ?

> Thanks.

There is one at the University of Michigan.

For unix users the address is:

   martini.eecs.umich.edu 3000

For VMS users it is:

   martini.eecs.umich.edu/port=3000

There is also a weather database:

   madlab.sprl.umich.edu 3000 (unix)

   madlab.sprl.umich.edu/port=3000 (VMS)

There is a gotcha with the postal zip codes.  They aren't correct.
When I tried the database for the first time, I found that a town in
Nebraska that is geographically NORTHWEST of Omaha to be SOUTHWEST
instead.

This database will give you the altitude, population and any other
goodies such as county seats, state capitols, etc.

Since a community name can appear in several states (e.g. Lexington),
follow it immediately with a ",state" (ie. Lexington,KY)

Good luck with it.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 14:28:59 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Bellcore V & H Coordinates to Geographic Coordinates


Sorry, I am not aware of a dataset giving lat./long. coordinates for
postal zip codes.  In the United States, however, you can obtain maps
which show roughly where the first three digits of a zipcode are to be
found; these maps are by state.

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

From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: T1 on Fiber?
Date: 22 Dec 91 16:59:12 PST


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(david.g.lewis) writes:

> While it is true that a single pair of fibers can carry much more
> traffic than four copper wires, and that if this capacity is fully
> used the cost per unit bandwidth is far lower, installing a single DS1
> over copper will in most cases be significantly less expensive than
> installing the same DS1 over fiber.  Especially for LECs, where the
> copper plant is in place and can be used for individual DS1s, saving
> the installed or new fiber plant for higher capacity service.

A popular practice today involves a combination of fiber and copper
spans.  The fiber span would provide a high capacity pipe from the
central office to each indivisual fiber hub.  From the hub, T1
circuits can be provided by copper span.  Typically, a fiber loop can
support distance as far away as 20 to 30 miles.  Considering the
number of repeaters for each T1 span, and the likehood of failures for
each, true saving comes from maintenance and provision cost, not just
installation.


Darwei Kung

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

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 20:44:37 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Meter Reading via Phone Line (was Silent Night)
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    The use of the customer telephone line for reading other
utility meters is interesting.  I've long thought that someone (maybe
me) should make a box that plugs into the standard socket for a
kilowatt hour meter.  This box would continue to measure kilowatt
hours, but would also include a radio data trasceiver with a built in
antenna (all in that little glass jar).  It would, of course, be
powered by the electricity readliy available.  The electric utility
would poll this thing one a month or so, over some UHF frequency.  The
entire exchange could be done in 250 mS or so, allowing one frequency
to read quite a few meters once per month.  This meter would also
include a couple pulse inputs for the electric and gas meters.  The
electric company could then sell billing services (or at least meter
reading services) to the gas and water companies (or, maybe someone
could do gas powered radios).

    I don't think the radio equipment would be any more expensive
than the special telco equipment, and there would be no telco charge
for reading each meter.  Further, the unit is self contained.  No
wires need to be run around the house between the meters and the telco
line.

    This does remind me of a project a friend of mine did for a TV
ratings company.  They modified a CATV converter box to include a
processor that kept track of what channel you were watching then.  Now
and then, it would pop up on the screen with a "who's watching"
message.  The viewer would respond with the TV remote control (unless
only the dog was watching).  Late at night, this system would then
dump the data over the customers dial up line to the central computer.
To avoid running wires all over the customer's house, they gave the
customer a cordless phone.  The converter box also had a "cordless
phone" in it.  When it was time to call, it went off hook just like
any other cordless phone and placed its call.

    I thought that was a very clever way to lower installation
costs on such a machine.


Harold Hallikainen              [e-mail]
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     [e-mail]
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone [phone] fax [phone]
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI

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

Subject: Re: Help Needed Wiring Telco Headsets
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 07:38:08 EST
Organization: Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[e-mail] (Doctor Math) writes:

> I have two of the old-style Genuine Bell headsets (made by
> Plantronics) which sort of hang over one ear and terminate in a little
> box with two 1/4" phono plugs. A few years ago, I actually had one of
> them interfaced to a phone. It worked great, but I can't for the life
> of me remember exactly how it was done. Symbols inside the box seem to
> indicate that sleeve/sleeve goes to the earpiece, and that tip/tip is
> amplified output from the microphone, but recent attempts to hook them
> up fail miserably.  Can anyone out there in Telecom Land give me (a)
> instructions (b) pointers to where instructions may be found on how to
> hook these headsets up to a standard 500 or 2500 set?

You need either a phone with a built-in headphone amplifier (like an
operator's console, or a 514/2514/etc.), or an add-on headphone
amplifier like the one's that Plantronics and other vendors make.
Some amps are better than others, and they don't all work well.  I
have a 514 set that sort of works ok with my Starset, but it worked
much better on a regular centrex console (probably with more generous
battery).  They just don't make them the way they used to. ;-)


Alan

[e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1046
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa24725;
          25 Dec 91 18:15 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA03123
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 16:38:23 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA07169
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 16:38:09 -0600
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 16:38:09 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1047

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Dec 91 16:38:09 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1047

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Jack Decker)
    Re: AOS Use for Hospital Patients (Dave Niebuhr)
    Re: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida (John McHarry)
    Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311 ([e-mail])
    Re: Is My Phone OK in the UK? (Ken Thompson)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Richard Budd)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Carl Moore)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (Warren Burstein)
    Re: PC Based Key-Systems/PBX's (Alan Boritz)
    Re: How do I Program Radio Shack Call Forwarding Box? (Marc T. Kaufman)
    Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations? (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network (Howard Page)
    New AT&T Charge For Overseas Information (Emmanuel Goldstein)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Dec 91 18:19:47 CST
From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU?


In a message dated 19 Dec 91 08:13:47 GMT, well![e-mail]
(Steve Vance) wrote:

> I called up to see about getting this "Distinctive Ringing" Custom
> Calling Feature on my home phone.

> If you don't mind typing in the description of this service from the
> front of your white pages, the Pacific Bell Customer Service person I
> talked to is interested in what this service looks like and costs in
> other parts of the country, and I promised I would post this and mail
> the responses to her.

 From page 7 of the Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan white pages (Michigan
Bell) under "Optional Services:"

Multi-Ring Service
(Home) First Number $5.00
       Second Number $4.00

(Business) First Number $5.25
       Second Number $4.25

Lets you have up to three phone numbers on one line, each with a
different ring.

The header of this page notes that "All charges are per month.
Options not available in all areas, installation charges may apply."


Jack Decker  : [e-mail]   : FidoNet 1:154/8

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1991 8:09:02 -0500 (EST)
From: [e-mail] (Dave Niebuhr)
Subject: Re: AOS Use for Hospital Patients


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Jeff Schweiger) writes:

> I have a feeling that the hospital using AOS's to make their patient
> phones a profit center is probably legal, but I thought I'd ask
> telecom folks if they knew.  (Remember, this is not a COCOT -- no coins
> involved).

I had a similar experience at another hospital on Long Island.  The
room phones were AOS yet the pay phones were NYTel with AT&T being the
long distance carrier.

It is legal and a d****d ripoff since the patients are paying
exhorbitant daily rates to begin with.

On the other hand, when my daughter was in the hospital after giving
birth to my first grandson recently, the room phones were connected to
NYTel, not an AOS.  No hassles at all.  She was connected to NYTel for
out of local area calls quickly.

To me that means the more profitable a hospital is, the more they want
to stick it to the patients (I think I know which one the poster is
referring to).


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093


[Moderator's Note: Years and years ago,  hospitals, hotels, university
dormitories and furnished apartment buildings all offered telephone
service at a break-even charge -- and sometimes at a loss! -- under
the theory that the guests (or residents/patients, etc) were entitled
to at least that much courtesy. Phone service was more expensive for
the establishments then because live operators had to staff the
switchboards around the clock, and payroll is invariably the biggest
expense of any business. Yet they did it, and as one manager of an
apartment-hotel here in Chicago said to me, "we lose money on the
phones, but we feel we *have* to provide it for the tenants."  No more
Mister Good Guy, eh?     PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (John McHarry)
Subject: Re: Call Trace on Usage Basis in Florida
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: 23 Dec 91 13:02:38 GMT


[e-mail] (Dave Leibold) writes:

> The Florida PSC has approved Southern Bell's offering of Automatic
> Number Identification (ANI) Service to business customers in Florida.
> ANI provides the billing number of the calling line. Whenever you dial
> a 440- or 930- number, your telephone number is provided to the
> business you have called.  This service is not Caller ID Service and
> therefore the Caller ID blocking codes will not apply in these
> instances.

That is interesting.  It seems to make caller ID blocking an
unreliable service, unless you are a guru and know ALL the exception
numbers.

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 10:32:07 -0500
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Pseudo-Area Code 311


In the immortal words of [e-mail] (Doctor Math) in
comp.dcom.telecom:

> plains![e-mail] (Brett G Person ) writes:

>> In the early 80's there was a pop song about a girl named Jennie.  The
>> chorus of which gave her 'phone number'.  Except that this happened to
>> be a valid phone number in some parts of the country.  These poor
>> people got hundreds of calls for the fictitious girl.

> This problem has also been reported in conjunction with a song by
> AC/DC, wherein the lead singer screeches out some random digits at one
> point in the song. They are apparently not intended to be a real phone
> number, but this does not stop people from trying :)

In The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, the odds against the two main
characters being rescued by a passing ship after being tossed out an
airlock are given- "which, by an extraordinary coincidence, just
happened to be the telephone number of an Islington flat where Arthur
once went to a very good party and met a very nice girl whom he
entirely failed to get off with."  In the book of the scripts to the
original radio show, Douglas Adams notes that the number is a real
number of a real flat in Islington, where he was living at the time,
"but the person living there now has nothing to do with Hitchhiker's
so please stop calling him."

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

From: Ken Thompson <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Is My Phone OK in the UK?
Date: 23 Dec 91 15:03:35 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation Wichita, KS


[e-mail] (Ian Watson) writes:

> Will it catch fire, refuse to work, trash the BT exchange, get me
> a criminal record?  Or am I likely to find it works fine?
> I don't want to electrocute myself or get thrown in jail.

A friend has the same questions about taking a laptop with modem to
the UK.  She wants to call back here to check some online services.  I
know the jacks are not compatible but with some wire and clips is
their basic wiring the same ring/tip loop.  What is the UK's wire
color coding?  Here generally the loop is red/green.  Thanks for any
direct replies.


Ken Thompson   N0ITL
NCR Corp.  Peripheral Products Division   Disk Array Development
3718 N. Rock Road  Wichita KS 67226   [phone]
[e-mail]

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

From: "Richard Budd" <[e-mail]>
Date: 17 December 1991, 09:04:09 EST
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers


A friend of mine in Plattsburgh, NY handles periods of wrong number
messages by putting her message in French on the answering machine
befor recording it again in English.  Everybody who knows her well is
aware she is bilingual and anticipates the English message.  I don't
know how effective it was in reducing wrong numbers.  Last I heard
from her, she was a nurse in Desert Storm.

For those who want to try this, I can't offer French but can give you
an acceptable message in German.  You can use this REALLY to tell
strangers they have reached a wrong number.

"Gruss Gott.  Sie rufen (NXX) AAA-BBBB* an.  Am Ton lassen Sie mir
bitte Ihren Namen, ihr Telefonnummer, und eine kuerze Mitteilung.
Dazu rufe ich Ihnen wieder.  Danke!"  (Germans reading TELECOM can
check for errors :-})

*German numbers. 0=null, 1=eins, 2=zwei(use zwo), 3=drei, 4=vier,
5=fuenf, 6=sechs, 7=sieben, 8=acht, 9=neun.

Another greeting in Hungarian may soon be on it's way.


Richard Budd           Internet: [e-mail]
VM Systems Programmer  Bitnet: [e-mail]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:03:09 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers


A certain four-digit extension, sinced moved from my office, would
occasionally get a wrong number call which turned out only to be the
middle two digits being reversed.  The intended destination of such
calls?  The gynecology clinic!

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

From: [e-mail] (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Date: 23 Dec 91 10:34:51 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: WorldWide Software


In <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Alan Boritz) writes:

> [Moderator's Note: Not only do ex-husbands pull that scam on their
> impoverished former wives, but so do debtors when the bill collector
> comes a-calling!    PAT]

I once knew a guy who worked at a collection agency.  They had to
locate the debtor before taking (legal) actions such as garnishing
salary.  Sometimes they had a telephone number of a relative, and had
to convince the relative to put them in touch with the debtor.  A
standard line was that he had ordered something perishable and the
address was unclear.  It once happened that the relative demanded to
know what the merchandise was, and the caller, thinking quickly, came
up with "Panamanian racing squirrels".


[e-mail]

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

Subject: Re: PC Based Key-Systems/PBX's
From: Alan Boritz <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 91 02:14:24 EST
Organization: Harry's Place - Mahwah NJ - [phone]


[e-mail] (Jeff Sicherman) writes:

> Are there any PC-based key systems or PBX's commercially available?
> (Small scale). By that I mean systems that are composed of PC cards to
> which one hooks up CO and station lines instead of a custom designed
> box with proprietary cards.

Yes, there is/was.  I recall discussing the merits of one such system
with one of my former co-workers about three years ago.  I don't have
any of the product literature handy (I'll see if he remembers, if I
can locate him), but it was a very small switch, with something like
the capacity of a grown-up Merlin. ;-)

One of the distinct disadvantages of a PC-based switch, however, is
fragility, as compared to relatively low-maintenance switch equipment.
We (who worked at a NYC government telecom office) also rejected it as
a potential product for our applications, since it was MUCH easier to
buy a multi-million dollar interconnect than it was to get the Mayor's
Office to approve purchase of a pc (no joke!).


Alan
[e-mail] (Alan Boritz)
Harry's Place BBS - Mahwah NJ - [phone]

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

From: [e-mail] (Marc T. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: How do I Program Radio Shack Call Forwarding Box?
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 23 Dec 91 16:36:22 GMT


[e-mail] (Greg Darnell) writes:

> I just purchased a Radio Shack "Call Forwarding System" CFS-200, cat.
> no. 43-155, at a closeout price of $30.

But does it fit in a cheese box?


Marc Kaufman ([e-mail])


[Moderator's Note: You forgot the smiley :) if you intended to have
one there!   PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 09:43:37 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    Previously, it was mentioned that one might dial a leading
digit (I think a 0) from within Sweden, but not if calling from
outside.  This variation in numbering has always made it interesting
for me to try to place international calls.  People give me phone
numbers that work great within their countries, but I don't know how
much of the number represents what.  Did they include a country code,
a city code?  Since the number of digits in the number also varies
country to country, I often end up calling an international operator
to try to figure out what I actually need to dial.  Is there some
standard clear way of printing phone numbers so that anyone in the
world can make sense of them?  For example, I have area code and a
seven digit phone number for phone, and another for fax.  To allow for
international callers who may not have the US country code memorized,
should we add that to our stationery?

    This sorta gets back to a previous discussion about the
leading 1, allowing for variable length phone numbers, etc.  How about
if we are in the same country, we can drop the country code when
dialing; if we are in the same area code, we can drop the area code.
But, we'd be allowed to dial all the digits we want (including country
and area codes from within those countries and areas).  These "most
significant digits" would be assumed to be the same as the originating
phone, unless otherwise specified (or even allowing them to be
specified the same).  So, when we give someone our phone number, we
give the whole number (integer?) and he/she can drop leading digits,
if desired.  We, of course, determine the end of dialing by a # key or
a timeout (as discussed earlier).


Harold Hallikainen              [e-mail]
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     [e-mail]
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone [phone] fax [phone]
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 09:52:46 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: Are Phone Books Archived For Future Generations?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    I'm glad that a library is saving old phone books.  I recently
got into a discussion with a librarian where I teach.  I'd always
thought libraries should never throw anything away.  Even old editions
of books that now have newer editions have historical significance.
"Unpopular" books that are "never checked out" also have historical
significance.  Due to space limitations, librarians become editors,
trying to decide what is worth keeping.  I see their jobs as saving
everything and catalogging it so we can find it.  In some of my
research, I've looked at the 1911 Congressional Record.  It was great
to have that available.  I was probably the only one at that library
that read it that year.


Harold Hallikainen              [e-mail]
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     [e-mail]
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone [phone] fax [phone]
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 17:18:50 EST
From: [e-mail] (Howard Page)
Subject: Re: Swedish Telecommunications Network
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories


While we're on the subject, when visiting Stockholm, be sure to see
the telephone museum. It's neat (and I'm sure it would be better if I
spoke Swedish!)


Howard G. Page

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

From: well![e-mail] (Emmanuel Goldstein)
Subject: New AT&T Charge For Overseas Information
Date: 24 Dec 91 08:47:40 GMT


As of Saturday 12/21 AT&T has begun charging $1.50 for every
connection to overseas directory assistance. The charge applies
whether or not you get a number but won't apply if you don't get
connected. This is unfortunate -- up until now the service had been
free. If other companies still allow free overseas information, I'll
switch to them for my international calls. Anyone have info on this?


[e-mail]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1047
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa25595;
          25 Dec 91 19:06 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA17820
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 17:24:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA09179
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 17:24:02 -0600
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 17:24:02 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1048

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Dec 91 17:23:33 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1048

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Re: AT&T Echo to the UK (Andy Sherman)
    Re: AT&T Echo to the UK (Mark Terrible)
    Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (John Higdon)
    Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (David Niebuhr)
    Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU? (Harold Hallikainen)
    Re: Rail Phone (Larry Appleman)
    Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call (Peter da Silva)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:21:35 EST
Subject: Re: AT&T Echo to the UK
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Murray Hill, NJ


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

> [ complaints about short time-constant echoes on AT&T circuits
> to the UK ]

> AT&T *always* had a slight delay -- if you hit a Touch Tone key right
> when the other side was making some sound (FAX carrier or "not in
> area" carphone message), you could hear the touch tone returned to
> you. It wasn't as long as what one would expect from a satellite
> circuit, so maybe they are using fiber one way and satellite the other
> way? (Hey, AT&T *still* uses satellites to Hawaii!)

NOBODY, but NOBODY, would use different media for the incoming and
outgoing sides of a call.  Your call does not go over its own fiber,
(or microwave repeater, or satellite transponder, or cable).  It gets
a 64Kbps time slot of a digital trunk, or a voiceband-wide chunk of
spectrum in an analog trunk (of which there are virtually none left in
AT&T land) or a voiceband hunk of spectrum in an FDM satellite
channel).  The switching and administration software required to
manage routing calls with inbound and outbound on different trunks is
too horrible to even contemplate.

And, yes, *every* carrier still has satellite circuits for international
calling and places like Alaska and Hawaii.  (Floyd from Alascom can
correct me if I'm wrong about Alaska.  I believe that Alascom is the
only IXC there.)  There are some places where a satellite is the only
way to get there.  There are other places where satellite circuits
provide needed excess capacity.  To the UK there are undersea fiber,
undersea cable, and satellite circuits.  I believe that all three
media are used by all the major carriers, but guess who takes the lead
in laying new undersea cables?  (Points off if you answered Sprint).
However, the older but servicible facilities are not ripped out when a
new fiber comes on line.  You wouldn't want to pay the long distance
charges that would result if they were.

I don't know why you are getting the echos on your calls.  There are a
*lot* of tricky bits in connecting an international call, including
matching up different digitization standards between the US and CCITT.
Your problem could even be a bad trunk between your LEC and AT&T.  Did
you try all these calls from the same calling number (or at least the
same end office)?

> Any reason why AT&T is apparently so cheap that they can't have full
> fiber BOTH ways? I always use AT&T for all my calls, but if by dialing
> 10333+ for Sprint I get better connections than AT&T, and AT&T after
> all these years is STILL using satellites, I think maybe I'll give
> some of my business to Sprint instead.

As I said before, nobody splits the inbound and outbound directions of
circuits onto different trunking media.  Either you're on a cable, on
a fiber, a microwave channel or on a satellite on any particular
trunking leg.  If you think that Sprint has no satellites to the UK,
try using them at a time when their demand is high.  *Everybody*
overflows into the air.

If the echo problem persists, I suggest you call AT&T repair service.
But a word of advice -- don't try to diagnose the problem, just give
them the symptoms.  Your credibility will be much higher if you don't
give impossible technical explanations for what you are observing.


Andy Sherman/AT&T Bell Laboratories/Murray Hill, NJ
AUDIBLE:  [phone]
READABLE: [e-mail]  or att!ulysses!andys
What? Me speak for AT&T?  You must be joking!

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

Subject: Re: AT&T Echo to the UK
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 00:39:07 -0500
From: mole-end![e-mail]


> I just got off the phone with someone in London, calling via AT&T.

> I heard her just fine, but she said there was "noise" after I spoke,
> and it sounded as if there was some slight delay.

> So I tried calling a FAX number in Oxfordshire, ...

> AT&T *always* had a slight delay ... It wasn't as long as what one would
> expect from a satellite circuit, so maybe they are using fiber one way
> and satellite the other way? (Hey, AT&T *still* uses satellites to Hawaii!)

This has been AT&T's practice for a long time: satellite in one leg
and terrestrial the other.  It is *just* noticible, unless you are
doing block data transfers with acknowledgement; then it can be
devastating.

> Any reason why AT&T is apparently so cheap that they can't have full
> fiber BOTH ways? ...

For one thing, the fiber circuits are being swamped.  You'd think that
with two fiber cables in place there would be plenty of capacity,
right?  Nope.  Transatlantic traffic is booming beyond booming.  They
are working on a third one, with a fourth being planned.  I've
forgotten the numbers, but the third cable will something like triple
the available channels -- and they don't expect it to be enough for more
than a few years.

Because the fiber cables have repeaters in them, they can't change to
better modulation schemes on the existing cables to add channels.

On the far horizon: erbium doped fibers that are self-repeating (when
pumped with a second laser) and with them, maybe synchronous optical.
If 10% of the optical band can be recovered, that's about 40
terabits/second per channel (allowing two bits per cycle).  A more
reasonable number is 1/10%, for 400 gigabits/second.  Now THAT's a lot
of chit-chat!

Synchronous optical has been demonstrated in the lab with a very good
capacity-distance product.  I'm sure that there are a bunch of
problems, but the notion is fantastic: phase-modulating the light
itself and recovering the modulation.  I don't know whether
self-repeating fiber would preserve the modulation or not.


(This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end   Mark Terribile
uunet!mole-end, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 10:26:46 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


> My friend, whose name is Lake (Ed) Trump, is a real OT brass pounder.
> And one of his past times is networking over the phone with other OT
> BP's.  I don't know how many are doing this, but they are hooking up
> old 300 baud modems so they can key the darn things with straight
> keys, and receive it with sounders!  (I bet our sounder is the last
> actively used, even if not officially used, sounder on a real No. 9
> board in a Toll Center anywhere in the country.)

    Pretty neat history!  Brass pounding over the phone sounds
pretty expensive to me.  Ham radio would be a less expensive way of
staying in contact with other BPs.  Perhaps Internet could use another
form of UUENCODE and UUDECODE that would accept hand keyed American
Morse and convert it to a for suitable for transmission through email
and talk.


Harold Hallikainen              [e-mail]
Hallikainen & Friends, Inc.     [e-mail]
141 Suburban Road, Bldg E4      phone [phone] fax [phone]
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7590  telex 4932775 HFI UI

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 00:27 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers


[e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

> I am confused.  I thought that local telephone companies were the only
> entities in the telephone business involved in providing subsidized
> service to low income customers.  I can understand how this could have
> been a cost to AT&T prior to divestiture, but why now?

I can only guess, but apparently since someone decided that telephone
service was some sort of "right" to be enjoyed by everyone whether
they could afford it or not, long-distance must also be included in
the list of life's basic necessities.

Note, however, that only a small amount of telephone service is
considered necessary; those who want more are just being piggy and
should be subsidizing those who cannot afford any. This is all for the
good of society, mind you. Just like those who use less than 500 KWH
of electricity deserve to have it paid for by those of us who happen
to use more (or at least heavily subsidized thereby). At least this is
the California way -- a state that has businesses lining up to leave due
to confiscatory taxes and nightmarish regulations and bureaucracy. Not
to mention a legislature that firmly believes the state's first
responsibility is to transfer the wealth from producers to deadbeats
directly through taxation and welfare ... oops, I got carried away!

What I meant to say was that since our country seems to be headed down
the socialist path, we will probably be seeing more and more services
"socialized", that is, people who can afford the service and pay the
bill will pay more to make up for those who cannot. The general
pattern is that more and more things will be deemed "essential"
(voicemail next?) and will come under the "ability to pay" tiered
structure.

It is interesting to observe that access to telephone service has come
to be considered close to food, shelter, and clothing in its
importance. Especially in light of the fact that it still carries a
"Federal Excise Tax"! Oh, but I suppose they do not call it a 'luxury'
tax anymore.


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

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 08:02:50 -0500
From: [e-mail] (david niebuhr)
Subject: Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers


In <[e-mail]> Tad Cook ([e-mail]) writes:

> I am confused.  I thought that local telephone companies were the only
> entities in the telephone business involved in providing subsidized
> service to low income customers.  I can understand how this could have
> been a cost to AT&T prior to divestiture, but why now?

Speculation on.  When a low income registers for low cost service with
their local telco, is is possible that the telco forwards the
information to the LD carrier and the LD carrier applies the low cost
rates?

Speculation off.


Dave Niebuhr      Internet: [e-mail] / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl
Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973  (516)-282-3093

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 10:06:52 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Harold Hallikainen)
Subject: Re: How Much Does Distinctive Ringing Cost YOU?
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo


    Since "Ringmate" or whatever you want to call it seems to be
very much like an old fashioned party line, could we just order a
couple numbers on a party line?  Telco probably doesn't get too many
requests like that.

    I guess Ringmate uses different ring patterns of the same
ringer frequency.  Going back to the old party line technique of using
different ringer frequencies might be interesting.  You could have a
little switch on your fax machine to select the ringer frequency it
responds to.


Harold

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

From: [e-mail] (Larry Appleman)
Subject: Re: Rail Phone
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1991 09:20:33 GMT


Michael Rosen writes,

> I was riding the train home today and, on my way off the train, I noticed
> something new.  They have 'Rail Phones' in booths on the train.  At least, I
> only saw one, in the car I was in just before the snack car.  Does anybody
> know how these work?  I assume they only take credit cards, calling cards,
> etc.?...

Railfones have for several years been on Amtrak's Metroliners (which
run mainly between New York City and Washington, D.C.) and San Diegans
(in Southern California).  Last year, with the addition of New England
Express trains, Railfone service became available between New York
City and Boston.  More recently, Railfones were added to most
Northeast Corridor trains, and to San Joaquins (between Oakland and
Bakersfield, California).

GTE Railfone Incorporated -- a subsidiary of GTE Airfone Incorporated
 -- must be one of the world's smallest telephone companies.  With two
or three Railfones per train, the total number can't be more than a
couple of hundred.

Here's how you use Railfones: They accept AT&T Calling Cards, American
Express, Carte Blanche, Diners Club, Discover Card, MasterCard, and
Visa.  Charges appear on your credit card statement.  Domestic rates
are $1.50 per minute (or fraction) plus a $1.50 access charge.
International rates are $1.50 per minute (or fraction) plus a $1.50
access charge.  800 numbers are charged at domestic rates.  (I have no
idea what would've happened if people called 1-800-555-5555 from a
Railfone.)  Directory assistance calls are free.

I ride Amtrak several times a month, and I rarely see anyone using
Railfones.  (More often, I've seen people using their own personal
portable cellular 'phones on trains.)  A couple of times, I've used
Railfones, mostly for "guess where I'm calling from" calls.  The
large, comfortable booths provide a very luxurious telephoning
experience, but the price seems way too high.


Larry Appleman, P.O. Box 214, Cambridge B, Mass. 02140, [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (peter da silva)
Subject: Re: Illinois Bell Figures Out How to Charge Per Call
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 18:43:28 GMT


In article <[e-mail]>, motcid![e-mail]
(Ken A. Irwin) writes:

> Personally I never thought residential CID was/is a very useful
> feature, and I have no problem with people paying out the nose for a
> service whose only unique feature amounts to revenge or apathy. The
> CLASS features do everything thats the least bit useful without
> knowing the number and without the silly box.

That's just plain not true. Call Return will work to deter prank calls
for a short period, until people become aware that you don't really
have their phone number. Caller ID will have a more lasting effect,
since avoiding it requires more effort (and if you have ID-blocking
and Blocked-ID-blocking it's even more useful).

(Speaking of these features: I've advocated them since I first heard
about Caller-ID ... not just in response to the security concerns).

> Just out of curiosity why do you need to know the number of the early
> morning caller, if you can auto callback, or block last originating,
> or call IBT for a trace last originating?

Auto Callback is (as I indicated above) not very useful long term.
Block Last Originating opens you up to a denial-of-service attack (the
prankster is at a location where you normally receive 'real' calls as
well, for example). And trace forces you to escalate a probem to the
level of the criminal justice system long before that's necessary.

(And dealing with the CJS can be incredibly frustrating, even when you
have all your ducks lined up.)

> CLASS allows all of these features on a bill 'em as you use 'em
> basis. Now I for one answer my calls from the phone closest to the
> room I'm in, so in addition to the monthly charge I've got to buy
> several display boxes, or run to the room with the box.

Why? Having Caller-ID doesn't force you to not get any other CLASS
features.  Having Caller ID available doesn't even force you to get
Caller ID. Just because you can't think of a reason to use it doesn't
mean that others are similarly restricted.

> I just wish people would look at the big picture as to what CID is,
> and not look at it as a nifty gadget, you give away a hell of a lot
> for what you get.

I just wish people would look at the big picture as to what CID is,
and not just look at it as a threat. You get a lot in exchange for a
(historically recent) anonymity that's frequently abused.

(I know, I know, this should be in the Telecom Security digest. I've
about given up on it, though, since everyone there seems to be either
of the "ban it" or "it should be free with no restrictions" schools.)


Peter da Silva
Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;  [phone]

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1048
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa27559;
          25 Dec 91 21:29 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA08780
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 19:47:55 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA28356
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 19:47:40 -0600
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 19:47:40 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1049

TELECOM Digest     Wed, 25 Dec 91 19:47:37 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1049

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia: Two Special Issues to Follow (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: AOS Use for Hospital Patients (David Singer)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311) (Robert Virzi)
    Re: Cellular Roaming Questions (Monty Solomon)
    Re: Cellular Roaming Questions (Scott Reuben)
    Re: Silent Night (Joshua E. Muskovitz)
    Re: Rail Phone (Carl Moore)
    Re: Disneyland Speakerphones (Craig R. Watkins)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (John Higdon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 18:40:36 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia: Two Special Issues to Follow


I have a large collection of replies on hand here to two recent
threads which were very controversial.  The Bell Canada Caller-ID
Alternate Number thread drew many (as yet unpublished) replies, and
the thread from earlier this week responding to the AT&T/USA Today
billing for calls to the information service offered by the newspaper
is the other.

To close both of these threads out -- both have been well explored
here -- I'll send out a special issue devoted strictly to replies on
both threads with no further commentary from myself. I'm handling
these as special issues so that readers not interested in pursuing the
topics further can ditch them unread without missing other messages or
issue numbers.

Watch for them Wednesday night.


PAT

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

Subject: Re: AOS Use for Hospital Patients
Reply-To: [e-mail] (David Singer)
Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 16:40:24 -0800
From: "David Singer" <[e-mail]>


When our son was born in February, 1990, I was delighted to find that
the hospital provided free local calls from all the rooms (the
previous time I'd been involved with a hospital, there was a $3/day
charge for a phone in your room).  They didn't say what carrier they
used for LD service, so I decided to play it safe and sent them over
MCI via 950-1022; the billing went through without incident.  (And
when I needed a new battery for my camera, I put *that* call out on
the local 2-meter repeater ... but that's a different story!)

By the way, this same hospital has COCOTs in the public areas, so they
still need some enlightening about proper telephone etiquette.


David Singer -- Internet: [e-mail]   BITNET: SINGER at ALMADEN
                Voice: [phone]              Fax: [phone]
(If I needed a disclaimer, I'd put one here.)

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 13:02:28 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311)
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


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

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

>> Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-)

> An obscure early rock and roll artist named Chuck Berry recorded a
> little song called "Memphis".  The title has nothing to do with
> telecom, but the lyrics certainly do.  ("Long distance information /
> Get me Memphis Tennessee...")

  Not to turn this into comp.dcom.rockmusic, but I think that
"Memphis" was recorded by Johnny Rivers, not Chuck Berry, unless there
was some covering going on that I'm not aware of.

  Just to get some telecom back into this ...

  Wouldn't it be nice to have some music/tune instead of dial tone or
that irritating busy signal. Choose your own from a vast library of
Phone Company supplied tunes ... Of course, they'd have to add
royalties to your phone bill every time you picked up the handset.

  How about adding genre (rock, classical, pop, R&B, etc.) menus to
music-on-hold systems.

  Submit your own suggestions to "jazz"-up the voice phone network ...


[Moderator's Note: I don't know how often you call Colombia, but on my
last call there almost a year ago I got a disconnected number intercept
with a musical background. The message was in Spanish, then repeated
in English, with some sort of catchy tune playing in the background. I
liked it so much I called a second time (to the wrong number) to
listen again!  :)   PAT]

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 91 08:46:35 EST
From: Robert Virzi <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (was Pseudo-Area Code 311)


In article <[e-mail]> is written:

> On 16 Dec 91 18:17:07 GMT [e-mail] (VLD/VMB) wrote:

>> And in the early 1960s there was "BEechwood 4-5789".

> This was the Marvellettes' 1962 telephone song that was covered with a
> "number change" in Wilson Pickett's 1966 hit "634-5789 (Soulsville,
> U.S.A)".  The '81 number was Tommy Tutone's 867-5309/Jenny.  In the
> 40's Glenn Miller dialed "PEnnsylvania 6-5000" for a hit.

> Any other nominations for telecommunications greatest hits? :-)

Don't forget Chuck Berry, trying to reach his daugter in 'Memphis,
Tennesee" after breaking up with his wife in song.

On a slightly more contempory note there was Nick Lowe's song called
"Switch box Susie", in which he tries to pick up the operator for a
date.  The best lyrics went something like ...

<insert rock tune and tempo>

Switchbox Susie won't you give me a line, I need a number give me 999.
Switchbox Susie, can we be friends. After six, and on weekends.

When I'm with you, girl, I get an extension.
And I don't mean Alexander Graham Bell's invention.

They (the lyrics) get a little raunchier than this.  I could probably
post the whole song, if anyone is interested.  I have a bunch of these
songs on a 'Telephones in Music' cassette I made a few years ago.
Funny how working for a telephone company distorts your sense of
humor.  ;-}.

Happy holidays all!


[e-mail]
  [e-mail]
 ...harvard!bunny!rv01

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 15:45:37 EST
From: [e-mail] (Monty Solomon)
Subject: Re: Cell Roaming Questions


[e-mail] (Ken Levitt) wrote:

> I don't own a cell phone, but a friend in Boston with Cell-One service
> is loaning me his phone for a trip to Waterbury, CT in February.

> My friend has never used roaming before, so I called Cell-One in
> Boston and asked how it worked.  I was given the following
> information:

> 1.  There are no daily roaming fees.
> 2.  Cost of use will be $0.44/min peak and $0.29/min off-peak.
> 3.  I don't have to do anything to activate the roaming in CT.
> 4.  For someone to call me, they must do the following:
>     a.  Call 203-856-7626
>     b.  Wait for secondary dial tone.
>     c.  Dial the cell phone number with area code, but without the "1"
>         at the front.

Cellular One Boston is part of the New England Network which provides
service in Southern NH, Southern ME, MA, RI, and CT.  There are no
roaming charges when the phone is used in those areas.  The phone will
indicate roam whenever it is out of Cellular One's service area in MA.
The rates quoted are correct and apply to both incoming and outgoing
calls.  You will have to pay NET and/or AT&T land charges in addition
to the airtime for outgoing calls.  Peak rates apply 7 AM - 7 PM
weekdays if your service is directly with Cellular One.  Some of the
resellers in this area charge peak rates from 7 AM - 9PM.

When you are in CT, you can dial *711 to find out the correct number
for callers to dial to reach you.  The number already provided to you
may be correct.

When used outside of the New England Network, Cellular One charges a
monthly roaming fee plus a daily roaming fee.

Make sure the phone is configured for "A" service as opposed to "Home"
service so that it can be used outside of Cellular One's service area
in MA.

A new free service on Cellular One provides tons of information.  Call
*INFO from the cellular phone.


Monty Solomon    roscom![e-mail]

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

Date: 25-DEC-1991 17:52:57.91
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Cellular Roaming Question


On 20 Dec 91 20:44:05 [e-mail] (Ken Levitt) asked:

> 1.  There are no daily roaming fees.

Seems likely -- there are no daily roam charges for CT "A" system
customers who go over to the Boston system. Two people from Boston
with Cell One acts. come to CT regularly - they are never charged.
Cell One/Boston was doing something weird with a $2 per day charge
from THEM (not the roaming system), for the "privilege" of roaming --
I don't think CT applies or even if Cell One/Boston continues to pull
this nonsense anymore. Better check (and get a name) to make sure.

> 3.  I don't have to do anything to activate the roaming in CT.

Right -- the minute you get to the CT system (SID 00119) you can use
your phone, no problem.

> 4.  For someone to call me, they must do the following:
>    a.  Call 203-856-7626
>    b.  Wait for secondary dial tone.
>    c.  Dial the cell phone number with area code, but without the "1"
>        at the front.

Correct -- however, there are other ways to call you: The 203-856 port
is local to the Norwalk area, which is an expensive call (in-state,
you know) from the Waterury area. The following ports will also work,
and may be less costly:

203-930-7626 (Hartford Area)
401-523-7626 (Providence)
413-531-7626 (Springfield MA/Western MA)

All the above ports will page you in all of Metro Mobile's systems:
That is all of Connecticut (EXCEPT Lithchfield County - a god-awful
separate system there -- big mistake), all of Western Mass (up to
about Charlton on the Masspike), all of Rhode Island, and Southeastern
Mass (like New Bedford, Fall River, and a bit south of Brockton).

The Rhode Island port will also ring all the above areas and Boston,
since the Rhode Island system is DMXed to Boston. (All of Metro Mobile
should be, according to Metro, quite soon. They have said this for a
year -- I think McCaw will beat them to it with automatic roaming in
Boston, which starts when IS-41 is implemented with them in the middle
of January (?) ...)

The only time you MAY have to worry about roam charges is if you get
down to the CT shoreline. The NY system comes in quite strongly at
times in (among other places) Norwalk, Old Greenwich, New London, and
Old Saybrook.  Since you are already "roaming" in CT, you won't know
that you are in the NY system, since the roam light will be on in
either case. But, if you use the NY system, you WILL pay a $3 fee.

To avoid this, Metro Mobile has a *711 "Roamer-Info" number which is
free for anyone (home and roamer customers) to use. If you are not
sure what system you are in, a (usually) good way to tell is by
dialing *711. If you get the Metro Mobile recording, you are set; if
you get "Thank you for using Cellular One(NY)", then you are using NY.

> I can't tell if the person on the phone knew what they were talking
> about especially when they didn't know where Waterbury was.

Waterbury? Oh, is that where I-84 and CT-8 meet? ;)

A few more things CT roamers should consider:

Nearby system's customers' call-forwarding and three-way calling
features WILL (or SHOULD) work in CT and RI. You will be able to
forward your calls while in the CT/RI systems. If you have voicemail
or want your calls to No-Answer-Transfer to another number, you may
want to *72 (unconditional forward) your calls. Reason: If your phone
is "on" in CT, someone calling you from Boston (NOT using the roam
ports) will get reorder signal, or an error message. See, the switch
in Boston "talks" to the switch in CT, and it tries to send your call
off to the CT system. However, there are no provisions in CT to accept
your call ('cause Metro is dumb), and the call gets "stuck". If you
forward your calls with *72, you avoid the problem. BTW, callers
calling your number via the roam ports will also have their calls
forwarded as if they were dialing you direcltly. (To wit, this applies
to "A" customers from Boston, South Jersey/Trenton/Flemington/ New
Brunswick, Atlantic City, Philadelphia, and Wilmington,DE.)

Since you are going to be near Litchfield County, watch out for
"Cellular One of Litchfield". They just got permsission from the CT
DPUC to begin operations, and have (at present) only one tower. They
resell over SNET, the "B" carrier, so they have no association with
Metro Mobile, the other "A" carrier in CT, serving the rest of the
state. If you want to place calls in Litchfield, you need to wait
online for the Appex Roaming Operator, who will charge your credit
card $2 per minute (+ toll) to use their great one-tower system. Who
at the FCC had the bright idea to give these rip-off artists a license
in CT? It is a pain for "A" customers in CT, and an added competitive
advantage for SNET who services the entire state, Litchfield and all.

Anyhow, happy roaming!


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

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 11:08:51 EST
From: "Joshua E. Muskovitz" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Silent Night


What would happen if the line were perpetually busied?  Would the
electric company call 611 for you?  Or would they just come out to
read those few meters that were unreachable?  (And what is the
equivalent to SIT tones for phone-based meters ... We're sorry, the
meter you have dialed has been changed.  The new meter is... ;-)


josh


[Moderator's Note: They will continue to read meters the old way as
needed. The new electronic reading system is designed to cut back on
the number of premises visits required, but not completely eliminate
them. That's why disconnecting the wires at the meter is also a futile
gesture. Eventually, they'll come around to see you as before.  PAT]

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 9:32:48 EST
From: Carl Moore (VLD/VMB) <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Rail Phone


I don't yet know about rail phones (do vaguely recall HEARING about
them), but I did make a call from an airplane with a credit card, when
I was flying nonstop from Philadelphia to Los Angeles earlier this
year (same trip where I used a speakerphone at Disneyland in Anaheim).

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

From: "Craig R. Watkins" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Disneyland Speakerphones
Date: 25 Dec 91 19:32:17 EST
Organization: HRB Systems, Inc.


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

> If I get a chance to get to Anahiem soon, (and find a friend who still
> buys those "frequent visitor" admission books!) I'll try out the ANI
> numbers that I have and see what the computer returns.

I made an 800 call from one earlier this month.  All I can do now is
wait for the floppy from AT&T to find out the number.  Stay tuned.

 -crw-


[Moderator's Note: That's the same method I had to use to find out
what number was being sent out as ANI from my cellular phones.  I
dialed into my own 800 number then waited for the billing.  PAT]

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 16:58 PST
From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)
Reply-To: John Higdon <[e-mail]>
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers


"Richard Budd" <[e-mail]> writes:

> A friend of mine in Plattsburgh, NY handles periods of wrong number
> messages by putting her message in French on the answering machine
> befor recording it again in English.

Nice idea, but my experience has indicated that no matter what you put
on your outgoing annoucement, people WILL leave messages for
non-existent (at your number) recipients. Several years ago when I
still had my mechanical answering machine, the number of messages for
"Jack", "Mike", "Susan", etc. escalated to more than three a day. In
desperation I recorded the following outgoing announcement:

"You have reached the residence of John Higdon. Since I live alone, no
family or room mates, this machines answers my calls when I am not
home or I am busy. Messages left for people other than myself will be
ignored. Thank you. [BEEP]

[incoming message:] "Hi, Maggie. Sorry but Jason has some paperwork he
needs to finish up on our rental properties and I should probably help
him with it so we will have to take a raincheck on the beach trip
tomorrow. Give me a call when you come in and maybe we can do
something later in the evening. Bye."

You cannot win. Except by taking bogus reservations :-)


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

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1049
*******************************










Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa28460;
          25 Dec 91 22:28 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30907
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 20:47:16 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA19989
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 20:47:01 -0600
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 20:47:01 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Caller-ID in the Workplace: Screening Reporter and Employee Calls

The recent thread on this topic brought a huge number of replies, many
of which have been posted in the Digest in issues last week. The
thread began by discussing Caller-ID in Canada ... a topic (Caller-ID
 -- not Canada!) which has ALWAYS stirred up a controvery in the
Digest whenever anyone expresses an opinion pro or con.

A newspaper reporter wrote to say he felt uncomfortable with the idea
that a company which had Caller-ID on its phones could screen out his
calls to specific employees, rerouting him to the public relations
officer for the company instead. There followed a discussion of his
right to interview employees of his choice, and the right of the
company to demand their employees to remain silent on company affairs.
As the messages got away from the telecom theme, I quit publishing
them.

This file presents several more articles received, in an effort to
close out the thread.  Responses to what you read here should be
directed to each of the writers -- NOT to telecom.  Thanks.


PAT

 From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)

[e-mail] (Paul Wallich) writes:

> This is a cute story. Now of course you might also want to fix your
> phone system so that employees can't call OSHA or the EEOC from work,
> and that might not be so cute. Not to mention that telling the
> salesperson that her calls were inappropriate might have helped her to
> do her job better and might have contributed to a generally less
> devious work environment. Technical solutions to social problems is
> generally bad idea.

Yes, I thought it was a cute story. That is why I shared it. And it is
too bad that it inspired a sweeping generalization about technical
solutions to social problems -- particularly those that are brought on
by technology in the first place. In this particular instance, it
caused the cessation of calls, did not offend the employee, and had no
other side effects whatsoever. Management appreciated the fact that it
did not have to deal with indignation in response to an
"appropriateness" lecture, Shoreline did not have to deal with the
calls anymore, and the employee did not have to suffer embarassment
over her inappropriate actions. IMHO, this was a rather complete and
effective solution.

I find it a little annoying to have to deal with non-technical people
pontificating to teckkies about the proprieties of technical
solutions.  Sometimes the people who actually have hands on the means
of operation can solve problems and manage the situation without help
or interference from the theorists. I am not advocating technology
run-wild, but when technical solutions do work it would be nice to
avoid the general put-downs issued by the non-technical but
socially-aware among us.

Here is another ploy I use at that same client you can take pot shots
at: whenever '611' dialed from any telephone in the building, the call
goes not to Pac*Bell repair service but to my home. Why? Because no
one at that location other than myself is qualified to report ANY
problem to telco. No one knows what trunk routes might be involved,
what the ID numbers are on the trunks, or what trunks are used for
incoming or outgoing. In the last month, someone has twice tried to
report "telco trouble" by dialing repair service. My procedure saved
the owner of the system two "bogus repair call" charges since both
incidents involved the switch and not telco lines.

Now let us hear about "what if an employee needs to report his home
phone" or other nonsense. Hint: in ten years this has not come up.


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


 From: [e-mail] (S. Spencer Sun)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail].
Omron.co.jp (Ted M A Timar) writes:

>> [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to

> [duty to public vs. duty to company]
> This does not mean that you should be spreading company trade secrets,
> but it does mean that you should be reporting 'evidence of the dangers
> of asbestos' even when this is contrary to the good of your employer.
> Otherwise, you will be morally (and probably legally) responsible for
> the damage (or deaths) caused by it.

> [Moderator's Note: I do not believe responsibility to the public and
> responsibility to one's employer are mutually exclusive. If you have
> problems with what your employer is doing, then *resign your employment*
> and seek something else. You have no right to take your employer's
> money while knifing him in the back.   PAT]

While I can see both points here, PAT's note leaves me with a bad
taste in my mouth (or is that just my lunch...).  How about if
"responsibility to the employer" (resigning) means also doing one's
responsibility to the public by just shirking it?  I.e. I'm no longer
employed by them, therefore I'm no longer in a position to explore
disturbing facts about my company which I found out about before I
resigned, therefore I don't have to do anything for the public at all.

Is that really responsibility to the public?  If your employer is
engaged in less-than-upright activities of some nature, is it morally
right to just walk away from it?  Apathy can be a dangerous thing.


S. Spencer Sun '94 - Princeton Univ. - [e-mail]:


 From: "J. Brad Hicks" <[e-mail]>

(Those of you who are not under United States of America jurisdiction
feel free to skip this clarification of American law ... unless you're
the kind of person who slows down to look at an auto wreck.  It's not
pretty, and fortunately for you, it's not applicable to you.)

There has been a lot of discussion here over programming phone systems
to make it harder for anonymous whistle-blowers to call reporters (or
OSHA) to report dangerous or illegal activity by their company.  Pat,
Toby, and others have taken the side that a company has every legal
right to fire someone who says bad things about them either in public
or in private.

As I bumped my nose into years ago when I first started doing
volunteer civil rights work for members of minority religions, this is
actually an understatement.

America, and America alone among the western democracies, has a
principle that was enshrined in law by the Supreme Court over a
century ago, called the doctrine of employment at will.  In short
sentences, the courts have ruled that in the absence of a signed
contract by both parties, any employer may demand any duty of an
employee that isn't illegal or hazardous to their life, and may fire
that employee for any cause or for no cause at any time.

Consider an example from the 1970s: an employer asked one of his
employees how he voted in the 1972 election.  When the employee
answered that he had voted for McGovern, he was fired (the employer
was pro-Nixon).  The employee sued, arguing that an order to vote in a
particular way was tantamount to election tampering, and was a
violation of the employee's rights in a democracy.  The Supreme Court
upheld employment at will, and ruled that the employer was perfectly
free to fire for this reason.

And, of course, anyone who smokes or has friends who do know that the
courts have long upheld the right of companies to fire employees who
smoke, even if said smoking does not occur on the job.  And mandatory
drug testing, which by the very technology does not measure job
impairment but does report on off-duty leisure activity, has been
upheld by the courts for every employer except for government
agencies.

This situation is modified only slightly by the various titles of the
Civil Rights Act, which created a short list of narrowly-defined
reasons that can not be used in such decisions, notably religion,
race, ethnic or national origin, age, or (recently) handicap.  But
even there, under current law, the burden of proof is on the former
employee to prove that that and that alone was the reason they were
fired; almost no such cases are won.  (I should know; members of my
religion, Neopaganism, are often fired after their religion is
discovered by coworkers or managers.  I've personally seen many such
cases, and can only remember one where the Neopagan won.)

Oh, and the enabling legislation for the Occupational Health and
Safety Administration (OSHA) and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) both forbid employers from firing employees who make
complaints.  But when I worked for a large defense contractor and an
employee in my department made an OSHA complaint over the phone (not
from his desk, he was justly paranoid), and OSHA forced them into
compliance, management spent the next week trying to bully us into
naming the employee who'd made the complaint.  They had, in fact, put
software in to flag all calls to OSHA, and knew which phone had been
used.  Had they found the employee who'd made the complaint, I have no
doubt whatsoever that however hard he worked, his next evaluation
would have shown that he was an inadequate worker, and he would have
been fired.  In firings over OSHA and EEOC complaints, as with civil
rights, the burden of proof is on the fired employee.

Relevant to the previous discussion here, several attempts have been
made to pass a whistle-blower's protection act, both in the upper and
the lower house of the U.S. Congress, over many years, with no
success.  The U.S.  Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups
argue that any infringment on employment at will is interference in
their ownership rights over their businesses, and people who haven't
got a paycheck have a much harder time lobbying Congress for their
position.

It is my personal opinion that employment at will is one of the most
evil doctrines in American law.  On this, the day after the 200th
anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, I find it
unpleasant to contemplate how few Americans believe that the rights of
freedom of speech, and of the press, and of assembly, and of religion,
and from unreasonable search and seizure, and to due process, are so
fundamental, so inalienable, that we ought not allow ANYONE to use
threat or coersion to take them away.

Unfortunately, the doctrine of employment at will is so deeply
enshrined in so many Supreme Court decisions that I fear it would take
a Constitutional amendment to overturn it.  And while major
corporations and their wealthy owners contribute most of the money
that buys television time that re-elects candidates, it will never
happen.

For more information on what few rights you as employees have under
American law, contact another Socially Responsible group that I'll bet
Pat despises, your local ACLU chapter, and ask for a copy of their
free pamphlet on liberty in the workplace.


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

Sigh. The attacks from the PC crowd and the counterattacks from Pat
are getting really tiring. Could we have a moratorium? Nobody is going
to get convinced one way or another.

> [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to
> take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization
> which pays your salary is all about ...

I'm *really* leery of proactive legislation myself, but on the other
hand if your services to the company are worth your salary, then if
they want your loyalty as well they have to earn it. Behaving in ways
you consider socially irresponsible, or not returning that loyalty by
providing safe working conditions and personal security, aren't
tactics likely to do so.  Where Unions and Union Bashers alike fall
down is in failing to see that a relationship needs work on both
sides.

If Caller-ID turns into a social problem ... deal with it. I'm NOT
convinced that there are enough businesses sleazy enough to abuse it,
and enough ways to abuse it that can't be cheaply countered, to ban
it. But automatically taking a hard-line defensive stance against
*any* criticism is counter- productive.


Peter da Silva


 From: [e-mail] (Paul Wallich)

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted
M A Timar) writes:

> Throughout Canada, the Engineering Codes of Ethics (one per province)
> states that a Professional Engineer's responsibility is to the public
> first, and to his employer second.

> While this code of ethics does not apply to anyone except for
> Professional Engineers in Canada, the logic does.

> If you believe that responsibility to your employer is more important
> than responsibility to the public, you won't find me as a customer of
> your company.  (I guess that I won't be attending NWU :-)

> [Moderator's Note: I do not believe responsibility to the public and
> responsibility to one's employer are mutually exclusive. If you have
> problems with what your employer is doing, then *resign your employment*
> and seek something else. You have no right to take your employer's
> money while knifing him in the back.   PAT]

I believe that Ted has things right here and PAT is missing the point.
Insofar as companies have responsibilities to their stockholders and,
as legal persons, to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they
operate, it is by definition _never_ in their interest to engage in
legally questionable behavior.  If someone working for your employer
believes otherwise, _they_ are the one knifing the employer in the
back, even if they are above you in the company hierarchy.

Your responsibility to your supervisor (and I do believe that loyalty
to immediate supervisors is an important virtue) may be outweighed by
responsibility to the public and to the best interest of your
employer. That is a tough call to make.

Furthermore, PAT's comment about "no right to take your employer's
money ..." seems ultimately destined to produce the worst possible
organization. Those who have principled objections to a course of
action leave while those who are willing to abandon principle remain.
Instead, I suggest that you have a duty to remain with your employer
while trying to steer them onto a better course. Even in the miliary,
that most hierarchical of organizations, no one suggests that a
soldier must seek an honorable discharge before being empowered
(indeed required) to disobey an improper order.


paul


 From: Jack Decker <[e-mail]>

In a message dated 9 Dec 91 15:59:22 GMT, in response to a message
posted by [e-mail] (Mark Fulk), Pat (The Moderator)
writes:

> [Toady's Note: I don't need to take civics again ... you need to
> take a remedial course in learning what loyalty to the organization
> which pays your salary is all about ... or is there some Amendment I
> have overlooked which guarentees you the employment of your choice
> when you please and where you please?   PAT]

Pat, the problem with this notion is that it's all one-sided.  Many
organizations expect loyalty from their employees, and seem quite
surprised when someone acts in a "disloyal" manner, yet these same
organizations treat their employees like so many intelligent robots.
There has to be ethics on BOTH sides, Pat.  If a company is doing
something to harm their employees and/or the general public, then what
right do they have to expect their employees to act any more "ethically?"

I do well understand that there are employees that try to manipulate
the system to their advantage, when the company has really done
nothing wrong. But there are other companies where the corporate
officers feel that it is perfectly okay to lie to government
regulators and the general public.  At that point I think they lose
any right they may have to expect "loyalty" from their employees,
unless you are prepared to assume that all the employees are as
unethical as the corporate officers, and that there should be "honor
among thieves."

Maybe they should put a question on employment applications that asks,
"Will you lie, or violate personal ethical principles if the company
asks you to?" If an organization is basically honest, they would
decline to hire applicants that answer "no" to that question, while a
dishonest organization (such as a tobacco company, or a company that
illegally disposes of toxic wastes) would only want to hire applicants
that answer in the affirmative.  But until they do, I think it's wrong
to expect employees to disregard their personal ethical standards for
the sake of "company loyalty", particularly when the company often
doesn't really give a hoot about the health and welfare of the
individual employees.

This even goes beyond the First Amendment ... this goes right to the
core of whether a man will sell his soul to a company.  I don't think
anyone should be forced to do that!

If lying were illegal, all the lawyers would be in prison!

In a message dated 13 Dec 91 17:27:59 GMT, hayes![e-mail]
(Toby Nixon) wrote:

>> The freedom of employees to speak about their employers is critical to
>> the continued functioning of our democracy.  Judging from your
>> statement above, I think you need to take Civics again.

> I strongly disagree.  The First Amendment says that _the government_
> (specifically, Congress) cannot pass a _law_ restricting freedom of
> speech.  This has absolutely nothing to do with corporate policies
> that say "If you comment about this company in public with our express
> permission and preclearance of the remarks to be made, then your
> continued employment here will be in jeopardy."  Something similar to
> that is _in_ the employment agreement of many companies.  It is a
> firmly stated policy at Hayes.

I find myself in the strange position of agreeing completely with your
interpretation of the First Amendment, yet still feeling that there is
something fundamentally wrong with allowing a company to dictate what
an employee can say on his or her own time.  For example, suppose a
company had said to their employees in 1988, "anyone caught expressing
public support for George Bush for President will be summarily
dismissed from their employment.  However, you are free to express
support for other presidential candidates."  Should a company be
allowed to do that? (If you didn't support Bush, substitute the name
of your preferred candidate and see how it plays).

Okay, you might say that such restrictions should be limited to
comments ABOUT THE COMPANY.  The problem is that you then can start
splitting hairs ... for example, if someone is an avid
environmentalist and it just so happens that the company is being
attacked by environmentalists for a particular practice and the
employee is asked if he feels that such a practice is harmful, is he
allowed to say how he honestly feels?  (I'm just using
environmentalists as an example here ... personally, I don't have much
use for them as a rule because I think many are extremists, but that's
beside the point).  Note the question is whether he can comment about
a practice, not about the company per se.

I have to admit I have a real hard time with the concept of "loyalty"
to a corporation, given that most corporations in North America seem
to have very little "loyalty" toward their employees.  In Japan,
companies expect employees to be strict "team players" and to subvert
their own feelings to those of the company, but the company shows much
more loyalty toward their employees in return.  However, I don't think
we'd want that system in America, because here most peeople feel that
there are things far more important than the company they work for,
like friends, family, religion, ethical considerations and so on.  I'm
afraid we are in danger of losing that, and I would really hate to see
American workers become like Japanese workers, whose lives ARE the
company they work for. In Japan, companies both give and receive
"loyalty", but at what price?  In the United States, I think the
majority of people hold the corect attitude, which is that when you
are paid by a company, you are being paid for the work you do.  It's a
simple exchange of money for labor.  They're not buying your mind or
your soul, and if they think they are, I for one am not selling.

This doubtless means I'll never work for Hayes.  That's life.  But it
also means that I'll never buy nor recommend a Hayes product.  Of
course, I had already decided that Hayes wasn't a company I'd care to
do business with when they started bringing lawsuits against other
manufacturers for using the "escape sequence" (which in my mind should
have been thrown out of court as a frivilous lawsuit, but then there's
no explaining our legal system).  Your comment regarding their "firmly
stated policy" does nothing to improve my opinion of them, but the
opinion was already formed prior to your message.

> PAT is absolutely right.  Nobody has a right to a job.  If the
> employer wants to include in your employment contract that you must
> preclear any remarks about the company before releasing them, they
> have every right to do so.  You can choose to not join the company,
> or you can choose to leave if something later occurs that you feel
> compelled to comment on.  Of course, you can also try to blow the
> whistle anonymously, if you think you can get away with it and are
> willing to take the risk of being fired upon discovery.

If a company is doing something that endangers the health and/or
safety of their employees and/or the general public, then I pray to
God that SOMEONE is courageous enough to "blow the whistle."  And I'm
sorry, but I just don't feel that a company should be allowed to just
fire an employee that does that, if the company truly was in the
wrong.  Personally, if an employee has actually "blown the whistle" on
a practice that endangers employees and/or the public in some way,
then I feel they should be rewarded with some sort of cash settlement,
after which the company would be allowed to terminate them (but NOT to
give a bad recommendation to potential future employers).  Note
carefully, however, that I would ONLY advocate this for the report of
something that is a clear and present danger to the health and/or
safety of employees or the public ... NOT to things like
underreporting income for tax purposes or other things which, while
still illegal, would not cost anyone life or limb.

> The Constitution does NOT restrict the actions of individuals or
> companies.  It grants to the government certain specific powers,
> places certain limitations on those powers, and reserves to the people
> everything else.  The idea that every limitation placed on government
> by the Constitution also applies to private companies and individuals
> has resulted in an obscene amount of government interference in
> private affairs, and it should be stopped.

Again, for the most part I agree with you, and I'm not really arguing
this from a constitutional standpoint.  Rather, I'm arguing it from an
ethical viewpoint.  In essence, I'm saying that there is a higher law
than the Constitution ... that we were put here by our Creator to do
right by our fellow man, and not to try and "get away" with certain
practices that are ethically immoral even if the law allows us to do
so.

I'm not totally unsympathetic to the notion that an employee should
not go around stabbing the employer in the back while taking his
money.  But please also try to look at it from the employee's point of
view: In America we have created a situation and social structure that
can make it difficult for certain classes of people to leave
employment and find new employment.  Take for example the person who's
50 years old, and has worked in the same place for 30 years.  That
person may not be able to easily leave that employment for another
position, yet they are not old enough to receive government
assistance.  If they don't have a skill or a home business of some
type to fall back on, you are asking them to give up an awful lot.
It's a thorny question and I don't think the answers are as black and
white as some corporate policies would make them out to be.


Jack Decker   [e-mail]    FidoNet 1:154/8

                            --------

My thanks to all who participated. Let's move on to something else!  PAT











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa29488;
          25 Dec 91 23:32 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA10019
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 21:52:08 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA21725
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Wed, 25 Dec 1991 21:51:54 -0600
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 21:51:54 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: The USA Today 800/900 Controversy Continues


In October, a writer in TELECOM Digest noted that calls to
800-555-5555 wound up being routed to 900-555-5555. A long tradition
in the telecom industry says that calls to 800 numbers are 'free' --
that is, they are automatically sent reverse-toll or collect to the
receiver of the call. On the other hand, we all know that calls to 900
numbers incur various premium charges for the caller. Charges range
from less than a dollar per minute to several dollars for a call of a
minute or two.  The charges are established by the 'information
provider' operating the 900 number.

Then a funny thing happened: Calls to 800-555-5555 which would by
tradition be free to the caller received a recorded announcement
saying the call would cost 95 cents per minute. There are various
theories about what was going on. Some said it was a deliberate ploy
by {USA Today} to trick people into calling its premium-charge
service.  I held to the theory that it was merely a programming error.

In the Digest, a message quoted Mr. Blake at the newspaper saying they
were aware of the problem, and were working on correcting it. He said
people should not call the 800 version of the number, and should dial
900-555-5555 if they wished to use the service.

Nothing more appeared in the Digest until some of you reported getting
billed for the calls, with the bill saying you had in fact called the
900-555-5555 number (instead of the 800 version, which is what you
actually dialed). A heated and controversial thread got underway which
questioned if:

   a) were the charges collectible if disputed
   b) was the 800 routing actually a ploy by the newspaper
   c) was fraud committed, and if so, *who* actually committed it;
      the newspaper and AT&T or the people who used the 800 version
      of the number. I suggested the latter, saying the callers knew
      or should have known what they were doing. Others took the
      position that 800 calls were free, period.

Now the thread concludes, with several more messages received in the
past couple days. Replies to these messages should be directed only to
the writer -- NOT to TELECOM Digest. Folowing these messages we have
to call it quits and move on to other topics.


PAT


 From: Steve Forrette <[e-mail]>

> [Moderator's Note: To claim that telco 'solicited' your calls by their
> comments that calls to 800 numbers are reverse toll is stretching
> things quite a bit, don't you think?  PAT]

Not at all.  To quote some AT&T 800 promotional material: "...800 your
way across the USA - and save on long distance charges because your
calls are FREE!  Now, make it pay.  Comparison-shop across the
country, without ever leaving your home.  Call for catalogs.  Or
request information, coast to coast."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course AT&T actively solicits people to call 800 numbers!  How do
you think they make money?  They have been doing this for years: Not
just telling us how it's free, but actively promoting us to make calls
(to increase call volume and their revenue).  They have actively
promoted that we should never hesitate to call an 800 number, ANY 800
number, because it's always free.  Why do you think they set up a
special NPA for this purpose?  Or why there are special codes such as
900 and 976 to tell people to expect extra charges?  So people can
know what's going on without a lot of work.  And no amount of work
would have forecast this fiasco.  Checking the phone book, the
operator, and the tariffs themselves would all have told you that
there would be absolutely no charge for calls to this number.

Pat, please address the issue of AT&T falsifying the billing -- what
moral or legal justification do they have for this?  Also, how can
they bill for calls in direct violation of the tariff?

Also, I was going to mention this in private mail, but I think it
appropriate to say here: You're doing the best job that any of us
could expect or deserve from our Moderator.  I am eternally grateful
for the work you do and the learning opportunity it has given me.
Merry Christmas!

Steve Forrette, [e-mail], I do not speak for my employer.


 From: [e-mail] (John Higdon)

Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> writes:

> How does someone
> know that USA Today didn't decide to offer this service on a trial
> basis on an 800 number (possibly to gather ANI informaion) without
> charge, and just forgot to update the recording?

Something as important as a "free trial" or a "free line" would not be
something whose "hello" announcement would be simply overlooked or
forgotten about. The "charges and kill" announcement is a requirement
by the carriers and in some cases by statute or regulation. It is NOT
required on a standard local or 800 service number. I think I can
safely say that no service that is intentionally offering a free line
or free trial would put that (generally offensive to the IP industry)
announcement on a line where it was not mandatory.

I tend to take a middle position on this. Anyone who knew for a
certainty that 800 calls should not be billed also was most likely
aware that there was a snafu in progress. Hence, he would also be
aware that he was getting something for nothing. If someone wants to
attempt collection from these people, fine.

On the other hand, those who were in the middle of carrying these
calls, COCOT owners, PBX owners, telcos, etc., were relying on
industry standards, custom and usage, and even Bellcore definitions to
believe that the permission of these calls as a courtesy would leave
them harmless and without liability. For instance, my clients have
900/976 firmly blocked in their PBX switches. In fact, I generate
exception reports on attempts (how is that for being a facist? :-). If
any charges for 900 numbers would ever, EVER appear on the bill, a
demand for their summary removal would be instantly made to Pac*Bell.
No discussion in the matter would even be entertained, since I know
the programming preventing them is bullet-proof.

Would I make any effort to track the individuals down so that {USA
Today} or AT&T could collect from them? No. It is not my problem or
responsibility -- unless, of course, either would care to pay my
consulting rates and I had the client's permission.


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


 From: [e-mail] (Evelyn C Leeper)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail].
berkeley.edu (Joe Konstan) writes:

> 1.  This, to me, is identical to walking into a gourmet food shop
> where there is a basket of goodies labeled "free samples -- try one"
> but each sample has a price tag.  The "reasonable man" would assume
> that the price marked on the sample is the "regular" price but that
> the merchant is giving away the sample for free to get the customer to
> try it.  If, on my way out of the store I was asked to pay for the
> samples I'd be quite justified in refusing.

On the other hand, what if some earlier customer had surreptitiously
moved some extra items *into* that basket that the store had never
intended to have on sale?

> Finally, since TELECOM Digest people called {USA Today} to ask them
> about this, they are indeed negligent and failing to mitigate damages
> since the line was active long after they were notified (according to
> digest accounts).  Similarly, I believe one could argue that since
> AT&T employees are among the regular Digest readers, they too were
> negligent and failed to mitigate damages.

Excuse me?  My reading the Digest does not constitute your notifying
AT&T of a problem.  Yes, sometimes the right person may see the
message, but sometimes s/he won't.  If I want to discontinue my phone
service, posting a message here to that effect does not constitute
telling New Jersey Bell, even though I'm sure there are New Jersey
Bell employees reading this.


Evelyn C. Leeper  |  [phone]  |  att!mtgzy!ecl or  [e-mail]


 From: Robert Virzi <[e-mail]>

Pat -

I really think you are missing the boat on this issue.  Here are the
facts, as I see them:

1. There was an error on the part of some business allowing 800-access to
a 900-number.  Not sure which business it was.

2. The 800-number was posted on TELECOM Digest.

3. Many people used the 800-number to access the {USA Today} info
line.

4. Some smaller number of people used the line quite a bit.

5. The mistake was discovered by the companies involved.

6. Call to AT&T confirms that their is "no way" that an 800-number will
ever be billed.  Message posted to Digest.

7. PAT posts a message asking people to stop using it, at {USA Today}'s
request (???), which some people saw but others did not.

8. 800-number access was terminated.  (Date????)

9. Some time later, phone records are falsified.  Numbers DIALED as
800-555-5555 appear on bills as 900-555-5555.

Pat, I know you don't agree with the last statement (8), but by my
reckoning, if someone dials an 800-number, and my bill reflects a
900-number, the records have been falsified.  In fact, should I be
billed, I have the records to prove I was dialing 800-555-5555, at
least at my company.

I do not object to {USA Today} or AT&T attempting to recoup the costs
of the calls.  I do object to the manner in which they are attempting
to do it.  By analogy, lets say I purchase something in a store using
a credit card.  On the way out I take an item from a bin, labelled
"Take One - FREE".  I do so, and the manager of the store sees me.  He
runs over, sees that someone has mistakenly (or even maliciously)
placed the sign on the bin of items that he does not want to be free.
Rather than contacting me, explaining the situation, and asking for
compensation, he simply adds a charge to my card (remember, he had my
number, after all).

Naturally, I would contest the charge with my charge company, and I
believe they would remove the charge, and possibly cut of service for
the offending merchant.  (Well, I don't have an AT&T charge card.  I
guess that those of you with ATT Visa cards may have a different story
to tell.  ;-} ) Criminal charges might even be brought, if the
illegally placed charge were large, or if there was a pattern of such
actions.

Personally, I would love to see some press on this issue.  How does
one go about finding someone in the press who would be interested in
the story?  If someone has already contacted the press, please let me
know, as I would like to help in any "way that I can.


[e-mail]   [e-mail]     ...harvard!bunny!rv01


 From: Rob Boudrie <[e-mail]>

> [Moderator's Note: Indeed there is a question of honesty here, and I
> think you know who I am referring to. And yes, the activity borders on
> criminal conduct where the repeated and long callers were concerned.
> Maybe what I should do is suggest to AT&T/USA Today that the callers
> be given an opportunity to pay voluntarily, and if they refuse, then
> to treat the matter like theft of service and proceed legally on that
> basis.   PAT]

Regardless of your position on this matter, I think most of us would
agree that the FIRST thing which should be done is to generate
updated, accurate phone bills.  Once AT&T informs all "800-555-5555"
dialers that they are being billed for a 900 call, dialed to an 800
number, all parties concerned can start dealing with the real issues,
rather than wasting everyone's time with repeated calls to AT&T
customer service in which the customer tries in vain to convince the
operator that the 900 call on his/her bill was in fact dialed as an
800 number.


Rob Boudrie   [e-mail]


 From: Charles McGuinness <jyacc![e-mail]>

In reading all the messages on the subject, I notice an assumption
that somebody at AT&T had actively altered the records to change an
800 call into a 900 call.  Is is conceivable that, save for some lowly
switch somewhere, the network really thought it was processing a 900
call, and this (mis?)billing is being done without human intervention?

Even if somebody had altered the records, there's no reason to believe
that it was done other than innocently (as in "hmmm ... something's
wrong here -- all those 900 USA Today calls are getting billed as 800
calls! Must be something wrong with the billing software! Better put a
patch in to correct that problem.").

Note that this is not a discussion of ethics. Or quality software.
Just a question of what we really know, and what we're making up as we
go along.


From: [e-mail]

> [Moderator's Note: To claim that telco 'solicited' your calls by their
> comments that calls to 800 numbers are reverse toll is stretching
> things quite a bit, don't you think?  PAT]

Not at all.  It has been, up to now, a universal constant of telephone
service in the US.

Further, by billing those calls as 900 service, when in fact 800
service was used, the telco is committing fraud.

The poster who stated that {USA Today} was entitled to collect, but only
by direct billing and legal action, was correct.  Falsifying records
to bolster the case is inappropriate. Those with SMDR may be able to
prevail in this one.


 From: [e-mail] (Monty Solomon)

Steve Forrette <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Through years of advertising, the telcos collectively have
> tried to make it as clear as possible to the customer that 800 numbers
> are free.  They have done such a good job at this that this fact is
> something that virtually every American knows, despite the general
> lack of knowledge of telco billing practices.  Certainly, a "ordinary
> person, in full possession of their faculties, using reasonable
> judgement and prudence" (or whatever the phrase really is) would
> assume that calling 1 + 800 + anything is free.

800 numbers incur billing charges when they are called from a plane, cellular
phone, or some hotel rooms.

Monty   roscom![e-mail]


 From: snark!beyonet![e-mail] (Steve Urich)

undr![e-mail] (Sean Petty) writes:

> I just got off the phone with AT&T and let me tell you, THEY WON'T
> BELIEVE YOU!  The rep that I talked to said that there was no way that
> dialing an 800 number could connect you to the 900 service.  He then

The first time I read about this I had a feeling that even if you
called using the 800 number you would have NO CHANCE of proving that
you actually did call a 800 number. The only way out is if you had 900
blocking in effect on your line. Still there are good analogies on the
900 number in the previous part of the thread which point out errors in the
system.

> "800 Directory Assistance has no listing of a number for USA Today!"..

Of course the 800 number was a mistake by AT&T. That's why it wasn't
in the Directory. NO PROOF again!

> What am I to do?

Pay the price for trying to get something for free from AT&T.  If you
just tried it once then what's the problem. However if you ABUSED it
then they got you where they want you!! :-)

> [Moderator's Note: What are you to do? Is that your question? What you
> are to do is take your medicine like a man without wimpering. You and
> others who called that number took advantage of a programming error of
> which {USA Today} was not at fault. You did however use the newspaper's
> information service. You knew what you were doing -- or if you didn't
> the first time you called, you should have after that.  See the next
> message from John and my response for further discussion on this.  PAT]

Everyone calling this service should have known what they where
getting into once they got the per minute warning message.  What I
can't understand is why so many telecom readers fell for the lure of
the 800 number? The 800 number is invisible when you call. You're
actually calling the POTS for the 900 number right?

If these consumers get busted with a 100 - 400 dollar phone bill just
because of this programing error then I think they were negligent with
telecom abuse.

Steve Urich    WB3FTP   [e-mail]


 From: Stephen Tihor <[e-mail]>

WHile I firmly disagree with the Moderator's position on this specific
issue it struck me as a possibility that the AT&T billing was not
fraudulent since it depends on when in the number translation process
the item was entered and the details of the software that handles
them.  It is possible that given a routing error in an AT&T switch
that the 800 number might be routed to the same line and with the same
billing tags as the 900 number that is being translated into.

Why this resulted in a billing one month late is suspicous but the
item showing as 900 rather than 800 is not by itself evidence of a
scheme to defaud.


 From: Ron Schnell <[e-mail]>

I think Pat is missing my main point, and probably with good reason,
as I did go off a bit.

My main point deals with the fraud that exists.  You are correct in
pointing out that the fraud could indeed be on the part of the local
phone company as opposed to AT&T if the memo you mentioned exists.

I already paid for the charges, so that is not my point.  I am not
complaining about the money.  I am complaining about AT&T acting like
they are the monopoly they used to be, acting above the law, doing
whatever they want to cover up their mistakes.

The FBI was not the right organization to contact, and I have already
contacted the FTC as well as the US attorneys office, and AT&T
corporate security.

I may have been wrong about the unsolicited merchandise laws, but
there is definitely fraud here.

Ron


 From: "Paul D. Nanson" <[e-mail]>

I find it interesting that the Moderator is now so adamant concerning
the calls to the {USA Today} service via 800 number.  In light of his
attitude, it's hard to imagine him having published the information
here in the first place.  One wonders if he has even considered the
Digest's potential liability in this matter.


Paul Nanson      FAX: [phone]       NET: [e-mail]


 From: "Sander J. Rabinowitz" <[e-mail]>

I admit to being one of those who made three or four calls to the
800-555-5555 line (the {USA Today} 900 service), and if I should
receive the bill for the calls in question, I will pay it.  Having
said that, however, I have this concern:

If {USA Today} is allowed to bill for calls made through the 800
number, doesn't this set a *precedent* which allows other companies --
perhaps intentionally -- sets up toll services on 800 lines in order
to circumvent 900/976/540/etc. blocking?

Note that this issue is entirely seperate from the ethical issues
involving the {USA Today} number which has been debated on TELECOM thus
far.

Sander J. Rabinowitz ([e-mail]),   Brentwood, Tennessee.


 From: [e-mail] (Seth Breidbart)

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

(Ron Schnell wrote the stuff with >>):

> You are not going to pay for the *transport* of the call. You ARE
> going to pay for the services rendered by the newspaper as a result of
> your repeated and frequent use of the service.

(Personally, I made one call to the number; it lasted under two
minutes.)

Pat,

If I get a bill from either AT&T or NY Telephone stating that I must
pay $0.95/minute for calling a 900 number, I will ask them to correct
the bill before I pay it.  I did not dial a 900 number.

By analogy, if I order a computer from a mail-order vendor, and get
the computer, and then get a bill for a bicycle, I wouldn't pay that,
either.  I would return the bill, explain that I never ordered or
received a bicycle, and ask for a correct bill.

If AT&T sends me a bill for dialing an 800 number, I'll pay it.  I'll
also sell the bill to SPRINT's advertising agency :-).

> I totally repudiate your suggestion that these two organizations are
> sleazes. They are not making any money they are not already entitled
> to by having caught you and several others screwing around.

Yes they are.  They would never have had the opportunity to bill any
of us if they had not made the oh-so-convenient "programming error"
that connected a dialed 800 number to a 900 line.

>> AT&T has no right to lie to the local CO and say that 900 numbers were
>> dialed when they were not.  AT&T should take their whipping, as their
>> error will cost them money.

> How do you know they lied? How do you know a memo was not sent out to
> the local telcos explaining how the charges would appear and the
> explanation to be given to subscribers? What makes you think one or
> two misinformed or ignorant AT&T reps speak for the company? And what
> do you think they should do, write a special billing program for this
> one occassion?  You made the essence of a 900 call -- what is the big
> deal? You knew what you were doing.

I don't know that AT&T lied to the local phone company.  I do know
that whoever wrote the bill (I haven't received one yet) lied to the
customer.  Those people who called to complain were not given any
reasonable explanation, they were just told that what actually
happened was impossible, implying that they (the customers and your
readers) were lying.

> Just explain it like it is: people used
> it knowingly; got tracked down and were asked politely to pay for what
> they used, and that you feel that AT&T should be punished for having
> the audacity to send out invoices to people they caught jerking them
                       ^^^ false
>around.  May I suggest your rethink your position?     PAT]

It's the falsity of those invoices that's the problem.  I don't care
how much it would cost them to rewrite their billing software; I don't
pay incorrect bills.  If they can't or won't bill me for what I did,
that's fine with me.  I refuse to pay for what I didn't do.

Seth        [e-mail]


From: [e-mail] (Joe Stein)

If you do decline the billing, also remember to decline the 3% tax on
each call.

I have been reading this thread for a while, now.  (twenty minutes ...
:-) I don't see what the problems the esteemed Moderator has with this
were:

    a)    AT&T made the mistake (someone said that somewhere)
    b)    It was not people's own fault that the recording
        SAID the call would cost -- 800 NUMBER CALLS MAY NOT BE
        BILLED (per Oregon PUC -- your mileage may vary).

I would refuse to pay the charges (and the tax), and enclose a note
with my bill stating such.

If GTE came back to me and said "That can't possibly of happened",
then I guess small claims will make some money.


Joseph W. Stein  [phone]  [e-mail] -or- [e-mail]


From: [e-mail] (Glenn R. Stone)

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

[a lot of emotional, loaded rhetoric over certain charges by certain
long distance providers for certain newspapers for information
obtained by dialing certain telephone numbers, in response to certain
billees of these charges, deleted.]

Whether the dialing, or the charges, or the methods therein, or the
analgoies used to describe these practices, were or are correct has,
IMHO, become totally irrelevant.  (I have my own opinions; if you want
them, email me.)  The issue has degenerated into a flame war, the one
thing that is NOT supposed to happen in a moderated list.

It is the Moderator's de facto responsibility to have kept this from
happening.  It is his place to keep an even head, and keep the debate
on the list under some semblance of control.  It has not been so on
this topic.

I hereby request of ALL parties concerned that on-the-list debate on
this subject cease henceforth, so that it no longer takes up a third
of the traffic on the list, and that our esteemed moderator step back
into his place of detachment and run things status quo ante.  The
issue at hand is not one which is going to be resolved here, anyway;
it will most likely be resolved between several parties whose
delegates are paid in large sums of money, and several parties whose
delegates are paid with government checks, and whatever they decide
will be, regardless of the volume and temperature of our rants.
Welcome to the capitalista bureacracy.

Here's to a new year and a TELECOM Digest filled with lots of good,
juicy, informative topics.


Glenn R. Stone ([e-mail]) speaking for himself.


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

I couldn't agree more, Glenn!  With this special mailing, let's
conclude the thread -- unless there is some specific NEWS to report on
how billing is to be handled, etc.  And likewise, my best wishes for a
happy new year to one and all!


PAT











Received: from delta.eecs.nwu.edu by mintaka.lcs.mit.edu id aa04900;
          26 Dec 91 3:17 EST
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA30363
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist-outbound); Thu, 26 Dec 1991 01:28:32 -0600
Received: by delta.eecs.nwu.edu id AA23779
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for telecomlist); Thu, 26 Dec 1991 01:28:15 -0600
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 01:28:15 -0600
From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: TELECOM Digest V11 #1050

TELECOM Digest     Thu, 26 Dec 91 01:27:59 CST    Volume 11 : Issue 1050

Index To This Issue:                       Moderator: Patrick A. Townson

    Administrivia - Year End Wind Up (TELECOM Moderator)
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits ([e-mail])
    Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits (Larry Rachman)
    Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone (Brian Gordon)
    Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (Jeffrey A. Silber)
    Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers (Jeff Sicherman)
    Re: Railphone (Scott Reuben)
    Re: Lack of Phone Numbers in Yellow Page Ads (Brett G. Person )
    Panasonic EB500/2500 Programming Help Available (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
    Party Lines (Garrett Wollman)
    Cellular Phone Questions (Dan Lanciani)
    Re: Wrong Numbers (H. Peter Anvin)
    Sound Boards (Teresa Parsons)
    Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business (Cliff Stoll)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: TELECOM Moderator <[e-mail]>
Subject: Administrivia - Year End Wind Up
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 91  00:44:59 CST


For a few days, from now through the end of the year, I'll be occupied
with some other things which will keep me even busier than putting out
this Digest usually keeps me! :) Plus, a couple days to rest and get
ready for the new year is in my plans.  There will be a few issues of
the Digest mainly to catch up with what is already in the stream, but
may I respectfully ask that all new articles be held for the first
week of January. Naturally I will print important news, and a limited
number of replies to articles currently in circulation, but if you
would please hold off with new stuff otherwise until about January 2
I'd be very grateful.  Thanks, and happy new year to everyone.


PAT

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 20:24:06 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits


Back in about 1939 there was a popular song, "I Must See Annie
Tonight" that went approximately (heck, that's a long time to
remember):

     Hello, Central, gimme a line.
     I'm calling Bryant seven oh nine.
     Hello, who's this?  You're Mr. Bell,
     You've got some wedding rings to sell;
     The number's wrong, but the idea's swell,
     Oh, I must see Annie tonight!

There were several verses, each with fun wrong numbers -- but, we're
talking about when everything was operator handled.

(P.S.  Whose number was MUrray Hill 8-9933, you senile citizens out
there.)

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

Date: 25 Dec 91 22:58:34 EST
From: Larry Rachman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Telecom's Greatest Hits


For honorable mention:

In an obscure Beatles song called 'You Know My Name, Look Up The Number',
(the flip side of the 'Let It Be' single) there is a brief mention of a
nightclub performer named Dennis O'Bell.
                                   ^^^^

Larry Rachman, WA2BUX

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

From: [e-mail] (Brian Gordon)
Subject: Re: Sprint Calling Cards and the 'Bong' Tone
Date: 24 Dec 91 22:33:19 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(John R. Levine) writes:

> AT&T hasn't yet sent me a new card so I don't know where the new
> numbers work.

I just talked to AT&T about that very issue today.  Months ago, I got
their "new calling card number coming, need to update anything?"
mailing and called them to make a couple of minor corrections.  I also
asked to be transferred to the department that issues new numbers so I
could get cards for my second line (for which AT&T is not the dial-1
LD carrier).  The cards for the second line came, but I haven't gotten
the cards they mailed me about for the first line.  When I called and
asked for status, the representative said that the process of
automatically sending new cards to old subscribers had not gone well,
that my order was still in progress, and that he couldn't really guess
whether we were talking days, weeks or months until they were sent ...


Brian G. Gordon      [e-mail]   [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Silber)
Subject: Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 01:00:15 GMT


My recollection of the article was that the rate increase was due to
providing service to remote areas, not low income customers.


Jeffrey A. Silber/[e-mail]
AD-Admin Svcs/Cornell Center for Theory & Simulation in Science & Engineering

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 91 18:36:32 -0800
From: Jeff Sicherman <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: AT&T Rates and Low Income Customers
Organization: Cal State Long Beach


In article <[e-mail]> John Higdon <john@zygot.
ati.com> climbs on a soapbox that he also mounted last year:

> [e-mail] (Tad Cook) writes:

>> I am confused.  I thought that local telephone companies were the only
>> entities in the telephone business involved in providing subsidized
>> service to low income customers.  I can understand how this could have
>> been a cost to AT&T prior to divestiture, but why now?

> I can only guess, but apparently since someone decided that telephone
> service was some sort of "right" to be enjoyed by everyone whether
> they could afford it or not, long-distance must also be included in
> the list of life's basic necessities.

  I think we heard this diabtribe from you within the past year. In
any case, I don't think there is any claim it is a "right". Just that
there is a social benefit, including the safety and health of the
beneficiary and the neighborhood that they live in, for as many people
as possible to have access to the service. This benefit is deemed
worthwhile enough to employ a subsidy (and a 'tax' if you must) to
support it in the limited fashion it is implemented.

  [ rest of Libertarian/Right-wing/Jarvistic claims deleted ]

  If you're really concerned about being 'ripped off' for something
through the phone system, I suggest you go back to your anti-Pac*Tel
activities, they've taken a lot more out of your pocket through
abusive means than this limited practice ever has.


Jeff Sicherman

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

Date: 25-DEC-1991 23:22:09.49
From: Douglas Scott Reuben <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Railphone


Besides Amtrak's Northeast and San Diego-LA corridors, Railphone
service is also available on Amtrak's Springfield, Mass service, on
rolling stock so equipped. It should be available on Harrisburg (PA)
Corridor Serivice, but I am not sure if those cars have Railphones and
if Amtrak/Railphone has an agreement for service in those areas. I
believe the newest Amtrak timetables show a "phone" icon (for
Railphone) on certain Harrisburg trains.

Railphone-like service is also available on the New Haven - Old
Saybrook commuter line ("The Shore Line"), but I believe it is
operated by a company called "Cellnet".

I have also seen news stories of VIA Rail Canada operating
Railphone-like services in their newer cars on the Toronto-Montreal
high-speed runs.

Finally, some of the ferries in Vancouver, BC have cell-phone/payphone
stations, which accept BC Tel Calling Cards (says so on the signs,
probably takes BOC, AT&T, and Bell Canada cards as well, but I never
tried it.)  They look a lot like GTE Charge-A-Calls, and a bit smaller
than the "standard" Railphones on Amtrak. The promotional literature I
got from them says "operated by B.C. Cellular", the "B" carrier, I
presume.

Anyone have an ESN/MIN (or "overhead") reader for cell phones? Stand
by the trains, get the phone number, and call it via the nearby roam
port!  Will it ring onboard? Opens possibilities: "Hi, is this the
dining car?  Yes? Well, I'd like one of those microwaved mini-pizzas
to go ... I'll be waiting at the next station ... Thanks!"  :)


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

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

From: plains![e-mail] (Brett G Person )
Subject: Re: Lack of Phone Numbers in Yellow Page Ads
Date: 26 Dec 91 04:41:04 GMT
Organization: North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND


I think that the point of the Yellow Pages is to function as a quick
reference card for access to local businesses.  I'm looking at
possibly moving out-of-state in the near future, and the first thing I
did was to grab a copy of the Yellow Pages for the city I may be
moving to.

It's surprising what can learn from the phone book even when you
aren't looking for anything speciffic.

I think that since the adds are in a phone book, that it is incredibly
stupid of the company not to put a number in the listing.


Brett G. Person    North Dakota State University
uunet!plains!person | [e-mail] | [e-mail]

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

From: [e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
Subject: Panasonic EB500/2500 Programming Help Available
Date: 25 Dec 91 06:20:06 GMT
Organization: University of Western Ontario


I have all the info required to program this cell-tel.  If you want
it, let me know by email.  If you want it just for the hell of having
it, don't bother.  Thanks.

Oh yes, Happy Holidays to all !!!


[e-mail] (R. Patrick MacKinnon)
The Western Business School BBS  --  London, Ontario

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

From: [e-mail] (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Party Lines
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 02:51:48 GMT


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

> Since "Ringmate" or whatever you want to call it seems to be
> very much like an old fashioned party line, could we just order a
> couple numbers on a party line?

Depends on where you live.  In some areas, Party-line service is not
available.  (I just checked our phone book, however, and found that
this is *not* true -- I had thought it was -- in our area.)  Here, you
can get a two- or four-party lines for unlimited local service, or you
can get a one-party line for measured service.  (It's our friend the
VTA(*) again, I guess).  I don't believe that you can select which
other parties are on your line, however, although oour book doesn't
say anthing about it.


GAWollman

(*)VTA = Vermont Telecommunications Agreement, an agreement between
New England Telephone and the Vermont PSB permitting NET to offer
certain products without regulation, provided that they upgrade local
exchanges and wires to modern equipment.


The opinions given above are provided under a non-exclusive license
agreement to the University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility, which
will probably ignore them.
           Garrett Wollman - [e-mail] - uvm-gen!wollman

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1991 21:57:39 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Dan Lanciani)
Subject: Cellular Phone Questions


    These are probably FAQs, but I'm new to this ... I received a
Motorola cellular phone for Christmas.  My uncle bought it from
Cellular One, signing me up for service at the same time.

1.  The user's guide mentions several functions that require a
six-digit security code.  These include setting the keyboard lock code
and temporarily disabling dialing of numbers (while still allowing
numbers to be accessed from memory).  The documentation for the latter
feature talks about "service levels," implying that there are others.
Nowhere with the phone could I find this "security code" but on a
setup sheet from Cellular One they do list the current (correct) lock
code.  Is the security code something that some/all service providers
keep to themselves so you can't change the lock code and such?

2.  The user's guide talks about setting such parameters as DTMF pulse
times in case (for example) your answering machine doesn't respond to
remote commands.  They refer to "NAM programming, described in your
NAM Programming Guide" but there was no such guide with the phone.
Again, is this something reserved for dealers or should it be in the
package?  (Curiously, there was a one-page addendum to the non-
existent NAM manual in the box.)


Thanks,

Dan Lanciani    ddl@harvard.*

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

From: [e-mail] (H. Peter Anvin N9ITP)
Subject: Re: Wrong Numbers
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1991 06:24:43 GMT


In article <[e-mail]> of comp.dcom.telecom,
"Richard Budd" <[e-mail]> writes:

> A friend of mine in Plattsburgh, NY handles periods of wrong number
> messages by putting her message in French on the answering machine
> befor recording it again in English.  Everybody who knows her well is
> aware she is bilingual and anticipates the English message.  I don't
> know how effective it was in reducing wrong numbers.  Last I heard
> from her, she was a nurse in Desert Storm.

Here comes a hopefully useful phrase in Swedish.  Note the following:

  ], } = a ring = "o" in "or".
  [, { = a diaresis = "ai" in "air".
  \, | = o diaresis = "ea" in "early".

Hej!  Du har n}tt <number>; NNs [och NNs] automatiska telefonsvarare.
Jag/Vi {r inte hemma/h{r just nu, men om ni vill ha tag i mig/oss
l{mna ert {rende, namn och nummer s} ska jag/vi kontakta er s} snart
jag/vi kan.  Tack.

(0 = noll, 1 = ett, 2 = tv}, 3 = tre, 4 = fyra, 5 = fem, 6 = sex, 7 = sju,
8 = }tta, 9 = nio).

[Hello.  You have reached <number>; NN's [and NN's] answering machine.
I/We are not {at home}/here right now, but if you want to reach me/us
leave your erand, name and number and I/we will contact you as soon as
I/we can.  Thank you.]


hpa

INTERNET: [e-mail]   TALK:      [e-mail]
BITNET:   HPA@NUACC     HAM RADIO: N9ITP, SM4TKN
FIDONET:  1:115/989.4   NeXTMAIL:  [e-mail]
IRC:      Xorbon        X.400:     /BAD=FATAL_ERROR/ERR=LINE_OVERFLOW

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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 91 21:15:32 cst
From: [e-mail] (Teresa Parsons)
Subject: Sound Boards
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Command Center BBS, Omaha


I am new to computing and I would like to know what type of sound
board I should get for my Acros 386sx, 40meg hd, VGA monitor. After
looking in books I can't decide. Please advise me on the best for my
money.


The .COMmand Center  (Opus 1:5010/23)


[Moderator's Note: Please respond direct to Ms. Parsons in email.  PAT]

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

From: [e-mail] (Cliff Stoll)
Subject: Re: AT&T Exits Telegraph Business
Date: 26 Dec 1991 07:18:02 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility


Oh, I started at Western Union ... walked into their downtown Buffalo
office and asked 'em if they needed a telegrapher.  "Sure," the guy in
the yellow uniform said.  "Can you pedal a bicycle?"

What a summer job!  Pedalling around the city, delivering eviction
notices and repossession telegrams.  Never once touched a telegraph
key -- they were all 5 bit baudot teletypes by then.  Not a penny in
tips, either.

That's what I got for learning 20 words a minute of Morse Code.  (Of
course, I also picked up a ham ticket, but that's another story.)


Cliff Stoll   K7TA

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

End of TELECOM Digest V11 #1050
*******************************